House of Commons
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
1. What recent representations he has received on the objectives of vocational education; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The Secretary of State for Education has asked Professor Alison Wolf to carry out a review of vocational education. I am working closely with her on the development of vocational learning. Professor Wolf’s public call for evidence promoted a large number of submissions, and she will report in spring 2011.
Guy Opperman
My head teacher at the Prudhoe community high school makes the point that rural areas such as south Northumberland are at a huge disadvantage given that their transport costs, travel times and poor infrastructure seem to be tailored to an urban model. Will rural areas get a voice in future, and will a member of the ministerial team meet the head teachers from my region in the spring?
Mr Hayes
As I am sure my hon. Friend may have anticipated, I will be delighted to meet him and the representatives of those organisations. We are absolutely clear there should be a vocational pathway that is as rigorous and accessible as the academic route, and it should be available to people in rural areas, which is why I am particularly conscious of transport and other issues that might inhibit that.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
How can we see more young people in vocational education if the Minister is taking the axe to the education maintenance allowances, 4,000 of which were paid to people in my city of Nottingham? When the Education Secretary told The Guardian on 2 March this year that he would not be scrapping EMAs, should they not have taken that statement at face value?
Mr Hayes
Of course, I know Nottingham very well—rather better, I might say, than the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] No, I do not say that in anything other than the kindest possible way. As a result however, I am well aware of some of the issues associated with disadvantage in that city. Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the work of the late Ken Coates, “Poverty: The Forgotten Englishmen”, a definitive study of poverty in St Ann’s, Nottingham? We will fight to preserve the interests of disadvantaged people, for that is our mission.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect on post-16 participation rates of replacing the education maintenance allowance.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of the effect on post-16 participation rates of replacing the education maintenance allowance.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House the compliments of the season and a very happy Christmas? As we all know, Christmas is a season of unexpected largesse when Members will find gifts of all shapes and sizes suddenly descending into their laps from all quarters. In that respect, Mr Speaker, may I also say that I hope you, like every Member, has the chance to enjoy a well-filled stocking this Christmas time? [Interruption.] It is a tradition of this time.
Michael Gove
Behind me there are many Members who support our position on EMA and they, like me, are committed to making sure that young people participate in education and training until they are 18. Therefore, we will replace EMA with a fund that can more effectively target those young people who actually need the support to enable them to participate in learning.
Shabana Mahmood
My constituency has the highest unemployment rate in the country. In order to reverse that, young people in Birmingham, Ladywood need to stay on post-16, to gain skills and qualifications to enable them to find work. EMA is vital in that. At City college in my constituency, 68% of students receive EMA, and they tell me that scrapping it will have a devastating impact on students in the poorest areas, and put them off staying on. Why are the Government kicking the ladder from under the feet of young people trying to get on?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady; she makes her point with characteristic passion and her question is, typically, well informed. At a time when, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “There is no money left”, we have to ensure that every penny we spend is targeted on those most in need. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it is important that policy is based on evidence, and the evidence suggests that some who are in receipt of EMA would continue in education without it. Therefore, we are going to make sure that the money we have is targeted more effectively on those who need it most, and more details will become apparent in the new year.
Bridget Phillipson
On the issue of evidence, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the economic benefits of EMA will outweigh its costs; the money put in delivers results in the long term. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the replacement scheme for EMA is just as cost-effective?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, which is also characteristically well informed. I have great respect for the IFS, and it has previously reported that there is no statistically significant information that EMA has either raised the attainment of young women or increased participation rates among young men. We will ensure, however, that the replacement is sufficiently well targeted to ensure that it provides value for money. I must stress that it is in everyone’s interests that more young people stay on in education for longer.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that where discretionary spending to help students participate in full-time education is available, it should be focused on specific barriers that they face, rather than be a one-off, tokenistic payment that might not actually meet the needs of, for instance, many disabled students for whom participating in education will cost far more than £30 a week?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I thought it uncharacteristically discourteous of Labour Members not to listen to him in silence. As the only Member of this House to have attended a special school, he speaks with a degree of authority that Labour Members would do well to pay attention to. He makes the point crystal clear: we need to ensure that there is sufficient discretionary support for students who are living with handicaps and who have suffered from disability. I am only sorry that Labour Members saw fit to greet his comments with the sort of grumbling and mumbling more appropriate to a student union than the mother of Parliaments.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I agree with the Secretary of State that the money paid as part of EMA should be much better targeted. The current arrangements for the learner support fund exclude payments for travel, so can he assure me that travel costs will be considered a legitimate part of the future discretionary learner support fund?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, describing one of the reasons for reviewing the travel entitlement for all students and learners. We want to make sure that any support we provide is to overcome barriers, which include travel to work costs, as well as paying for rent, subsistence or the supply of textbooks and other materials that are needed. It was striking that during the Labour leadership election the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that he would be happy to see EMA go if it were replaced by an allowance for travel, so there is a consensus that the current system is capable of reform. It is one that unites the two Front-Bench teams, even if it does not embrace everyone in the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I start by reciprocating on behalf of the Opposition Front-Bench team the good wishes of Government Front Benchers, including the Secretary of State. We are grateful for the gift that he has delivered to us today, although I cannot promise that the good will is going to last for this entire Question Time.
I would like to treat the House to the full quotation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) a moment ago:
“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”
Will the Secretary of State today apologise to the 600,000 young people who receive EMA and who took him at his word?
Michael Gove
I am grateful for the generous seasonal words offered by the right hon. Gentleman, but when it comes to apologies, it is those of us on the Government Benches who are waiting for an apology from him and from all his colleagues who were in government. When he says that we should spend money on this, that or the next thing, one thing is never acknowledged: his and his colleagues’ responsibility for the dire economic mess in which we were left. As a result of forming the coalition Government, two parties are working together to get us out of the mess that his party left us in. May I suggest that he gives us all a Christmas present: a single act of contrition? He should give us a single word for the economic mess that he created: sorry.
Andy Burnham
When we hear bluster like that, we see a pattern repeating itself. It is school sport all over again: a bad decision with dodgy statistics to justify it. Let us take the Secretary of State’s only argument against EMA head on: the 90% deadweight. On the Government’s own figures, because of EMA 76,000 young people stay on who might otherwise have become NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. Research for the Audit Commission puts the annual cost of a young person not in education, employment or training at £55,000, and 76,000 times £55,000 is more than £4 billion. Do these figures not demolish the Government’s last remaining argument against EMA and show that the IFS is right to say that EMA more than pays for itself?
Michael Gove
I am grateful for that display of mental arithmetic, which means that Carol Vorderman’s place on Countdown can easily be succeeded by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It is time to bring it back, if only to provide him with a platform equal to his talents. The truth is that only 12% of young people who are eligible for EMA say that they would not participate without it. We need to ensure that money is better targeted on those who need it most. His Government commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey on who was receiving support and who should receive support to stay in learning. That report, commissioned by his Government, pointed out that it would be beneficial better to target financial support at the most vulnerable groups—that was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). The right hon. Gentleman’s own Government’s research points out that this money is spent inefficiently. Of course it was spent inefficiently under his rule, but this coalition Government will ensure that the money available for 16 to 18-year-olds is targeted at those who need it most, so that those in the poorest circumstances get more.
Andy Burnham
I have seen enough of the right hon. Gentleman in action to know that weak jokes clearly mean he is in trouble. I think we can now safely give him his end-of-year report card. On Building Schools for the Future, school sports and now the education maintenance allowance he has shown poor attention to detail and a failure to do his homework. On the big decisions, things that people care about, he is cavalier—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is Question Time. We must have short questions and short answers, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to conclude his question?
Andy Burnham
Let me quote briefly from the Secretary of State’s White Paper. It states:
“No-one is helped when poor performance remains unaddressed.”
Will he make a new year’s resolution today to live by the same exacting standards as he expects schools to apply to their teachers?
Michael Gove
I am afraid that that performance fell below even the right hon. Gentleman’s flawed standards. The truth is that the shadow Education Secretary needs to learn that, instead of simply providing a draft of an op-ed piece as a question, he needs to come up with policies that will convince people that he has learned the lesson of his Government’s defeat. He cannot simply say that the answer to every problem is more money. He cannot simply say, as he said during the leadership election, that he wants
“closer ties to the trade union movement”
at the same time as that trade union movement is calling for an all-out assault against this Government. He cannot consistently move to the left, opportunistically—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. That response—I use the word response, rather than answer, advisedly—has nothing to do with the subject matter on the Order Paper.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
4. What plans he has to review the curriculum for science and mathematics A-levels.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
We will ensure that A-levels assess the knowledge that universities demand from candidates. We have asked the regulator, Ofqual, to examine how to ensure that re-sits and modularity are not damaging in-depth study and we are working with it to develop a process for involving universities and learned societies in the design and development of A-levels, which commands wide support. Mathematics and science A-levels will be reviewed through the new arrangements in due course.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he shares my concern that we have slipped down the international competitiveness ratings for educational attainment, especially in maths and science. My personal experience of A-levels and my more recent experience of speaking to examiners show that the number of topics that students have to cover to get exactly the same A-level has contracted. That is a worrying trend; will my hon. Friend look into it with Ofqual?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. That is why it is so important to involve universities and learned societies in A-level development and to ensure that qualifications in this country are on a par with those in the highest performing jurisdictions in the world. That is why we have asked Ofqual to review the impact of the recent changes to A-levels, to which my hon. Friend referred. We are talking to universities about how we can ensure their effective involvement in determining the knowledge and aptitude expected in A-levels, not only in science subjects and maths but in other academic subjects, too.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
We welcome the review of the science and maths curriculum, but why are this Government so obsessed with science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects? Will this Government’s war on the humanities in the universities not affect the balance of teaching in our schools? Why are this Government quite so philistine?
Mr Gibb
I think that that is an unnecessary comment. We have made it very clear—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on record countless times talking about the importance of history, and I have talked about the importance of geography. The international baccalaureate, which we have introduced, sets out a key minimum that we expect schools to teach: English, maths, a modern foreign language and history or geography as a humanity. That demonstrates the importance that we attach not only to STEM subjects but to the humanities.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has produced a report noting that broad choices about STEM subjects are taken between the ages of 11 and 14. I agree with looking at A-level science subjects, but should we not concentrate particularly on helping younger children progress into science and maths?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and it is disappointing that too few young people study the three separate sciences—biology, chemistry and physics—through to GCSE. That is why we have introduced the concept of an English baccalaureate: to encourage a broad range of academic subjects to be taught and taken up to the age of 16, particularly in maths and the other STEM subjects.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
5. What plans he has to ensure the availability of high-quality, affordable child care in all areas.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
Local authorities have statutory duties to secure sufficient child care for working parents and to assess child care provision in their area. They also have a duty to secure 15 hours a week of free nursery education for 38 weeks per year for all three and four-year-olds. Statutory guidance requires local authorities to take into account the quality, flexibility and accessibility of places and the range of provision available to meet the needs of parents.
Phil Wilson
What assessment has the Minister made of the effects of removing the requirement from Sure Start children’s centres to provide child care?
Sarah Teather
That has not happened. What has been removed is the requirement to provide full day-care services in the most disadvantaged areas. We have done that because early-years providers have consistently told us that in some areas the demand is not there. When that happens, children’s centres find that they have to subsidise child care, or at least empty places, at the expense of providing early-intervention programmes that might have made a real difference for those families. This is simply about providing flexibility. In areas where demand continues, I would expect local authorities to want their children’s centres to go on providing that service, but where the demand is not there, it does not make sense to divert money that could be better spent.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Independent on 5 May quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as saying that
“Sure Start is one of the best things the last government has done and I want all these centres to stay open.”
How many Sure Start children’s centres does the Minister estimate will close down next year on his and her watch? And I wish her a merry Christmas.
Sarah Teather
I also wish the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Sure Start children’s centres are at the heart of the Government’s programme for early years. They are absolutely vital, and that is why we asked the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to do the work on early intervention that will be coming forward in the new year. It is also why we are considering piloting payment by results—to try to make sure that local authorities have an incentive to do such work. There is a legal duty to ensure that there are sufficient children’s centres available, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is for local authorities to decide. However, I have been very clear with local authorities that we expect them to look at the evidence on early intervention and to make sure that they prioritise it. I think that children’s centres are an absolutely vital part of that work.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
6. What recent discussions he has had with head teachers, teachers and governors of educational establishments on the implementation of any replacement for education maintenance allowance.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
We are currently working with representatives of schools, colleges and training providers to finalise the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, including how the funding will flow from local authorities to institutions and what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Some 4,000 young people in Wolverhampton benefited from the education maintenance allowance last year and, as my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) have said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the EMA is cost-effective. Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the EMA’s replacement and will the loss of productivity of the young people whom the replacement will fail to support be taken into account?
Michael Gove
There was a cost-benefit analysis under the previous Government of the EMA by the NFER—that is enough initials—which pointed out that it would be more beneficial and would cost less to target funds on the learners who are in the most need.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
This Government are to increase the compulsory age of education to 18, thereby removing the need to incentivise 16 to 18-year-olds to stay in education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will increase social mobility if we offer vocational and academic studies?
Michael Gove
Yes, my hon. Friend makes an impeccable point. We are committed to raising the participation age, and we have funded the raising of the participation age. The Opposition have not yet explained how they would pay for the maintenance of the EMA or any of their other spending cuts, but I look forward to hearing from hon. Members in the course of the next half hour how they would pay for their promises.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Three thousand, seven hundred and fifty-six young people have lost EMA in Tottenham, and Tottenham now has the highest unemployment in London. In light of that cut, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many apprenticeships he has delivered since May?
Michael Gove
We have secured funding for an additional 75,000 apprenticeships beyond those that the previous Government secured. As a result of that additional investment, we will be making sure that young people have a better chance than they had under the previous Government.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that children’s centres meet the needs of new parents.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
The early-intervention grant contains enough money to maintain the network of Sure Start children’s centres so that they are accessible to all and supporting families in greatest need. Local services, including outreach, family support and health have a critical role in linking new families to centres that use evidenced-based programmes. The Department of Health will shortly provide more detail on its plans to recruit 4,200 extra health visitors to provide increased support to all families.
Andrea Leadsom
Does my hon. Friend agree that the most profound impact on a baby’s life is its earliest relationship with its parents or carers, and that the best thing that Sure Start children’s centres can do is to provide support for those new parents in forming those relationships that will lead to lifelong mental health?
Sarah Teather
I absolutely agree. That is why the Government are committed to recruiting so many new health visitors. It is also why we have doubled the family nurse partnership programme, which particularly supports very young families who are vulnerable and has been shown to have a dramatic impact on child development and that bond between parents and child.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady agree that cutting the money provided to Sure Start children’s centres can hardly be a good idea? Is it not a fact that the budget is shrinking, and that the budget for the new health visitors will come out of that for the children’s centres? That means an overall decline in the amount of money.
Sarah Teather
No, that is not true. The early-intervention grant is a substantial, flexible grant that contains more than enough money to maintain the network of Sure Start children’s centres. It is a deliberately flexible grant because we want local authorities to think innovatively about the way in which they link services together. I want them to use the assets that are children’s centres. I want them to make sure, for example, that they are providing family support in children’s centres and perhaps providing services for older children where that is appropriate. The flexible grant, which is larger than that for Sure Start, should allow them to do that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
How will the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on the foundation years—improving life chances for disadvantaged children—help to inform my hon. Friend’s approach to the early years?
Sarah Teather
The report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is an extremely useful contribution to the debate, especially given his focus on prioritising early years, which supports the work that the Government are already doing to make sure that we are investing particularly in a free entitlement for two-year-olds, which will become statutory by 2013. We are also taking forward the work that he did on life chances indices, which will support the wider work of the Government on child poverty.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the effects of local government funding allocations on services provided to schools by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
Schools have been protected in this spending round. The schools budget has been protected in cash terms, and in addition schools will receive the pupil premium. Funding for local authorities has been reduced, so local authorities will need to prioritise services where they have greatest effect and look at opportunities for delivering services more cost effectively, which will include working with other local authorities.
Natascha Engel
Deincourt school in my constituency was closed on the understanding that its pupils would move to the neighbouring school in Tibshelf, which was waiting for Building Schools for the Future funding to expand. Deincourt students have now arrived at Tibshelf but the BSF money, of course, has not. Tibshelf is now facing the prospect of having its services cut as a result of the local government funding settlement. What has the Minister got against Tibshelf school?
Tim Loughton
I assure the hon. Lady that neither I nor the ministerial team has anything against Tibshelf school. I remind her that Derbyshire has been allocated £91 million of capital funding support for BSF, and to date it has been paid £25 million in conventional funding for BSF, too. If there are special circumstances regarding that school, I am sure that she will make representations to the ministerial team accordingly, and that we will respond.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
When Tony Blair came to power, he said that his first three priorities were education, education, education. During the Labour Government, however, standards fell in reading, science and maths. Does the Minister agree that what counts is not the amount of money one puts in, but how it is spent?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which, although not just about education, is more starkly about education than anything else. Just investing money without focusing it on the quality of the outcomes does not make for a good investment, and this Government see things differently from the previous Government, who purely grandstanded on the amount of taxpayers’ money that they could throw at a problem, without taking account of the quality of the outcomes for the students leaving our schools.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is the end of term, and if the Minister had been a pupil in my A-level economics class I would have to give him a grade E, because, although he shows some understanding of basic economic concepts, he cannot seem to grasp the difference between a real-terms change and a money change in a budget. I will give him the chance to re-sit, however. Now that his Department has admitted that schools will see a real cut in their budgets amounting to 3.4% or £170 per pupil by the end of the spending review period, will he finally admit that there is no real pupil premium, just a pupil con?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, if his Government had left any money in the kitty, none of those funding assessments would be necessary. The truth is that schools funding, above many other things, has been protected, with an extra £3.6 billion in cash terms by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. In addition, pupil premium money will be focused on those pupils most in need—those who were most neglected by his Government.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
11. What steps his Department is taking to increase the ranking of schools in England in international league tables of educational attainment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
The OECD’s programme for international student assessment—PISA—report, published on 7 December, shows that this country fell from fourth to 16th in science, from seventh to 25th in reading and from eighth to 28th in maths. The lessons from PISA on the hallmarks of high-performing systems are clear, and they are reflected in the direction of policy in our White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching.”
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. According to the OECD report that he mentions, UK teenagers in full-time education were outscored by their peers from, among other countries, Estonia, Liechtenstein and Slovenia. Does he agree that, if the previous Government’s watchword was supposed to be education, education, education, the record that they left for this Government and for far too many of our young people was one of failure, failure, failure?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. However one wants to describe the previous Labour Government’s record, it is clear that we have fallen in the international educational attainment rankings, and that is why our White Paper focuses on reducing the bureaucracy that confronts our schools. We want to trust professionals and to increase the autonomy of schools. In our White Paper, we have a real focus on behaviour, on raising standards of reading, on raising the quality of the curriculum and on reviewing the national curriculum—should I go on Mr Speaker?—in all the policy areas that we intend to implement over the coming years in order to improve the quality of education in this country and to see a rise in our international rankings.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
12. What discussions he had with Baroness Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust during his review of school sports policy.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Baroness Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust have been closely involved in developing our proposals to create an Olympic and Paralympic-style school sport competition. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading that work and has held regular meetings with a range of interested bodies, including the Youth Sport Trust. Ministers and officials from this Department attend those meetings. My officials and I have had a range of discussions with Baroness Campbell in the course of developing our wider proposals for school sport, and we are delighted that she, like so many others, supports our new approach to school sports, with a new emphasis on encouraging participation in competitive sports.
Clive Efford
This is a very humiliating day for the Secretary of State. He wrote a letter to Baroness Campbell, saying that he would spend the £162 million in funding for school sport through schools, but we now know that he has secured only less than half that money. So, it was his intention to pass on those cuts and make schools responsible for them, not to take responsibility for them himself. If Baroness Campbell is so involved in developing school sport, why did it take 600,000 people to sign a petition before he even met her? Should he not get up at that Dispatch Box and apologise?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he should do his homework first. I met Baroness Campbell on two occasions before we made our announcement: I enjoyed dinner with her and I enjoyed meeting her when we were launching our school sports Olympics at a school sport partnership in south-east London. I subsequently met Baroness Campbell and many other sports people. I have been meeting more sports people in the course of the past two weeks than I might have anticipated at this time of year, and every one of those conversations has been fruitful and constructive. As a result of those conversations, we have ensured that we are able to strip out the bureaucracy that characterised the worst of the previous Government’s legacy and concentrate on building on the best. That is why not just Baroness Campbell but Dame Kelly Holmes has said that our approach to school sport is right. In the spirit of seasonal good cheer, I hope that the rest of the House will get behind those two fantastic female standard-bearers for sport.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
May I say how refreshing it is to have a Government who listen to representations and are prepared to think again? However, will the Secretary of State give the details of any change as soon as possible to people who will be affected? Redundancy processes are already in place, including at a school in my constituency in relation to the roles of development manager, part-time assistant and administrative worker for sports schemes.
Michael Gove
The important point about our scheme is that we are giving schools additional money to support the participation of more children in competitive sports. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, we are ring-fencing schools spending in cash terms and ensuring that the pupil premium is there to help the most disadvantaged. There will also be additional funding for every secondary school to ensure that it can maintain, if it wishes, its full role in a school sport partnership. However, let me make it clear: that money is for head teachers to spend. We are making sure that the bureaucracy that tied their hands in the past goes.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
John Barker runs the school sport partnerships in Bolsover and works at Tibshelf school, which has already been mentioned today, in my constituency. If the Secretary of State could, under this new deal, give him a job running the whole Bolsover school sport partnership and provide a new school building at Tibshelf as well, he would kill two birds with one stone. The school sport partnership will be happy; the Tibshelf people will be happy; and the 100-year-old school in Tibshelf that is being held up by pit props will be replaced. Can he give that guarantee?
Michael Gove
I have to say that if I leave the House at the end of today having made the hon. Gentleman a happy man, I will consider my political career to have reached its peak. I seriously accept both the case that he makes for capital funding for Tibshelf school, which is in his constituency, not that of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and the case for support for the gentleman he mentions. I am sure that the money will be there to ensure that that gentleman can carry on his good work. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), made clear, capital funding is available for Derbyshire and I will ensure that capital funding is in future targeted on those areas of greatest need. There are few areas of greater need than those that the hon. Gentleman represents, and few are lucky to have such an eloquent advocate.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We welcome the Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the school sport partnerships. It is hard to know what is most disgraceful: the refusal to meet Baroness Campbell or the way the Government badmouthed the Youth Sport Trust, the hundreds of school sports co-ordinators and the thousands of volunteers. The Secretary of State said that school sport partnerships had failed, another Minister slammed them and even the Prime Minister said they had a terrible record. Now, in the face of a storm of protest, the Government claim to be leaving them in place until shortly after the Olympics, albeit with dramatically less funding. We hope that the Secretary of State learns a lesson from this, which is just the latest shambles he has presided over. Will he acknowledge that school sports partnerships have not failed and have not got a terrible record, and will he promise to back them up to the Olympics and beyond?
Mr Speaker
Order. In future, questions must be briefer, and I know that the Secretary of State will now provide an example of a brief reply.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s pre-written question, which was so old that it could have been a primary source in a GCSE history paper and so long that one could have used it instead of the Bayeux tapestry. Anyway, I am very happy to say that the money is now there from the budget that we had already allocated for sport. If only he had been paying attention during the Opposition day debate that we had four weeks ago, he would have known that.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
13. What recent progress has been made on his Department's academies programme in (a) Tamworth constituency and (b) England.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Ministers have recently agreed proposals for two new academies to replace four Tamworth schools to be taken to the next stage of development, subject to the approval of the governing bodies. In addition, Landau Forte academy in Tamworth opened in September for 11 to 16-year-old pupils, and its new sixth-form centre will open in September 2011. Across England, there are now well over 350 academies, of which 158 have opened during this academic year.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he, with me, congratulate all the other secondary schools in Tamworth that are now pursuing academy status beyond the dead hand of the LEA? Will he agree to support, to the best of his ability, those potential academies and academies sponsored by E-ACT that may wish to offer sixth-form provision if there is demand for it in the town?
Mr Gibb
I congratulate Queen Elizabeth’s Mercian school, Belgrave high school, Rawlett community sports college and Wilnecote high school on seeking academy status. The OECD research is clear that autonomy at school level, combined with objective external assessment, is the key to success. We are keen to improve the quality of sixth-form provision and to look at all proposals. In the case of Tamworth, that would mean considering this in the light of the new sixth-form centre that is currently being built and due to open next year.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
14. What funding his Department provides through local authorities for the education of children with chronic medical conditions who spend significant periods of time in hospital.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
My Department does not collect this information, but we are committed to ensuring that children with long-term illnesses receive as normal an education as possible. Statutory guidance published jointly with the Department of Health sets out the national minimum standards for the education of children who are unable to attend school because of medical needs.
Dr Poulter
I thank the Minister for her reply. I am sure she is aware of the excellent work done by all staff in hospital school rooms in looking after pupils who have long-term illnesses. Will she join me in congratulating Ipswich hospital school room on treating, on average, 2,200 pupils every year who have chronic medical conditions? Does she agree that it is very important that all local education authorities invest properly in these school rooms and ensure that they have permanent staff who can work properly with children who are the most vulnerable and the most sick?
Sarah Teather
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those involved in the example from his constituency. This is an issue to which I feel personally very committed, having spent many of my teenage years in and out of hospital, experiencing not always good educational provision in hospital schools. I am afraid that not everybody is as lucky as the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I am very committed to working on this issue with the Department of Health to try to ensure that quality is as good across the country as it has been in his constituency.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Of course a child who is off school ill may not necessarily be in hospital, so their education has to take account of that. Will the hon. Lady have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about this? The way that the benefit system works, particularly regarding disability living allowance, means that many such families are finding it very difficult to provide security to their children so that they can learn, because their mobility allowance or care allowance is stopping and starting as the children move in and out of hospital, and that is causing huge disruption because the family cannot plan and their finances are on a precarious footing.
Sarah Teather
The hon. Lady is correct to say that particularly now, when there is more of a focus on not being in hospital and being treated in the community, children with chronic medical conditions are less likely to be educated in hospital schools. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions will take note of her comments, which I will bring to their attention.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
17. What recent representations he has received on school standards in (a) Central Devon constituency and (b) England.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
No representations have been received on school standards in Central Devon. We have, of course, received many representations about standards in schools nationally. In 2010, at key stage 2, 78% of pupils in Central Devon achieved level 4 or above in English and maths combined, compared with 73% in England. In 2009, at key stage 4, 55.5% of pupils in Central Devon achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C, including English and maths, compared with 50.9% in England as a whole.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Historically, Devon has suffered from a lower dedicated schools grant than other parts of the country. Will he confirm that he is looking closely at per pupil funding, and that schools in my constituency can expect a fairer deal in the future?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend will be aware that last Monday we announced the school funding settlement for 2011-12. The overall schools budget is being maintained at a flat cash per pupil rate so that as pupil numbers rise, the overall budget rises. In addition, we are introducing a pupil premium, which will be worth £625 million next year, and will provide schools with £430 for every pupil who is known to be eligible for free school meals. In Devon, the dedicated schools grant is £4,602 per pupil and the capital amount is £24.6 million for 2011-12. We recognise that the school funding system is currently unfair, opaque and illogical. A number of local authorities, particularly those in the F40 group, believe that they are not funded correctly. We will consider that over the longer term to address that unfairness.
Mr Speaker
Order. I encourage the Minister to address the House. It is no good his looking behind him, because hon. Members cannot hear him.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
18. What assessment he has made of the effect on school budgets of funding allocations to local authority education services for 2011-12.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
The Government recently announced the 2011-12 school funding settlement. Indeed, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has just been dilating on it. The schools budget will stay at a flat cash per pupil rate, before the addition of the pupil premium. The actual level of budget for each school will vary according to its local authority’s funding formula and pupil numbers. There will be a minimum funding guarantee, so that no school will see a reduction, compared to 2010-11, of more than 1.5% per pupil before the pupil premium is applied.
John Cryer
May I return to reality for a couple of minutes? I represent some of the poorest wards in London, and that is against some pretty stiff competition. The schools in those wards face a sharp increase in pupil numbers over many years, in particular over the next year or two. At the same time, funding is being cut, whatever the Secretary of State says. Even taking account of the pupil premium, funding per pupil will reduce. Is that what he had in mind when he drew up his plan?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the truth is that facts are chiels that winna ding. The facts are that we are ensuring that the education budget increases by £3.6 billion.
Michael Gove
That is in real money, actually. It will increase by £3.6 billion over the next four years. The Labour party could guarantee increases in education funding only for two years; we have guaranteed them for four, along with £2.5 billion for the poorest children and £1.1 billion to take account of pupil numbers. We are delivering growth in education spending that Labour could not afford and could not promise. That is a vindication of the progressive goals that the coalition has set itself.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to say that the Government are looking closely at the matters that affect disadvantaged students who attend the college that my hon. Friend represents.
Jane Ellison
The Minister has visited South Thames college in my constituency. Like many further education colleges, it has warmly welcomed the freeing up of colleges from bureaucracy, and the extra freedoms and flexibilities that they have been granted. Such colleges would like more information, if the Minister can provide it, on how they might use the enhanced discretionary support fund to support the most disadvantaged young people, particularly those who are starting two-year courses.
Mr Hayes
I was pleased to visit the college with my hon. Friend and I am delighted that it recognises the progress that we are making in giving colleges additional freedom, so that they can innovate and excel. I understand from looking at the figures before today that the college has among its learners a number of disadvantaged students. We will look closely at these matters to ensure that those students get every opportunity to fulfil their potential, for my party is the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli, and the elevation of the people is in our hearts.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T2. On the education maintenance allowance, will the Secretary of State comment on two findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies? The first is that the A-level results of recipients are, on average, four grades higher on the UCAS tariff than those of people who do not receive EMA. The second is that the so-called dead-weight costs of the EMA are less than those of initiatives that the Government are introducing, such as the relief on employers’ national insurance contributions. Does that not show that the Government are making less a policy based on evidence and more a cut based on ideology?
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
That is a very good question, actually—much better than any of those from the Labour Front Bench. Unfortunately, the evidence does not stack up. The IFS actually pointed out that there had been no increase in participation and only a modest increase in attainment, and the National Foundation for Educational Research pointed out that the dead-weight cost was roughly 88%, so only 12% of students were participating who would not otherwise have participated. Clearly we can have more effective targeting. Just because many policies carry a dead weight, that does not mean that all policies should. Neither, indeed, should all Front Benches carry dead weight.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T3. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be aware of Operation Golf, the Metropolitan police’s operation in London that has identified several hundred trafficked children on the streets of the capital, mostly from eastern Europe. What consideration have they given to ensuring that those children receive a decent education while they remain in the United Kingdom?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I recently had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who takes the lead on trafficking. We want to ensure not only that those children are picked up at the border whenever possible and that we can track their whereabouts in this country, but that when we do know their whereabouts we work with local education authorities to ensure that they get the education to which they are entitled and which they desperately need. We must help them to shake off the people who have trafficked them, in many cases under the most gruesome circumstances.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
T5. Can the Minister confirm that the budget for the new early intervention grant, which includes funding for Sure Start, will be almost 11% lower next year than the current funding for the various programmes, and 7.5% lower in 2012? Can she tell the House by what definition of flexibility that is not a cut?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
The hon. Lady will be aware, especially if she has listened to the answers to previous questions, that when her party was in government it unfortunately spent all the money. We simply cannot fund everything at the same level as before; otherwise we will never be able to tackle the deficit.
By producing a flexible grant, we are responding to what local government has asked us to do. It has asked us, especially at a time when money is difficult, to create one large, flexible budget to ensure that it can prioritise based on local need. That means it will be able to fund things in a different way. If we tell local government that it has to fund things in one exact way, with certain priorities and in a certain order, it has no flexibility to focus on local areas. A flexible grant will allow it to prioritise funds and change the way in which it provides services locally.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T4. I am currently representing two families in my constituency who have been unable to get their children into a primary school along with their older siblings, owing to infant class size legislation. That has caused considerable distress to the families involved. Will my hon. Friend review the impact that infant class size legislation is having on families who wish their children to attend the same primary school?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
As my hon. Friend knows, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities and schools to limit the size of infant classes taught by one teacher to 30 pupils. It makes exceptions for exceptional circumstances, such as when a child moves into an area outside the normal admissions round and there is no other school within a reasonable distance. Under current legislation, however, siblings are not included in the list of permitted exception criteria. We announced in the White Paper a review of the school admissions framework so that it will be clearer for parents, and that review will consider the over-subscription criteria, including siblings and the important issue of twins and children from multiple births. In other words, yes.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T7. Young people may be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not like them very much following their decisions on EMA, tuition fees and the future jobs fund, and the destruction of the youth service. Can we assume that they have abandoned “Aiming High for Young People”, the 10-year strategy for positive activities? As many local authorities are not now fulfilling their statutory duties under the Education Act 2005, will the Secretary of State intervene?
Michael Gove
Another beautifully read question. I can tell the hon. Lady which Government betrayed young people—the one whom she supported, who left young people with a huge burden of debt around their necks and record levels of youth unemployment. A higher number of young people were not in education, employment or training when they left office compared with what they inherited. She has a right cheek to ask a question like that at this time of year. The first thing she should do is apologise on behalf of the previous Government for the dreadful mess in which they left the economy.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). The Government have listened and responded on school sport partnerships. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the system is put right as quickly as possible so that staff do not lose their jobs. May I draw his attention to a Westminster Hall debate last week and an excellent suggestion from me on how the rest of it could be funded?
Michael Gove
I have always benefited not just from listening to the hon. Gentleman, but from reading his speeches in Hansard. I am thinking of having them bound and giving them as Christmas gifts to many of my friends. On this occasion, I will read with particular attention his contribution to that debate, which I am sure will make us all happier in the new year.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State or one of his ministerial colleagues agree to meet me to discuss Nottinghamshire county council’s proposed closure of Gedling school in my constituency? It is a well supported school and there has been a big campaign against its closure, but despite that, the county council is to continue with its proposals.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished schools Minister. I should be delighted to meet him at the earliest opportunity.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that North Yorkshire is the most rural and largest county in the country. We have problems with school transport, even outside the current extreme weather conditions. Will he give an undertaking that the pupil premium will apply first and foremost to rural counties such as North Yorkshire, and not to inner-city schools?
Michael Gove
The pupil premium will apply equally across the country, and we will ensure that the disadvantaged children in North Yorkshire who deserve it will receive it on the same basis as every other disadvantaged child.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Since October, I have been requesting that the Secretary of State visit two schools in my constituency, but as yet I have had no reply. As he will be in North Tyneside on 3 February, will he commit to visit Longbenton and Seaton Burn community colleges?
Michael Gove
I always enjoy visiting the north-east. I particularly enjoyed my visit a couple of weeks ago, when I had the chance to visit the Duchess high school, Alnwick, and schools in Stanley and Consett. I already have a packed schedule for the day to which the hon. Lady refers—I am due to be in Newcastle and Stockton—but I hope that I can visit North Tyneside, because I also want to visit south Tyneside to congratulate a school in Whitburn that has opted to become an academy. I have to remind the House that the number of schools that have opted to become academies under this Government has dramatically increased. Ninety-four schools have converted, 40 more will convert in January, and 333 have applied to convert, including 64 in the last week alone. [Interruption.] That is a record of reform of which I am afraid the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can only dream.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
There is considerable concern among many parents that elements of the current sex and relationships education contribute to the early sexualisation of children. What can the Secretary of State do to reassure the House that parents and governors will have significant local input into the framework for sex and relationships education in the curriculum review, so that they can know what is being taught in their local schools?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There is a recognition across the House that we need to strike a sensitive balance between the need to protect the innocence of young people and the need to equip them for the modern world. To my mind, that means that sex education needs to be both inclusive and rigorous, and ultimately subject to parental veto. Parents must have the right to withdraw their children from sex education if they consider it inappropriate, and a right to be informed on a local basis how that curriculum is generated. It is right that sex education is a compulsory part of the national curriculum. My Department wants to look at the guidance it provides, in consultation not just with faith groups but with other organisations such as Stonewall, to ensure that the correct balance between inclusivity, tolerance and respect for innocence is maintained.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
In September, I raised concerns on behalf of my constituents about Seaham school of technology, and the Secretary of State kindly wrote back indicating the criteria that would be applied to replace schools cancelled under the Building Schools for the Future programme—notably those in the worst state of dilapidation and where there are pressures on school rolls. May I remind him that Seaham school of technology is in a serious state and is the only school serving a population of about 26,000 in the town of Seaham? He indicated in his letter that he would try to respond by the end of the calendar year, and I am now looking for that response.
Michael Gove
That is a fair constituency case. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, I am interested in supporting schools in County Durham and the north-east that have faced difficult circumstances, and I have had the chance to see schools in Consett and Stanley that are also in a bad way and need support. They have embraced academy solutions, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to explore such a solution for Seaham, I would be delighted to explore that. In any case, I will look closely at the situation he described to see what can be done.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The 2009 OECD assessment of UK schools referred to earlier concluded that 77% of the differences between schools in student performance are explained by differences in socio-economic backgrounds—only Luxembourg has a higher figure. What assessment has the Minister made of that, and what will the Government do to address the situation?
Mr Gibb
It is still too often the case that a child’s background will determine educational outcome and opportunities in life, which is something that the coalition Government are determined to tackle. That is why we have introduced a pupil premium starting at £430 per child qualifying for free school meals, rising to a total of £2.5 billion by 2014-15, and it is why we are focusing on raising standards of behaviour in schools and supporting teachers and head teachers to take a zero-tolerance approach to poor behaviour. It is also why we are putting such an emphasis on children learning to read and using systematic synthetic phonics.
Petition
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I present this petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr Savile Burdett, of Axminster in Devon. He is petitioning the House to ask the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation in December 2010 so that photovoltaic solar collection systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent either alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided that the system is inspected for electrical safety by his local authority or by a local electricity supply authority.
The Petition states:
The Petition of Savile Burdett, of Axminster, Devon,
Declares that the Petitioner believes that the present regulations concerning Feed-in Tariffs for photo voltaic generated energy in homes are unfair, reward richer rather than poorer people and deter new ideas and technical development; that Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) were introduced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to start on 1st April 2010; that these are payments for various energy saving systems including photo voltaic solar generated electricity (pv solar); that payments are made to the householder, to encourage energy saving and consequential reduction of carbon emissions and additionally to encourage the growth of the industry; that, provided the system is installed to certain preset standards by MCS certified companies, specified payments are made for each unit of electricity generated; that additionally, when more is generated than is needed by the householder at the time, an export tariff is paid for electricity exported to the Grid; notes that if, however, the system is not installed by MCS certificated companies it will not be eligible to receive the FIT generation tariff or the guaranteed FIT export tariff; notes that the Petitioner believes that there are a number of disadvantages to this system; that the current regulations give some degree of monopoly power to certain companies, by in effect charging a householder who chooses to forgo the MCS certificate guarantees and either have the system installed by a contractor whom he trusts, but who is not MCS certified, or to do the work himself, which may be cheaper; notes that householders who install their own equipment or use a contractor who is not MCS certified receive no payment for surplus electricity generated and supplied to the Grid; and further notes that the current regulations may deter development, by discouraging developers from installing and testing new technologies. The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons asks the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation during November 2010 so that photo voltaic solar collector systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent, alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided the system is inspected for electrical safety by his Local Authority or by the local electricity Supply Authority.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P000871]
Temporary Immigration Cap
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on Friday’s High Court decision on the temporary immigration cap.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
In June, when the Government announced that we would consult on how to implement a permanent limit on economic migrants, we also said that we would impose an interim limit until the permanent one took effect. This was to avoid a surge of applications in anticipation of the permanent limit.
The interim limit was given effect through changes to the immigration rules that were laid before Parliament, and on which an oral statement was made. On Friday we received the judgment that the changes announced provide an insufficient legal basis for the operation of the interim limit. The judgment was based on a technical procedural point known as Pankina grounds. The Court decided that this meant that more detail about the manner in which the limit is set, including its level, should have been included in the immigration rule changes laid before Parliament.
I would like to make it clear that the judgment of the Court was concerned solely with the technicalities of how the interim limits were introduced. It was in no way critical of, or prejudicial to, the Government’s policy of applying a limit to economic migration to the United Kingdom, either permanently or on an interim basis. The policy objective of a limit in migration has not been called into question, and I am now considering what steps are required to reapply an interim limit consistent with the findings of the Court. Tomorrow I will be laying changes to the immigration rules that will set out the details that the Court required. This will enable us to reinstate the interim limits on a clear legal basis.
The House will be interested to know that tomorrow I will also be laying changes to the rules to close applications under the tier 1 general route from outside the United Kingdom immediately, as the original level specified on this tier has been reached. I can reassure the House that the policy of using these limits as part of our overall policy of reducing net migration is unchanged.
Ed Balls
On 28 June the Home Secretary herself came to the House to announce, without consultation, an immediate and temporary cap on non-EU migration. Details of the cap were then posted on the Home Office website, but not presented to Parliament. On Friday the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary’s actions were, in fact, illegal. Lord Justice Sullivan said:
“There can be no doubt that she”—
the Home Secretary—
“was attempting to sidestep provisions for parliamentary scrutiny…and her attempt was for that reason unlawful.”
As a result, the Government’s much-heralded cap—deeply unpopular with business—does not today exist. As Lord Justice Sullivan said,
“no interim limits were lawfully published…by the secretary of state…there is not, and never has been, a limit on the number of applicants who may be admitted”.
In the light of this chaos, it is surprising that the Home Secretary has not chosen to come to the House to answer for her actions, so let me ask the Minister for Immigration two sets of questions.
First, on the consequences of the error, can the Minister tell the House what the status is of those who applied under the illegal cap but were rejected? Will their applications now be granted retrospectively? Can the Minister tell the House how many more migrants he expects to enter the UK because of the failure to implement the cap? In the light of that, is it still the Government’s target to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015, as the Prime Minister pledged before the election, or is this mistake one reason why the Home Secretary is trying to water the target down to just an “aim”?
Secondly, on how we got into this mess in the first place, did the Minister and the Home Secretary ask for and receive legal advice before the summer about the legality of the temporary cap and the rushed way in which they were introducing it? Is it correct that he and the Home Secretary were warned by officials and lawyers that there was a risk of legal challenge if Parliament was bypassed in that way? If he and the Home Secretary did disregard legal advice, did they have the support of senior Home Office officials in so doing? Finally, will the Minister now agree to lay before Parliament all the legal advice on which the decision to proceed was based, to dispel the impression that he and the Home Secretary have acted in a reckless and chaotic manner, and to show that she has nothing to hide?
Damian Green
There were, I think, one or two substantive questions in the midst of that bluster. On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, about why the Home Secretary is not here, it seems perfectly reasonable that if a question is asked about immigration, the Immigration Minister should answer it. He will also be aware that there is a serious counter-terror operation going on today. I would suggest that he and other Opposition Front Benchers who are attempting to bluster their way through this should recognise that fact.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a substantive question about the status of those who applied, but whose applications were not granted. The answer is that, as he is aware, the judgment was handed down on Friday; however, as he does not seem to be aware, the written judgment will not be available until January. Until the Home Office receives that written judgment, it is obviously impossible for us to decide whether to appeal against Friday’s judgment. All the questions that he asked about that are, therefore, simply inoperative until we see the written judgment. I am happy to confirm that, as the Home Secretary has said, it is still our target to bring immigration down from its uncontrolled, unsustainable level under the previous Government. As for the idea of publishing all legal advice given to Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a not a practice that was ever followed by the Government of whom he was a member. [Interruption.]
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s sedentary heckling, I am happy to assure him that the announcement that the Home Secretary made on 28 June was changed as a result of the Pankina judgment, but clearly all legal judgments are open to interpretation. What I will set out in a written statement tomorrow will absolutely clear up the legal issues and address the narrow technical points made by the judge, and will mean that the interim limits can proceed on a completely legal basis. I hope that the House is reassured by that.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What is very clear is that the policy is not being challenged. Has the Minister had any discussions with other Departments, such as the Cabinet Office, about what lessons can be learned about how the process has to be followed, and what consultation needs to be carried out?
Damian Green
That is a perfectly valid question. We are in constant discussions with the Cabinet Office. There are, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, many court cases involving immigration issues. The lesson that I draw is that more and more should be put in the immigration rules and not simply in the guidance notes. We have already started to adopt that as a policy, and will do so in the future.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I assure the Immigration Minister that, whatever the courts decide, there is huge support in the country, including in Labour constituencies, for the policy that the coalition Government are pursuing? Of course, if he were able to bring those measures within the law that would be an advantage, but voters want to see the numbers coming down.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He shows a wisdom on this issue that is not available to the shadow Home Secretary, and he is right about what the public are asking—in Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour constituencies—about our policy of introducing a limit. The shadow Home Secretary has said:
“as many of us found in the election, our arguments on immigration were not good enough”,
and I have to say that they are still not good enough.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
How does the Minister think the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth, which borders my constituency, will react when they hear that the shadow Home Secretary opposes limiting economic migration?
Damian Green
I imagine that the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth—who have great knowledge of immigration, owing to the unfortunate activities of my predecessor in this job—will take the view that the Labour party is, as ever, attempting to mislead them completely on immigration, and that that is why it should not be trusted.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister please answer the question that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked him earlier? What is the status of those who applied under the illegal cap and were rejected, and will their applications now be granted? I draw to his attention the example of the international scientist who was unable to come to this country to take part in a cancer research project.
Damian Green
I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave the shadow Home Secretary, but I am quite happy to repeat it. The judgment was given on Friday but we do not have the written judgment yet, and we will not get it until January. It is clearly absurd to ask us to decide what to do about individual applications in advance of deciding whether to appeal against the judgment, and we cannot do that until we have the judgment in writing.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is a bit rich for the shadow Home Secretary to talk about chaos, given the parlous state of the immigration system that the new Government inherited?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good and valid point. The reason why we needed the interim limit was that we inherited an immigration system that was in complete chaos. We said at the election that we were going to introduce a permanent limit that would come into force next April. Between that point and next April there would have been an unimaginably large surge in applications if we had not imposed an interim limit. It is a perfectly sensible policy, and we will take steps tomorrow to ensure that it meets the Court’s requirements so that it can continue to do the essential job of bringing immigration numbers back down to a level with which this country can feel comfortable.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Minister will know that, in paragraph 110 of the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report on the immigration cap, we warned that this might happen. It is not just this Government but successive Governments who have legislated on immigration without giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise what was happening. Can he give the House an assurance that the consultation that he is now undertaking on students and on the permanent cap will not be affected in any way by the judgment? Clearly, if there are lessons to be learned from the judgment, when he gets it, it will be important to extend that consultation period.
Damian Green
I absolutely can give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. I was grateful for the Select Committee’s report; as ever, it was extremely thoughtful and useful. The judgment has no effect at all on the permanent limit, and the lessons will certainly be learned. As he will have seen, our consultation on the permanent cap was a genuine consultation, and the policy that we announced at the end of it was welcomed by many business groups, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, that had expressed worries about it in advance. That shows that this Government’s consultations are genuine, that we listen to people and to Parliament, and that we change policies in sensible ways after those consultations.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
For the benefit of my constituents, will the Minister make clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the ruling, which is simply about process, will not deter the Government from their aim of reducing net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands?
Damian Green
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that complete assurance. As I said, the ruling is technical. We want to obey it as fast as possible, which is why we will change the rules tomorrow. I think that the only people in the House who do not want a reduction in immigration and a sustainable immigration system are those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that this is not the first occasion on which Ministers have had difficulties with the courts? Can he also confirm that Ministers in his Department—he and the Home Secretary—received clear and unambiguous legal advice from their officials before they introduced this temporary measure?
Damian Green
Ministers in all Governments receive clear legal advice before any measure is introduced. The hon. Gentleman has been around for long enough to know that all Home Office Ministers have had issues with the courts. Indeed, that was happening even before he and I entered the House. I should love to stand here and say that it will never happen again, but I have been around for too long to say that.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with the shadow Home Secretary that Labour’s arguments on immigration during the general election campaign were not good enough?
Damian Green
I do agree with the shadow Home Secretary on that point. He has said many interesting things about immigration—facing both sides of the issue, as he frequently does. However, I think that the country has decided. People want immigration limits, they want immigration brought down, and they elected this Government to do precisely that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
As the Minister appears to be under some pressure from employers in the private sector and the academic and research institutions with regard to the operation of the cap, is it such a good idea to reimpose a temporary cap tomorrow, rather than letting the consultation run its course and then coming up with a more thoughtful answer early next year?
Damian Green
I think that the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps understandably, confused about the nature of the consultation. The consultation was on the permanent limit. That consultation is now over, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement a few weeks ago which was, indeed, welcomed by business groups. We have laid to rest the legitimate concerns that business groups had about the operation of the permanent cap, which will now proceed—as was always intended—from April.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” survey has shown that for the last two years immigration has been the No. 1 issue. My constituents would congratulate the coalition Government on what has been their most popular measure, and would urge the Minister to continue the policy.
Damian Green
I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend’s constituents say. They are representative of many people around the country in wanting this issue to be gripped, after 10 years of chaos. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing, and precisely what we will continue to do.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Unless I misheard him, which is perfectly possible, the Minister said that tier 1 was being closed with immediate effect because the cap had been reached. Does that include the two-year post-study visa? Will it too be closed immediately?
Damian Green
No. What is being closed is the tier 1 general visa for people from outside the United Kingdom. That was part of the interim cap, and that is what will be closed tomorrow. As the hon. Lady knows, from April we will completely recast tier 1 to make it a tier for exceptional people such as entrepreneurs and investors—the brightest and best people, whom the country needs and from whom we continue to benefit.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the immigration controls that he inherited from the last Government? Does he know that, according to the shadow Home Secretary, Labour “actually addressed” immigration—that, according to him,
“We’d put in place controls on immigration”?
Mr Speaker
Order. As he has helpfully reminded the House, the Minister is very experienced, and I know that he will want to relate his answer to the policy of the Government rather than that of the Opposition.
Damian Green
I shall be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. The Government’s policy is to operate an immigration cap, and to operate an interim cap on the way to a permanent cap as part of a much wider set of measures that will bring immigration down to sustainable levels. The only thing that I can say about the previous Government’s policies is that immigration was running at totally unsustainable levels, causing social tension and pressures throughout the country. I am surprised that the shadow Home Secretary did not take the opportunity to apologise for that.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Did the Minister consult the Attorney-General? Given that he has said he is going to reimpose the cap, can he now tell us what the status is of those who have applied during the period?
Damian Green
This is the third time I have been asked that question, and I will give the same answer for the third time. Until we get the details of the judgment we do not even know whether we will appeal against it, so until then it is impossible to discuss sensibly the status of those who applied and were turned down between July and now. [Interruption.] As I have said, Labour Members can keep asking that question, but they will keep getting the same, truthful, answer.
European Council
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on last week’s European Council. Britain had three objectives at this Council: first, to help bring stability to the eurozone, which is in Britain’s interests; secondly, to make sure that Britain is not liable for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect; and thirdly, to build on the progress we made with the 2011 EU budget, with tougher settlements in the years to follow.
Let me address each of the three objectives in turn. First, no one should doubt that stability in the eurozone is in our interests. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, London is Europe’s international financial centre, and no one can deny that the eurozone faces very real challenges at the moment. We see that in the Irish situation, and with Spain and Portugal paying interest rate penalties in the financial markets. Britain’s approach should not be simply to say, “Well, we told you monetary union would require fiscal union,” and leave it at that. We want to help the eurozone to deal with the issues it faces. We have a clear interest in other member states taking fiscal and structural action and in the cleaning up of banks’ balance sheets. The fact that we have set out a path to deal with our own deficit and seen our own interest rates come down lends weight to our argument.
Following the dinner, at which leaders of all the EU countries had a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the eurozone, eurozone leaders issued a statement saying that they
“stand ready to do whatever is required”
to return the eurozone to stability. Part of that is the new permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries that get into financial difficulty. Enabling eurozone countries to establish such a mechanism is in our interests, but how that mechanism is brought about is equally important. After the October Council I made it very clear to the House that any possible future treaty change would not affect the UK, and that I would not agree to it if it did. I also said that no powers would be transferred from Westminster to Brussels. At the Council we agreed the establishment of a permanent mechanism with a proposed very limited treaty change. This change does not affect the UK, and it does not transfer any powers from Britain to the European Union.
Secondly, on the issue of liability for any potential bail-out of the eurozone in future, Britain is not in the euro and we are not going to join the euro, and that is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013. In the current emergency arrangements established under article 122 of the treaty, we do have such a liability. That was a decision taken by the previous Government, and it is a decision that we disagreed with at the time. We are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism, but I have been determined to ensure that when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain’s liability should end, and that is exactly what we agreed at the European Council.
The Council conclusions state that this will be a “stability mechanism” for
“member States whose currency is the euro”.
This means it is a mechanism established by eurozone countries for eurozone countries.
Britain will not be part of it. Crucially, we have also ensured that the current emergency arrangements are closed off when the new mechanism comes into effect in 2013. Both the Council conclusions and the introduction to the decision to change the treaty itself—the actual document that will be presented to this Parliament for its assent—are clear that article 122
“will no longer be needed for such purposes”
and that
“Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”
Both the Council conclusions and the decision that introduces the treaty change state in black and white the clear and unanimous agreement that from 2013 Britain will not be dragged into bailing out the eurozone. Before the Government agree to this treaty change, Parliament must, of course, give its approval—and if this treaty change is agreed by all member states, its ratification in this country will be subject to the terms of our EU Bill, and so will be subject to primary legislation.
Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of the EU budget. Securing a tight budget for the future remains my highest priority for the European Union. I believe that it is a priority shared by the vast majority of people in this country. At the last Council, we managed to do something that we have not done in previous years. We were faced with a situation where the Council had agreed a 2.91% increase—that was not the UK’s position; we had wanted a tougher settlement, but we were outvoted—yet the European Parliament went on and called for a 6% increase. Instead of just splitting the difference between what the Council asked for and what the Parliament called for, which is what happened last year, Britain led an alliance of member states to reject decisively the European Parliament’s request. We insisted on no more than the 2.91% increase that the Council had previously agreed. Many predicted that this would be impossible and that Britain would be defeated, but we succeeded, which will save the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds compared with what could have happened.
We also agreed a new principle that from now on, the EU budget must be in line with what we are doing in our own countries. We did this by taking the initiative and galvanising others to join us. We sent a clear message that when we are making cuts at home, with tough decisions on pensions, welfare and pay, it is simply not acceptable to go on spending more and more and more through the European Union. At this Council, I wanted to keep up the momentum on the EU budget by forging an alliance with like-minded partners and starting to work towards securing a tougher settlement for future budgets.
At the weekend Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and I, together with the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Netherlands, sent a letter to the President—[Hon. Members: “That’s an alliance?”] Well, it involves the three largest countries in Europe. We sent a letter to the President of the European Commission setting out our goals for the 2012 and 2013 budgets and the longer-term financial perspective, which covers the rest of this decade right up until 2020. It states clearly our collective view that
“the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth”
in European spending should be “stepped up” in 2012 and 2013. Together, we say that there must be a real-terms freeze in the period 2014 to 2020. I want us to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe, and the three biggest powers in Europe—the three biggest net contributors to the budget—have committed to that. I believe that this is an important step forward.
There are two problems that Europe must urgently address. The first is that the eurozone is not working properly. It needs major reform, and it is in our interests not to stand in the way of that. Indeed, as I have argued, we should be actively helping the eurozone to deal with its issues. Secondly, Europe as a whole needs to be much more competitive. Collectively, we must press ahead with measures that will help European countries pay their way in a world where economic competition internationally is becoming ever fiercer. We must expand the single market in areas such as services, press forward on free trade and, crucially, avoid burdening businesses with costly red tape. We must promote stability, jobs and growth. That is the agenda that this Government are pursuing in Europe, and I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I want to ask him about three issues: the agreement on the European budget, the treaty change, and the wider but perhaps most fundamental question of all, European growth.
First, on the budget, I welcome the call for restraint in the European budget in the years ahead. On the budget for this year, we heard from the Prime Minister after this Council, in his own modest way, rather what we heard after the previous Council: he applauded the outcome because he said that it avoided the ultimate sin of European negotiations—simply “splitting the difference” between positions. But that rather depends on whose positions we are talking about.
Let me remind the Prime Minister of some rather inconvenient facts. He originally wanted a freeze in the budget, whereas the European Parliament wanted a 5.9% increase. He did not just want a freeze back in August; he was still arguing for one days before the previous European Council in October. Perhaps he can tell the House what figure splits the difference between 0 and 5.9%. By my reckoning it is about 2.9%, which is the outcome we ended up with after his negotiations. So after all his rhetoric, his grandstanding and his description of this as a “victory for common sense”, we have ended up splitting the difference. I congratulate him on his heroic achievement.
We welcome the Prime Minister’s support for the treaty change agreed at the Council. It is right that the eurozone should replace its ad hoc arrangements with a more permanent mechanism, but we have to ask why the Prime Minister has to fall over himself to try to justify accepting a fairly minor change. He is simply showing—I congratulate him on this—a sensible piece of what might be called “Europragmatism”. Of course, his problem is that, before the election, he claimed to be not the Europragmatist but the great Eurosceptic. We all remember his cast-iron guarantee, and his promise that if there was any chance at all of a reopening of the treaty and a referendum on Lisbon he personally would make it happen. The Foreign Secretary admitted in November that this treaty change offers a pretext for a referendum, but it would clearly be absurd to use it to try to derail the whole of Lisbon. That is the problem—the Prime Minister’s absurd position before the election, and the fact that he was believed.
The Prime Minister also used to say that he would take the first opportunity to repatriate powers over employment and social legislation to Britain, but we heard nothing of that in his statement. It is no wonder that his Back Benchers are not very happy with him on Europe, because he led them up the garden path. He said, “I am one of you. I feel your pain. I am the great Eurosceptic.” Can he explain, most of all for the benefit of his Back Benchers, why he has abandoned those pre-election commitments? We know that he has broken his promise to parents on child benefit and to young people on education maintenance allowance, but things have got so bad that he is even breaking his promises to his own Eurosceptics.
Let me turn to the economy. The agreement on a permanent crisis mechanism for the eurozone after 2013 does not address the challenges faced by Europe’s economy right now. I think that he and I would agree on that. Does he agree that eurozone members should do more to promote stability in the eurozone before 2013? Does he also agree that we need European action to promote growth for there to be any chance of serious export growth in the United Kingdom? The Prime Minister’s plans, with VAT set to rise and spending cuts kicking in, rely on an extra £100 billion of exports to the UK over five years. More than 50% of exports, as he said, are to Europe, but the European Commission forecasts slowing growth next year.
In our view, the Prime Minister should be doing more to work with colleagues in Europe to improve prospects for growth. He should do three things in particular: first, he should argue that all countries engaging in fiscal consolidation, including Germany and the UK, should do so at a pace that supports economic growth domestically and across Europe as a whole; secondly, he should ensure that those countries facing problems, including Ireland, are not locked into repeated rounds of austerity measures, with higher taxes and lower spending hitting the growth those countries need to pay down their debts and recover; and, thirdly, he should ensure that Europe’s voice in the G20 argues for a growth-oriented strategy. Given the nature of his statement, people will wonder whether he sees the connection between his optimistic forecast about exports and growth and the summit he attended this weekend.
The Prime Minister’s problems on Europe reflect his wider domestic approach. He breaks his promises and thinks one can reduce an economic policy to a pure deficit reduction policy with no focus on growth and jobs. In 2011, he needs to stop spending his time in Europe trying to grandstand and start engaging on a growth agenda for Europe and Britain that can help us here at home.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about grandstanding, but for the past couple of years we were told endlessly that we were going to be isolated in Europe, that we would have no allies in Europe and no friends in Europe, but when we put together an alliance of the three biggest countries in Europe for budget restraint, the first thing he ought to do is stand up and congratulate us.
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions in turn. First, on the budget, he talked about some inconvenient facts. Let me give him some inconvenient facts from last year. Last year, when we had a Labour Government, a 3.8% increase was proposed by the European Council and supported by that Government. The European Parliament then came forward with a 9.8% proposed increase, and they split the difference so the budget went up by 6%. That is what happened last year, supported by Labour. The difference between that and what we achieved is hundreds of millions of pounds. That is what this Government’s actions have saved. When it comes to changing positions, I note that in her statement after the European Council the shadow Foreign Secretary said that “Labour voted against” this budget rise “from the beginning”. That is simply not true—Labour MEPs opposed our call for a freeze in the European Parliament.
Secondly, on treaty change, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that this very limited treaty change is in our interests so we should support it. We should use this opportunity to get rid of the risks of Britain being drawn further into eurozone support in the future. We are liable to that because of the weak actions of his Government before the last election. It is absolutely right that we use our negotiating capital to make sure that Britain is not liable when the new mechanism comes in. What we are doing, once again, is clearing up the mess left by Labour.
The third issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was the economy. He says that we should call for measures that will achieve greater stability in Europe, but that is exactly what we are doing. Just imagine what stability we would get in Europe if he were sitting at the Council table saying that we should not be bothering with deficit reduction. We would be putting ourselves in the same camp as Ireland, Portugal and other countries.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tells me how unhappy my Back Benchers are, but I would swap their unhappiness for that of his Back Benchers any day of the week. I am sure that they will want to remember that important thing at Christmas time—always keep your receipts in case you want to exchange for something bigger.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
As a happy Back Bencher, I congratulate the Prime Minister on winning the budget battle with the European Parliament, where there was clearly no splitting the difference. Enlargement was also on the agenda. On Turkey, does he agree that the problems that many predicted would have occurred by now do not seem to have materialised? However, we still seem to have deadlock, with no new chapters being opened and no progress being made on the Ankara protocol. The General Affairs and External Relations Council said last week that progress is now expected without further delay: how does he see that materialising?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we should push for progress with Turkish accession—and we are. I raised this with the Hungarian Prime Minister when he came to Downing street last week, because Hungary is going to hold the future presidency of the European Union. We have to win the argument in Europe—too many are opposed to Turkish membership. I think that all the arguments are in favour and that we should push this as hard as we can and keep opening those chapters to show that we are doing so in good faith.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Before the Prime Minister boasts so much about freezing the budget, he might reflect on the fact that although that will save the British rebate, it means the common agricultural policy will not be reformed for several years. It also means that there will be no money for our new partners in east Europe. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, British leadership was based on acts of solidarity with poor, incoming members of the EU. The Prime Minister is the first one to sign up to the Sarkozy-Merkel agenda of being as mean as possible to our new friends and allies in east Europe.
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that the only way we can make progress with helping partners in eastern Europe is by having an ever-rising EU budget. Indeed, there are countries in eastern Europe that support the position we take that the budget should not go up and that we should spend the money better. As I have argued before, we should be making more progress on transparency and using it as a weapon to shine a light on the EU budget and some of the disastrous ways in which it is spent. It is an absolute counsel of despair to say that the only way we can help other countries in Europe is with an ever-rising budget: it is not.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Whilst the new bail-out mechanism has thankfully comforted the markets, do not many of our EU partners need to rein in their public spending, follow Britain’s example and introduce some meaningful financial austerity measures?
The Prime Minister
To be fair to other countries in Europe, the conversation around the Council table is very much about the action that everyone is having to take. Britain has set quite a pace in setting out a five-year programme about how we are going to do this and what we have seen in Britain is market interest rates coming down since the election, whereas in other European countries they have sometimes gone up. What is required is some credible fiscal plans. Fiscal consolidation alone will not settle down the eurozone but that has to be a part of it.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is clear that, despite everything the European Union has done, the euro is still in crisis—and that crisis will not end any time soon. Has the Prime Minister been aware of or involved in any private discussions about how the euro might be deconstructed in a controlled way?
The Prime Minister
We had a very good discussion at the dinner, which involved all EU members, not just eurozone members. As someone who has never supported Britain’s joining the euro and who has always had concerns that the currency area was not optimal—as I said in my statement, I would make the argument that with a single currency, a move towards a single fiscal policy was needed, but that was never done—I must say it is profoundly not in Britain’s interest to see the break-up of the eurozone. If that happened, there would be very bad consequences not just for eurozone countries, but for Britain. We should take a hard-headed, practical view and recognise that 44% of our exports go to eurozone countries. If that broke up, it would be bad for Britain. We should be making positive suggestions about what eurozone countries can do to make sure that they get the stability and growth that we all need. There is fiscal consolidation, active monetary policy, cleaning up bank balance sheets, getting ahead of the markets and showing that we want this to be a success. That is what needs to happen and, as I say, standing on the sidelines and saying, “Well, we told you this wasn’t a great idea” is not the right approach.
Mr Speaker
Order. Although it is not my normal practice to call a Member who was not present at the very start of the statement, I note that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) chairs the European Scrutiny Committee and therefore, exceptionally, I shall call the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. I really only came here to wish the Prime Minister a happy Christmas. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many of us that the present financial mechanism is unlawful, and that Britain is exposed until 2013 while the black hole of Portugal and Spain opens up before us? Does he therefore think there are serious grounds for challenging the unlawfulness of it and not exposing the British electorate to the prospect of having to contribute to that while suffering such severe austerity cuts?
The Prime Minister
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leniency. No European statement would be complete without a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He may have a good point. Article 122 of the treaty refers to help in the case of natural disasters and other emergencies. There are some people who question whether it should have been used in this way to support eurozone countries.
That argument was had and was conceded under the previous Government in two ways. First, they agreed the establishment of the mechanism. Secondly, if we go back to the Nice treaty, it was the then Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is in his place, who argued from the Dispatch Box that it was perfectly okay for article 122 to go to qualified majority voting, which is where we are today. So in two ways the previous Government made a bad mistake. As I say, we are clearing up the mess and we will certainly do that from 2013, but the mechanism remains in place till then.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Was there any discussion at the Council of the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was working on behalf of a British investment firm in Russia and was tortured and murdered a little over a year ago? I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that there was a vote in the European Parliament last week, supported by MEPs from all parties in this House, to say that those who took part in his murder, who have not faced any criminal prosecution at all, and those whose corruption he unveiled should be banned from the European Union, and that Senator McCain in the United States of America is supporting a similar ban. Will he support a ban?
The Prime Minister
The Government continue to raise all these cases and issues around them with the Russian authorities. Our embassy in Moscow is closely watching developments in the cases of Mr Khordorkovsky and Mr Lebedev, and we remain very concerned about Mr Magnitsky’s case, as raised by the hon. Gentleman. We await with interest the conclusion of the official investigation into the case, which was announced by President Medvedev in November 2009.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on a robust performance in Brussels. Resisting the Parliament’s demand for an extravagant budget was absolutely the right thing to do. As he looks ahead towards the justified freeze on the budget post-2014—and not just because of the weather—can he assure us that it does not mean that the budget will be frozen, but that subsidies that are not justified and expenditure that is wasted will be replaced by, for example, expenditure on energy and climate change issues, which are both the priority of this Government and ought to be the priority of the European Union as well?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which goes to the point made by the former Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), which is that we must do better at trying to re-order the priorities of the European budget, but I do not accept that we can do that only by allowing an increase. I accept that we are taking a tough position, because we are trying to get a freeze with major partners for 2014 to 2020, but we also want budget reform and reform of the CAP. We are in the vanguard of arguing for that because we want to see the money better spent. It is right to set out down this path and try to achieve those goals.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will recall that six months ago he and other EU leaders set out the Europe 2020 strategy as a successor to the Lisbon agenda, which was agreed in 2000. Is he confident that nothing discussed at the weekend will affect the benchmarks that were set in June? With the European Union, what is important is not just getting an agreement, but making sure that countries meet benchmarks on jobs and growth.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is that we should not amend those benchmarks, but the Europe 2020 document is slightly disappointing, because Europe’s real problem is that it has become uncompetitive, has expensive welfare systems and overbearing pension systems and is not complete as a single market. We need a more robust conversation in Europe about how we get growth—how we reform and improve the structure of our economies to get growth. Europe 2020 is only part of that, and we should be more ambitious for next year.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As another happy Back Bencher, may I convey the thanks of the British taxpayer for the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Prime Minister saved us over the weekend? However, I should be interested in the clarification of an issue. The problems in the eurozone are likely to occur between now and 2013. What is the extent of Britain’s liability under the emergency arrangements signed up to by the previous Labour Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is a happy Back Bencher. The answer to her question is that a mechanism was established under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, allowing the European Union to spend the headroom between its budget and the money it can spend under the previous financial deal on such bail-outs. The headroom was €60 billion, some of which has been used with respect to Ireland, and the mechanism is established under qualified majority voting. That is the problem we face, so we are dealing with that in the fastest way we can by saying that, when the new mechanism comes in, it will rule out action under the old mechanism. Of course, as they like to say in Limerick, we shouldn’t have started from here.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why is the Prime Minister so besotted with the idea that he wants Turkey in the European Union and, possibly, the eurozone? Eighty million Turks will be on the move, and it will not be two-way traffic. How can that improve financial stability?
The Prime Minister
I know lots of people in Turkey I would willingly swap with the hon. Gentleman. Maybe we could have a transfer. I would make a serious argument, however, which is that, if we want the European Union to be a force for stability in our world, we should try to include a country that wants to look to the west, is a democracy and wants to be part of the European economy. All those would be great advantages for the European Union.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister clarify whether the minor treaty amendment will specifically exclude Britain from any liability, or whether that will merely be implied? Will he also ensure that article 122 is never used again for that purpose under the treaty? The reason I ask so specifically is that the previous practice of Europe has not always been to do precisely what it has implied it might do, and we really want to have that nailed down.
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend asks absolutely the right question, because there is a history in Europe of such agreements not always being stuck to, and of there being a rather federalist ratchet. That was why I was very clear that we needed language, not just in the European Council conclusions, about article 122 not being used in future. I actually wanted it in the article that will be presented to this House for us to look at as a treaty amendment, so, in what is called the recitals—don’t worry, I’m not going to start singing—or the introduction to the article, it says:
“As this mechanism”—
the new mechanism—
“is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole…Article 122…of the TFEU”—
the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—
“will no longer be needed for such purposes. Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”
That seems to me to be quite a good belt and braces—no need, no use; and it is not just in the Council conclusions, but in the introduction to the treaty article itself.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
This seems to have been a pretty significant Council, as a result of which we will have treaty changes that will involve legislation here. Treaties cannot be amended, so we will have a debate but not be able to amend them. Is the Prime Minister aware that, for this Council, the House did not have a pre-Council debate in the Chamber, on the basis that the Leader of the House said—and the Foreign Secretary will whisper to the Prime Minister—that it is Back-Bench business? If the Prime Minister takes Europe seriously, how on earth can he defend a discussion on something as significant as that being Back-Bench business?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is so astute about this House she even knows when I am being whispered to while sitting down. I am hugely impressed because she is absolutely right. I answer her in two ways. First, the new Backbench Business Committee—some of its members are in the Chamber—has 30 days a year in which to discuss such matters. Secondly,—this is the important thing—at this Council, we agreed the type of treaty change and gave some clarity about what needs to be done. However, there is now a proper process, which means that this Parliament has to be formally consulted, which it will be, before the treaty change goes through and there will then be a proper process of parliamentary approval. It is all very well the shadow Chief Whip chuntering from the Front Bench, but I do not remember the previous Government being anything like as generous as to give 30 days for the consideration of Back-Bench business. We just dreamed of such things in those days.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart): it is extraordinary that we did not have a pre-Council debate. I also wish to press my right hon. Friend on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). The Prime Minister said that we will not have liability for the eurozone after 2013, and we very much hope that that is correct. However, the European stabilisation mechanism seems to be an open-ended liability. On 22 November, the Chancellor said:
“we would certainly not be in favour of somehow replenishing it”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 43.]
Are we going to refuse to replenish the European stabilisation mechanism while it continues to exist?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the stabilisation mechanism is based on the difference between the European budget and its headroom. That is a fact set out in the decision made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). The debate in Europe at the moment is about replenishing the other facility. That is known as the facility rather than the mechanism, which, of course, Britain is not in. That is a eurozone facility, and there is a debate in Europe about whether that should be topped up and increased. Obviously, from our perspective, we are keen on Europe using the facility rather than the mechanism.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The permanent mechanism will not be introduced until June 2013. Meanwhile, we are left with this temporary mechanism, which is widely viewed as inadequate to the task. That is likely to mean repeated austerity measures on behalf of Spain, Portugal and perhaps others who are caught in this contagion. That cannot be good for the United Kingdom and its export performance. What is the Prime Minister doing to raise our case at a European level?
The Prime Minister
I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, as I have described, there is the mechanism, which has that headroom. However, eurozone countries should be using the eurozone facility. We do not have a say over eurozone member states’ financial and fiscal policies, so it makes much more sense for eurozone countries to raise that money and subsidise each other if that is what they choose to do. That is what the eurozone facility, which is hundreds of billions of euros, rather than €60 billion, is there to do. I make one other point to the hon. Gentleman: only a limited amount can be done to help countries just by making these transfers. There must be fundamental reforms in those countries, whether that involves cleaning up banks, dealing with labour markets, having more active monetary policies or making their fiscal policies real. All those things will make a difference.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
In noting the Prime Minister’s considerable achievements in the European Council, does he agree that it is critical that Britain plays an important role in creating a vibrant, dynamic European economy, so that we can get on with the job of being competitive with the far east and other growing economies?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and this also relates to the previous question. Of course, everyone in Europe wants to see higher growth rates. That is one of the ways we will get deficits down and ensure that we have more jobs in our countries. However, Europe needs to ask itself, “How can we get higher growth?” That should be done by completing the single market, extending it to services, taking a more forward position on the Doha round and, frankly, stopping some of the things that the European Union is currently doing that add massive costs and burdens to business. At the European Council dinner, I pressed the point very strongly that unless Europe starts making those decisions, people will not take its growth strategy very seriously.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has not referred to one of the most important issues that is currently going on internationally, and I would be grateful to know whether it was considered and discussed in the European Council—that is, the deteriorating situation in west Africa, specifically the fact that the former defeated President of Côte d’Ivoire, with the support of the military and brutal thugs, is clinging on to power and threatening to expel the United Nations from that country. What is the European Union, with its common security and defence policy, going to do to assist the African Union and the UN to restore democratic government in Côte d’Ivoire?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We did discuss at the European Council the problems in Côte d’Ivoire, and we took a very clear view, which is that everyone there should accept the result of the election and support the United Nations, as we support the United Nations and its continued presence in that country.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
What progress did my right hon. Friend make in persuading other countries in the European Union of the merits of a single market in services, not just for their companies here but for our companies there?
The Prime Minister
This is an argument that we can win and have got to win in Europe. We now have like-minded Governments who want to see completion of the internal market, progress on services and progress on Doha, with countries like the Netherlands, Finland and Germany all wanting to see a more open-market Europe. We have to push this very hard, because it is the growth agenda. Clearly, fiscal stimulus is not available to Europe because everyone has such large budget deficits. The best stimulus that we could give to the European economy and our economy is to make these structural changes.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Do I take it from the Prime Minister’s statement and the facility that he has shown in his answers for using Euro-jargon that he has gone native on Europe?
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry—I will do my best. It is extremely difficult when there is a mechanism, a facility, and article 122, which used to be article 100 before it was changed by QMV in the Nice treaty. [Interruption.] There is also the recital, and as I said earlier, I am not going to sing. There is a lot of junk that you have to mug up on, but the basic principles are simple—get in there, stand up for your country, and do a good deal.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
A structural lack of competitiveness is one of the fundamental problems underlying the current crisis. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any discussion of the Lisbon 2020 agenda and how it will differ from the original Lisbon agenda in 2000, which failed dismally to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world by 2010?
The Prime Minister
We did discuss the 2020 agenda. I think there is a feeling among a number of other Heads of Government that it is all very well—it has some good targets and a lot of sensible things about investing in skills and education and the rest of it—but it does not really do the hard things that we need to do in Europe to make our economies more competitive with those in the far east. That is the agenda that we need now—not just easy-to-agree targets and headlines but the tough things we need to do to make us more competitive.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
In opposition, the Prime Minister spoke regularly about the need for radical reform of the common agricultural policy, but there is no reference to it in the statement he made today. Can he assure the House that, in pursuit of this alliance with France and Germany over the budget, he is not abandoning the principles of CAP reform that are shared across this House?
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There has been no back-stairs deal between us and the French. What has happened is that the French and the Germans have agreed with us that, with all the difficult things we are doing in our own countries, it is a real priority to stop the endless rise in the EU budget. That has been done without any guarantees about what happens or does not happen to CAP reform. I remain passionately committed to reforming the CAP. That is right for Europe and for Europe’s farmers, and it would leave room in the European budget to spend the money in a more sensible way.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
May I just put it on record that I am a very jolly Back Bencher, particularly as I received the Prime Minister’s Christmas card this morning? Along with the vast majority of my constituents, I would very much have welcomed a cut to the EU budget. However, back in the real world, will the Prime Minister confirm that the decisions and arguments he has made in the past few weeks are good for the long-term future of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; I am glad that Royal Mail is working effectively. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, “Where are ours?” Any unhappy Back Benchers who do not feel that they are getting enough love from their Front Benchers can join the love train and get a “Happy Christmas” card from me.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Bankers’ bonus payments rankle with ordinary hard-working families. Did the Prime Minister discuss—formally or informally—with his colleagues at the summit making a collective EU agreement to limit bankers’ bonus payments?
The Prime Minister
Normally, there are long discussions about banks and bonuses. We had a lot of discussion about the need to improve the performance of banks, their balance sheets and their lending practices, but there was no long discussion about bank bonuses. There have been good international agreements on bank bonuses, and we have added to them in this country through the bank levy, which will raise more in every year than the previous Government’s bonus tax raised in just one year.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is best for the poorer countries of eastern Europe, which were mentioned earlier, is best for people in this country? That is economic recovery in Europe. Although he rightly says that fiscal changes alone will not deliver that, without fiscal changes and restraint not only by Governments but by the EU, there will be no sustained economic recovery.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. Some Labour Members talk as if there were a choice between going for growth and dealing with the deficit. The truth is that the deficit must be dealt with to get the confidence that is needed for growth. If Labour Members sat in the European Council and argued that deficits were not a problem, their fellow socialists in Portugal, Spain and Greece, who are in difficult circumstances, would think that they had gone completely and utterly mad.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
During the summit, did the Prime Minister talk to Government leaders about the growing levels of unemployment in some European countries, the increasing severity of public spending cuts and the impoverishment of working-class families, which is growing as a result? Did they discuss the danger of the whole of Europe tipping into recession because of the drive to cut public expenditure and lay off public sector workers, whereas the socially just thing to do would be to maintain social levels of expenditure?
The Prime Minister
Yes—of course we had that conversation. We had a conversation about how we can create growth and jobs in Europe. However, if one listens to the left-wing leaders of Portugal, Greece and Spain talk about the problems in their economies, they say that they know that they must deal with their deficits and show that they have a plan to get their deficits down. At the moment, their interest rates are rising higher and higher, making growth more difficult. The idea that there is an alternative socialist wonderland where one can forget about how much money one is borrowing is for the birds.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am the happiest of Back Benchers now that we have a Prime Minister who stands up for British interests in Europe—although I have not received a Christmas card. Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest scandal of the previous Labour Government was their surrender of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, the result of which is that we will pay £41 billion to the EU in the next five years, which is twice what we paid in the previous five years?
The Prime Minister
The card is in the post. I want to make my hon. Friend not just happy, but ecstatic. He is right about the rebate. We now get lectures from the Labour party, saying that we were not tough enough on the European budget. That is from the people who gave away the rebate and in return got absolutely nothing.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The eurozone economy is vital to manufacturing and defence firms in Pendle, which export products across Europe and the globe. Alongside currency fluctuations and economic uncertainty, many businesses say that red tape and bureaucracy is the main challenge that they face. Was that issue addressed at the European Council?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that, because it is exactly the point that I made at the dinner of the 27 member states. We have to go through what would make a difference in creating more growth in the European Union. Of course, there are positive things that we have to do, such as completing the single market and extending it to services. However, there are also things that we should stop doing. There is a problem of endless directives coming through that add to the cost of business. There are some things that Europe must stop doing to give businesses the chance to invest and expand.
High Speed Rail
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement on the Government’s plans for the development of a national high-speed rail network, and on the proposed route that we will put forward next year for public consultation.
One of the coalition’s main objectives is to build an economy that is more balanced both sectorally and geographically, and that will deliver sustainable economic growth while also delivering on our climate change targets. Investment in infrastructure, and transport infrastructure in particular, will be a key part of that approach. To deliver economic growth and carbon reduction, we must provide attractive alternatives to short-haul aviation while addressing the issue of scarce rail capacity between city centres. Network Rail has calculated that by 2024 the west coast main line will effectively be full, with no further enhancements that could reasonably be made to meet future demand.
The Government believe that the best long-term solution to those challenges is the development of a national high-speed rail network. Our proposed strategy is a Y-shaped network, to be delivered in two phases, the first being a line from London to the west midlands and the second the onward legs to Manchester and Leeds, with connections to points further north via the east and west coast main lines.
Our proposals will provide an unprecedented increase in capacity on the key north-south routes out of London through a combination of new infrastructure and released capacity on existing lines. Reliability will be improved and journey times between major cities slashed. Central Birmingham will be brought within 49 minutes of London—potentially less for non-stopping services—and within one hour five minutes of Leeds. The released capacity on the west coast main line offers the possibility of commuter-frequency fast services to London from places such as Coventry and Milton Keynes.
By running trains seamlessly on to existing inter-city routes, the proposed network will also bring Glasgow and Edinburgh within three and a half hours of London, which is fast enough to induce a major shift of passengers from domestic aviation. In the longer term, we will also explore with the Scottish Government the options for further reducing journey times to Scotland.
The development of a high-speed rail network has been a key factor in our decision on additional runways at London’s airports, which is why we said from the outset that any such network must be linked to our principal gateway airport and integrated with the European high-speed network via High Speed 1. In June, I asked HS2 Ltd to carry out additional work on such links. I have studied that work and the recommendations of Lord Mawhinney’s review, and I have also examined Arup’s proposals for a transport hub near Iver.
I have concluded that a spur route to the airport, running on the surface close to the M25 for part of its length, is the best option. It is lower-cost than the other options considered by HS2 Ltd, will keep journey times between London and Birmingham to a minimum and will retain the flexibility to be extended into a loop in future. To deliver the best possible value for taxpayers’ money, I propose that a spur route be constructed as part of the second phase of the network, opening at the same time as the routes to Manchester and Leeds. I have today asked HS2 Ltd to carry out further work on such a spur route, with a view to public consultation later in this Parliament alongside the routes to Manchester and Leeds. For the period prior to the opening of that second phase, high-speed rail travellers to the airport will be able to change to fast Heathrow Express services at Old Oak Common, where there will also be a direct interchange with Crossrail.
With regard to a link to HS 1, HS2 Ltd’s report identifies that a connection can be made via a new tunnel from Old Oak Common to the North London line near Chalk Farm, from where existing infrastructure can be used to reach the HS 1 line north of St Pancras. That proposal is significantly cheaper than any other option for a direct link, and it will enable direct trains to run from the midlands and the north to Europe without affecting existing service levels on the North London line. Such a tunnel can be constructed only before the Old Oak Common interchange comes into operation, so the link will be included in the phase 1 scheme put forward for consultation.
The Government believe that the construction of a high-speed rail network will support economic growth and the rebalancing of the UK economy, but we recognise that the proposed line will have significant local impacts on the areas it passes through and that we have a duty to do everything practically possible to mitigate those impacts. That is why, since my appointment as Secretary of State, I have reviewed the proposals of the previous Administration. I have looked at the case for high-speed rail, at the corridor options for a north-south route, at the different route options put forward by HS2 Ltd and in detail at the route option recommended in its March report. I have reached the conclusion, as the previous Administration did, that the route option recommended in March represents the most appropriate general alignment for the high-speed railway between London and the west midlands.
However, before finalising the detailed route that I am publishing today for consultation, I travelled the length of it and talked directly to local authorities, property owners, and many of the protest groups and their Members of Parliament, and I commissioned additional work on the options for improving the proposed alignment. As a consequence, significant amendments have been made to both the vertical and horizontal alignment, and to the proposed mitigation measures. In total, around 50% of the preferred route proposal published in March has been amended in some respect.
I am confident that solutions have now been found that can significantly mitigate the impacts of the railway at local level which, when properly understood, will reassure many of those who have been understandably apprehensive about the potential impact on their lives and their property values. For instance, in Primrose Hill, work to identify the most appropriate locations for the necessary vent shafts has shifted the proposed tunnel, and thus also the vent shafts themselves, to the north, away from the most sensitive areas of that part of London, locating them alongside the existing railway.
Between Amersham and Wendover, opportunities to cover sections of the proposed cutting to create a green bridge and a longer green tunnel have been incorporated into the route design to reduce its visual impact and avoid severance of public rights of way. By moving the alignment away from the historic property of Hartwell house, HS2 Ltd has been able to ensure that the line would not be visible from the house itself and that additional earthworks and planting can be undertaken to further reduce visual and noise impacts. In the most northerly section of the route, an improved alignment has been identified that would move the line further from Lichfield.
Despite our best efforts at mitigation, however, we will not be able to avoid all impacts on property values. Where a project that is in the national interest imposes significant financial loss on individuals, it is right and proper that they should be compensated fairly for that loss, so I have asked my officials to prepare a range of options for a scheme to assist those whose properties will not be required for the construction of the railway, but who will none the less see a significant diminution of value as a result of the construction of the line.
The forthcoming consultation will include proposals for such a scheme, which will sit alongside the statutory blight regime, which covers those whose properties would need to be taken to build the line. I am publishing today on my Department’s website, and placing in the Library of the House, a set of reports by HS2 Ltd that sets out for each route section the options considered and the changes proposed, together with detailed maps showing the revised preferred route from London to the west midlands in full. That route will form the basis for the public consultation, which I expect to begin in February next year.
When the consultation is launched, I will also publish a revised business case, a full appraisal of sustainability, noise contour maps and route visualisations, all of which can be completed only now that the final preferred route for consultation has been determined. Let me be clear that the consultation will encompass the Government’s strategy for a national high-speed rail network, the choice of corridor and the detailed line of route that I have outlined for the initial phase from London to the west midlands. As part of the consultation process, roadshows will be held along the length of the preferred route from London to the west midlands to ensure that local people have the opportunity to find out more about the project and to discuss specific concerns with those involved in developing the scheme.
It is my view that a high-speed rail network will deliver a transformational change to the way Britain works and competes in the 21st century. It will allow the economies of the midlands and the north to benefit much more directly from the economic engine of London, tackling the north-south divide more effectively than half a century of regional policy has done, expanding labour markets and bringing our major conurbations closer together. The consultation exercise that we will launch in the new year will be one of the biggest and most wide-ranging ever undertaken by any Government, and I urge all hon. Members with an interest to participate and to encourage their constituents to do so. These proposals have the support of political and business leaders from all parts of the United Kingdom, and I hope they will gain cross-party support in this House. I commend this statement to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Today, he is facing a rising tide of criticism over the transport chaos gripping the country, so it is unlucky that he is scheduled to update the House on high-speed travel on a day when most people would settle for travel at any speed at all. As he knows, it was Labour in government which set out a vision for a high-speed rail line running from London to Birmingham from 2026, and on to Leeds, Manchester and Scotland in phases during the following years. I pay tribute to the tenacity and determination of his predecessor, the noble Lord Adonis, whose exhaustive work on the scheme has allowed the right hon. Gentleman to pick up and run with the vision he has set out today for high-speed rail.
I recognise the importance of increasing rail capacity and connectivity, particularly in respect of the west coast main line and the Chiltern line beyond 2020. I assure the Secretary of State that Labour remains committed to investing in a world-class rail system, and that high-speed rail could have an important role to play in delivering it. That is why we began the planning process when in government—in fact, I suspect that his proposals probably have more support on the Labour Benches than on the Benches behind him. He is the one sitting in a divided Government, although for once the divisions do not involve the Liberal Democrats. No doubt, he will find out in due course whether he has done enough today to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales, who is in her place, not to resign in protest at his plans.
We have just embarked on a fundamental review of our policies, just as the Conservatives did after the Prime Minister became leader of his party—and just like the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who appears to have looked again at all his party’s policies since joining the Government. It would be ridiculous for our future support for high-speed rail not to be at the heart of that review—and it will be at the heart of it—given that it is a £30 billion commitment on future Parliaments. In the meantime, however, the Secretary of State has the support of Labour Members as he moves forward with the next stage of planning the route he has set out today.
It would be good if the Secretary of State were to show the same determination and commitment to other critical investment in our rail industry—investment needed now, not in future Parliaments. He has cut and delayed the vital investment we had planned for this Parliament; he has delayed the new generation of inter-city express trains and cut our plans for 1,300 new carriages; he has delayed much of the electrification that we planned and cut Great Western line electrification beyond Bristol and into Wales; and he has delayed the Thameslink and Crossrail schemes, which will not now benefit passengers until 2018—or is it now 2019? It keeps slipping.
We have set out an additional £7.5 billion of capital investment from which significant sums would have been invested in our rail networks in this Parliament. Does the Secretary of State realise that because he has cut so much spending in this Parliament while post-dating a £30 billion cheque for a high-speed rail scheme, the cost of which will fall in future Parliaments, people may well be sceptical about the extent of his commitment to Britain’s railways today? Does he understand how he puts at risk public support for future investment such as high-speed rail, given that he cannot even get the investment to keep our trains and other transport infrastructure running during severe weather?
Does the Secretary of State also understand the anger that will be felt in communities across the country when people hear him claim that his support for high-speed rail is due to concern about the north-south divide in Britain? His party’s support for high-speed rail is a fig leaf to disguise the fact that it has no strategy for investment, jobs or growth in the north. If he were really bothered about the north-south divide, he would not be supporting the scrapping of the regional development agencies, the future jobs fund and the education maintenance allowance, or the trebling of student fees, the delaying of broadband roll-out or the increase in VAT to 20%—another broken promise from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. If he were really bothered about the north-south divide, he would not be loading the largest cuts on to councils in the midlands and the north. If he were really bothered about transport links beyond the south, why is it that authorities in the north are facing the biggest cuts in their road maintenance and local travel projects, with Merseyside facing cuts of 49% and Manchester cuts of 42%, while midlands and southern counties are doing much better?
Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about the scheme that he has announced today. What impact will the changes to the route, the additional compensation and hardship payments, and the other commitments that he has made today have on the £750 million that he has allocated in this spending period? Can he offer an assurance that that will not have a knock-on effect on other rail schemes already facing cuts and delays, and that it will not set a precedent for compensation in other cases where infrastructure is driven through people’s homes and businesses? He has previously referred to the construction costs for major projects in the UK being significantly higher than for comparable projects elsewhere in Europe. What progress has he made, working with Infrastructure UK, to find ways of bringing down the cost of the scheme to the taxpayer?
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the cost of the trains to run on the high-speed line has been included in the figures used for the cost of the scheme; or, as with other schemes, such as Crossrail, do they constitute separate expenditure yet to be identified? One of the things missing from the debate on high-speed rail to date has been the likely cost of using the service. Does he agree that if all taxpayers are to contribute so significantly to the cost of constructing the route, it cannot be a service with ticket prices outside the grasp of most people? Does he agree that many people will question his commitment to take the line beyond Birmingham, when he is restricting his proposed legislation to the first part of the route? Why is he not taking powers in the hybrid Bill to build the line to the north of Birmingham?
The Secretary of State’s party has no credibility when it comes to investing in our railways. We remember the 18 years of Tory under-investment in Britain’s railways, and the botched privatisation, which resulted in years of instability and uncertainty. It was Labour that delivered years of sustained investment, leading to a doubling of passenger numbers. He is right to continue the work, which Labour began, to prepare for high-speed rail in the UK. However, we must also see investment in rail schemes that will benefit the country and assist growth and economic recovery now, not just in 15 to 20 years’ time. We must see investment in technology to improve the resilience of the network to severe weather, and we must see passengers protected from the spiralling cost of fares. If the Secretary of State is really serious about maintaining a consensus on high-speed rail and building public support for his plans, he should think again about some of the decisions that he has taken in his first few months in the job. He should think again about cuts to new carriages, the delays to electrification and the massive hike in fares.
Mr Hammond
I will start with the good bits. I thank the hon. Lady for what I think was her support for the next stage of the process—going through the consultation and introducing a Bill later in this Parliament, if that is what we decide as a result of the consultation. I am also happy to pay tribute, as she did, to the work of my immediate predecessor in developing the case for high-speed rail, although it is worth noting that not all his predecessors seemed to have been quite so committed to the project.
I am afraid that it is the hon. Lady who lacks credibility, in talking about our failure to invest in the railway. She can talk about a decade of Labour investment as much as she likes. What most people will have noticed is a decade of driving us towards the brink of bankruptcy. What we have done is salvage a substantial programme of investment in rail infrastructure—a programme the scale of which neither she nor many commentators outside this place predicted we would be able to continue with—in the context of the extreme fiscal constraints that we face. We have gone ahead with Crossrail and Thameslink, and with a programme of additional rail vehicles—gone ahead with, not merely announced unfunded promises, which is her legacy. We will go ahead with the inter-city express programme, as I have already announced. We will announce to Parliament the details of that programme, along with the electrification associated with it, in the new year. The hon. Lady can go on all she likes about proposing £17 billion of additional investment. Her party has no economic plan, no policies and no credibility.
Turning to the specifics of the hon. Lady’s response, the high-speed rail investment that we are proposing will be approximately £2 billion a year over a period of 16 years. That is roughly what we are spending now on Thameslink and Crossrail, so large infrastructure projects can be funded while the investment in the mainstream main line railway is funded as it is now.
The hon. Lady asked about our commitment to high speed rail as a means of addressing the north-south divide, and she reeled off a string of tried and failed mechanisms for addressing that persistent problem. We have decided to take a new approach to closing the gap between economic growth rates in the north and south, and the experience of other countries suggests that investment in strategic infrastructure is the best way to deliver that outcome.
The hon. Lady asked whether the change of route and the exceptional hardship scheme will impact on the £750 million that has been set aside for HS 2 during this Parliament, and the answer to that is no. She also asked whether there would be an impact on other rail schemes’ budgets, and the answer is again no. The HS 2 budget is ring-fenced; other rail schemes are typically funded through Network Rail and through support to train operators.
The hon. Lady asked about the compensation scheme. I have indicated that we will seek to go further than has happened with previous such infrastructure schemes in the UK, because it is right and proper that individuals who suffer serious financial loss in the national interest should be compensated. She also asked whether we will be setting a precedent in that regard. She should be aware that developing European jurisprudence in the area of property rights and the need for Governments to compensate is pointing towards more generous compensation becoming the norm, and I suspect that that will be the case for future projects.
On construction costs, yes, we are of course anxious to get such costs down to something closer to European norms. The hon. Lady will know that Sir Roy McNulty is carrying out a review, one element of which relates to the cost of UK rail construction, and Infrastructure UK is also engaged in that issue. A report will be published in April. She asked whether the cost of the trains is included in the total figure, and I can confirm that it is.
The hon. Lady also asked about the assumption with regard to ticketing and to the prices of tickets. I can tell her that the business case modelling assumes the same ticket pricing structures as those that are now in place on the west coast main line. In practice, however, the west coast main line and High Speed 2 will be in competition with each other. The operator of High Speed 2 will have a very large number of seats to fill, and we anticipate that the processes of competition in the marketplace will create opportunities for passengers who are prepared to buy advance tickets and to shop on the internet to get bargains for travel between London, the midlands and the north.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the strength of our commitment to going beyond Birmingham. With respect, when her party was in government, its position was always focused on a line from London to Birmingham. It was us who took the debate beyond Birmingham and made the case for Manchester and Leeds. Indeed, the business case for this railway, for the connection to Heathrow airport and for the connection to HS 1 depends on a railway that forms a complete network linking Britain’s four principal population centres, so I can assure her of that commitment.
I put it to the hon. Lady, however, that if we had sought to carry out the detailed work required for a hybrid Bill that covered the entire route, including the legs to Manchester and Leeds, it is unlikely that we would have been able to introduce such a Bill until the end of this Parliament. Our decision was therefore to introduce a hybrid Bill to deal with the London to Birmingham section—which is already a massive undertaking—in 2013, and that, while that Bill is going through Parliament, we should continue our detailed work on the legs to Manchester and Leeds, so that they can be included in a further hybrid Bill in the next Parliament.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State kindly visited my constituency to investigate the impact of the route there. He will recall that he himself noted how high it would be. There would be large gantries and viaducts crossing motorways. At the time, he said that he would ask HS2 Ltd whether it could do anything to mitigate the impact. He did not mention North Warwickshire in his statement; is he able to give people in the area any good news?
Mr Hammond
I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the point at which the railway will cross the M6 at Coleshill. At my request, HS 2 looked into whether it was possible to build under the motorway, but I am afraid that that is not technically possible. HS 2 has managed to reduce the height of the proposed flyover by a modest amount, but I am afraid that it will still be quite high at Coleshill.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced will involve the demolition of 350 flats in my constituency, the building over of a well-loved park, and the abandonment of a proposal to rebuild a girls’ Catholic secondary school on the part of the site that has been taken over? While people in Primrose Hill may welcome the minor changes that he has announced, they will feel a little surrounded if there is to be a further tunnel on the other side of Primrose Hill, emerging at Chalk Farm, because they will have a tunnel on both sides. Does the Secretary of State accept that HS2 Ltd really ought to go back to the drawing board? The idea that the connection of a significant network will be dependent on a spur connecting HS 2 with HS 1 is preposterous, and the company really ought to start again.
Mr Hammond
Before the right hon. Gentleman describes the proposal as preposterous, he should look at what has been published and consider it carefully. It is a carefully worked-out engineering solution that provides a value-for-money answer for people who believe that it is essential for trains to run directly from the midlands and the north of England, through the channel tunnel, and onwards to the European high-speed network.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on his constituency, which arises largely from the planned expansion of Euston station. Yes, there will be a number of property demolitions and replacements. It is planned to replace the properties that I have seen alongside the railway in his constituency with new properties. Some of the existing properties date from the 1920s and 1930s, and could do with being replaced. As he said, part of a small park will also be required.
The detailed design for the replacement Euston station has not yet been completed, but it is possible that it will be largely below ground level. At present, a large piece of the structure effectively creates a barrier down the middle of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, separating east from west. Camden council is keen for that barrier to go, and for a natural pattern of streets to be opened up at the back of Euston station. I hope that we shall be able to facilitate that through this project, and to bring a positive benefit to the people of Camden.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is well aware that my constituency has been severely blighted by the proposed route of the high speed railway, and he has received about 500 letters from me explaining quite how devastating that is for my constituents, so I shall not dwell on that now. Let me ask him, however, whether this is really the best value for money and the best solution to the undoubted need for new transport infrastructure. In particular, is the demand for seats really going to grow by 3% every year, as has been forecast to make the economic case? Is it really true that people do nothing when they are sitting on a train, and that that is dead time? There is also a lack of connectivity: there is nothing in it for anyone who is under the track.
Let me say finally—as you are looking at me crossly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that there is a risk that other trains will be axed later to make way for HS 2 trains on the platforms. I should be grateful for the Secretary of State’s comments on that.
Mr Hammond
I can reassure my hon. Friend on the last point. Other trains will not be axed to make way for HS 2 trains. This will be a dedicated high-speed passenger line, and it will not affect other railways.
My hon. Friend asked about the impact on South Northamptonshire. Obviously I am well aware of her concerns: I spend most Sunday afternoons signing letters to her and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). We have gone to great lengths to try to minimise the impacts on my hon. Friend’s constituents and the communities she serves. If she looks at the maps and plans we have published today, she will see that we have been able to achieve a reduction in the impact, and I hope that, during the course of the consultation, I will be able to engage with local communities about the mitigation measures that will be put in place, including extensive planting, bunding and sound barriers to reduce that impact further. On the question about growth in passenger numbers, the model the Office of Rail Regulation uses is based on demand for travel growing broadly in line with the economy and all the evidence suggests that that is the case. Those growth forecasts are robust and we expect them to be achieved.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
High Speed 2 is about vital economic development, as well as about providing essential additional capacity for passengers and freight, but when will the Secretary of State explain how this essential economic development will take place, and will he guarantee that the line will run past Birmingham so as to bring benefits to the north, as well as between London and Birmingham?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady is, I think, repeating the suspicion—I can only describe it as that—of the Opposition spokesman, who expressed some concern that we might not be going to continue beyond Birmingham. Our firm intention is to go to Leeds and Manchester. Indeed, the business case will be based on the completion of the Y network to Manchester and Birmingham, but I would not like anyone to be—
Mr Hammond
Yes, and Leeds. However, I would not like anyone to be under the illusion that benefits for people living north of Birmingham will begin to accrue only when the second phase is built. The point of reconnecting the first phase of the line to the west coast main line is that people travelling to Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland will enjoy journey-time savings from the point at which the first phase to Birmingham is opened. That is because the trains we will operate on this proposed railway will run straight off the high-speed line and on to the classic line, dropping the speed down to the line speed of the classic line, but allowing passengers to enjoy the benefit of the journey-time saving between London and Birmingham.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I hope it is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, briefly to congratulate you on your brave announcement yesterday, and to welcome you to the club.
Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had an opportunity to study the experiences of countries such as France, Germany and Spain and the lessons they learned in the construction of their high speed lines? I am thinking in particular about their very effective schemes to minimise noise pollution. Also, please can we ensure that our new railway infrastructure is not a series of new ugly concrete constructions, but instead that we have structures of which we can proud, as we have had in the past with, for example, the Forth bridge and Brunel’s tunnels and viaducts?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Yes, we have looked very closely at what has happened in France and at what is happening in Spain, and we have drawn on the experience of those countries in modelling the business case and addressing the approach to mitigation. My hon. Friend’s question reminds me to make a rather important point. We will not be committing to orders for trains for this railway until almost 2020, so there is another 10 years’ worth of train design development before the commitment has to be made.
Mr Hammond
Well, they were your aircraft carriers, and I am not going to let the right hon. Gentleman anywhere near designing our trains; that is for sure.
The Eurostar trains that run on HS 1 were designed nearly 20 years ago and have concentrated power cars at front and rear. There will therefore be about 30 years of evolution in train design in respect of reducing noise and increasing fuel efficiency between the design of the Eurostar trains and the design of the trains that will run on these lines.
I also say to my hon. Friend that where we can hide this line, we will hide it. Where we cannot hide it, we will ensure that it is architecturally designed and that it is something that people are pleased to look at, not a British Rail engineering-style eyesore.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Given the massive cuts to regional and local transport systems that have already been announced and the fact that the capacity problem could be dealt with by investment in the existing west coast main line, why are the Government wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on this scheme?
Mr Hammond
Because the capacity problem could not be dealt with by further investment in the west coast main line. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that it could, but if he looks at the engineering reports that have been published, he will see that, in practice, it could not. We are going ahead with additional rail cars and additional train sets on the west coast main line, and the Network Rail route utilisation study published two weeks ago shows that by 2024 the line will be operating at capacity between London and Manchester, and London and Birmingham. It is not possible, because of the design of the infrastructure—we are not just talking about platform lengths—to put longer trains on a railway that is designed in the way that the west coast main line was designed. If he recalls the chaos that lasted for years when the west coast main line was upgraded a couple of years ago and if, on the back of that, he is seriously proposing that we should add two additional tracks to its entire length while resignalling the whole thing, he needs to think again.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the foresight to add a connection from High Speed 2 to High Speed 1. Can he tell me what the capacity will be for this link and so give this House an indication of the proportion of services from Birmingham that will be able to be through services to the continent?
Mr Hammond
The determining factor, of course, will be commercial considerations: how much passenger load there is and where interchanges might be made in the system between Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Old Oak Common and the route through the channel tunnel. However, the proposed single bore tunnel will have capacity for four trains per hour in each direction.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) will bring little comfort to people in Warwickshire or those living on the outskirts of Coventry. I wish to ask the Secretary of State specifically about the increase in the frequency of service between Coventry and London that he mentioned in his statement. Does he understand that what will anger a lot of people is the blighting, which can go on for many years? What sort of compensation scheme will he offer? Normally, such schemes are based on market values, but the market value of some of the properties involved is set to drop drastically. Can he answer that one?
Mr Hammond
The consultation will set out the proposals for compensation. Of course compensation arrangements have to be based on market value, but they should be based on the unblighted market value of the property in question. On the frequency of services from Coventry to London, one of the points that I have tried, on several occasions, to make to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members is that the west coast main line will change radically in nature once this railway is built. It will no longer be primarily about long-distance trains from Scotland, Preston, Manchester and Liverpool; it will be about long-distance commuter services. Places such as Milton Keynes and Coventry will be well within commuting range of London with fast commuter services. I say to him that if he looks around the south-east, he will find that one of the great drivers of prosperity is the ability of people to get into London quickly and reliably on frequent services. The ability to extend that to stations on the west coast main line will greatly benefit the population of those areas.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and the speed with which he has brought forward these proposals. He is particularly right to reject some of the criticisms of the Opposition, because I recall that their conversion came only with Lord Adonis and that proposals for anything beyond Birmingham were tacked on only in March this year. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Transport for London? Beyond Old Oak Common, what dispersal measures will be needed in London?
Mr Philip Hammond
By the time the HS2 railway is built, the improvements and upgrades to the Northern line—for which we confirmed our investment funding in the recent spending review statement—will be completed. Dispersal will take place, it is estimated, with about one third at Old Oak Common, with passengers dispersing principally on to Crossrail, and about two thirds at Euston, with the upgraded Northern line. I have also asked HS2 to consider remodelling the station at Euston, so that Euston Square station can be incorporated into the main Euston station, giving access to additional underground lines.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
These things are never easy, and the Secretary of State has said that he has done a lot of listening. When he sets up the roadshows for the new proposals, will he personally attend them to hear what citizens have to say about his new plans?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure that that will be practical, in view of the number and frequency of the roadshow events. I can absolutely assure him that I will attend at least one—probably more than one—but I certainly cannot promise to attend all of them. Perhaps I might elaborate on this point. We intend to hold specific, locally focused roadshows at multiple points along the line of the London to Birmingham part of the route, where the exact route alignment has been defined. We envisage that those discussions will mainly be about local impacts. We also intend to hold a series of more broadly based meetings across the UK to discuss the broader principles of high speed rail and some of the more strategic issues about the route choices.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, which I believe will help address the north-south divide. Has he made a detailed estimate that is available to Members of the huge economic benefits of this scheme to the north of England?
Mr Hammond
A full business case showing the economic benefits of the proposed railway will now be updated on the basis of the route that I have set out today. That will be published at the commencement of the consultation in February.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am suspicious, even though I do not want to be. I want to give the Secretary of State complete support, but 90% of investment in railways already goes into the south-east. As he said, £2 billion a year goes into Crossrail and £2 billion a year into Thameslink. Now he is suggesting that another £2 billion a year should go into the Birmingham-London link. It would partially remedy the north-south divide if the work was started in the north and moved to the south. If he cannot do that and really wants the support of northern MPs, the hybrid Bill should cover the lines to the north, too. Will he consider that?
Mr Hammond
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s suspicion. It is in the blood, I suspect. I also understand his point, and it would help to allay these concerns if, in some way, we could include in the first hybrid Bill specific commitments to Manchester and Leeds. We cannot include detailed route alignments and land acquisition because that would make the Bill vast and it would probably be in Committee for about five years. I take on board his points, and also any suggestions he might have about how we might do that practically, which is something that I have also discussed with my predecessor. Everyone who wishes this project well understands the need to give strong reassurance to those communities around Manchester, Leeds, South Yorkshire and the east midlands that stand to benefit from the second phase.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
May I, too, offer my best wishes and support to you, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Having travelled down this morning on a very packed train from Leeds, may I say how much I welcome this statement? I am looking forward to seeing HS 2 come to Leeds. Given that trains going in and out of the station in Leeds are expected to see a 40% increase in the number of passengers, what extra capacity does the Secretary of State think that HS 2 will bring to the long-suffering passengers in Leeds and the north of England?
Mr Hammond
The route will more than triple the potential capacity available to passengers. I suspect that the very packed train that my hon. Friend experienced this morning might have been due to some specific problems on the east coast main line caused by overhead cable difficulties. I welcome his support. This will be a major deliverer of economic regeneration to Leeds and, in the next economic cycle, I hope that Leeds can resume the dash for growth and regeneration that it has so clearly pursued over the past few years.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the strength of support among the Scottish business community and the Glasgow and Edinburgh economic partnership for the principle of extending high speed rail to Scotland. When does he expect to open detailed discussions with the Scottish Government about the financing of high speed track in Scotland, should the Scottish Government decide to accommodate that? Can he give us an indicative timeline, if those discussions prove successful, for when we might expect to see high speed track in Scotland?
Mr Hammond
It is important for the hon. Gentleman to note that the benefit is incremental. Once we have high speed to Birmingham, that will shorten journeys to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and once we have high speed to north of Manchester, that will shorten them still further. We are committed to discussions with the Scottish Government, but that would be a third phase to the project—we have to get to Manchester and Leeds first. The appropriate time to start discussing that third phase will be when we start the detailed design work on the second phase.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Can we support High Speed 2 as a movement toward sustainability and welcome the Government’s communication with people? I refer particularly to the extension to HS 1, which allows the modal shift from airlines to railway usage. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting the way in which the A45 is to be moved to within Birmingham international airport so that the runway extension is in place for when High Speed 2 comes through?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman has thrown a slightly separate question at me there, but I can confirm that I have had discussions with Birmingham airport, and indeed the NEC, and they are strong supporters of the project. Like many others, they see it as opening up huge opportunities for them.
Birmingham airport will be about 30 to 35 minutes’ travel from London Heathrow on the high speed rail link. That is less time than it currently takes, with a fair wind, to get from terminal 4 to terminal 5 at Heathrow. The opportunities are quite significant.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Returning to Birmingham, but this time to the spur that goes into Birmingham, I was intrigued by the Secretary of State’s announcement on compensation and enhanced compensation schemes. Do they apply only to the main line or also to the spur into the centre of Birmingham? As well as applying to private individuals, do they apply to institutions such as universities with halls of residence that are somewhat inconveniently located on some of the routes?
Mr Hammond
The exceptional hardship scheme, which is the scheme in place to deal with people who have an urgent and pressing need to move and cannot do so because of the effects of uncertainty around the proposals, applies to the complete alignment of the route into Birmingham. It applies to residential properties, but not to commercially owned properties. It is unfortunate that the halls of residence to which the hon. Lady refers—a virtually new building—sit across the route of the railway. If the railway goes ahead, that commercially owned property, or at least part of it, will have to be demolished and full compensation will be paid. I expect that it will be rebuilt in full with the proceeds of that compensation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call John McDonnell—I am sorry, I mean Jeremy Lefroy.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He said that after the first stage of the project is complete, trains will run on the existing west coast main line northwards. Given the limit on the number of train paths on that line even now, what effect will that have on existing services and timetables?
Mr Hammond
The major constraints on capacity are south of Manchester, particularly on the Birmingham to London stretch, but clearly there will still be constraints on capacity as there is not infinite capacity available. We expect a significant proportion of train paths in the early days will be on the London to Birmingham and London to Manchester routes with a smaller number going on northwards, reflecting current patterns of passenger demand.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I say to the Secretary of State that I am just grateful we are getting a train set for Christmas and not a third runway at Heathrow. He has referred to the Heathrow link, the Mawhinney review and the Arup proposals for a transport hub near Iver and has concluded that there should be a spur to the airport running close to the M25. Does that mean that the Iver hub will or will not take place?
Mr Hammond
We do not favour the proposal for the Iver hub as a way of delivering high speed rail passengers into Heathrow. It is worth noting that the proposals that Arup worked up on its own account—it was not commissioned to do so—around the hub at Iver were originally intended as a proposal for getting traffic from the Great Western main line into Heathrow. HS 2 came along as a bit of an add-on to that proposal, and Arup may still wish to pursue it as a proposal that is of interest for that purpose, but it is not our preferred route for getting high speed rail passengers into Heathrow.
Severe Winter Weather
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the continuing severe winter weather. We are facing exceptional conditions. It looks set to be the coldest December since 1910 with average temperatures 4°C to 5°C below the norm for December. Many areas have had record low temperatures, and snowfall has been the most widespread since 1981. The forecast is for continued severe cold and further snowfall through the coming week and over Christmas and the new year.
Transport services have suffered extensive disruption in the past few days, and there is a likelihood, I am afraid, of further disruption through this week. I recognise that this is particularly stressful just a few days ahead of the Christmas break, and I understand the frustration of those who are trying to get away or, indeed, trying to get home.
Transport services were also disrupted in the first spell of winter weather that came unusually early, at the end of November. That period tested the systems which, in some case, had performed so very poorly earlier this year. The then Government asked David Quarmby, chairman of the RAC Foundation and a former chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to conduct a review of last winter’s resilience. His initial report was issued in July and a final report was published in October. It made 28 recommendations, some of them directed at central Government, some at local government, and some at transport operators. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, although some will necessarily take longer.
On 2 December I asked David Quarmby, in the light of the weather conditions that we were then experiencing, to conduct an audit of the implementation of his recommendations and to make any further observations that he felt necessary. This is an independent report and I understand that David Quarmby intends to publish it tomorrow.
One of the principal recommendations of the first Quarmby report concerned salt—levels of stocks that local authorities should hold, dosage rates for optimum use of stocks and the acquisition of a strategic stockpile by central Government. Local authorities went into this period with significantly better salt stocks than last winter and the Highways Agency, on the Government’s behalf, had purchased 300,000 tonnes of salt to form a strategic stockpile, of which over 150,000 tonnes is already at UK ports, with the remainder scheduled for delivery through December and early January.
Over the past few days, highway authorities across England have been focused on delivering their planned salting and snow clearance to keep their local strategic road networks open. Together they had ready some 1.25 million tonnes of salt at the start of the winter. As hon. Members would expect, salt usage has been significantly above the norm for the time of year and so my Department decided two weeks ago to procure, as a precautionary measure, up to an additional 250,000 tonnes of salt, to replenish the strategic stockpile as salt from it is released to local authorities. Last Friday the Department for Transport offered 30,000 tonnes from the strategic stockpile to local authorities to provide reassurance over the holiday period. That allocation has been taken up and will be delivered over the next few days.
The strategic road network inevitably suffered severe disruption in the wake of heavy snowfall this weekend, but recovered reasonably rapidly and, with isolated exceptions, has operated effectively since Saturday afternoon. Similarly, heavy snow and the formation of ice at very low temperatures caused some disruption on rail networks on Friday and Saturday, but the rail industry has pulled together to keep essential services running, using special timetables where necessary, and I am pleased to report that commuter services into main conurbations this morning are close to normal. Transport for London has successfully followed its winter weather plans and has been able to run a near-normal service across its network. However, issues with Eurostar are ongoing and have been well reported today, including the impacts of very severe weather in northern France.
Disruption due to weather conditions of this extremity is inevitable, and the measure of resilience is the networks’ speed of recovery from such events. On that measure, the strategic road network and the rail network have performed broadly satisfactorily, in view of the exceptional circumstances. The experience at airports, and at Heathrow in particular, has however been different. Conditions have been difficult throughout north-west Europe, with Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol airports all struggling to cope at times. This afternoon, just before I came into the Chamber, it was being reported that Brussels airport will close until Wednesday because it has run out of de-icer. But, yesterday’s whole-day virtual closure at Heathrow, coupled with continued substantially reduced capacity, presents a very real challenge from which the system will struggle to recover quickly.
I spoke this morning to BAA, the airport operator, and to British Airways, its principal user. I am clear that BA made the right call on Saturday to cancel its flights in anticipation of the airport’s closure. Had it not done so, the scenes of the terminals on Saturday night that we witnessed on our TV screens could have been much worse.
Heathrow operates, at normal times, at some 98% of full capacity, so when there is disruption caused by snow or by the need repeatedly to close runways or taxiways for de-icing, capacity is inevitably lost and a backlog builds up. There is still a large amount of work to be done to restore Heathrow to full capacity, and further snow and severe icing is anticipated over the next few days.
The immediate focus at Heathrow must therefore be on maximising the number of flights with the available infrastructure, and in order to do that I agreed with BAA this morning to a relaxation of restrictions on night flights for the next four days. Operating hours will be extended until 1 am, and arrivals for repatriation flights will be allowed through the night. None the less, BAA advises that, with further severe weather forecast, Heathrow is likely to be operating at reduced capacity until Christmas.
Conditions in the terminals overnight on Saturday were very difficult, with some 2,000 passengers stranded. Once the airport has returned to normal operation, my officials will work with BAA to understand how that situation arose and what it plans to change to ensure that we do not experience a repeat. It is clear from my discussions this morning that some preliminary conclusions have already been drawn.
We recognise that the cost, both economic and social, of this level of disruption can be great. Winters such as this year’s and last have been rare in modern Britain, but we need to consider whether we are now seeing in our weather a step change that might justify investment in equipment and technologies to reduce the impact of severe weather. I will assess advice on that subject from the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, and we will work with transport operators to examine the business case in each sector for increased investment in winter resilience where that makes sense—recognising always that spending more on winter preparedness inevitably means that there will be less to spend on other priorities.
This is not just about making sure that people can travel and goods can be delivered. Disrupted transport links, combined with cold weather, increasingly impact on other essential services. In particular, they threaten the vulnerable in our communities. To help those most in need to stay warm in the coldest parts of the country, the Government have so far this winter paid out some £355 million in cold weather payments, through an estimated 14.2 million payments to affected households. In addition. winter fuel payments for pensioners have been protected at the higher rate for this winter, with 12.9 million payments made to those older people who meet the qualifying conditions. We have also taken precautionary steps to ensure that the health services are well prepared, with local plans in place to deal with the extra demands that this type of weather brings.
Despite those steps, weather of this severity can cause unexpected problems for many people, including those who would not normally consider themselves vulnerable, but who might be in serious difficulty if, for example, their boiler breaks down or they cannot get to the local chemist to collect their medication. With support from the Government, the Local Government Association will therefore work closely with local authorities in England to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place across the country. Individual local authorities will publicise information locally on how to access those advice services ahead of the Christmas holiday period.
Severe weather poses significant challenges to the energy supply industry. Difficult driving conditions have affected fuel oil and coal suppliers’ ability to make deliveries, particularly to more remote areas away from the strategic road network. That has resulted in delivery backlogs, which suppliers have been working hard to reduce in difficult circumstances. Distributors are doing all they can to prioritise deliveries to vulnerable customers and to people who are running short of fuel. Working with the Government, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers has issued a code of practice to its members to help them prioritise orders to those most in need and to alert local authorities when they are aware of a risk of potentially vulnerable households running short of heating oil.
The severe weather has also led to a very high forecast of demand for gas, which is expected to be more than 26% above the normal for this time of year. As a result, the National Grid issued a gas-balancing alert yesterday to provide a signal to the market to bring on additional supplies and to reduce demand from large users on interruptible contracts. There is no reason to expect any disruption to domestic customers, or to commercial customers unless they have interruptible contracts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has today issued a written statement that provides more information on that issue.
Nationally, we will continue to do whatever is necessary to support essential services and provide advice to businesses and householders on steps they can take to help themselves and others. So, for example, we have published a snow code to give common-sense advice to householders and businesses to help them clear snow and ice safely from pavements and public spaces without fear of legal action. As an emergency measure, we have relaxed the enforcement of EU drivers’ hours and working-time rules to mitigate the effect of the severe weather on critical parts of the supply chain that have been badly hit by the weather. We published guidance for local highway authorities on the range of actions that can be taken to ensure optimum use of salt stocks, and over the next few days we will publish updated technical advice based on the latest research findings, so that all authorities can adopt best practice. We have also confirmed to farmers that they can use red diesel in tractors and other equipment to help salt and clear snow from public roads during extreme weather.
We are not yet through this period of extreme weather. My priority at the moment remains working with the transport industries to allow us to return to normal as fast as the continued freezing temperatures this week permit. I will also be working with ministerial colleagues and officials from other Departments, with whom I have been in contact daily since Friday, to continue monitoring the situation, assessing the risk of further disruption and taking whatever action is needed. Those arrangements will continue for as long as necessary through the holiday period. I can assure the House that wherever Government action can help to ease the impact of severe weather or mitigate its effects, we will not hesitate to take such action. I commend this statement to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for updating the House. After a weekend of chaos across the country, during which there have been severe transport problems on our roads, railways and runways, families struggling to get together for Christmas are furious that they have spent hours stuck in their cars at stations or airport terminals. What has really frustrated people has been the total lack of information available. They understand that things will go wrong when we experience such severe weather and no one—not even me—is suggesting that the Government can, or ought to be able to, control the weather. However, the Government should be able to control how prepared we are for that weather, and they can co-ordinate information so that those travelling can make and alter their plans accordingly.
Right from the first hit of severe weather at the start of this month, the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have seemed woefully ill-prepared for winter, despite the fact that the report on winter resilience that we ordered in government has been sitting on his desk since July. The 17 recommendations in the interim report and the 11 recommendations in the final report have clearly not been put into action with the urgency that they demanded. At the last Transport questions, he said that those recommendations had been implemented, yet in his statement he said that some of them will necessarily take longer. Well, which is it?
The reality is that Transport Ministers were caught off guard by the arrival of winter early this year, and failed to keep the country moving at a time when so many people need to travel to be with their family and friends. I am afraid that some of the right hon. Gentleman’s words today still sound complacent. Why was only 100,000 tonnes of salt for the roads in place at the start of the month, when the report said that 250,000 tonnes was needed? Can he confirm which local authorities currently have salt stocks below the new benchmark of 12 days’ worth of salt? What conversations has he had about services to deal with the abandoned cars and jack-knifed vehicles that have caused much of the delay? What steps has he considered to manage traffic flows better—for example, by not letting people join a motorway such as the M5 when it is already blocked, so that they will end up sitting in their cars not going anywhere? He said in his statement that the strategic routes have operated effectively since Saturday afternoon or evening: tell that to the people who were stuck for 13 and a half hours on the M40 trying to travel towards London.
On our railways, why does the update report that the Secretary of State has received in the past few days contradict the claim that the rail industry has sufficient equipment? Why are essential measures such as anti-icing capability on trains and new hot fluid distribution on to tracks not going to be in place until February, according to the most recent update—a little bit too late?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the most frustrating thing for passengers is lack of information? Why is it, therefore, that the new unified national real-time passenger transport information system to allow passengers to find out where their trains actually are, not what the timetable says, will not be in place until 2014? He said that the railways had kept essential services running and that commuter services were running well and close to normal, but people were stuck at Peterborough and King’s Cross last night with very little information about when the east coast main line was going to get back to normal.
The chaos that we have seen at our major airports is not only unacceptable but risks damaging our international reputation. It is just not good enough to pass this off as a private sector problem, as the Secretary of State did earlier. Passengers stuck at Heathrow and Gatwick for days on end have every right to feel abandoned by this Government. Other countries have kept planes flying and airports open, yet here passengers have been left on planes for hours on end without food and drink, and others have been forced to sleep on terminal floors with no blankets and poor information. The winter resilience report found that those in the aviation sector
“anticipate and manage the effects of severe winter weather to a very high standard of resilience”.
That is surprising given what we have seen in the past few days. Will he examine whether there has been any complacency among those at our airports? He referred to some preliminary conclusions following his conversations today, but he has not told us what they are. It might be useful to know.
Is it not the case that the chaos that we have seen has as much to do with this Government’s values as their competence? The Prime Minister’s close ally, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), gave the game away this weekend when he said:
“I mean, bluntly, there comes a question in life…Do you believe planning works…or do you believe it can’t work? I believe it can’t work, David Cameron believes it can’t, Nick Clegg believes it can’t. Chaos therefore in our vocabulary is a good thing.”
The right hon. Gentleman has obviously volunteered his Department to pilot this new approach to government and become the official Department for Chaos. He is doing quite well, actually. No wonder he has been dubbed the “No Transport Secretary” this morning.
People want competence from Ministers. They want good-quality information when disruption happens. They want co-ordination of recovery and mitigation across the entire system. They want help when they need it; they do not want to be left to fend for themselves as though there were no such thing as society. Will the right hon. Gentleman now learn the lessons of the past month and finally get a grip on the transport chaos that threatens to see Christmas cancelled for families up and down the country?
Mr Philip Hammond
After a heavy dump of snow, we have had a heavy dump of political opportunism from the hon. Lady. She talks of chaos, but does she remember the chaos last year when the Government of whom she was a member ran out of salt and had to stop gritting the roads because they had not bought enough of the stuff? They had not prepared at all. I will take no lectures from her on preparedness. Local authorities, the Highways Agency, rail operators and Network Rail have all entered this winter better prepared than they were last winter.
The hon. Lady talked about Quarmby’s interim report and final report, and the implementation of his recommendations. Of course action on some of the recommendations has not been completed yet—it requires capital investment and the procurement of new equipment, such as de-icing equipment for trains in the south-east. The first of that equipment has been delivered and fitted, and is undergoing proving trials. As soon as the proving is complete, the remaining 20 units will be rolled out. She cannot sit here with no plan, no suggestion and nothing constructive to offer, simply lobbing rocks from the sidelines, and expect to be treated seriously. As for our delivery on Quarmby’s recommendations, I suggest that she wait to see his report on the audit that he has carried out. He is their man, he was appointed by their Government, and he is now auditing our response to his recommendations. She should wait and see what he has to say before making such ridiculous points.
We were not caught off guard by the onset of winter, but we were caught off guard by the severity of the weather, as was everybody in this country. The hon. Lady asked about the recommendation that a strategic stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of salt be built. The Highways Agency has purchased 300,000 tonnes of salt, 156,000 tonnes of which has been delivered. The remainder is scheduled to be delivered over the next three weeks. If one is building a strategic stockpile, there is no need to replenish local authority stocks throughout the length of the winter, nor for every last ounce of it to be sitting in place on 30 November.
The hon. Lady asked how many local authorities are below the 12 days’ resilience level recommended by Quarmby. That threshold was recommended for the beginning of winter. Of course, many local authorities that were operating at or close to the threshold are now considerably below the 12 days’ resilience level, although some local authorities have much more substantial stocks. If they wish, local authorities will be resupplied from the strategic reserve that we have built. In turn, the strategic reserve will be replenished from the salt that we are currently sourcing from locations across the world, including south America, the middle east, India and Australia.
The hon. Lady asked about vehicles joining motorways. The police have powers to prevent vehicles from entering a motorway, if they deem it appropriate to do so.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the situation at the airports, and I am happy to agree that what has happened at Heathrow airport is not acceptable. We have to work with the airport operators and the airlines to work out how to avoid such situations. I can give her further clarification on the early conclusions that have been shared with me by the airport operator. It recognises that it was a mistake to continue trying to operate the schedules that it was using on Saturday, and that it should have made a decision earlier to cut severely the number of flights departing and arriving, so that the airport would not be congested with aircraft when the snow came in. That is the kind of practical lesson learning that must be done. We will work with the airport operators to ensure that next time such lessons are learned and implemented.
Finally, the hon. Lady had the audacity to ask why the rail equipment that Quarmby recommended in his October report is not in place and operating. The answer is clear: Labour did not order it when it was in government. We have ordered it, but it does not appear by magic, simply by snapping your fingers; these things have a lead time and must be done properly. The equipment will be in place by the end of the winter, and it will make our railways operate more effectively.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Northumberland has had very heavy snowfall over a very long period, so I welcome the efforts being made to get domestic oil deliveries to remote homes, where people are getting really desperate. May I ask the Secretary of State to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government? Local authorities such as Northumberland are having to spend heavily from their reserves to keep roads open, at just the time when that Department is saying that using reserves is the way to fund redundancies.
Mr Hammond
My understanding, which the Local Government Association confirms, is that all local authorities are saying that they are adequately funded to deal with the contingencies of the severe weather, and that funding constraint will not be a problem in responding to the situation this winter.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
In this exceptional weather, can the Secretary of State assure us that he has adequate means of becoming aware of the emerging problems as well as the current ones? Will he explain the powers and influence that he is ready to use to alleviate the situation, whether by providing additional resources, improving co-ordination or ensuring a better flow of information?
Mr Hammond
We are operating a cross-departmental ministerial team approach, because we need to consider matters such as health, the protection of vulnerable people and energy supplies. There is also a huge role for local government in responding to a situation such as the current one. We are receiving four-hourly update reports on the situation, including Met Office forward forecasts, and over the past few days we have been convening daily to consider the current situation, the expectations for the next 24 hours and the actions that are needed. As I said in my statement, when there is something that the Government can do, bearing in mind that we do not own or operate many of the transport networks—such as relaxing the ban on night flying at Heathrow or the restrictions on drivers’ hours—we will do it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I spent eight hours at Heathrow terminal 3 on Saturday, and there was no information whatever about what was happening to flights. On the other hand, people who were due to fly with British Airways from terminal 5 had advance notice and did not travel to the airport. The question must be: why did operators such as Virgin Atlantic not cancel their programmes? Will the Government look into that?
Mr Hammond
We will, and my hon. Friend’s question has to be addressed to the operators. British Airways made the call on Saturday morning to cancel all flights, because it considered it certain that the airport would have to close. I have spoken to Willie Walsh today, and he has told me that based on the forecast he saw on Saturday morning, any airport anywhere in Europe, bar none, would have had to close. BA therefore made the decision to pull all its flights.
The lesson that is emerging for BAA, which it will take away from the situation, is that it has to be more proactive in examining forward forecasts, and that when airlines do not make a decision to stop flights, the operator might have to make that decision for them, to avoid large numbers of people being stranded in terminals.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in thanking many of my constituents and their colleagues who work at Heathrow for trying to get the airport open and fully operational again in the most difficult circumstances.
I join the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in saying that the lesson to be learned from the last occasion when such a problem occurred, although not on the same scale, was about information. We thought that lesson had been learned. BAA and the individual airlines must be required not only to take decisions soon enough, but to communicate them proactively and directly to customers travelling with them.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to record my thanks, and the thanks of the Government, to the hundreds of workers who have been out, often in temperatures of minus 10°C or minus 11° C, clearing snow and de-icing through the night, as well as caring for passengers stranded in terminals. They have done a fantastic job, and I am afraid they will have to go on doing that fantastic job for the next few days.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to focus on information. Nobody likes to have their travel plans disrupted, but one of the interesting features of human psychology is that somehow, things are never quite as bad if people know what is going on. As he will know, we have committed to introducing an airport economic regulation Bill during this Parliament. One thing that we are committed to doing in that Bill is ensuring that airport operators’ financial incentives are clearly aligned with the needs and interests of passengers. I will ensure that supplying information is part of that matrix, so that the operators will do it because it is in their financial interests. That certainly seems to be a motivating factor.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that a delegation of Kent MPs recently met the management of Southeastern Trains to discuss the chaos and deep passenger dissatisfaction caused by the bad weather a few weeks ago. The latest conditions have yet again led to much disruption to services for Southeastern passengers. When the franchise is considered for extension in 2012 will he consider, among the other necessary factors, Southeastern’s poor service delivery during adverse weather?
Mr Hammond
Of course we examine the performance of train operators, and it is absolutely right that Southeastern’s performance was very poor during the bout of cold weather at the end of November. However, in the current weather conditions, the information that I have on Southeastern’s performance over the past 72 hours is far less clear-cut. The disruption has been no more than is to be expected in the extreme weather, and as I understand it, commuter services into London on Southeastern by and large operated normally this morning.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The public expect Ministers to be players, not just spectators. Snow happens, but it is the urgency of the response that matters. The Secretary of State said nothing about whether Cobra has been meeting, nothing about what the Government offices are doing to co-ordinate their response, and very little about what he has done with the various companies and airports. He has not said whether he has asked them why they do not have senior management down there dealing with the problems, why the train companies have not got information to people who have waited for hour after hour on trains and platforms, or why the police are not taking action to get people off the motorway. With the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change sitting next to him, he did not say why he has not done anything about the exploitation of fuel oil and bottled gas. Does he think that that is why he is rumoured to be one of the early victims of the new year reshuffle?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I say that we want very short questions? Obviously, it would be helpful—[Interruption.] Order, Mr Penning. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could also shorten his answers, although I understand that this is a very important subject.
Mr Hammond
I can shorten the answer to that question, Mr Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman offered nothing constructive, and people watching will see that he has nothing to offer except a meaningless rant. I told him in the statement that a cross-ministerial team is meeting regularly and that regional resilience teams are in operation.
What is the right hon. Gentleman talking about, saying that none of the senior management are at airports? Of course senior management, both of the operators and the airlines, are there managing the situation hands-on. He had better ask the police why they are not taking action, because they take the action that they believe is appropriate.
As for fuel, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has asked the Office of Fair Trading to look into—[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to think that we should introduce some kind of Moscow-style central control over everything. The fuel oil business in this country is operated through hundreds of small independent firms, and if price collusion or illegal activity is driving up the price to consumers, the OFT will report back to my right hon. Friend and he will take the appropriate action.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain why some operators stopped flying when runways had been cleared and were still open? Secondly, why did it take four hours to remove a tanker from the M1, the country’s main arterial road, on Saturday afternoon, resulting in massive delays for southbound traffic?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to a tanker accident on the M25 on Saturday afternoon.
Mr Hammond
There are problems in recovering tankers after accidents. I am aware of the accident on the M25, after which there was some possibility at first of having to pump the contents out of the tanker before it could be moved. In the end the fire brigade allowed it to be moved without the contents being removed, shortening the closure of the motorway by about three and a half hours.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was asking for was leadership. People are sleeping on airport floors, being turfed off trains, and frozen in their cars, and they are cold in their homes because they are not getting deliveries of domestic fuel. Where is the Prime Minister? He is the invisible “Cam”, but he should be taking the leadership position on this.
Mr Hammond
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that people who are sleeping on airport floors and who are having their travel plans disrupted are not helped by such ridiculous rants from him and his colleagues. Those people need a calm, measured and considered response to the problems, which is what the Government are giving. This is an extreme weather event, and this Government will do better than the previous Government did last year.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
In his statement, the Secretary of State touched upon the steps that are being taken to ensure that health services are well prepared throughout this cold snap, but he will also recall that last winter, a number of A and E departments were forced to close because of the severe weather, including ones close to my constituency. What discussions has he had with the Department of Health to ensure that the emergency services, and particularly the ambulance service, are given robust support to ensure that they can continue to give a full service throughout this difficult time?
Mr Hammond
I have been in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. As I understand it, this morning, there were no major problems across the NHS—all NHS services are operating reasonably well. Of course, there have been isolated problems of getting staff into hospitals. In some cases, including in my county, Surrey, local 4x4 owners have volunteered to drive staff to A and E departments. Such voluntary action will help to reinforce the resilience of the NHS. Ambulance services are coping well at the moment, but if there are difficulties, the military stands ready to provide support with 4x4 vehicles if it is needed.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The last time the Secretary of State gave a statement on the weather, I asked him about winter tyres. He told me that he did not think them appropriate for this climate and this country, and indeed that David Quarmby looked at the matter. Try as I may, I could find no reference to winter tyres in the Quarmby report. The only advice I found was from the Highways Agency, which says:
“The safest option in these conditions is to fit winter weather tyres which are specifically designed to provide extra grip and improved levels of safety”.
Will the Secretary of State please now reconsider his response?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clear something up—I clearly mangled my words in my reply to her. I was trying to convey that in the circumstances of the UK, and given the cost of fitting winter tyres, I do not believe it appropriate to mandate their use. However, I am happy to confirm on the record that for those who can afford winter tyres—not just the cost of buying them, but the costs of putting them on and changing them back at the end of the winter, and of storing summer tyres—they provide significant additional grip for motoring in such cold conditions.
Snow chains, however, are a different matter. It is illegal to use snow chains on roads that are not covered in compacted snow, because they cause considerable damage to the road surface.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the nation’s army of gritters who were out overnight—in Suffolk, that involved temperatures down to minus 12°C—to keep our roads open? Will he also answer a question that was put to me by several constituents? Can he continue his steadfast and solid leadership of the past few days, rather than responding to the histrionic opportunism displayed by the Labour party?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend makes an important point. People who are watching this debate on the BBC News channel in an airport terminal will not find the laughter and hilarity of Opposition Members, or the unconstructive rants from some but not all Opposition Back Benchers, at all edifying or helpful to their cause. I am happy to join him in commending the stalwart work of the people who man the fleets of gritters, who are out every night in all conditions doing their important work.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the ability of aircraft and train operators to advise people who have been delayed of their statutory rights in respect of compensation? In slower time, will he arrange to meet insurance companies to ensure that they respond positively to the demands of people who have missed trains and flights, and had holidays ruined, or who have had pipes burst or damage done to their homes?
Mr Hammond
The right hon. Gentleman raises some important points. I can tell him that the Treasury has been talking to the insurance companies to ensure that people have the appropriate information and that companies can respond to inquiries about the extent of their cover. Often, those people will be in a real-time situation—stranded in an airport, for example—and will want to know what costs they can and cannot incur in trying to complete their journey. That is important.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been developments in the past year or so in European jurisprudence with regard to compensation arrangements and the obligations on airlines to look after people who are stranded at airports. However, when the problem is caused by, for example, extreme weather conditions, compensation would not normally be payable as such.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Southern Railway about its performance during this bad weather? Do Southern Railway and Network Rail need to invest in snow-clearing equipment to ensure that services run more smoothly in future?
Mr Hammond
I can tell my hon. Friend that I had a conference call with Southern Railway management and Network Rail’s route director on Wednesday afternoon to talk about their preparations for this bout of cold weather. We also spoke about some of the medium-term plans—I hesitate to call them that, but I am talking about plans for beyond the end of this week. They are looking to install experimental heated rail sections as well as to invest in additional clearance equipment. Clearing snow and ice from the railway is primarily a Network Rail responsibility, but train operators are increasingly considering installing anti-icing equipment on their trains to supplement what Network Rail does.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
Will the Minister at least consider additional funding for local authorities? In my area, the local authority is struggling desperately to keep streets open and roads clear, but an additional problem that people tend to forget is pavements. Many of my constituents are fearful of leaving their homes in case they fall, so will he at least consider additional funding?
Mr Hammond
As I said a few moments ago, local authorities indicate—the Local Government Association confirms this—that they will not have difficulty this year in funding their winter activities. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the extent of gritting and salting that local authorities plan to carry out. Those resilience plans will have been put in place well ahead of the winter, and they should be well publicised locally. In some areas, the plans will not include the salting and gritting of footways. I believe that there is a role for civic society to play in that. Many people, if they can get their hands on a supply of salt and grit, would be prepared to shovel a bit on to the pavements around their homes and their neighbours’ homes. I commend local authorities that have taken action to make supplies of salt and grit available for such neighbourly action.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concerns that in stark contrast to the excellent work of many local authorities, developers responsible for unadopted roads all too often do not react quickly enough to adverse weather conditions?
Mr Hammond
I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that the maintenance of unadopted roads is entirely a matter for the owners of those roads. Typically, that will ultimately be a matter for the owners of properties that front on to those roads, who often finance such work through their service charges. Like the rest of us, but through a rather different mechanism, they must decide whether they want to pay more in service charges so that they have a greater level of winter resilience for their roads.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Despite some of the heaviest snowfalls for decades in Newcastle, we managed to keep most of the public transport system going for most of the time. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, many people found that they could not make it to the end of their streets because of ice and snow on the pavements. Given that, rather than simply commending councils that make grit available to local residents, is it not time for a requirement for people to have access to the grit that will enable them to get on with their lives?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady might revel in the thought of a centralised state where people in Whitehall press buttons and issue commands to local authorities, but we happen to take a different view of the world. Local authorities are responsible bodies answerable to their electors. They must make decisions about their priorities, and if they get it wrong, local residents know what to do about it.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This time last year, the ramp leading down to the parliamentary car park was covered in snow. It closed the car park. I offered to clear it myself, but was told that I was not qualified to do the job. I said, “Well, I’ve done it before”, but the answer came back, “Well, you can’t do it because of health and safety”. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the snow code he has introduced to ensure that we do not succumb to these ambulance-chasers? There are people in Britain who have that get-up-and-go attitude and who want to get out there and clean the streets, but who are worried about being sued under legislation and the direction of travel introduced by Labour, with health and safety getting such precedence. [Laughter.]
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members may laugh, but they will remember this being a serious problem last winter, with people being afraid to clear snow and ice outside their homes and afraid to act as good neighbours. One of Quarmby’s recommendations was that we publish a snow code, compliance with which would give people a high level of protection from civil action. We have done that, and I hope that people will respond by acting in that neighbourly fashion.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have failed to keep the emergency grit stocks at full capacity? Despite warnings of arctic blasts for weeks, grit stocks have been rationed, and emergency supplies are said to be 80,000 tonnes lower than they should be. If this is true, why has it happened and which Minister will be resigning?
Mr Hammond
I know that the hon. Gentleman is new and was not in the House last winter. He asked whether we are keeping emergency grit stocks at full capacity. There were no emergency grit stocks last winter. In fact, there were no grit stocks at all last winter. Local authorities and the Highways Agency have bought grit for their own use, and this year, for the first time ever, we have a strategic stockpile of salt—more than 300,000 tonnes of salt have been ordered for that stockpile, 156,000 tonnes of which have been delivered, and the remainder of which will be delivered between now and the middle of January. A further 250,000 tonnes have been sourced, and we are currently arranging transport to get it to the UK. I do not suppose that he has the faintest notion of the logistics involved in trying to uplift 250,000 tonnes of salt from around the world at short notice and to ship it to the UK in specialist vessels, so perhaps, before asking such a silly question again, he will think about what is involved.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The Secretary of State will have noticed that the spirit of Christmas has augmented the already happy-go-lucky nature of the shadow Secretary of State. However, she made one serious point in her reply to the statement, and it was about information. Some companies are using premium rate telephone numbers to get information to travellers. Surely the Secretary of State will be able to use some of his fantastic influence to try to make these information lines free of charge in this current crisis.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right that in many cases the only lever we have over private companies is to apply pressure. This is the first I have heard of this issue, but if he has specific examples, I will be happy to follow them up.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Many emergency and council workers will be working over the Christmas period dealing with the aftermath—and, indeed, the ongoing nature—of the weather conditions. Will the Secretary of State prove that he is not complacent by guaranteeing to the House that either he or one of his team will be in Whitehall during the recess, not at the end of the phone or travelling to some place else—not that they could—but at their desks, every day of the recess?
Mr Hammond
We have said—I said it in the statement—that we will continue with the arrangements in place for as long as necessary. We held teleconferences over the weekend with Welsh Assembly Government members, Scottish Ministers and regional resilience teams around the country. It is not practical to get all those people together in a single room—nor is it desirable when travel is dangerous and difficult—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the team in place will continue to monitor the situation on a daily basis for as long as it is necessary.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
I agree with the Secretary of State that in these times, calm and focused action is more important than histrionic responses. Will he let me know what steps he has taken to ensure that the airport de-icer supply chain is sufficiently robust and resilient to cope with the adverse weather conditions over the coming days?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend raises a real issue. I talked to Gatwick airport on Wednesday, and it told me that it was full to capacity with runway de-icing fluid. By yesterday evening, however, it had used about 90% of those supplies, although fortunately it will be resupplied tomorrow. However, the supply chain for airport de-icer is tightly stretched, and we are monitoring the situation on a daily basis with operators. Alternative products can be—and are—used in other places around Europe, and if supplies get really tight, operators will have to display some flexibility.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
My constituents are now enduring their 23rd successive day of arctic weather. Schooling has been disrupted, the economy impacted and elderly and vulnerable constituents have effectively been imprisoned in their own homes for more than three weeks. Owing to the exceptional weather, North Lanarkshire council requested military assistance, but it was denied. Will the Secretary of State tell me now, or find out on my behalf, who took the decision to deny military assistance, and on what grounds?
Mr Hammond
I can look into the specific case, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman the general rules on the provision of military assistance. The Ministry of Defence will offer assistance to local authorities or other responders where the latter can demonstrate that no other means of delivering the required response are available. If contractors or own resources are available, military assistance will not normally be provided. Where the military has unique equipment, or where no alternative source of manpower is available, the MOD will look at requests sympathetically. We have to do it that way. We must not end up in a situation where local authorities think that they can reach for military manpower as a simple, low-cost solution to every problem. They have to exhaust all other avenues first. However, I will look into the case he raised and write to him later this afternoon.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commitment to consider when “just in time” becomes “just too late”. I ask him to remind the Opposition that salt is not a panacea and that when temperatures fall below minus 5°C, there is little that can be done. That should be recognised. One of the legacies left to this Government by the Opposition is insufficient gas storage. Not only that, but it was not completely full at the start of winter. Furthermore, gas has been exported when taken out of storage. Will he commit to talking to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about this issue? I am particularly concerned that we are not maintaining storage when we could.
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. Historically, the UK has had lower gas storage capability than many of our continental neighbours, but it is an issue that my right hon. Friend intends to address as soon as possible.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Stafford is a proud railway town. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating rail workers up and down the country who have kept services going under often atrocious conditions? I pay particular tribute to staff in Stafford last night, who went the extra mile in giving information under difficult circumstances.
Mr Hammond
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating staff across the railways. They have been operating in extremely difficult conditions, and I have seen for myself something of a blitz spirit where people have been mucking in. Some of the old divisions between Network Rail and train operators seem to have melted away under the weight of the snow—if that is the right way to put it. Railway staff put in a fantastic performance over the weekend to get the railways operating normally—by and large—this morning.
Points of Order
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answering an urgent question earlier today, the Minister for Immigration referred to a major ongoing anti-terrorist operation taking place across the country today, with arrests being made in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). Could you tell me whether you have received any information from the Home Office or the Home Secretary about whether she intends to come to the House, either later today or tomorrow, to update us on the nature of this major anti-terrorist operation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not received notification of any statement on the matter that he has raised. I understand his particular interest, and I am sure that those on the Government Benches have taken note of his point of order and that, should we need to be given any information, either he or the House will be informed directly.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After the statement on high-speed rail by the Secretary of State for Transport, I went to the Vote Office to obtain the details—the devil often being in the detail—for my constituency, which is where the main terminal is located. I was told that it was contained in a 1,000-page document that had not been made available to the Vote Office, and I was advised to go to the Library. I went to the Library, which had one CD-ROM that it was not possible to download or forward to Members. I was told that CD-ROMs might have been sent to Members, but they have not arrived as yet. This is another instance of what is becoming a frequent occurrence—it occurred last week with the reports on court closures, and it occurred earlier in the Session with Building Schools for the Future—whereby the Government think that making available very limited data, in an inadequate, electronic form, is sufficient to give Members notice of what is happening in their constituencies. It would be a welcome ruling from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that when statements are made to this House, Members should have details that explain the important implications for their constituents of what is being told to the House.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. The documents are extremely voluminous, and it is not practical to deliver them in printed form to every Member, but my understanding is that a CD-ROM has been sent to every Member whose constituency is affected. I will go out of the Chamber now and ensure that that has happened, and if it has not, I will ensure that it happens straight away.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. It is obviously important that Members of Parliament have the information that they need with regard to statements, and I will pay attention to what he has said. In the past, he has, with his normal courtesy, written to me in the Chair to update me on the situation, in case I need to raise it with Mr Speaker. I hope that that deals with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).
Firearms Control
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of firearms control.
I believe that I speak for the whole House when I say that as we start this debate on firearms control today, our thoughts remain with the family and friends of the victims and all those who had to deal with—and are still dealing with—the consequences of the shootings in Cumbria in June, and in Northumbria in July. Those events shocked the nation. Twelve men and women were murdered, and 11 were injured by Derrick Bird in Cumbria. One man was killed and two people were injured by Raoul Moat in Northumbria. Today’s debate fulfils an earlier Government commitment to discuss firearms control in the House in the light of this summer’s tragic events. Although I appreciate that there may be some concern that this debate has not been held until now, I am sure that hon. Members agree that one advantage in doing so is that we now have both the independent Association of Chief Police Officers review and the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on firearms control, which has been published only today, to inform us.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Given that the Home Affairs Committee report was published only this morning, given that we are on a one-line Whip, given that the Chamber is empty and given that Westminster itself is effectively empty, why have the Government deliberately chosen to debate this issue—an issue that I know the Minister is sincerely concerned about—on today of all days?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman knows that we were committed to holding this debate. We particularly wanted to hold it in Government time, even though there were a number of opportunities to hold it in other time. We wanted to wait for the outcome of the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry, which has reported only today, and we did not want to wait any longer, so there was a difficult balance to strike. However, I assure him that we will listen carefully to the views expressed on both sides in this debate as we consider the issues, including what he says and what his constituents say. I hope that he knows that we have made every attempt to listen carefully to the views of local people who were affected by those incidents, as well as the views of the wider public and of hon. Members.
Indeed, a number of Ministers have visited the communities affected by those events, and we fully appreciate the impact that they have had on the people who live and work in those areas. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary visited Cumbria in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. I was able to visit and meet some of those affected, along with the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), in late August. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) made a similar visit last week, and he also visited Northumbria in the wake of those shootings. I want to express my admiration for the local communities who were forced to react to those horrific incidents, and who did so with such courage and dignity. Both the Under-Secretary and I have met PC David Rathbone on different occasions, the officer who was blinded after being shot by Raoul Moat. We were deeply impressed by his courage and his stoicism. Indeed, I am sure that the whole House wishes to pay tribute to the police officers in Cumbria and Northumbria who had to respond, in many cases unarmed, to the events as they unfolded.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although plenty of people in Rothbury—where people were in fear for a long time because of the presence of the gunman—are astonished that the gunman was able to be in possession of firearms, equally, many believe while sharing that astonishment, that those who use firearms genuinely for sporting purposes, in a proper, licensed manner, should not be penalised for the behaviour of that terrifying man?
Nick Herbert
I agree with my right hon. Friend’s sentiments. It appears that the weapons used by Raoul Moat were unlawfully obtained, unlike those used by Derrick Bird. Later, I shall underline the importance of ensuring a proportionate response to such incidents while nevertheless recognising that some areas might need a tightening up of controls, albeit one that recognises the legitimate needs and recreations of those living in the countryside or elsewhere who take part in such sporting activities.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
The Minister has quite rightly paid tribute to the police. Will he join me also in paying tribute to the civil nuclear police, who played such a sterling and difficult role in those terrible times that we all went through?
Nick Herbert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that. One of the things that was impressed on me when I visited Cumbria and received a briefing from the chief constable of the Cumbrian constabulary and his team was the role that the police at Sellafield—the civil nuclear constabulary—played in helping to respond quickly to the events as they unfolded. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Copeland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who have admirably provided a voice to their constituents. I know that in tight-knit communities, the effects of such events have been all the greater. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have shown great leadership in their communities, particularly in Cumbria, where so many people lost their lives.
Although the police investigation in Cumbria is ongoing, and inquests in both Cumbria and Northumbria are yet to be held, a review carried out by Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, chair of the ACPO firearms and explosives working group, recently reported its findings. Mr Whiting has extensive knowledge of the subject matter, and we are grateful to him for his report. The review considered whether the decisions made and actions taken in granting and renewing the firearms and shotgun certificates issued to Derrick Bird were appropriate, or whether any actions could have been taken to prevent the tragedy from occurring. Mr Whiting found that the decisions made and actions taken by the constabulary on firearms licensing were reasonable. Mr Whiting did not identify any immediate changes to legislation that would have prevented those offences. However, he did make a number of general suggestions that he thought might improve public safety. Those included a number of suggestions that have been taken up by the Home Affairs Committee, to which I shall refer later.
It is clear that, following two events of such scale, lessons must be learned to ensure that, wherever possible, action is taken to help prevent such crimes from occurring again. It is crucial that proper controls are placed on those individuals who seek to own a firearm. However, it is also important to acknowledge, when discussing this issue, that licensed firearms are only one side of the debate. It is generally acknowledged that the vast majority of guns used in crime are illegally held.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend raises an important aspect of the debate in mentioning the difference between weapons that are lawfully owned and those that are not. Page 10 of the Select Committee report states:
“There is a lack of data in the public domain showing the extent to which legally-owned firearms are used in gun crime, partly because it is difficult to collect accurate data”—
because the gun is not always left at the scene of the crime —
“and partly because the Home Office does not routinely publish the data that it does collect.”
May I invite my right hon. Friend to reconsider, and to put into the public domain more information about whether the firearms used in such events are legally or illegally held?
Nick Herbert
Of course we will consider carefully all the recommendations in the Select Committee report. We are also considering very carefully the question of which data the Home Office should collect. We need to strike the right balance between imposing ever more onerous conditions on local police forces and ensuring that the necessary data are collected centrally, and we will have more to say about that in due course. I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point on board, however.
Much of the harm caused to our communities by firearms is caused by those who are not licensed to own a gun. The Government attach great importance to tackling the problem of illegal firearms, and we will continue to work to ensure that whatever measures necessary are taken to cut the use of illegal firearms in criminal activity. By setting up the national crime agency, we will be introducing a body that will build on the Serious Organised Crime Agency and that will be empowered, in partnerships with police forces, to target the types of serious crime that frequently involve illegal firearms and to eliminate them from our communities. Combining early intervention work with tough enforcement, and empowering local communities to prevent the spread of violence, will be crucial. This area of work will be informed by the Government’s new crime strategy, which will be published shortly.
It is important, however, to emphasise that gun crime thankfully remains relatively rare in this country. Provisional data indicate that firearm offences accounted for just 0.2% of all recorded crime in 2009-10, and that figure has been going down. However, that still equates to nearly 8,000 recorded offences. Gun crime causes significant and lasting harm to individuals, families and communities, and, however small the number of incidents that occur in the context of the overall number of crimes, the impact of these incidents must never be underestimated. Thirty-nine lives were lost to gun crime last year, and there were 336 serious injuries. That is unacceptable, and we must work to bring the numbers down.
Mr Reed
Between 1997 and 2008-09, 742 people were murdered with firearms in this country. Given that it was the atrocities in Scotland in March 1996 that led to the last meaningful review of gun ownership legislation, and in the light of the events of this year, does the Minister agree that Parliament now needs to change and tighten the gun laws in this country?
Nick Herbert
I certainly agree that it is necessary to review the gun laws, as the Home Affairs Committee has done, and to consider whether sensible measures might be taken to improve them and, in specific areas, tighten them. I am not sure whether I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s implication that there needs to be a wholesale change in our gun laws that would restrict the legitimate ownership of guns, because most incidents relate to illegal ownership, and I believe that that is where we need to focus our enforcement activity.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that a review by the Select Committee is not the same as a Government review of this matter. What are the Government doing?
Nick Herbert
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have said that we will take on board the Select Committee’s recommendations, which were published only today, and that we are considering the matter very carefully. I will speak in a moment about a measure that has already been introduced, and I will give a broad indication of an early response to the Select Committee report. There has also been a review by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Government have certainly responded to the incidents that have taken place in Cumbria and Northumbria, but I believe that we are doing so in a careful and considered manner.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
A resident of Northampton to whom I am particularly devoted is my aunt, Diana Ellis, and she has always said, “If it is not broken, don’t fix it.” Will my right hon. Friend reassure her, and many hundreds of thousands of other people in this country, that Her Majesty’s Government will not act in a knee-jerk fashion on this matter and further increase the legislative burden?
Nick Herbert
Yes, I will reassure my hon. Friend of that. We will carefully consider the recommendations put forward by the Select Committee and others, and we will take action where we judge it necessary and proportionate, and where it will help to secure public safety. We will not, however, produce a knee-jerk response to these events. Indeed, the fact that the Government have not done so, and that we are nevertheless considering the issues carefully and with an open mind, has been generally welcomed throughout the country.
Mr Reed
Can we please now dispense with the notion of a knee-jerk response? It is six months since the events in my constituency, and we have now had the very thorough and considered report from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the excellent work of the Home Affairs Select Committee. The notion of a knee-jerk response now is just not applicable.
Nick Herbert
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees, however, that it is fair for the Government to look at the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which was published only today, and to consider it carefully. When I referred to a knee-jerk response, what I meant was that it would be wrong to rule in or out without further consideration anything that the Select Committee has recommended. It is right that we should consider these issues carefully, and he will see that there are areas in which we believe action should be taken.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to take the time to review carefully all the reports, including today’s report from the Home Affairs Committee, and to ensure that any formal response by the Government does not criminalise, either by implication or in reality, the hundreds of thousands of people who use firearms totally legally for sporting purposes and the industries that feed off them? Does he agree that we must not run the risk of criminalising those people and those industries, even by implication, and that we must focus on the illegal use of firearms?
Nick Herbert
Again, I accept my hon. Friend’s counsel. We intend to strike a proper and proportionate balance, and we will respond in a timely fashion to the Select Committee’s report. We will then come forward with any specific proposals.
It is frequently said that we have some of the toughest gun controls in the world. Firearms control in this country has a long history and has evolved gradually, with frequent tightening of the legislation by Parliament. The first British firearms controls were introduced by the Vagrancy Act 1824. Firearms certificates have been required since 1920, and shotguns have required a certificate since 1967. There have since been amendments to the Firearms Act 1968, which sets out the framework for today’s legislation, in response to the shootings in Hungerford in 1987 and in Dunblane in 1996, banning semi-automatic weapons and handguns respectively. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the system has been made progressively tougher. In its current state, it places tight restrictions on individuals who wish to own a gun. Guns are used legitimately for pest control and sporting purposes, and the Government certainly do not believe that such activities should be curtailed provided that there are proper controls, but it is of course right to keep those controls under review and, in particular, to reconsider them in the light of recent incidents.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way.
The debate is entitled “Firearms Control”. It deals with a wide variety of guns and their use. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the use and legality of handguns As he has said, they were made illegal following a disaster, but given that we are to host the Olympic games, we are in the embarrassing position of having to send a British Olympic shooting team abroad to train. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend about the issue, and I feel that it should be examined. We need cognitive legislation, such as the new Bill, rather than an outright ban.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend has illustrated the importance of striking the right balance. We all understand why the action was taken in response to the dreadful Dunblane incident in 1997. However, the issue of competitive shooting at the Olympics has been raised with the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who I am sure would be happy to discuss it with my hon. Friend.
The Government welcome the timely report on firearms control that was published today by the Home Affairs Committee. I thank the Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for its work on the issue. As I have said, we will consider its recommendations carefully, not least in the light of today’s debate. The House will understand that it would not be right for me to respond in detail today, but I want to deal with three key points.
First, the Committee recommended that the Government should codify and simplify the laws relating to firearm ownership. As I made clear when I mentioned the history of firearms legislation, those laws are widely dispersed across different Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, they are very complex. I believe that the issue would benefit from further attention, and we will therefore consider that recommendation carefully.
Secondly, the Committee recommended tighter restrictions on the granting of firearms licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity. That concern clearly arose from the shootings in Cumbria, and I raised it with the chief constable myself when I visited the area in August. There may be an opportunity for careful adjustment, but that will depend on the nature of the offence. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), will listen carefully to what is said in the debate and will use it to inform any future decisions. However, we welcome the Committee’s recommendation.
Thirdly, the Committee raised the issue of the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot. I understand why that issue has been raised, but I think it important to appreciate that many young people enjoy shooting in a safe and responsible manner. Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting told the Committee:
“The evidence in relation to young people shooting does not give any cause for concern”.
We will of course consider the Committee’s response in full, but it is important for legislative changes to be proportionate.
Keith Vaz
We published our report only 18 hours ago, so I do not expect the Minister to respond to each and every one of its 22 recommendations, but the fact that he has picked up those three points makes it clear that the Government understand the nature of the inquiry and the need for further consideration of the recommendations. Can he give me an idea—without necessarily specifying a month—of the approximate time within which the Government will respond to the report?
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tells me that he is going to say “two months” in his winding-up speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman considers that a suitable period within which to respond to such a sensitive issue.
The issue of the mental health of applicants for firearm and shotgun certificates has also been raised. As the Committee has noted, it has now been agreed between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP of the grant and renewal of a firearm and/or shotgun certificate. The implementation of that arrangement is being sought within the next six months. In essence, the process will involve a system of notification by way of a standard letter, which means that GPs will be in a position to alert the police if they have any concerns. The police will then be able to request a medical report under the procedures mentioned at the start of the debate. I believe that that is a welcome move. There will be further discussions in due course about the possibility of placing a marker on computerised medical records to create a more enduring record of which patients own a firearm.
I believe that that development indicates that the authorities have been able to take sensible steps to improve the operation of firearms laws in the light of public concern. However, I agree with the Select Committee’s suggestion that requiring firearms applicants to undergo a compulsory medical check would be costly and would be regarded as disproportionate.
Overall, the Committee’s contribution to an ongoing subject of consideration is very useful, and we will consider it fully before deciding on our final course of action. As we consider our response, it will be important to provide an opportunity for wider engagement with the issues, and we will announce shortly how we will ensure that it is provided.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
Will the Minister also consider instances where sentencing may have been too lenient? I understand that the sentence for illegal handling of firearms is five years’ imprisonment and that the sentence for an aggravated offence is seven years, but that that is rarely upheld in the courts. Will the Minister consider whether we can strengthen the position by increasing the sentence, if it does not constitute a sufficient deterrent?
Nick Herbert
I think that I am right in saying that such sentences have been toughened considerably in recent years. As my hon. Friend knows, we recently published a Green Paper on sentencing. There will be an opportunity to respond to it, and he will be welcome to do so. We will, of course, consider further representations about the levels of offences, but I think that this is a question of enforcement as much as penalties.
Sir Alan Beith
Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements that have been discussed with the BMA will extend to encouraging GPs to report cases in which a personality disorder of some kind is apparent? Such a disorder might not be a treatable mental illness, but it might be a pretty clear indicator that someone should not be in possession of firearms.
Nick Herbert
I agree. It is important for GPs, who will be in the best position to raise concerns, to use the system of notification in a way that ensures that such issues can be taken into account by the police.
It is absolutely right, in the wake of such major incidents as were experienced in Cumbria and Northumbria, to reconsider the legislation that controls firearm ownership in this country, but we must also ensure that our response is considered, proportionate and evidence-led. As the Prime Minister said shortly after the shootings,
“we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front… You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head and this sort of dreadful action taking place.”
Public safety will always be our watchword, and if there is a clear need to make specific changes to legislation, we will not hesitate to present proposals. We remain committed to considering the present range of firearms controls in a measured way.
I look forward to what I am sure will be a thoughtful and constructive debate on this important and sensitive subject. We will listen carefully to points raised by all Members this evening, and we will use them in shaping our response to such incidents.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I begin by echoing the Minister’s comments about the victims and their families who were caught up in the dreadful events over the summer in Cumbria and Northumbria, and by paying tribute to the wider communities in those areas who went through very distressing and upsetting times. I also commend the work of the emergency services, not only when the events took place, but in the following weeks and months. In particular, I pay tribute to David Rathband, who was so tragically injured by Moat in the Northumbria shootings.
Tony Cunningham
My hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the emergency services, but will she also pay tribute to the Churches in my area? The people at that time needed a lot of spiritual support. It was offered by the Churches, and I thought they did a fantastic job.
Diana Johnson
I am very happy to pay tribute to the Churches, and I also know that my hon. Friend spent a great deal of time working with the communities and making sure that the families and victims had everything they needed.
This debate is timely. The Select Committee on Home Affairs report on firearms control was published at one minute past midnight. It examines in detail whether, in the light of the dreadful events in Cumbria and Northumbria earlier in the year, we need to change our firearms legislation. We must remember, of course, that not all the reports on the events in Cumbria and Northumbria are available. Although we have had less than 12 hours to consider the Committee’s findings and recommendations, it will be useful for us now to start to set out some initial thoughts about the report and to raise some of the issues that will certainly impact on this policy area in the weeks and months to come.
Having read the report this morning, I commend it as excellent. The Committee undertook extensive deliberations and produced some thoughtful recommendations. I appreciate that the Government will wish to consider them carefully before responding fully in due course. I also note the strong feeling on both sides of the firearms control debate, and I thank those groups and organisations who have provided helpful and thorough briefing material. We should also note that changes to firearms control legislation are often a result of tragic events such as Hungerford and Dunblane. This is clearly a very sensitive issue.
I read with great care the report of the debate on the Cumbrian shootings that was held in the House at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). He has been unanimously praised for the leadership he showed in his community both at the time and since. I pay tribute to him as well, and to other hon. Members from that area whom I know also worked tirelessly at that time. I took particular note of my hon. Friend’s comments about reviewing firearms control in the wake of the tragedy in his constituency. He felt that we should not have a knee-jerk reaction, and that it was important to collect all the facts and consider all the evidence before reaching conclusions. That is the right approach. There is agreement across the political spectrum that there must be mature consideration of the key issues in respect of firearms control. My hon. Friend also made telling remarks about the media, and their portrayal of what had happened in his community. The Select Committee also commented on that.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has had to leave the debate early tonight, and he has made clear his concerns about its being scheduled just a few days before the House rises for Christmas. It should also be noted that he is on paternity leave at the moment, but he felt so strongly about this issue that he made a special effort to come to the House. I know he will look to the Government to respond to the Select Committee’s recommendations by way of an oral statement in the House—rather than a written statement—so that there can be further debate on these issues.
Let me say a little about the historical context to our debate. Since the 1920s, we have used legislation to control firearms. That is now set out in 34 pieces of legislation. The main one is the Firearms Act 1968, which, as the Minister said, has been amended many times. It is widely agreed that we now have some of the strictest gun controls in the world.
Shotguns are used for pest control, game shooting and target shooting. There are 1,366,082 shotguns in England and Wales, held on 574,946 certificates. Applications are made under section 2 of the 1968 Act. There are also 138,728 firearms certificates, which cover 435,383 guns in England and Wales, including barrels and sound moderators. The majority are sporting rifles that are used for pest control, deer stalking and target shooting. The application process for firearms, under section 1 of the Act, is different.
We must recognise the important role of shooting as a legitimate recreational activity in this country. In 2005, the Labour party set out its charter for shooting, which recognised that there was no connection between legitimate sporting shooting and gun crime. We also know that the sport of shooting is a £1.6 billion industry, in which 70,000 people are employed in full-time jobs. I note from the Select Committee report that it, too, recognises that thousands of people use firearms in recreation and in their employment, and that it in no way wishes to restrict such activity. However, it is always helpful to test the effectiveness of firearms control and review current thinking on it.
After the shootings by Derrick Bird on 2 June, when he killed 12 people and injured a further 11, the Association of Chief Police Officers was asked to produce a report, as Derrick Bird was in lawful possession of firearms. The report’s remit was to look both at that specific case and any wider issues. It was produced by the ACPO lead on firearms licensing and chair of the ACPO firearms and explosives licensing working group, Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, and was published on 2 November.
The report made three key recommendations. First, it recommended the establishment of formal links between GPs, mental health services and police forces to enable medical professionals to alert the police if they have concerns regarding certificate holders. Secondly, it said the cost of any GP report should be borne by the applicant. Thirdly, it recommended that formal approaches should be made to members of an applicant’s family at the grant and renewal of the certificate. It is clearly very helpful to have this report as a further source of information for the Select Committee and the Government to reflect upon.
Let me now address a few of the specific recommendations in the Select Committee report. First, on the role of GPs and their involvement with firearms control, the Committee welcomed the recent agreement between ACPO and the British Medical Association that the police will alert GPs to every new and renewal licence application. That is an important step in ensuring that the licensing authority receives accurate medical information about applicants. It carries on some of the work started under the previous Labour Government, and we support the change.
It is interesting to note that an applicant may also approach their GP as a person of good character to act as a referee or counter-signatory for a certificate application. If a GP becomes worried about his patient, the BMA has issued guidance that doctors should
“be prepared to breach confidence and inform the appropriate authorities if necessary.”
That is very important in respect of those who have held licences for some time.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that what she has just said might put off a legitimate holder of a certificate who feels that their health might be, for whatever reason, deteriorating from going to their GP at all, because they might believe that their certificate would be in jeopardy? That would constitute a substantial danger not only to the public, but to that person’s health.
Diana Johnson
Those points were aired at the Select Committee. I know the BMA has taken a certain view, and it has decided on giving this particular advice to their GPs. However, I will have a little more to say about GPs and the people who go to see them more regularly.
The view was also presented to the Select Committee that the medical records of firearm certificate holders should be tagged. That would enable a GP who becomes concerned about a person’s health to notify the authorities. The Select Committee rejected that approach. The Information Commissioner’s Office raised concerns about the effect of tagged medical records, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation believes that this would create a further burden on GPs, and GPs were concerned about the issue of liability.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree with the following comments by Dr John Canning, who is a general practitioner in Middlesbrough and the chairman of the British Medical Association’s professional fees committee? He said:
“As a GP, I can give no judgment to someone’s fitness to hold a weapon, particularly forecasting the future. What I can do is provide factual evidence about the past. It is impossible, and I have spoken to other colleagues in specialities such as psychiatry who say equally that it is impossible to predict the future.”
Diana Johnson
Clearly, the decision about whether a certificate should be issued rests finally with the police. The information that GPs can provide should be factual and based on what they know.
Some 93% of shooters are male, the majority being over the age of 40. That group does not go to their GP as often as they perhaps should, so the opportunity to identify problems may be limited; it has been made clear that Derrick Bird had little contact with his GP. In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has identified only six individuals a year where involvement with a medical practitioner might have had an effect in notifying the authorities that there was a problem. So this issue has to be kept under review in the weeks and months to come.
The law relating to young people and firearms control is complicated and, at times, confusing. Members of the public who read the report will raise an eyebrow when they see that 26 10-year-olds currently hold shotgun licences. The report by ACPO did not examine the age at which a certificate can be issued to a young person, as that was not relevant to the events in Cumbria; nor did this give ACPO any particular concern when considering the wider issues. However, the report referred to inconsistencies that could be addressed on some issues—for example, the definition of an “occupier” in relation to the supervision of a young person. The Committee commented on the need for a review of the minimum age limits on the use of firearms and the eligibility for firearms certificates, with the aim of reducing the inconsistency and complexity associated with the use of firearms by children.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the age at which people should be exposed or given access to weapons. I have had the opportunity to work with some youngsters who, in a different world, would not get to see these weapons. They would see them on telly and in video games, and they would consider them as trophies—the bits of kit that youngsters need to have. By allowing such youngsters to use these weapons in a safe environment and exposing them to how they work, they gain respect for these weapons and their air of mystery is removed. Does she agree that more such education is required, so that the youth of today are allowed to understand the importance and danger of these weapons and the respect that they must give them?
Diana Johnson
I hope that the Government will consider that very point when they consider the Committee’s recommendations. We need to wait to see how they will respond to the issue. Interestingly, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice talked about the need for a proportionate response and recognised that young people are involved in many positive activities involving shooting, for example, through the Scout Association, which holds an annual rifle competition. In addition, the use of target shooting activities is increasing in the schools sector, Sport England provides funding for shooting and the activity is also recognised by the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme.
Let me now deal with the recommendation relating to criminal activity. Concerns have been raised that people with criminal convictions have been able to obtain certificates. It appears that people with suspended sentences are not prevented from obtaining a certificate, and the Committee agreed that that needs to be examined. The Committee also recommended that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms, and we agree that that should be considered seriously by the Government. The Committee also noted that police licensing officers are now encouraged to take into account intelligence about criminal behaviour that has not resulted in convictions, as well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, when considering whether to grant a licence. The Committee felt that it must be made explicit in police guidance that officers are expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, particularly in cases of bind-overs, arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and that accumulation of convictions should also be carefully examined.
That leads me to the recommendation about the further consultation that should be undertaken when an application is made for a shotgun or firearm licence. The Committee suggested a requirement to consult the domestic partners of applicants on whether to grant a licence in order to try to identify whether there are domestic issues of which a firearms licensing officer should be aware. I noted when I read the report that the Committee was particularly concerned about the use of firearms in domestic violence incidents. Evidence was given to the Committee about a system introduced in Canada, whereby the current spouse or recent ex-spouse is required to sign the application form of any individual applying for a firearms licence. Any failure to do so prompts an additional level of investigation by the registering authorities. Since the system was introduced the gun murder rate of women has reduced by 40%. The ACPO lead has also said that adults in a domestic relationship should be inquired of when an application is made for a firearm or shotgun. The Opposition believe that this recommendation merits serious consideration by the Government, and I was particularly pleased that the Minister talked about examining the matter and making careful adjustments, where appropriate.
The Committee recommended that fees should be raised to cover the costs of licensing to ensure that funding cuts do not jeopardise the rigour of the licensing process. We know that police forces are facing 20% cuts to their budgets over the coming years. Clearly this type of work is one of those areas that the report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was referring to when it said that although only 11% of police officers were available to the public, 89% were performing important work on behalf of the public, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that dealing with firearms licensing falls into that category.
Tony Cunningham
My hon. Friend will be very much aware that Cumbria police authority will be announcing strict and deep cuts. I hope that she agrees that one of the cuts that we do not want is in the number of officers dealing with firearms licensing.
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Shooting organisations have already expressed concern about the impact of spending cuts on the rigour of the licensing process and they worry that they are going to see an erosion of the number—at least—of firearms inquiry officers and firearms licensing managers. The organisations gave evidence to the Committee suggesting that the consistency, quality, efficacy and general speed of licensing may well suffer. Those concerns were shared by Mr Whiting, who told the Committee that he had already had to recommend to chief officers that things such as home visits, which are part of our national policy on both grant and renewal, are conducted in person. A number of forces conduct these cases by telephone and, and sometimes, by post. He is concerned that such arrangements will be placed under increasing pressure in the forthcoming climate in which policing will operate. He does not foresee a wholesale collapse, but he did say that there is a risk of erosion in respect of some of the practices that are currently recommended. Such important work will need to be protected and the Committee has highlighted one way of doing it: by increasing fees.
Discussion was also had about the need to iron out the bulge in renewals, which has come about through the implementation of previous legislation. The suggestion is to extend the life of a proportion of certificates over the course of a number of renewal cycles. We understand that police representatives have made proposals on how such a system might operate, with estimated savings of £2 million, which have not, thus far, been taken up. The Opposition feel that the Government should consider urgently an opportunity to make such savings.
The report also addressed air weapons offences. The Committee recognised that airguns do not require licences yet cause a great many problems for communities. There is legislation governing their use which the Committee feels could be better enforced, and the Opposition would also support better enforcement.
As for the recommendation on legislation on firearms control, it is accepted that there is a great deal of such legislation. The Committee calls for a simplified, clear and consistent approach. One suggestion would be to have one type of certification for all firearms. The Committee recommends pursuing stronger provisions for section 1 applications, but that will obviously be a matter for the Government to consider.
Interestingly, the Committee also cites the experience in the US of the application process for handguns in Washington DC, and that seems to be far more comprehensive in its approach, requiring fingerprints and compulsory training. It is interesting that the Prime Minister says that he will give careful consideration to the possible consolidation of legislation. The Committee’s recommendations included regulations for miniature rifle ranges and the report identified problems with deactivated and replica guns, too. The Committee rejected the idea of a reduction from five-year certificates to two.
In conclusion, the report is well-researched and takes a sensible approach. It contains a sensible analysis of what is working well and of what possible changes need to be considered. I look forward to the Government’s response and, linked to this, their publication of their crime prevention strategy. I reiterate that I hope we will be able to keep to the timetable of two months for the Government’s full response and that an oral statement on this important issue will be made in the House so that there will be an opportunity for all hon. Members to question the Government on their approach to the report’s recommendations.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The events earlier this year in which two gunmen took the lives of 13 other people using shotguns were deeply tragic. The public interest in the two cases and the questions asked about the efficacy of our gun laws are certainly understandable, and I therefore welcome this debate. I also welcome the publication of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, although I cannot say that I agree with all its recommendations.
Seneca the younger once said,
“quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est”
or
“a sword never kills anybody, it is merely a tool in the killer’s hand”.
Almost 2,000 years later, the satirical Welsh rap group Goldie Lookin’ Chain brought the message up to date with their 2004 hit “Guns don’t kill people, rappers do”—and Chris Moyles took it even further with, “Guns don’t kill people, rabbits do”. Please be assured that I do not highlight the lyric as a slur on the rapping community, but rather in support of the message of the song, which is that each holder of a gun is responsible for its mode of use.
In this country, by and large, we have not historically seen widespread gun ownership, or indeed gun crime. As is the case under the American constitution, we originally had the right to bear arms, but that right was overturned by the Firearms Act 1920. Unlike our American cousins, however, the public have shown little appetite for domestic gun ownership—long may that continue—other than for use as a countryside management tool or among interest groups who use firearms in their leisure and sporting time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has already mentioned page 10 of the report and the disproportionate focus on those who legally hold firearms as opposed to those who hold them illegally. In paragraph 12, on page 58, the Committee refers to the fact that there is no evidence of
“an increase in misuse of lethal firearms”
since the last review of holding the licence renewal period at five years rather than two. I am not suggesting that there has been a knee-jerk reaction, but that shows that we need to continue to be measured. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he would do that.
Firearm control has been considered repeatedly for more than 100 years. The Pistols Act 1903 regulated the sale of pistols and later Acts placed conditions on the ownership of firearms—such as the need to apply for a certificate to own a firearm or shotgun. The Firearms Act 1968 forms the basis for our gun laws and has been amended 34 times since then, creating the confusing and complex system to which the Committee referred.
Shotguns were used by both Moat and Bird, the perpetrators of the crimes that took place earlier this year, and the latter was licensed to own his. Incidentally, in an interview given to the BBC, one of Bird’s victims who survived the incident, himself a shotgun owner, described the current gun laws as “rigorous”, an opinion shared by the independent inquiry into the incident. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also said:
“You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head”.
Perhaps he, too, had been listening to Goldie Lookin’ Chain, but he was absolutely right. It appears—this seems to be the general consensus among those involved in the case—that no rule, regulation or more fierce application of the current processes would necessarily have prevented the tragedy.
It should be remembered that, although we share with many of our neighbours in Europe and the Commonwealth a comparatively low rate of gun homicide, we also have some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. A balance must be struck between legitimate use and safeguarding the public. I am not convinced that ever tighter regulation is likely to prevent each and every death caused by firearms, whether intentional or accidental, but it could prevent law-abiding, responsible citizens from using firearms in a legitimate, socially acceptable manner.
This morning the Home Affairs Committee released its report on firearms control. I agree with its conclusion that the legal construct of the various laws is rather complex and confusing. It recommends codification and simplification of the law, so that firearms owners and the police are clear about the circumstances of ownership and responsibilities. I welcome the proposals to try to simplify the law. I also welcome the potential inquiry into creating a single licensing system for section 1 firearms and shotguns.
In considering the role of GPs in the issuing of licences, I am not suggesting that simplification should be used as an excuse further to tighten already stringent regulation. The move to involve GPs in the process of awarding firearms certificates seems to be little more—dare I say it—than an exercise in bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) has said, there is strong evidence to suggest that one cannot necessarily predict somebody’s future capacity in terms of owning a firearm.
Firearms are used in 6% of homicides, and known licensed firearms are used in 0.6% of homicides, so the move to include GPs is quite interesting. The idea of tagging medical records has already been described as potentially draconian, particularly in the light of fears about the security of NHS medical records. I join the Committee in dismissing calls for mandatory medical checks, because we cannot look into the future, and because of the guidance that has been given, which I thought was stronger than that. I thought that GPs were already obliged to notify the police of people in their practices who are potential threats to the community. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, there was no suggestion that Mr Bird had recently seen his GP, and there were only six people in a year with whom such checks by a GP might have had an effect.
Let me turn now to employment in the sector. If we choose to go down the route of investigating a simplification of the law, it is imperative that any changes proposed have at their heart ring-fencing the rights of legitimate users, as those people play an important economic and social part in our communities. In September 2004, a report was undertaken on behalf of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Alliance in association with the Game Conservancy Trust, entitled “The Economic and Environmental Impact of Sporting Shooting”. It found that some 70,000 people are employed by the sport shooting industry, and in my area, the east of England, £140 million was brought into the economy through the sport. Indeed, seven constituents wrote to me about this matter and told me how they wanted to be able to continue shooting, seeing it as valuable as pest control and also as a sport that they enjoy.
Nationwide, shooting is worth a total of £1.6 billion. That does not take into account other forms of shooting such as shooting in gun clubs, which are also popular and serve a social as well as an economic purpose. Felixstowe rifle club, for example, was first formed in 1900. More than 100 years later, it is still going strong and has formed links with a number of local charities and local schools. It offers lessons to a number of local children as part of the Duke of Edinburgh award, and is one of only a few clubs in the country that caters for blind shooters, which is interesting.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Suffolk has the lowest recorded level of gun crime in the United Kingdom. Does she agree that that is in spite of the fact that we have 97,000 licences for shotguns and firearms in the east of England, which suggests that the focus should be on dealing with unlicensed shotguns rather than licensed guns?
Dr Coffey
I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend and neighbour. That message is reinforced not only by my constituents who have contacted me but by patrons of my local, who are all regular shooters and wish not to be demonised for being so.
Felixstowe rifle club is one of many that had to adapt to the 1997 ban on handguns, which seems to have put an end to the sport of pistol shooting but done little to prevent the use of handguns in crime. Although legitimate handgun owners have given up their weapons, criminals show no sign of abating their use of them: in 1980 handguns were used in 529 robberies, and by 2008 the number had risen to 2,565 cases—down from a peak of 3,544 cases in 1992. In 2008 handguns were involved in 28 of the 39 firearms-related homicides that year—almost three quarters of all murders perpetrated using a gun. In contrast, only seven involved a shotgun and three a rifle. Rather than spending our time and energies picking off legitimate owners as easy targets—I include young people in that—we should be grappling with the more difficult, but much more important, question of how to tackle the criminal fraternity on the illegitimate use and manufacture of guns.
Young people have been mentioned, and although there is no connection with the recent incidents I take this opportunity to remind the House that 10 years ago the Government of the time said there should be no ban, and no minimum age for the issuing of licences, because supervised shooting is an important way of encouraging young people to use weapons appropriately.
The use of illegal handguns in our inner cities to commit crimes, including murder, has gone relatively unreported by the media, who seem happy to focus more on anomalous cases than on the real problem at hand. Some 55% of all firearm offences occur in just three police areas—the Metropolitan, Greater Manchester and West Midlands areas—and many involve handguns. Given that those weapons are already illegal, I reiterate that we should not legislate further to ensure tighter control of weapons but should ask ourselves, as has been mentioned in relation to air rifles, how we can better enforce current laws.
I hope that the planned introduction of a dedicated border police force will bring material results in reducing the smuggling of illegal weapons into England. I understand that there is a problem with the smuggling of illegal weapons, particularly from eastern Europe, but we also need to tackle the illegitimate use of guns already on our shores and the ability of criminals to manufacture guns by adapting decommissioned or other guns. This, in all likelihood, requires not the introduction of new laws or regulations but a range of measures and enforcement by the police.
With gun and knife amnesties our police forces have done good work in attempting to clear those weapons from our streets and take them out of the hands of youngsters who feel that they need to carry a knife to feel safe. Amnesties have taken place across the country and should continue; indeed, I call on people in my constituency and elsewhere who hold a gun in their house to ask themselves whether they still need it. However, it is equally important to look into the causes of gun crimes. What makes somebody pick up a gun or a knife before they leave the house, and what can we do to persuade them that they do not need to purchase an illegal weapon, let alone use it?
It seems to be an increasing feature of gang culture to use or brandish a firearm or to kill somebody with one as a way of going up the respect agenda. We need to cut that out of our culture, and I welcome some of the work that has been done on that.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend made an interesting point about whether young people should be allowed to access weapons at an early age. Is she aware of any evidence to suggest that having access to firearms when young leads to illegal use of them later in life?
Dr Coffey
I am not aware of any evidence whatever on that. Across our country, organisations such as gun clubs and the combined cadet force are often where youngsters first come into contact with weapons and are taught to use them appropriately. I am concerned that the inappropriate and illegal use of illegal weapons is a growing phenomenon, perhaps in gang culture, but I do not equate the two.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I met Wiltshire army cadets this week, and they made big play of the fact that the respect for weapons is taught. That should be taken into consideration.
Dr Coffey
I support that view. Two of the schools that I attended had cadet forces and it was seen as a privilege, which was not handed out lightly, to fire such weapons.
I conclude by reminding hon. Members that we are not in this House to turn the entire population of Great Britain into criminals one interest group at a time. Knee-jerk legislation might make great headlines but it does not necessarily solve the problem. It does nothing to allow innocent lawful people to go about their daily business, and it certainly does not stamp out all criminality. I therefore encourage the Government to consider the different proposals seriously but not necessarily to say that regulating or making more laws is the appropriate reaction to the cry that more must be done. Let, instead, the legacy of these tragic deaths be a catalyst for a renewed attempt to focus on our existing laws, to elucidate the real causes of gun crime and to tackle criminals, not the innocent.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I am afraid that I do not have her command of Latin or popular music, but I listened with great interest to what she said. Judging by the number of Members present, I am sure that others will make an equally important contribution to this very important debate.
It is not often that on the very same day that Parliament produces a report the Government hold a debate on the same subject. I have not experienced this kind of choreography before, but I am delighted that they have chosen to have this debate so soon after the Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report. I confess that when the Committee heard about the debate being held on 20 December, we worked very hard to make sure that our report was ready for the House to consider, because it would have been rather odd to have published it after the debate. I know that some who represent constituencies in the relevant area have had concerns about the timing of the debate, but the Government pledged to hold it by a certain time and they have kept their promise—obviously, they could not hold it tomorrow because of the winter Adjournment debate.
The debate gives us an opportunity to consider what has happened in this tragic year in which so many communities were touched by the violence of Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird. It is right that the Minister began and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), completed the sequence of paying tribute to all those who have been involved in this matter, including the emergency services and the relatives who gave evidence to our Committee in such a passionate and eloquent way.
This is a debate that we would rather not have, as we would rather consider these matters when there had not been a tragedy of this kind. However, the Committee’s report was not—I hate to use this word and everyone says that we should not use it—a knee-jerk reaction. We were keen not to react in that way and we wanted to review the previous Select Committee report on this subject, which was 10 years ago. It was appropriate to reconsider the issue and to draw on the terrible experiences of Cumbria and Northumbria.
Tony Cunningham
I should like to pay tribute to all the emergency services, but specifically to the health workers who suffered as a result of the shootings in west Cumbria. Perhaps hon. Members can imagine dealing with the consequences of shotgun wounds and bullet wounds: it must have been absolutely horrific, traumatic and terribly difficult for the doctors and nurses to deal with. I wanted to put on the record my tribute to their work.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to do so. In an emergency of this kind, many people are involved in alleviating the pain and distress of members of the local community—the list is endless. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who wanted to stay for the entire debate but had a long-standing commitment that he could not break. The debate was scheduled after that commitment was made. We all remember the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington and others represented the views of their constituents day after day on a 24-hour basis, and we all hope that we will never be in that situation in our own constituencies.
This is, in a sense, a House of Commons day. There was not a single area of disagreement between the two Front-Bench teams. There are points that Members in all parts of the House will want to emphasise, but there is agreement that we should look carefully at the reports that have been produced. I pay tribute to members of the Select Committee. Again, I apologise on their behalf. Most of them very much wanted to be present for the debate today but the severe weather and constituency commitments have prevented them from attending. They worked hard to make this a unanimous report where consensus was the order of the day. The report is not intended to have a go at any group in society.
I knew very little about firearms when I began the inquiry. That is why I was delighted to be involved in it—not delighted for the reasons that I mentioned, but pleased to gain some expertise in an area that I know nothing about. As Members of Parliament, we are supposed to be experts on everything, and it is not often that we say we know nothing about a subject. However, I knew nothing about firearms. The nearest I had got to a firearm was a water pistol when I was much younger.
I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) who was extremely helpful to the Committee in a number of ways and to me personally. We asked that firearms be brought into the Committee so that we could look at the various types. Sometimes it is difficult for lay members—I am a lay member—to understand the difference between a section 1 firearm, a shotgun, a pistol and an air weapon. The hon. Gentleman arranged for that to happen. I thank the Serjeant at Arms and the Deputy Serjeant at Arms for allowing us to bring the weapons into the Committee. I think we gave them a bit of a fright when the firearms came in, but it was important for us to look at them.
I valued immensely my visit to Bisley, where I met so many talented individuals who had represented our country in shooting at the highest level and had won gold medals at the recent Commonwealth games. They were not bulky men with big muscles, though there were some of those about—not members of the Committee. Some were women, who had shot so successfully. One of them hung all four of her gold medals around her neck. I no longer need to be convinced of the importance of the sport. When we look at the figures, showing the hundreds of thousands who apply for a licence in good faith, with excellent characters, and get their licences, we know that we must be careful if we try to change the law.
That is not what the Committee suggested to any great extent. Like the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal, we suggested measures that we think can improve the situation. Hindsight is a wonderful gift and none of us possesses it. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. It is terribly difficult for the Government of the day, having had so many difficulties to deal with in the events that took place in Cumbria and Northumberland, to call it right. If anything happens in the future, and the odds are that it will—the evidence before us suggested that it will happen at some stage—we do not want people to be blamed for having failed to take action.
Some of our proposals are direct recommendations: we made 22 recommendations. Some are an invitation to the Government to consult further—for example, on the age at which children may apply for a licence. I was confused about that, as were the Clerks and members of the Committee. Therefore, for the convenience of the House, we set out the current law in a table that appears on page 42 of the report.
As the table shows, it is possible to apply for a licence for a shotgun at any age, but for a section 1 firearm, one can apply only from the age of 14. One may use a shotgun under supervision at any age, but, for a section 1 firearm, in certain circumstances, it is from the age of 14 with a certificate. To be in possession of a firearm unsupervised, the minimum age is 15 for a shotgun and 14 for a section 1 firearm. To purchase or hire a firearm and/or ammunition, the age is the same—18.
We did not suggest an age to the Government. We recommended that the Government look at the various ages. They may decide that there is no empirical evidence that a change is needed. However, we suggested a number of areas for consideration: the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision in the controlled environment of a shooting range, the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision outside such a controlled environment, and the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot unsupervised.
No age is specified in the report, although Mr Whiting said when I pressed him that he thought it should be 10. That was under pressure from the Chairman seeking to get him to alight on a particular figure. I was very surprised that there were 26 children aged 10 who had shotguns, even though I have a 15-year-old son who is in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme. When he heard that I would be speaking about the subject, he said, “You’re not going to ban us from doing this, are you?” I said, “I’m not going to ban you from doing anything, apart from being on the computer for too long.”
We have asked the Government to consider the question of age. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal need not fear. We are not coming to a conclusion; we are just saying that the matter requires further thought.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I heard the right hon. Gentleman this morning on Radio 4 on this subject. It was not clear from his response why he felt the need for a review. He did not seem to be suggesting that there was any particular problem in respect of the age at which children could hold a licence or could shoot.
Keith Vaz
I was trying to hedge a little because we have our personal views based on our interest in the subject, but the Committee as a whole took no view. I think it was right not to take a view because we had not taken a huge amount of evidence on the age limits. We therefore did not want to interfere with the current arrangements. We thought further examination was merited. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not an expert on these matters so it came as a surprise to me that children as young as 10 were able to shoot. It had to be explained to me at Bisley what they were all up to and that they were doing it for a purpose. I understood much better when I had heard that.
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman’s report raises a number of issues, and this one is worth looking into in more detail. More information is required if we are to dabble with the numbers. It is clear that people cannot own ammunition until they are a lot older. It is clear that they cannot even use a weapon unless they are supervised or of a certain age. By discussing the ages, we are getting into semantics and away from questions about when the gun will be used and in what context. We are talking about the age of 10, when children cannot even buy ammunition or use it unless they are supervised.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we batted the issue over to the Government for them to look at. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is the parent of two very young children, because they are regulars at the Westminster kids club party. Any parent would be concerned if they were not in the know about what is going on. We are not saying, “Let’s make it 10.” Let us consider the issues and let the Government perhaps come back with a view in the two-month timetable that they have given themselves.
My second point is about the 34 pieces of legislation covering this area of policy. It is a no-brainer that we need to consolidate. We need to make sure that the police and those responsible for holding such firearms know the law, which needs to be clear, so that nobody is under any misapprehension. That is why clarity of law and consistency are extremely important, and that is an easy one for the Government, as the Minister hinted in his very careful speech from the Dispatch Box.
There was a debate in the Committee about the role of GPs, but we concluded that we can live with the reasonable deal struck between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers—and therefore the Home Office. We should not try to interfere in the judgment of a general practitioner. Let the general practitioner alert the authorities if he or she feels that it has to be done. GPs will be very careful when they write their references or provide any information to those making such decisions, because they will not want to make mistakes. They also have a duty of confidentiality, however. The Committee was reluctant to intervene on that duty, but we felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of GPs themselves, if they needed reminding, because they have a crucial role in ensuring that proper consideration is given when licences are granted.
Tony Cunningham
Before my right hon. Friend concludes, will he comment on the Committee’s report concerning the media? My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) was extremely disturbed by the way in which the media covered the terrible shootings in west Cumbria.
Keith Vaz
Yes, we considered that issue in the inquiry, and it is in the report, although I cannot remember the exact paragraph. With such tragic events, the media tend to go to the scene, and there is 24-hour coverage, which understandably upsets local residents. One witness, it might have been Professor Shepherd or the witness from the health authority—
Keith Vaz
Professor Ashton, I thank my hon. Friend. Professor Ashton said that the constant media coverage might encourage others to do the same, so one has to be very careful not to glamorise what happens.
The report has a section on key facts, and I shall read just a couple. The most recent figures show that there are 138,728 firearm certificates, covering 435,000 firearms, and 574,946 shotgun certificates, covering 1.366 million shotguns. That is a huge number, but the number of cases, tragic though they are, in which legally held firearms have resulted in homicide, deaths or injuries, is very small indeed. That is not to excuse the number or to say it is not important, but it needs to be seen in proportion to the number of guns that are about.
So the Committee has not sought to condemn or criticise; all it has sought to do unanimously is to make suggestions, so that, by closing the loopholes and ironing out the creases, our already tough law becomes not necessarily tougher, but slightly better. It is up to the Government to adopt the measures that we suggest. They have given themselves a two-month timetable, for which I am most grateful, and we look forward to re-examining the issue.
We have decided to publish our recommendations in a grid on our website—we decided to do that after the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) left the Committee—and, as soon as the Government meet those recommendations, we give them a tick. So far, in our three reports, we have totalled about 60 recommendations, and there are 22 in the report before us. We look forward to ticking as many as possible. If we cannot tick them, and if the Government have a better measure to put in place, we will give them the credit they deserve. The Minister and the Government have handled the matter sensitively and carefully and the Opposition Front Benchers have dealt with it in an equally proper way. This is the House at its best, and I hope that the debate continues along those lines.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the opportunity for this debate today. I suspect that whatever day the Government had chosen, some hon. Members might have felt it inappropriate, but the fact that the debate is taking place today has not stopped us from having a well-informed discussion with Members who clearly have an interest in the subject. I welcome also the fact that the matter is under active consideration by the Government.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, have given the matter mature consideration. The whole debate has been approached in a consensual and mature manner.
I further welcome the Committee’s revisiting the report from 10 years ago. One of the Committee’s strengths is that it revisits reports and checks whether recommendations have been implemented. I also welcome the recent innovation of placing recommendations on the website, so that we can see what progress is made against them. Whether the Government see the 66 recommendations in the last three reports as separate targets, I do not know, but, given that the Government are duty-bound to respond to the Committee’s reports, it might be appropriate for them to respond to the recommendations as well.
It is perfectly appropriate and right that, after the tragic incidents involving Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat, the House should consider our gun control laws and approach the issue in a suitably sombre and non-political atmosphere. We owe that to the families, who suffered so grievously from those senseless murders, and to the emergency services, who had to deal with those matters on the day and in the aftermath. It is incumbent on us to propose solutions that reduce risks not only effectively, but proportionately, and we must rely on policies with a sound evidence base. So, we, as a House and as a Government, should propose solutions that identify the differences between and risks associated with legal and illegal firearms.
On illegal firearms, I am sure that there is a consensus in the House that the current Government, just like the previous Government, must maintain pressure on those who import and convert weapons, and on the gangs that use weapons. As the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has said, we need to rely on the border force to try to intercept weapons as they come into the country. We also need to rely on the national crime agency, when it is set up, to deal with what is a national issue, and we need to ensure that the duty of co-operation that will be placed on the elected police and crime commissioners operates effectively, so that they can deal collectively with a matter of national importance.
On legal firearms, Members have quoted some of the statistics. According to the briefing that Members have received from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, it is difficult to demonstrate a relationship between gun crime and legitimate gun ownership. The association provides statistics showing that, for instance, in Scotland in 2005-06, although gun crime fell by 6%, and was 28% lower than nine years previously, there was an increase in privately owned firearms, the number of which was at a five-year high in that country. So, there does not appear to be a correlation between gun crime and legitimate gun ownership, and the association provides a number of other statistics to support that contention. Indeed, handguns were banned following Dunblane, but they continue to be regularly used and are the weapon of choice in gun crime.
One should not draw any rapid conclusions about how to address the issue of gun crime through the licensing of legal weapons. We have heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, on the subject of young people and shooting, and I understand why his Committee called for the review. I, too, am surprised about the different age groups and about the issues on access to guns and ammunition and when someone needs to be supervised and when they do not. Therefore, it is perfectly right for him to pass the buck to the Government, which is something the Committee rarely does. He did not quite use that phrase, but I think he was quite happy to hand over responsibility for that review to the Government. I can see the need to do so, although I am not sure whether he has identified a particular problem that requires such a review to be undertaken.
On legal firearms, there is the matter of the number of firearms on private premises. Hon. Members will know that the British Shooting Sport Council does not consider the number of guns held by an individual to be an issue. That therefore does not necessarily need to be considered when discussing gun controls, particularly in relation to legal firearms. When dealing with that issue, it is essential that we rely on the evidence of what the risks are and how they can be addressed. I want to draw Members’ attention to a couple of the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations, which warrant further investigation. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the 34 laws. I am sure it would be of great advantage to clarify or simplify that matter. There should be tighter restrictions and clearer guidance to the police on the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity. Again, the Government should consider more carefully whether people subject to suspended sentences should be allowed to hold firearms.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, raised a strong point about the need for greater consultation with domestic partners, both current and ex-partners. That matter is certainly worthy of Government investigation, as is the greater enforcement of air weapon offences. The media have also been drawn into the matter as a result of how they sensationalise these crimes. In passing, I shall refer to a case that involves Newsquest. That organisation has done some good work on, for example, ensuring that there are no sex ads in its newspapers. However, I regret that in relation to a murder—not a gun-related murder—in my constituency, it has pursued a particular case again and again. The victim’s family are suffering the consequences because, any time there is a development in the case, it gets covered locally and the family, who want to put the matter behind them, see it constantly reported on the front pages of the paper. Clearly, that may currently and in the future affect all the families involved in the Cumbrian incident and, indeed, the incidents involving Raoul Moat. The media should carefully consider that matter themselves and take appropriate action.
The final thing that I want to mention about the Select Committee report is the fact that, interestingly, it did not recommend centralising gun storage. In the Select Committee’s view, there were perhaps advantages in having gun storage in different places, rather than in a central point. If guns were in a central point, it could be more attractive to someone who wanted to get hold of a large number of guns in one location. Will the Minister say whether he has received representations from any organisations or individuals on changes proposed by arm’s length management organisations? An ALMO in my area, Sutton Housing Partnership, has introduced a policy of not allowing people to store guns in their properties, because it is concerned about those guns getting into illegal hands. However, the evidence that we have before us perhaps suggests that, in some respects, those guns might be safer there than they would be if they were all located in one particular point. When the Minister responds, I hope he will discuss that point.
It is clearly right that, as the House—and, indeed, the Select Committee—addresses these issues, we consider the risks associated with illegal and legal firearms. Collectively, we should formulate a response that addresses those issues and ensures that the families affected by these tragedies can see that the Government have responded proportionately. The Government need to take measures that reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future, without having an undue impact on a sport that millions of people enjoy. Indeed, my wife enjoyed the sport of shooting when she was a teenager. We do not want to have a disproportionate impact on a fraternity who pursue a sport in a perfectly legal fashion. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will take on board those two, at times, conflicting considerations. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that both those matters are addressed in a proportionate manner.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Every year, deaths from gunshot wounds are an all-too-common occurrence in our country, as a result of homicide and suicide. Before this debate, I read a report prepared by the Gun Control Network, which monitors the firearms incidents that take place in our country. That report makes for shocking reading.
In one month alone—November—the Gun Control Network has highlighted huge numbers of firearms incidents. They include seven fatal shootings, five of which were apparent homicides—three in north London and two in the west midlands. In London, two men died after a double shooting in Islington and another victim died when he was shot in a car in Finchley. In the west midlands, a man was shot dead in a house in Bilston and a man whose body was found in Smethwick had died from a gunshot wound to the head.
Two apparent suicides were also reported for that month. A man is thought to have taken his own life after he was seen in a street in Ashington, Northumberland with a gun, and a man was found dead at his stables near Rosewell, Midlothian in a suspected shotgun suicide. Thirteen other victims were shot—five with airguns and imitation weapons. A teenager was shot in Croydon and two men suffered leg injuries when they were shot in Clapham. In Merseyside, a man was shot in the legs in a street in Huyton. A victim was shot in the stomach with a shotgun in Croxteth and a man was shot in the leg in Stockbridge village. In south Yorkshire, a man sustained a minor injury when a shotgun was fired through the window of a house in Totley, Sheffield.
Five other people were hit by pellets from ball-bearing guns or air guns. In Shropshire, a boy was struck by a pellet from a ball-bearing gun in Oswestry and a cyclist was shot in the head with an airgun in Arleston. In south Yorkshire, a jeweller in Rotherham was shot in the face by an armed robber with a ball-bearing gun, and in Suffolk a woman and a teenager were struck in the head by airgun pellets on the same street but in separate attacks in Lowestoft. A man was shot in the hand by police in Copthorne, West Sussex. He was later charged with possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
I make this point because the pro-gun lobby likes to imply that people who take part in so-called legitimate shooting activities are extremely responsible. We have heard a lot of talk about knee-jerk reactions, but whenever there is an appalling incident such as the one in Cumbria, there is always a knee-jerk reaction from the pro-gun lobby. The House should consider the sobering thought that back in 1987, when Michael Ryan was indulging in a massacre in Hungerford, killing 17 people and injuring 15 others, Thomas Hamilton was seen to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate. Yet we know the tragic consequences in 1996 in Dunblane, where Thomas Hamilton killed 18 people and injured 15 others. When Thomas Hamilton was indulging in that killing spree, Derrick Bird in Cumbria was deemed a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate, and we know what happened earlier this year when 12 people were killed and 11 were seriously injured.
In my view, the country would be a far better place if guns were completely banned and nobody was allowed to own them. I recognise that that might be a step too far at this stage, but it is essential that this Parliament takes action to address the gun culture in our country. It is a frightening statistic that almost 5,000 young people—5,000 children—hold a firearms certificate. What kind of message is that sending out to the country at large? I am a councillor in Derby as well as a Member of Parliament. In a park in Normanton in Derby, there was a tragic and fatal incident in which a young man of 15 years of age was shot dead with a gun. I accept that that gun was obtained illegally. However, when the law of the land allows 5,000 children legitimately to hold a firearms certificate, it sends a very bad signal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has pointed out, there are 34 separate pieces of firearms legislation. The time is long overdue for a new, simpler, unified piece of legislation covering the ownership of firearms. As I have said, I would like to see a complete ban on guns, although I accept that that will not happen in the foreseeable future. However, it is appropriate to ban the private storage of firearms in people’s own homes. I cannot see how anybody in this House can legitimately argue that somebody should be able to store firearms in their own home. Why is that necessary? There is no foolproof method of dealing with this other than a complete ban on firearms, but taking them out of people’s homes would be a huge step in the right direction towards preventing the sorts of appalling massacres that we have seen in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria.
That is one of the measures that I would like to see, but we could go further. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has referred to the notion that a person who has a firearms certificate might be deterred from seeing their GP, if they felt that that GP could report them to the police as not being a fit and proper person to continue to hold a firearms certificate. However, there is a way round that: a mandatory, annual medical test to check on individuals who hold firearms certificates would ensure that they are mentally capable and fit and proper people to continue to do so. That measure would get over the problem that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister’s comments in the wake of the Cumbrian shooting, when he said that nobody can
“stop a switch flicking in someone’s head”.
Adopting the approach that I am suggesting would not be foolproof but it would be a considerable step forward in preventing the sorts of terrible incidents that we have seen. I urge the Minister to take it on board and respond to it appropriately.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has considered this issue and has made a number of recommendations, including the involvement of the medical profession through allowing police to see the medical details of applicants and permitting a formal approach to applicants’ families to ensure that they are happy for their family member to obtain a firearms certificate. That would be a huge step forward. We need, as a Parliament, to take appropriate steps. In the past, we have taken measures that clearly have not gone far enough, and we need to go considerably further. I accept that these measures need to be proportionate, but how do we judge what is proportionate when we see the number of innocent lives that have been lost as a result of people who have held firearms legitimately and then, through the inadequacy of our legislation, been able to go on a killing spree? I hope that the Minister will deal with those points.
We need to take more robust measures in relation to the illegal ownership of firearms. I would not allow children to have firearms certificates at all, but addressing the age at which young people are able to do so would be a good step in the right direction in terms of the signal it sends. We also need to look at other measures that we can take by working with young people and supporting youth organisations, which do some excellent work in bringing home to young people the consequences of gun crime. That would prevent more tragic incidents such as the one that occurred in the ward that I represent in Derby, where Kadeem Blackwood, a young man of 15 years of age, had his life tragically cut short. We have to empower youth organisations to enable the sort of educative work that would help to turn young people away from firearms.
Keith Vaz
I, too, was concerned about this when I began the inquiry. My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about these matters. Does he not accept, however, that it would be very odd if we did not allow people the chance to enjoy their sport in a shooting range, in properly controlled circumstances with a proper licence?
Chris Williamson
My own view is that I would ban guns, and there would not be shooting ranges because people would not have guns. However, at the end of the day, politics is the art of the possible. If we could have the properly controlled circumstances that my right hon. Friend has mentioned but, within that context, prevent people from having private storage of firearms in their own homes, that would deal with his point and also prevent the potential for the sorts of terrible massacres we have seen in some parts of the country.
Mr Offord
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants images of weapons to be banned, for example in rap music, which we heard about earlier, and in American TV and big screen movies? That is where young people—particularly those in the urban environment that he is focusing on—see the images and glamorisation of such crimes and tragic deaths.
Chris Williamson
I agree that the violent images that we see on our screens and the references to weapons in rap music do not help. However, I do not think that that sufficiently explains why young people use guns to the extent that they do these days. That is why it is so important that we give the necessary resources not just to the police, but to youth organisations that turn young people away from firearms and make them realise the consequences of using firearms. There are consequences not only for the victims of firearms incidents, but for the lives of those who use them. The life of the young man who killed the teenager in my constituency, and that of his family, has been destroyed as a result of that incident.
Simon Hart
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the absence of a total ban, there is evidence to suggest that when people are given responsible access to firearms at an early age, under proper supervision, it reduces the chance that they will end up in the terrible circumstances that he has described? Instead of it being a negative, it is a positive. The Home Affairs Committee and others have pointed to plenty of examples that suggest that it is a good thing.
Chris Williamson
I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly do not accept the point with regard to young people, or any people, using firearms to shoot live quarry. Perhaps using firearms in a shooting range is a different matter, but I am not sure that I agree.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful, brave and challenging speech, which is important in this debate. However, I do not agree with many of his conclusions. My constituency was the scene of a gun rampage less than 20 years ago. A number of residents who were affected by it were appalled recently when a sports shop decided to sell guns. I must say that it does so in a safe and controlled environment, with regular checks by the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents should have a greater say, perhaps through the planning process, over whether such shops should be allowed to set up in the high street?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I hope that the Localism Bill, which was published last week and which will give local residents greater power over planning matters, will enable what he has described. We need to take account of local people’s views on such matters. Many opinion polls find that many people find the gun culture in our country utterly repugnant and unacceptable. Frankly, I think that people find it an affront to decency when such shops crop up on our high streets.
I hope that the Government will take on board the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and that they will take my comments seriously. I accept that I take an absolutist position on this issue, but I recognise that short of taking an absolutist stance, the Government can go further. In my view, the Government have a moral obligation to go further to prevent incidents such as those in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria from ever happening again in our country.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure and an honour to participate in this important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) who, if nothing else, has reminded us why it is important to have a proper, thorough debate on this issue, rather than to jump to conclusions before we know all the details and understand the ramifications of any legislation that we wish to make.
I will begin with a declaration of interest. In the armed forces, I shot a number of weapons avidly. I am involved with the training of the Olympic pistol team and am vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is an umbrella organisation that deals with a number of associations from across the board in the shooting fraternity.
This debate was always going to focus on the three huge tragedies that have affected British society and, indeed, Parliament—the Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria shootings. I hope that I speak for all hon. Members in saying that our thoughts go out to the families whose lives remain shattered by those unprecedented events. Those events are as shocking as they are unprecedented. The responsibility of dissecting what went wrong is enormous. It involves not only helping the victims’ families to come to terms with the events and to seek justice, but recommending changes to the law that might prevent similar incidents.
I am pleased that there was a delay after the Cumbria shootings in which to take stock and regroup before debating or deciding on firm legislation. The legislation will therefore be based not on passion, but on logic. There is a desire to act swiftly, but we must also act soberly. Given that we can see such tragic images unfolding in real time, thanks to 24-hour television, it is understandable that the majority of people, and indeed journalists, were horrified by the events that we saw and called immediately for tougher action.
I gently remind the House that it is not only such massacres that we must consider. Gun crime, in one form or another, is committed in every hour of every day, sometimes with tragic results. Those events do not take place in the media limelight or on our television sets, but they do shatter the lives of the individuals who are affected in exactly the same way. When we debate the major issue of firearms control, we must not let the issues become polarised by looking simply at the major tragic events.
The world of legal gun ownership and use, and the laws that govern it are extremely complex. On the whole, it operates with the high level of responsibility that society expects. As has been said, 34 Acts of Parliament relate to firearms. I was pleased that in the report, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) called for some kind of consolidation of that legislation. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not possible to legislate to stop a switch being turned in somebody’s head, but we can make it easier for those who have to use the legislation to operate in this environment.
We cannot un-invent the weapon. It has legitimate uses in the rural community, in sports, including Olympic sports, and in law and order. However, weapons can and do fall into the wrong hands. The bullet may be the cause of death, but it is the owner’s finger that is guilty of causing harm. Our job here in Parliament is to ensure that the public are properly protected. There must be a balance in law between our being a fair society and allowing legal gun ownership, and ensuring that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.
The hon. Member for Derby North spoke at some length about wanting to ban guns entirely. I hope he did not wish to mislead the House by saying that he was calling for children not to have access to guns and that it was ridiculous that children could have a licence at the age of 10. He knows that a child cannot be in possession of any weapon unsupervised while under 14, or under 15 in the case of a shotgun. We have to keep the full context of the law in perspective, and that is why the debate is important.
Chris Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that at the age of 14, an individual is a child and not fully aware of the consequences of the use of a firearm? Does he agree that if we are still to have guns in society, some consideration should be given to increasing the age at which an individual can have a firearms certificate, perhaps to 18, when they are an adult?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman puts his point on the record, but what is the consequence of making weapons illegal? It makes them a trophy, a gang culture accessory and an object of desire for certain people. Introducing people to a wide variety of guns at a very young age takes the mystery out of the weapon and teaches them respect. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, the Scouts and the cadets operate guns. I would like to see statistics on the respect or otherwise that people gain by being exposed to guns at an early age. If we had that, the hon. Gentleman would then be in a commanding position to say whether the current situation worked, and we could move forward from there.
Chris Williamson
I think the hon. Gentleman is conflating two issues. Young people involved in gang culture already see the illegal ownership of firearms as a badge of honour, and regrettably they are all too willing to use them. That is a separate matter from my point, which is that allowing young people to have a firearms certificate sends the inappropriate signal that it is legitimate for them to have firearms at their disposal. That is why it is important that we empower youth organisations to deal with the illegal ownership and use of firearms by young people in gangs.
Mr Ellwood
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would encourage him to go out and speak to the clubs and so on that participate in shooting. I have been involved in initiatives that take people from the gang culture, but who have yet to be exposed to guns and the world of crime, to a range so that they can understand what happens there. That teaches them some respect for the weapons that they have previously seen in video games or on television and thought they wanted. If he sees such initiatives, he might come back to the House with a very different view.
Justin Tomlinson
On youth engagement, surely the best thing to do is to involve sports clubs, the Army Cadet Force and other proper organisations that can provide respect for weapons and hands-on knowledge, rather than some do-gooding youth worker saying, “Just don’t do it.”
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I look forward to his speech, which I hope will elaborate on that point.
I welcome the general thrust of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which states:
“We do not believe that a total outright ban on ownership and use of section 1 firearms and shotguns would be a proportionate response to the risks posed by these weapons.”
I fully agree with that, and we should bear it in mind that only one in every 330 crimes involves a gun. If we exclude air weapons, firearms offences decreased by 17% in 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available.
I have huge concerns about the data that are available. The hon. Member for Derby North rattled off a series of horrible events, but he did not once say whether the weapons involved were illegal. In the key facts section on page 3 of the Committee’s report, there is a long list of facts and figures about crimes, but again there is no indication of whether the guns used were illegal or legal. It would be a lot easier for us to debate the matter in detail and with understanding if we had that information.
Mr Offord
Is my hon. Friend aware that the shooting in Finchley that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) mentioned was actually a gangland hit? I do not believe that the person involved held the firearm legally, but even if they did, that crime did not just occur because firearms are legal.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said in an intervention, the Home Office does not collect or produce such data. The situation is tougher because the perpetrator of the crime does not conveniently leave their weapon at the scene, but nevertheless, statistics that differentiate the use of illegal and legal weapons would be helpful, as the hon. Member for Derby North said.
I am concerned about the data. There were 14,250 recorded offences, but we do not know how many involved the use of illegal guns. There is some breakdown analysis, because some categories of weapons are illegal, such as handguns—there were 4,275 incidents involving handguns and all those are illegal. Imitation weapons are not totally illegal, because they are used on TV sets and so forth, but they can be altered. We do not know how many are illegal. Those data would be helpful when we debate the Government’s recommendations.
Paragraph 14 on page 10 of the report states:
“There is a lack of data in the public domain showing the extent to which legally-owned firearms are used in gun crime”.
I hope the Minister can qualify that in his summation. Can such statistics be made public? In its evidence to the Committee, the Home Office states that
“the evidence suggests that the vast majority of crimes involving firearms are carried out with illegally-held guns”.
Parliament has a duty not to throw the net of legislation across the entire gun community in the hope of pulling up some illegal weapons.
Hon. Members have pointed out the contribution that legal shooting activities make in our country. More than 1 million people participate in one form of shooting or another—whether for game, clay pigeon or targets. That makes a huge impact on the economy. The industry is worth more than £1 billion and involves the equivalent of 70,000 full-time jobs.
A recent Cambridge study showed that two thirds of the shooting community is also involved with the management and conservation of our countryside. The industry is therefore not simply about using guns and weapons, but about a relationship with the areas in which shooting takes place. Around £250 million a year is spent by those involved with gun communities. That goes towards the habitat and wildlife management of those areas.
The importance of exposure to weapons at an early age was mentioned. I hope that we agree on that now. Such exposure takes the mystery and glamour out of the weapon. That is recognised by the Government, because Sport England invests heavily to try to take out that mystery, so that people are not encouraged to get hold of an illegal weapon just to be part of a gang.
There is too much legislation, going back to the Firearms Act 1968. Firearms are also an aspect of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and of subsequent violent crime legislation. When there is a big terrorist explosion in the UK, there is a desire for the Government to be seen to do something and for them to look strong on the day, but I am pleased that we have taken a slower approach towards firearms legislation.
It would be useful for the Minister and the Committee to qualify the role of general practitioners. I agree that a relationship between the police and GPs should be developed when the police are deciding whether to award a licence, but should a certificate be granted before or after a GP assessment? The Association of Chief Police Officers report states that we should go further and suggests some form of tagging, but that would be a step too far.
The report suggests tighter restrictions and better guidance in the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity already. Does the Minister believe that those serving suspended sentences should qualify for a firearms or weapons certificate?
There is also the need to consider previous unconvicted behaviour. This is when the police are allowed to consider evidence and information on their database that do not form part of a criminal conviction. This gets a bit blurred, however, so I think that the Minister needs to be clear on whether such evidence or intelligence can be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the idea of consulting domestic partners and ex-spouses is moving us into another blurred area. If the person is an ex-spouse, it suggests that things have not gone too merrily. Would an ex-spouse really want to help his or her former partner? Again we are getting into a blurred area that could be prone to abuse.
I was interested to read what has been learned from practices in America, where they have a two-year licence instead of a five-year approach. Fingerprints have to be submitted, and there must be an hour of firearms training along with further registration every three years. Is the Minister aware of what America and other countries are doing, and could we learn anything from them?
One of my biggest concerns, however, is about the blending of licences issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and shotgun licences. This is not a sensible move. The present system of shotgun licensing is more effective and efficient because it focuses on the person, not the firearm, whereas with section 1 firearm licences, a lot of time is wasted on the minutiae of the firearm type, calibre and whether the person should hold one. I shall give some examples of where section 1 licences might not work: a vermin controller would have to go through a huge amount of red tape, at great cost to himself and the police, just to swap a .22 inch rifle for another; or a deerstalker changing his weapon of choice from a .308 inch rifle to a .270 inch rifle would have to go through the entire process from the start. That would apply to any change from one calibre to another. It does not make sense. However, one section of the 1968 Act requires that good reasons be given and conditions set, and I believe that that should remain in place.
My next concern is about paragraph 84 of the report, which deals with current police guidance on firearms legislation. The guidance is out of date. Lord Cullen’s report on Dunblane suggested that better training must be put in place for our police, but there is still no standard training on firearms certification in the UK. That must definitely change. This also relates to the point about the Olympics that I mentioned in an intervention. This is an example—I look to the hon. Member for Derby North—of legislation being hammered through this place at a rate of knots that did not serve this country well. Yes, a handgun was used in that horrible massacre, but there are ways to prevent handguns from being used by the general population. For example, they could be held and stored in armouries and taken out only by professionals. That would mean that people could still use them. It would also mean that our Olympic team could train in the UK. That would be a sensible approach to the use of handguns on which the Minister knows that I have been lobbying hard.
Chris Williamson
If the hon. Gentleman believes it appropriate to store handguns in a secure armoury, does he agree that it would be appropriate to store all firearms in a secure armoury in a similar way?
Mr Ellwood
That is exactly how this debate should proceed. I am saying that on this issue, about which I have endeavoured to learn a lot, it makes sense to allow handguns to be used in the UK, if they are kept under lock and key and if appropriate measures are put in place, such as a requirement that the safe be opened by three key owners. That would make sense. If the hon. Gentleman would like to roll that out further, he could put forward that proposal. The point that I am making, however, is that because of the legislation handguns were made illegal, yet there is now more handgun crime and it is the one area that is growing.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes my point, which is why it is important to debate such matters thoroughly before we jump to a conclusion that we believe will satisfy the nation’s appetite and anger. That is our role; it is what Parliament must do. This place operates badly when we rush through legislation, a point reflected in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and other examples.
My final observation on the detail is about the proposals on the clarification of the age. There is no point in going into that further, but just to elaborate, no one under the age of 14 can own any form of weapon. They may be able to have a piece of paper saying that they have a certificate, but they cannot use a weapon unsupervised. That is a sensible way forward.
My penultimate point—a point made in an earlier intervention—is about the Press Complaints Commission. There is no need for me to dwell on this, but hon. Members will be aware that my family have endured our own tragedy, with the loss of my brother in a terrorist attack. When it happened we were deluged by the media, which is exactly what happened in Dunblane, in Cumbria, and so forth. The media pile in with such an intense and relentless level of intrusion that it really becomes an invasion, and this at a time when people feel at their most vulnerable. I spoke to those at the Press Complaints Commission, which has a process to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, they are not the people whom those affected would naturally want to phone up when such things happen. However, it is important to send out the message that when such events take place, the media have a responsibility to act responsibly—and not as they do at the moment, which is very invasively indeed—and to give people the space to manage their grief.
To conclude, firearms are part of the dangerous and complex world that we live in. However, we ignore at our peril the growth of gun crime on our streets. We cannot wish away the problem by legislating against those who use guns responsibly. It is the duty of the Government and Parliament to ensure that we carefully monitor what is happening on our streets, in our society and in our communities. It is also important to have that balance of legislation, so that we support those who want to use guns and weapons legally, and deny those who want to use them illegally. I very much welcome this debate, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak in it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s concluding remarks and to our being able to debate the legislation when it comes through in, I understand, the spring.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Let me start by associating myself with the comments of many right hon. and hon. Members about the dreadful incidents in Cumbria and other places. I was present at the June Westminster Hall debate introduced by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). As a proud representative of a rural area, I can only think in horror of the effect that such an incident would have on my community. Everything that I say should be understood in that context.
Since that time there have been some encouraging signs of an emerging consensus, among organisations and authorities, on what would be a proper, responsible, measured and proportionate way forward. Like other speakers, I would like to dwell on just three aspects of that, which are the availability of firearms to young people, the use of medical records in the application process, and the thorny issue of what constitutes a proper form of certification.
I shall start by establishing some context. One passage in the Home Affairs Committee report states:
“Certainly licensed firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases.”
That, I would suggest, is something of an understatement. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Committee, clarified that point earlier this evening. However, he did not go as far as the Committee did in April 2000, in its second report of that Session, which said:
“A common theme to many submissions is that illegally held weapons pose a far greater danger to public safety than those which are held in conformity with the present controls…it is clear that those determined to live outside the law are unlikely to respect the law’s requirements when they wish to acquire or use a weapon.”
Other Members have mentioned the way in which the law has performed in certain areas. It will come as no surprise to them that 52% of firearms offences in 2008-09 were committed with handguns, which were of course prohibited in 1997. That illustrates the point that both the Select Committee reports have made, albeit with a different emphasis.
The Committee went on to say:
“The proportion of licence holders who use their guns in crime is tiny”,
and added:
“Many representations were made to us…about the legitimate enjoyment of shooting…and the wider benefits that shooting brings to the UK economy.”
Other speakers have touched on that point today, but it is fair to re-emphasise that there are different approaches to firearms in urban and rural areas. In rural areas they are seen more as an essential tool of the trade than they might be in other parts of the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is not in her place, spoke of the Opposition’s recognition that 70,000 jobs were associated with the shooting industry—if I can call it that—and the fact that the industry injects £1.6 billion into the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) also said that £250 million is devoted to wildlife and habitat management. That is a significant industry; to put it in context, it is not dissimilar in size to the UK film industry.
I want to dwell first on the issue of young people. Paragraph 7.7 of the Home Office’s “Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police 2002” is no doubt familiar to many. It states:
“It is in the interests of safety that a young person who is to handle firearms should be properly taught at a relatively early age.”
Others have expanded on that, including Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, as the Minister said in his opening remarks. I can see no evidence—emerging or otherwise—to suggest that young people who have access to firearms pose any danger whatever to society; in fact, quite the opposite. It is well within the capability of parents to make sensible and responsible decisions about the activities of their children. They do so pretty effectively every day of the week, and this is no different. There is simply no evidence to suggest that we should conjure up theories that would have a long-term downstream impact on shooting in the UK.
In case that is not sufficient evidence, I will quote a comment made at the weekend by Anita North, the Commonwealth games 2010 gold medallist and record holder, who said:
“People choose their sport at a young age. We have some extremely talented shooters in the GB team who started in their early teens. If they hadn’t been able to get involved so young, they might now be taking part in some other sport rather than winning medals for shooting.”
I shall turn now to the contentious issue of medical records, and start by taking careful note of the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the security of data on the names and addresses of certificate holders. Large numbers of individuals within medical practices could have access to this sensitive material, the leaking of which could pose a significant risk. There is therefore legitimate concern about the proportionality of this measure. The Independent Police Complaints Commission could identify only six cases in which medical involvement at the granting or renewal stage of a licence might have made a contribution to the prevention of crime.
As we have heard, some medical practitioners—not many, but some—are unfavourably disposed to firearms ownership, meaning that licence holders might not visit their GP when they need to. A GP wrote to me only this weekend to say:
“our overriding duty is to our patients, to give them the best advice and guard the confidences they give us. A patient is not going to tell me things if I am going to pass information on to the authorities. We are the guardians of the patient’s confidence, not agents of the state”.
That position is reflected not only by the GP who bothered to get in touch with me but by many others across the country who have been in touch with other hon. Members.
Chris Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the tragic massacres that took place in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria could have been avoided if Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird been subject to a medical examination resulting in their firearms certificates being removed and their guns taken away from them?
Simon Hart
Let repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman in an earlier intervention. The fact is that there are individuals who may be perfectly healthy and competent when they apply for and are granted certificates, but in subsequent years may feel that their health is changing in a way that poses a potential threat to the ownership of their certificates, and as a result may feel fearful about approaching their GP in case their circumstances are changed forcibly. That is not good either for their health or for public safety. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has made his point, but sadly, I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different if different measures had been in place at that time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. Is the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) giving way?
Chris Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for giving way.
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument reinforces my own point. Does he agree that rather than a voluntary arrangement—which I acknowledge could deter people from going to their GP for fear of losing their firearms certificate in the circumstances that he has outlined—there should be a mandatory test, perhaps annually? If he does not agree, will he explain why?
Simon Hart
I apologise for the earlier exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. I will give my reasons for that answer in due course. I think that it is quite difficult to come up with a concept that would appeal to those who, like the hon. Gentleman, start from the absolutist position—which he is perfectly entitled to take—that nothing short of a total ban on all forms of firearms, whatever their purpose, is acceptable. However, I shall do my best in the few moments that I have left.
Let me try to nail the theory that consulting the spouse, or ex-spouse, of a certificate applicant or holder is somehow in the interests of safety. I cannot think of a more divisive and potentially litigious proposition. Some of the healthiest marriages and family arrangements are based on strong disagreement about almost every important issue, and arrangements of that kind often survive rather longer than others. On a flippant level, I think that such consultation would be a ridiculous intrusion into the way in which people conduct their lives. On a more serious level, I think that in acrimonious circumstances in which a marriage fell apart, the idea that an offended ex-spouse, male or female, should have a say in the future enjoyment of his or her partner is ludicrous. I have read, seen and heard no evidence suggesting for one minute that that would have contributed greatly to a lessening of the chance of serious crime involving shotguns or firearms. The idea that we can expect spouses to become moral adjudicators on applications is clearly nonsense.
Finally, let me deal with the difficult question of certification. Here, the devil really is in the detail. I may have got this wrong—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) will put me right if I have—but it seems to me that there is an implication that it would improve the position if the baseline criterion for applications for shotgun certificates were aligned with that applying to section 1 firearms. I cannot imagine that it is being suggested that the opposite should be the case, so I assume that the criterion for all shotgun certificate applications would rise to the section 1 level. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I can see why that might be attractive on the face of it, but I feel that it could be devastating to the shooting and gun trade in the United Kingdom. Let me cite the following at this point: “It would be one thing for a person to require good reason to hold a certificate for a shotgun—a reversal of the current burden of proof whereby the Chief Officer shall not grant a shot gun certificate if he is satisfied that there is no good reason—but quite another to require good reason to possess each and every shotgun, as is currently the case with rifles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) picked up on that, and put it rather more succinctly than I have managed. With this change in circumstances would come all sorts of requirements at variation stage, some of which are practically deliverable but some of which would impose an extraordinary burden, both financial and otherwise, on the already hard-pressed police force. If we consider the sheer number of shotguns in legitimate hands—they outnumber section 1 firearms by about 5:1, I think—we see that the burden that we would be putting on firearms officers and the police force in general is huge. The Select Committee is not as clear as it might be about precisely what the implications are, but perhaps that could be clarified.
All reasonable people will have looked on with horror as the various disasters we are discussing unfolded, most recently those in June and July, and they would accept that some consolidation of the existing legislation is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, it does not necessarily follow that that consolidation should result in wholesale changes, as there is no evidence to suggest that such changes, had they been made earlier, would have altered the tragic events that took place.
I agree with many other Members that evidence and principle must be the two foundations of any changes made by this or any other Government. Of course the efforts of the enforcement agencies and the Government should principally be directed at the eradication of gun crime, rather than unnecessarily penalising legitimate firearms owners. Sadly, so far as I can see, none of the proposals in the Select Committee report would have altered the outcome of the events that we have discussed this evening.
Apart, perhaps—although I doubt it—from the unlikely and absolutist solution suggested by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), no system is going to be 100% watertight. I suggest that the consolidation approach is the best way of establishing a proper balance between the legitimate interests of users—whether recreational users or those who use weapons as part of the nuts and bolts of their daily job—and the legitimate safety concerns. A consolidation would achieve that without compromising the coalition’s unequivocal commitment not to introduce legislation that unnecessarily impacts on people’s daily existence so that they are unable to conduct their businesses or live their lives free from state interference. If the coalition can get us to that stage, and not be too distracted by some of the eye-catching but—I venture to say—dangerous suggestions we have heard this evening, that would be a not unreasonable place to reach.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to sit through the entire debate, and I look forward to hearing the closing speeches from the respective Front Benches. I come to this debate as a holder of a shotgun licence and the owner of a shotgun. I am also very proud that we in South Derbyshire have one of the finest rifle clubs, at Swadlincote, and excellent cadet forces and shooting clubs at Newton Solney, a parish for which I am still a councillor.
We have fantastic shoots in South Derbyshire that are very important to the local economy, and it is interesting to note the juxtaposition between people who handle guns and those such as my good friend the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). There could not be a more obvious distinction between a city dweller and somebody who is proud to live in the countryside.
Chris Williamson
Just for the record, I grew up in the countryside and am very familiar with it, and I regularly walk in the beautiful Derbyshire countryside, so it is not legitimate, worthy or in any way relevant to suggest that I do not understand the firearms issue because I happen to live in the city at the moment.
Heather Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record. Interestingly, I recall that we went through great angst last time around with a report produced when Sir Ivan Lawrence was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That report created huge ructions in the shooting community because of the resulting legislation, which is why tonight’s debate is important. I commend the current Chairman of the Select Committee, because the 22 recommendations are very fair. They contain nuances, which I am sure the Government will examine for the next two months, and the consultation will go on from there. My abiding feeling is that I do not believe that there will be a knee-jerk reaction to anything.
One of the dreadful phrases I use is, “We mustn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”, but shooting is an extremely important part of our economy and our sporting heritage, and I believe that we will do extremely well in the Olympics: all that must not be sucked into the great concern we have when a few people involve themselves in tragic incidents. It is absolutely frightening that the pressure and power groups almost seem to be trying to put down great history, important parts of the economy and the sporting tradition of this country. None of that must change because of tragic incidents that take place in this country.
I, too, agree that it would be very worrying if the different types of licences were put together—even if there were to be a part A licence and a part B licence—because confusion would arise, even for the police, who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. May I put on the record how excellently the Derbyshire police force handles licensing arrangements? I can tell the Minister that the force gets it; Derbyshire’s police absolutely understand the difference between the types of certificates. We ought to leave it with the professionals, and we ought not to dabble any further.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who talks from her own experience of holding a shotgun licence, and the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Given that more than 700 people have died as a result of gunshot injuries and gun crime over the past 13 years, it is a great tragedy that we are having this debate only because it takes something such as the terrible events in Cumbria to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The work that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has done with the Committee on this matter is greatly to his credit and is very valuable.
However, we need to highlight a few key issues and strands. First, the distinction has not always been made clearly in this debate between gun crimes perpetrated by people who were holding illegal weapons and those who hold legal weapons. Many of those 742 gun crime deaths were caused by people holding illegal weapons and not by people who have legal gun licences. I made the point in an intervention that Suffolk has the lowest rate of gun crime in the UK—we are very proud of that, notwithstanding those incidents involving air rifles in Lowestoft mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson)—yet 97,000 gun licences are held by those in the east of England, which is a very high level. That shows that there is not necessarily a causal effect between owning a gun licence and committing a gun crime. We know that gun crimes tend to happen in deprived urban areas, where those who commit crime do not hold gun licences. The key thing is to draw that distinction, because if we are to legislate on this issue, we must ensure that it is effective and addresses the key areas.
One thing we must do is to broaden out this debate. It is about firearms control, not just the terrible events in Cumbria, Hungerford or Dunblane. We need to ensure that the legislation and recommendations passed in this House will make things better. It is very difficult, because we have not heard any conclusive evidence this evening that changing the legislation to deal with licensed firearms will make any significant difference.
We know that there are issues with tackling the gun culture in our inner cities. In dealing with that culture, we need to stop the illegal trafficking of guns in this country and the police need to deal with that trade effectively, including on our borders. In some inner cities, however, dealing with education in schools, particularly in deprived areas, and the police working with communities to highlight the problems of gun crime would be a far more effective way of dealing with illegally committed acts and with communities where there are problems with gun crime. In many rural communities, however, people hold gun licences and are very law abiding. Earlier in the debate I talked about Suffolk, where people use guns for pest control. I do not shoot—I have no interest in shooting—but we must accept that the number of law-abiding citizens who do not commit crime and who do not have any interest in misusing their guns use their guns for sport and for pest control. We must accept that legislation must be effective and targeted on the causes of illegal gun crime in this country. It should not be focused on a knee-jerk reaction to one or two terrible events that results in banning guns for those who use them for legitimate, law-abiding sport or pest control reasons.
Based on my experience as a doctor, I want to pick up on the issue of medical practitioners. Would it necessarily be useful for medical practitioners to have to tick a box every year for the 97,000 people in the east of England who have gun licences? Is it important that those medical practitioners should be consulted annually? Far too often in my professional life, I saw the pointless forms we had to fill in. We ticked the boxes but it did not improve patient care or make things any safer. It is important that we do not stigmatise people with mental health conditions. People are perfectly competent and able to make informed choices. They are not necessarily going to be more likely to run off and commit a gun crime than someone who does not have a mental health condition. We need to be careful not to draw that stigma into the debate. To be perfectly frank, a piece of paper signed on one day of the year does not necessarily mean that in three, six or nine months that person will not have seen their mental state deteriorate considerably. Ticking a box does not mean that we will make things any safer, and the case has not been proven.
We know that when medical practitioners have a serious concern about the conduct of a patient—for example, a fear that a patient is a paedophile or the knowledge that a patient might be a danger to themselves or to the public—they take it into their own hands to breach medical confidentiality. There are many such cases. They breach medical confidentiality because the duty to society is greater than the duty of confidentiality. We have to trust them—we should not put an onerous burden on medical practitioners that will not necessarily be effective.
Simon Hart
If there was a situation in which my hon. Friend was required to make such observations and somehow failed to pick up on a patient’s mental health, which led to a dreadful tragedy, what would be the legal and professional implications for his trade?
Dr Poulter
There is always a blame culture, and we would have to be careful that a simple form that a doctor had to sign on one day of the year could not be used as a sledgehammer to hit that doctor or medical practitioner over the head later on because somebody perpetrated a bad act. As I have said, and as I think my hon. Friend accepted in making his point, someone’s mental state can deteriorate quickly—a switch can be flicked in someone’s mind and it is impossible to legislate for that. Simply involving a doctor in this process will not make that any less possible.
It is not only with gun crime that a switch can be flicked in that way, as we saw in north Wales with the Peter Moore case. In 1995, he killed four men with a knife in a random rampage. It is not just with gun crime that people temporarily lose control and go on a rampage—it happens with other weapons. In America there have been cases with samurai swords. We have to be careful not to legislate on the basis of one or two terrible tragedies, such as that in Cumbria. That is an important point for the House to consider.
Sir Alan Beith
I am interested in this argument and I agree that a box-ticking exercise is no use, but GPs in rural communities will often be aware if patients are gun licence holders and might well pass on information if they are seriously concerned. The question is what to do in urban communities in which GPs might be unaware who is a gun licence holder. As my hon. Friend says, the problem is often the illicit gun holder who does not have a licence anyway.
Dr Poulter
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Let us consider how effective that piece of paper—that box-ticking exercise—would be in an urban community. The turnover of patients in most GP practices in areas such as Camberwell, where I was a medical student, is a third of patients every year. Therefore, such a measure might not work because, with such a high turnover, it is not easy to keep track of patients who move and migrate around London and fall in and out of registers. As my right hon. Friend said, the people we are dealing with in urban areas are not those with licences but those who possess handguns illegally. Community engagement and education in schools is so important in addressing those issues.
We have had a very good debate and I will not talk for much longer. Members need to ask whether further legislation that would give doctors more onerous responsibilities to fill out forms, and that would make it more difficult for people to have gun licences, would make anybody safer. I think the answer is conclusively no. We cannot legislate for terrible tragedies such as that in Cumbria. Unfortunately, they will happen no matter what we do. It is easy, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, for us and the media to get the retrospectoscope out and judge things retrospectively in the hysteria of political debate. We need to legislate for the reality, which is that law-abiding gun owners who have a licence do not tend to misuse them. For the reasons I have given, I do not think that there is a conclusive case for strengthening the legislation.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Like everyone who has taken part in the debate, I want to express my sympathies for those who were involved in the incidents in Cumbria and Northumberland, particularly David Rathband, the police officer who was blinded by Raoul Moat. I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). In making their interventions, they showed how these events have affected their constituents and made a significant contribution to the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, told us that the Committee had made every effort to publish the report in time for today’s debate, so we are extremely grateful for the hard work that members of the Committee have done on behalf of the House in order to inform the debate. It is a shame that it is taking place on a day when there is a one-line Whip and the weather is so inclement that undoubtedly some Members who would have wanted to be present cannot be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was unavoidably taken away. I know he was extremely disappointed not to be able to participate in the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East emphasised the need to avoid regulation that would put our sports people who take part in firearms events at a disadvantage. He highlighted the issues surrounding the various age limits relating to guns. In order to save time, I shall not read them out from the table on page 42, as he did. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, these have been batted over to the Government to consider and we look forward to their response to the anomalies identified by the Select Committee.
We look forward, too, to the codification of the 34 pieces of legislation that have been introduced over the past century to regulate guns in the UK. My right hon. Friend referred to the need for GPs to recognise their crucial role in alerting police to the potential dangers posed by some of their patients who have gun licences.
The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) compared the attitudes of people in the USA with those of people in the UK, highlighting the fact that there was little appetite among people in the UK for owning guns. They do not have the same attitude as people in the USA to the right to own a gun. She said that changes to gun control would not have stopped the incidents in Cumbria or Northumberland, and questioned the need to regulate further, but she called for action on criminal behaviour, an issue highlighted in the Select Committee report.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) called for an evidence-based approach to making changes and stressed the need for any changes to be proportionate. He wanted the issue of imports to be addressed and spoke of the potential role of elected police commissioners in future in tackling gun crime. He, too, cautioned against regulating in a way that would impact on sport, which was a regular feature of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was a major dissenting voice in the debate. He gave figures for November which showed a large number of incidents involving firearms to support his case for stricter regulation. His preference was for a complete ban on gun ownership, but he recognised that that view might not command a majority in the House. He urged the Government to look at the recommendations of the Select Committee and to regulate more stringently in future. He also called for a mandatory annual medical test and a complete ban on guns being stored in homes.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) reminded us that gun crime takes place all too frequently in our society and that our job as legislators is to protect the public. He called for more data to be collected by the police on whether guns used in crimes were legal or illegal. Again, that is an issue referred to in the Select Committee report. He mentioned the important role of sports people in wildlife conservation, a theme picked up by the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who referred to the vital role and the money invested by people involved in gun sports in wildlife conservation and husbandry. He also expressed concerns for the future of firearms sport, as did many hon. Members, and he was concerned to ensure that GPs do not become agents of the state who are required to breach patient confidentiality in passing information to the police.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) paid tribute to the Swadlincote gun club and cited the importance of shoots to her local economy. I have never held a gun, let alone fired one, apart from an air rifle that somebody else owned when I was young, but I had a friend who managed a shoot, and we had interesting conversations about the investment and contribution that shoots make to local economies, so I have nothing but respect for people in that industry. The hon. Lady opposed the recommendation of a single licence, but she commended Derbyshire police on their handling of the licensing process.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) laid claim to the lowest rate of gun crime in the country and questioned whether evidence showed that changes to gun regulations would make a difference. He, too, said that we need to focus on and target illegal gun crime, and he referred, from his professional experience, to the danger of stigmatising people with mental health conditions and breaching patient confidentiality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made a number of points. She mentioned the considerable possible savings from staggering the renewal of existing licences and dealing with the bulge in renewals that the introduction of previous legislation caused. We will be interested to see the Government’s response to that. She also wanted the Government to respond to the Committee’s 22 recommendations, and they say that they will do so within two months. Given the importance of the issue, we would also like confirmation that they will do so on the Floor of the House in the form of an oral statement.
Keith Vaz
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his long-overdue elevation to the Front Bench?
Some of us have already received e-mails following the publication of various reports, and this is a debate that should include the public. We as parliamentarians need to have the final say, but it would be worthy of us to allow a more general debate on some of the issues.
Clive Efford
I could not agree more. The wider public—in particular, those communities directly affected by such incidents—will want to respond to the recommendations of my right hon. Friend’s Committee, and to have some input into the Government’s response.
Mr Ellwood
It has been made clear that we cannot legislate against another attack. Sadly, there is likely to be another attack such as Dunblane or Cumbria, and indeed another terrorist attack. Our purpose in this place is to ensure that we have the correct legislation, and interestingly the Committee Chairman admitted that his knowledge of firearms extended only to carrying a water pistol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that, unless we have a cognitive, sober and detailed debate to ensure that we understand the full issue, our decisions in this place will not be made on solid grounds?
Clive Efford
I agree. The Committee Chairman made that point himself, noting that he and members of the Committee had gone to great lengths to understand a great deal, had been educated and had even had their views changed on certain aspects of what I would call the legitimate firearms industry and legitimate firearms sport. It is important that people are well informed when they legislate, whether on guns or anything else. That is the logical thing to expect of people involved in passing legislation.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made a number of commitments on the recommendations. He said that the Government would consider reviewing convictions in terms of the renewal or revocation of licences. On additional regulation, we would not want the police to spend more time enforcing regulations on the legal ownership of arms at the expense of dealing with the illegal use of arms. In addition, the police should be identifying and following up cases where we might want to call into question someone’s ownership of a licence, rather than investing a great deal of time in renewals. That is why the Select Committee recommends that, rather than having a renewal period of every two years, the existing five-year period should be retained.
The Minister also indicated that he would consider the issues surrounding ages and the recording of what types of weapons have been used and whether they are legal or illegal. During the debate, several hon. Members referred to the need for there to be a crime reduction strategy to tackle wider illegal activities—for example, the issues surrounding the illegal drug trafficking industry, organised violent crime and the use of weapons in domestic violence incidents. All those matters were referred to by the Select Committee and we would like to see them mentioned in the Government’s response.
Many hon. Members have said that we must not have a knee-jerk reaction, and I think we would all agree that if one legislates in haste, one repents at leisure. However, we should remember that individuals such as Derrick Bird had legal access to firearms and therefore it is absolutely right for the Select Committee and the House to review the laws on the licensing of guns.
The report makes it clear that we have the tightest regulations on the licensing of firearms anywhere in the world and that we have a relatively low level of gun crime, despite all the serious incidents there have been. The report concludes that legal firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases where weapons are discharged or used in crimes. In legislating, we should prioritise public safety. If we introduce regulations, they should not harm the future of the legal use of weapons in the pursuit of sport but, where necessary, we should legislate to protect the public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on his promotion to the Front Bench and wish him well in his new role. This has been an interesting and well-informed debate, which has highlighted some of the themes that emerge when considering the difficult and, at times, emotive issue of the control of firearms.
People who possess firearms legally usually conduct themselves safely and conscientiously and are among the first to condemn the criminal misuse of firearms. However, following the tragic events in Cumbria and Northumbria, there has been a ready recognition of the need for a debate about firearms laws and licensing. At the outset, I pay tribute to all those who have been touched by those desperately sad events—the families of those who have lost loved ones; the victims who have survived such traumatic incidents; and the police, the emergency services and other organisations, such as Church groups, that have been involved in all those incidents. Our thoughts and prayers are particularly with the families and those who have been touched by this in some way.
During the debate, there have been calls for consideration of the issues to be thorough, proportionate and having due regard to informed opinion on what, as we have heard, is undoubtedly a complex and emotive subject. We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate that has met all those considerations. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his opening remarks, the Government are very much in listening mode, and today’s debate has been invaluable in setting out the main issues and the arguments for and against particular changes to the law. We will reflect carefully on everything that has been said and wish to take into account any other views from interested parties before deciding what further measures might be needed to improve public safety.
We have already taken delivery of Assistant Chief Constable Whiting’s useful and informative peer review of the tragic shootings in Cumbria, and we have also seen the report by Assistant Chief Constable Sue Fish on behalf of ACPO’s criminal use of firearms group. I have met them both since the publication of their reports and discussed with them in detail their recommendations.
In the course of the next two months, we will respond to the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee, which has just reported on its own investigation into whether there is a need for changes to the way in which firearm and shotgun certificates are issued, monitored or reviewed as a means of preventing gun violence. We will consider that carefully. As part of that, we will also consider the need for a broader debate and consideration. The Government will seek to strike a balance in ensuring that our controls are targeted fairly and proportionately.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who has been unable to be here today for reasons that I fully recognise. I am sure that he will want to be part of the continuing considerations and discussions on this important and sensitive issue. We will seek to continue bilateral discussions with him as matters progress.
I will seek to reply to a number of the points made during this wide-ranging and interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made a well-informed, thoughtful contribution that highlighted many of the themes that come through in Assistant Chief Constable Whiting’s review, as well as the need to grapple equally with the criminal issues and those of the law, which I will reflect on in later comments. As the Chair of the Select Committee has said, those of us with a non-classical education have also been educated in the use of Latin.
I thank the Chair and his Committee for their very helpful and informative report and pay tribute to the detailed and careful examination that they have conducted. I will respond in slightly further detail on the issues relating to age and to the role of doctors, but let me deal now with changes to the law and consolidation. As I said to the Select Committee when I appeared before it to give evidence on this specific point, I recognise that there are two potential themes. The law itself is complex, but so is the way in which it is interspersed in several different pieces of legislation. I therefore hear the calls for consolidation as well as simplification.
We will have to consider the matter carefully, because, as I said to the Select Committee, when one starts to change the law, new avenues for legal challenge can be opened, and there is a lack of certainty attached to new legislation. We will carefully consider the points that have been raised by the Select Committee, and in the interim we will consider the need for revised Home Office guidance to present the existing legislation as clearly and simply as possible. This matter has been raised by other hon. Members, ACPO and other interested parties, and we will consider their points in detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) highlighted the important contribution of firearms in sport, and thereby raised the broader context in which we must consider this issue. He raised a specific issue about arm’s length management organisations in social housing. I have not received any representations on that point, but perhaps there are specific issues with regard to landlords and tenants that fall outside the issues that we have been debating. I am willing to consider any specific points that he subsequently wants to raise.
James Brokenshire
There may be matters relating to landlords and tenants. We must consider carefully the issue of storage, as the Home Affairs Committee has done. I am happy to reflect on that matter further, but we must be careful and cautious so that we do not impose restrictions without properly considering their implications. Such restrictions might create more risk, rather than reducing the risk. However, he has fairly highlighted the issue.
The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) described the shocking impact of gun crime by highlighting specific examples and issues. This will always be an emotive issue, on which there are strongly held views, and I thank him for bringing that context to this evening’s proceedings. He wanted further clarification on GPs, and I will come to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) discussed the Olympics, which is a matter that we have corresponded on and discussed. I have inquired of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics whether the existing restrictions are hampering preparations for the 2012 games, and I am advised that they are not. We will review the arrangements post-2012 to consider whether further changes are required.
Mr Ellwood
Only those who have been selected for the squad have been given licences to participate in training in the UK. Will the Minister consider the long term and the legacy of the Olympics? Looking forward to the next games, we will still need to be able to train in the UK.
James Brokenshire
I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about sporting development. As I have said, we have considered the matter with Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and they are satisfied with the current arrangements. We will continue to keep the matter under review after the Olympics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) highlighted the issue of shotguns and the different regime of section 1 licences. That point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). The issue is complex, and we are examining the overlap and the common test of fitness for purpose. A Home Office working group, which includes representatives of the police and shooting interest groups, is working to devise a single application form. That group will look into the feasibility of a single certificate, too, but we recognise the complexity of the arguments involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire has said, the devil is in the detail.
It was instructive to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on the need for a broader debate on firearms control, and I agree with him. It was equally interesting to hear about his experiences as a doctor.
A number of matters will require further examination and consideration, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee indicated. Some may require legislation, but we might be able to deal with some in other ways. On that point, doctors have an important role to play and we welcome the agreement between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP of the grant or renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate. They are seeking to implement the arrangement within six months, and in essence it will involve a system of notification by way of a standard letter. That will mean that GPs are in a position to alert the police if they have concerns, and the police will then be able to request a medical report under the procedures that normally apply to licensing.
ACPO will now draw up a more detailed paper on the matter, and the BMA will produce guidance for doctors. The system is a welcome step forward, and there will be further discussions about the possibility of placing a marker on computerised medical records to create a more enduring record of which patients own a firearm. A number of privacy and other issues mean that that requires detailed consideration, but I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.
On the matter of age, it is important to remember that the police grant a certificate only if they are satisfied that a gun can be held safely and without risk to the public. That means that a young person is subject to the same checks regarding suitability, storage and so on as an adult. In such cases, it is usual that the young person’s parents or another responsible adult will supervise them and take responsibility for the weapon when it is not in use. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said earlier, the Government believe that it is important to focus on whether shooting activities are conducted safely and responsibly. We have received no evidence to date that there has been any misuse as a result of the existing provisions, but we will reflect on the concerns that have been raised both in the Home Affairs Committee’s report and in the debate today.
There is much for the Government to take away from today’s debate. We will genuinely reflect on what has been said, along with the other sources of evidence and opinions. The focus of this evening’s debate has largely been on the legal holding of weapons, but we recognise the important contribution of the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, which has done extraordinarily good work in setting out the intelligence picture on the illegal use of weapons. We are also looking to strengthen the approach to serious organised crime through the creation of the national crime agency, which will be an important step forward in bearing down on such crime. We will also deal with the criminal gangs that often sit behind the use of illegal weapons and the sad tragedies that affect many of our communities.
We will form a view on what more might be done not only to help prevent further tragedies, such as those in Cumbria and Northumbria, but to ensure that we have effective and proportionate firearms controls. Although we have stringent firearms controls—Assistant Chief Constable Whiting has said that they are “robust”—we keep them under review and are prepared to tighten them further if necessary. The Home Affairs Committee’s report, the input of ACPO and others and the points made in today’s debate are important contributions in that regard, and all options are open for discussion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of firearms control.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Feed-in Tariffs
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I present this petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr Savile Burdett, of Axminster in Devon. He is petitioning the House to ask the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation in December 2010 so that photovoltaic solar collection systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent either alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided that the system is inspected for electrical safety by his local authority or by a local electricity supply authority.
The Petition states:
The Petition of Savile Burdett, of Axminster, Devon,
Declares that the Petitioner believes that the present regulations concerning Feed-in Tariffs for photo voltaic generated energy in homes are unfair, reward richer rather than poorer people and deter new ideas and technical development; that Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) were introduced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to start on 1st April 2010; that these are payments for various energy saving systems including photo voltaic solar generated electricity (pv solar); that payments are made to the householder, to encourage energy saving and consequential reduction of carbon emissions and additionally to encourage the growth of the industry; that, provided the system is installed to certain preset standards by MCS certified companies, specified payments are made for each unit of electricity generated; that additionally, when more is generated than is needed by the householder at the time, an export tariff is paid for electricity exported to the Grid; notes that if, however, the system is not installed by MCS certificated companies it will not be eligible to receive the FIT generation tariff or the guaranteed FIT export tariff; notes that the Petitioner believes that there are a number of disadvantages to this system; that the current regulations give some degree of monopoly power to certain companies, by in effect charging a householder who chooses to forgo the MCS certificate guarantees and either have the system installed by a contractor whom he trusts, but who is not MCS certified, or to do the work himself, which may be cheaper; notes that householders who install their own equipment or use a contractor who is not MCS certified receive no payment for surplus electricity generated and supplied to the Grid; and further notes that the current regulations may deter development, by discouraging developers from installing and testing new technologies. The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons asks the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation during November 2010 so that photo voltaic solar collector systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent, alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided the system is inspected for electrical safety by his Local Authority or by the local electricity Supply Authority.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P000871]
Mobile Phones (Health Effects)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
It is a great testament to science and maths writers such as Ben Goldacre and Matt Parker that no self-respecting politician can make speeches in the House of Commons without taking heed of the science behind their contribution, so at the outset let me tell the Minister that I am sure we both agree that public health decisions must be grounded in scientific facts and that our public policy must be evidence-based. As we have both read around this subject, we will probably agree that there is no conclusive evidence to prove the link between mobile phone use and brain cancer.
Let me contradict myself at the beginning of this speech by making an allegation for which I have little factual evidence. From my experience of nearly a decade in the House, it is my view that the more an industry or organisation wishes to hide something unpleasant or do something unpopular, the more lobbyists it employs to talk to MPs. The $1 trillion telecoms industry hires a lot of lobbyists.
I do not seek to persuade the Minister that there is a link between brain cancer and the radiation emitted by mobile phones, but I want to convince her to take a sceptic’s eye to the recommendations before her in future public policy. A number of scientists and epidemiologists believe that although there is no certainty that mobile phone use causes tumours, there are ample causes for concern. At the very least, I ask her to look at the work of Siegal Sadetzki or the earlier work of Allan Frey, and to read “Disconnect”, a recently published book by Devra Davis, and the work of Henry Lai.
Some of those scientists and writers challenge the conventional thinking in the telecoms industry. I make no apology for giving their case a hearing in the Chamber tonight, although I accept that they are not the only voices in the debate. I should like to tell the Minister first why the industry needs to put a greater emphasis in its communications to consumers on the potential risks that mobile handsets cause, and secondly, why I am concerned about independent research. I shall also outline what I think needs to be done to remedy those two problems.
The Minister is new to her post, but she could make a big difference to public policy before she gets that promotion that I am sure she deserves in the imminent reshuffle that we read about in the papers. The mobile industry is big business and an important player in the UK economy. Ofcom’s most recent figures from its communications market report show that operator-reported retail revenue currently totals £30.4 billion. Mobile retail revenues are £14.9 billion; mobile voice call minutes amount to 118 billion; data volumes over mobile networks increased by 240% in 2009; and more than 96 billion text messages and 600 million picture messages were sent in 2009. The Office for National Statistics estimates that mobile phone ownership has increased from 65% in 2001 to 81% in 2009 and, worldwide, 5 billion people are using mobile phones. In the UK, that means that there are now more mobile phone connections than there are people—an estimated 80 million.
One of the key concerns of scientists such as Devra Davis is labelling. She says that the labelling of phone products in store, online and in the literature a person receives with their phone is woefully inadequate. I also accept the case from statisticians such as Matt Parker who disagree with me. Matt told me today:
“The only basis for precautionary labelling mobile phones would be on a hunch. There is no evidence for it. Of course we should continue research, and make sure it is independent and unbiased, but there is no need to give people the impression that they should alter their use of mobiles when there is absolutely no basis for it”.
Yet the mobile phone companies themselves provide precautionary advice—it is just difficult to find it. If someone wanted to make a judgment on whether to purchase a phone based on its specific absorption rate, which indicates how much electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by body tissue while using a mobile phone—the higher the SAR, the more the radiation is absorbed—or on how close to their head they can hold the phone, they could not do so at the point of sale, because the information is simply not there. It is not available on the shop floor or at the click of a button online.
I suspect that most sales staff would not be able to recommend which phone a consumer should buy based on its radio frequency exposure either. Yet we know that the legal departments of mobile phone manufacturers are all now slipping into the fine print a warning about holding a phone against the head or body. That, in itself, is not enough, and they are not giving this information enough prominence in their literature. Why are the manufacturers printing these warnings, after years of denying that there was any risk of radiation, if they are of the view that there is no cause for concern? Apple, for example, suggests that users of the iPhone should keep about five eighths of an inch between the handset and the head. Research in Motion—the manufacturer of the BlackBerry—is even more cautious, saying that people should keep a distance of about an inch.
For the average user, those warnings require a magnifying glass to read. They are usually in point 8 font size or below and make up part of the little slip tossed aside when a phone is unpacked. If someone managed to struggle through any of these booklets and reached the advice, they would be one of only a handful of people ever to have managed it. How many people even know that radio frequency exposure comes from the phone’s antenna? Not many, I suspect. How many people know that this exposure is stronger when a phone is kept in clothing, which weakens the signal, causing the power to increase? How many people know that it is recommended, if mobiles are carried on belts or in pockets—[Interruption.] I am sorry, would the Whip, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), like to get in? Is he seeking to intervene? No?
How many people know that it is recommended that if mobiles are carried on belts or in pockets, the liquid crystal display and keypad should face towards the body? The fact is they do not. Hardly anyone knows what advice is given on the use of handsets. Although all phones sold in the UK fall within the SAR guidance of 2 W per kilogram in 10 grams of tissue for electromagnetic radiation absorbed, most users would probably be shocked to learn that each handset differs and that the manufacturers give different guidance on using phones.
Improved labelling has support among many academics and organisations, such as the EM Radiation Research Trust, which was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and Powerwatch.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Like me, Mr Speaker, you have young children. Also like me, you will be concerned if there is compelling evidence of the dangers of mobile phone handsets or masts. My constituent Eileen O’Connor, of EM Radiation Research Trust, has drawn to both my attention and that of my hon. Friend the strong evidence of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation, particularly to children. Does he support calls for the Government to investigate the safety of mobile phone handsets and masts, and either to issue stronger guidance or to legislate on the basis of that evidence?
Mr Watson
Yes, and I am going to make the case that the science should leave no stone unturned. If my hon. Friend lets me develop my argument, I am sure that he might want to comment on it later.
Improved labelling has support among many academics and organisations. For example, Alasdair Philips from Powerwatch has stressed to me that safety advice should be included in an obvious position, such as the “Getting started” section of a new phone booklet, not buried in the back pages of the manual. I cannot vouch for those organisations, but they are entitled to have their voices heard in this House. It is often hard for independent organisations to be heard above the cacophony of voices from telecoms lobbyists.
We might even need to go one step further. The Government should consider the merits of obliging manufacturers to place health advice and SAR ratings on the outside of handset boxes. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is pressing Congress to look at passing a similar law. He summed up his thoughts perfectly when he recently said:
“Until we know for sure, a labelling law will ensure that cellphone users can decide for themselves the level of risk that they will accept…mobile phone companies should not be the ones making that decision for us.”
San Francisco aims to become the first city in the USA to require large wireless retailers to display a device’s SAR rating prominently. The regulation will come into force at the start of February next year. Lawmakers in Oregon and in Californian cities are considering similar steps. Around the world, other nations are extending the cautionary approach.
The German Government, for example, has introduced the Blue Angel phone label. In order for mobile phone manufacturers to be able to display the BA sign on their products, their SAR ratings must not exceed 0.6 W per kilogram. Although the German Government’s current safe limit is in line with the EU level of 2 W per kilogram, it is perhaps the first recognition that the EU’s rating is already much more lenient than that of the US, Canada or New Zealand. In Germany, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection publishes the SAR ratings of all mobile phones on sale in Germany. Why not put the ratings on our direct.gov website, so that British consumers who are interested in the issue can get the facts? The bottom line is that consumers should be given enough information about SAR levels to allow them to make an informed purchasing choice. At the moment, they cannot do that. This Government believe in transparency, and I applaud them for that. I believe in the power of information. The Minister can ensure that consumers are far better informed about the science around their mobile phones, should they be interested.
On the risks of mobile phones, thousands of studies have been published in scientific journals, forming the basis for systematic reviews by health agencies. The balance of evidence to date would suggest that there are no short-term established adverse health effects on the brain from mobile phones. To pretend that the long-term effect of exposure to such devices over more than a decade is known, however, is false. It is not known, and the matter will not be settled until the science leaves no stone unturned. Despite the mobile phone lobby’s claim otherwise, many key and respected studies have suggested that there may well be a link between mobile phones and brain cancers. Although such studies do not identify a causal link, they insist that further research is warranted and emphasise the need for caution in public policy making. As far back as 2000, for example, the Stewart report said that the use of mobile phones is not totally
“without potential adverse health effects”.
Although Sir William’s report said that there was no evidence of a health risk to either adults or children at the time, it said that children should be discouraged from making “non-essential” calls until further research had been completed.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend seems to be saying that there is strong evidence that is worthy of further investigation. He mentioned the fact that manufacturers give warnings, but that they are sometimes difficult to find. Does he think the manufacturers issue those warnings to cover themselves legally, just in case there is a problem, or perhaps because they have strong evidence? Does he agree that, either way, it is imperative that the Government take action now?
Mr Watson
An optimist would say that they are adopting the precautionary principle in regard to health. A pessimist might say that they are adopting such a principle because of possible legal cases. Either way, they are not doing enough to provide clear packaging.
The doubts about the long-term health impacts of mobile phones continue to be highlighted by the Department of Health’s own guidance, to which I am sure the Minister will refer. Many parents are probably not even aware of the guidance, however. It states that children should
“use mobile phones for essential purposes only”
and
“keep calls short—talking for long periods should be discouraged.”
This advice was influenced by the Stewart report.
We also had the National Radiological Protection Board’s report, “Mobile phones and health”, in 2004. That review updated Stewart, and its main conclusion was that there was no hard evidence at present that the health of the public had been adversely affected by the use of mobile phone technologies. The report does, however, state that some uncertainties remain and that a continued precautionary approach to the use of mobile phones is recommended until the situation is clarified. Following the publication of that report, Sir William Stewart himself said:
“The fact is that the widespread use of mobile phones is a relatively recent phenomenon and it is possible that adverse health effects could emerge after years of prolonged use. The evidence base necessary to allow us to make firm judgements has not yet been accumulated”.
The report’s findings make it clear once again that this is not a settled issue.
Further research, such as the 2004 Karolinska Institute study, published worrying findings on a link between mobile phones and ear tumours. The institute’s research suggested that using a mobile phone increased the risk of acoustic neuroma by 3.9 times on the side of the head on which the phone was used. There was no increase on the other side of the head, giving an overall rise in risk of 1.9 times. The report went on to conclude that regular mobile phone use over a decade or more might increase the risk of benign tumours. Like the Stewart report and the NRPB report, the Karolinska Institute’s study makes it clear in its findings that this is not a settled issue. Further research is needed. Well-respected epidemiologists such as Dr Lennart Hardell of Orebro university in Sweden have also found that links between mobile phones and cancer might exist.
Bill Esterson
Since my constituents drew this matter to my attention, I have looked into the details, as my hon. Friend has done. I have reached the conclusion that it is important, as a parent, to take precautions and to restrict the use of mobile phones by children in anything other than an emergency. I urge the Government to take that point seriously, even at this stage, as well as taking on board all the other points that my hon. Friend has made about carrying out further investigations.
Mr Watson
Even with my own beloved children—my five-year-old and my two-and-a-half-year-old—I sometimes have to persuade them not to grab my mobile phone. The precautionary principle should apply, but it is very hard for parents. This is why public information is very important.
As I was saying, Dr Hardell, in his study “Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years”, has reviewed epidemiological studies that found that phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas. In carrying out his review, he found a link—although not a causal link—between phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas. He also found that tumours were more likely to occur on the side of the head that the handset was used. His study indicated that one hour of cell phone use per day significantly increased tumour risk after 10 years or more. He also makes the case that this is far from a settled issue.
In May, the hotly anticipated Interphone report for the World Health Organisation suggested that those who engage in heavy phone use could be at risk, but stopped short of establishing any firm links from the data. The Interphone study is the largest study to date into phone use and head and neck tumours.
Although there were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, the report went on to state that
“The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”
The research team was divided on its findings—
Mr Watson
That is a quaint tradition in the House, Mr. Speaker. I had forgotten that I had to engage in it when I was a Whip.
The fact that the research team was divided on its findings did not prevent the UK-based GSM Association, which represents the global mobile phone industry, from deciding that the report supported a consensus that there was “no established health risk”, while deriding what it considered to be errors in the report.
Despite what the mobile phone lobby continues to tell us, all those studies have one thing in common. The issue of whether mobile phone use increases the risk of brain cancers remains open. The link between phones and cancer may turn out to be like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, in the case of which our original fears did not come to fruition, or it may turn out to be like the link between tobacco and lung cancer. The truth is that we simply do not know. Further independent research over a longer period is needed. At this point I must issue a statistics health warning. Matt Parker has implored me to make it clear that we will never reach the point of saying, “Mobile phones do not cause cancer”; there will merely be more and more studies showing that there is no reason to believe that they do not.
I suspect that one academic who would challenge Matt’s view that we should act only if the numbers tell us to do so is Dr Devra Davis, author of the brand-new book “Disconnect”. If the Minister has not yet had a chance to read Davis’s book, I urge him to do so. Former United States Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee has described it as
“A critically important book that is a must-read for parents and policy makers. A surprising, well-documented, and compelling call for action.”
Dr Davis specialises in the way in which the environment affects our health. She has previously written books stating that the tobacco industry was not initially honest about the links between cigarettes and cancer, and that the debate in Britain about the dangers of asbestos lasted for a century. She insists that the mobile phone industry has behaved in the same way, working—often with Government help—to discredit independent scientists, while ensuring that others toe the line for fear of losing their funding. She says in her book:
“Those studies that have been paid for by the industry tend to find that there’s not a problem. Studies that are independent—while there are fewer—tend to show there is a problem. I don’t think that’s an accident. This has had a chilling effect on the ability of policy-makers to form policy.”
Dr Davis’s worry about just how independent some of those studies are is backed up by others, including such noted people as the well-respected Henry Lai, a research professor at the University of Washington. Lai began laboratory radiation studies in 1980, and found that rats exposed to radio frequency radiation had damaged brain DNA. He maintains a database of a further 400 scientific papers, from different academics, on possible biological effects of radiation from wireless communication.
Significantly, Lai has found that 67% of studies without industry funding show some biological effect of radiation from wireless communication, compared with only 28% of studies that receive some form of industry funding. “That’s not trivial,” he recently told The New York Times. Like Dr Davis, Lai has been pressing for the commissioning of more non-industry research, not only on brain cancer but on other possible biological and health effects. The voices of Davis and Lai should be heard in the debate in the UK. Davis in particular has highlighted the distortion of research during the last decade by a “show me the bodies” approach to the evidence. I believe that there may well be merit in their arguments. As they say, it may simply be too early to expect mobile phone users to develop brain tumours.
Davis also highlights in her latest book, “Disconnect”, how when the Hiroshima bomb survivors were tested after 10 years, researchers found no evidence of brain cancer, yet some 30 years later an abundance of cases were found. While the mobile phone industry may point out that the official statistics show that the incidence of brain cancer has changed relatively little, the absence of any epidemic right now is not an argument for complacency.
At present, we are awaiting the outcome of the cohort study on mobile communications and health—COSMOS. It differs from previous attempts to examine links between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and neurological disorders in that it will follow users’ behaviour in real time. Most other large-scale studies have focused on asking people already suffering with cancer or other diseases about their previous mobile use. They have also been conducted over a shorter time frame. While the COSMOS study will look at long-term use over 10, 20 and 30 years, I think we need to be reassured that it will be properly independent. At present, COSMOS is being funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, a UK body that receives hefty funding from the industry as well as Government.
In addressing some of the shortcomings, I have highlighted a lack of independent research. I believe the Government must pressurise mobile phone companies to set up an independent fund for research that has the full confidence of all interested parties. This fund should support academics and allow them to examine the risks without interference. Academics and researchers should not be fearful of having funding withdrawn based on what the outcome of their work might be.
Setting up a truly independent fund for research is the least these companies can do given their huge profits. Vodafone already stands accused of £6 billion in tax avoidance, just as the NHS and the rest of the public sector is facing massive budget cuts. The phone giant may have denied the claims, but it has now become a symbolic target for protests against the coalition’s cuts. The UK Uncut campaign, organised through Twitter against Vodafone, continues to attract demonstrations at stores across the country. While no Members would support breaking the law, we can all understand why Vodafone’s consumers feel very angry at its current tax arrangements.
The Government should not let themselves be pushed around by telecoms lobbyists. It is time the Government took back the 900 mHz—the low frequency—spectrum that they gave to Vodafone and O2 for nothing in the 1980s. When a similar section of spectrum was sold in Germany it raised £2.9 billion, roughly the equivalent of the cuts made to higher education this year. We can get a lot of independent university research with that kind of money.
To conclude, I hope I have shown the Minister the following things. Labelling and packaging is inadequate and guidance is buried too deeply in the small print of packaging booklets. Also, the widely held view among manufacturers that mobiles are safe is not yet beyond doubt, as I hope I have shown with reference to the major studies; virtually every piece of major research is inconclusive or recommends further study. An independent fund would also give academics and researchers the confidence that future funding would not be withdrawn based on the outcome of their findings. The mobile industry should use its huge profits to make a sizeable contribution towards putting this into practice.
When I applied for this debate, I thought that the House’s main business might finish early today. Notwithstanding the eagerness of the Whip to get home, that perhaps allows me to add one additional point as this debate is entitled on the Order Paper, “Effect of mobile phones on human health”. This week, I talked to a man who nearly broke down in tears when he explained to me that his privacy had been violated by a rogue private investigator listening to his mobile phone messages for a News International newspaper. Phone hacking had affected his mental health.
Illegal hacking has caused great distress to those in the privileged position to know whether they were one of the potential 3,000 targets of the News of the World—for that is what one of the investigating officers in the Mulcaire/Goodman case admitted last week. Like me, the victims express amazement that nearly every tabloid newspaper in the United Kingdom failed to report that A-list Hollywood actor, Sienna Miller, was the victim of a phone hack. The distress caused to her by mobile phones speaks for itself. The victims were amazed not to read in every national newspaper that Take That front man Robbie Williams no longer uses a mobile phone because he was sick of being hacked. They are asking questions and they will find peace of mind only when they know that their mobile phone is secure and that everything has been done to investigate their case.
With more News of the World executives implicated in the scandal only last week, with the admission that News International is paying the legal fees of the Prime Minister’s director of communications and with the Information Commissioner saying only last week that he will investigate the loss of potentially significant personal data, is it not time that the Government asked another police force—one other than the Met—to take up the case? The former Metropolitan police investigating officer now works for News International. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It is now absolutely clear for all to see that leads have not been followed up and that whistleblowers have been intimidated into retracting their public statements. The only way that these mobile phone victims will get peace of mind is for another police force to take over the inquiry and undertake a thorough review of the old and brand-new evidence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on securing this debate. I know that he takes a particular interest in this and all other matters of technology, both nationally and in his constituency. He is absolutely right to say that we must heed scientific fact, but his insight into reshuffles is perhaps lacking in a certain degree of fact—or perhaps he knows something that I do not, from sources unknown. However, I wish to thank him for his flattering comments.
At the last count there were a staggering 80 million mobile phones in the UK, and the number is still rising steadily. More than 12 million people own a smartphone in order to access the internet and other web-based technologies. The benefits of mobile phones are clear in terms of social networking and rapid communication, and they help people to feel safer and in touch. They are also a way of including people. I feel more comfortable knowing that my children have mobile phones and that I can contact them, as they can me, wherever they are. I am sure that my parliamentary office would say the same about contacting me, particularly during the recess.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that mobile technology has also raised significant health worries. Many people are extremely concerned about the effect of electromagnetic radiation from phones, and we should understand and acknowledge those worries. We should answer them on the basis of the evidence and we should ensure that appropriate protections are in place, so that not only is everyone safe, but everyone feels safe—and the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that that is not necessarily the case.
Bill Esterson
The planning Green Paper that the Conservatives published before the election stated that the party would
“review potential health issues related to mobile phone masts in the light of ongoing scientific research.”
Can the Minister tell us how that review is going, and if a similar one is being carried out on handsets?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but may I suggest that he may be jumping the gun a little? I have been speaking for only about two minutes, and I will come to all those issues if he gives me a bit more time.
The independent expert group on mobile phones and health was set up in 1999, partly as a response to public concern. It was tasked with reviewing the health effects of mobile phone technology. As a newly elected councillor, I was acutely aware of the considerable concerns among people in my ward at that time. As has been mentioned, the group was chaired by Sir William Stewart, the former chief scientific adviser to the Government. Its report was published in May 2000.
The report was based on a thorough review of scientific evidence on the health effects of mobile telephones and it took account of work in progress, alternative views on the science and public opinion, which at that time was considerably concerned about those effects. In 2004, the then National Radiological Protection Board reviewed the evidence again—the hon. Member for West Bromwich East mentioned this—and reiterated Stewart’s recommendations, in particular the recommendation that a precautionary approach should be adopted. Current Government policy on mobile phones is based on the Stewart report and its recommendations. The headline conclusion in the Stewart report was that
“the balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to”
mobile phone “radiation below” national
“guidelines do not cause adverse health effects.”
The report was referring to the National Radiological Protection Board national guidelines, which were in place at the time. It is none the less important to note that Stewart recommended that as a precautionary measure the guidelines should be replaced by more restrictive international guidelines.
In recognition of the incomplete scientific knowledge and significant public concern, Stewart made other precautionary recommendations. For example, he recommended that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, warnings are difficult to find, and the small print is very small. I suspect that many people these days are unaware of that guidance. I shall return to the question of scientific evidence in a minute.
The Government accepted the advice of the Stewart report and followed a precautionary approach, and most of the recommendations were implemented in full. On Stewart’s recommendation, we moved to stricter international guidelines for exposure. Along with other member states, the UK supports the European Council recommendation to limit exposures to electromagnetic fields, which incorporates international guidelines. By 2001, industry, Government Departments and their advisers were working to the new exposure guidelines for mobile phone technology, so now all mobile phones and base stations comply with the guidelines.
An important development following the Stewart report was the setting up of a new research programme in this country—the mobile telecommunications and health research programme, or MTHR. Research has been carried out at centres throughout the country under the management of an independent programme management committee. It is important to mention that it is independent. In 2007 MTHR published a report from 23 completed projects. Since then, further work has been published from the programme.
MTHR is a very high-quality research programme and none of the research so far has shown that radio frequency emissions from mobile phones affected people’s health—at least in the short term, although that is obviously not the end of the story. The lack of long-term data, however, has been noticed by MTHR, the World Health Organisation and other regional and international advisory committees. It is also being addressed by an international cohort study on mobile phone use and health known as COSMOS, to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich East referred.
The UK forms a key part of the study, and our participation is funded under the MTHR programme. I understand that the COSMOS study aims to follow the health of approximately 250,000 European mobile phone users for up to 30 years. It is a very thorough process. COSMOS will consider any changes in the frequency of specific symptoms, such as headaches and sleep disorders, over time as well as the important risks of cancers, benign tumours and neurological and cerebrovascular diseases.
The Department also supports the World Health Organisation’s international electromagnetic fields project, which encourages research focused on specific gaps in our knowledge. There is no doubt that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge at this stage. Apart from the accident risk from using mobile phones when driving, present knowledge indicates no proven risk to health from mobiles, except of course in the easy access that one has to home delivery pizzas and the possible impact on our daily calorific intake, which cannot be ignored.
Let me address for a moment mobile phone base stations, which are often called masts. When I first entered politics as a local councillor, that was one of the subjects that caused most concern. Masts provide the communication links by radio waves to handsets, allowing connection to the rest of the telephone system and the wider world. Mobile phones need this infrastructure to function, and it is this infrastructure that has caused so much concern in the past. On masts in particular, Stewart concluded that on the balance of evidence there is no general risk to the health of people living nearby, on the basis that exposures are expected to be very small. However, it is of note that in that connection, too, he recommended a precautionary approach. It was interesting to learn from the Stewart report that the levels of radio frequency exposure from masts, which people thought were likely to be high, were much lower than those from mobile phone handsets held near the head. Indeed, yearly independent audits have shown that mast exposures are well below the international guidelines—in many cases tens of thousands or more times below.
The MTHR also reaffirmed that exposures from base stations were very much lower than international guidelines. An MTHR study specifically looked to see whether short-term exposure to radio frequencies from masts could affect people’s health. Although some people attribute their ill-health symptoms to mobile phone base stations—the hon. Gentleman raised this issue—the MTHR peer-reviewed study found no convincing evidence so far that their symptoms were caused by exposure to signals from mobile phones or masts. But, of course, we should not and shall not be complacent: we must continue to keep the science under review. The Health Protection Agency keeps us informed of the science in this area, and its independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation is currently reviewing worldwide scientific studies on radio frequency emissions as part of its regular review cycle, and will report in one to two years’ time.
Mr Watson
I am grateful to the Minister for her very gracious answer to my rather long presentation. Does she think there are merits in opening up discussion with the industry on how they can improve their packaging advice and how we can improve public education, particularly for young mobile phone users?
Anne Milton
Yes, the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. As I have said, most people are unaware of the guidance available, and the small print is often extremely small.
I am aware of the ability of large and powerful vested interests to lobby, often very successfully. There are, without doubt, eye-wateringly large amounts of money at stake in the mobile communications industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am old enough and cynical enough to apply at all times an appropriate level of scrutiny and cynicism to all information that comes my way—always seeking to find out whence it came and who paid for it. He is right to say that no stone must be left unturned, but the problem is to establish causality. That is why, with ongoing and international studies, following a cohort is essential. We must base any Government action on robust scientific evidence. He is also right to say that it matters who funds research, and I assure him that I will not be pushed around, and I will keep my level of cynicism. However, I cannot comment on phone hacking; he must address those comments to another Minister on another occasion. Within my own portfolio, I will keep my eye on what is going on. As I say, I look forward to the report of the HPA’s independent advisory committee in one or two years’ time.
Let me conclude by saying that the Government take extremely seriously public concern over possible health risks from mobile phone technology, as they do all threats. There is a particular issue in that we are aware that health effects might not become apparent for 10, 20 or even 30 years. It is important to remain vigilant and to keep this matter at the top of our list of priorities. We will continue to respond to people’s concerns and to support those high-quality scientific studies, both nationally and internationally, in an honest, open and transparent way, being clear at all times where the vested interests lie. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to so many people.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Science and Research Funding (2011-12 to 2014-15)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The coalition Government are publishing today the allocation of science and research funding for 2011-12 to 2014-15.
Our world class science and research base is inherently valuable, as well as critical to promoting economic growth. Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the £4.6 billion per annum funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms and ring fenced against future pressures during the spending review period. For the first time HE research funding in England has been included within this ring fence, providing overall stability and certainty to the research base.
Allocations for resource are set out in table 1, below, and allocations for capital are in table 2.
This Government are committed to efficiency, prioritisation and reform. We shall delay capital investment to maximise investment in research projects and in people undertaking research. The Government intend to announce during 2011 the allocation of funding to a small number of further projects on the 2010 large facilities roadmap.
Savings from improved efficiency will be recycled directly within the ring fence. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) will reform its quality-related (QR) funding for research with a greater focus on research excellence and reform higher education innovation funding with a greater focus on business interaction.
Collaboration is one of the key themes of these allocations. There will be significant collaboration among research councils, and among universities, tackling issues of national importance, often working with the TSB.
There will also be greater coherence among HEFCE and the research councils. For example HEFCE and the research councils will work together so that support and incentives to bring universities and business closer together are delivered coherently.
These allocations provide funding for the arts, humanities and social sciences as well as STEM to pursue vital research. Outstanding researchers in all fields will be funded to pursue curiosity driven work and to define their own areas of scholarship. We are also putting the new UK Space Agency on a firm footing.
The allocation will allow research councils, HEFCE and the national academies to maintain the flow of talented new researchers and maintain national capability. It will enable them to provide researchers with access to key large scale research infrastructure, both here and abroad. Funding bodies will concentrate on research centres of proven excellence, with the critical mass to address national challenges and compete internationally and the expertise to collaboration with business.
A copy of the allocation document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The grant letter sent by the Secretary of State to HEFCE today also includes details relevant to science and research funding. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Baseline 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | TOTALS | Final Year to Baseline | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
£'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | ||
Research Councils | 2,549,353 | 2,596,196 | 2,573,678 | 2,586,641 | 2,599,812 | 10,356,327 | 101.98% |
AHRC | 100,717 | 99,881 | 98,370 | 98,370 | 98,370 | 394,993 | 97.67% |
BBSRC | 362,341 | 370,306 | 359,471 | 351,471 | 351,471 | 1,432,718 | 97.00% |
ESRC | 158,061 | 155,690 | 153,319 | 153,319 | 153,319 | 615,648 | 97.00% |
EPSRC | 771,289 | 759,720 | 748,150 | 748,150 | 748,150 | 3,004,171 | 97.00% |
MRC | 545,585 | 536,172 | 546,243 | 559,894 | 574,641 | 2,216,950 | 105.33% |
NERC | 298,071 | 298,600 | 297,129 | 300,129 | 289,129 | 1,184,987 | 97.00% |
STFC - Core Programme | 177,519 | 190,060 | 172,200 | 172,200 | 172,190 | 706,650 | 97.00% |
STFC – Cross-Council facilities1 | 66,800 | 77,170 | 79,280 | 81,410 | 89,470 | 327,330 | 133.94% |
STFC – International Subscriptions2 | 68,970 | 108,598 | 119,515 | 121,697 | 123,071 | 472,881 | 178.44% |
HEFCE | 1,731,300 | 1,662,112 | 1,699,578 | 1,685,689 | 1,686,321 | 6,733,700 | 97.40% |
QR Research | 1,618,300 | 1,549,112 | 1,586,578 | 1,572,689 | 1,573,321 | 6,281,700 | 97.22% |
HEIF3 | 113,000 | 113,000 | 113,000 | 113,000 | 113,000 | 452,000 | 100.00% |
National Academies | 87,832 | 87,465 | 86,547 | 86,547 | 86,547 | 347,106 | 98.54% |
Royal Society | 48,558 | 47,830 | 47,101 | 47,101 | 47,101 | 189,133 | 97.00% |
British Academy | 26,448 | 27,001 | 27,005 | 27,005 | 27,005 | 108,015 | 102.10% |
Royal Academy of Eng | 12,826 | 12,634 | 12,441 | 12,441 | 12,441 | 49,957 | 97.00% |
Other Programmes | 43,616 | 24,496 | 24,140 | 24,165 | 24,005 | 96,805 | 55.04% |
Science & Society | 15,441 | 13,000 | 13,000 | 13,000 | 13,000 | 52,000 | 84.19% |
International | 5,104 | 5,095 | 4,740 | 4,765 | 4,605 | 19,205 | 90.22% |
Foresight | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 11,200 | 100.00% |
Evidence & Evaluation | 20,271 | 3,600 | 3,600 | 3,600 | 3,600 | 14,400 | 46.32% |
UK Space Agency | 163,805 | 205,637 | 191,963 | 192,864 | 179,221 | 769,685 | 109.41% |
Total S&R Resource | 4,575,906 | 4,575,906 | 4,575,906 | 4,575,906 | 4,575,906 | 18,303,622 | 100.00% |
1Operated by STFC on behalf of all Research Councils. 2Managed by STFC on behalf of ail Research Councils. Total resource expenditure on international subscriptions in 2010-11, including the additional exchange rate costs was £103 million. The SRIO allocations are at the exchange rates prevailing in early December 2010 and reflect a shift in funding from capital to resource. 3HEIF will also include £37 million pa from HEFCE, taking the total for each year to £150 million. |
Council | Baseline 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Total | Final Year to Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
£'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | £'000 | ||
Research Councils | 393,438 | 239,821 | 199,393 | 181,430 | 180,967 | 801,611 | 46.00% |
AHRC | 3,150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
BBSRC | 66,480 | 38,000 | 29,700 | 29,700 | 29,700 | 127,100 | 44.68% |
ESRC | 20,600 | 18,700 | 13,700 | 12,700 | 12,700 | 57,800 | 61.65% |
EPSRC | 49,261 | 31,000 | 35,000 | 25,000 | 25,000 | 116,000 | 50.75% |
MRC | 134,517 | 33,000 | 29,000 | 31,000 | 31,000 | 124,000 | 23.05% |
NERC | 34,183 | 32,200 | 17,800 | 17,800 | 17,800 | 85,600 | 52.07% |
STFC - Core Programme | 85,247 | 19,630 | 21,981 | 14,237 | 14,169 | 70,017 | 75.98% |
STFC - Cross-Council Facilities | 21,070 | 21,919 | 22,463 | 22,931 | 88,383 | ||
STFC - International Subscriptions4 | 46,221 | 30,293 | 28,530 | 27,667 | 132,711 | ||
Large Facilities Capital Fund | 103,380 | 115,279 | 61,307 | 47,769 | 128,132 | 352,487 | 123.94% |
UK Space Agency | 19,000 | 19,000 | 19,000 | 19,000 | 19,000 | 76,000 | 100.00% |
HEX Capital HEFCE | 166,952 | 75,170 | 90,970 | 90,160 | 101,500 | 357,800 | 60.80% |
HEI Research Capital England | 158,420 | 53,199 | 64,377 | 63,810 | 71,831 | 253,217 | 45.34% |
HEI Research Capital Scotland5 | 23,622 | 8,620 | 10,431 | 10,339 | 11,639 | 41,029 | 49.27% |
HEI Research Capital Wales5 | 6,031 | 2,113 | 2,557 | 2,535 | 2,854 | 10,059 | 47.32% |
HEI Research Capital N. Ireland5 | 1,778 | 798 | 965 | 957 | 1,077 | 3,797 | 60.57% |
TOTAL | 872,621 | 514,000 | 449,000 | 416,000 | 517,000 | 1,896,000 | 59.25% |
4This figure reflects a shift from capital to resource. 5These funds are allocated on the basis that they will be supplemented by further funding from each of the devolved HE funding bodies. |
Note: These figures are indicative for the three years from 2012-13 to 2014-15
Haldane Principle
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The Haldane principle means that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review. This involves evaluating the quality, excellence and likely impact of science and research programmes. Prioritisation of an individual research council’s spending within its allocation is not a decision for Ministers. The coalition Government support this principle as vital for the protection of academic independence and excellence. We all benefit from its application in the UK.
Over the years there has been some uncertainty over the interpretation of the Haldane principle. After consulting senior figures in the science and research community, the Government now offer this further clarification.
This statement on the Haldane principle applies to science and research which the Government funds through the research councils and national academies. HEFCE has statutory independence1. The Haldane principle does not apply to the research budgets of Government Departments, which are used to fund research to support their departmental policies and objectives. That said, Departments work closely with the research councils to ensure that the research they fund is aligned with that funded by the science and research base and delivers maximum value to the taxpayer. More generally, research councils need to ensure that the views of those with an interest in the potential outcomes of the research are sought when setting their overall priorities.
The Government do, however, need to take a view on the overall level of funding to science and research and have decided to protect and to ring fence the science and research budget for the next four years. This decision is evidence that the Government recognise the strategic importance of science and research to our future growth, prosperity, culture and heritage.
There are areas where Ministers should have no input: Ministers should not decide which individual projects should be funded nor which researchers should receive the money. This has been crucial to the international success of British science.
At the other end of the spectrum there are decisions that ultimately must be for Ministers, albeit informed by external advice; these include the overall size of the funding for science and research and its distribution between the research councils, the national academies and higher education research funding.
In addition, every Government will have some key national strategic priorities such as addressing the challenges of an ageing population, energy supply or climate change. The research base has an important role to play in addressing such priorities and the research councils, with the support of independent advice, have proposed research programmes to tackle them. It is also appropriate for Ministers to ask research councils to consider how best they can contribute to these priorities, without crowding out other areas of their missions. But it is for the research councils to decide on the specific projects and people to fund within these priorities, free from Ministerial interference.
Similarly, Ministers have a legitimate role in decisions that involve long-term and large scale commitments of national significance. These include the construction of large research facilities, where Ministers have to approve business cases, and involvement in international research treaties. Public funding from the research councils for both these categories of research spending must be dedicated to supporting excellent research, irrespective of its geographical location. In many cases the location will be an obvious decision, given clusters of relevant research capability. Ministerial views on such business cases should be formed with the aid of advice from the research councils.
It is important that Ministers, where they are involved in making strategic decisions on the funding of research, take account of advice from a wide variety of expert sources including academia and industry, both nationally and internationally.
The Government recognise the contribution to our national life and to the UK economy made by research and teaching in the full range of disciplines including physical sciences, social sciences, life sciences, environmental sciences, engineering and the arts and humanities.
The Government value the multiplicity and variety of sources of funding from the public, private and charitable sectors. These contribute to the provision of a rich and diverse environment supporting the research community across all disciplines.
Overall, excellence is and must remain the driver of funding decisions, and it is only by funding excellent research that the maximum benefits will be secured for the nation.
1The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 states that the Secretary of State may not attach terms and conditions on grants to HEFCE which are framed by reference to: particular courses of study, programmes of research, the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff or the admission of students.
Economic and Financial Affairs Council
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 7 December 2010. The following items were discussed:
Administrative Co-operation Directive
Ministers agreed a Council directive on administrative co-operation in the field of taxation. The directive will improve exchange of information and bring the EU into line with OECD standards, as well as making an important contribution to tackling cross-border tax evasion and avoidance. The UK supports exchange of information where this does not impose disproportionate burdens on business or on tax authorities at a time of fiscal consolidation.
Financial assistance to Ireland
Following an extra Council meeting on 28 November, ECOFIN formally agreed a Council recommendation to Ireland with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive Government deficit. It also agreed a Council decision to grant financial assistance to Ireland according to Council Regulation 407/2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism. The Government believe that financial assistance to Ireland is in Britain’s national interest, helping one of UK’s closest economic partners to manage its way through difficult conditions.
Economic governance
Ministers were updated on the progress made on the six Commission legislative proposals on economic governance. Working group discussions have now begun, which are looking at the proposals in detail. Agreement on the final legislation is expected in spring 2011.
Preparation for the European Council on 16 and 17 December 2010
a) Impact of pension reforms on implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)
ECOFIN discussed a report to the European Council on the impact of pension reforms on implementation of the SGP. The Government believe that the SGP framework should seek to encourage pension reform and long-term sustainability. However, it is important to strike the right balance between encouraging fiscal discipline in the short-term and incentivising systemic reforms to pension systems to boost long-term sustainability. The presidency will submit the report to the European Council.
b) Bank levies
Ministers endorsed a report to the European Council on bank levies, focused on the issue of double taxation. The Government support national levies on banks to complement wider reforms aimed at reducing the probability and impact of banking failures. They believe that the issue of overlapping scope can be resolved through double taxation agreements. The UK and French Governments have agreed on a mechanism that will ensure that there is no double taxation of banking groups subject to both the UK and French bank levies. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring a level playing field for all banks subject to the UK bank levy. The Government will continue discussions with other international partners where there are also potential cases of double charging.
Public service in the field of healthcare
Council endorsed conclusions on a joint Commission and Economic Policy Committee report on public services in the field of healthcare. The conclusions summarise the main findings of the report and the main challenges facing member states. The main findings include: the need to assess the performance of health systems and implement sound and needed reforms to achieve both a more efficient use of public resources and the provision of high quality healthcare; and the need to get more value for money if countries are to ensure universal access under conditions of severe constraints on public budgets. The conclusions also invite member states and the Commission to factor these findings into their analysis and proposals in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Crisis management
Ministers endorsed conclusions on a Commission communication on crisis management. The Government welcome the Commission’s work in this area to strengthen the European framework and ensure that all member states have common and credible tools and powers to resolve failing banks.
Code of conduct in business taxation
The Council adopted conclusions welcoming the work of the code of conduct group in producing its biannual report under the Belgian presidency. The report highlights potentially harmful tax competition with regards to business taxation. The Council has asked the group to continue its monitoring of business taxation, as well as to carry on the work under the work package agreed by the Council in December 2008. The Commission is also invited to continue discussions with Switzerland and Liechtenstein on the application of the principles and criteria of the code. The UK supports the ongoing work of the group, which is beneficial in highlighting those practices which are potentially damaging to fair EU tax competition.
Fire and Rescue Service
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I would like to inform the House about recent developments on the FiReControl project.
This is the third part of the last Government’s resilience programme and set out to replace the stand-alone control rooms in England’s fire and rescue services with a national network of nine control centres. The aim was to improve national resilience, interoperability and efficiency as well as to enhance the technology available to the fire and rescue service.
Many hon. Members will be aware that, for some time, the project has experienced delays and delivery problems.
The progress of the project has caused serious concern, and so in June this year I made it clear to the main FiReControl contractor, Cassidian (formerly EADS Defence and Security), that the main IT system must now be delivered to time, cost and quality. At this point, we activated a key milestone in their contract requiring the main IT system to be completed in three control centres by mid-2011.
We told Cassidian that no additional taxpayers’ money could be invested in this project, nor would delivery of a system of reduced quality or functionality be acceptable.
Following extensive discussion with Cassidian, we have jointly concluded, with regret, that the requirements of the project cannot be delivered to an acceptable time frame. Therefore the best outcome for the taxpayer and the fire and rescue community is for the contract to be terminated with immediate effect. Cassidian and the Department for Communities and Local Government have reached an acceptable settlement over this although the details will remain commercially confidential.
I know many people in the fire and rescue service and in fire and rescue authorities have devoted considerable time and expertise to this project, especially those who have served on governance and working groups, directors of the local authority controlled companies, advisers from the Chief Fire Officers Association, fire and rescue service secondees to the project and other staff involved from the fire and rescue community, and many technical and resilience experts. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking all these people for their contribution.
Over the next few weeks we intend to identify the extent to which any legacy assets from the project, including the control centre buildings, can be used for the benefit of the fire and rescue service and local communities in future. We will also be making arrangements for maintaining products already delivered.
The Department will cease funding activities directly associated with the project as quickly as is compatible with organising an orderly closing down of the project. We recognise that fire and rescue authorities will now wish to review their control arrangements in the light of today’s decision. This Government do not intend to impose any solution for the future of control room services.
We will, however, start to consult the fire and rescue sector soon on how best the Government can support them, if at all, in developing their alternative plans based on the principles of localism, ensuring public safety, building up national resilience and delivering value for taxpayers’ money. These continue to be our overriding priorities.
I know that the uncertainty around the future of this project has been frustrating and unsettling for the fire and rescue community and those closely concerned with their interests. My objective has been to deliver operational certainty for the fire and rescue service and financial certainty for the taxpayer. Today’s decision will deliver that objective and I will continue to keep the House informed of progress.
Major Infrastructure Planning Reform
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I am today publishing the Department’s work plan on major infrastructure planning reform. This Government believe that securing investment in new infrastructure is essential to deliver sustainable growth over the coming decades and is an integral part of our efforts to rebuild the UK economy and provide new jobs. We cannot expect to meet the needs of tomorrow with yesterday’s infrastructure and we cannot secure essential investment without a planning system designed to meet this need. The work plan sets out the steps that we are taking to deliver this reform.
It is right that decisions on infrastructure of national importance should be taken by democratically elected representatives and not by an unelected quango. The Localism Bill therefore provides a legislative framework for the abolition of the infrastructure planning commission (IPC) and the creation of a major infrastructure planning unit (MIPU) in a new, more streamlined and efficient planning inspectorate. The MIPU will be responsible for examining applications for major infrastructure development and providing high quality advice to Ministers.
For the majority of schemes, decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State responsible for the policy: the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will take decisions on major energy infrastructure and the Secretary of State for Transport will take decisions on major transport infrastructure.
We envisage that applications relating to hazardous waste will be determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and that applications relating to waste water and water supply will be determined jointly by the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This is in line with the position prior to the establishment of the IPC.
The Government are determined to ensure that a return to ministerial decision-making does not mean a return to slow and protracted consideration of applications. It supports the fast-track approach established through the 2008 Planning Act, that is to say that decisions will be taken within 12 months of commencement of an application’s examination. We will set up a ministerial group to oversee the effectiveness of the regime and explore whether additional efficiencies can be made to speed up the process further.
The work plan confirms the Government’s intention to press ahead with the development of national policy statements and indicates a timetable for their production and designation. The Government have made clear their position on additional runways at London’s three major airports and their priority is to create a sustainable framework for UK aviation rather than to produce a national policy statement at this time.
National policy statements should have the strongest possible democratic mandate and subject to the passage of the Localism Bill, they will in future be subject to approval of the House of Commons following parliamentary scrutiny by the House of Commons, the House of Lords or a Joint Committee of both Houses. For those national policy statements which are currently subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, it is the Government’s intention to adopt a similar, informal approach for parliamentary approval to that set out in the Localism Bill.
National policy statements will continue to be the primary documents by which decisions are made on schemes which fall within the 2008 Planning Act regime for major infrastructure. Decisions must be made in accordance with them, although the Secretary of State will also have to take into account any other matters considered both important and relevant to the decision. Those matters can include policy contained within the new national planning policy framework on which I have made a separate statement to the House today.
A copy of the work plan has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/mipworkplan
National Planning Policy Framework
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
The coalition agreement states that the Government will publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning framework that covers all forms of development and sets out national economic, environmental and social priorities.
The planning system is vital to the re-building of Britain’s economy. We need to reinvigorate our construction and development industries and the investment that goes with them and to ensure that we develop and protect our national assets. We need a planning system which encourages the idea that development can positively benefit a community. We need a planning system that enables local people to shape their surroundings in a way that, while heeding national objectives and constraints, is also sensitive to the history and character of a given location. We need participation and social engagement enabling communities to formulate a positive vision of their future development.
The Localism Bill sets out a legislative framework for achieving these goals.
The Government have made it clear that with the exception of nationally important projects, planning should be a local matter. The role of central Government is to determine and define environmental, economic and social priorities for the country and design a planning system which helps ensure a pattern of development that matches these priorities and local aspiration. This role is currently fulfilled through legislation, and through the suite of planning policy guidance notes (PPGs) and minerals policy guidance notes (MPGs), and more recently planning policy statements (PPSs) and minerals policy statements (MPSs).
These documents, which run to over 1,000 pages, set out central Government policy on various aspects of development and land use to local planning authorities, who must legally have regard to them when drawing up their local development frameworks. They are also often relevant to making decisions on planning applications. They cover broad policy themes such as planning aspects of climate change, housing, renewable energy, flood risk, green belt and waste, and also procedural themes such as how to compile local development plans.
The Government believe that the current suite of planning policy statements and guidance notes is too centralist in its approach, and too long and cumbersome for councils and developers to use effectively. There is no over-arching integrated statement of the Government’s priorities for the country and the role which planning can play in delivering them.
Therefore the Government will produce a simple national planning policy framework setting out their priorities for the planning system in England in a single, concise document covering all major forms of development proposals handled by local authorities. All the national planning policies set out in PPSs, MPSs, PPGs and MPGs, will be integrated into a single document.
The national planning policy framework will set out the Government’s views on how the planning system in England can contribute to the delivery of a prosperous, competitive and attractive country based on the values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. The framework will set broad economic, environmental and social priorities and how they relate to each other, but will ensure that the majority of planning decisions are made at the local level, with the minimum of interference from Whitehall. The framework will also set out a strong basis for economic growth, a presumption in favour of sustainable development, as well as any further policy needed to establish and implement neighbourhood plans.
The Government will apply the following principles when considering what the framework should contain. The framework will be:
localist in its approach, handing power back to local communities to decide what is right for them;
used as a mechanism for delivering Government objectives only where it is relevant, proportionate and effective to do so; and
user-friendly and accessible, providing clear policies on making robust local and neighbourhood plans and development management decisions.
In the past, Governments have issued vast swathes of non-statutory guidance in addition to policy. However, such guidance can unintentionally take on a force which constrains rather than helps practitioners and users on the ground. This Government, therefore, believe that we should keep central Government guidance to a minimum. Accordingly, the Government will radically reduce the amount of guidance they issue and will work to withdraw or shorten existing guidance wherever they can.
The Government will publish and consult on a draft of the new national planning policy framework in 2011. We will invite Parliament to hold a Select Committee inquiry on the framework during the consultation period, so that it is subjected to additional democratic scrutiny.
For the time being national policy statements (which are separate statutory documents published in accordance with the Planning Act 2008, setting out the Government’s policy on major infrastructure projects such as nuclear power stations and ports) will not be included in the framework. Further detail on our approach to major infrastructure is set out in the work plan on major infrastructure planning reform which I am also publishing today. Copies of the work plan have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department’s website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy/planningpolicyframework
This Government have a commitment to greater transparency and openness in developing their policy. To begin the process of writing the framework, therefore, and in advance of formal consultation on a draft, I invite organisations and individuals to offer their suggestions to the Department on what priorities and policies we might adopt to produce a shorter, more decentralised and less bureaucratic national planning policy framework. Details of how to do so have been placed on the Department for Communities and Local Government website. I would be pleased to receive proposals by 28 February 2011. The Department will also organise a number of roundtable discussions with key organisations to promote debate on the framework.
Zero-Carbon Buildings
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
This Government are committed to ensuring that new build homes post-2016 do not add extra carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere—while ensuring that the costs of building new homes do not prevent appropriate and sustainable development.
We have confirmed that the national regulatory requirements will include a high level of energy efficiency, which has been incorporated into a revised code for sustainable homes, to encourage practical experience. In July, we asked the Zero-Carbon Hub to advise on the national benchmark standard for on-site measures. I have now received the Hub’s initial findings; I am grateful for the work of the Hub with developers, green groups and other partners on this study. This is an important piece of work which will help us shape final decisions on the regulatory thresholds. We will also need to take account of decisions on the renewable heat incentive and the Climate Change Committee’s recent advice on grid decarbonisation. We will announce our conclusions next year.
Localities can already plan for zero-carbon development today, using powers in the Planning and Energy Act 2008, where it is reasonable to do so and is consistent with national planning policy, including relevant requirements on feasibility and viability, and relevant regulation. Many local authorities are already demonstrating their desire to drive performance in this area.
Many interested parties have argued for a community energy fund, enabling zero-carbon to be met partly through contributions to a fund used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, allowing developers to meet their carbon obligations cost-effectively. In this respect, the recently confirmed community infrastructure levy provides a mechanism for local authorities to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions locally, through investment in local renewable energy infrastructure that supports development in their area. It will be important that any approach operates in a way that demonstrates transparently that real carbon savings are achieved. We will now work with local authorities and industry on how best to do that.
It will be important that people are able to take the best decision for their area. We recently launched community energy online to support local authorities and others who want to introduce local energy schemes. We will also work to incorporate material on local energy planning into a local standards framework, providing accessible, robust options to underpin local choice.
New homes are an important part of new development, but not the whole picture.
I can announce that we will follow a similar process for new non-domestic buildings as for new homes. The Government’s policy is progressively to raise the national regulatory requirements for non-domestic buildings between now and 2019, enabling them to be zero carbon from 2019. We will maintain consistency between the domestic and non-domestic frameworks as far as it is practical, but will consider taking a different approach on some elements, where the diversity of the non-domestic stock or the nature of the commercial market justifies that. We are today publishing on the Department’s website the findings of the consultation exercise on policy options for zero-carbon new non-domestic buildings that was concluded earlier this year.
We are currently undertaking detailed technical work to underpin the development of future national regulatory standards. We expect also that off-site measures could be supported using the same approaches as for homes, and will investigate this possibility further so it will be open for local areas to use a community energy fund through the community infrastructure levy to achieve the zero-carbon standard for non-domestic buildings should they wish to do so.
In future our homes—indeed, all our buildings—will need to be cleaner, greener and cheaper to run. This Government will continue to deliver the tools to make this a reality.
Radio and Television Transmission (Irish Language)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
In the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement in April 1998, the UK Government undertook to explore the scope for achieving more widespread availability of the Irish language television station, Teilifis na Gaeilige (TG4) in Northern Ireland. The UK Government fulfilled this commitment by the construction of a new transmitter at Divis. This, combined with the analogue overspill signal from transmitters in Ireland, means that TG4 is currently available, on a free-to-air basis to approximately 60% of the population in Northern Ireland.
Once the analogue signals in Northern Ireland and Ireland are switched off by the end of 2012, arrangements need to be put in place to enable TG4 to be received in a digital form. In this context, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the Irish and UK Governments in February 2010, committing them to working together on the technical arrangements for post-switchover provision of TG4.
The two Governments are pleased with the amount of progress made since the signing of the MOU in ensuring and expanding the provision of Irish television services, including Irish language services, in Northern Ireland.
Following a broad range of technical work, the two Governments have now agreed that the most effective way to provide for the continuing provision of TG4 is by building a new, low power TV multiplex in Northern Ireland. In addition to carrying TG4, this multiplex, which will be part of the UK DTT system, will also carry RTÉ 1 and RTÉ 2.
It is hoped that this will further increase the coverage of these channels in Northern Ireland, enabling approximately 90% of the population in Northern Ireland to receive their services on a free-to-air basis, either through overspill as before or via the new multiplex.
The existing analogue signals will be switched off on a co-ordinated basis in Ireland and Northern Ireland at the end of 2012 and much more work needs to be done between then and now. Digital UK, the not-for-profit organisation that is leading the digital switchover in the UK, will be ensuring that viewers in Northern Ireland have all the necessary information to help them make the switch to digital and know what sort of equipment to buy if they want to receive these services.
Other arrangements that need to be put in place include the establishment of a joint venture between RTÉ and TG4 to run the multiplex which will be licensed under the UK’s Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 by Ofcom at the request of the UK Government. This will be a not-for-profit company. In addition, the licensee will have to put out to competitive tender all the elements of the multiplex operation which are contestable and the multiplex will be operated on a not-for-profit and open book basis.
Olympic and Paralympic Games (Legacy)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
This statement is to set out the Government’s priorities for the legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. Further detail of the Government’s plans is provided in the Government’s legacy plan “Plans for the Legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games”, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.
In the coalition agreement we committed ourselves to producing a safe and secure games that leave a lasting legacy. Our task is not only to ensure that the games are a success as iconic sporting occasions but also that we make the most of the games for the nation. We, as Government, will focus on four areas in doing this:
Harnessing the United Kingdom’s passion for sport to increase school-based and grass-roots participation in competitive sport—and to encourage the whole population to be more physically active;
Exploiting to the full the opportunities for economic growth offered by hosting the games, particularly with reference to inward investment and tourism;
Promoting community engagement and participation in voluntary work across all groups in society through the games; and
Ensuring that the Olympic park can be developed after the games as one of the principal drivers of regeneration in east London, with particular focus on the digital and creative industries.
This is a statement on behalf of the UK Government. However the games’ legacy is being driven across the UK and beyond by a rich variety of organisations, communities and individuals, including: the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA); the British Olympic Association (BOA) and British Paralympic Association (BPA); Sport England and UK Sport; the Mayor of London, the Olympic Park Legacy Company and the host boroughs (Barking and Dagenham, Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest); the Nations and Regions Group established by Government and LOCOG to achieve maximum benefits from the games and their legacy across the UK; devolved Administrations in the nations and a large number of other local authorities across the UK; the games’ sponsors and other businesses; and many third sector organisations operating at national and local levels. A small number of examples of the great work already going on across the country are included in the Government’s legacy plan, but there are many hundreds of others.
Afghanistan
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Following a request by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Joint Command in Afghanistan a Company Group, formed around elements of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh, from Task Force Helmand and partnered by a company from the Afghan national army, will temporarily extend their current Freedom of Movement task along Highway One. The area of operations will extend east into Kandahar province, adjacent to Helmand, for a specific time-limited period of up to six months.
The objective of the task is to secure “Freedom of Movement” along a key part of Highway One, between central Helmand and Kandahar. This will enable ISAF and the Afghan national security forces to increase security in both Helmand and Kandahar provinces. It will further benefit security, stability and economic development in Helmand by reducing the influence of the insurgency on the free flow of traffic on Highway One. Improving security on the route will ensure that it is freely usable by the Afghan authorities, commercial users and the local population.
“Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security: A Consultation Paper”
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
I am pleased to lay in Parliament a Green Paper entitled “Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security: A Consultation Paper”.
The first duty of Government is the security of our nation. It is therefore essential that the UK equips itself with the right tools to tackle current and future threats. The convergence of defence and security that underpinned the strategic defence and security review means that we should seek to bring together our approach to equipment, support, and technology in both the defence and security sectors. I have therefore worked with the Minister for Security in preparing this Green Paper to reflect our new approach. We have also included cyber security as a separate section because it is a new and fundamental challenge.
Our default position is to use open competition in the global market; to buy off-the-shelf where we can; and to promote open markets in defence and security capabilities. We will take action to protect our operational advantages and freedom of action, but only where essential for national security.
The UK currently enjoys a strong industrial presence in the defence and security markets and export success abroad in those markets; last year, defence and security exports achieved around £8.5 billion revenue. We are committed to doing more to promote exports of both defence and security products from the UK to responsible nations, as well as to boost the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, both in their direct and indirect supplies to the Government and their agencies.
The Green Paper is available online at http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/. The formal public consultation period will run from January to March 2011. We would encourage all interested parties to contribute to the debate. The Government plan to publish a White Paper on these issues in 2011.
Community Veterans Mental Health Pilots
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government are committed to providing effective, through-life, health services for our service and ex-service personnel.
As part of this commitment, the Department of Health and devolved Administrations, with support from the Ministry of Defence, have piloted a new mental health care service for former members of the armed forces in six national health service trusts across the UK. The final pilot, in Scotland, is due to be completed in April 2011.
Independent evaluation of the pilots by the University of Sheffield Centre for Psychological Services Research, which my Department commissioned, has been completed. I am announcing today the publication of their independent evaluation report.
The report identifies key components of successful services and makes a number of recommendations. The Department of Health will consider the report and examine how its recommendations fit with existing and planned enhancements to NHS veterans mental health services, including those recommended by the my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).
A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House and also on the websites of the University of Sheffield and the Ministry of Defence.
Voting Entitlement
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
A bar on sentenced, serving prisoners voting was first put in place in 1870. Successive Governments have maintained the position that, when an individual breaks their contract with society by committing an offence that leads to imprisonment, they should lose the right to vote while they are incarcerated.
Five years ago, in a case known as Hirst (No.2), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the existing statutory bar on convicted prisoners voting was contrary to article 3, protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free and fair elections.
The Court ruled that barring convicted prisoners in detention pursued a legitimate aim, but that a blanket ban was not proportionate. In its judgment, the Court acknowledged that the right to vote under the first protocol was not absolute, and that contracting states to the European Convention had to be given a margin of appreciation—a broad discretion—to decide what limitations on that right would be proportionate.
That judgment was handed down in October 2005. The last Government stated clearly and repeatedly that they would implement the judgment, published a timetable for legislation, and issued two consultation papers about how to do so. But they did nothing. The result is that the United Kingdom stands in breach of international law obligations—obligations that we expect others to uphold—and prisoners are bringing compensation claims as a direct result of the last Government’s inaction.
In November 2010, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a further judgment against the UK, Greens and MT. In that judgment, the Court set a deadline for the introduction of legislation of August 2011. There are in the region of 2,500 claims before the European Court of Human Rights which have been suspended pending implementation. We have been given a window to act and it is right that we do so. If we do not, we only increase the risk of damages.
It is plain that there are strong views across Parliament and in the country on the question of whether convicted prisoners should be entitled to vote. However, this is not a choice: it is a legal obligation. So the Government are announcing today that we will act to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding how to proceed, we have been guided by three principles. First, that we should implement the Hirst judgment in a way that meets our legal obligations, but does not go further than that. Secondly, that the most serious offenders will not be given the right to vote. Thirdly, that we should seek to prevent the taxpayer having to face future claims for compensation.
The Government will therefore bring forward legislation providing that the blanket ban in the existing law will be replaced. Offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of four years or more will lose the right to vote in all circumstances, which reflects the Government’s clear view that more serious offenders should not retain the right to vote. Offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of less than four years will retain the right to vote, but legislation will provide that the sentencing judge will be able to remove that right if they consider that appropriate. Four years has in the past been regarded as the distinction between short and long-term prisoners, and the Government consider that permitting prisoners sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment to vote is sufficient to comply with the judgment.
The right to vote will be restricted to UK Westminster Parliamentary and European Parliament elections only, and not in other elections or referendums. That is the minimum currently required by the law (a case considering whether article 3, protocol 1 applies to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently before the European Court of Human Rights: the Government’s position is that they do not). Prisoners will vote by post or proxy, and will be entitled to register to vote not at the prison, but at their former address or the area where they have a local connection.
We believe that these proposals can meet the objectives that we have set out of implementing the judgment in a way that is proportionate; ensuring the most serious offenders will not be given the right to vote; and seeking to prevent future claims for compensation. We will bring forward legislation next year for Parliament to debate.
While the franchise is reserved to Westminster, the implementation of this policy will clearly have implications for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the administration of justice is devolved. The Government will work closely with colleagues in the Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations before legislation is introduced on the practical implications of the approach.
Governments have an absolute duty to uphold the rule of law. And at this of all times we must avoid risking taxpayers’ money in ways that the public would rightly condemn. In the light of this, and of the legacy left by the last Government, the only responsible course is to implement the judgment, and to do so in a way which ensures the most serious offenders continue to lose the right to vote.
Domestic Heating Oil Supplies
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
Many households across the UK without access to the natural gas grid rely on deliveries of heating oil to heat their homes. Heating oil is also used by smaller commercial customers, notably, with demand focused in the agricultural sector.
Overall, UK heating oil demand is around 3.7 million tonnes per year with domestic demand accounting for some 60%. Demand is seasonal with around two thirds of heating oil consumed between October and March.
The recent severe weather has significantly disrupted the distribution of heating oil to customers across the UK, particularly, but not only, in Scotland. The severe weather—notably—low temperatures and heavy snow, has caused considerable disruption to road networks which has affected suppliers’ ability to make deliveries particularly to more remote areas away from the strategic road network. This has resulted in delivery backlogs which suppliers have been working hard, in difficult circumstances, to reduce.
There are around 200 fuel distributors in the UK who work hard throughout the year to supply their customers. Many of these companies are small businesses, some with perhaps only two or three delivery vehicles. A tanker will make an average of 16 domestic deliveries per day covering some 180 miles to make these deliveries. The bulk of the time in making a delivery is taken up by the travel between the vehicle’s base and the customer and between customers. Some larger suppliers hold their own stocks at smaller depots but others pick up from fuel terminals “off rack” purchasing product on the spot market. Modern road tankers deliver fuel to the customer’s storage tank via a dedicated fuel delivery system.
Tackling this backlog is challenging for the industry at a time when, due to the cold weather, they have been facing significantly higher demand than is usual at this time of year. This challenge has been exacerbated by delays to deliveries due to the state of road network in parts of the UK, and customers bringing forward deliveries that would usually have been made in the new year. However, prompt action to relax regulations on drivers’ hours has enabled drivers to work for longer each day, making more deliveries and helping to manage the backlog.
Distributors are doing all they can to prioritise deliveries to vulnerable customers and those running short on fuel. Working with DEGG, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers has issued a voluntary code of practice to its members to help them prioritise orders to those most in need. We are also putting in place arrangements with distributors through the relevant trade associations, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers and UK Liquid Petroleum Gas, for distributors to alert local authorities when they are aware of a risk that potentially vulnerable households will run short of heating oil. Similarly we have asked local authorities, and other local responders to be aware of these risks and, taking account of local circumstances, to consider what assistance they can provide to potentially vulnerable households who may need support over the Christmas and new year period.
Hospitals do not tend to use heating oil, although a reducing number of NHS organisations are reliant on gas oil for stand-by use, fuel for generators, for boiler maintenance or dual fuel needs. Hospitals normally operate with higher levels of fuel reserves at this time of year, and, at present, we understand that there are no reported problems owing to a lack of gas oil deliveries to NHS trusts.
The severe weather has also led to a very high forecast of demand for gas today. Last night this led National Grid to issue a day-ahead Gas Balancing Alert for Monday 20 December at 6.28 pm. The GBA trigger level for today (20 December) is set at 452.40 million cubic metres. National Grid currently expect demand for the day will be 461.57 million cubic metres (though it should be noted this figure is constantly updated). This figure is 97 million cubic metres above the normal seasonal demand (more than 26%). The expected demand being higher than the trigger level obliged National Grid to issue the GBA.
The Gas Balancing Alert (GBA) is a tool that National Grid uses to make sure there is enough gas in the system. The GBA has the effect of signalling:
to shippers to increase supplies on to the network, for example, by increasing flows through imports and releasing gas from storage; and,
to large users, including power stations, that they should reduce demand for gas (for example, in the case of power portfolio generators, to switch to alternative sources such as coal.)
As such GBAs are simply a part of the portfolio of mechanisms which help the market to operate effectively. When each of the GBAs were issued last winter the market responded well, closing any potential gap between supply and demand by bringing on additional supplies and reducing demand from large users. There is currently no expectation of any disruption to domestic customers or commercial customers unless they have interruptible contracts in place. That said, we are never complacent about security of supply and National Grid continues to keep us informed as the situation develops and we are making changes through the Energy Bill to improve further the security of gas supply, by conferring powers on Ofgem to sharpen commercial incentives for the effective management of low-probability, high-impact events.
The issuance of a Gas Balancing Alert by National Grid today is also a reminder of the significant efforts being made by system and network operators, shippers, suppliers, storage operators and other participants in the gas market to deliver sufficient gas to meet the heightened demand brought on by the current severe weather.
Adult Autism
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am announcing today the Government’s publication of “Implementing Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives”, guidance for local authorities and NHS organisations to secure implementation of the autism strategy. I launched this guidance at a conference convened by the National Autistic Society on 17 December 2010. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
This statutory guidance has been published in fulfilment of the requirements in the Autism Act 2009 that the Secretary of State publish a strategy on services for adults with autism in England by 1 April 2010, and issue statutory guidance no later than 31 December 2010.
The strategy “Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives” was published on 3 March 2010. This Government have made a very clear and firm commitment to drive forward work to tackle the disadvantage which people with autism and their families sadly so often face, and to step up the pace to deliver that strategy.
The purpose of this guidance is to secure the implementation of the Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives strategy. It gives guidance to local authorities, NHS bodies and NHS foundation trusts on issues set out in the Autism Act. This guidance will help these bodies to develop services that support and meet the locally identified needs of people with autism and their families and carers and enable local transparency and accountability.
As set out in section 3 of the Autism Act, this guidance is to be treated as though it were guidance issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Service Act 1970 (LASS Act). This means that local authorities must
“follow the path charted by the guidance, with liberty to deviate from it where the authority judges on admissible grounds that there is good reason to do so, but without freedom to take a substantially different course.”
Though the LASS Act does not directly apply to NHS bodies, the Autism Act makes clear that for the purposes of this guidance
“an NHS body is to be treated as if it were a local authority within the meaning of the LASS Act”.
The guidance focuses on the key areas required by the Act, in each case identifying what health and social services bodies are already expected to do, and setting out any additional requirements introduced by the strategy. An underlying principle is to avoid new burdens.
This guidance has been informed by an extensive consultation on draft guidance between July and October this year.
The Secretary of State has a duty, under the Autism Act, to keep the strategy under review: as part of this, the guidance will also remain under review and will be updated as required.
Transparency in Outcomes
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today marks the beginning of an important shift in focus for the NHS and public health, away from focusing on politically motivated process targets, and towards what matters most: improving quality and delivering health outcomes that are among the best in the world.
I am publishing the first NHS outcomes framework, “The NHS Outcomes Framework 2011-12”, which will serve three purposes:
provide a national level overview of how well the NHS is progressing, so far as possible with international comparisons;
provide an accountability mechanism between the Secretary of State for Health and the NHS Commissioning Board: and
act as a catalyst for driving quality improvement and outcome measurement throughout the NHS by encouraging a change in culture and behaviour, including a renewed focus on tackling inequalities in outcomes.
This framework has been developed building on the proposals set out for consultation in “Transparency in outcomes—a framework for the NHS”, published in July, and the nearly 800 responses to the consultation.
This first NHS outcomes framework looks only to set the direction of travel for the NHS, and will not be used in this coming year for accountability purposes. No levels of ambition are attached to the indicators. For 2011-12, the business, finance and performance rules are set out in “The NHS Operating Framework for England 2011-12”. The NHS outcomes framework will be refined annually, and the next iteration, for 2012-13 will be published in 2011, and will be used to hold the proposed NHS Commissioning Board to account once it takes its statutory place (subject to parliamentary approval).
Alongside the NHS outcomes framework, I am publishing a formal Government response to the consultation “Transparency in outcomes—a framework for the NHS”, an impact assessment and equality impact assessment for the first framework and technical detail on the indicators presented in the framework.
Today I am also publishing “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Transparency in Outcomes—Proposals for a Public Health Outcomes Framework”, which seeks views on a new strategic outcomes framework for public health at national and local levels. This document was proposed in the recent public health White Paper.
This consultation is an opportunity to collect the views of public health professionals, NHS commissioners, local authorities, service providers, particularly the voluntary and independent sector, and all other interested parties. The consultation will close at the end of March 2011.
Both outcomes frameworks have been designed so that where joint working and alignment is essential to improving outcomes, the NHS and Public Health England are held to account for working together.
All documents have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Work Force Education and Training Consultations
(13 years, 10 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 publishing a consultation document seeking views on proposals set out in the White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” (Cm7881). We are consulting on proposals to create a new framework for education and training of the health care work force. Under these proposals, health care providers will be given responsibility for planning and developing the work force, while the quality of education and training will remain under the stewardship of the health care professions.
“Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The consultation is also available at www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_122590.
“Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce” further develops the education and training commitments in the White Paper that:
Health care employers and their staff will agree plans and funding for work force development and training;
education and commissioning will be led locally and nationally by the health care professions; working with employers;
the professions will have a leading role in deciding the structure and content of training and quality standards;
all providers of health care services will pay to meet the costs of education and training with transparent funding flows supporting the level playing field between providers;
the NHS Commissioning Board will provide national patient and public oversight of health care providers’ funding plans for training and education, checking that these reflect its strategic commissioning intentions. GP consortia will provide this oversight at local level; and
the Centre for Workforce Intelligence will act as a consistent source of information and analysis, informing and informed by all levels of the system.
This consultation is an opportunity to seek the views of health care providers, health care professionals and the wider public to inform the development of a new framework for education and training and developing the health care work force.
The consultation period will close on 31 March 2011.
Passenger Name Record Agreements
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The coalition Government are firmly committed to protecting the security of their citizens and to restoring and protecting civil liberties.
The UK, in common with many other EU member states and third countries, places considerable value on the collection and analysis of passenger name record (PNR) data (those data collected by carriers in the exercise of their business) for the purposes of combating terrorism and organised crime. The appropriate use of PNR data is vital in keeping the public safe.
In line with this view the Government continue to press for an EU PNR directive that includes provision for intra-EU flights. The Government also believe that clear PNR agreements between the EU and third countries play a vital role in removing legal uncertainty for air carriers flying to those countries, and help ensure that PNR information can be shared quickly and securely with all necessary data protection safeguards in place where appropriate.
We are firmly committed to consistency in our approach to civil liberties and will seek to translate our domestic agenda to the EU level—purpose limitation; rigorous evidence-based arguments; the principles of necessity and proportionality; stringent data protection safeguards, especially when handling sensitive personal data; independent data protection oversight; and, of course, full compliance with EU law and the EU treaties.
On 21 September the European Commission (EC) published a communication on the global approach to transfers of passenger name record (PNR) data to third countries (which proposed a set of common principles on sharing data with third countries) alongside a package of draft negotiating mandates for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States. In response to the Commission recommendations, on 18 October the Council presented a draft Council decision to authorise the Commission to open negotiations for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the US together with draft negotiating guidelines (collectively referred to as negotiating mandates).
We fully recognise the importance of working with partners outside the EU, given that the threats we face are global in nature. Notably, we will continue to engage closely with the US on PNR and data protection; both of which are crucial to our ability to co-operate with the US on improving US and EU security. We will though ensure that the exchange of data with such partners remains subject to rigorous data protection safeguards.
After due consideration of the importance of civil liberties, data protection and security concerns, the Government have decided to opt in to negotiating mandates for three PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the US as they believe they will pave the way for EU-third country agreements that strike the right balance between civil liberties, data protection and security of the EU. As these mandates are currently restricted so as to preserve the EU negotiating position they are not therefore depositable within Parliament.
The Government will continue to work with the Scrutiny Committees when it considers whether to opt in to Council decisions to sign and conclude each third country agreement. I will also in due course update Parliament on the Government’s opt-in decisions at these later stages.
Parades Commission for Northern Ireland
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I am pleased to announce the appointment of a new Parades Commission for Northern Ireland. I have appointed Peter Osborne as chair and Douglas Bain, Delia Close, Brian Kennaway, Catriona King, Frances Nolan, and Robin Percival as members. They will all take up office on 1 January 2011.
The Parades Commission plays a vital role in ensuring that there is a means of dealing with contentious parades which allows for consideration of the rights of those who parade and those who are affected by parading.
I am confident that the new Commission brings a wealth of knowledge, skills and understanding, helping the Commission to meet the challenges ahead and build on its considerable achievements over the last 12 years.
Motorcycle Testing
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I am today publishing an interim report on the review of motorcycle testing in Great Britain, which I launched on 8 June 2010. Last week I met the working group established to conduct the review and we agreed a set of high-level findings and next steps. This group included members of the motorcycle industry, trainers, riders’ representatives, road safety and local authority bodies as well as DSA and DFT officials. I will be placing the report on the Department’s website www.dft.gov.uk and in the Libraries of both Houses.
While there is more work to be done on the detail, the review has helpfully identified a set of changes to the test which have the potential to deliver my objectives for a new motorcycle test. My goal is to see the practical test delivered as a single on-road event in a way which will maintain riding standards, protect safety and increase accessibility of the test to all candidates. The work delivered by the group includes a new hazard avoidance manoeuvre which—subject to further trialling—can be carried out on the road, as well as ways to perform the other specified manoeuvres on the road. The working group has also suggested that the slow manoeuvres (manual handling, slalom, figure-of-eight, U-turn and slow ride) might better be examined at training centres, ahead of the main test, by delegated examiners employed by the training industry. It could be followed by a single event on road test conducted by DSA, including the remaining manoeuvres and the other elements of the road-based test. This approach needs further development with the training industry.
The next step for the review will be to hold wider trials, with test-level candidates, to verify the standards, suitability and safety of the new manoeuvres, including a number of on-road sites, to establish the criteria for safe on-road testing. This will be followed by public consultation on the proposed changes. We will aim to implement a new test by the end of 2011 or early 2012, including on-road testing initially in priority areas which are poorly served by the current network of off-road test centres. Any changes to the manoeuvres would be implemented for all tests at all locations. Subject to further work on safety, cost and value for money, there would be a phased introduction of on-road testing moving to general adoption as soon as possible. Changes to the test will need to be monitored and kept under review to ensure that the review objectives are delivered in practice.
I am grateful to the members of this group for their work and note that many of them have given up their own time to contribute to the review.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first order be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each order the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the order in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motion for approval of the orders will be moved in the Chamber in the normal way. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Indonesia) Order 2010
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Indonesia) Order 2010.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, this partnership and co-operation agreement is an international agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the European Community—now the European Union—and its member states, which was signed on 9 November 2009. This treaty has not yet entered into force, but will do so once all 27 members of the European Union and the Republic of Indonesia have ratified it. This order is a necessary step towards the UK’s ratification.
The principal effect of the draft order is, first, to ensure that the powers under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 would be available to give effect to any provisions of the agreement; and, secondly, to permit any expenditure arising from the partnership and co-operation agreement to be met from the Consolidated Fund.
We have a strategic interest in developing the UK’s and the EU’s relationships with Indonesia. As south-east Asia’s largest economy and emerging power, its international influence is growing through its membership of the G20 and it is a key country on climate change issues. It is the world’s third-biggest carbon emitter, as well as a major energy producer and consumer. It is also on course to be the fifth-largest economy in the world by 2030, which is only 20 years away. We are talking about a new but vibrant democracy and the world’s largest moderate Muslim-majority country, which certainly is moving towards being rated as having the most liberal stance in south-east Asia.
The partnership and co-operation agreement should enable us to deepen trade and investment links and make the most of the many commercial opportunities which lie in Indonesia today. It is also a necessary precursor to an EU-Indonesian free trade agreement. I should explain that the agreement has been ratified so far by four EU member states. Others expect their domestic processes to be completed by early 2011.
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is important for our nation, for the European Union and for world trade. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and for the brevity of his presentation, which I shall try to copy. It is good to read a treaty that clearly represents a factor in a good relationship, in this case between the European Union and Indonesia. It includes the sort of good words that you would hope to see in such a treaty, but reading it left me asking what will specifically come out of it, at what pace and through what mechanisms. I wonder whether the Minister could give me some brief insights.
Article 41 of the framework agreement talks about a joint committee that will meet not less than every two years. That does not have a strong sense of urgency about it. The essence of such treaties seems to me to be the rate at which they are taken up and used, with practical steps coming forward, yet in the UK you would expect that to fall to BIS and the FCO, both of which are seeing a reduction in their resources of 25 per cent. However, frankly, the framework has commitments to work between the Community and Indonesia on virtually every area of human activity. Could the Minister comment on what we will do about Article 5, on terrorism? What specific input will the UK make in terms of resources committed to helping Indonesia and ourselves in that extremely important area?
There are two other important areas, one of which is Article 34, on migration. All the people in the world have an interest in humane movement and controls of people, and particularly in the stamping out of the evil of people trafficking. I hope that we will be able to make some contribution to Indonesia in that area. Finally, and probably most significantly, is the whole issue of deafforestation. Indonesia has the second highest rate of deafforestation after Brazil; it is about half that of Brazil but many times greater than any other nation. The Indonesian forests are a key part of the ecology of the planet. Anything that can be done through co-operation with Indonesia to lower the rate of deafforestation has to be good for climate change and needs to be done fairly urgently.
I am interested in how the Minister can illustrate the practical steps that will follow once this treaty comes into force, which we all hope will be quite soon.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
We too welcome this partnership agreement with Indonesia. As the Minister pointed out, it is the largest Muslim country, and this agreement is the first with an ASEAN country so it is very welcome. However—he would expect there to be some howevers in such a comprehensive agreement—there are obviously concerns. First, it is undoubtedly true that Indonesia has made significant progress since 1998 in terms of democratic freedoms and human rights. Multi-party democracy is now established and is increasingly becoming entrenched throughout the country, which is no mean feat given the size of the population and the very different traditions evident there. Nevertheless, the agreement—particularly Article 26—is very weak in terms of human rights. It tries to encompass all the European Union’s interests in that area in 56 words—Article 27, on environment and natural resources, runs to a couple of hundred words; I did not have time to record quite how long it was—words that are at best dressed up as hopeful sentiments. Its second paragraph states that:
“Such cooperation may include … supporting the implementation of the Indonesian National Plan of Action of Human Rights … human rights promotion and education”,
and so on. Those 56 words go on to say:
“The Parties agree that a dialogue between them on this matter would be beneficial”.
This is extremely weak and almost inadequate if it is to be a blueprint for how we approach partnership agreements with other countries, particularly in the Muslim world where there are significant concerns about human rights norms. If this is the first such measure, I dread to think what might happen as we proceed with countries with worse records.
Most human rights organisations agree that abuses by security forces have been especially severe in Aceh and Papua. Freedom House recommends that the two most important steps the Government can take to improve civil liberties are keeping the peace process on track in Aceh and engaging in serious dialogue with local leaders in Papua. The Minister will recall that he was asked to deal with some of these questions only last Thursday, 16 December, as recorded at cols. 726 and 727 of Hansard. He was asked about the inability of foreign journalists to travel in these areas and the lack of any transparent, open media coverage of these conflict situations, despite our having raised these issues at the highest level. This raises suspicions that things may be worse than we might imagine. When asked to say what was the response of the Indonesia Government to the Deputy Prime Minister and the ambassador raising these issues, he replied:
“Not in detail, except that they recognised we have these concerns”.—[Official Report, 16/12/2010; col. 727.]
Given that we are just one of 26 EU countries that have these concerns and were involved in the lead-up to this partnership agreement being agreed on 9 November, and that these ongoing situations constitute extremely severe and serious conflicts with significant loss of life, I should have thought that the EU would be able to take on board that we have rather graver concerns than those set out in Article 26.
Women’s rights are also of considerable concern to us. We understand that at some levels Islamic law is incompatible with civil law and that gender equality is still a long way from being achieved. Therefore, it is not only a matter of our exhorting Indonesia to do better but of using the leverage that we had at the point of signing this agreement to achieve something. Naturally, the agreement is set and we will move forward, but I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord opposite that the proof of the pudding will be in the implementation. A joint committee meeting every two years to discuss articles as weak as the ones that I have described will not create the environment whereby we might achieve great advances in these areas.
Finally, Article 44 on resolving differences allows for a party to opt out,
“except in cases of special urgency”.
Given that we are discussing a country that, even after it embraced democracy, has a record of imposing a state of emergency, it does not instil confidence in one to think that these cases of special urgency will be exceptional. Clearly, we can expect that they would be exceptional in a conflict situation but I hope that, as we go forward with this agreement, we will make representations to the Indonesians that we expect them almost never to be invoked.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friend Lady Falkner, for their comments on this issue. We are dealing very briefly with a vast range of issues connected to a vast country. I shall first address the acute points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the detail. We have the agreements; where is the detail; if I may use the colloquial, where is the beef?
Let me describe to the noble Lord four policy areas for closer co-operation—one, in particular, on which he concentrated—which have been agreed already but which the PCA will boost, reinforce and create a new forum in which we can carry them forward. First, on trade and investment, we will, under the PCA, explore new areas of co-operation, including research and development, and a series of sectoral committees will help to identify opportunities and more rapidly defuse irritants in key sectors of commercial interests, which is always a very valuable asset, because small irritants can turn into great barriers if one is not careful and does not handle them very positively indeed.
Secondly, on environment issues, the climate change question is a shared political priority. As I said earlier, Indonesia is the world's third largest carbon emitter, and we will use the PCA to boost co-operation in key environmentally sensitive areas, such as fisheries and afforestation—which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly raised. A partnership agreement with Norway earlier this year, which the UK supports, should put in place a framework with Indonesia to reduce deafforestation and degradation rates. I fully accept that a lot more work is needed to make the framework robust. The UK committed in December last year—a year ago—to support the achievement of Indonesia's climate change objectives through a five-year, £50 million programme. That is particularly relevant when it comes to deafforestation. It is likely to include significant partnership with the province and district governments of Papua, where the potential for emission reductions, development gains and the checking of deafforestation is very important.
In answer to the general question about the detail, the third area that is very important for us is education. Indonesia and the EU will seek to boost a co-operation agreement in the education field through existing programmes, such as the Erasmus Mundus scholarship programme, which funds Indonesian students to study in the EU; and through a new initiative, such as educational fairs, co-operation on research and other programmes. That will all be reinforced within the PCA forum.
Fourthly, on the area on which my noble friend Lady Falkner rightly concentrated—although when I say that it is fourth, one could say that it is first, because there is no priority of numbers here—the EU-Indonesian human rights dialogue was launched on 29 June last year. My noble friend rightly observes—she is tireless in her accuracy and her work on this front—that rhetoric and saying where we have got to is not enough, and that a lot more work is required. The dialogues are under way already.
The PCA is reinforcement for what has been raised in the dialogues. The aim is regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern related to human rights, including through annual meetings of senior officials. It is an avenue to discuss issues such as that which we discussed in the Chamber of your Lordships' House only the other day—the situation in West Papua, in which there is a great deal of proper and understandable interest. The next dialogue will be in June next year. Beyond that, the existence of the partnership agreement will provide opportunities for pressing further. My noble friend is quite right that one can aspire, for example, to greater access for journalists to the situation in West Papua, or that human rights issues are investigated. We can aspire to see that appropriate dialogue toward some settlement of the West Papuan scene is progressed. Those are aspirations, but carrying them forward requires the most constant, intimate exchanges based on trust and respect.
We fully support the territorial integrity of Indonesia as a great nation, but obviously, like everyone else, we want to see the West Papua situation resolved and human rights respected wherever possible. We will carry on with the procedures that I described to your Lordships last week of raising the issues. More than that, once the PCA comes into force—of course, it has yet to be approved in the other place—we will have an additional forum in which we can reinforce these views, press them, turn them into real actions and carry them forward.
I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord for their comments. I believe that further engagement of every kind with Indonesia will help us to achieve greater prosperity in our country because of the huge opportunities of a vast, new consumer market, with an estimated 35 million to 40 million people with incomes in the range of the European Union’s average level of income. This is an enormous, ready-made consumer market, which will grow bigger because the total population is many times that.
It is important to strengthen our ties with Indonesia on the security agenda, about which we have not talked much, but which is very important. It is important to do that while supporting all the ongoing work and reforms to further improve the human rights situation and to entrench democracy and the rule of law. I thank noble Lords for their support and ask that they approve this order.
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2010
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2010.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provides a streamlined and modernised framework pursuant to which the United Kingdom can both make and execute requests for mutual legal assistance. In an effort to further improve international co-operation we are now seeking to designate Japan as a participating country for the purpose of various sections of that Act. This designation is required so that the UK can comply with the provisions of the EU-Japan mutual legal assistance agreement. The UK opted into the Council decision to conclude the agreement on 17 March 2010 —that is to say, under our predecessor Government. The UK opted into this agreement because it will provide significant benefits for the UK in our mutual legal assistance, or MLA, dealings with Japan.
Until now, MLA has been conducted with Japan on an informal basis relying on international comity. I am sure that all noble Lords will be familiar with the concept of international comity—I have been for the past two hours since the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, gave me an informal tutorial in the corridor. This is the first comprehensive framework for MLA between the UK and Japan. It will be of huge benefit in ensuring that requests are dealt with in a timely and efficient manner, and will provide several advances in the range of MLA available, including specific provisions on banking evidence and taking evidence via video link.
The UK must now ensure that it has the necessary secondary legislation in place so that it can fulfil its obligations under the agreement. Article 18 of the agreement enables one party to request the other to ascertain whether banks within their territory possess information on whether a suspect is the holder of an account and to produce records of any such accounts, transactions or recipient accounts. The powers in domestic law through which the UK can comply with these obligations are found in the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. These provisions are, however, applicable only in relation to a “participating country”.
Under the scheme of the 2003 Act, in order for the UK to seek and provide MLA to a country in accordance with these provisions, that state must fall within the definition of a “participating country”, which is contained in Section 51(2)(b) of the 2003 Act. A country falls to be regarded as a participating country under that section if it was a member state of the European Union on the date on which the relevant provision of the 2003 Act was commenced, or if it has been designated as a participating country in an order made by the Secretary of State. To ensure that the UK can comply with certain obligations which arise under the agreement, it is therefore necessary for us to designate Japan as a participating country under Section 56(2)(b) for the purposes of Sections 32, 35 and 43 to 45 of the 2003 Act.
Designation for the purposes of Sections 32 and 35 of the 2003 Act will allow the UK to deal with incoming requests for customer banking information and account monitoring information made by the authorities in Japan. Designation for the purposes of Sections 43 and 44 of the Act will allow the UK to make requests for such information to Japan. Section 45 provides that requests for assistance made under Sections 43 and 44 must be sent to the Secretary of State to be forwarded to the relevant authority, unless they are urgent.
Japan is not the only non-EU country designated for those provisions. We have, for example, similar arrangements with Norway and Iceland, as EEA members, and with the United States.
The UK is committed to improving the provision of mutual legal assistance, which is a key tool for ensuring that cross-border crime can be combated and that justice is achieved for British victims of crime. The agreement is a further effort to improve international co-operation and the order, which enables us to meet the terms of the agreement, will therefore be of benefit to British victims of crime. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I welcome the order, which the Opposition are happy to support—as the noble Lord no doubt learnt from my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland in what must have been an exciting tutorial a couple of hours ago. As the Minister said, it relates to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act, which the previous Government introduced to enable the UK to participate in improved arrangements for international co-operation in the fight against terrorism and other crime.
As the Minister informed us, the UK opted in to a Council decision to conclude a mutual legal assistance agreement between the EU and Japan. The agreement seeks to improve international co-operation. I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum that, until now, mutual legal assistance has been conducted with Japan on an informal basis. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on how well that has worked in the past few years. What outcome does he expect from the conclusion of a rather more formal agreement? What discussions have been held between the UK and Japan to ensure smooth implementation of the agreement? We welcome such agreements. Are there discussions between the EU and other countries to extend the number of participating nations? Any information that the Minister could give on this matter would be much appreciated.
These agreements are clearly important, given the development of cross-border crime. International crime affects us all. Greater freedom to travel and live in other countries and the growth of international trade mean that crime is no longer confined by national boundaries, but the impact of international crime is often felt on a local scale. It is the larger criminal gangs who facilitate local crimes in the UK—for example, by supplying goods or drugs. Drug smuggling is one of the main cross-border crimes and the main activity of serious and organised criminals, but the problem is not confined to drug trafficking. Other cross-border crimes have an impact on society more widely, such as people trafficking, counterfeiting, money-laundering and cigarette smuggling. Terrorism is, of course, an ever present concern for all of us.
The best way to tackle international crime is to work closely with other countries. In the past, too many obstacles to international investigations have served only to protect the criminal. The success of co-operation between the many countries involved in these agreements is essential in order to combat such crime, which is why we very much support the intentions of the 2003 Act and the order. However—this point has been made both in the passage of the 2003 legislation and in debate on previous orders—it is important that there be confidence in the judicial and police systems of other countries partaking in such agreements. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how confident the Government are that satisfactory standards are in place and being maintained by the countries subject to the agreement, and that they will continue to be monitored in future. Overall, though, we are happy to support the order.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have not had the benefit of a tutorial from any colleague, in this House or otherwise, on international comity, although I was surprised to see that dealings had occurred “on an informal basis”; this does not seem the sort of subject that should be dealt with informally. Be that as it may, we are told in the Explanatory Memorandum about consultations carried out before the order was put forward. The Serious Organised Crime Agency is not mentioned, and I would be interested to know whether it was consulted. Perhaps it comes under some umbrella that is mentioned. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the sort of serious crime with which SOCA deals is very much something to be targeted.
The noble Lord has asked almost all my questions, so I will not repeat them unless it will be for anyone’s convenience for me to talk a little longer; I have noticed some notes going to and fro. I will ask my noble friend about the position the other way around; I may have missed something on it. Are there mutual arrangements in Japan? I can deal with this fairly quickly. Whichever countries come within this arrangement, it is clearly important that there is a balance and that we can expect the same assistance from the other country involved.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the questions that they have raised. This is a complex area that we will come back to when we are discussing the EU Bill, in which the extension of mutual legal assistance—otherwise known as mutual criminal assistance—will come up in the context of the much more extensive co-operation that we have within the EU under what was the Third Pillar and is now part of the Lisbon treaty, for which Britain has various opt-ins and opt-outs. I was briefed to say that this is an EU-Japan rather than a UK-Japan agreement because it is much more convenient for the Japanese to negotiate with 27 countries as a group rather than with individual countries. I was also briefed to say that there are a number of UK bilateral agreements, including with India and a number of other Commonwealth countries. This is an area in which the European Union and the member states have shared competence, and at the moment we have a range of bilateral and multilateral agreements. I understand that at the moment there are no other negotiations under way between the EU and other member states. I am tempted to suggest to the noble Lord opposite that he might care to start putting questions down on which other countries we might usefully consider that the EU should negotiate with; but that would make more work for the Government, so of course I will not suggest it.
British officials have met the legal attaché at the Japanese embassy to ensure good implementation. While we are talking about the Japanese problem, one of the problems with the informal co-operation under the principle of international comity was that the Japanese had some sovereignty concerns, particularly about video conference links taking evidence from the territory of one country in the territory of another, which are therefore much better covered by this agreement. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that SOCA was consulted on this issue. We apologise that it is not mentioned here.
Previous experience in terms of numbers of requests is that the British have received much more information from the Japanese so far than they have received from us. We have many more requests of them. The video-link evidence has been a particular problem, but the banking evidence is also one for which, as the international financial system becomes much more complex, the agreement now gives a much firmer framework for future consultation.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord opposite that questions of people smuggling are becoming increasingly important. There is a whole range of areas in which serious crime is now almost automatically trans-national or international crime. The likelihood is that, under Governments of different characters, we will have a succession of agreements like this. All of us cling to national sovereignty, but as crime increasingly crosses frontiers, we have to have agreements like this.
I read the security and defence strategy at the weekend, as one does for light relief. I noted that this year 220 million border crossings were taking place between Britain and other countries, and it is expected that in the next 20 years the number will double. That means that these sorts of mutual legal assistance are likely to expand further. I trust that that will have the sympathy and acceptance of both Houses of this Parliament.
Export Control (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2010
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Export Control (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2010.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the proposal before us is for an order under Section 6 of the Export Control Act 2002. The effect of this order would be to control the export of the drug sodium thiopental to the United States of America. It prohibits the export of sodium thiopental to the United States unless the exporter has first obtained a licence from my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Sodium thiopental is an anaesthetic widely used in the United Kingdom and Europe, but it is also used in several states in the United States of America to anaesthetise prisoners prior to execution. For several months there has been a shortage of sodium thiopental in the United States, which has caused at least some individual states to seek supplies of the medicine elsewhere. There is evidence that the state of Arizona obtained the sodium thiopental used in a recent execution from the United Kingdom. On 28 October 2010, Leigh Day & Co, solicitors acting for Mr Edmund Zagorski, a prisoner on death row in Tennessee, wrote to my right honourable friend in another place inviting him to place controls on the export of sodium thiopental. While affirming the United Kingdom’s opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances, my right honourable friend declined to impose export controls on the drug. His primary concern was that he should not take action which might cause delays in the export of a medicine which some patients may need.
The High Court granted permission to Leigh Day & Co to conduct a judicial review of my right honourable friend’s decision. In light of this, he reaffirmed on 12 November his decision not to impose a control. He reiterated that there remained a possibility of significant legitimate trade in this important medicine and that it was unlikely that an order to control its export would be effective in preventing any execution. The first hearing of the case took place on Wednesday 17 November. On 22 November, the court indicated that it would dismiss the claimants’ arguments that my right honourable friend was under a duty by the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights or the common law to make an export control order. The court refused to grant interim relief, which would have required him to make a control order. The court adjourned the claimants’ public law challenge, which was due to be heard on Monday 29 November. In the mean time, however, all parties sought to clarify the extent of any possible lawful trade in sodium thiopental. Having consulted United States lawyers, they all agreed that, under applicable federal law, it is not currently lawful to import sodium thiopental into the United States for medical purposes. Moreover, in the course of the legal action, it was established that sodium thiopental is at present hardly ever used for legitimate medical purposes in the United States of America—although, as I have indicated, it is used widely as an anaesthetic around the world. These two discoveries mean that an order controlling the export of sodium thiopental to the United States of America should not, in fact, have any adverse impact on patients in the United States of America or on UK exporters.
The order before us reflects the particular circumstances of the United States of America and applies only to that country. The United States of America is unique in that sodium thiopental is not currently used there in medicine but is used for capital punishment. An order which controlled the export of sodium thiopental more widely would have affected legitimate medical trade in a way that this order would not. On 29 November, my right honourable friend decided that these new developments significantly strengthened the arguments in favour of a control order. Such an order would serve to underline the United Kingdom’s moral opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances without affecting legitimate trade. My right honourable friend therefore announced that he would make an order under Section 6 of the Export Control Act 2002, controlling the export of sodium thiopental from the United Kingdom to the United States. The order came into force on Tuesday 30 November. From that date, any person seeking to export sodium thiopental from the United Kingdom to the United States of America requires a licence issued by the Export Control Organisation, which will refuse a licence if the stated end use is execution, or if it considers there to be an unacceptable risk that the drug will be diverted for use in execution. In the latter case, it would assess the risks case by case in the light of all relevant factors. A breach of the order is a criminal offence.
Noble Lords may wish to note that the control order covers both the direct and indirect export of sodium thiopental from the United Kingdom to the United States of America. The indirect control applies when the destination is not the US, but the exporter knows that the goods will be re-exported and that the ultimate destination is indeed the United States.
The order was laid before Parliament pursuant to the procedure in Section 13 of the 2002 Act and, unless approved by a resolution of each House within 40 days, it will cease to have effect. Orders made under Section 6 last for a maximum of 12 months. On the basis of the facts that I have outlined, I conclude by commending this order to the Committee. The operation and effect of the order will be kept under review in the light of factual developments.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I do not think that we will detain noble Lords for long on this order. I welcome the Government’s full explanation and clarification that the order will require a Secretary of State licence, whether it is direct or indirect control, which is important. I also welcome the assurance that there will be a monitoring and review process. I cannot help but ask one question, as a result of the O-level chemistry that I never got. Like the Minister and the Explanatory Memorandum, I always refer to the drug as sodium thiopental, but I notice that the order reverses that and refers to thiopental sodium. From mere curiosity, I am wondering why that is the case. I hope that those behind the Minister who know the answer to everything will tell us why the words have been reversed. That aside, I welcome the Government’s decision.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I, too, support this somewhat bizarre order, which I am sure noble Lords from all sides will welcome. I have three questions resulting from the Explanatory Memorandum. As someone who spent an early part of my life working as a lawyer campaigning against capital punishment in the United States, I would be interested to know which two states have used this drug to effect execution rather than simply to anaesthetise the condemned person before execution.
Secondly, it is obviously clear from the action taken by the lawyer for one of the people on death row that he or she believes that if this supply can be stopped there would be an advantage, presumably, to either postponing or stopping the execution of his or her client. If export of this drug from the United Kingdom does not take place, are we aware as to from where the relevant execution chambers will obtain the drug? Will this have a major effect on executions in the United States or is there a simple alternative source of supply?
Thirdly, the fact that this order is being brought indicates that presumably there has been export of sodium thiopental in the past from the United Kingdom to the United States. Do we have any idea what the volume of that has been? Will this have a direct effect on drug companies which have been exporting it or is this simply a theoretical order that will have no practical effect? I obviously overwhelmingly support the order.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Razzall, for their questions. I can answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Young, fast and easily. Both versions of the drug’s name are in common use. But, with his O-level chemistry background, it is right that the noble Lord should check and I am delighted that he is able to support the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Razzall asked where else the drug can be obtained. It is manufactured in Austria and Italy. We have no information about suppliers outside the European Union. I am afraid that we will have to write to my noble friend as regards where the drug has been used for execution. We do not have that information at the moment. With my noble friend’s past interest—I understand my noble friend said that he has campaigned in the United States against the death penalty—obviously that information will be of interest to him.
My noble friend also asked what volume has been imported. We have no figures on imports to the United States of America. It cannot lawfully be imported to the US for medical purposes, so the volumes must be very low if it is used only for this purpose. I hope that these are helpful answers. If there are no other questions, I conclude by reiterating that, on the basis of the facts outlined in the opening statement, I commend the order to the Committee. I should also like to emphasise that the operational effect of the order will be kept under review in the light of factual developments.
House of Lords
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Lingfield
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Feldman of Elstree
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Dobbs
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Crime: Age of Responsibility
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the age of criminal responsibility as recommended in the recent report on youth justice by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government have no current plans to review the age of criminal responsibility.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he recognise that the journey of many of the 10 to 13 year-olds entering the criminal justice system begins with alcoholic parents, continues with a disruptive mix of foster care, children’s homes and different schools and concludes with entry into the criminal justice system and that the stamp of criminal conviction confirms their feelings of low self-esteem? Given the shortcomings in the care system recognised by the coalition Government, do they consider the low age of criminal responsibility in this country to be consistent internationally, when it is two years below the minimum age of 12 recommended by the committee on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl’s continuing interest in these matters. I do not think that there is a conflict between the age of criminal responsibility and the kinds of concerns that he expresses. The whole thrust of our policy is to intervene as early and as positively as possible with young offenders. The factors that lead young people to offend are complex and can often include the circumstances that the noble Earl mentioned. That is why children who offend are referred to local multi-agency youth offending teams, which take a holistic approach to tackling the causes of offending, including housing, education, health and parenting issues.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, the Minister and his department have taken some good initiatives in recent days on criminal justice matters, but does he not accept that the age of criminality is far too low for children and its impact on their rehabilitation is far too severe? Will he look at international practices in relation to children and consider what good practices could be adopted in this country, bearing in mind that we have probably one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I concede that we are at the lower end of the age of criminal responsibility. The department and all the authorities concerned look at international comparisons and practices. For the moment, we hold firm that, although the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years, the thrust of the policy when children come into the care of the authorities is not to feed them into the criminal justice system but to apply as vigorously and, as I mentioned in my previous answer, holistically as possible responses to their needs to try to avoid them reoffending.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My Lords, the Question started on the Cross Benches. Does the Minister recognise that, while fewer children enter the criminal justice system under the age of 14 than over the age of 14, the younger the child is the more likely that she or he will go on to become a prolific offender? Will the Minister look at what money could be saved by diverting these young people into the welfare system? Does he further recognise that, once a child is drawn into the criminal justice system, he or she is likely to be there for a long time? All this fits in exactly with the aims that the Minister said his department is interested in fostering. Why is he being so cautious about this one?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I do not think that the department is being cautious. The noble Lord’s first point is true: the difference in costs between putting young people into custody and finding alternative treatments is out of all proportion—it is tenfold. Therefore, there are both financial and practical attractions in this. I go back to the point that, although the age is low, the thrust of policy is in the direction that the noble Lord is pointing. For example, the pilots on intensive fostering, which were started by the previous Administration, are well worth studying and are very encouraging. The cost of intensive fostering is about a tenth of that of keeping a young person in youth custody. I accept fully his point about the danger that, once children under the age of 14 are in the criminal justice system, they will stay in it and go up the escalator of offending. That danger is very real, which is why we are trying to address these problems.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for my impetuosity. I accept that it is necessary to maintain a proper balance between the protection of society and the interests of a young person or child, in the context of acting humanely, but does not the Minister recognise that, whereas the average for the age of responsibility the world over is about 14, we are very much lower than that? In consequence, we incarcerate four times as many of these young people as Portugal and 25 times as many as Belgium.
Lord McNally
My Lords, our general record on incarceration has been questioned by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and we have put forward proposals to try to address it. As for young people, I agree entirely. We are trying to make a system that diverts young people from criminal activity while understanding that the activities of young people can be disruptive and frightening to the general population. We have to keep that balance in addressing the issue but, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said in his supplementary, every time one looks at offending, the same three, four or five issues keep coming through: disruptive families, poor education, drugs or whatever. That suggests that the sensible thing to do in order to attack crime rates is to address these underlying issues.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is not the root of this problem—and it is a serious problem—gang culture and not age? Something should be done about gang culture. I do not know how to do it, but somebody should know. To talk about age diminishes the real substance of this problem.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as so often, the noble Lord puts his finger on a very real problem. I assure him that my department is looking at the issue of gang culture with a number of associated organisations.
Benefits
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their proposals for tailoring the benefits system to individuals’ needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the Government’s reforms to the welfare-to-work system will make it more responsive to the needs of individuals. Jobcentre Plus advisers and providers of the work programme will have flexibility to tailor support to customers’ needs, rather than having support prescribed by central government. Under our plans for a universal credit, individuals will keep more of their benefits when working and will see a clear gain in working compared to not working at all.
Lord German
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The whole purpose of the benefit reforms that the Government are undertaking is to provide those who can with the dignity of work and those who need support with the knowledge that they have the full support of the state behind them. The experience of government so far has not been too good in some cases. The Harrington review found that the system was,
“impersonal, mechanistic and lacking in clarity”.
Will my noble friend tell us when the recommendations of the Harrington review will be implemented and when changes will be brought into effect that will give people that dignity and the support that the state can provide?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The work capability assessment has been looked at once internally and now by Professor Harrington. We are committed to bringing in those reforms as quickly as possible—ideally, all of them by the time we have all the existing IB claimants reassessed with a view to going over to ESA.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when it comes to assessing individual needs, the benefits received by carers are of extreme importance to families in need? Some weeks ago, the Minister said that no decision had yet been made about how to treat the carer’s allowance in the benefit reforms. Has any further progress been made towards that decision?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are working on fine-tuning the whole of the universal credit system. One of the key issues is the design of how carers’ allowances go into that. We are still not in a position to say where we have got to precisely, but we will make it clear pretty soon.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in what way does the Minister consider that docking 10 per cent off someone’s housing benefit after they have been a year on JSA is meeting their individual needs?
Lord Freud
The purpose of our reforms is to make sure that there is a very strong incentive for people to find work and, once they find work, to work. That is the purpose of that reform.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, I learnt last week of a severely disabled person in the Pendle area who had failed to receive their giro for incapacity benefit, which I think is now called ESA. They decided to telephone and tried several times a day for four consecutive days. Will the Minister kindly tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that Jobcentre Plus provides much needed help to those who really deserve it?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am obviously disturbed to hear what the right reverend Prelate has told us about this case. When we find cases and I am alerted to them, we react rapidly to make sure that the individual case is sorted out. If he lets me have the details, I will deal with it.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether Jobcentre Plus decision-makers in particular will have extra training following the Harrington review so that they can take into account what the review said about those with mental health problems and fluctuating conditions?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords. One of Professor Harrington’s main recommendations is to put more power back in the hands of the decision-makers in Jobcentre Plus. Clearly, we will be looking to make sure that they exercise that power effectively, particularly because we need to reduce the number of appeals to tribunals. We need to get the decision right first time.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, now that the Minister has seen the report, which shows that the number of children living in poverty will increase under the Government’s proposals, and given the good work that he did in advising the Labour Government, under whom the number of children living in poverty went down year after year, does he not feel a wee bit embarrassed explaining away the policies of this awful Tory-led coalition Government?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that I beg to differ on part of that question. The universal credit will have a powerful effect on poverty and will at least balance some of the other effects of the reforms. One needs to see all the reforms in their entirety.
Baroness Browning
Does my noble friend accept that people on the autistic spectrum and those with learning disabilities will find it very difficult to respond to a letter requiring them to attend an assessment or for somebody to visit their home without preparation being done, so that they are comfortable and supported and know exactly what to expect?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. One of Professor Harrington’s recommendations was to make the whole process far more empathetic and to work with people rather than, if you like, doing things in a more hostile way. Looking after people who have autism is one thing that we want to make sure that we do. In my view, people who are autistic could benefit more than virtually anyone else from the package of measures in the work programme that we are introducing. These are people who can work if they are helped to do so.
NHS: Targets
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they propose the role of targets in the National Health Service should be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, from 2012-13 the NHS commissioning board will be responsible for the delivery of NHS services, based on the NHS outcomes framework. The operating framework for the NHS published last week sets out the priorities for the NHS for the transition year of 2011-12 and details how the NHS will move to a health economy driven by outcomes for 2012-13.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. He will recall that, in October, the Health Secretary said that the coalition never committed to a one-week target for cancer patients to get their test results
“because there is not enough clinical evidence to support it”.
However, in November, the noble Earl the Minister told this House that a
“one-week access target would not be the best use of the resources that we have”.—[Official Report, 11/11/10; col. 319.]
Why exactly did the Government scrap the target? Was it the cost, or was there a clinical justification? If it was both, which justification was the most important? If the clinical evidence played any part in this decision, could he please place the evidence in the Library of the House?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the announcement made by the previous Government for the one-week target was an unfunded, as well as very expensive, commitment. At the moment, the median wait for the 15 key diagnostic tests is 1.8 weeks—it fluctuates between 1.5 weeks and thereabouts. To bring that down to a maximum of one week would have cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. We judged that there are better ways in which to speed up access to diagnostic tests for a lot less money. That is why we recently announced that £25 million will be made available next year to help GPs to get direct access to tests for cancer without first having to make an appointment with a specialist. That money will buy up to 150,000 extra tests. We have thought round this problem—if I may put it that way—and thought around the conventional referral pathways. I believe that we will arrive at a very satisfactory result.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Can the Minister tell me his view as to how exactly things will work? Although some targets were considered bad, unnecessary and unproductive, others produced some good results. Will the targets be replaced by a code of practice or guidance, or will people simply be left to manage as best they can?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right. Of course the waiting time target achieved a great deal in bringing down waits for elective procedures, but the target had some unwanted effects in that it distorted clinical priorities and, many people felt, took the focus away from many areas of care that deserved greater focus. We need to focus on outcomes for patients. Therefore, instead of setting process-based targets, our aim will be to ensure that, wherever possible, the NHS uses the measures that clinicians themselves use as a basis for improving their services—in other words, measures that are clinically credible and evidence based. That is how we have tried to frame the outcomes framework.
Lord Davies of Coity
Does not the Minister agree that the Secretary of State’s proposals for competitiveness within the health service will in effect privatise the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not accept that. The previous Government recognised that contestability in the provision of care was a very powerful driver to improve quality of services. I do not think that privatisation of the health service will result from the proposals. We will reach a better stage of quality in provision of care only if we allow the best providers out there to compete for services. As long as the principles of the NHS remain—which they will do under this Government—for a service free at the point of need without being based on ability to pay, we will have the NHS that we all know and love.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, given that the Government have committed themselves to clinical outcomes and measurable improvements in patient well-being, how will the Government ensure that managerial demands for the kind of target culture that we experienced previously will not overwhelm any attempts to measure clinical outcome or patient well-being?
Earl Howe
My Lords, many of the data that will underpin the monitoring of the outcomes framework are already collected as a matter of routine but are just not used. In the outcomes framework, we shall reduce the number of outcomes to many fewer than have been in play under the previous Government’s process-based targets. We do not see our proposals as imposing unnecessary or impossible extra burdens on the NHS.
Lord Patel
I need to cultivate a louder voice, obviously. Can the Minister give an example of where competition in healthcare delivery has improved outcomes?
Earl Howe
I am sorry that the noble Lord is a sceptic on these matters. In the field of mental health care, for example, where there is a long-standing position of private sector contestability, we have seen that standards have been driven up. There is no doubt that the foundation trust model has also paved the way for higher quality in healthcare.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, turning to waiting lists for accident and emergency services, which we obviously want to provide the highest possible care, I want to ask how the newly proposed scheme will improve the quality of care. For example, how will the abolition of the 19-minute response time to a 999 call that is not life threatening affect the health outcome for an elderly lady who has slipped and broken her wrist on the ice? Such a slip may not be life threatening, but the elderly lady may wait for quite some time for an ambulance and then wait considerably longer than four hours in accident and emergency. Is the waiting time not an outcome here? If the Government do not intend to introduce a new outcomes framework for two years, would the Government not be better to leave the current guarantees in place because we know that they ensure patient safety?
Earl Howe
My Lords, on ambulance response times, the existing eight-minute target will remain in place for category A calls. For category B calls, which are serious but not immediately life threatening, Peter Bradley, who is the national ambulance director, has been working with Professor Cooke to develop a set of 11 clinical quality indicators for the ambulance service. We are clear that those indicators will provide a much better and more rounded set of objectives than a mere 19-minute response time. Of course response times are important, but there are other things that should be focused on as well. We hope to improve standards in this way as from April next year.
Individual Savings Accounts
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why shares listed on the Alternative Investment Market are excluded from eligibility from individual savings accounts.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as owning an ISA and a number of shares in AIM-quoted companies.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, individual savings accounts are the Government’s main non-pensions savings incentive and are held by 20 million adults. The Government believe that ISAs should be mainstream savings products and therefore do not intend to allow shares on the Alternative Investment Market, which can be riskier and less liquid, to be qualifying investments for ISAs. Companies listed on AIM may already benefit from other incentive schemes, such as the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer but I find it very thin and disappointing. The arguments for allowing AIM shares to be eligible for ISAs are, frankly, overwhelming. They are supported by the Stock Exchange and the Quoted Companies Alliance. Eligibility would widen the shareholder base, improve liquidity and facilitate fundraising. It would also be tax neutral from the Treasury’s point of view. What is the logic in allowing AIM shares to be eligible for SIPPs but not for ISAs? I thought that the policy of this coalition Government was to encourage personal choice and indeed investment in our smaller growing companies.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, who has been assiduous over the months in asking questions about AIM shares and ISAs. Within the range of products available, there are distinct differences between the aims of ISAs and those of other savings channels. When the ISA was introduced in 1999—and it has been an enormously successful investment channel—it was intended to be a mainstream product with easy access and liquidity. A line therefore has to be drawn between the sort of investments that are thought suitable to qualify and those that are not. AIM shares were kept out in 1999 and I believe that it is still appropriate, taking into account principally the nature of the product and the ease of access to liquidity investment, that they should be. SIPPs, which are a more sophisticated, tailored pension product with a different time horizon—for example, they do not require 30-day withdrawal—can rightly benefit from having a much wider range of investments held within them.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of an AIM-listed company that may not benefit from the method that the noble Lord, Lord Lee, recommends. I recognise that the response that the Minister has given is based on the best possible advice available to him, but I am not sure that he is right in the general sense. Would he be prepared to go back to his advisers and ask them at least to reconsider his answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, makes a reasonable case?
Lord Sassoon
I am sorry to shut the door on this one, but the Government have considered this issue since we came into office, just as no doubt the previous Government had plenty of advice since they introduced ISAs in 1999. We have looked at it again and I am sorry to say to both the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Lee that I cannot hold out any other prospect. The AIM market continues to thrive. At the moment, almost 1,200 companies are quoted on it, 974 of which are UK companies, and the market is quoted at £67.6 billion, so it continues to be in good health in what I recognise are challenging investment conditions.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a director of an AIM-listed company. What tests are not applied to AIM-listed companies that are applied to full exchange-listed companies? Does the Minister accept that the boards of AIM-listed companies feel that they are subject—indeed, they are subject—to the same accounting rigour as FTSE-listed companies and that it is therefore now completely illogical to maintain this distinction?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, without wishing at all to cast aspersions on the quality of AIM companies, it is nevertheless the fact that you can come to the AIM market without a trading record and with no minimum number of shares in public hands. Also, the UK Listing Authority does not usually vet the prospectus of AIM-listed companies and there is no minimum capitalisation requirement. Therefore, there are different requirements and obligations on AIM companies from those that apply to listed companies.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, will the Minister recognise that, with his reply, he has disappointed a wide range of opinion in the House, including— to complete the position—Her Majesty’s Official Opposition? He will know that earlier this year we were looking positively towards this issue. We would have thought that the present Government would adopt something more than just a straightforward negative stance on a situation where it is quite clear that, with SIPPs being able to invest in these companies, there is a good case that ISA investors should be able to as well.
Lord Sassoon
I did not want to be controversial in the week running up to the holidays. I pointed out that ISAs were introduced by the last Government and that they have been a successful channel for savings. I gently point out, however, that the last Government had from 1999 to May 2010 if they had wanted to make AIM shares eligible for ISAs, but they chose—rightly, I think—not to do so. We have not taken a decade to mull over this, but we have thought about it carefully in the last few months.
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, at a convenient point after 4.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will repeat a Statement on the European Council, followed immediately by my noble friend Baroness Neville-Jones, who will repeat an Urgent Question as a Statement on the temporary immigration cap. At the conclusion of the Statement on the immigration cap, the House will then return to the proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. At a convenient point after 6.45 pm, my noble friend Earl Attlee will repeat a Statement on the severe winter weather.
Business of the House
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Loans to Ireland Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.
HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom Committee
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
L Fowler (Chairman), L Gardiner of Kimble, B Gould of Potternewton, B Healy of Primrose Hill, B Hussein-Ece, L McColl of Dulwich, B McIntosh of Hudnall, B Masham of Ilton, L May of Oxford, L Rea, B Ritchie of Brompton and B Tonge;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published;
That the Committee do report by 20 July 2011;
That the Report of the Committee shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, before I address Amendment 44, as the Leader of the House responded earlier in this Committee to the question of thresholds when a convincing case against a threshold was given, I would like to leave him with one thought. I understand that the Government, or another part of them, are considering thresholds for trade union ballots. It might be useful, by the time we get to a response, to see whether that is the case and whether, if it is fit for a goose at this time of year, it may also be fit for a gander.
Amendment 44, which stands in my name, would ensure that there was a majority in favour of AV in all four countries of the United Kingdom in order for the new voting system to be automatically triggered. Having heard from my noble friend Lord Lipsey at an earlier stage in this Committee, I am confident that there is no difference between the four countries on AV, so I anticipate no problems in this regard. However, it seems a sensible safeguard against the possibility, for example, of Scotland voting yes to AV by a large majority, given that Scottish Parliament elections are taking place at the same time, England then voting no but by a small margin and the Scots then holding sway over England, and not simply on the football pitch.
Of course, the other might happen; Wales emphatically votes no along with Scotland but England and Northern Ireland then combine to impose their yes preference on the other two countries. It is difficult to judge whether any such outcome will arise. Perhaps the Scots and the Welsh, having used variants of electoral systems over the years, will now be much more relaxed about further changes, and will understand how a more proportional and fairer system can better reflect their choices at the ballot box. On the other hand, they may feel that they have enough systems and simply do not want another. I do not claim to be an expert on this. Nor do I have any evidence of the likelihood of different turnouts or preferences across the four countries. What I do know is that there could be discontent should one of our four nations feel, having heard and seen the outcome of the four separate counts, that its will is trumped by the votes of the other nations.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to this amendment. I am particularly pleased to respond to my noble friend Lady Hayter. It is a little known fact that explains much; we started work together in the research department of the General and Municipal Workers’ Union, then under the plebeian leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, around 1970. We have been arguing ever since but have remained the closest of friends, and I will argue briefly with her tonight.
I am always surprised when keen first past the posters argue for thresholds and various other forms of fiddling the rules. Under the first past the post system, however few votes the person who gets more votes than anyone else gets, they win. I thought that was what attracted people to that system. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment and I can see why she has done so. However, it would lead to some extraordinarily paradoxical conclusions. Let us say that the election result went as follows in an AV referendum. In England, 7 million people voted yes and 3 million people voted no—a huge victory for AV. Let us suppose that corresponding margins occurred in Northern Ireland or Scotland, but the Welsh in their wisdom—as an adopted Welshman, I think there is much wisdom in Wales—voted, on roughly the same turnout, with 251,000 against AV and 249,000 for AV. In that case the 251,000 would trump the majority of 4 million-plus in the rest of the United Kingdom, and AV would not go ahead.
I can quite understand those who say that this should be an advisory referendum—we moved an earlier amendment to this Bill to that effect and that has good scope—but simply to do it on the basis that one country has voted yes and one country has voted no is not good cause for a review.
We are a united kingdom. Our national elections have to be run as though they were national elections for the Government of the United Kingdom, and to seek to set one nation within that kingdom against another kingdom is neither desirable nor wise. I therefore very much hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment tonight because for once in our long life I would not be able to support her in the Lobbies.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I find it very strange that the party that seems to be supporting first past the post is the one that is refusing first past the post in a referendum. If you win by one in a constituency at the moment, you have won. However, if you win by one without a threshold, you have lost. I really cannot make much sense out of that argument.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
What about the party that says that everyone should have 50 per cent of the vote and is now advocating that that should not apply in a referendum?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
That is not, of course, what we say. It is the argument of a coalition of dinosaurs who say that in the old days you could have just two parties in a constituency. As I have argued before, one is bound to get 50 per cent. If you have 6.3 parties, which was the average in last May’s election, it does not work in the same way. Nearly every member will be elected on a minority vote. We must accept that.
The first referendum I remember was on the Sunday opening of pubs in Wales. No one mentioned a threshold—no one was going to risk doing that—so it was carried in some counties and not in others. There was no threshold. Then we came to the European Union and whether we stayed in or stayed out. There was no talk of a threshold there. The only talk of a threshold was in the first referendum on devolution. Then you had a threshold, and both Scotland and Wales failed to reach it. Then came the next referendum on devolution, and there was no threshold. I am told that when Northern Ireland had its Good Friday referendum, there was no threshold.
Why are we making this exception now? We are doing so purely to try to destroy this AV proposal, and nothing else. I can see the argument going thus—let us delay the Bill and talk at length so we miss that May deadline. That would mean that the turnout would be down, perhaps in October, and it would be said that not enough people voted this time; perhaps only 20 per cent voted.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on these subjects. He has been telling me in public and in private for many years that there is enormous enthusiasm for getting rid of this dreadful—as he would say—first past the post system. I really cannot believe that he is beginning to doubt now that the public will not queue up to vote when the day comes.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My experience in Wales is that, as we have argued time after time, a referendum held on the day of local elections in England and elections for the Assembly in Wales, for Parliament in Scotland or for the Assembly in Northern Ireland would naturally have a greater turnout. Therefore you would not need a threshold. In the autumn, however, you might say that only 25 per cent have voted, as they might, and then we need a threshold. This seems to me to be just an argument to try by any means whatever to destroy any hope of a change in our electoral system in the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I see that a number of new Members are attending our debate today, and I draw attention in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, being in his place. While he has been away—no doubt he has been in the House, but has not been attending our debates—statements have been made that should be drawn to his attention, because they might make him as angry as they made me. A statement made last week in the House was the subject of much discussion but the newspapers and media outside the House have not picked up on it. I refer to my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which has caused a lot of concern, certainly among those who heard it. I asked him:
“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?”.
He replied:
“My Lords, under the terms of the Bill, yes”.—[Official Report, 15/12/10; col. 717.]
I do not believe that Conservative Members of this House realise what is going on. They are not attending this debate and they very rarely speak, apart from two former Lord Chancellors. I do not believe that Conservative Members really know what is happening.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Although my noble friend may not realise it, I was, in fact, a Labour Lord Chancellor, not a Conservative one.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, forgive me; I did not mean that. I meant two former Chancellors of the Exchequer and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. The reality is that people do not know what is going on.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
The noble Lord speaks of massive constitutional changes. Was not the decision to remain in Europe a massive constitutional change? There was no threshold.
Lord Campbell-Savours
We provided a referendum on that and the public took a decision. What I am basically saying is that we need far more—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Is it not ironic that we joined the European Union without a referendum, but that the referendum was on whether we should stay in? The major change took place without a referendum, but the referendum actually backed the status quo.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the then Government had the courage to hold a referendum on a separate day—on 5 June.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Those were two very useful interventions and I agree with them both. The reality is that this is an extraordinary Bill. It is the first time in my 30 years in Westminster that we are considering a Bill when we know that the Government—the Conservative element in the Government—are by an overwhelming majority opposed to the provisions in the Bill. I bet that if we were to have a free vote in the House of Lords, no more than a dozen Conservative Members would vote in favour of the referendum provision. In other words, this is a totally artificial debate. The Liberals are opposed because they have always been opposed. The Conservatives are opposed because they do not like AV at all and do not want any change from first past the post. To be frank, those on my own Benches are relatively divided on the issue.
Lord Grocott
Just for statistical reference, my estimate is that 70 per cent of those on the Labour Benches are in favour of first past the post.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I would call that relatively divided. The point is that this is a totally artificial debate. It would be really worrying if the turnout were to be only 13 per cent of the electorate. That was the figure that I picked, but if the overall turnout were to be as low as 18 or 19 per cent—as it was in some wards in Manchester that I checked on last week—you could find that approval in some parts of the country was as low as 10 per cent, representing only one in 10 voters.
My noble friend has come forward with the politically reasonable suggestion that there will obviously be varying decisions in the various parts of the country. She is saying that there must be a majority in every part of the kingdom, but I would add the requirement for a threshold set on approval of the question, which we shall no doubt come to on Report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I was not intending to speak but, having listened to this debate, I want to say that this is not an artificial exercise. It appears to be artificial to the noble Lord only because he gives an example of where something went adrift, but I can certainly give an example of where things went adrift with first past the post, which I support. I refer to the UKIP vote, which would have gone to the Conservatives and put them in power. It did not happen, but these things do occur. There is no perfect system, and the argument of the noble Lord, whom I usually greatly respect, seems to have gone adrift.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I share the concerns that have been raised about the thresholds but with this amendment my noble friend has raised some very important underlying concerns about the nature of the union which have not been fully explored. These are not simple issues; they are complex and they take in the changing shape of devolution in our country. These are very important issues for all of us who care about the maintenance of the union in this country. With this amendment, my noble friend has isolated the folly of rushing ahead with a referendum in this way. These complex issues relating to the nature of our union should be debated and decided by Parliament on the basis of the results of the referendum. It is folly to have a post-legislative referendum. I know that we have debated these matters already but I very much hope that the Government will consider them again. They are profoundly important and they should be debated by Parliament after the referendum—that is inherent in the nature of our representative democracy. I very much hope that the Government will think again and this House will be able to return to the matter on Report.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, it was very late when we last discussed this matter in Committee and some people were wilting. In reality, the amendment relating to a threshold of those eligible to vote, as featured in the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which I supported, and the remaining amendments in the same vein were discussed and are no longer on the Marshalled List. They all appear on the groupings list as having been already debated, and therefore there is no amendment before us today relating to a threshold of those eligible to vote. Perhaps there will be later, but certainly not today, and that will be very helpful in reducing the length of our discussions—something that I am sure will be welcome to all.
As to the separate issue currently being put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, concerning whether there should be a required majority in each of the countries of the union, I am sorry to tell her that, having supported her earlier, on this occasion I support the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that we should not differentiate in that way.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, first, I should express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I am quite touched at the thought that he noticed that I had not been present in your Lordships’ House very much recently. I am not sure whether he is pleased or less pleased about that but it was very nice of him to have noticed.
Turning to the amendment, I confess that, as an integrationist rather than a devolutionist, I rather take the view that this is not the best way to go about tipping out of its dish this rather unpleasant dog’s dinner of a proposal. I should prefer to do it cleanly, neatly and properly by imposing a 40 per cent turnout requirement. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Baroness on this, much though I have been tempted to do so.
We have heard, of course, that there was no threshold requirement on the referendum on our continuing membership of the European Union. If I may say so, having voted yes in that referendum, I did not realise how wrong I was until some years later. What a pity there was no requirement for a higher turnout.
I really regret I cannot support the noble Baroness but certainly, if and when we come to vote on a proposal to put in a 40 per cent floor requirement, then I will, indeed, be in favour of tipping the dinner out of the dog’s bowl.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Would the noble Lord consider an approval threshold whereby a certain proportion of the registered national electorate should vote in favour of this huge constitutional change?
Lord Tebbit
I do not rule that out entirely but most helpful and obvious probably would be to have a requirement for a minimum turnout in order to be at all effective. I wait to listen, however. I should assure the noble Lord, by the way, that not being present in this House does not preclude one entirely from knowing what goes on. There is not only the printed word but the electronic media these days.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, appeared to be savouring the thought, albeit a little after the event, of a threshold in the referendum in relation to staying in the European Union or, as it was then called, the Common Market. In the event, however, that threshold would have been reached. My memory is there was a 2:1 majority in 1975 for staying in the Union, so even if his most fervent wish had been realised we would still be members of the European Union.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Touché. I can only respond by saying that most reasonable people, if they wish to have a threshold, would look to a reasonable threshold. I suspect that the threshold of the noble Lord would be something like 90 per cent or so in favour. Let us at least apply the test of reasonability.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours mentioned the actual turnout and I would ask noble Lords to look at the likely turnout in this referendum. My experience, among others, is that of the Welsh referendum in 1997 where, although there was a massive media campaign in Wales—it was the big issue—by all parties urging their supporters to vote in favour, the turnout was only 50 per cent of the electorate of Wales, and of that 50 per cent, 25 per cent plus one, or whatever, voted for, and 25 per cent voted against. If, therefore, one seeks to transpose that result of 1997 to today, amid the welter of concerns about cuts to housing benefit, the welfare state and so on, I cannot imagine, save for a small beltway or M25 elite, that there will be much interest in a referendum, and certainly very little interest in Scotland and Wales. I stand to be corrected by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who feels the pulse of Scotland rather better than I do, but we have to look at this reasonably.
Whatever the attempts by the enthusiasts to drum up interest it will genuinely be very small, so we are in serious danger of effecting a major change in our constitution as a result of a very small turnout indeed.
I want mostly to talk about thresholds in a later amendment, so I shall make just one or two comments on what was said by my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. My noble friend Lord Lipsey began by setting out his past with my noble friend Lady Hayter. I was trying to work out where my past with her began, and I think we go back a very long way. There was, alas, a hiatus for some time, but I recall with great affection the times we have worked together on a number of rather important issues. She sided with my noble friend Lord Lipsey and effectively said that it would be wrong in principle for one part of the United Kingdom to prevent the rest of the United Kingdom going forward. I do not intend to bore your Lordships with a long discussion of what has happened in other jurisdictions, but it is certainly not unknown in federal or quasi-federal systems for one component part of that federal or quasi-federal system effectively to have a veto over important issues going forward. That would be the case here because, like it or not, we are perhaps sleepwalking into a quasi-federal system.
We have not yet got a fully fledged written constitution or a constitutional court, but the fact of devolution is making life in Wales and Scotland different. I left a very snowy Wales this morning—and Wales is different because even the snow I saw there this morning was whiter than the snow I can see here. I think it would be impertinent of us simply to say that we are integrationists and that we believe in the union, and not recognise that much has happened over the past 10 years or so. There is a distinct identity, which is why I am just a little puzzled—indeed, shocked—by what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, had to say. Normally, he is desperately keen to find any difference between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom—what in France they would call l’exception française. There is always something that one needs to find in respect of Wales being different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Now, with his zeal for constitutional reform, he is prepared to forget all that and go forwards juggernaut-like, forgetting that the interests of Wales, which may be very different, could well be trampled upon in this case. I said I would be brief and shall stop at this point. I simply say that I am mildly shocked at the unwillingness of my compatriot to look, as he does normally, at the Welsh exception.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
The point has been made that the amendment does not refer to any particular threshold, but Amendment 44, moved so lucidly by the noble Baroness, has no meaning, save in relation to the amendment that she moved last Wednesday night in this House and which she eventually, quite properly, withdrew. So there are two issues before the House: one is a threshold and the other is whether that threshold should apply individually in the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
On the threshold, I spoke at some length on Wednesday, and I shall not repeat what I said, even for the benefit of those who did not have the joy of listening to me on that occasion. I would for once, and for perhaps the first time over many years, seek to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most important constitutional issues imaginable. The Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats is absolutely correct in saying that it is the greatest constitutional issue since 1832. Therefore, accepting that, as I do with total sincerity, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the sincerity of those of us who believe that it has to be dealt with in a very careful and special way. There is the remote possibility that only a very low percentage of the total electorate will turn out to vote. It could be on account of general apathy or it could possibly be on account of vicissitudes of weather. Just imagine if four inches of rain fell in two or three hours, which is the sort of situation we have seen in Devon, Cornwall and the West Country within the past few months. Worse still, there could be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in rural areas, paralysing all movement there. That has happened twice in the past 43 years. These are possibilities.
The case I put on Wednesday I shall repeat in a few sentences. It is insurance against something that is only remotely possible, but if it did happen, it would be utterly disastrous. When we insure our houses against fire, we do not do so because there is a certainty that fire will occur, unless of course there is some sort of criminal intent. We do so not because we believe there is an even chance that fire will break out, or even that there is a remote chance of it. We do so because of the fraction of 1 per cent of a chance that it will happen, and in the main we pay a small and reasonable premium to guard against such a cataclysm. That is the basis on which these amendments should be considered in relation to thresholds.
Secondly, this is not something that has been thought up out of the blue. Practically every country in the developed world has a threshold in respect of constitutional change. It is we who would be out of kilter if we reject this proposal, not the other way around. Indeed, it would be not only imprudent but arrogant of us to dismiss completely the prudent and responsible attitude of other countries in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in a most persuasive speech last Wednesday, pointed out exactly how other countries in the developed world look at this matter.
On whether the threshold should apply to the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, the argument I would put forward briefly is this. We are a United Kingdom, but we are not a dull, grey, homogenous mass. In other words, the constituent parts have their splendidly different and wonderfully distinctive characteristics that make up the real wealth and attractiveness of the United Kingdom. While it may not be perfect, this sort of amendment endorses that very principle. In that situation, therefore, I believe that it would be chivalrous, just and proper for thought to be given to an amendment of this nature.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, it appeared on the face of it that this was not about thresholds precisely, but a different issue. But the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has demonstrated the connection between the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and the issue of thresholds. Because I spoke last week, I certainly will not go over the arguments, but I want to comment on two points made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in reply to that debate. He argued that if you have a threshold relating to turnout, that just encourages people to abstain. He repeated the argument several times, saying that people will think that all they need to do is to abstain and the referendum will be rejected, but my noble friend Lord Lawson pointed out that that is not necessarily how it would go. It might well go in the other direction. He pointed out that, for example, there would be people who were against change but who believed that the threshold will be met and therefore will have an added inducement to vote. That is one category of people who would have an inducement to vote. Secondly, there could be a group of people who are in favour but know that if they do not vote, they may lose the issue. So it can work in several ways.
I made the point that in 1979, when we did have a threshold, the turnout then was 63 per cent—very high, even though there was a threshold—and that when the subsequent referendum was held without a threshold, the turnout was actually lower at 60 per cent. So in the particular case of the referendums in Scotland, when we did have thresholds, the turnout was higher. The noble Lord may say that that was an outcome threshold not a turnout threshold—and that is true—but I would argue that the effects of the threshold there are also ambiguous. If the noble Lord thinks that an outcome threshold that is something like the Cunningham amendment, with 40 per cent of the electorate required to vote yes, would encourage a high turnout, why do we not have that kind of threshold rather than a turnout threshold? The argument that a threshold encourages abstention is not very persuasive.
The second point made by the noble Lord in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was that the Labour Government had been elected by only 21.6 per cent in 2005. If that did for them and the noble and learned Lord was happy with that, why was he not happy with 21.5 per cent in a referendum?
A referendum is different from a general election. In a general election, Members of Parliament are up for election and may be up for re-election; a constitutional change is likely to be permanent and difficult to reverse. Secondly, even with 21.6 per cent in 2005, the turnout threshold put forward in the amendments would have been met anyway. There is obviously a difference between 21.6 per cent when at least three parties, and possibly four or five, are standing, and 21.6 per cent in relation to a yes/no proposition. Neither of the arguments the noble Lord puts forward against thresholds is persuasive.
I do not know whether or not we will have to vote on this but, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that we did not have thresholds in previous referenda, although we did have one in relation to the Scottish referendum, one cannot think of a country in Europe that does not have a qualified majority provision for changes in the constitution. I shall be interested in what my noble friend says in reply to these points.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, in tabling her amendment, my noble friend Lady Hayter has done two useful things. First, she has reminded us that in legislating, particularly on constitutional matters, we should be sensitive to sentiment in the different nations of the United Kingdom. We needed to be sensitive to that sentiment 10 years ago, which is why we brought in devolution; and, in the context of devolution, and after 10 years’ experience of it, it is all the more important that we should be so. However, the legislation proposed by the Government fails to be sensitive in that important regard. Under their model, a majority in the United Kingdom as a whole would trump a no vote within one of its constituent countries. In that way we risk alienating national opinion and national sentiment in whatever part of the country it was—it might be Wales or Scotland—that found its wishes thus crudely overruled.
The second important thing that my noble friend’s amendment does is to underline that whatever the result of the referendum and however the procedures might be amended in this legislation, if we then went on to have a referendum under whatever set of rules, the result is liable to be divisive. It would be divisive in the case of a particular country of the United Kingdom having its wishes on the electoral system overruled; and, equally, under my noble friend’s amendment, it would be divisive because what she proposes would mean that where there was a no vote in any individual part of the United Kingdom, that would trump the yes vote across the wider United Kingdom and invalidate yes votes in other parts of the United Kingdom. That cannot be a happy outcome either.
A third way in which it would be possible to go, although it is not proposed in the amendment, is for each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom to determine its own electoral system. In those parts of the kingdom that voted for AV, general elections would in future be conducted on the basis of AV; in those parts which preferred first past the post, they would continue to elect their Members of Parliament on the basis of first past the post. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, smiles at the evident fatuity of such a scheme, yet I do not know whether he entirely rules out the possibility of two classes of Member coming to this House of Parliament, some elected, some appointed, because he very wisely does not show his hand and delays doing so for as long as he can.
The only circumstance in which a referendum on the voting system would not be divisive and set parts of the United Kingdom at odds with each other would be the eventuality of every part of the United Kingdom voting the same way, either for AV or first past the post. It is reasonable to think that that is rather an unlikely outcome.
Lord Wills
I am very interested in the case that my noble friend is making, but is he not worried that his third-way proposal might undermine the integrity of the Parliament of the United Kingdom?
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am worried precisely about that. That is why I set it up as an Aunt Sally, because it would be an alternative. It would have at least the virtue of being respectful of political sentiment, public opinion and the way people had voted in the individual parts of the United Kingdom. But it would be an absurd arrangement for us to alight upon.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My noble friend makes a serious and important point, but he, like me, will be aware that in the second part of this legislation we will be considering a system of parliamentary inquiries that will mean that, in different parts of the country, the setting of parliamentary constituencies will be different. Parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish Parliament will still have access to the inquiry system, whereas parliamentary constituencies for Westminster, if the legislation is carried, will not. Random mixtures of parliamentary rules for election to the other place are therefore not inconceivable.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend is absolutely right. This legislation is fraught with potential to divide and disintegrate the United Kingdom. I am conscious of that particularly as someone who had the honour of representing a Welsh constituency, because the proposals in Part 2 as they would affect Wales are particularly traumatic.
Lord Tebbit
While the noble Lord is going through his catalogue of anomalies, I am sure that he will not have forgotten that there have been occasions when the voters of Wales and of Scotland have imposed a Labour Government on England, which has voted Conservative. I am not sure whether he is agitated about that, wants to change it or just regards it as another of the glorious anomalies of our constitution.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am a believer in the United Kingdom and I think that the noble Lord is also. I am sure that he will be generous enough to acknowledge that the results of elections in which that has occurred have been beneficent for the country as a whole.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter is an ingenious way to introduce another version of a threshold, which is that there would have to be a majority in each constituent part of the United Kingdom. I would like there to be a threshold, but I do not think that this is the right way to introduce it.
Lord McAvoy
I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter for moving the amendment, because it raises as a serious issue—I hope that it is treated by the House accordingly—the cohesiveness of the United Kingdom. Speaking as a former Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency, I would not claim any great authority but I was representative for the area that I came from and embody in this place a particular opinion about Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, which we value a lot. To move to a semi-federal system where one nation imposed its will on another on a constitutional matter would raise issues and give manna from heaven to the nationalists and separatists who would divide up the United Kingdom.
Naturally, there have been a lot of contributions about referenda and thresholds. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned the 1975 referendum and how he voted one way and then changed his mind some years later. He voted yes in 1975, he tells us, and says that he has changed his mind since. I voted no in 1975 and I am still not yet totally convinced that I was wrong, so there is a twist in that as well.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am not able to support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendment simply because my approach throughout, as on other constitutional issues, is that the House of Commons is the House of Commons, it consists of single-Member constituencies and every Member of Parliament elected to sit in the House of Commons is there with the same rights and the same duties and with the same authority which derives from their election on the basis of first past the post. To the extent that the amendment detracts from that, it is not one that I can support. However, my noble friend has done the House a very good service in that she has reminded the Government, who do not seem to be in the mood to listen, that time and again, in responding to amendments, the Government have walked up one of two blind alleys.
One blind alley is their absolute commitment to a referendum next May, which is presenting them with difficulty after difficulty; not silly difficulties, not trivial difficulties, but very substantial difficulties indeed. If they decided now not to reverse the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker that was carried, they would save themselves an awful lot of problems. It is not my job to be a consultant to the Government and should they think of asking me I am afraid the answer would be no, but they made a huge mistake by putting themselves in that time lock.
The second blind alley is best illustrated by my noble friend's amendment. The Government are committed to this being a legislative referendum, not an indicative referendum. If this were an indicative referendum where the results were sensibly considered and analysed by Parliament and the Government after the figures had come in, there would be absolutely no need for my noble friend's amendment even to be considered. Precisely those types of arguments would come up in the post-referendum debate that should be held about the significance of the public’s decision. Clearly, it would be a matter of concern to almost anyone if strong votes against changing the voting system from the electors of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were trumped by a strong vote in favour from the electorate in England. Whatever were the numbers when you added them all up, I should have thought that that would be a matter of real concern and something that any prudent Government would want to take into account in deciding what to do next.
Am I the only one who so dislikes Clause 8(1)? That this is not an indicative referendum is encapsulated in this one line:
“The Minister must make an order bringing into force”.
Why bother the Minister? Why not press a button? There is no decision to make. The Minister presumably just stamps whatever referendum result comes for him or her to consider. He should not draw much of a salary for that part of his activities when he is told by an Act of Parliament what he must decide to do. I appreciate why my noble friend has tabled the amendment, but it is not one that I can support.
I say to those of us who were here sleepless the other night that it is not my intention to press my Amendment 44B on a 50 per cent threshold, but as thresholds have been mentioned I want to make one point very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who has been assiduous in attendance here is not with us today, but he made a point that was worthy of consideration in opposing a 50 per cent threshold. He simply asked the House whether it would not be very unjust if, with a turnout threshold, 49 per cent of the electorate voted in favour of a constitutional change. That would mean that 98 per cent of those who voted were in favour of constitutional change. I wish a bookie would let me have a bet on that not happening. The noble Lord was proposing that 49 per cent might vote yes, and if no one voted no—or 0.5 per cent voted no—that would not carry.
Of course the answer to that has already been given in an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the Leader of the House. If we had an outcome threshold and the outcome was 25 per cent, surely even the most fervent supporter of changing the electoral system could not object to such a threshold. All we would be asking is for one in four of the public to be in favour of change. That would also deal with the point about abstentions. Deliberate abstentions would not matter provided that the 25 per cent of the electorate who we keep being told are enthusiastic for change turned up and voted. The decision would carry.
Obviously we will need to come back to the threshold argument on Report, but I would be very happy with that. That might be a first for me, but I am a moderniser. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I could have a discussion about whether the sensible thing to do would be to table an amendment for an outcome threshold of 25 per cent. That would solve his sleepless nights worrying about what would happen if there were 49 per cent of the electorate voting for a change in the voting system which could not carry because of a turnout threshold. We would both be happy and my aim in life is to make people happy.
Lord Rooker
There is a snag there. One of the reasons why I did not move Amendment 43A is that there is a legal contractual arrangement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats not to do that. Even before they introduced the Bill, they had a contractual arrangement that they would not consider that kind of threshold. So we are stuffed before we start. If that is not the case, we will receive advice on it, but, as far as I know, the so-called coalition agreement rules that out.
Lord Grocott
If my noble friend is right—and he has been right on far more things over the years than he has been wrong—we really are wasting our time on this Committee stage. It has felt like that from this side of the Chamber throughout. It is unlike pretty well any other Committee stage I can think of, when the normal response from a Minister to anything other than a completely ludicrous amendment would be to say, “Well, we don’t really like this amendment much, but there is something in it worth considering, so I am quite happy to discuss it”.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is not one advantage of the threshold to which my noble friend Lord Rooker refers the fact that you could then permit a very low turnout? You do not need a high turnout if you set an approval turnout, as my noble friend’s amendment would have provided for. I cannot understand why the Government agreed this between the two parties. It would have been far easier to secure a low turnout with a 20 per cent approval threshold, for example, which would have pleased us all. Why did they not agree that?
Lord Grocott
There are fruitful lines of discussion here for Report stage, and if they can lead to unanimity across the Chamber—which is what I sense we are moving towards—let us look forward to that day.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I struggled through the snow from Scotland on the encouragement —indeed, almost the insistence—of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He is not here now, in fact, but he would not have managed to sit through much of this Committee without my presence, so I thought I had better be here. I thought I would just say a few words now, having made it. However, I hesitated to stand because so many Members opposite, particularly on the Conservative Benches, must have things to say on this. I shall sit down now if they want to get up, because I am sure that they are not the greatest enthusiasts for the system of voting that we are considering in this Bill and discussing, to some extent, in this amendment.
I am not sure which is the best description of the Bill. I think it was my noble friend Lord Rooker who described it as a Faustian pact. I thought at the time that he said that it was a Foulkesian pact, and I was going to deny that I had anything to do with it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Oh, it was my noble friend from Swansea who called it a Faustian pact. I do not know whether that is the best description of it, although it is certainly a true description. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has a better description of it as a dog’s breakfast. The more one looks at the Bill and the more anomalies one finds in it, the more one thinks that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has the right description. It is a dog’s breakfast—and it is a very dangerous dog’s breakfast. I would not like to feed it to my dog. There are a lot of unexpected consequences to this Bill. The law of unexpected consequences is bad enough with a small Bill, but with this Bill of 301 pages there will be many unexpected consequences.
I have been listening to the debate on this important amendment, which was proposed by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. That is a lovely part of London, incidentally. When I was at school in London I used to wander around Kentish Town from time to time. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, made a very important point. The nature of the union has changed dramatically over the past 12 years. We certainly need to take account of it. Most of the referenda we were talking about related to devolution or preceded the changes that have taken place. We are now talking about a very important thing. I very seldom disagree with my noble friend Lord Grocott, but I ask him and others to consider the sensitivity of the particular parts of the union—of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Let us imagine that this referendum takes place. There could be a low turnout or there might be a bigger turnout if there is voting on other things and if it is on the same day. I hope fervently, like so many noble Lords, that it is not on the same day, but if it does take place on the same day, there might be a differential turnout—perhaps a substantially differential turnout. Imagine the situation where Scotland voted to keep first past the post, Wales voted to keep first past the post, Northern Ireland voted to keep first past the post, but AV—I was going to say this bastard of a system, but I must not say that—this awful system that we have been discussing at length, was imposed on the whole of the United Kingdom by a vote in England that would—
Lord St John of Fawsley
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the West Country the word “bastard” is a term of endearment?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
In the West Country, that may be rightly so, but where I come from the term is not thought of in quite that manner. I am very glad to see the noble Lord here. Having served with him in the House of Commons, I have great respect for him, especially as so many of the reforms in the House of Commons came from him. However, my recollection is that the reforms that he introduced in the House of Commons were brought in after careful thought, after much discussion and after cross-party deliberation—unlike those in the Bill. No doubt whoever is replying to the debate on the amendment will bear that point in mind.
My noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town has raised a very important point. Incidentally, I thought that it was with great ingenuity that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, brought in the whole question of thresholds, which we have previously debated. I hope that at some point—I do not know whether that will be now or later this evening or on Report—we will be permitted to vote on the matter in Amendment 44A, because it is important that we should consider the question of thresholds. However, on the more important issue today concerning the result in the four countries that comprise the United Kingdom, I think that my noble friend Lady Hayter has done this House a great service in moving Amendment 44.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lords, Lord St John, Lord Tebbit and Lord Roberts to this debate, which has, as ever, been a riveting discussion. I note two points in particular: first, that the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord McAvoy, appeared to agree on practically everything, excepting a marginal disagreement on the vote on joining the European Union; and, secondly, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with a straight face described himself as a moderniser.
In Amendment 44, my noble friend Lady Hayter proposes that, in order for the referendum vote to effect a change in the voting system, there must be a yes vote in all four countries of the United Kingdom. As such, this is another debate on whether special barriers should need to be overcome before the voting system can be changed. In looking at the Bill, one of the roles of the House of Lords must be to ensure the correct constitutional proprieties. Whether one looks at the proposals in the Bill that was introduced before the general election or the proposals in this Bill, there is a constitutional piece of trickiness going on. Neither House of Parliament has said that it wants AV, so the proposal has not been endorsed by Parliament, in contradistinction to the proposal on membership of the European Union, which was endorsed by Parliament, and the devolution changes, which were endorsed by Parliament in 1999.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does my noble friend also accept that no party wants AV? Given that the Conservative Party does not want AV, the AV proposal of the then Labour Government was rejected in the general election and the Liberal party wants another form of representation, no party is in favour of AV either.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That appears to be the position. The proposal does not have the support of Parliament and, as my noble friend Lord Anderson has pointed out, does not have the support of any individual party.
Suppose that, in a referendum with no threshold where implementation was compulsory, the turnout was 40 per cent. In that case, a result could be reached in which only 20 per cent of the country had voted in favour of AV. When we debated—last Wednesday, I think—my noble friend Lady Hayter’s Amendment 43, we heard how that proposal for a 25 per cent threshold could have produced a situation in which the change was effected if only 13 per cent of the population voted in favour of the proposition. Most countries in the world—sensibly, in my view—make it harder to change the constitution than to make other sorts of legislative change. The Government’s extraordinary proposal could lead to a change following a tiny proportion voting yes. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with characteristic robustness and honesty, took pleasure in the fact that, if 13 per cent voted in favour of the change in the voting system, the result could indeed be that the voting system should change. The only occasion when any sort of threshold has been required for a referendum that would have changed our constitution was on the only previous occasion on which implementation of the referendum decision was compulsory rather than indicative. I was not in the House of Commons in 1978 or 1979 but many who are here were, and all of them who have spoken have said that the Member for Islington South, Mr George Cunningham, persuaded people on a free vote that, when changing the constitution under such a proposal—which people thought might lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom—there has to be legitimacy. On the face of it, the effect of the Government’s proposal is a manoeuvre that could lead to a change in our constitution.
However, there is no point in debating whether Mr Nick Clegg is correct in saying that the proposal is the most important change since 1832. I do not think that anyone doubts that the proposal is an important change, but if the public think that it is the wrong change, they will not like it and their distrust of Parliament will increase. Our role in the Lords is to make the Commons think again, particularly in relation to the constitution, if we think that they have got it wrong. Our debate on the issue last Wednesday—I single out in particular the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—demonstrated the constitutional trickiness of the proposal. The fact that we could end up with Parliament not approving—and, indeed, probably being against—the proposed system but a tiny amount of the population being persuaded to vote for it shows that something has gone wrong in the way that we are dealing with the issue.
The proposal of my noble friend Lady Hayter is that, for the referendum to have effect, every country in the United Kingdom must vote yes. I tend towards the view that that is not the right answer because, in my view, we should do everything to promote coherence in the United Kingdom. That means that, where we are voting on a national voting system, implementation of any referendum should be guided by what the national vote is. Therefore, I would reject that approach. However, I am extremely keen that whoever replies from the Front Bench on behalf of the coalition should deal with the points that I have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, we debated the issue late at night last Wednesday and this is a point of real importance in relation to the constitution.
Finally, I want to pick up on what my noble friend Lord Rooker said about there being a legal and binding agreement between the members of the coalition not to agree to any outcome threshold. Of course, he is wrong about there being a legal agreement, because we are talking about politics here. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has returned for the end of the debate. It may be that, having heard the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—whichever of them is answering the debate—will think that there are things more important than simply the terms of an agreement that was reached over a few days. I have in mind in particular a change to our constitution, which people of this country respect.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we have certainly had a longer debate than I had imagined when I first saw this amendment, but it has been useful and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having introduced it. When I first saw it, I thought it was possibly imaginative, possibly a little bizarre. I am not sure that I came to a conclusion as to which it was during the course of the debate but I became convinced it was flawed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, agreed with me on that, as did other notable noble Lords from the other side, including the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Grocott, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, as well. I therefore very much hope that, when it comes to deciding what to do with it, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
I was not planning on being drawn into a larger debate on thresholds. We discussed it well the other night. It is, however, worth making one or two points. The best suggestion to come out of this debate was that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and my noble friend Lord Tyler should get together over the Christmas period and discuss whether there could be some areas of agreement between them. If I may speak for my noble friend Lord Tyler in his absence, I am sure he will wish to take up the noble Lord’s invitation, and I hope to hear the good results from that discussion.
I hope the House, including my noble friend Lord Lamont and others, do not think that I do not understand why imposing a threshold might appear initially attractive. On the surface, it may seem to offer an extra layer of reassurance, particularly if the change that is being put to the vote is one that you personally do not favour. However, it is the Government’s firm view that if people want change—if a simple majority of those who turn out to vote want change—we should not deny them this by imposing artificial barriers. We have not specified a voter turnout threshold because we want to respect the will of the people who do vote in the referendum without conditions or qualifications.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Since we debated thresholds last Wednesday, I have had the opportunity to read the Government’s Localism Bill, which they have just published. I was interested to see there evidence that might indicate the beginning of some flexibility in the Government’s view on thresholds in referendums. Perhaps it is just a case of double standards, I do not know. Clause 41 of the Localism Bill is entitled “The required percentage”. It requires that, for a petition for a local referendum to be valid, no less than 5 per cent of registered electors must vote for it. The noble Lord would be entitled to say that a petition is quite a different thing from a referendum, but then we go on to Clause 51, “Voting in and conduct of local referendums”. Here we find that:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the conduct of local referendums”.
The clause goes on to say in subsection (5):
“Regulations under this section may apply or incorporate, with or without modifications or exceptions, any provision of any enactment (whenever passed or made) relating to elections or referendums”.
Do I see in that the kernel of some rethinking on the part of the Government about the possibility of thresholds making sense in referendums? Of course, the Localism Bill deals only with local referendums. If the Government do not believe in thresholds, presumably they ought to be consistent. Will the noble Lord say categorically that, whatever powers the Secretary of State might use—the powers given to him in the Bill are almost universal—to alter the rules on referendums in the local context, the Government will never in any circumstances institute a threshold?
Lord Strathclyde
We will have plenty of time to discuss the Localism Bill when it arrives here. It has yet even to be debated in the House of Commons; it has just been published. However, I can confirm that we have no intention of introducing thresholds. That reminds me of a question asked by the noble Baroness about whether we had any plans vis-à-vis trade unions. Again, I confirm that we have no plans to introduce thresholds for trade union ballots. However, so many noble Lords on the other side have spoken in favour of thresholds that if they were to make a proposal to me about thresholds for trade union ballots, I would very much like to read it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
On consistency, I was one of those in the other place who voted for the Cunningham amendment in 1978. In the Lobby with me and certain dissident Labour Members was almost 100 per cent of the Conservative Party at that time. What has changed since 1978, when the Conservative Party was clearly in favour of a threshold?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, as I hinted, I am at a disadvantage compared with many noble Lords because I was not in the House in 1978. In 1978 there was the prospect of the collapse of the Labour Government, which is exactly what happened. On 1 March 1979 the threshold was not reached, and the nationalists changed their minds and did not support Jim Callaghan in his vote of no confidence. It was rather an admirable tactic.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Essentially, the Minister is saying that it was no more than opportunistic. It was a matter of tactics at the time and there was no point of principle.
Lord Strathclyde
I have no idea whether there was a great point of principle at stake in 1978. I am simply explaining its effect. The Labour Government might well have continued for another six months in 1979 if they had not lost that vote of no confidence. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lawson is not here. He told the House some interesting anecdotes from 1978, but I am sure we will return to that on Report.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, is the position today not a mirror image of that? If the noble Lord is right, the position was taken in 1978 to avoid a Government falling; the position this time is to create a situation in which a Government can be formed. It seems that the same motive in effect applies.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that this is a matter of tactics by Labour Party Back-Benchers, many of us on this side of the House would agree that noble Lords opposite are operating tactically on this, particularly when we compare what they have been saying about thresholds in debates in this House with what has been said in another place. When the House of Commons was asked to vote, it voted by 549 to 31 against having a threshold. The Labour Party followed those on the government and Liberal Democrat Benches to vote against a threshold.
Lord Touhig
A moment ago the noble Lord talked of thresholds as being artificial barriers. What is AV if it is not a threshold?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we are talking about a referendum on whether people wish to have AV. During the course of the campaigns people will no doubt make that point—as the noble Lord will and perhaps even as I will—but that is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing today whether there should be a referendum and whether it should be done by clean majority. I support the idea of a referendum; I am happy to trust the people on this. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, talked about this earlier. Was he not the architect of the CRaG Bill before the last election, which proposed an AV referendum with no thresholds anywhere across the United Kingdom—no voter thresholds, turnout thresholds, outcome thresholds or any kind of threshold you could possibly imagine. There has been a change of mind.
Lord Mawhinney
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He just said that we are talking today about a clean referendum with a clean majority at the end. Does it remain the Government’s view that any size of majority, no matter how small, would be legitimate, given that this a constitutional measure?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it does. One vote would be enough under the terms of this legislation.
Lord Wills
Before the noble Lord moves from my comments on this, I refer him to tomorrow’s Hansard so that he may see exactly what I said about thresholds. I also expressed very clearly my worry about the effect of the way in which the Government are proceeding on the state of the union. I would be very grateful if he could address those concerns, which have been raised not only by me but by very many noble Lords this afternoon.
Lord Strathclyde
I very much agree with what the noble Lord said about the union, and with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who made exactly the same point. That is why we would not want to encourage this amendment in any way at all.
We will come back to thresholds on Report; this is an important debate to have. There was no threshold in 1975 in the only national referendum that we have held. The Opposition’s ardour for thresholds did not apply in 1997 and 1998 in their four referendums in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. There has been no proposal from any major political party for a threshold in the referendum in Wales next March that would extend the powers of the National Assembly. Most tellingly, when AV was proposed in the Bill before Parliament, there was no threshold in that either.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think it is right that the only time there was a threshold was in the compulsory referendum in 1978, which meant that Parliament would have no opportunity to consider whether there was a very low turnout.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble and learned Lord makes a good point, but the referendum that we are dealing with today is very simple; it is yes and no on changing the electoral system. The referendum that the people of Scotland and Wales faced in 1978 was entirely different and raised much more fundamental issues of constitutional propriety and the setting up of different Parliaments and Assemblies in both those countries.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not acknowledge, as the Deputy Prime Minister has done, that this is the greatest reforming measure since 1832? Since the 1970s it has become a convention, when major constitutional matters are being considered, that there be consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been neither consultation on, nor pre-legislative scrutiny of, this legislation.
Lord Strathclyde
I really do not agree. There has been much discussion on changing the electoral system for as long as I have been of voting age. It has been discussed many times in and outside Parliament. People are very well versed on this. As for this new convention that the noble Baroness has introduced, when the role of Lord Chancellor was scrapped, it was done on the back of an envelope—in a press release. There was no consultation or discussion whatever, even with the judiciary. It led to the resignation of the then Lord Chancellor, to be succeeded by the noble and learned Lord, so this is an entirely new convention. It may be very desirable, but it is new.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord is so right; and the consequence was that the House, unprecedentedly and contrary to convention, referred that Bill to a Select Committee instead of granting it a Second Reading. We spent 18 months considering it, and although I kicked and screamed at the beginning, I said at the very end that the 18 months had been really worth it to make it a much better Bill. Please learn from that experience.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am glad that if the noble and learned Lord ever finds himself in government again he will not make the same mistakes.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My noble friend has tried to merge the motives of people in voting for thresholds with the arguments for and against thresholds. He says that voting for the Cunningham amendment was motivated just by opportunism. He has, not I am sure with any malicious or impolite intention, also implied that those who have argued for a threshold in these debates have done so because they are against AV. However, will he not address some of the arguments on their own merits? For example, does not the fact that almost every European country has a qualified majority for constitutional change show that there is something in this argument?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that no impoliteness is intended in any shape or form. However, I largely stand by the fact that most of those who speak in favour of a threshold tend to be those who are most opposed to the policy of having a referendum or who are against AV, which is why they want a qualification.
My noble friend asked an interesting question about what happens in other European countries. The answer is that different countries do different things. Let us take just one example. I think I am right in thinking that France requires a majority in Parliament for making constitutional change, but does not require a threshold when there is a national referendum. I am sure that we could trade statistics from around the world about different countries doing different things, but France is an example of it being done in that way.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has chosen the best possible example for his case. In France, changes in the electoral system have become a plaything of whichever Government are in power, partly because there are not the constitutional barriers to mucking about with voting that have always existed in this country.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that may well be an argument in a campaign either for or against AV. It is not an argument that can be used to decide whether there should be a referendum on that issue or whether there should be any limits or artificial barriers, as I call them, on this.
I think that everyone now knows what the amendment would do. It would require a majority vote in favour in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a simple majority. We cannot contemplate a system whereby 100 per cent of voters in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland vote in favour of a proposal, only for it to be rejected because only 49 per cent of voters in Wales agree with them. I know that that is an extreme example, but it could be the effect of the amendment and it none the less highlights the fundamentally undemocratic consequences of this proposal. That is why the coalition agreement commits us to providing for a simple-majority referendum on the alternative vote, without qualification.
Lord Wills
The noble Lord is being very generous in giving way. However, does he not accept that whatever the view about a threshold, a differential result in each of the constituent nations of the union could have profound implications for our United Kingdom—for the union? He must accept that. It is a logical assumption to make. If he accepts that, why does he reject the proposition? Is it not more reasonable for Parliament, the acme of our representative democracy, to assess those results, know what they are and then judge how to proceed? Is that not the most sensible way forward?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not agree with that; this is a United Kingdom vote on an electoral system for the United Kingdom Parliament. If the majority of those taking part in a referendum vote “yes”, is it not right that Parliament accepts that result and carries on? That seems to be the fundamental position and it is why we resist the amendment, as we have resisted other amendments made here and in another place. We think that if we introduced these thresholds, they would have undesirable consequences, compromising public confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome. We want to respect, without conditions or qualifications, the will of the people who vote in the referendum, and I believe that a simple majority is the fairest way of doing so. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for all their interventions, which have given me an interesting history lesson—particularly for 1978. Earlier, the other Cunningham—my noble friend Lord Cunningham—was here, although I do not think that he is in his seat at the moment. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, played a different role in 1978, and each will have their memories of that referendum. We have also heard the history of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and me. He recalled that we met in 1970 but the date was actually 4 August 1970. We have heard stories of the misspent youth of my noble friend Lord Foulkes in Kentish Town, and even West Country lingo, which I shall not repeat in this House.
The essence of the debate has clearly been far more important than those personal recollections. One of the interesting questions was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, who asked whether one vote was enough, to which the answer is clearly “yes”. Perhaps that is why Members of your Lordships’ House will have a vote in the referendum—because the Government may be dependent on every last vote. I always wondered why we suddenly got into that.
It has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that neither House has come out in favour of AV. Indeed, as I think my noble friend Lord Howarth added, nor has any party come out in favour of it. The Labour Party never even discussed it. I was chair of the Labour Party at that time and it was the party in Parliament that first decided to have a referendum. However, the party as such has not taken a view on it. That is quite correct; it does not have to do so. Individual members’ views will be known but it will certainly not be a collective view.
I think my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggested that I was a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of first past the post due to having tabled this amendment. However, that is not the case. I marginally favour first past the post over AV but I can live with AV. I am a passionate supporter of the constituency link but of course that matter will not be in front of us today. However, I do not accept the allegation that I am doing this because I have a particular view on that. I do not think that this is a bizarre amendment, as the Leader of the House referred to it. Rather, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport said, we should be sensitive to the sentiments of each of the four countries, especially if, in the voting, one of them is out of line with the others. We should respect the results in each of the four countries for this outcome to have legitimacy. That does not mean that we necessarily stop the train; it means that we have time to pause and consider, and really all that the amendment asks is for the Government and Parliament to have time to pause and consider.
This is not an amendment about thresholds. As most Members of the Committee will know, I tabled one such amendment last week. It was very modest, and in fact I was ticked off by some of my noble friends as it referred to only a 25 per cent threshold. However, that was last week and this amendment is different: it avoids the risk of an abstention counting as a “no” vote; it is about the result, not the turnout; and, as has been said, it bypasses any difficulties with the wording that the coalition may have. It is essentially, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, an insurance against the irreversible change that the referendum might make. We could, of course, have different systems. I do not agree that just because it is one House there must be one system. I worked for a long time in the European Parliament where we had completely different systems that brought Members to the European Parliament. We lived quite happily with that result.
This amendment, therefore, is about having time to reconsider before the automaticity of the implementation happens. I hope that the Government are going to give some thought to this general view, whether it be a threshold on turnout, or outcome, or, indeed, looking at these four results.
Having failed, however, to win over even my own Front Bench I will, at this stage, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Council
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it may be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week's European Council. Britain had three objectives at this Council: first, to bring stability to the eurozone, which is in Britain's interests; secondly, to make sure that Britain is not liable for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect; and, thirdly, to build on the progress we made with the 2011 EU budget, with tougher settlements in the years to follow.
Let me address each objective in turn—first, stability in the eurozone. No one can doubt this is in our interests. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, London is Europe's international financial centre, and no one can deny that the eurozone faces very real challenges at the moment. We see that in the Irish situation and with Spain and Portugal paying interest rate penalties in the financial markets. Britain's approach should not be simply to say, ‘We told you monetary union would require fiscal union’, and leave it at that. We want to help the eurozone to deal with the issues it faces.
The fact that we have set out a path to deal with our deficit and seen our interest rates come down is helpful. Following the dinner at which leaders of all the EU countries had a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the eurozone, eurozone leaders issued a statement saying they,
‘stand ready to do whatever is required’,
to return the eurozone to stability. Part of that is a permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries that get into financial difficulty.
Enabling eurozone countries to establish such a mechanism is in our interests, but how this mechanism is brought about is equally important. After the October Council I made it very clear to the House that any possible future treaty change would not affect the UK, and that I would not agree to it if it did. I also said clearly that no powers would be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.
At this Council we agreed the establishment of a permanent mechanism with a very limited treaty change. This change does not affect the United Kingdom and it does not transfer any powers from Britain to the European Union.
Secondly, on the issue of liability for any potential bailout of the eurozone in future, Britain is not in the euro, and we are not going to join the euro. That is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013. With the current emergency arrangements, established under Article 122, we do. This was a decision taken by the previous Government. It is a decision we disagreed with at the time and we are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism, but I have been determined to ensure that, when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain's liability should end. That is exactly what we agreed.
The Council conclusions state that this will be a,
‘stability mechanism for member states whose currency is the euro’.
This means it is a mechanism established by eurozone countries for eurozone countries, and Britain will not be a part of it. Crucially, we have also ensured that the current emergency arrangements are closed off when the new mechanism comes into effect in 2013.
Both the Council conclusions and the introduction to the actual decision to change the treaty itself—the actual document that will be presented to this Parliament for its assent—are clear that Article 122,
‘will no longer be needed for such purposes’,
and that,
‘Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes’.
So both the Council conclusions and the decision that introduces the treaty change state in black and white the clear and unanimous agreement that from 2013 Britain will not be dragged into bailing out the eurozone. Before the Government agree to this treaty change, Parliament must first, of course, give its approval, and if this treaty change is agreed by all member states then its ratification in this country will be subject to the terms of our EU Bill and so will be subject to primary legislation.
Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of the EU budget. Securing a tight budget for the future remains my highest priority for the EU. I believe it is a priority shared by the vast majority of the country. At the last Council, we managed to do something we have not done in previous years. We were faced with a situation where the Council had agreed a 2.91 per cent increase. This was not the UK's position. We had wanted a tougher settlement, but were outvoted, yet the Parliament went on and called for 6 per cent increase, but instead of just splitting the difference between what the Council asked for and what the Parliament called for—which is what happened last year—Britain led an alliance of member states to decisively reject the European Parliament's request. We insisted on no more than the 2.91 per cent increase the Council had previously agreed. Many predicted this would be impossible and that Britain would be defeated, but this will save the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds. We also agreed a new principle that from now on the EU budget must be in line with what we are doing in our countries.
We did this by taking the initiative and galvanising others to join us, and we sent a clear message that when we are making cuts at home, with tough decisions on pensions, welfare and pay, it is simply not acceptable to go on spending more and more and more through the European Union. At this Council, I wanted to keep up the momentum on the EU budget by forging an alliance with like-minded partners and starting to work towards securing a tougher settlement for future budgets. At the weekend, Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and I, together with the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Netherlands, sent a letter to the President of the European Commission. This letter sets out our goals for the budgets for 2012 and 2013 and the longer-term financial perspective covering the rest of this decade. It states clearly our collective view that,
‘the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth’,
in European spending should be stepped up in 2012 and 2013, and we call for a real-terms freeze in the period from 2014 to 2020. I want to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe, and the three biggest powers in Europe, the three biggest net contributors to the budget, have committed to that. This is an important step forward.
There are two problems that Europe must urgently address. First, the eurozone is not working properly. It needs major reform, and it is in our interests not to stand in the way of that. Indeed, as I have argued, we should be actively helping the eurozone to deal with its issues. Secondly, Europe as a whole needs to be much more competitive. Collectively we must press ahead with measures which will help European countries pay their way in a world where economic competition internationally is becoming ever fiercer. We must expand the single market in areas such as services, press forward on free trade and, crucially, avoid burdening businesses with costly red tape. We must promote stability, jobs and growth. That is the agenda this Government are pursuing in Europe, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. There are three issues that I would like to ask him about. The first is the agreement on the European budget, the second is treaty change, and the third is the wider but most fundamental question of European growth.
I turn first to the European budget. I welcome the call for restraint in the years ahead. On the budget for this year, the Prime Minister applauded the outcome because, as he said, it avoided the ultimate sin of European negotiations: that of simply splitting the difference between positions. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Prime Minister originally wanted a freeze on the budget while the European Parliament wanted a 5.9 per cent increase, and the Prime Minister was still arguing for that days before the last European Council in October. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can tell the House what the figure is that splits the difference between 0 per cent and 5.9 per cent. By my reckoning, it is somewhere around 2.9 per cent, which is the outcome we actually ended up with. So, after the Government’s rhetoric, where have we ended up? We have ended up by splitting the difference.
We welcome the Prime Minister’s support for the treaty change agreed at the Council. It is right that the eurozone replaces its ad hoc agreements with a more permanent mechanism. But why does the Prime Minister have to go through such hoops to justify accepting this fairly minor change? He is, after all, showing a sensible piece of what one might call Europragmatism. Of course, the problem for the Government is that before the election, the Prime Minister claimed not to be a Europragmatist but the great Eurosceptic, which is more rhetoric. He promised that if there was any chance for a reopening of the treaty and a referendum on Lisbon, he personally would make it happen. The Foreign Secretary has admitted that the treaty offers a pretext for a referendum, but that it would be absurd to use it to try to derail the whole of Lisbon. Indeed, the Prime Minister also used to say that he would take the first opportunity he needed to repatriate powers over employment and social legislation to Britain, but again, he has not. It would be helpful to the House, and probably more helpful for the noble Lord’s own Back-Benchers, to explain why these pre-election commitments have been abandoned.
I turn to the third and most important issue, that of the European economy. The agreement on a permanent crisis mechanism for the eurozone after 2013 does not address the challenges that Europe’s economy faces at the moment. Does the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, agree that eurozone members themselves should do more to promote stability in the eurozone before 2013, and does he also agree that we need European action to promote growth for there to be any chance of serious export growth for the UK? The Prime Minister’s plans, with VAT set to rise and spending cuts kicking in, rely on an extra £100 billion of exports over five years, and over 50 per cent of our exports are made to Europe. But the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be aware that European Commission forecasts show slowing growth within the EU next year. Does he accept that the Government need to do more to work with colleagues in Europe to improve the prospects for growth?
First, the Prime Minister should argue that all countries engaging in fiscal consolidation, including Germany and the UK, should do so at a pace that supports economic growth both domestically and across Europe as a whole. Secondly, he should ensure that those countries facing problems, including Ireland, are not locked into repeated rounds of austerity with higher taxes and lower spending, hitting the growth those countries need to pay down their debts and recover. Thirdly, he should make sure that Europe’s voice in the G20 argues for a growth-oriented strategy. Indeed, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that given the nature of this Statement, many people will wonder whether the Government see any connection between their own optimistic forecasts for exports and the summit that the Prime Minister attended at the weekend.
The Government’s approach regarding Europe reflects their wider domestic approach. They think that you can reduce an economic policy to a pure deficit reduction policy with no focus on growth and jobs. In 2011, the Government need to start engaging in a growth agenda for Europe and Britain that can help us here at home.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for responding to the Statement and for the way in which he did so. He made three substantial points and asked questions. I shall try to answer them but, if I am unable to do so, I shall of course right to him in the normal way.
This was an important Council meeting because the issues facing the EU were varied and substantially economic. Some issues were related to the eurozone and the Council took steps to deal with them; and some were related to the budget, which we believed had grown out of control in the past few years.
First, the noble Lord made the point—whether or not he was agreeing with me was hard to tell—that the budget was not the victory it looked because the European Parliament had wanted an increase of 5.9 per cent, or whatever it was. The point is that after the last Council the European Parliament voted for—indeed, demanded—6 per cent. The normal way would have been to split the difference between 3 per cent and 6 per cent and ended up at 4.5 per cent. However, with other countries, we stood firm at 2.9 per cent and were right to do so. In a letter that we have agreed with the major net contributors to the EU, we have set a new standard by which future budgets will be judged. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that that is good news.
Secondly, the noble Lord agreed that there is a requirement for a new permanent mechanism—I think that is absolutely right—but he went on to ask why we should go through the hoops. The hoops, incidentally, are to allow Parliament to have a say, not only in the arrangements that we already have in the House under the terms of the Lisbon treaty but in new primary legislation. That is not going through the hoops but putting the decision where it should lie—in Parliament—and that is why we are doing it. There is no question of a referendum because there is no question of a transfer of power from the British Parliament to the European Union.
On the question of growth, the noble Lord is again right to say that there is a problem; there is a crisis in the eurozone and with the euro. We want the EU to succeed—it is in our vital British interests that it should do so—including countries such as Ireland and others which have found themselves in trouble. We believe that we are on the brink of a substantial, export-led growth but Europe, too, needs a credible growth agenda. As the noble Lord pointed out, the EU’s potential growth is forecast to be just 1.7 per cent in 2014.
We believe that each member state needs to carry out its own reforms—that is why the UK Government have launched their own growth review—but there is a strong case for similar determination at the EU level, where Europe 2020 needs to provide a more focused drive towards making progress in areas where there is significant EU value added and can genuinely promote growth. For example, we should focus throughout Europe on a more efficient and competitive single market, especially on increasing productivity and trade in the services sector; we need a more ambitious and open approach to global trade to allow Europe to benefit from growth elsewhere, particularly in Asia; we need a framework for innovation that enables technological change; and we need smarter regulations that will leave enterprise freer to drive the growth that we need.
No one underestimates the challenges that face this country and the rest of Europe. However, with some of our enlightened European partners, we believe that with this kind of agenda for growth we can get ourselves out of trouble.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and, through him, to congratulate the Prime Minister on his perseverance and clarity in his clearly difficult negotiations in Brussels. One of the successes of the Statement is that it is forward-looking. We all know of the difficult issues that are still with us, two or three years after the financial crisis, in the peripheral countries of the eurozone. It was surprising to hear so much time devoted by the Official Opposition to the past and what the Government might or might not have promised in previous years. Media reports suggest that some concessions were made in terms of the financial perspectives moving forward to the period 2014 to 2020—indeed, the Germans secured their Lisbon treaty revision to establish the financial stability facility—but it was disturbing to hear that there was agreement with the French that the common agricultural policy would remain untouched. In other words, our desire to achieve greater efficiencies will not now bear fruit. Will my noble friend reassure us that we will continue with our commitments to reform the common agricultural policy? I wonder also whether he could reassure us that the newer eurozone countries, which have done very well by the structural funds and would naturally be loath to see them cut back, will nevertheless have conversations with us to attain that end, because we cannot all have cake every day.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right: we cannot have cake every day. Throughout Europe, different countries in different ways are learning the lesson of increasing productivity and trying to do more for less. The Prime Minister had one thing on his mind, and was not alone in so doing. He made it clear that, with leaders having to look at cuts in all sorts of very sensitive areas in their home countries, as we have had to do in ours, it was quite wrong to see net contributions to the EU continue to rise exponentially and that we needed to come forward with a very sensible plan over the next few years.
My noble friend Lady Falkner asked about our commitment to reform the CAP. This has been a long-standing commitment, and we cling very firmly to our view that the CAP needs to be reformed. Discussions on it will continue, likewise on the structural funds.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study last week’s financial stability report from the Bank of England, which demonstrated the interconnectedness of the obligations of British banks and those of banks on the continent and suggested to the reader that, should there be any kind of sovereign debt default in a member state in the eurozone, Britain and British banks would be heavily involved in any debt restructuring that was necessary? In this case, is it not time that, instead of trying to pretend to their anti-European and Eurosceptic Back-Benchers that Britain can stand aside from the problems of the eurozone, the Government recognised that we are in these problems up to our neck, that if we want a credible growth strategy for Britain we must also have a credible growth strategy for the eurozone, and that we should be ready as the United Kingdom in our national interest to play a full part in that?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have not had time to study the stability report from the Bank of England to which the noble Lord referred, but I understand exactly what he was saying. With the greatest respect to him, I think that his question was misconceived. There is no fear from us that we are trying to appease anti-European or sceptical Back-Benchers. These are bogeymen that obviously exist in the noble Lord’s nightmares. We have no such nightmares and no such concerns. If any such concerns exist, they are partly dealt with by explaining that there will be a process in the British Parliament for agreeing the changes that we have made. Of course, as I laid out in the Statement and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have a clear strategy for growth in the United Kingdom and believe that there should be a clear strategy for growth in the rest of Europe.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I perked up slightly at the Minister’s first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that the treaty change would be settled in this Parliament, as it should be. I was then a bit saddened to hear that it is only treaty changes that do not affect us that get settled in Parliament and ones that do affect us get settled somewhere else. This reflects a very odd view about the primacy of Parliament.
On the budget, on the financial perspectives, I strongly welcome the fact that the Government are taking a tough line in the initial phases of that negotiation. I think that that is absolutely necessary, but they seem to have nailed their colours to something that used to be known in the jargon as “zero real growth” for a period of 10 years. That is a very long time. I do not imagine that the Government will be proposing zero real growth in public expenditure in this country for 10 years and, if they do, their prospects of re-election in 2015 may be a bit damaged. So some care needs to be taken about what is a very long period ahead, although I very much agree that taking a tough line at the beginning is good.
Finally, will the noble Lord confirm that the fact that Montenegro was accepted as a candidate country shows that the European Union is continuing with future enlargement in the Balkans and elsewhere?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I certainly agree with what the noble Lord said at the end about Montenegro, which we hope, over time, will be able to play a full part in the European Union. I liked the noble Lord’s characterisation, at the start of his words, about treaty modifications. Of course, what he did not go on to say, when speaking about parliamentary sovereignty, or the primacy of Parliament, is that if there is a substantial transfer of power, we will take it to a referendum of the people of this country. We may disagree about that, but I think that it is a perfectly logical position for us to have.
The substance of the noble Lord’s point was about zero real growth for 10 years. We have proposed that we should reduce growth up until 2014 and that between 2014 and 2020 there should be no growth, or zero real growth, as the noble Lord pointed out. We cling strongly to this view in part because of the difficulties faced by individual member states within the European Union. There is also a sense that over the last few years some of the spending within the EU has not been as carefully controlled as it might have been. This is an opportunity for the EU to review its own budgeting process and I very much hope that it will be supported by other member states in due course.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, since it must now be clear, even to our political class, that the euro is designed for failure, with its single interest and exchange rates and its absence of a federal budget, except in extreme illegality, will the noble Lord give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that we will not voluntarily bail out Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy and Belgium in the same way that we have volunteered to bail out Ireland?
Secondly, have the Government worked out how much it would cost to return Ireland to its national currency? Would that not be the obvious and very cheap thing to do, followed in short order by Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy? Have they any idea what that would cost compared with the billions that we are throwing down the eurodrain?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is not for us to work out the cost of Ireland or any other country leaving the EU.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Because it would save us pouring all these billions down the drain.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we certainly played a part in the Irish bailout because we perceived it to be in our national interest, whether Ireland was in the eurozone or otherwise, for reasons that the noble Lord knows well.
The noble Lord asked another question: what happens if another country asks for similar support? He went on to list a few of them. There have been no requests for financial assistance from other member states. It is therefore inappropriate for me from this Dispatch Box to speculate on what may or may not happen in other member states given that no request for assistance has been made. The European financial stability mechanism and the European financial stability facility are fully operational. Any request for assistance from a member state would be considered on its own merits.
The noble Lord started by saying that the eurozone was designed for disaster. It is not easy for those who were not in favour of us joining the euro in the first place to make a coherent argument for the euro, but it is in existence. It is in our political and economic interests in Britain for the euro to succeed and that is why we continue to support it.
Lord Maples
My Lords, could my noble friend help me with my memory of the Maastricht treaty, which set up the euro? I seem to remember that two of the conditions were that: first, no Government should run a budget deficit of more than 3 per cent of GDP; and, secondly, that there should be no bailouts? Is not the reason that the European Union—or the eurozone at least—is now having to breach the no-bailout clause because Governments were allowed to breach the deficit clause? Will that change not create a huge moral hazard? They were getting away with breaking the deficit clause but they did not know that they were going to get bailed out. Now that they know they are going to get bailed out, that is creating a moral hazard that surely will encourage bad behaviour in the future. When my noble friend says that we are in favour of these arrangements, is that because we think that it will make the euro stronger or weaker?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is right some of the conditions for entry into the euro that were laid out in the Maastricht treaty, and other conditions including those on deficits, have been broken. I believe that there is a sense of moral hazard because they have been bailed out, but it is in the interests of everyone within Europe to make sure that no further countries find themselves in financial trouble. That is why the eurozone is itself taking steps to try to manage its affairs in a more coherent way.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, with the puppies snapping at his heels, but will he accept my congratulations on the first few paragraphs of the Statement which say that we indeed think that it is in Britain's interest to bring stability to the eurozone? That is an important signal for people in the City of London and elsewhere who think the opposite.
Secondly, President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel and our Prime Minister have written a joint letter on the budget. If we are going to have that close triangular relationship, does it not follow that that will probably be true of banking, energy policy and other areas? The question of creep towards Brussels running things, which is a bit of hyperbole, is one of evolution rather than any major revolutionary change.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, yes, we are in favour of stability in the eurozone, but we also feel that it is entirely right for nation states to stand up for their interests and to get together. That is in a way exactly what happened in this letter between Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and others, who suggested—rightly, in my view—that it is time for the European budget to come under further control. That is not seeking to centralise power within Brussels; it is seeking to exert more pressure and more control from member states on the European Union. That is a very good direction of travel.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the noble Lord has been under attack for trying to kowtow to his Eurosceptic Back-Benchers in the Tory Party. Some of us think that the Government kowtow far too much to the Europhiles, so there is a real difference of opinion. In all the latest opinion polls, a majority of the British people do not want any further powers to be ceded to Europe, and over half of them would like to leave the European Union.
Could I ask the noble Lord a question about the eurozone? In one part of the report, the statement is made that it could work only if there was fiscal union as well— saying that it did not want to tell the European Union this, but going on to do so anyway. Is the noble Lord aware that any reform with regard to the larger powers involves fiscal union? That is what France, Germany and, indeed, Italy want. Can I have the assurance that this would be opposed by the British Government and, perhaps, even by the British people through a referendum?
Lord Strathclyde
Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord says that we have been accused of kowtowing too much to Europhiles. We have certainly been accused of kowtowing to Eurosceptics. The main point of this, which the noble Lord has understood very well, is that we have said clearly that if there is to be a transfer of power from this Parliament to the European Union, it should be subject to a referendum. We hear what people are saying in various polls about their view that too much power has been ceded, that they are not consulted enough and it is all being done the wrong way. We will make this a matter of statute when later in this Session we get to the European Bill, which I hope the noble Lord and other noble Lords will support.
The countries of the eurozone need to sort out their own problems. No doubt some of us will have different views as to how that should be done but, if there was a move down the road towards a European-wide fiscal solution for European-wide economic problems, we would oppose it.
Baroness Northover
I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dykes.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say with regard to the proposed new bailout proposals that they affect only the eurozone and do not affect us, so there is no change in our position and no need to consider a referendum on the issue. However, it is probably worth pointing out that, with regard to the eurozone, the proposed changes would be very substantial indeed. The new proposals empower the EU to enforce strict conditionality, which the Wall Street Journal says today is bureaucrat-speak for telling a country what it must do on taxes, spending and economic policy as a price for being rescued. Those are very substantial changes.
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend is absolutely correct; they are substantial changes. However, the eurozone needs substantial changes because of the problems that it has found itself in.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement says that the eurozone needs major reforms. What specific items did he have in mind?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is not for us to tell the eurozone how to sort out its own problems. I have laid out some proposals this afternoon on how we think Europe should grow again, and I stand by them.
Lord Gilbert
Has it not become clear to even the blindest Eurofanatic that the real problem with the eurozone is that the north is moving at a very different rate from the south, and that tensions would be considerably relieved if they broke up into two?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not sure that that is plain to everybody, nor is it, I think, a desirable solution. What is desirable is that the member countries should work together to find common solutions to common problems, including economic ones. If that means that the eurozone needs to rewrite its rules, then that is exactly what it should do.
Immigration: High Court Ruling
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my friend the Minister of State for Immigration. The Statement is as follows.
“In June, when the Government announced that they would consult on how to implement a permanent limit on economic migrants, we also said that we would impose an interim limit, until the permanent one took effect. This was to avoid a surge of applications in anticipation of the permanent limit.
The interim limit was given effect through changes to the Immigration Rules which were laid before Parliament and on which an oral Statement was made. On Friday, we received the judgment that the changes announced provide insufficient legal basis for the operation of the interim limit.
The judgment was based on a technical procedural point, known as Pankina grounds. The court decided that this meant more detail about the manner in which the limit is set, including its level, should have been included in the Immigration Rules changes laid before Parliament.
I would like to make it clear that the judgment of the court was concerned solely with the technicalities of how the interim limits were introduced. It was in no way critical of, or prejudicial to, the Government’s policy of applying a limit to economic migration to the United Kingdom, either permanently or on an interim basis.
The policy objective of a limit in migration has not been called into question and I am now considering what steps are required to reapply an interim limit consistent with the findings of the court.
Tomorrow I will be laying changes to the Immigration Rules which will set out the details the court required. This will enable us to reinstate the interim limits on a clear legal basis. The House will be interested to know that I will also be laying changes to the rules tomorrow to close applications under the tier 1 general route from outside the United Kingdom, as the original level specified on this tier has been reached. I can reassure the House that the policy of using these limits as part of our overall policy of reducing net migration is unchanged. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the urgent question in the other place as a Statement.
Migration has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to our country, but it is also essential that it is properly controlled for reasons of both economic well-being and social cohesion. Over the past few years, the previous Government put in transitional controls on EU migration; a suspension of unskilled work permits; a tough but flexible points system to manage skilled migration; tighter regulation of overseas students, leading to the closure of 140 bogus colleges; and new citizenship requirements for those seeking settlement.
At the general election, the leader of the Conservative Party proposed to go further in two key respects. First, he proposed a new target to reduce net migration to tens of thousands by 2015. To meet that target he pledged a cap on immigration, which he said would be tougher than the points system. Since then, the Government have been in wholesale retreat.
The Home Affairs Committee and the Migration Advisory Committee have highlighted that the cap not only excludes EU migration but covers only 20 per cent of non-EU migration. The CBI, Chambers of Commerce, universities, UK and foreign companies have highlighted the damage the Government’s proposals would have meant for business investment and job creation.
As a result, we have the retreat confirmed by the Home Secretary on 23 November. We have also learnt of the funding cuts in the noble Baroness’s department, leading to the cutting of the number of border officers and staff by nearly a quarter, raising serious questions about the security of our borders and whether the Government’s policy can actually be implemented.
We come to the way in which the Home Secretary imposed the cap. On 28 June, the Home Secretary came to the other place to announce, without consultation, an immediate and temporary cap on non-EU migration. Details of this cap were then posted on the Home Office website, but not presented to Parliament. On Friday, the High Court ruled that the actions of the Home Secretary were in fact illegal. Lord Justice Sullivan said,
“There can be no doubt that she”—
the Home Secretary—
“was attempting to sidestep provisions for Parliamentary scrutiny … and her attempt was for that reason unlawful”.
As a result, the Government’s much heralded cap does not in fact exist. As Lord Justice Sullivan said,
“no interim limits were lawfully published … by the Secretary of State … there is not, and never has been, a limit on the number of applicants who may be admitted”.
In the light of this chaotic situation, on the consequences of the error, what is the status of those who applied under the illegal cap but were rejected? Will their applications now be granted? Can the Minister tell the House how many more migrants she now expects to enter the UK, while the cap is out of action? And in this light, is it still the target of this Government to cut net migration to tens of thousands by 2015, as the Prime Minister pledged before the election? Or is this mistake one reason why the Home Secretary is now trying to water down this target to just an aim?
Secondly, how did we get into this mess in the first place? Did Ministers ask for and receive legal advice before the summer about the legality of the temporary cap and the rushed way they were introducing it? Can she confirm that, in fact, Ministers were warned by officials and lawyers that there was a real risk of legal challenge if Parliament were bypassed in this way? Will the Minister agree to lay before Parliament all the legal advice on which the decision to proceed was based in order to dispel the impression that they have acted in a reckless and chaotic manner and to show that Home Office Ministers have nothing to hide in this regard?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am extremely glad to hear that noble Lords opposite can agree that migration into this country needs to be controlled. The problem is that it is insufficiently controlled. The Government remain attached to their target of controlling migration down to levels of the tens of thousands that we had at the beginning of this century.
It is not clear to me how the noble Lord gets the idea that the Government are in “wholesale retreat”. Let me give him an example of the way in which the Government are most certainly not in wholesale retreat. In the Statement, it was announced that we were closing the applications for the limit on tier 1 general. This is because the limit of 5,100 has already been reached. Had we gone on at the same rate, we would have had a higher level of migration under that tier; it would probably be roughly double what it was last year. We do not consider that an acceptable rate of migration, and we have therefore closed that category. So it is not at all clear to me that we are in “wholesale retreat”.
Of course, we have yet to see the statement and the judgment in writing. It would be unwise of me to go too far until we have seen that. What seems to be clear is that the court was critical of the decision to put the cap limit into the guidance, rather than into the rules. I am not aware that there are further problems. Did the Home Office take legal advice on the matter? Yes, it did. Are the Government going to publish that legal advice? No, the previous Government did not do so, and we are not going to do so either.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, I express two declarations of interest. My first is as the chairman of the Institute of Cancer Research. I made a speech in your Lordships’ House some weeks ago expressing my severe misgivings about aspects of the Government’s policy, in which I said that that policy, as it stands at present, is preventing eminent international scientific researchers from entering this country. That is clearly an unintended consequence—yet another example of some of the unintended consequences that have streamed from Whitehall during the past few weeks.
My second declaration of interest is as a former business manager in the other House and as a member of the Legislation Committee for seven years. The notion that this is a technical oversight is not true; it is a kindergarten error. I cannot recall in my time on the Legislation Committee, or as a business manager in the other place, anyone overlooking the parliamentary procedure to which my noble friend refers.
Some weeks ago I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Home Office in which I set out my views on the unintended consequences of his actions, and he promised to write to me. I have still not heard back from him—perhaps this is an intended consequence of our meeting. Will my noble friend please assure me that in future these errors will not be committed by the Home Office and will she give me further reassurance that she will have a word with Ministers in the Home Office to ensure that between now and April, when these matters come into permanent effect, they will look seriously at the misgivings that some of us have expressed about their policy over the past few weeks?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I say two things to my noble friend. First, he said that this was a kindergarten error, but we actually took legal advice. On his second, more substantive point, perhaps he missed my honourable friend the Immigration Minister’s announcement that, when the permanent scheme comes into effect, it will not necessarily be precisely the same as the interim structure. We are consulting on that structure and listening to what people have said. One of the changes that have already been announced is that we will create a category for international talent—people whom this country badly needs. I hope that my noble friend’s anxieties on that score are somewhat alleviated by the Government’s willingness to listen to the points that are being made to us.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the press reported Friday’s judgment as Parliament having been insufficiently consulted, which seems a reasonable précis of the explanation that the Minister has given. That being the case—and she has told the House that changes to the rules will be laid tomorrow to enable the Government to reinstate the interim limits on a clear basis—will she explain what the procedure will be and what consultation of Parliament there will be?
I would like to try to find a positive in this. During the period in which the cap has applied, whether properly or not, have the Government been able to take any comments or details from employers or indeed employees from particular sectors that will feed into decisions about the permanent limits? When the Minister gave evidence to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee earlier this year, she said that the Government would keep the interim limits under constant review to assess whether they were meeting the objectives outlined and, indeed, that they would monitor any unintended consequences.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The judgment that the court has arrived at indicates that we ought to have formulated the rules differently and the consequence of that is that we stand accused of not having consulted Parliament adequately on that point. I might say that that was not done with any intention to obviate our obligations to the legislature; this was laid out before Parliament in good faith. We felt that one of the ways in which it would be helpful to have greater flexibility when putting in the interim arrangements was to have the figure in the guidance so that it would be easy, in the light of the kind of consultation that we wished to conduct, to carry numbers over from one month to the next. I have to say that, in putting the figures into the rules, as no doubt we will now do, there will be greater rigidity in the arrangements that have to be arrived at.
The noble Baroness asked two other questions. One was whether we would consult on the changes to the new rules. Our obligation in this instance is to get ourselves into conformity with the judgment and I hope therefore that there will be no argument about what we do. She also asked whether we had listened to employers from particular sectors. The answer is that we have been consulting extremely widely and in all sectors.
Lord Richard
Do the Government intend to consult Parliament now? If so, how are they going to do it? The Minister said that there would be increased rigidity. What did she mean by that?
Baroness Neville-Jones
As I said, my Lords, the object of the Statement tomorrow will be to get us into conformity, as we understand it, with the judgment. Then, when we see the judgment in writing, if we need to make further changes in the light of that, we will certainly do so. It is not clear to me how much clearer I can be on the question of the nature of the rigidity introduced by the cap. There is complex drafting involved in putting a limit in the rules to give us the ability then to change it, which is why the Government decided, in order to retain flexibility, that we would keep the limit in the guidance.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that new controls over migration are of limited value unless there is effective border control over those entering and leaving the country? Does she therefore understand my disappointment that she has apparently decided that the coalition agreement pledge to “reintroduce exit checks” cannot be fulfilled until 2015, which is later than the former Labour Government planned to introduce this change? Given that her Written Answers to me reveal that only some 5 per cent of those departing the UK are currently subject to exit controls, and that there is complacency at the Home Office on the need for urgent action, will she hold urgent discussions with our right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to whom she is responsible for national security, with a view to getting something done?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am not clear quite how relevant the points that my noble friend has just made are to this debate. Most of the people coming in, except for a very small number, are sponsored to this country, so it will not be difficult to know when they are moving—their employers will not be able to have a new person in, in the absence of being able to demonstrate that those who previously had that sponsorship have left.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government that we question but the fact that this has bypassed the scrutiny of Parliament, which was precisely what the judgment was all about. May I ask the Minister about something that is still not clear? She mentioned that a Statement would be made tomorrow. Are we expecting a Statement or are we expecting changes in the rules for the interim cap? Either way, will we have the opportunity in Parliament to debate or at least to comment on the changes to the rules?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Statement will deal with the changes in the rules. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that the rules will then change immediately—that is to say, the rule change will be commenced immediately to rectify tier 2. Also, as was contained in the Statement, the Government will be closing tier 1 on 23 December. As a result of these timetable changes, it will not be possible to meet the 21-day convention for laying rules, but we will write to the Merits Committee about that matter.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, if the object of the Government’s policy is to reduce net migration, is not her noble friend’s question about numbers of people leaving the country extremely relevant and should not that therefore be taken into consideration?
Baroness Neville-Jones
Hundreds of thousands of people leave the country. This is normal travel. Among that number are those who are here on some kind of immigration visa for the purposes of employment. As I said, very few of those who come here to work come without any kind of sponsorship. There is a small category of entrepreneurs and investors who are in that position. Otherwise, people who come here to work have sponsors. Sponsors are not able to replace them. There cannot be a net increase in the migration to this country in the absence of the person who sponsored the employment giving notification of the departure of the employee and the reinstatement of a new person, if they wish it. We can therefore keep control and knowledge of movement of people in this position.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, the Government are right to recognise the concern that the population at large has on the number of immigrants coming into the United Kingdom. The present cap, however, applies only to non-EU countries—presumably that includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There is also increasing concern at the number of immigrants coming from within the European Union, which will increasingly become a political problem in the United Kingdom. Are the Government avoiding that issue simply because they are members of the European Union and can do nothing about it?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, we are members of the European Union and there are obligations for free movement of labour within the European Union. The noble Lord is right to say that we honour our obligations.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, would my noble friend suggest that somebody in the Home Office should advertise on the internet on one of the job vacancy websites such as Gumtree and see who answers the advertisement? She would find, as I have found, that a large number of the applications would come from people who have student visas—I am glad to see the noble and learned Baroness over there, because she has had experience of getting caught on this, as I very nearly did—and that many of them, when one replies and asks for their immigration status, disappear very smartly. There are masses of people coming into this country seeking work illegally, so does the Minister not agree that the suggestion of my noble friend of having exit checks would be one way of finding out whether those who are admitted, for example as students, ever leave the country at all? Also, surely she agrees that it would be extremely foolish for the Government to set the precedent of publishing, as has been requested, the legal advice given to Ministers in confidence. That would not be the way of ensuring that Ministers receive blunt, honest and open legal advice in future.
Baroness Neville-Jones
On my noble friend’s last point, the Government are clear that we are not going to publish the legal advice that we get, for precisely the reason that he has stated. Such advice needs to be given in confidence by our advisers in the knowledge that it will not subsequently be made public.
On my noble friend’s other points, I entirely agree that there are a number of people who try to take up work illegally in this country. It is precisely that practice that the Government want to end. This is why we are introducing refinements of the controls that are already in place and making the qualifying criteria for ability to work in this country tougher. The object of the exercise is undoubtedly to ensure that those who get the right to work here are legally here under the qualifications that we are setting. He is also right to say that a number of people apply under categories of so-called skilled labour when they are clearly unskilled. That is a practice that we also intend to bring to an end.
Lastly, on the point of external immigration checks, the Government are aware of the concern on this issue and they are, indeed, going to bring in these exit checks. There are problems related to the contract which the previous Government negotiated and which we have had to end. That means that we have to find other ways of bringing in that exit check, but we will do so as early as we are able to. I have given my noble friend who asked the question earlier an estimate of when we are going to be able to do this. If we could do it earlier, we certainly would.
Lord Richard
My Lords, could the noble Baroness help me? Did I hear right? The consultation with Parliament is to be by means of a Statement in the other House. That Statement is to be a declaration rather than consultation with that House. We do not know yet whether it will be taken in this House and, if it is taken in this House, we do not know what consultation there will be in this House. In any case, it is going to happen tomorrow and the Government are proposing to renounce—if that is the right word—the 21-day rule. Is that really the position that the Government are taking in order to satisfy the Court of Appeal? If it is, the Court of Appeal may still be interested.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I think that the Court of Appeal would expect the Government to rectify their position as soon as they are able to. As for the noble Lord’s other point, as I have said, that is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, with permission, may I come to the assistance of my noble friend? Unless I am very much mistaken, the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is, “Yes, they have to”. If they did not do so, there would be difficult consequences for the Government.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The Government must clearly put themselves in the position of being in conformity with the law.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
What discussion have the Government had with the Government of Scotland in relation to this?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I cannot answer that question immediately, but I believe that immigration is a federal matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Government of Scotland have expressed a view to the Government of the United Kingdom concerning this. It is a matter on which they have expressed a different view from that of the Government of the United Kingdom. Have the Government of the United Kingdom not had some discussions with them in relation to it?
Baroness Neville-Jones
As I said, I am not entirely able to answer that question. Perhaps I may add one point for the information of the House. The Statement tomorrow will be a Written Ministerial Statement and it will be open to your Lordships’ House to pray against this matter if it should wish to.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elystan-Morgan
“( ) more than 40% of those eligible to vote have voted,”
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I do not wish to move this amendment or Amendment 45A, but I reserve the right to raise the matter at an appropriate time.
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I apologise for my eagerness to get on with the House’s consideration of the Bill. I know we have a lot of work to do and that the House is eager to do it. With this amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Bach and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer have appended their names and added a complementary amendment, we come to the political heart of the Bill. This is the buckle that ties together the two bits of the Bill—the AV referendum on the one hand and the reduction of MPs and redrawing of constituency boundaries on the other. The first bit is the fervent wish of the Lib Dem partners in the coalition; the second is the fervent wish of the Conservative partners in the coalition.
Before I explain why I believe that to be misguided, I will get my retaliation in first to an intervention that I would otherwise expect. My objection is not to both measures being in one Bill. I know that there is a case to be made that the Government I supported included many more than two measures in their Constitutional Reform and Governance Act before the general election. It is interesting to speculate about what the full purpose of that Bill was since it clearly could not pass before the general election. Partly, no doubt, we felt that the wise British people would be very appreciative of all the proposals that we were putting forward, but we were particularly interested in the reaction of the Liberal Democrats. We realised that we might have to form some kind of agreement with them after a general election and we wanted to show that we shared their views. After a few months of observing the Lib Dems in government, I think we were totally wrong about what their views were. We thought they were constitutional and economic liberals; it turns out that they are constitutional conservatives and economic reactionaries.
I will pass swiftly on. What I object to is not that the two measures appear in one Bill but that they are conditional. They enter the concept of conditionality into our legislation. You can only do the one if you do the other, too. This seems wholly wrong. Either these two proposals—the AV referendum and the constituency redrawing—are justified on their individual merits or they are not. There can be no case whatever for saying, “We’ll only do one if we do the other”, in logic or constitutional parlance, although we understand the political realities of this. It says a lot about the nature of the coalition and, in particular, the atmosphere in which it was formed. This stuff is here because the two coalition partners, when they were negotiating their agreement, did not trust each other. They could see that there was a grubby deal to be made.
The Lib Dems could make some headway on electoral reform. They did not want AV and there was a system they liked more but they understood the realities. The Tories were trying to change the number of constituencies and their boundaries so that they won more seats at the next general election. The deal that was made between them was that they would do both. Because one proposition was likely to lead to fewer Conservative seats and one to more Conservative seats, they decided to bung them together—all that I understand. What is sad, and does not increase one’s confidence in the long-term viability of the coalition, is that the parties so distrusted each other that they wanted it incorporated into legislation in the subsection before the House at the moment.
This is a more political speech than I would like to make in Committee but this is a political clause. We have to understand it. Some bits of the Bill are technical. We will come to those and deal with them in a technical way but this is a political clause. My next observation about this provision is that it says a lot about the balance of power within the coalition. The Lib Dems did not say, “Our condition for giving you the boundary changes that suit you is that we get the electoral system that suits us”. They feebly said, “Our condition for your getting the boundary changes you want is that we get not AV but a go at AV through a referendum”. However, if the referendum is lost, which, as a strong supporter of AV, I hope it will not be, the Conservatives can still have their boundary changes and reduce the number of MPs.
We will come to the substance of the case about the number of MPs later in our debates. Suffice it to say that no case of merit has yet been put forward for reducing the size of the House of Commons. It may be that there is such a case to be made—I look forward to Ministers developing it—but we have not heard a word about it yet. So far we have just heard the Government admit that they got a figure straight out of the air and incorporated it into a Bill. We have seen no case made—not for greater constituency equalisation, which I would grant—for the figure of 5 per cent included in the Bill, which, as we shall see when we get to it, is not a sensible figure for the variance in the size of constituencies. Nor has the case been made that the exemptions in the Bill get anywhere near meeting the very strong case that can be made for further exemptions.
The suspicion must be that the measures in Part 2 of the Bill are entirely designed for the sole purpose of increasing the number of Conservative seats at the next general election. If the Government can produce a statistical analysis from a reputable team of psephologists that says that it will not have that effect, the House will be delighted to see and discuss it. However, I say with no little confidence that they will not be able to do that because the effects are as I have described them.
I do not want to detain the House for too long on this but my third point is about how much the Government must regret the need to link these two measures. How sorry they must be. In any sensible world, if it is true that the coalition wants the referendum to take place on 5 May 2011, it would have introduced two separate pieces of legislation. There would have been one on the alternative vote, which might well have concluded its stage in your Lordships’ House if not tonight then in the first session in the new year, after the good examination that we have given it. The Government could then go ahead with the AV referendum. They could then take a more measured approach to the constituencies bit of the Bill. They could even have allowed it to be subject to some measure of joint scrutiny, without prejudicing their timetable to get it into effect by the next election. They could have allowed, as we propose later in the Bill, that there should be some conference—a royal commission or Speaker’s Conference—on the number of MPs to take a rational view as to what should happen. That consideration could have moved in parallel to your Lordships’ House considering the AV bit of the Bill.
Where are we? Your Lordships have an awful lot of the Bill to consider as yet. We are to do so against the looming timetable; the Electoral Commission has made clear when it requires the Bill to be passed to allow the campaign for 5 May to occur on an orderly path. We are struggling to meet this wholly artificial timetable, imposed by the Government solely because of the political deal that they have done and the fact that neither party trusts the other to abide by its words.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Is it not even worse, from the Liberal Democrat point of view, that they are clearly not very good negotiators? The deal that has emerged is wholly lopsided, as the chances are that their part of the deal—they wanted AV—will not happen and therefore they will have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
Lord Lipsey
My noble friend would say that, but I cannot possibly comment because I believe of course that AV will win a referendum whenever it is held.
Lord Campbell-Savours
They would have something to say if the amendment that I tabled was accepted. I have tabled an amendment that would be extremely helpful to the Liberal Democrats on that very issue.
Lord Lipsey
When we table amendments from this side of the House we do not consider their partisan impact; we merely consider their impact on the constitution of this country. I am sure that if my noble friend’s amendment meets that test, it will be given proper and due consideration by the House.
In moving this amendment I give the Government and the House an opportunity to say that each of the two propositions—the AV proposition and the number of MPs/seats proposition—should have separate consideration. They should be taken on their constitutional merits as a whole and treated in that way. I deeply regret, and what is more I believe that the Government will have reason deeply to regret, that the reality of the way in which they have chosen to proceed will make consideration of the issues on their merits more difficult for the House.
Lord Bach
I will speak to both amendments. The first is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who has moved it so ably, and the second is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Clause 8(1)(b) is an astonishing paragraph of this Bill. It is very remarkable. It was overlooked in debates in the other place, which perhaps makes it all the more important that we debate it properly in this House and in this Committee.
Clause 8 informs the Minister what to do following the result of the referendum being announced. If more votes in the referendum are cast in favour of the answer yes than in favour of the answer no, the Minister must make an order that brings into force provisions to change our voting system for elections to the House of Commons from first past the post to this type of alternative vote system. However, that is not the end of it. An affirmative result in the referendum is not sufficient according to the Bill. The changes in the boundaries detailed in Part 2 of the Bill, particularly in Clause 10, must also have taken place before the alternative vote system can take effect.
In Committee last Monday the Committee was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, tell the House that he and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were joined at the hip on this Bill. I wondered what it is that joins them at the hip on this Bill. I now believe it sincerely to be Clause 8(1)(b) that joins them thus. It has been clear from the introduction of this Bill that this clause is the glue that holds the Government together. Part 1 of the Bill, as was said at Second Reading, is clearly and plainly the Liberal Democrat part of the deal. However AV may have been described by their leader in the past, the Liberal Democrats have decided that it is worth the candle and that it is best not to go searching for some sort of proportional representation, or certainly not at the moment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Lipsey have made me think about one slightly wider aspect that really troubles me and which should trouble Conservative Members opposite. My noble friend Lord Bach has just outlined how we face a major change in the electoral system for the House of Commons and a major boundary revision being rushed through without appeal. In addition, we are to get a Bill for a fixed-term Parliament, which we still have to discuss, which again is a major change for the United Kingdom and is totally different from anything that we have had previously in the UK Parliament. We will also soon get a Bill—it has not yet been published—to reform this second Chamber. The proposal is for all these major constitutional changes to be rushed through in one Parliament. It really is quite a frightening prospect. It is bad enough for Labour Peers, given all our radical—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Instincts. I thank my former boss—the former Secretary of State for Scotland—who always chooses the right word for me. However, it seems astonishing that Conservative Members can face this situation with equanimity.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend has only just begun to touch on the scale of the changes that are impetuously and dangerously being rushed through Parliament. We also have the European Union Bill, which will lead to a proliferation of referendums every time there is a possibility of some shift of power between Brussels and London. We have the Localism Bill, which will turn local government absolutely upside down and will, in many ways, eviscerate it. This Government are extraordinarily reckless.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Reckless is the word for it. As my noble friend Lord Bach was talking, I was sitting here and considering what the common factor was behind all this. It is the Deputy Prime Minister. I must choose my words carefully, but I do not think that he thinks in British terms. He thinks in terms of continental European constitutions and is moving our constitution inexorably towards some kind of continental European constitution, with fixed-term Parliaments, a different electoral system, and changing the composition of the second Chamber—all of this. Okay, that is the agenda, but is it a Conservative agenda? Is it one that all my friends on the Conservative Benches really feel in their guts, in their blood, their water or their instincts? Some of them are my friends—there are only three on the Back Benches at the moment but there were quite a few earlier. I am sorry, there are more; there are five of them. I missed the two distinguished Members perching in the corner. Do they really want this country to go that way?
Someone is shaking his head almost imperceptibly, but I can see it. I know that I am going well beyond the terms of the amendment. If someone with the powers of a Speaker of the House of Commons was in the chair, they would be drawing my attention to it. However, this is relevant, because we are going down a road which is really troubling me and should be troubling Members opposite even more.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I wonder whether it is possible for us to imagine the state of mind of those on the other side who, having suggested AV, now consider this to be evidence of a plot. They themselves recognised that we should have a system whereby constituencies should be at least more or less the same size, which was why they stopped—it was they who did it—keeping a special factor to enable people in dispersed constituencies to have fewer Members of Parliament. It was a Labour decision to stop that. They now come to the House and argue that both things are unacceptable. Surely being fair is a Conservative concept. Should we not have constituencies of the same size? That seems to be a very Conservative principle.
Is it not also a Conservative principle to suggest that the public might make their own choices in these circumstances? It happens to be a Conservative principle with which I disagree. I do not believe in referenda and I never have believed in them. However, it is very curious that noble Lords opposite suggest there is something intrinsically un-Conservative in having a referendum. I do not understand that at all. There is something deeply wrong in referenda, but that does not mean that people who believe in them could not be Conservative.
Why are Labour Members making such a fuss about this matter? Could it possibly be that they are seeking with some real difficulty to find reasons why they should spend as much time as possible discussing these matters? I do not want to help them in that, so I will finish by saying one simple thing. I came to this House expecting and finding that there was, in many cases, a degree of quality in debate unfound in my 35 years in the House of Commons. I am very sad to find that during these recent Bills, those who have experience of the House of Commons and those who have been press-ganged into the little battle have used all the techniques which brought and bring the other House into such disrepute. I am very sorry that yet again on this Bill we have lowered ourselves to doing the kinds of things which are done elsewhere. It is a pity that we cannot look back on our traditions, even for someone as newly hatched as myself, and raise the standards again.
Lord Bach
Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. It is really just information that I seek. He says that it was the Labour Government who changed the rules to make it not possible for more rural seats to have a smaller electorate. I should be grateful if he could give us chapter and verse on that. As I understand them, the rules we work under now were passed under a Conservative Government in 1986 of which I think he was almost certainly a distinguished and leading member. We actually believe that those rules are well worth preserving.
Lord Deben
Perhaps I may reply to that. The change to the sparsity rules, continued in the 1986 arrangements, was brought in by the Labour Government, who argued that it was unfair that some constituents, because there was a smaller number of them in a constituency, would have a bigger vote than other constituents. All that is happening in this Bill is that we are repeating to the Labour Party something which it has long forgotten.
Lord Deben
I do not believe that I get upset as easily as the noble Lord thinks. All that I believe is true is that we tried for a consensus. What is happening now is the correction of a deeply offensive fact that some constituents have a much smaller vote than others, because of the retention of very small constituencies which ought not to be there.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is suggesting that the debates so far on the Bill have not been appropriate. If he reads Hansard, he will see that contributions from all around the House have been thoughtful, succinct and related to entirely appropriate matters that Parliament ought to be thinking about. I put it to him that the cynicism of the motivation of the coalition in yoking, as they have, the two main components of the Bill together is a sore provocation to us and might have tempted some of us to engage in wrecking tactics. The fact that we have not done so reflects very well on us.
Lord Soley
I do not want to follow the line pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because it sounds to me like he was embarking on a filibuster in debating party political issues. I simply say to him that if he is worried about traditions—and he ought to be worried about them—one of the traditions he should remember is that it is particularly important that you do not drive through major constitutional changes without a large measure of agreement between the parties. One of those changes relates to the size of the House of Commons. As the noble Lord will know, if you act as an international observer at elections overseas, one thing that you note is who decides the size of the Parliament and how they decide it. If the Government decide it without the consent of opposition parties, you usually mark the election down. However, that is another matter that we shall pursue at a later stage. The Minister will recognise the filibuster by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who has long experience of doing that. From my experience in the House of Commons, he was one of the people who got a reputation for filibustering there.
I have a particular question for the Minister raised by this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. It came to my mind when my noble friend Lord Bach was speaking. My noble friend mentioned the important issue of the commission having to report first. The Minister will know that there is an agreement whereby Orkney and Shetland and, I believe, the Western Isles have already been accorded special status. He will also know that there is very strong pressure from the Member for the Isle of Wight—a Conservative Member—and all the major political parties representing the councils on the Isle of Wight to be treated in the same way as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. He will also be aware that there is a major campaign in Cornwall for Cornwall to be treated in a way that recognises its historic—and, I should add, traditional, to keep the noble Lord, Lord Deben, happy—boundaries. My question to the Minister is this: if there is a legal challenge based on the fact that Cornwall and the Isle of Wight have not been accorded the same conditions as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland, could these changes go ahead? I know that people are talking of a legal challenge, so it is an important issue. I do not know whether such a challenge would be possible. It occurred to me when my noble friend Lord Bach was speaking so I have not been able to take advice on it. However, given the reasons that we have already heard as to why the two Scottish areas have been given special circumstances, it would seem at least possible for the Isle of Wight, certainly, and possibly Cornwall, where it would be a bit more difficult, to mount a legal challenge. I should like the Minister to address that in his reply.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Indeed, if there were to be such a challenge, perhaps I may make the case on behalf of Ynys Môn, otherwise known as the Isle of Anglesey, where there is a similar situation and which is clearly a compact, single constituency. If the Isle of Wight were to issue a challenge, I do not know whether the representatives of Ynys Môn would do the same. Clearly, if there were such a challenge, it would be likely to be at least prima facie justiciable. It would therefore very likely take some time and the Government’s timetable would be knocked sideways.
My main point during this brief intervention is that I am perhaps the last person to lecture the opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the principles of Conservatism. However, I should have thought that one of those principles would be a respect for the constitution—a broadening down from precedent to precedent. The great Conservative thinkers, be they Burke, Hailsham or Oakeshott at the LSE, have all adhered to an enormous respect for the accumulated wisdom of the ages and have therefore had a certain unwillingness to go full steam ahead in changing structures for their own sake. The point has been well made by my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Howarth that this seems to be an enormous bundle of changes, many of them ill thought-through and ill digested.
Finally, another Conservative principle which, again, perhaps is not honoured on this occasion is respect for the wisdom of Parliament. One conclusion that I have reached in listening to this debate is that there seems to be no willingness on the part of the government Front Bench to listen and to modify their position in the light of arguments that have been adduced. I do not think that I have ever come across a case where the juggernaut of the coalition has moved at such a pace, is so deaf to the quality of the arguments that have been raised and is unwilling to make any concession at all. I say with all humility that I cannot see the coalition Government gaining from this if they act in a traditionally non-Conservative spirit which wholly ignores the quality of the contributions not only from this side but in excellent speeches from the Cross Benches. They may well live to regret the attitude that they have taken to this Bill, and I hope it is not a precedent for other Bills that come before this Parliament.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I shall be even more brief than my noble friend who has just spoken. I shall not be bullied or harassed by the tetchiness shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I specifically put on the record a refutation of the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I remember very clearly the noble Lord when he and I were Members in another place. My summary of the situation was that, when the Conservative Opposition wished to delay or prolong debate, he seemed to be wheeled on to speak at great length. To give him credit for consistency, he has always managed to speak with self-assurance and self-confidence and with an air of always being right. That is very impressive.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Perhaps I may inform my noble friend that, having heard the son of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the House of Commons, it is clear that there is an hereditary factor there.
Lord McAvoy
Surely not. That could not possibly be the case on the other side of the Chamber. I shall get to my point. One evening last week, I spoke on this very important Bill for two periods of about two minutes each and then for a third time for about five or six minutes, making 10 minutes in total, so I do not think that I can be accused of filibustering and so on. I was involved as much as anybody and the only House of Commons attitude that I see in this House is a capacity of Governments of both kinds, Labour and Conservative—because it is an elected House and that is fair enough—to ram Bills through with strict timetables and so on. Here, the Government are trying to ram through an important constitutional change without any regard to the views that are put forward, and they are getting very annoyed because people want to make and answer points. If they do not answer them, they will be on record as never having answered. I genuinely do not believe that there is any filibustering going on here. If the noble Lord had been here more often, he would have heard the wide range of different views on this side of the Chamber on these very matters. Therefore, he should be a bit fairer about this.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I hope that my noble friend will not feel constrained in developing his points at whatever length he considers appropriate. After all, this Bill had no pre-legislative consultation, it was not consulted upon with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which have a vital interest in the provisions of the Bill, and it was programmed in the House of Commons, so very important parts of it were not considered in Committee or on Report there. Therefore, I think that we have a responsibility to examine it closely and I am very glad that my noble friend is doing so.
Lord McAvoy
My noble friend is absolutely right. I am not going to repeat all the points that have been made but shall leave it at that. However, I am certainly not going to allow attacks such as those to stay on the record without being refuted, despite the annoyance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
Lord Rooker
I shall make a brief response to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I was not intending to speak in this debate but I have three points to make, one of which he will not know. Until two years ago, I had served as a Minister for eight years on the Front Bench here, having come from the other place. I am on record in several places as saying—and I repeat it, although I know that it annoys people down the other end when I say it—that I was under greater scrutiny in my eight years here as a Minister than I ever was in the other place. I am quite happy to say that. It was because of the nature of the way this place works, whether Question Time, Select Committees, or the Floor of the House. There is no doubt about it. I speak only from my own experience. It takes a while to get used to this place, and it can be irritating.
My other two brief points are these. I have been here on this Bill virtually every day, missing only a couple of hours one day, because I just happen to be interested. I do not agree with everything that is happening, as I will make clear in a moment. I have taken several Bills through this House, and in no Committee stage in which I was involved was I aware of ever being forced to say, or of agreeing to say, to the House, “I will take it away and think about it”; or of saying, “I will take that part of this argument away, think about it, and then promise to come back on Report”. If you cannot make a change of rule, you come back openly, having looked at it in the department. Not once, as far as I know, in these debates in six days has any Minister ever said, “A good idea, or maybe a good idea, and we will take that away. There might be something we can do. It does not wreck the Bill, and it may add to things”.
Not once has that happened, and that is fairly unique, in my experience, I say in all humility.
Lord Rooker
I stand corrected then. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for that. As I say, I was here for all but two hours.
The other point is that there was talk about the previous elections and, to be honest, on this issue concerning equality of constituencies I agree 100 per cent with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. There is nothing between us. If you are going to have one person one vote in a constituency-based system, you have to have the constituencies as near as damn it the same size. This was argued out years ago in the 1970s. I can remember there was an argument at a boundary inquiry. I even remember the late Denis Howell lecturing us and saying, “Look, we might argue for smaller seats in the inner areas because our workload is greater, there is deprivation and there are all the other issues. On the other hand, you have to balance that against the massive distances that country members have to travel. It is different”. What is important is the number people who are voting for one parliament.
Frankly, if you look at the history and take the trouble to read or listen to John Curtice, you will see that Labour lost the 2005 election. I know the arithmetic says we came back with a majority of 66 but, if you look at all the facts and stats that came out, the writing was on the wall then simply because of the way the electoral system worked, the shape of the constituencies, and the slowness of the boundary inquiries. For that reason—it is also why I have no amendments to table to the second half of the Bill—I do not think there should be more than 500 Members of the other place. However, as I do not want to upset anybody by tabling such an amendment, this is my only opportunity to say so.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, following that welcome note from the unforgettable noble Lord, Lord Rooker—and I will be returning to what he said a moment ago about the fairness of equality of votes—I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who thought in some way I was irritated. Far from it—I just did not realise that he was getting up and I got up to speak at the same time, but I deferred to him because he wanted to interest us in what he had to contribute to this part of our discussions.
I am tempted to speculate, as my noble friend Lord Deben invited me, on the mindset of noble Lords opposite. However, on this occasion I will try and resist temptation because it might take us down further highways and byways. I pause to observe that it might be difficult to do so because while on the one hand some noble Lords from the Labour Benches have indicated that the coalition agreement was to the disadvantage of the Liberal Democrats, on the other hand the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated that was a threat to the Conservative Party and its view of constitutional reform.
I also want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who thought that perhaps the pace of constitutional reform was too much. He was, of course, a member of a Government—and I pay huge tribute to them—who by this equivalent stage in their first term had had a referendum on their programme for devolution for Scotland and Wales, and then introduced legislation on freedom of information and some reform to this House, and passed the Human Rights Act which put forward proportional representation for the European elections. I just regret that they ran out of steam when it came to implementing their election manifesto promise on a referendum on the electoral system, or we might have been able to avoid some of these discussions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that, in relation to the referendum and the legislation establishing the Scottish Parliament, there was not just pre-legislative debate; there was a whole constitutional convention which he and I were part of, which discussed the whole set-up, including the electoral system? It was discussed almost ad nauseam to get a consensus, not rushed and pushed through in this way.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, said earlier, people have been talking about electoral reform for years and years. Indeed, it is less than 12 months since the Government which he supported brought forward their own proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote, so it has had plenty of exposure.
It is important that we address the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, proposed some time ago and which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, this was part of the coalition agreement, and it is worth recalling that back in those days in May this year, it was very clear that no party had won the election. Indeed, given the instability in world markets at the time and the potential political instability which could be fed by that, my own party, the Liberal Democrats, came to an agreement with the Conservative Party to form a coalition Government to bring, I believe, much needed stability at a very crucial time.
There were several issues in that agreement with regard to constitutional reform and the coalition’s programme for government made a clear commitment to both the issues involved in this Bill—a referendum on the alternative vote and a boundary review to ensure a reduction of the House of Commons and equality of value of votes in constituencies. It was the Government’s view that both issues should be tackled and implemented together, and we have never made any secret of that particular fact.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble and learned Lord must have been privy to some of these negotiations. Why was it in those negotiations that the Liberal Democrats did not demand from the Conservatives that the question in the referendum went wider than one system? Why did they not ask for a multiquestion to be placed on the referendum ballot paper?
The book from Selsdon suggests that Gordon Brown offered it to the Liberal Democrats, so surely there was a basis on which they could have asked the same from the Conservative element in the coalition.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It was the late Lord Butler who said, and no doubt he was not the first, that politics is the art of the possible. All I can say is that, casting one’s mind back, agreeing to a referendum on the alternative vote was a huge move on the part of the Conservative Party. Indeed, together with other elements, it formed part of the basis for the coalition agreement. Speculating about other voting systems does not take us much further. This is what was agreed and this is what provided the basis of the stable Government which we formed in May of this year.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does he not understand that the Conservative element in the coalition would not have backed down if the Liberal Democrats had asked for it; it would not have blocked an agreement being made; and, in fact, they were walked over during the course of the negotiations?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am interested that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seems to have greater insight into what the Conservative Party would do than the Conservative Party itself seems to have.
This was the basis of an agreement which has formed a stable Government for this country, and part of this agreement features in this Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport
This is the third time the noble and learned Lord has put forward the claim that the coalition exists to provide stability for this country. Why, then, this Maoist approach to the British constitution?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I do not recognise the allegation that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has made, I am not really in a position to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has identified that these two are linked together. He went on to argue that it was not the Liberal Democrats who got the better of the deal. He made the point that if there is a no vote in the referendum, the boundary proposals still go through. If there was a no vote—as I hope not, and our parties in the collation are agreed about what the outcome of the referendum should be—as a Liberal Democrat, I do not think I could ignore the view of the people. It would be wrong. If the people vote no, I expect that my colleagues will accept it.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a point about fairness and the equality of constituencies. He said that that is a Conservative principle, and I am sure he would claim that it is not unique to the Conservative Party because the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, endorsed it, and I have no difficulty in accepting that as a principle. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord McNally has said on a number of occasions, this Bill is about fair votes and fair boundaries. It shows that the two are, in fact, linked. It shows how the two will be linked because it will shape the way in which the other place will be elected in 2015.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Will the noble and learned Lord also address the question of indecent haste and the fact that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny? Is he aware, for example, that in Wales, the Welsh Assembly seats are based on 40 existing Welsh parliamentary seats and 20 proportional representation seats? Had they bothered to consult the Welsh Assembly, they would have been told of the substantial implications for the electoral system in Wales arising from the way in which the Welsh constituencies will be reduced from 40 to 30.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is similar to the changes that occurred in Scotland after the noble Lord’s Government, which he supported, reduced the number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons from 72 to 59 when Scotland had 73 first past the post seats and 28 seats. I am not sure whether he objected when that legislation was brought before this House back in 2005 or 2006, but I hear his point. When we come to that part of the Bill, I have no doubt whatever that there will be discussions on the subject of Wales and the Isle of Wight.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked whether a boundary review could be judicially reviewed. I remind the House that the question of hybridity was raised at the first stage of the proceedings on this Bill in this House and was rejected. Indeed, the position is that the Boundary Commissions can be judicially reviewed. It is our hope that they will not be and that there will be no grounds for doing so. Whether any challenge would delay a review would depend on the nature of the challenge, the time it took to be heard and whether any action had to be taken as a result. Clearly, we will have ample opportunity to debate issues that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, raised about the Isle of Wight, Ynys Môn and Cornwall—I have no doubt whatever, because I received the representations, too—when we debate the second Part of this Bill.
Lord Soley
I am very grateful for that answer. Can the Minister get the advice of the legal officers of the Government and write to me or put a copy in the Library, because I would like to know what the judgment is about this? It is clear that the Government have made a clear commitment to Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles and the Welsh constituency too, I understand. If that is the case, it is hard to see why the Isle of Wight and, I say perhaps less confidently, Cornwall, would not at least have a case. I would welcome hearing the Government’s law officers' view.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I recall very clearly that when we discussed this in the debate on the Motion tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on hybridity, the very clear advice we got from the Clerk was that there was no issue of hybridity, which is the other side of the same coin to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, was referring.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy to me and to the House as a whole. He just said that he personally believes in the principle of numerical equality between constituencies. As the former Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, does he now hold that that principle ought to apply to Orkney and Shetland and that they should be subordinated to it?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
For good reasons, which the Bill addresses, there are exceptions. There are only two, and I do not want to take up the time of the House, although we will, no doubt, have plenty of opportunity at a later stage to explain why in these two limited cases, which by any stretch of anyone’s imagination are different from any other part of the United Kingdom, an exception has to be made. Two out of 600 does not really depart from the principle of fairness that I illustrated.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I would not want the Minister to mislead the House. It is not just two constituencies. The area provision also excludes the constituency presently represented by Mr Charles Kennedy. Is that not correct?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is not correct. The relationship between the area provision and the constituency represented by my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy is that he currently represents the largest area in the United Kingdom. The area referred to in Part 2 is just slightly larger. It is not to preserve a particular constituency. Indeed, if one thinks about it logically, if you start at the top and come down, it would eat into his present constituency anyway. It is not an automatic read-across. The noble Lord has just got it wrong on that point.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Can the Minister clarify something very simple for me? Perhaps I misunderstood. Is he saying that one judicial review in one part of the United Kingdom could block the boundary changes that trigger the introduction of AV? Is that exactly what he is saying? Can we have that clarified?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I shall repeat what I said. I said that the Boundary Commissions could be judicially reviewed. Of course, I hope that that does not happen and that there will be no such a challenge. Whether any challenge would lead to a delay would depend on the nature of the challenge and the time it took for it to be heard. I remind the House of the provisions in the next Part of the Bill at Clause 10(3):
“A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically … before 1st October 2013”.
We hope that that will find favour with the House and will be in the statute to which the Boundary Commissions will have to adhere.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister said that the boundary commissions could be reviewed. Can I isolate within that Boundary Commission review whether a judicial review within one particular part of the country will in itself lead to this blockage of the introduction of AV that is being referred to?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think I also said in my response earlier that the length of any possible delay would depend upon whether action needed to be taken as a consequence of that ruling and whether there was a knock-on. I also indicated that as the Bill stands the Boundary Commission review would have to report by 1 October 2013, and that is what we wish to put into statute.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Just before we leave the point about those special exemptions to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and others have referred, in order to avoid the need for judicial reviews later on or for discussion when we get to later parts of this Bill, could the Minister isolate for us those constituencies that are in dispute? Mr Andrew Turner from the Isle of Wight has written to each of us, as has the leader of Cornwall Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned Ynys Môn. If just those three examples are as narrow as that, would it not be sensible between now and Report, in the spirit mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Rooker, earlier, for the officials of the noble and learned Lord’s department to meet representatives from those areas to see whether further exemptions could be made?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord is right to identify the ones he has. The others were, I think, incorporated into an amendment that was moved in the other place and that related to some of the highlands seats and Argyll and Bute. I hear what he says. I can assure him that I have already met elected Members from Cornwall as well as elected Members from the highlands and islands of Scotland on these issues. We are certainly alive to the issues that he has raised, and I have no doubt that we will have plenty of opportunity to debate them in due course when we return in the new year.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister said that I am just plain wrong. Can he therefore explain the purpose of new paragraph 4(2) in substitute Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act:
“A constituency does not have to comply with rule 2(1)(a) if … it has an area of more than 12,000 square kilometres”.
Paragraph 2(1)(a) provides, of course, that it need be,
“no less than 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota”.
My understanding of that is that in the highlands at least one constituency, if not the existing constituency of his right honourable friend, would be exempt from that rule, and on previous voting patterns it is likely that it would be a Liberal Democrat constituency.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think the noble Lord specifically said that it would be the constituency of my right honourable friend, but in fact that is wrong. Obviously parts of the Highlands and Islands, and perhaps even parts of mid-Wales, raise the potential for large areas to be covered. It would be wrong for us to second guess how the Boundary Commission will apply that. I can certainly assure him that although as a party we have had a consistency good record in the Highlands and Islands, we never take that for granted, and I would certainly not presume from this Dispatch Box that any resulting seat would be a Liberal Democrat seat. However, we would work hard to win it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The point I was making was that the noble Lord said that he agreed with his noble friend Lord Deben that the prime consideration should be the number of electors: that that was supreme. The Bill exempts Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. Now there is another exemption, is there not?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Yes, but as I indicated earlier, I do not think that that detracts from the fundamental principle because it reflects common sense on the areas. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to complain if we had not done something similar. Let us hear from a fresh voice.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
The noble Lord said that there were good reasons for these exemptions. Given that the Bill says that a constituency does not have to comply if it covers an area of more than 12,000 square kilometres, can the noble Lord, in advance of the debate at a future time, place a letter in the Library of the House of Lords detailing the criteria on which these decisions were made so that we can be better informed when it comes to that debate?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am sure that they are very similar to the criteria which the previous Labour Government adopted when they gave Orkney and Shetland separate seats in the Scottish Parliament, and did so for similar reasons. His having been a member of that Government, I am sure that the noble Lord will be well aware of those criteria. However, I have no doubt that we will come back to this.
I shall conclude where we came in by indicating that Amendments 45 and 46A would separate the two issues. The first amendment moved by the noble Lord would do this by removing the stipulation that the alternative vote provisions are brought in only after the draft Order in Council is laid, and the second amendment would do this by removing the provision that requires the alternative vote provisions to be brought into force on the same day. It does not actually break the linkage as it would leave the requirement that the order bringing the boundaries provisions into force must have been laid first, although that would not necessarily be on the same day. It may be the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to put the amendments together.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I have indicated that the coalition programme for government makes a clear commitment to both issues, and it is the Government’s view that the issues are linked, particularly in terms of how the House of Commons will be shaped when it is reconstituted after the election in 2015. As my noble friend Lord McNally has said on many occasions, the linkage is fair votes and fair boundaries. The Government are committed to both provisions if a yes vote is carried in the referendum. The Government therefore wish to see both provisions, if the yes vote is carried, to come into effect in time for the next general election. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Soley
The Minister has been quite helpful on some of these points. I agree that the Boundary Commission can be judicially reviewed and I accept that the House decided that this is not a hybrid Bill. What I am interested in is that when I asked him about the Isle of Wight, on which I will focus in relation to the amendment that we are discussing, a challenge under this current amendment would prevent the system going forward in the way the Bill envisages; so the question whether there can be a legal challenge is crucial.
Let us put Cornwall to one side for a moment because I am not familiar enough with its case. I know the area of the Western Isles rather well, but I do not know Orkney and Shetland. However, I do know that those two areas have similar problems to the problem faced by the constituency of the Member for the Isle of Wight, who has argued the case very strongly in the House of Commons. If there is a similar problem, there are the conditions for a possible legal challenge. Indeed, I think the Minister used the phrase “it is common sense” when he said that the two Scottish seats are very different. I am a great believer in common sense, but I have to say that it can get you into deep trouble when you go into a court of law.
This goes back to a point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker that there is a case for the Government to be more willing to compromise on this Bill and at least to offer to investigate. I would very much like to know, and I am sure that councillors on the Isle of Wight would love to know, the government law officers’ view on whether a legal challenge could be mounted because there was no Boundary Commission review of the Isle of Wight. It seems at least possible, so it would be good if we could have the lawyers’ views on this.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hesitate to say because, although I am only seven or eight months into office, one of the cardinal rules for a law officer is not to expose what your advice to the Government is. Indeed, you do not even disclose whether advice has been given. However, I will reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has said and not necessarily answer his question about advice but perhaps revisit the advice that was given to the House by the Clerks when the particular issue of hybridity was looked at.
Lord Bach
On another subject, which I asked the noble Lord about in my contribution, does he agree that even if, by way of exaggeration as an example, 99 per cent of the population were to vote in favour of changing the Westminster voting system to this type of AV, that change would not come about if the boundary changes were not made? How can he seek to justify that?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I will not justify that particular point, but I will draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact that the Boundary Commission report is due, as I have already said on two or three occasions during these exchanges, on 1 October 2013. There will be time to debate the fixed-term Parliament Bill, but the assumption is that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday in May 2015. Therefore there will be ample time for both orders to be laid and implemented together, assuming of course that there is a yes vote. If it is a no vote, no time is attached to bringing forward an order to repeal the relevant sections of the Bill, or the Act as it will be by then.
I reiterate that if the Boundary Commission report is brought forward by 1 October 2013, there will be ample time. Obviously this is also important for electoral administrators and the political parties, and it would ensure that the next general election would be fought both within the boundaries that would then be implemented by order and under the alternative vote system.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Ninety-nine per cent of the people voting for AV, much as I would like to see that, is hypothetical. It is also purely hypothetical that the boundary changes will not go ahead either.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, the Minister stood up to speak 25 minutes ago and he has been most courteous in his responses to the many interventions. He said rather wryly that it seemed to have been a long time since I stood up to move the amendment in my name. I did not manage to speak for as long as he did. I do not think that I spoke for more than 10 minutes, and I was trying to make a substantive case, on which we have had a good debate.
However, I think that the debate was thrown off course at one point by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whom we all greatly admire. The noble Lord made a partisan attack on ex-Members of the House of Commons on this side of the Committee in a speech made by an ex-Member of the other House. I do not think that we progress best in this House by swapping partisan insults of that kind. Perhaps this should be a warning to us to keep them to a minimum. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I was never a Member of the House of Commons and so I have not adapted to the kind of things that I understand from this debate go on there.
It is important to get away from the partisan, and I do so, as part of my concluding remarks, by referring to the non-partisan committee of this House— the Constitution Committee—which examined the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and had many prominent Conservatives in its ranks, including the noble Lords, Lord Norton, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Renton of Mount Harry. It said:
“In general, we regard it as a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that there may exceptionally be good reasons for departing from this principle, but the perils of doing so are well illustrated in the present Bill. The case for proceeding rapidly with one Part of this Bill is far stronger than for the other”.
In other words, the non-partisan examination of the buckle in the Bill said that it should not be there. However, it is there—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was commendably frank about this—and it is there for purely political reasons. Therefore it is right that we in this House, with our responsibilities to the constitution as a whole, should examine whether those reasons are convincing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was a little less convincing when he tried to explain the reasons for it being there when he said, “Of course, if the AV referendum is lost I would not want to push ahead with it”. With great respect, that is not the point that we on this side of the House are seeking to make. Our point is different: it is that the two sets of proposals are not treated the same. Of course, if the AV referendum is lost, noble Lords should not proceed with an AV proposal, but there is no such conditionality on the proposals for constituency and boundary changes—they are to go ahead nevertheless.
Before the House has even started to examine these proposals—and before the Boundary Commission has started on the extremely onerous, some people believe impracticable, task it is being set—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, says that the boundary changes and the change in the number of MPs will go ahead. If they do not go ahead—and all kinds of happenstance could prevent them from going ahead—neither will AV. As my noble friend Lord Bach points out, AV could be prevented from going through even though it had the overwhelming support of the British people. That cannot be right.
I do not propose to force this issue to a Division today. I hope Ministers will think carefully about the situations, that wiser counsels will prevail, and that even now they will find a way of separating the two bits of the Bill so that each can be taken on its merits. I withdraw the amendment hoping that Christmas cheer will suffuse the Government’s approach when next we turn to these matters on 10 January.
Severe Winter Weather
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on the continuing severe weather. We are facing exceptional conditions. It looks set to be the coldest December since 1910, with average temperatures four to five degrees below the norm for December. Many areas have had record low temperatures and snowfall has been the most widespread since 1981. The forecast is for continued severe cold and further snowfall through the coming week and over Christmas and the new year.
Transport services have suffered extensive disruption in the last few days and there is a likelihood of further disruption through this week. I recognise that this is particularly stressful just a few days ahead of the Christmas break and I understand the frustration of those who are trying to get away or, indeed, are trying to get home.
Transport services were also disrupted in the first spell of winter weather that came unusually early at the end of November. That period tested the systems which, in some cases, had performed so poorly earlier this year. The then Government asked David Quarmby, chairman of the RAC Foundation and a former chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to conduct a review of winter resilience. His initial report was issued in July and a final report was published in October. It made 28 recommendations, some of them directed at central government, some at local government and some at transport operators. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, although some will necessarily take longer.
On 2 December, I asked David Quarmby, in the light of the weather conditions we were then experiencing, to conduct an audit of the implementation of his recommendations and to make any further observations he felt necessary. This is an independent report and I understand that David Quarmby intends to publish it tomorrow.
One of the principal recommendations of the first Quarmby report concerned salt: levels of stocks that local authorities should hold, dosage rates for optimum use of stocks and the acquisition of a strategic stockpile by central government. Local authorities went into this period with significantly better salt stocks than last winter and the Highways Agency, on the Government’s behalf, had purchased 300,000 tonnes of salt to form a strategic stockpile, of which over 150,000 tonnes is already at UK ports with the remainder scheduled for delivery through December and early January.
Over the last few days, highway authorities across England have been focused on delivering their planned salting and snow clearance to keep their local strategic road networks open. Together they had ready some 1.25 million tonnes of salt at the start of the winter. As honourable Members would expect, salt usage has been significantly above the norm for this time of year and so my department decided two weeks ago to procure, as a precautionary measure, up to an additional 250,000 tonnes of salt to replenish the strategic stockpile as salt is released to local authorities. Last Friday, DfT offered 30,000 tonnes from the strategic stockpile to local authorities to provide reassurance over the holiday period. That allocation has been taken up and will be delivered over the next few days.
The strategic road network inevitably suffered severe disruption in the wake of heavy snowfall this weekend, but recovered reasonably rapidly and, with isolated exceptions, has operated effectively since Saturday afternoon.
Similarly, heavy snow and the formation of ice at very low temperatures caused some disruption on rail networks on Friday and Saturday. But the rail industry has pulled together to keep essential services running, using special timetables where necessary, and I am pleased to report that commuter services into main conurbations this morning are close to normal. Transport for London has successfully followed its winter weather plans and has been able to run a near-normal service across its network. However, issues with Eurostar are ongoing and have been well reported today, including the impacts of very severe weather conditions in France.
Disruption due to weather conditions of this extremity is inevitable. The measure of resilience is the speed of recovery of the networks from such events. On this measure, the strategic road network and the rail network have performed broadly satisfactorily, having regard to the exceptional circumstances. The experience at airports, and Heathrow in particular, has however been different. Conditions have been difficult across north- west Europe, with Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol all struggling to cope at times. This afternoon it has been reported that Brussels airport will close until Wednesday because of a lack of de-icer. But yesterday’s whole-day virtual closure at Heathrow, coupled with continued substantially reduced capacity, presents a very real challenge from which the system will struggle to recover quickly.
I have spoken this morning to BAA and BA, its principal user. I am clear that BA made the right call on Saturday to cancel its flights in anticipation of the closure of the airport. Had it not done so, the scenes in the terminals on Saturday night that we witnessed on our TV screens could have been much worse.
Heathrow operates at normal times at some 98 per cent of full capacity, so when there is disruption caused by snow, or the need repeatedly to close runways or taxiways for de-icing, capacity is inevitably lost and a backlog builds up. There is still a large amount of work to be done to restore Heathrow to full capacity, and further snow and severe icing are anticipated over the next few days.
The immediate focus at Heathrow must be on maximising the number of flights with the available infrastructure. In order for this to be done, I have agreed with BAA this morning a relaxation of restrictions on night flights for the next four days. Operating hours will be extended until 1am and arrivals for repatriation flights will be allowed through the night. None the less, BAA advises that, with further severe weather forecast, Heathrow is likely to operate at reduced capacity until Christmas.
Conditions in the terminals overnight on Saturday were very difficult, with some 2,000 passengers stranded. Once the airport has returned to normal operation, my officials will work with BAA to understand how this situation arose and what it plans to change to ensure that we do not experience a repeat. It is clear from my discussions this morning that some preliminary conclusions have already been drawn.
We recognise that the cost, both economic and social, of this level of disruption can be very great. Winters such as this year’s and last year’s have been rare in modern Britain, but we need to consider whether we are now seeing a step change in our weather that might justify investment in equipment and technologies to reduce the impact of severe temperature and heavy snowfall. I will assess advice on this subject from the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, and we will work with transport operators to examine the business case in each sector for increased investment in winter resilience where that makes sense, recognising always that spending more on winter preparedness inevitably means that there will be less to spend on other priorities.
This is not just about making sure that people can travel and goods are delivered. Disrupted transport links, combined with cold weather, increasingly impact on other essential services. In particular, they threaten the most vulnerable in our communities. To help those most in need to stay warm in the coldest parts of the country, the Government have so far this winter paid out some £355 million in cold weather payments through an estimated 14.2 million payments to affected households. In addition, winter fuel payments for pensioners have been protected at the higher rate for this winter, with 12.9 million payments made to those older people who meet the qualifying conditions. We have also taken precautionary steps to ensure that the health services are well prepared, with local plans in place to deal with the extra demands that this type of weather brings.
Despite these steps, weather of this severity can cause unexpected problems for many people, including those who would not normally see themselves as vulnerable but who might be in serious difficulty if their boiler breaks down or they cannot get to the chemist to collect their medication. The Local Government Association will therefore work closely with local authorities in England, with support from the Government, to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place across the country. Individual local authorities will publicise information locally on how to access these advice services ahead of the Christmas holiday period.
Severe weather poses significant challenges to the energy supply industry. Difficult driving conditions have affected fuel oil and coal suppliers’ ability to make deliveries, particularly to more remote areas away from the strategic road network. This has resulted in delivery backlogs which suppliers have been working hard, in difficult conditions, to reduce.
Distributors are doing all they can to prioritise deliveries to vulnerable customers and those running short of fuel. Working with the Government, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers has issued a code of practice to its members to help them prioritise orders to those most in need and to alert local authorities when they are aware of a risk that potentially vulnerable households will run short of heating oil.
The severe weather has also led to a very high forecast of demand for gas, expected to be more than 26 per cent above the normal for this time of year. As a result, the National Grid yesterday issued a gas balancing alert to provide a signal to the market to bring on additional supplies and reduce demand from large users on interruptible contracts. There is no reason to expect any disruption to domestic or commercial customers unless they have interruptible contracts in place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has today issued a Written Statement providing more information on this issue.
Nationally, we will continue to do whatever is necessary to support essential services and to provide advice to businesses and householders on steps they can take to help themselves and others. For example, we have published a snow code to give common-sense advice to householders and businesses to help them safely clear snow and ice from pavements and public spaces without fear of legal action. As an emergency measure, we have relaxed the enforcement of EU drivers’ hours and working-time rules to mitigate the effect of the severe weather on critical parts of the supply chain that have been badly hit by the weather. We have published guidance for local highway authorities on the range of actions that can be taken to ensure optimum use of salt stocks. Over the next few days, we will publish updated technical advice based on the latest research findings, so that all authorities can adopt best practice. We have also confirmed to farmers that they can use red diesel in tractors and other equipment to help salt and clear snow from public roads during the extreme weather.
We are not yet through this period of severe weather. My priority remains working with the transport industries to return to normal as fast as the continued freezing temperatures this week permit and, with ministerial colleagues and officials from other departments, with whom I have been in contact daily since Friday, to continue to monitor the situation, assess the risk of further disruption and take whatever action is needed. These arrangements will continue in place for as long as necessary through the holiday period. I can assure the House that, wherever government action can help to ease the impact of severe weather or mitigate its effects, we will not hesitate to take such action. I commend the Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I think that the House will have gained exactly the same impression as was gained on that earlier occasion; namely, that there is great complacency in the Statement in the face of the appalling suffering which so many of the travelling public have endured over this weekend, whether they have been trapped on railway stations without information as to when trains might arrive or caught up in traffic jams without any ability to understand when they might have a chance of escaping. More particularly, the Statement has failed to explain why, at airports, scandalously low levels of information have been given to the travelling public. I thought that the whole point of privatising many of these transport assets was that privatised companies cared about their consumers. There was not much care about consumers over this past weekend, when the advice given to individuals consisted of one telephone number which was inevitably jammed for the whole time that people were trying to get through. There was no alternative strategy for anyone to take.
This will not do. The noble Earl says that his right honourable friend had a meeting with transport bosses today. There is no suggestion that there was any dressing down done about these failures over the weekend; instead, there was a meeting at which they met on, I suppose, cordial terms to talk about the difficulties that the transport system has suffered. This is not good enough in circumstances where so many people have suffered so much.
Regarding airports, particularly London Heathrow, it is also important that we protect our national reputation. Whether we like it or not, London Heathrow is a gateway to much of the world and a lot of people get their experience of Britain from Heathrow. Consequently, the chaos over this last weekend has produced real difficulties and I would have expected the Government to have responded in rather more forthright terms than the Statement has suggested.
The noble Earl referred to the Quarmby report. He knows that in the summer that report produced 28 recommendations. He indicated in the Statement that only a certain number of these recommendations have been carried through. We will be able to see, with the full publication of the report, just where negligence has occurred. It will not do for the noble Earl to indicate that the Government had no warning of this. We did learn from last winter; that is why the Quarmby inquiry was set up. The report was presented in good time—by July of this year. Why, therefore, have the Government not taken more forthright actions?
There are several points that specialists in the field have also indicated. I would have thought Ministers would have expected this sort of expertise and advice to be available to them in the department and acted upon. What is this nonsense about lorries jack-knifing in the middle lanes of motorways and blocking the whole motorway? Why on earth has it not been recognised that, in circumstances such as the very difficult travel conditions this weekend, some restrictions should have been put, as the AA recommended, upon the movement of lorries so that they stayed only in the inside lane? I recognise the disadvantages and inconvenience to lorry drivers, but, my goodness, that is as nothing to the blocking of the whole M25 or parts of the M40 by jack-knifed lorries.
Why is it, with our rail system, that information is not readily available to customers? You can have railway lines which are only six miles apart and at the station where you ask the question and at which they are experiencing delays on the line, they have no idea whether it would make sense to get across to the other line, which might be running a fairly good service. The system does not know, or the people are not equipped to deliver the service they should. It is a reflection of the very limited resources that have been put into customer care and that is why, in these circumstances where great difficulty occurs, it is the passenger who suffers.
Finally, it was timely, this weekend, that a Member of Parliament and close friend of the Prime Minister should have indulged in a little light relief on the virtues of chaos theory. I am talking about the leading party in the Government, the Conservative Party. He said something like, “We do not think much to planning in our party, we think that planning can be overemphasised and it might be that a certain amount of chaos theory should obtain”. Well, no one in the coalition should be preaching chaos theory regarding transport this weekend. A bit of thought by Ministers, a bit of planning, and some of the difficulties that our fellow countrymen and others have faced might have been minimised.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s exciting response to my Statement. There is no complacency on the part of the Government; we are acutely aware of the challenges. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is giving clear and strategic leadership to all concerned. He does not give a dressing down to operators; he gives encouragement and leadership. The noble Lord made much of the difficulties of communicating in the current situation. Yes, of course there is disappointment, but there are a lot of people affected and it is a very obscure situation.
The noble Lord is right to say how important Heathrow is to the country and, indeed, to the world. One of the problems at Heathrow is clearing the aircraft stands of snow when those aircraft stands are occupied by aircraft. If there is no aircraft in the aircraft stand, it can be cleared pretty quickly, but if there is an aircraft there, the process is much slower because we cannot risk damaging the aircraft.
The noble Lord suggests restrictions on HGV operators and drivers. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all commercial vehicle drivers who work so hard in very difficult conditions to keep our shops and businesses supplied.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House. I stress how important it is to take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. The problem that we suffer is a lack of communication. To anybody who listened to the Radio 4 interviews with passengers at Heathrow and Gatwick, the information that was repeatedly conveyed was that none of them knew what was going on.
A few weeks ago, at the beginning of the month, we had similar snowfall and people are really tired of not knowing how our rail network is working in this country. At Victoria Station, it was obvious that none of the indicators was working and the announcements were almost impossible to decipher. Whenever one got the idea that a train was leaving, one jumped into that train, sat for half an hour and was then told that the train was no longer going. One moved on to another train, only to be told that the driver was no longer available. One then moved on to another train where they said it would be another half an hour. By the time one gets home, it has taken three or three and a half hours to travel a distance of 15 miles.
This just will not do. It is time that those in authority provided adequate information to those who use services. That has not happened at Heathrow, it does not happen at many of our stations and it is about time that this matter is put right.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments. Ministers were not happy about the situation on communicating the transport opportunities to people two weeks ago. It is inconceivable that these problems will not be considered in the new year.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In addition to talking to BAA, will Ministers also talk to the airline operators about the need for them to inform their customers and to ensure, together with BAA and other airport operators, that every attention is paid to the needs of people who may, unfortunately, be stranded.
Secondly, will the Government look again at stopping the Warm Front programme applications? While it is certainly true, as the Statement made clear, that fuel payments have been made, the programme of insulating homes will be slowed. It is obviously too late, in any event, to make a difference this winter, but given what has happened in the past couple of years, does the Minister agree that it might be necessary to look again at that decision in order that there should not be an hiatus in the insulation programme?
Thirdly, on the steps taken by the health service and local authorities, does the Minister agree that it might be desirable to look at whether extra resources might be needed, in certain parts of the country, in order for the health service to cope with the additional demands and pressures that might arise and, indeed, for something like the Bellwin rules—which, I understand, are to be abolished under the new dispensation—to be looked at in relation to local authorities?
Finally, on a more domestic concern, will the Minister look at conditions within this House and consider whether it is desirable to turn the heating off on a Friday, leaving this place to be extremely cold for the staff and your Lordships on a Monday?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think I mentioned in my Statement—I apologise if the Statement does not say it—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with Willie Walsh at BA and I expect that Ministers or senior officials will have talked to leaders of other airlines to work out a way forward in order to minimise the effect on travelling passengers.
The noble Lord talked about the Warm Front scheme. It is slightly outside the scope of the Statement, but I appreciate the current difficulties of houses being very cold. We are experiencing it a little in your Lordships' House. It is a little colder than normal. Fortunately, I am not responsible for the conditions inside your Lordships’ House, but I always take the precaution of putting on extra clothes on a Monday morning.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the contribution from the Front Bench opposite was particularly ludicrous in what could become an extremely serious situation? To try to make political capital out of that at this time does no service to the responsibility that people have in this House. The idea that somehow you can guarantee to keep everything running whatever the weather is wrong. I sat on a plane in Zurich airport for eight hours while they tried to de-ice it. It iced up again and then they de-iced it and within a quarter of an hour the pilot came back and said, “Our time is up and we will have to abandon the flight altogether”. It is impossible to guard against that.
The seriousness of the Statement that my noble friend repeated is in the weather forecast going forward. There are a lot of very frightened people in this country now, in rural areas and other areas as well. There are worries about supplies of fuel oil, petrol and heating generally, and breakdowns in electricity substations are the sort of problem that can come from very severe weather. The country is entitled to expect from this House cohesive action together; consideration as to how we can tackle what may be some very serious problems in the weeks ahead.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s point. He asked what could be done. The short answer is that my right honourable friend could not do much more. The weather conditions that we are experiencing are unprecedented. We have not had such a cold December since 1910.
My noble friend mentioned fuel oil supplies. They should be okay. Backlogs are mounting up of several days and we are monitoring the situation carefully. My right honourable friend has already relaxed the drivers’ hours regulations for drivers moving essential supplies in order to help reduce the backlog.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I detect a deep sense of complacency—not on the Minister's part but running throughout the Government. While we have heard a lot of excuses, we have not heard any plans or action programmes for dealing with the matter. Are there any steps to set out a list of priority users? Has the OFT been alerted to ensure that oil suppliers do not profiteer in the current circumstances? Can we be assured that the emergency services will not have to compete with other users of oil? Has COBRA met? What plans is it offering to the various people who will be affected? Will the Minister say when we will get some real action rather than soft words?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I repeat: there is no complacency in Her Majesty's Government. One of the things that we need to avoid is getting out a long screwdriver and sticking it in places where it would be unhelpful.
The noble Lord asked some important questions about fuel supplies for emergency services. I would be very surprised if the emergency services were not careful to ensure that their fuel stocks never go below a certain level so that they do not have to go into the market at precisely the wrong time, which is right now, when we need to avoid panic buying.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the hospitals up and down the country that are snowbound, such as Cardiff, Hexham and Goole, have appealed to the public for the use of 4x4s to get patients and staff to and from hospital? If there is an appeal, people respond. Far more important is the problem of low blood supplies. Will the Minister pass on to his colleagues in the Department of Health the need to tell people where they can give blood? In the press there have been notifications that blood stocks are dangerously low, but there is nothing about where people can go in difficult snowbound areas to give blood. Many people will do that. Type O negative is particularly important.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness made a couple of important points. There is a large population of 4x4 vehicles. Some people call them Chelsea tractors. Now they can be useful to society and people can volunteer to help local voluntary groups to move people who cannot otherwise move around. Although the strategic road network is pretty well completely clear, the side roads are not clear.
The noble Baroness mentioned blood supplies. I am not aware of the current situation with blood supplies, but I will pass her comments on to my noble friend Lord Howe. As for heating supplies, I understand that most hospitals run on gas and only a few use oil. I imagine that they would be very careful not to run their stocks down too much at this time of year.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, does the Minister agree that now would be an appropriate time to pay tribute to the dedication of all those working in the National Health Service who have been turning up to work, such as managers, clinicians, nurses, ambulance drivers, porters—the whole lot? They have been keeping hospitals open. They have enabled the sick to come in and have kept people in who could not go home. The National Health Service has risen brilliantly to the challenge. I declare an interest as chairman of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. It is time for the NHS to receive the praise that it deserves.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend and would like to pay tribute to all NHS workers who make that big struggle to get into work despite the conditions. That applies to everyone who takes the difficult option of struggling to get to work rather than the easy option of sitting at home and doing nothing.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, the Minister referred to supplies of salt. Does he accept that many of the pavements in London—and I am sure elsewhere—are extremely slippery. They were this morning. The danger is that the health service will be burdened by even more people who slip and break their arms and legs. Is it not more economic to put more salt on pavements—or in some cases put some salt on pavements—rather than have ambulances and the health service having to bear the burden of what seems to be a niggardly approach to distributing the salt?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, there is not a niggardly approach to distributing the salt. As for pavements, local people can clear them. The Statement that I repeated referred to the fact that people can clear the pavement if they want to. But the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of increased levels of injury through slipping. It is a big problem. A fall for people in their later years can be very serious indeed.
Lord Patel
My Lords, as someone who has had two and an half feet of snow, and dug myself out last night to get down the hill to get here, I know the problem of moving around. If the Minister believes in the science of climate change and the ability to predict what future winters over the next decade or even century will be like, how come the science of meteorology cannot tell me what the weather will be like two weeks from now?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the whole population complains about the art of weather forecasting.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
Does my noble friend agree that winter tyres are a sensible thing to have on vehicles? I shall be disappointed if he does not. Has my noble friend’s department considered legislating for the use of winter tyres, as they do in Scandinavia? Is he satisfied by the supply of winter tyres? I have heard anecdotally in central Scotland that there is a now a two-month waiting list.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend raised the interesting point of winter tyres. They are effective, but it is a personal choice and it would be peculiar for the Government to take any steps to mandate them. Suppliers of essential services in remote rural areas might want to consider stocking some vehicles with winter tyres, but it is entirely a matter for them. I suspect the capital cost of winter tyres rarely justifies the investment.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, will the noble Earl ask his ministerial colleagues to look very carefully at the question of winter fuel payments, particularly for the disabled and the elderly? What they are getting at the moment is pretty minimal, bearing in mind the incredibly low temperatures.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that my ministerial colleagues are carefully considering whether the payments are at the right level, but it is not a matter for me to comment on.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the local authorities are accusing the Government of profiteering on selling salt to them at a time when local authorities’ budgets are being severely cut and, certainly in some areas, local authorities are forced to salt roads only where there is a steep hill and not on the flat? How can the Government claim that the situation is under control when local authorities do not have the money to buy salt or to spread it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, but he needs to understand that local authorities should regard central government as a supplier of last resort.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I flew down this morning from Glasgow Airport to London City Airport, and I pay tribute to the people both at Glasgow and at London City Airport who made that journey, although slightly delayed, a successful one. They did so for many hundreds of people this morning from Scotland to London. As I passed through Glasgow Airport this morning, it was very clear to me just how important Heathrow Airport is to the travel plans, whether for family reunions or business or holidays, of many of my fellow west of Scotland citizens at this time of year. I heard the Minister, in repeating the Statement made in the other place, pray in aid the statistic that Heathrow is used to 98 per cent of its capacity as a reason for the fragility of that environment—and I agree with him. As I understand it, the Government have no plans to increase the capacity of Heathrow, so they must have strategic plans to reduce its usage. Are those going to be part of the discussions that take place between his right honourable friend Philip Hammond, the Minister, BAA and the operators out of Heathrow? If they are not, we are going to face this problem repeatedly every time it snows, and that airport will be closed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, yet again a noble Lord rightly raises the importance of Heathrow Airport and the fact that most of the time it is running at 98 per cent efficiency, along with the fact that we are not going to have a third runway at Heathrow. What we will do is to make Heathrow Airport more effective and more efficient.
Lord Snape
My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to those staff, many of them manual workers and low paid workers, right across the transport industries, who have spent the past week or so working in extremely inclement weather to try to maintain some sort of service. To follow on from the point made by his noble friend Lord Dholakia, does he agree that the most irritating aspect of the delay and dislocation is not the fact that things go wrong, because we can all accept the case that they do, but the lack of information to passengers or customers, or whatever the industry likes to call them? Will he accept that industries such as the railway industry—I suspect that this is true of the aviation industry, too—whether publicly or privately owned, are overmanaged and undersupervised? The largely junior staff who have to face the ire of the public are no wiser about what is going on than the people concerned. Would he knock a few heads together to ensure that senior managers are there to make decisions and to face the travelling public when things go wrong?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, first, the noble Lord talked about manual workers working in the cold. These people are working outside in absolutely freezing conditions to keep transport equipment working, and I think we should all be very grateful to them. Yet again, another noble Lord has raised the issue of the lack of information about what transport services can do. Ministers are acutely aware of this problem; we are not happy about it. I also stress the point that we must not interfere at the moment but, when it is all over, we will be talking very closely with the transport industry to see what can be done in future so that passengers know what can be done.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, the Minister said that his colleague had met the British Airports Authority today, and he discussed the issue of Heathrow Airport. It seems to many noble Lords strange that Heathrow seems able to cope much less well with the severe conditions than other London airports. As my noble friend said, that was the case with Stansted Airport from Scotland, as opposed to the situation at Heathrow, which had only one runway still operating. Will the Minister press the BAA to ensure that additional resources are made available and that Heathrow Airport itself, a very profitable organisation, is forced to ensure that it can cope better in future? Will he address the issue not just of information to passengers who are stranded but of facilities available to them? Some passengers have been sleeping for three or four nights on cold floors. The airline operators or BAA must make some facility available, be it blankets or pillows or whatever, so that people who have nowhere to go will be properly looked after in the short term.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point, but the conditions at Heathrow at the weekend were much more severe than those normally encountered. Advice from industry is that the volume of snowfall encountered on Saturday—approximately 10 to 12 centimetres in little more than an hour—would have closed any airport. As for government action for the future, airport operators have a great incentive themselves to invest in the necessary equipment to keep their airports open, because their daily losses at Heathrow from not being able to operate properly are millions of pounds.
NHS: Global Health
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that the subject of global health is included in the education of all health professionals.
Lord Crisp
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to open this debate. I am delighted to see how many noble Lords have decided to take part in it, and I know that a number of others, for reasons of snow and the fact that we already had a large list, have decided not to take part. There is a lot of interest in this subject, and it is something on which there is a great deal of agreement both in your Lordships' House and outside. That agreement is partly the point of the debate, because what we need now is some action.
Professional education in the 20th century has done a wonderful job, not least in the United Kingdom. Life expectancy in the world as a whole has doubled in the century, but the outside world has changed, which means that there is a need for a change in education. There is a broad consensus on what needs to happen, and we can see it happening in many of our leading schools already. As Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, has put it:
“health professionals today are not adequately prepared to address the present and coming health challenges—aging populations, chronic diseases, cultural diversity and higher public expectations”.
It is, if you like, the necessary move from a purely doctor and hospital-based model to something much more diverse and local, more community and more person-based. That was a goal of the last Government and I know that it is a goal of this Government. The difficulty as always is to make it happen.
This Question is about global health and the emerging new discipline of global health. Let me explain why I think it is relevant here. I am talking about global health, not international health, which is what we talked about in the last century when we talked about the health of other people. Global health is about the health of all of us—all the issues that affect us all, wherever we are in the world. It is about our interdependence in terms of disease and how it can fly around the world very quickly; in the 14th century, it took three winters for the Black Death to get across Europe, whereas it took three days for SARS to get around the world earlier this century. We are also interdependent in our use of the same staffing and resources and interdependent in terms of the environment and climate change. All kinds of issues affect our health and we began to understand them much better in this past decade than we ever did before.
The second reason is that the diseases from which we suffer have been changing. There are many more non-communicable diseases, and in that context context itself is vital. We are beginning to understand better the social, behavioural, cultural and economic aspects of global health, and the emerging discipline is about taking on these issues and about understanding and acting on the wider determinants of health. Education needs to do this as well.
Thirdly, global health is about recognising that health is about health systems and how healthcare is delivered to individuals and populations. It is not just the theory of the laboratory and lecture room but the reality of the clinic and the community.
The fourth point that drives very many people is that experience in other countries is extremely valuable to us in the UK. Many who are involved in global health are driven by a passion to do something in poorer countries, but it is good for the UK as well. It develops people personally and they can learn from new examples and new experiences, and of course learn about some of the people living in their own country whose origins may have been far away.
Let me refer to the recent Lancet commission report that was published at the end of November, called Health Professionals for a New Century: Transforming Education to Strengthen Health Systems in an Interdependent World. The commission was chaired by Julio Frenk of the Harvard School of Public Health, and by Lincoln Chen of the China Medical Board, of which I was privileged to be a member. This was the first such attempt to look globally, with a global set of commissioners, and to learn from innovation everywhere in the world—not just Europe and America—and to do so across all professions on which we could collect data. It draws out some key lessons about how education needs to happen in the future: about how it needs to be interprofessional and transprofessional, going across disciplines and outside them to involve the public. Education needs to be competence-based, systems-based and IT-enabled.
The report also shows how our institutions need to change, breaking down barriers and connecting not just across disciplines but going outside health across locations and countries. Let me mention just one example that brings it alive: the IHI Open School. There are now 80 chapters in universities across world in 28 countries. This is a coming together of medical students to learn via the internet about subjects that are not covered in traditional courses: quality improvement, systems thinking and such like. They are studying in one school, maybe in the UK, but adding to it from elsewhere. This is the sort of model that I think we will continue to see.
The final point about the report is that it talks about transformational education: the effort to create professionals who are able to lead and make change in today's changed world. A brief illustration of the wide-ranging thinking on this in this country can be seen from the activities of two groups: Alma Mata and Medsin. Alma Mata is a 1,000-strong group of junior doctors and young health professionals from other disciplines. Medsin is also about 1,000-strong and made up of medical students. They advocate precisely that global health should be included in the syllabus and set out their vision for the doctor of the future, which is very important as they are the doctors of the future.
It is encouraging to see that the establishment is responding, including the Royal Colleges—and we have two former presidents of Royal Colleges speaking in this debate. To take one example, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is very concerned about the lack of support for junior doctors who want to work overseas and who want to include that in their training and not be disadvantaged in their careers by doing so. There are also organisations such as the London International Development Centre, which works with six London institutions and runs, among other things, courses of students as global citizens. There is a very much wider view here about what needs to change. Indeed, developments in partnerships between institutions are very ably supported by THET, and I am delighted to know that Her Majesty’s Government through DfID have launched an even more substantial scheme to promote these partnerships.
There is a lot happening in the UK, but this is a worldwide phenomenon and things are moving faster in the US and Scandinavia than here. I can imagine the Minister saying, “Very good, we’re happy to encourage this, but what has this got to do with Government and the Department of Health?”. My answer is that it really does have an impact on us. I stress that this sort of activity is not just for the benefit of foreigners; it is about creating better health professionals who are better able to care for people of this country with our 21st-century diseases and lifestyles.
I suggest three actions. The first is extremely practical. I ask officials in the noble Earl’s department to report to him on what more can be done to help trainee doctors to spend some time abroad as part of their training and to do so in some numbers, not with the odd one or two who take a risk with their careers. That would make this much more mainstream and much more positive.
Secondly, the Minister’s department should meet the universities and the professional education schools of medicine and nursing and the wider health schools to consider the findings of the Lancet commission and decide what action might jointly be taken to develop the education of health professionals and to get some impetus and coordination behind the moves that are happening all over this country.
My third request is that the Minister’s department provides active support for the involvement of NHS people and organisations in the DfID programme of partnership, recognising that this is a difficult time for the NHS but making it clear from the top that this is good thing for people to be engaged in. It is about the future, and there may even be ways of looking at things like the newly announced early retirement scheme, which might actually help in developing these sorts of programmes.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on initiating this debate, and I admire the outstanding work that he has been doing on this vital subject. His natural modesty precludes him detailing his extensive work. He is, in fact, joint chairman of the Global Health Workforce Alliance, which is giving a new impetus to the subject nationally and internationally. His report, entitled Global Health Partnerships, graciously gives credit to the many initiatives in this field, especially to THET, which was set up by that pioneer Professor Eldryd Parry.
Medical students have for years spent several months of their clinical training working in developing countries and gaining valuable insight into global medicine. King’s, Guy's, St Thomas's, St. George's and UCL are already running courses on the subject. A great deal is going on, but much more could be done. We can encourage more partnerships to be set up between medical schools in the UK and developing countries, for instance the new medical schools in Ethiopia. The medical schools and hospitals here need to make it easier for our graduates to go to those countries for longer periods, not only to enjoy invaluable new clinical experiences but to help medical students abroad to achieve their goals. They can increase their help to the medical students out there by demonstrating physical signs, new ways of teaching, how to get the best out of their libraries, data collection and so on.
There is unprecedented interest among medical students in helping to develop this field, and good organisations are at work, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently drew attention to the need for the NHS to help to plan the work abroad of junior doctors. In Guy’s Hospital in 1972 we set up a comprehensive surgical training programme involving a large part of the south-east of England. One of the years of the seven-year programme had to be spent abroad, and that proved very popular.
With the hospital ship part of the charity Mercy Ships, we not only provide free surgical treatment to the poorest of the poor but we teach the local surgeons the kind of operations that are appropriate in their country given their available resources. For instance, in Togo this year three Togolese eye surgeons were taught the best way of removing cataracts without the need for the expensive equipment that is used in the West and cannot be afforded in Africa. Now one surgeon is at work in the north of Togo, one in the south and one in between, so they cover the whole country.
An example of the excellent work done by many of the doctors in global health is a junior trainee at Guy’s Hospital called Abigail Boys. She works for Mercy Ships intermittently and has done so for the past six years. She came across a 13 year-old girl in Ghana whose tumour of her face was too complicated for Mercy Ships to cope with, so she raised thousands of pounds to bring her to the Royal London Hospital, where she had an amazing 11-hour operation, which was carried out successfully by the distinguished surgeon Iain Hutchison, whose wife enhances the Benches opposite. So long as our future surgeons are going to be like this young lady Abigail Boys, who is so passionate about helping the developing world, we can look forward to an ever-increasing participation in global medicine.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. I had a quick look at his biography, and three areas stand out: his experience of the National Health Service, his involvement as a fellow of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and, above all, his political interest in the developing world. It should come as no surprise that he has chosen global health and medical education for this short debate. No longer can we simply concentrate on learning about what is appropriate for the health of people in the United Kingdom; we have to take into account post-war migration and our interdependency with other nations. We also have to accept that the process of globalisation crosses the geographical boundaries of all nations.
The globalising economy relies increasingly on the skills of people wherever they are available, and international migration is a key factor in ensuring that Britain benefits from this phenomenon. I shall give an analogy. Climate change is not restricted to a single nation. Last week we dealt with the outcomes of the Cancun climate conference. For the first time there is an international commitment to,
“deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions”.
Here is a recognition that a nation cannot act alone. The Medsin UK response on global health acknowledges that the health of people in every nation is interconnected. A global health approach seeks to understand how individuals and population health are determined by global, as well as local, factors.
I realised the need for an international dimension to training when some years ago my wife and I had returned to rural Sussex following a visit to India. After some days, despite having taken malarial precautions, my wife developed a fever. The local doctors could not make a diagnosis and her condition deteriorated. She thought that despite all the precautions she had contracted malaria, and decided to take her temperature at regular intervals. The results demonstrated that she probably had malaria. The doctors were not convinced and took her blood to look for parasites, but they did not find any as they took it at the wrong time of day. She remained undiagnosed and decided to treat herself. She obtained medication and worked out the appropriate doses and timing of the medication. I am pleased to say that, after six weeks of being ill, she made an almost instant recovery.
Let me say that many medical colleges have recognised the need for global health issues. My daughter, who qualified at St Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College, decided to go to Brazil for her elective experience. She was fortunate during that period not only to spend time in the cities of that country but to work in the Amazon rainforest, which brought home to her the realities of a broader aspect of health, including the impact of poverty on the health of deprived communities.
There are a number of factors that we need to take into account. I urge the Minister to look at the broader determinants identified by Medsin UK: health financing, human rights, migration and environment. I am tempted to criticise the Government’s points-based system of immigration, but I shall refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say that the treatment of overseas doctors by the previous Administration was shameful; we continually moved the goalposts, and many of them suffered serious hardship when having to return to their country of origin.
The present cutbacks in university funding at about 6 per cent, which was announced today, are likely to impact on medical colleges. There is already evidence that some universities will no longer be able to afford training in certain disciplines. It is vital that knowledge is shared with countries abroad. Numerous good practices have been developed in countries such as Taiwan from which we can learn. India is making tremendous headway in providing medical tourism. It is also providing medicines at a much lower cost than we do in this country.
I am delighted that the noble Lord who is to follow me today is contributing to this debate. When I visited Ethiopia, there were those in the healthcare professions who valued his knowledge and advice. That, to my mind, is the acceptable face of our contribution to the third world.
Lord Patel
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, exaggerates my contribution to Ethiopia or anywhere else but I thank him for that.
On 5 May 2009, Barack Obama, in announcing a $63 billion programme of global health, said:
“We will not be successful in our efforts to end deaths from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis unless we do more to improve health systems around the world, focus our efforts on child and maternal health, and ensure that best practices drive the funding for these programs”.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to whom I am grateful for initiating this debate, remarked that the USA and certain other countries are well ahead of us in developing global health as a universal programme of the country. That is not to say that many universities in our land have not embraced the issue of global health. I declare an interest. I am affiliated with the University of Dundee in many ways. I am proud that the university has a module in year two of medical students’ training that gives them knowledge and some experience of global health. We run a summer school on a yearly basis that advances epidemiology and global health issues and we also have a major research programme in the university for developing drugs for the less well known tropical diseases.
There are also other universities, including UCL and KCL, which have also started such programmes. We need to do the same as the United States has done and drive this further, to develop a university consortium of global health in the United Kingdom that promotes learning, education, scholarships and also research. That is something we need to address and it could be addressed by the Department of Health because it is primarily a health issue.
Both our research organisations, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, have major research programmes and fellowships that drive them. My college, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has programmes for global health but the constraint has been the ability to find funding for trainees who wish to take part in overseas training as part of their training. Both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have such programmes. The modules that these trainees undertake overseas are accredited on a case by case basis. The funding, however, is not available and neither is there flexibility in specialist training. That is something that again the Department of Health can assist with.
I am privileged to be associated with an international organisation that has developed training and service in areas of obstetric fistula from which some 2 million women worldwide suffer. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has worked in this area and he referred to his commitment to working with Mercy Ships. He deserves the gratitude of those women in areas in which he has worked for years. We have developed a curriculum for training in this area of obstetric fistula which has now been accepted by all the obstetric fistula surgeons worldwide.
The organisation also works with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, receiving funding from them of more than $10 million over a period of five years to develop a strengthened health system across the United Kingdom. In that respect, Scotland has a programme with which the University of Dundee is heavily involved, including a programme in Malawi for health systems. Our fifth-year medical students go there for attachment for a period of six weeks on a yearly basis.
There are good things being done in this country, but both DfID and the Department of Health can help develop these educational training programmes further. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, the interest in this subject is demonstrated by the number of speakers who are taking part in this short debate and the number of others who would have liked to have done so. The time could have been filled many times over. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, not only for initiating the debate but for the leadership he has given in this subject both by his report in 2007 and in what he is doing now.
I declare an interest as chair of the academic health science centre King’s Health Partners. Academic health science centres are by their nature well suited to promote and give leadership to this subject since they bring together research into global diseases, medical training—which can now be delivered remotely and is anyway a highly international business—and clinical care. The four members of King’s Health Partners—King’s College London, Guy’s and St Thomas’s, King’s College Hospital and the South London and Maudsley—already have individually a proud and established history in various areas of global health. We have had a 10-year partnership with the Tropical Health and Education Trust—THET—to which other speakers have referred. This was recently reinforced in February of this year by the signing of a memorandum of understanding and the co-location of THET Somaliland and the THET executive team at King’s College Hospital in Denmark Hill. We also have partnerships with the University of California, San Francisco and two other organisations that have been mentioned in this debate: Medsin, the national student global health network, and Alma Mata, the national postgraduate doctor global health network, both of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
Being located in south London, where there are such ethnically and culturally diverse communities, this work has local as well as international significance. As others have said, global health these days is not a matter of looking outward to other countries; it begins and has relevance at home. It also has a strategic significance at the national level, which I do not think has been mentioned by other speakers. Quite rightly, investment in reducing inequalities within and between countries is integral to Untied Kingdom and EU global security strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said that action now needs to be taken. King’s Health Partners can claim to be taking that action. We seek to bring together the expertise that exists in the various parts of our partnership. We recently agreed to set up a King’s Health Partners global health board, in addition to the board of the partnership.
This subject also, understandably and rightly, inspires young people and young doctors. Having recently attended a half-day seminar on the subject at King’s Health Partners, I saw what a great interest was expressed. The hall was packed to the gunnels. Like others, I eagerly look forward to what the Minister will say in response to the suggestions that have been made this evening to give a boost to this important and internationally vital work.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on initiating this debate. I declare an interest as chair of the international medical aid charity Merlin, which operates in the poorest countries after conflict and natural disasters. It is from that perspective that I want to speak this evening.
There is a long and fine tradition of trained British doctors and medical staff working in poor countries, bringing expertise, training medical staff on the ground and saving lives. To take one example, more than 70 NHS staff with different skills have worked with Merlin surgical teams in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. This should not be seen just as altruism, important though that is. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl said, it should be encouraged as part of medical training in this country. Like so much in today’s world, medicine is global. This country will benefit directly if the doctors and other medical staff working here bring with them first-hand experience of conditions and diseases elsewhere in the world.
To give one other example, health staff who worked with Merlin on HIV and TB control programmes in Russia and Kenya have gone on to work in an NHS trust that covers Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, which have some of the highest rates of those diseases in the United Kingdom. That is to our advantage, as well as the advantage of those they are helping in other countries. So I do strongly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that medical training and practice in the UK should encourage and certainly not disadvantage those many British medical staff who wish to spend part of their training or part of their professional life working in poor countries. It seems to me heartening that so many medical staff training and working here should want to spend time working in developing countries and it is very much in our interest that we should encourage them in that laudable aim. There are, of course, problems but it really is in our interest to overcome those and to encourage, for example, deans of medical schools to use their existing discretion to encourage staff to serve in developing countries.
I was reading this afternoon the document Liberating the NHS. It states:
“We want everyone who works in the NHS to reach their full potential and achieve better health outcomes for their patients”.
Indeed we do, but it seems to me that working in developing countries and the experience our staff get there is an essential part of achieving that objective. We are right to be proud of the quality of our medical staff in this country and we are right to be proud, too, of those who wish to spend time helping others in poorer countries. Those two things should go together and not in any way be in conflict. It is very much in our interest that that should be so and, like others, I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that particular point.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on securing this debate and also on his work in this field.
Eight years ago I was in Malawi as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. We were looking at health provision in that country generally as well as focusing on maternal health. It was of course at the height of the AIDS epidemic in Malawi. I have never forgotten the visit we had to one of the hospitals there. From the distance we saw a pleasant enough building but as we entered the gates we saw people lying on rough, old blankets on the grass outside, brought in by relatives who needed to get back to their own work as quickly as possible, there being no help at all out in the villages outside the hospital. Inside the hospital itself, every ward was packed with dying AIDS patients; on bedsteads, on mattresses under the bedsteads and packed in between the beds. We saw ward after ward of human misery in a hospital totally unable to cope. Those patients received no treatment except some rehydration if they were lucky. It was a scene from hell.
At that time, for a population of around 10 million, there were 43 doctors in Malawi and so few nurses in that hospital that it was coping with well over 100 patients to each nurse. Even with that scant provision there was a 40 per cent vacancy rate. The staff were exhausted and demoralised and many had left after their training to work in South Africa or Europe where they could be guaranteed decent work experience and in-service training. It was not just the poor salaries that drove them away; and who could blame them?
The Malawi Government soon resolved to take action and with overseas aid, including, I am glad to say, a good deal from our own Department for International Development, more staff were trained. Salaries were increased combined with contracts to stay in Malawi. Students’ fees were paid if they contracted to work for at least three years after qualification and volunteer doctors were brought in from abroad—yes, also from this country—to provide in-service training to staff and better care to patients. Of course the advent of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS stemmed the tide of that scourge. Healthcare is now slowly improving in Malawi, but very slowly.
What can we learn from this? First, we must make our doctors and nurses aware of these problems. We can do this by better education at undergraduate and postgraduate level—deans, please note. We must make it easier for young doctors to take a year out in the developing world. The current pressure on them in their postgraduate training prevents this, because it does not count towards their certificate of complete training and the year abroad will not be recognised by the NHS. Sabbaticals are difficult to obtain. I have discovered that they need something called an “out of programme experience”, and the bureaucracy involved makes it more like an out of body experience. It is a huge deterrent to young people wanting to go abroad. Hospital trusts will not want to employ locums and there is no national directive to encourage them to release doctors.
The national conscience should dictate that we help developing countries to upgrade their health systems. Their staff have helped our National Health Service for decades at the expense of their own people in their own countries. It is payback time and I hope the Minister can reassure us that action will be taken.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I, too, warmly thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate so comprehensively. In declaring an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, I will focus on nursing education for global health and I have some positive developments to report.
First, at pre-registration level, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has stated that,
“Some aspects of the programme might be undertaken outside the UK for up to six months”,
and many universities are now taking advantage of this opportunity for placements abroad. Post-registration, there is a wide variety of continuing professional courses for nurses in global health issues, including the diploma in tropical nursing and the diploma in reproductive health in developing countries at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, in which I also declare an interest as an honorary vice-president.
Sheffield University also runs an online masters programme in midwifery and maternity care, fostering many international links and contacts. VSO offers nurses opportunities to work in countries such as Cambodia, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Malawi; and nurses are given extensive training prior to their placement. The VSO’s Skills for Working in Development course is accredited by the Royal College of Nursing. At PhD level, the International Network for Doctoral Education in Nursing and the European Academy of Nursing Science offer many opportunities for research exchanges in global health and international collaboration.
I should briefly like to give one practical example of nursing’s contribution to healthcare in this context. I returned just two weeks ago from a visit with my small NGO, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, to the hill tribe people in Chin state in Burma. They are of course suffering at the hands of that country’s brutal military regime, but many people in Chin’s hill tribes in remote areas are denied access to any healthcare at all. An outstanding young man from Chin state grew up seeing women die in childbirth on kitchen tables, and children dying unnecessarily from diarrhoea because of lack of access to healthcare and lack of any health knowledge. He was determined to become a doctor. He qualified in Armenia and immediately returned, having overcome many difficulties as a doctor, and is now training 315 community health workers from villages deep inside Chin state, where there is no healthcare. As much of this training could be undertaken equally effectively by community nurses and midwives, I introduced this resourceful young doctor to the College of Nursing in Mizoram state in India, where the staff are deeply interested in remote-area primary healthcare and have become interested in his programme. Nurses from the United Kingdom are very willing to help to train these community health workers, who are taking back life-saving knowledge and healthcare to the villages that previously had nothing. Many lives have already been saved.
I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will continue to support the nursing profession’s capability to respond to global healthcare needs, both in educational initiatives and in practical terms, such as in international partnerships and secondments, to which reference has been made in the medical field, to those developing countries. Secondments benefit those in the developing countries and employers here in the United Kingdom, because practitioners return with enhanced initiative, knowledge, skills and experience—particularly those which transcend cultural borders.
I could give many other examples from our experiences Sudan, Nigeria and East Timor inter alia, but I hope that the example I have given from Burma reinforces the importance of this significant subject raised by my noble friend.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Crisp in calling for this debate.
As a former VSO volunteer myself in Nigeria many years ago—an experience that I consider to have had a major influence on my career and outlook—I am keen to give more opportunities for healthcare professionals today to gain a better understanding of global health issues. I should like to discuss attempts to develop greater awareness of global mental health issues, particularly in postgraduate psychiatric training by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and I declare an interest as a former president of the college.
With the help of Professor Rachel Jenkins of King’s College, a scheme called the college volunteer programme was established about five years ago. We had wanted to set up a programme with VSO, as two other colleges had done, but this was difficult because VSO responds to requests for volunteers and it was not receiving requests for psychiatrists. In a way, that indicates the low priority given to, or low recognition of, mental health issues in many of the countries where VSO works. Therefore, we set up our own programme and gained agreement to the principle of out-of-programme placements abroad, fully approved for higher training. We put in place some safeguards, which included an in-country mentor providing supervision of all placements, with supplementary e-mail supervision from a UK-based consultant who had relevant overseas experience and who would have helped to prepare the volunteer in advance.
The intention was threefold, as I shall set out, although not in any particular order. The first was to provide a training experience in global mental health for UK trainees so that they would better understand the health perspectives and needs of migrant communities here in the UK. The second was to do that through meeting an identified need in the host country in a sustainable way. Often such needs were identified through our own college members and fellows who live and work in low and middle-income countries around the world. The third was to ensure that trainees would be equipped and motivated to be able to contribute to health services in low and middle-income countries in the future.
A number of mental health trusts have set up a specific link with a country, and I give as an example the trust where I have an honorary consultant contract—the South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. While I was president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, I talked to the chair of the mental health trust about ways in which he could help us to develop our volunteer programme. We thought that Ghana would be a good country with which to establish a relationship, partly because of its political stability but also because we were aware that the trust employed a number of Ghanaian staff, and the catchment population included many West Africans. The scheme at our trust was helped off the ground by a charity called Challenges Worldwide, which helped to set things up in Ghana. The scheme involved the trainee volunteer forgoing one month’s salary to cover the overheads involved in setting up the placement. The royal college fundraises to provide bursaries to support trainees’ travel costs. I shall quote two recent trainees who have each spent three months in Ghana. One said:
“This was for me the best professional training experience of my life … The support I received was excellent”.
The second said:
“My placement in Ghana was the most fascinating and perspective-changing experience in my career”.
Let us reflect on the fact that the NHS has for many years received the benefit of large numbers of health professionals from low and middle-income countries. Does the Minister agree that the value to the NHS of supporting training placements overseas far outweighs any short-term local costs? Also, can he confirm that all medical postgraduate curricula include core competences in global health issues, and will he comment on what more the professional regulatory bodies can do to ensure that enough appropriately supervised and integrated global health training placements are provided so that trainees have a realistic chance of acquiring some of those core competences?
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has a passion for this important issue, and I congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate tonight, the quality of which has proved his passion to be correct.
Good health in one country cannot be maintained if there is widespread ill health and disease in so many others. I have always felt privileged to be able to participate in debates in your Lordships’ House when such expertise and personal commitment is shown and, as so many noble Lords have said tonight, in a globalised and interdependent world, one in which disease certainly knows no boundaries, health is a global issue. The rich world has a responsibility to the developing world to support the growth of their health infrastructures and the growth of their medical education.
The nature of our responsibilities includes without doubt the need for overseas doctors to train in the UK without unacceptable barriers being placed in their way, or expense, and indeed the need for UK doctors to spend time abroad. We recognise that is a legitimate part of their qualifications, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others. It also includes the need to prepare our own UK-based doctors for the implications and effect of globalisation in our own health service and the UK population. The noble Lord is quite right—our medical training must encompass this challenge and its complexity.
The previous Government, with no small help, I suspect, from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, produced Health is global: a UK Government strategy 2008-13 in September 2008. In it there was recognition of the fact that a healthy population is fundamental to prosperity, security and stability. It also linked the Government’s domestic and international objectives to the issue of improving global health. Could the Minister tell the House, therefore, what the Government are doing to continue this work? Has the department embraced the recommendations contained in that strategy?
We can look at the threat that global disease can pose. SARS and swine flu are two of the most dramatic examples where the world had to work together to protect itself. There is no doubt that a weakness in the healthcare in one country can put millions at risk. Nearer to home, however, in the UK, and particularly in London, we only have to think about TB and the communities most at risk. I am reminded of this by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who questioned me many times when I was a Minister about this.
Seventy-two per cent of UK cases of TB are among people born abroad, and about 40 per cent of cases in England are in London. It is vital, therefore, that the health service in London understands the nature of this problem, the communities at risk, and what needs to happen. The increase in migration into the UK means that UK doctors treat patients from all over the world, and medical students must be prepared for this change and understand its implications.
The report, Tomorrow’s Doctors, referred to by several noble Lords, has very wise words on these matters. It says that this is,
“leading to demands for greater cultural competency in the doctor-patient interaction”.
That is quite right. It continues:
“Medical students have to be prepared carefully for this change, with curricula exposing them to an understanding of why migration happens and specific migrant health issues as well as how to treat a broad range of diseases not routinely seen in the UK”.
Can the Minister say, therefore, whether TB and other conditions and their management are adequately included in the training of doctors in the UK? Indeed, would the forthcoming change of the Health Education Board mentioned in the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, which will be an issue for the House in months to come, encompass the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and other noble Lords today?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for calling this debate and express my gratitude for his strong and continuing commitment to issues of global health. I found his speech extremely helpful and thought provoking.
The Government are deeply committed to issues of international development. In this year’s spending review we confirmed that, as well as protecting the NHS budget, we will keep our promise to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid from 2013, helping the billion people who live in extreme poverty around the world. We are equally committed to doing everything we can to meet the millennium development goals. In particular, we are taking bold action to tackle malaria and to improve reproductive, maternal and newborn health. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we are currently reviewing the previous Government’s cross-Whitehall global health strategy to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in the coming years.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has linked issues of development with those of the appropriate education of health professionals, which itself has enormous implications both for our nation’s health and for that of the rest of the world. As he knows, there are many aspects of the education of health professionals, encompassing pre- and post-registration training, as well as continued professional development. The responsibility for setting the standards required for professional pre-registration sits with the professional regulators. The higher education institutes then design training curricula to meet these standards in partnership with NHS service providers and the regulators. The Department of Health, along with the local NHS bodies that commission professional training, continues to work with the regulators and higher education institutes to ensure that their standards and curricula reflect the changing needs of patients and service delivery.
In terms of pre-registration education for doctors, we look to the General Medical Council for leadership. Its 2009 publication Tomorrow’s Doctors provides the framework that UK medical schools use to design detailed curricula and methods of assessment. I was glad to see the framework was well received by the authors of the recent Lancet Commission publication, Health Professionals for a New Century. The framework also highlights the importance of a global dimension. New graduates must be able to demonstrate awareness, from a global perspective, of the determinants of health and disease and of the variations in healthcare delivery and medical practice. Postgraduate medical training curricula are developed by the medical royal colleges for approval by the GMC. Most of the topics highlighted in this debate are covered in the foundation programme curriculum and core competence framework for doctors developed by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.
We have come a long way since the noble Lord wrote his report on medical training, Global Health Partnerships, in 2007. My noble friend Lord McColl is absolutely right that there is already significant good practice in the UK in terms of incorporating the global dimension into pre- and post-registration training. This is one part of the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who asked me to consider what more might be done to support this type of activity. Medical students can study global health; they can spend a year studying international health as part of an intercalated degree or can choose to travel to developing countries for the elective component of their undergraduate training. There are also opportunities for post-registration medical doctors to spend part of their specialty training in developing countries, as part of the out-of-programme training and research arrangements. Here, I reassure my noble friend Lady Tonge and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that, if prospectively approved, training of this type counts towards the certificate of completion of training. Details of this initiative are provided in the Gold Guide, a guide for postgraduate specialty training in the UK agreed by the four UK health departments for core and/or specialty training programmes. This sets out a clear process as a guide for post-graduate deans.
My noble friend Lord McColl—
Baroness Northover
This is a time-limited debate and the Minister has 12 minutes to reply. There is no possibility of intervention.
Earl Howe
Perhaps the noble Lord and I can speak after the debate.
My noble friend Lord McColl stressed the need for taking longer periods overseas and providing greater support for achieving the goals that we have all been talking about. Universities support medical student electives as long as the plans are carefully drawn up to ensure the best possible experience for them and, of course, for the host institution abroad. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, lest there be any doubt in his mind, that we strongly support the principle that trainees should have opportunities to gain experience overseas both for their own benefit and that of the host countries. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was right to say that there are opportunities for postgraduate medical doctors to spend part of their specialty training in developing countries, as I have mentioned, and these can count towards clinical medical training.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Tonge, we take on board comments about reducing the level of bureaucracy in this process, and we welcome suggestions for improvement. However, we need to ensure both that service can continue to be delivered effectively in the NHS and that training overseas is appropriately recognised, supervised and assessed, which is not necessarily straightforward in every case.
Earlier this month, the Lancet Commission published a report, Health Professionals for a New Century. In response to some of its specific proposals, I should like to highlight the progress that has already been made in a number of areas. For example, the Department of Health is taking forward its technology-enhanced learning strategy to promote greater use of information technology for learning, harnessing and sharing global education resources. The Medical Training Initiative allows a small number of doctors from developing countries to work and train in the NHS before returning home. The National Leadership Council works with clinicians from all professions to develop their leadership skills and embed leadership across all undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. The Health Partnership Scheme, launched in November by my honourable friend in another place, Stephen O’Brien, will enable NHS professionals to share their skills with nurses and doctors in developing countries through teaching, training and practical assistance. We should also mention the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, entitled, Women Doctors: Making a Difference. It makes recommendations on a range of issues that include improving access to mentoring and career advice, improved access to childcare, more flexible and part-time training, and encouraging women into leadership positions.
We must always look to improve the standards of medical education in this country. For this reason, as has been mentioned, we have today published Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce, the consultation on the education and training aspects of the NHS White Paper, Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. The White Paper signals a new approach to workforce planning, education and training by,
“giving employers greater autonomy and accountability for planning and developing the workforce”,
alongside greater professional ownership of the quality of education and training. The consultation will enable my department to do the second thing proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which is to meet with relevant parties to consider the findings of the Lancet Commission report. With the changes set out in the NHS and public health White Papers, the system of healthcare in England is changing, and it is imperative that our system of education and training reflects that change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked whether curricula include global competences. They do, and in acknowledgement of the case presented by Medsin UK, a global health dimension is included in the 2009 GMC guidance, Tomorrow’s Doctors, which states that new graduates must be able to demonstrate,
“an awareness from a global perspective of the determinants of health and disease, and variations in healthcare, delivery and medical practice”.
In fact, most of the topics highlighted by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which I mentioned, are covered in the foundation programme curriculum published this year. All topics are at least partly described in the core competences for doctors in the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ Common Competences Framework for Doctors, published last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, urged that we should find ways to give active support for doctors to take part in health partnership schemes. We agree that we need to support doctors and other health professionals to take part in that scheme and I can reassure him that the Department of Health is working closely with the Department for International Development on this initiative. I mentioned the partnership scheme earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to the role of academic health science centres and I welcome the initiatives taken by the AHSCs, both in teaching and research, in global issues. They can contribute a huge amount but perhaps two things above all: the partnerships which they can and do form overseas and their ability to develop cultural competence in UK graduates.
My noble friend Lady Tonge referred to the need for ethical recruitment. She is absolutely right. She probably knows that the UK was the first country to produce international recruitment guidance based on ethical principles and the first to develop a robust code of practice for employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made some extremely constructive and important points, as did all other speakers, for which I am very grateful. I shall make sure that these are taken into account during the consultation process.
In closing, I should like to take this opportunity to invite all interested parties to engage with the consultation to help us develop the recommendations made in the Lancet Commission report and to help shape the future system of education for health professionals.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“( ) the Electoral Commission have certified that the electoral register is being kept substantially up to date in terms of its accuracy and completeness”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the amendment seeks to insert into Clause 8(1) a third condition before the Minister must make an order. There are currently two conditions in the Bill: first, that there has been a yes vote in the referendum; and, secondly, in Clause 8(1)(b) that,
“the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act”.
Without going into detail, that means that the constituency boundaries have been substantially redrawn in accordance with Part 2 of the Bill.
Our proposal seeks to ensure that, before there is any change in the voting system and any substantial redrawing of the boundaries, proper work is done to ensure that the electoral register is up to date. If that work is not done, you will end up with boundaries being in the wrong place. The electoral quota for the boundary review will be based on the date on which the review begins, according to the new rule in paragraph 9(2) of the new Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act.
On page 11 of the Bill, new paragraph 9(2), which is a new rule introduced by the Bill, states:
“The ‘electorate’ of the United Kingdom, or of a part of the United Kingdom or a constituency, is the total number of persons whose names appear on the relevant version of a register of parliamentary electors in respect of addresses in the United Kingdom, or in that part or that constituency. For this purpose the relevant version of a register is the version that is required by virtue of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be published no later than the review date, or would be so required but for … any power”.
I do not think I need to read sub-paragraph (b). New paragraph 9(5) states:
“The ‘review date’, in relation to a report under section 3(1) of this Act that a Boundary Commission is required (by section 3(2)) to submit before a particular date, is two years and ten months before that date”.
The effect of all those provisions is that the quota is to be calculated on the basis of the electoral register on the date when the review begins.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does this not all inevitably mean that there will be some inner-city constituencies with huge populations in the very parts of the kingdom where most of the problems of social deprivation are concentrated?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is inevitably the conclusion of the figures that I am talking about. If one goes back to what one would have thought would be the basic purpose of these changes—to increase trust in the electoral system for those who most depend on what politics does—to rush through a change in the boundaries that excludes them because there has not been a focus on who is on the register and who is not will tend to decrease trust. What is in it for the young person? What is in it for the person living in private rented accommodation? What is in it for the member of the black and minority ethnic group if the rushed changes do not include them?
If the Government are sincere, we commend this. We warned them to be wary of the experience in Northern Ireland where there were changes and not to rush individual voter registration. But the House and the country deserve to know the substance of their plans in relation to improving registration against the analysis that the Electoral Commission has made.
I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will respond to the points that I have made. The coalition has made it a condition of the introduction of the AV system that there is a new boundary for almost all of the constituencies in the country. Surely we want those boundaries to reflect where the voters live.
Lord Rooker
In asking this question I may make myself look a right idiot, but thinking about what is happening, am I right in assuming that there will still be a census next year?
Lord Rooker
That means that there will be hundreds of thousands of census enumerators crawling around the country in March. Could they not check that the people in the dwellings that they go to are on the electoral register? It seems an ideal time for advance publicity before the referendum planned in May. We have a census taking place at some time around March. I know there is always an argument about swapping information, but this is an ideal opportunity, particularly in the areas where it is known that there is under-registration. There is nothing new in what my noble and learned friend says: the same areas were under-registered 30 years ago. In those special areas an effort could be made by the enumerators to cross-check their results at the end of the day with the electoral register.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree with my learned friend—sorry; my unlearned but profoundly friendly friend. Of course what I am saying is well known to everybody. However, he is wrong to say that the matter has remained static for 30 years. According to the ONS, the best estimate for non-registration among the eligible household population as at 15 October 2000 lies between 8 and 9 per cent. This compares with 7 to 9 per cent in 1991, so I think with respect that it is getting worse.
If this is meant to be the dawn of new politics, should the Government not commit themselves to doing all in their power to enable local registration officers to maximise the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register? No system is perfect and that is why my amendment does not propose any standard of perfection. It simply requires the Electoral Commission to certify that the electoral register has been kept substantially up to date.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When I talk to electoral registration officers, they are conscious of the fact that their budgets are not ring-fenced within local authorities. There is a danger that despite all the legislation that has been going through in recent years about individual registration and so on, they simply will not have the resources to ensure the high levels of registration that my noble friend is calling for.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I appreciate that. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has not said it, but he will be aware that in the context of what are quite savage cuts in local authority expenditure, the enthusiasm for this sort of work in local authorities will go down yet further.
The coalition presents its proposals and the noble Lord, Lord McNally—sadly not in his place at the moment—when confronted with difficulty says that what he seeks to achieve is fairness. It must involve fairness for all groups, but most particularly those groups that are under-represented.
Lord Rennard
Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that all previous Boundary Commission reviews—I think that there have been five general reviews since 1944, conducted under Labour and Conservative Governments—have been based on the electoral register as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be: even more accurate and even more complete? Would he perhaps acknowledge the contribution of his noble friend Lord Wills, who was instrumental in improving the accuracy of the electoral register under the previous Labour Government, ensuring for example the provision of the rolling register, so that hundreds of thousands more voters were added to the register in April this year in order to vote in the general election? The system is now rather better than it has been previously, so the register as of 1 December this year will be more accurate than it was previously, and it is a good register on which to base the next Boundary Commission review—certainly better than it would have been otherwise and no different or worse than the previous five Boundary Commission reviews.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree with the noble Lord when he says that it is better than the previous five boundary reviews. I agree with him that my noble friend Lord Wills made a major contribution to that and that we did a lot to deal with the issue. The evidence that I rely on is the March 2010 report of the Electoral Commission. Although the electoral register prepared in April indicated some improvements, the speech that I made earlier indicates the fundamental problems in relation to the register, which the Electoral Commission identified. I would be extremely surprised and concerned if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, departed from the position of the Electoral Commission in relation to that. Yes, we have made improvements, but there is still a long way to go, in particular in relation to the private rented sector, young people and black and minority ethnic groups. There is a very substantial group of people who are not on the electoral register but who could be if an effort was made.
Lord Beecham
Will my noble and learned friend comment on the likely impact of individual registration, which is shortly to come, on the total on the register?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
In Northern Ireland, there is a problem with individual registration. Eventually it should improve the accuracy of the register, but it will take some time in relation to it, and household registration tends to involve more people being registered than does individual registration. We introduced individual registration because we did not like the idea of it being the head of the household who determined whether or not you got registered. My noble friend Lord Beecham is right in saying that because that measure might reduce the number of people registered, the consequence is that you need more effort on the part of the electoral registration officers to ensure that things keep up. Ultimately, you cannot—if the claim is fairness—say that it is fairness in relation to this one aspect but not to another.
If the position of the coalition is that it will not introduce AV, even if 99 per cent are in favour, until the Boundary Commission has reported, why will it not also accept our condition, which would have a fundamentally galvanising effect on electoral registration? It would mean that the Government of the day had the highest possible motivation to ensure that there was proper registration and that the sorts of problems to which the Electoral Commission has referred would be dealt with. This is how to make a difference in this regard.
I await the noble and learned Lord’s answer as to why, if at all, this proposal would not and should not be introduced. It is a wholly good thing, which would improve our democracy and would, most importantly, bring into our democracy people in black and minority ethnic groups, which are perhaps the groups that feel most alienated and excluded by it at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the basis that, if the boundaries are to be reviewed, the numbers should be as accurate as possible. First, however, I did not agree with what my own Government did in relation to changing the arrangements for registering for elections. I thought the head of the household system was far better than individual registration, and far more likely to ensure that more people were registered. I am worried about the effect that it will have when we move on to individual registration. I think that 17 or 18 year-olds are less likely to fill in forms, whereas the head of the household could ensure that all of the people of voting age were registered. I think it is a pity that we have moved in that direction.
However, the introduction of the rolling register, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, has significantly improved the situation. More and more people are registering now instead of having to wait for one particular date to register. That has been a great improvement.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that the numbers could be more accurate if an effort was made—I want to come to that point—to make sure that people are registered. He mentioned that two of the areas in which there was the lowest registration were Lambeth and Glasgow—he mentioned Glasgow in particular. I draw to the attention of the House what happened in Glasgow over the few months up to the end of November. Because the problems of under-registration were causing concern to MPs in Glasgow, they asked the leader of the council, Councillor Gordon Matheson, to carry out an exercise of going around the city to see if people were not registered who ought to be. During the course of just a few months, nearly 36,000 extra voters were registered. That is an astonishing number. If that was carried out in every constituency, in every city, and in every county, then we would get a much more accurate picture of those people who are not now registered and who ought to be.
I have raised this in the context of other areas, and I have been told that it is too late now to get registered if the timetable in this Bill is adhered to. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is the case and whether we could ask each council to undertake the kind of exercise that was carried out in Glasgow.
If it is too late, then we need to consider alternatives, but if it is not, we should be getting MPs to encourage councils to carry out this kind of exercise. Before my noble friend Lord Rooker raised it, I, too, had written down the question of the census. That is another opportunity to gather a more accurate picture of those who are eligible to vote. It would be helpful if, in his reply, the Minister would indicate whether it is possible to get the census enumerators, as they go around, to ask an additional question, about registration —the names of the people in the household over 18 or those who will attain the age of 18 by a particular date. They could hand forms out when they are going around, or leaflets. That is my order of preference—to get them registered and take a note of it, then to give them a form and, failing that, to give them a leaflet. That would help.
I do not want to hold back the House unduly regarding this, but one of the things that has been noticed, and this has been said by some other colleagues in previous debates, is that it is funny seeing the two former Chancellors on the Benches opposite. It is a bit like the characters in the gallery on “The Muppets”, sitting there commenting on events.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Waldorf and Statler, my noble friend says. I should say that they are distinguished ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. As they have been around a great deal longer than I have, they will recall—I saw this when we were in opposition in the House of Commons, even when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and I saw it again when Labour was in power and Tony Blair was Prime Minister—that, as one of my noble friends said earlier, when we went through these kinds of debates in Committee, week in, week out, the Minister would say, “That’s a very good point; I’ll take that away and look at it and come back on Report”. On this Bill, we have had one occasion when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said that—one miserable occasion. Even then, he did not say that he agreed; he said that he would take it back and have a look at it without any guarantee, sympathy or consideration.
I think that we could make even better progress through the Bill if, day after day and week after week, the Minister were to say, “That’s a good point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has made a good point on this”, or, “The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has made an excellent point on that; I’ll take it away and look at it and see what can be done about it”. So far, though, one such response in six sessions is a very low batting average. It makes the English cricket team look good in comparison. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, whom I have known for a very long time, will recognise the validity of the argument that if you are to have a fair election and fair boundaries, you need to ensure that everyone over the age of 18 is taken account of in drawing up those boundaries.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, what a good point my noble friend has just made; I am sure that we shall all take it into account. What a good contribution, too, from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, and what an interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. It is that last to which I want particularly to address my remarks. The noble Lord made a point that was completely impossible to dispute: in the past, constituency boundaries have been based on registers, registers by and large have been getting better—at least, we have worked on getting them better; we do not ever have a completely firm idea of how many people are not registered—and the Bill is therefore soundly based.
That, however, is not reality. The reality is that with the Bill, for the first time, we are treating electorates as part of a rigid mathematical formula—5.1 per cent over, you have to be cut down; 5 per cent under, you have to cut back. There is a strict limit of 5 per cent within which the Electoral Commission has to work, and some good examples of the effects of that have been brought before noble Lords by outside advisers. But what we are trying to equalise is not some actual number, a number in reality—it is an extremely approximate guess at the number of electors. Yes, it is the number of people who appear on a list, but we have no idea how that relates in each individual constituency to the number of people who actually should be on that list.
I can guarantee that, under the provisions of the Bill, some seats will have bits cut off them because they are thought to be over the 5 per cent limit whereas in fact they are not; they will be well within the limit, but they will have a very high registration number. More importantly, you will have other seats which are having bits added into them. They have got a perfectly normal number of people living there but an inadequacy in the register means that they are not all counted. This is perfectly all right under the existing way in which the Electoral Commission works. It works in a way where size is only one of the factors it takes into account. It adjusts for such matters as natural boundaries, geography, local authority boundaries and so on, and it comes by and large to the most sensible view on the most sensible set of facts that are available to it. That does not work for a rigid mathematical formula of this kind.
Half of the solution to this should be to be less rigid about mathematical formulae, both in terms of allowing a greater flexibility around the size allowed to constituencies and by giving a greater weight to the other factors which the Electoral Commission can take into account when deciding the boundaries of a particular seat. We will come later to amendments which are designed to do both those things.
While this provision of 5 per cent remains, however, at least we have to make sure we are doing the best job we can with the electoral register, a job which is now vastly more important because of its vast mathematical significance in the scheme of things laid out by the Bill.
Lord McAvoy
Does my noble friend agree with my findings, not on a scientific basis, that during and after the poll tax fiasco the importance of people wanting to be on the register was undermined because a whole strata of people found there was a financial advantage not to be registered and somehow there was something lost in the community about the importance of wanting to register? No matter how allegedly better the registers are now, there must be a residual effect of the poll tax. So it may be better but there is residual damage.
Lord Lipsey
I entirely agree with my noble friend. Indeed it is not just the poll tax; there are a number of factors the whole time that cause people to avoid anything that identifies them as individuals and which they think the authorities could catch up with. It may be for bad reasons: they may perhaps be illegally in the country or fear they are here illegally; or good reasons: that they fall for some of the liberal myths about the nature of the modern state and think that they may all end up in prison if they are identified. I do not take it by any means for granted that the improvement in the electoral register will continue over time.
It is rather like opinion polls. Opinion polls measure less and less because fewer and fewer people are willing to answer the questions because they are frightened that they may be held to task for the answers they give. There is therefore a serious risk of the deterioration of the electoral registers, which makes it all the more wrong that this Bill should have the exact number on the electoral register and the exact number of people in each constituency as its target and also makes it right that, in so far as we can improve these things at all, the amendment moved by my noble friend should be adopted to make them as good as they can be. But that will never be very good.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I should like to share with noble Lords my own experience of the problems of electoral registration. Prior to the 2005 general election, when I was in the other place, my honourable friend Wayne David, my neighbouring colleague and MP for Caerphilly, and I were absolutely staggered to find that the new register had come out and our electorates had dropped by thousands—I think more than 8,000. We had a meeting with the electoral returning officer who was an official of his association and he explained to us that across the country electoral registration officers were pursuing different approaches to compiling the electoral register. Some were doing canvasses, some were sending out letters, some were sending out post cards and so on and so forth. The real top and tail of it was this: the council was simply not providing sufficient money for the electoral registration officer to carry out an annual canvass.
With the best will in the world, rolling registers have helped but they are more of a convenience. I do not think there is a great deal of evidence to show that many more people have actually registered. I am a bit concerned about individual registration—
Lord Rennard
The noble Lord suggests that perhaps few people have taken advantage of the rolling register. Does he not recall that in April—the month of the general election campaign—many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people, used this rolling register facility to register to vote in the general election? All the reasons why people do not wish to be on the register may apply in the future, while this year, because of the general election, many more people applied for inclusion on it. That is why 1 December might be a very good date on which to base the boundary review.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Before my noble friend responds, will he consider what those young people, many of them probably students, will think, having got on to the register and possibly having voted Liberal Democrat, possibly because of tuition fees; and how they may now feel about being added to the register?
Lord Touhig
Somewhat disappointed. Taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I am sure large numbers of people—large numbers of young people—registered. At the time of a general election, for reasons that could be national or local, people always speed up their registration. However, I am not entirely convinced that a rolling register will improve the total number of people registered. As I say, I am a little concerned that individual registration might deter people from registering. If it is to be done by a canvass but the whole family is not in the house, what will the canvasser do? Should he or she just take the names of one or two people and register them, while the other three—perhaps grown-up children—do not get registered?
My point, coming back to my own experience, is that this simply will not improve registration. I appreciate that our economy and our country are in a difficult financial situation at present. However, registration will not improve unless central government provides the funding and directs local authorities to carry out an annual door-to-door canvass. In the past when we had such door-to-door canvasses, registration was, I believe, much higher. Unless we go back to that and provide the resources for it, it will not happen. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made the point that the resources are lacking. My experience with my local council is simply that, with the best will in the world, it was not going to put in the resources necessary for an individual annual canvass. Unless we grasp that nettle, we will not improve the total number of people on the register.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I will intervene only briefly because I do not want to get into this whole debate about individual registration once again. I spent hours on my feet in Committee on two pieces of legislation that went through under the Labour Government that introduced this monstrous piece of legislation on individual registration. It will be to our ultimate cost but that is an argument for another day. All I want to say is that I intervened in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the question of inner-city constituencies because there is a real problem developing here. Because of lack of registration and this national formula, we will end up with fewer inner-city seats but ones that have vast populations.
We must remember that inner-city seats involve far more work. I remember when I was the MP for Workington, comparing my constituency workload with that of some of the London MPs. They got three or four times the volume of mail that I did—so much so that they often simply could not provide the level of service that they wanted to in their inner-city seats. I thought I was being heavily pressured by constituents. One of the major problems in inner-city seats is to do with immigration, often involving groups of people who are not registered at all and who cannot register. That is in addition to the general problem of higher population. I simply do not believe that the Government have taken this whole matter into account. They say, “Oh well, local authorities can simply put the resources in”, but they cannot. I say again that my own Government failed to ring-fence these budgets. However, if we had known that this legislation was coming, we might well have had to think more seriously about the need to ring-fence budgets in this area. In some ways we are now paying the price for not having done so. I invite Conservative Members to ring up some of the electoral registration officers that I have talked to, who complain that they simply will not be able to deliver on the Government’s agenda in this area.
Finally, when we look at this debate it is important to consider what happens in rural Conservative seats with what I believe to be a far lower level of casework as against the position of city centre seats in London, Birmingham and Sheffield. We should actually consider the different workload. I think many Conservative Members simply do not understand the weight of additional work that arises in those constituencies. I cannot see any way around it. There is nothing in this legislation that is there to help; we have had no undertakings from the Dispatch Box that we are going to get over this problem. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has repeatedly raised this question of higher populations in inner city seats and we have heard nothing from the Government. As this Bill progresses through Committee I think we are going to find that a lot of our debate revolves around that particular issue.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, in introducing his amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, correctly identified that this would add a third precondition to the order being laid to implement those parts of the Bill in the event of a yes vote in the referendum and the introduction of the alternative vote.
Perhaps it will not come as any surprise to your Lordships’ House that we cannot accept that there should be a further condition. We are not quite sure what “substantially up to date” means and, quite frankly, no case has been made as to why it should be done with regard to setting this order in motion as opposed to the fundamentally important point—on which I would substantially agree with what has been said not only by the noble and learned Lord but by other contributors—of getting a more accurate electorate. Indeed, I would say that even if there were a no vote in the referendum it should not in any way diminish the wish and the objective of trying to ensure that the electoral register is made as accurate as it possibly can be. It is important that it should be as up to date as possible but I do not believe it should be a condition of the commencement of the AV provisions.
As noble Lords will be aware, the electoral registration officers across local authorities in the United Kingdom already have a statutory duty to take the steps that are necessary to maintain the registers and the commission has a statutory responsibility to promote public awareness of electoral registration and elections and to set and monitor performance standards and electoral services. It is worth noting that the report to which the noble and learned Lord referred, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain, published in March this year, reported a registration rate in the United Kingdom of 91 to 92 per cent. That compares reasonably well with other countries. Furthermore, the commission’s report, Performance Standards for Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain, also published in March, showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration records standard this year, a considerable improvement on the previous occasion.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When the Minister quotes such a figure as 91 per cent, does he mean that 91 per cent of the population are registered or does he mean 91 per cent of the households in the particular area have submitted a return to the registration officer?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I understand it—if I am wrong I will certainly make the correction—it is not of the population because obviously there are members of the population who are ineligible to appear on the electoral roll. I understand that it is the figure of those who are eligible to vote.
I take the important point made by the noble and learned Lord that there are groups—young people, people in the private rented sector, people from ethnic- minority communities—where the figure of non-registration is disturbingly high.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
If the Electoral Commission can produce that figure of 91 per cent registered of those eligible to vote, then it must have a figure of those eligible to vote. If it has a figure of those eligible to vote why not use that figure in each constituency rather than the registered figure?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I understand that. If I am wrong, I will readily correct it. However, the point is, as I understand it, that that is trying to compare like with like. It compares reasonably well with other countries, but I readily acknowledge that within that there are groups which are considerably under-represented. The information I have been given is that the figure is 91 per cent of those in the population of voting age.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
In order to calculate that the figure is 91 per cent of the people of voting age, you must know how many people there are of voting age in each constituency. Surely that figure could be used for the boundary reviews, rather than the number of people who have bothered to get their name on the register, and it would be much more accurate.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is indicated that voting age may not always mean eligibility to vote, because there might be occasions when people may not be United Kingdom citizens, or be Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and would thereby be ineligible to vote.
The two important points are, first, that that 91 per cent figure is reasonable and compares well with other countries and, secondly, there are still within it groups where the registration rate is not, by any stretch of the imagination, satisfactory; and I believe that there is an obligation to address these issues.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, it is very helpful to have this information from the Minister, but the real point is that it is not what the overall level of registration is, or what the level of registration within groups of the population is; it is what the variation is in the level of registration between constituencies. It is constituency sizes that you are trying to equalise on the basis of these registration figures, and 91 per cent overall could easily hide a difference between 80 per cent at the lowest and 99 per cent at the highest.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It follows on from what I have said that I have implicitly acknowledged that point, because clearly there are some constituencies where the kind of groups that I have indicated have a lower registration rate tends to be more concentrated. To be fair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, alluded to the information on that from the reports from the Electoral Commission that have been referred to.
Lord Lipsey
The noble and learned Lord says that it is possible on the basis of knowing what groups are in which constituencies to make a pretty good estimate of the percentage of registration in each constituency. It would be helpful if he published for the House a document setting that out, so that we can see what the variance is. It is not on the variance that these equalisations will happen; it is on the basis that they are all plumb right.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hope that there is no dispute between any parts of the House that it is important that we try to improve voter registration, and I can assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the electoral register is as accurate and as complete as possible. That is why we are taking forward and progressing towards individual registration. I know that the noble and learned Lord agreed that we were taking along what had been set in motion by the previous Administration, although I understand that there are disputes about that on his own Back Benches. In addition, we are introducing measures such as data-matching schemes to help local authorities gain as complete a picture as possible of eligible voters in their area.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made reference to the census. It was a helpful suggestion. In a previous incarnation in Scotland, I had some ministerial responsibility for the census, and I am only too aware of the sensitivities attached to that. I rather suspect that the Office for National Statistics has thought about the degree to which it would be practical to mix the census with another exercise and the effects that that could have. I do not have the information to hand on whether the ONS has made that analysis, but I would nevertheless be happy to look into that issue. It might also be possible, although I cannot give any definitive answer, for the information from the census to inform us in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, indicated, there are sensitivities about data protection, but perhaps it may be possible for that information to be available for informing further efforts to improve voter registration.
I confirm that we are piloting data matching between electoral registration officers and public authorities to identify people who are not on the register and target them for registration. We have just run a process for applications and the pilots will occur next year. I say to the noble and learned Lord that the boundaries have always been drawn on the basis of the register, and, as he correctly pointed out, the review date will be in two years and 10 months. As the report is due on 1 October 2013, the review date would be 1 December which has just passed, which, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would be too late. However, I hope he will agree that it is not too late to try to encourage people to get on to the register for the purpose of voting in the referendum and in the other elections which are due to take place next year.
I also make the point to the noble and learned Lord that, if his amendment were to be carried and the next election in 2015 were held according to a register where the review date was some 10 years ago, the distortion might be even greater. I also point out that, under the Bill, we are seeking to have a review every five years. That would allow us the opportunity every five years to improve and, it is hoped, to take advantage of the improvements to which we are committed and which I know the Administration of which he was a member subsequently supported. My noble friend Lord Rennard paid proper tribute to the work that was done by the previous Administration to try to increase voter registration with a rolling register. These are worthwhile initiatives and we want to continue with them.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When will the first boundary review take place based on individual registration statistics?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
According to the terms of the Bill, I think that the second boundary review will report on 1 October 2018. The noble and learned Lord indicated that there were difficulties involved in rushing registration and we have taken that on board. However, I cannot be absolutely certain about the extent to which that will be fully fed in for the report that comes out in 2018, with, I think I am right in saying, a review date of 1 December 2015. I hope that my arithmetic is correct. We hope to make substantial progress with individual registration ahead of that date.
I hope to reassure the Committee that this is an important issue and that that is how the Government are treating it. We have put in train measures to try to increase voter registration but we do not believe that that should be a precondition for the introduction of the alternative vote system. However, I believe that such an increase is absolutely right in its own terms and that we should make a concerted effort to improve voter registration, not least so that those who are entitled to vote get the opportunity to do so in future elections and, indeed, in a future referendum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his response to my amendment. It was gracious and detailed and dealt with the issue. Perhaps I may draw out a number of the points that he made. First, he said—in my view, rightly—that there is an obligation to address these issues. He said that he regarded it as right in its own terms that this issue is addressed, by which I take him to mean that, irrespective of the Bill, it is something that needs to be done. I have not noted his precise words on this but he also accepted that it is an important issue because it effectively disenfranchises the groups on which I think we agree—that is, those in the private rented sector, those in the BME community and young people. That is why it is important.
In effect, he confirmed that, as the Electoral Commission said, we are getting a registration level of 91 to 92 per cent, which means that about 8 to 9 per cent are not registered. Therefore, there is no dispute in relation to the position.
He made a point which had not occurred to me but which seems important—that a review two years and 10 months before the effective date means that the relevant date is 1 December 2010. That means that, if you want to make a difference to electoral registration, you need to move the review date a year forward at the very minimum to make it worth while.
The point that the noble and learned Lord did not deal with is that if, like me, he accepts the importance of dealing with these points, why is this not the obvious Bill in which to do it? If he is serious about dealing with these points, it is obvious that something else is required. The points he relied on to start with—for example, that the electoral registration officers have a duty and the Electoral Commission have an obligation to set a standard, the two particularly good points he relied on—are not only not improving the position but would appear from the comparison between the 1991 position of 7 to 8 per cent, and the 2001 position of 8 to 9 per cent. They are not to be leading to an improvement and therefore something else is required.
The coalition has taken the view that it would be wrong to introduce AV without first having equalised the constituencies. Why do the coalition regard the equalisation of the constituencies as more important than trying to get a substantial proportion of that 3.5 million who are not registered on the electoral register?
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his place. I regard him as the public face of the coalition’s defence of this particular Bill. It is hard to imagine a more attractive and handsome public face. What he says in response to practically any complaint about this Bill, and what we are focusing on, is fairness and fair votes. Surely it is fair to the people who are not registered—3.5 million of them—that they get on to the electoral register?
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his full answer, which was a genuine response to what I have said. I will come back with an amendment like this on Report which, because of what the noble and learned Lord has said about the review date, to be meaningful has to give enough time for the coalition to make improvements in relation to it.
Remember that what I am asking for is not a complete and accurate register in every respect but simply a conclusion from the Electoral Commission that it is satisfied, in substance, that all efforts have been taken to get as many people as possible on to the electoral register.
I will not, therefore, press my amendment tonight but I will come back, taking into account the points that the noble and learned Lord made in his response.
Lord Lipsey
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asks a very reasonable question. My understanding is that it is a common provision in the context of a power to commence primary legislative provisions by order. It only allows a limited provision to be made where it is genuinely necessary for the purpose of commencing the AV provisions, and the transitional saving power cannot be used to amend either the Bill or any other piece of legislation.
It was included simply to provide for unforeseen circumstances which might affect the implementation of provisions in the event of a yes vote. As the noble Lord and, indeed, your Lordships may be aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and recommends that the power in Clause 8(4), the one which the noble Lord seeks to delete, should be subject to negative procedure. We have noted the concern of the committee that this power might enable the Government to determine which form of voting system should apply in the case of a particular parliamentary election.
Lord Lipsey
The noble and learned Lord has sent this particular noble Lord home happy for Christmas. At last we have changed the Bill in some small regard. I am very grateful to him for his open-mindedness and his very clear explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wish to speak to Clause 8 because I am worried that a certain portion of the House—essentially, the Cross-Benchers—is unaware of the fuller implications of what we are doing. I want to address my remarks primarily to them during the course of this debate. Clause 8 deals with actions that the Government must take following the result of the referendum, a referendum that is based on a simple majority. A simple majority vote is what the Government argue is their way of respecting the will of the people. I quote those words “respecting the will of the people” because they were the words that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used in his response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
I go back to 13 per cent. That is hardly what I would call the will of the people. I would argue that that not being the will of the people, the Government should—the Bill says “must”—take certain actions in this clause. I would argue that they should not take those actions. I argue that that 13 per cent figure is particularly relevant—we are back, essentially, to a threshold debate—because last week I had conversations with various electoral registration officers in the north-west of England, and from the conclusions that I drew as a result of those debates it is quite obvious that when the referendum takes place in various parts of the country next year, there will be some very low turnouts indeed. I cite the case of Manchester City Council because its elections in 2007 broadly reflect the results coming from a stream of cities in the north-west of England. Liverpool, Burnley, Preston and all the cities around that area broadly had the same turnouts in their local election campaigns. I will refer to a return that was sent to me by Manchester City Council for the elections in 2007.
The relevance of this to the Cross-Benchers is this; I believe that most Cross-Benchers have had no experience whatever of turnouts in elections. The closest that most Cross-Benchers in this House will ever have been to an election is voting in one. They will never have canvassed, they will never have been members of political parties, and their knowledge of these matters will be very small indeed. I draw the Cross-Benchers’ attention to some turnout figures so that when they read the record of the debate, they will understand what happens in these inner city seats—seats that will form part of the national results. It takes only 50.1 per cent of the return in these seats actually to win the referendum.
I will not name the seats in Manchester, but I will go through some of the turnouts: 24 per cent, 21 per cent, 23 per cent, 22 per cent, 27 per cent, 16 per cent, 29 per cent, 28 per cent, 21 per cent, 27 per cent, 20 per cent, 29 per cent and 17 per cent. Let us remember that it needs only half of these turnouts in terms of cast votes to decide in favour. They will in effect approve the biggest constitutional question, in what I think were the words of Mr Clegg, for the last 180 years. I shall go on: 24 per cent, 29 per cent, 25 per cent, 21 per cent, 21 per cent, 21 per cent, making an average of 27 per cent. Those are very low turnouts indeed. I cannot see how it is possible to justify changing the law on such a major constitutional issue on the basis of low turnouts on this scale.
If I translate those turnouts into the votes that are actually required in Manchester City, a city of a third of a million people, on an average turnout of 27.7 per cent you need only 13.85 per cent of the electorate to approve the referendum. It means that the votes alone of 42,580 people in Manchester, a city of a third of a million people, would determine the result of whether people were in favour of the change in our electoral arrangements to AV. I do not believe that 42,000 out of a third of a million people in Manchester could in anyone’s language be described as the will of the people being exercised in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It is far too low a figure.
I have spoken in the debate on clause stand part because I hope that when the Cross-Benchers, who I maintain again have no experience whatever of being engaged in political activity, consider this statistic alone, it might give them pause and make them wonder whether it might now be appropriate to introduce a threshold. Despite what was said in the House of Commons, the reality is that this matter was hardly debated at the other end. There was no great debate because of the way House of Commons business is conducted these days. I hope that the statistics I have produced will get through to those whose judgment may be influenced.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this clause is at the heart of Part 1. In my submission, there are two things that one needs to focus on. First, it is to be a compulsory referendum in the sense that the Minister is required to introduce the new AV system without any protection against a low turnout. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that we would trust the view of the people in that respect, but the difficulty about that is that he did not address the argument put repeatedly and effectively that where you are dealing with significant constitutional change, most systems, including ours, build in protections against change that does not have adequate political and popular support.
This is a constitutional change that does not have the support of Parliament or, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said in the course of the debate, that of any political party. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to address the fact that in this way you could have constitutional change that is supported by 13 per cent of the population but is not supported by Parliament or by any political party. Most people would regard that kind of change as easier than normal legislative change, so will the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, address the argument by saying more than simply, “We trust the will of the people”? Some thought must have been given to that matter. He looks bewildered—as he often does in relation to the Bill—but if he can do no better than that, the House will draw its own conclusions. If his argument is no better than that, he should say so.
The second point about this provision is that the coalition has decided that before AV is introduced the constituencies should be equalised. This is presumably because it takes the view that it would be unfair to have a new electoral system if there is unfairness in the size of constituencies. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has made the point that they are trying to achieve fairness. However, it is obvious that, as the majority of constituencies in this country will be redrawn, it will be unfair to constituencies if they are redrawn on an inaccurate electoral register.
In answer to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Government have produced figures setting out the discrepancy between constituencies in who is on the electoral register and who is over 18. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is nodding sagely and I express our gratitude, on behalf of the nation, for his openness in providing that information. The information repays looking at. Take the north-east of England, for example. In the City of Durham 12,714 people over 18 are not on the register in a constituency in which about 67,000 people are registered; in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, 12,164 people are not registered in a constituency in which about 66,000 are registered. In Manchester Central, 11,820 people are not registered in a constituency in which 78,000 people are registered; in Bradford West, 15,885 people over 18 are not registered in a constituency of approximately 65,000; in Sheffield Central, 60,000 people are registered and approximately 24,000 are not registered; in Leeds North West, approximately 68,000 people are registered and 17,528 are not. Which is the greater unfairness: that the constituencies are not equalised or that these numbers of people are not registered? Interestingly, these people are in constituencies with significant numbers of people in the private rented sector or in BME communities.
Surely the right course for Clause 8 is to ensure that both conditions are met before AV is introduced. It would make a difference because it would provide a drive for electoral registration that has not previously occurred.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is not the interesting factor governing the statistics introduced by my noble and learned friend that they are primarily Labour seats?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It had not occurred to me that they were Labour seats. I hope that the House will address these issues on the merits of the argument. However, it would not surprise me that they were Labour seats because these tend to be in areas where the poorest—the BME communities, the private rented sector and students—live. If I had thought about it, that would probably have been the answer, but so what if they are Labour seats?
Lord McAvoy
My noble and learned friend complimented the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, on being open and on making the figures available. He did not quite make them available; he produced them only after a Parliamentary Question was put down. He did not for the sake of being helpful to all concerned put down figures for the whole of the UK by country. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton requested the figures for England; I have asked in a Written Question for the same figures for Scotland, so that I may make the same comparisons. The fact that the Government have not exactly rushed forward with the figures suggests not that they were hiding them but that they were not contributing to a wholly informed debate on people missing from the register.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I had not spotted that the figures did not include Scotland; we had the information for Wales. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was not asked about Scotland, which is why he produced figures only for England and Wales. He is in his place, but does not tell us. I do not know why he did not produce figures for Scotland. It would obviously be worth while to see them. I am sure, knowing the noble Lord as the Committee does, that he would be very willing to produce the Scottish figures. I am not sure whether the Front Bench are nodding or shaking their head. It would be good to see the Scottish figures. No doubt they will be produced in answer to my noble friend.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to press my noble and learned friend. The relevance of the figures being for Labour seats is that many people believe that it is why the Government are relatively indifferent to the problem.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not know why the Government are behaving in this way. It does not matter to me whether they are Labour or Tory seats. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was absolutely clear—I accept his sincerity in this respect—that he was indifferent to the political hue of the seats and that this was the matter that needed to be dealt with. This is the way to deal with it. That is why the answers that have been given are so surprising. I hope that, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is answering, which I deduce is the case because he floated to his feet before I had an opportunity to make my speech, he will deal with that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am deeply grateful to the Government Chief Whip for providing this extra time for us to debate Clause 8. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Deben—the artist previously known as John Selwyn Gummer—is here, even though he has moved conveniently to another part of the Chamber. He was concerned that some of us—although I have been here for five years now and have become sort of institutionalised in this place; the noble Lord joined us relatively recently—had imported habits from the other place. I shall try to explain to him and others why some of us here who were in the other place—in my case, it was for 26 years; a number of other Members were there even longer—are deeply concerned about what is happening. This clause is the fulcrum, as someone said earlier, of that.
Perhaps I can explain it better another way. I go around now to different countries as a member of the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We talk to it about the Westminster system, our system of democracy and control, and the way in which we have checks and balances and parliamentary control of the Executive. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza—I call her my noble friend—was on the board with me for a number of years, and prior to that, and played an excellent role. She will remember all our discussions.
If the Bill gets bulldozed through, can we still go around to these countries and say that we are the greatest democracy in the world, the epitome of democracy, and that this Westminster system is the one to be held up for others to follow? We saw the Bill of 300 pages hugely amended in the House of Commons—I do not think that it was 300 pages when it started—with lots of amendments put down, lots of clauses never properly scrutinised, and great faith put in the drafters, the civil servants. After five years working with civil servants, I am always very cautious about putting total faith in their drafting, but no doubt Ministers think otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has put down dozens of amendments in this House which are going to have to go back; huge changes have taken place. The Bill was guillotined in the Commons. They did not consider it in every detail. They did not think: is this right, what are the implications, are there any unintended consequences to this, are there any implications for anything else that we are doing? They did not consider whether there were any implications for fixed-term Parliaments and reform of the House of Lords, as I said in an earlier debate. They did not consider that. Now there is the suggestion that we are not going to be able to consider it properly here. If that is the case, it will have gone through two Houses of Parliament without proper, detailed consideration.
Take other countries, such as the United States of America. It is not perfect in any way, but it has two democratically elected chambers—the House of Representatives and the Senate—the President taking part in terms of legislation, while the Supreme Court provides an opportunity to consider whether there is anything that infringes the constitution of the United States. We do not have those checks and balances here; we are rushing the Bill through.
Lord Rooker
Has my noble friend ever seen the preposterous way the Americans draw their boundaries?. We can lecture them on the way we draw our boundaries, both now and after we have passed the Bill. My noble friend should not pray in aid the American way of doing things as better, because the way they draw their boundaries is nothing short of a scandal.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend has had a lot more experience than I have. I accept his point in relation to drawing boundaries compared with the way we do it now, but if we pass the Bill and there are no hearings, I do not think I can be proud and pleased that we are doing it the best possible way. I am not saying that the US is perfect. There are other countries that can be prayed in aid.
We are pushing the Bill through. We have, in this clause, an Order in Council; some people outside believe that the Privy Council is some kind of democratic organisation, a bastion of democracy. My noble friend Lord Rooker will have been at many meetings of the Privy Council. I have only been at one, but it certainly did not seem to me to be any kind of bastion of democracy.
I am really concerned at the way the Bill is being pushed through without proper consideration. I say this honestly, and I know that a number of Conservative Members have heard me say it again and again: if the Bill goes through unamended in substance, I think that they are going to wake up, in a few months’ time and say, what on earth—I was going to say something else—have we let ourselves in for? I think that there will be some deep regret.
Finally, in relation to what we were discussing earlier—the electorate and whether we draw the boundaries based on those who are registered, or those who are eligible to vote—I can tell the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this morning, to be helpful, I put down an amendment to page 11, on the interpretation of the “electorate” for the purpose of the Bill, which would take account of that. This was just to show that on this side of the House, we can be helpful. I hope that, eventually, we will get some more help from the Government.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this Bill is a vision of simplicity and clarity. It provides for a referendum on a voting system. If the answer is yes, it should apply at the next general election and there should be fewer MPs and different boundaries. That simplicity should be able to unite us all. Yet in the words of the noble and learned Lord, I am utterly bewildered by the arguments put forward by noble Lords opposite. They complain that there might be a low turnout yet they support amendments that are likely to make the turnout lower by not having the referendum on 5 May. My position is at least as arguable as the noble Lord’s.
The noble and learned Lord said, “Don't argue. We should trust the people”. I think “trust the people” is one of the most important and significant labels that we have in this country and indeed in western democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, prayed in aid the western foundation for democracy. What is the western foundation for democracy if it is not to trust the people? Yet with every single amendment noble Lords are saying, “Don’t trust the people. They may not come out and vote. If they do come out and vote and they say yes they are probably wrong. Only we can decide”. What is even more bewildering is that the Labour Party voted one way in the House of Commons and another in this House. No wonder I am bewildered. What is happening is bewildering.
The charge is that we are bulldozing this Bill through, but we are about to start the seventh day in Committee and we have not yet agreed Clause 8. The House of Commons dealt with the Bill in five days in Committee. It had significant votes on every single aspect of the Bill at some stage. The Bill has been given more time and more consideration in both Houses than most of the Bills produced in the past 13 years.
Lord Soley
The noble Lord is labouring this for another reason. Does he bear in mind that his own Members in the House of Commons complained about lack of time? Not only did they complain about the lack of time, they also produced evidence from Conservative councils about lack of time. Does he also understand the crucial point here is that this is a constitutional Bill? We have a situation where a Government are changing the composition in terms of numbers of the House of Commons without either an independent assessment first or the agreement of all the parties. That is what makes the Bill much more serious than he is pretending at the moment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the noble Lord not recognise that Conservative Members of the other place are asking us to block the Bill because of AV? They are asking us to block the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that some Conservatives oppose the Bill. Indeed, many oppose AV. But the noble Lord, Lord Soley, says that there is no agreement among the parties. Is that not partly why we are having a referendum? The fact is that the Labour Party is divided. The leader of the Labour Party says that he is in favour of AV and he has pledged his party to be in favour of AV yet we know that that there are many Labour politicians who are opposed to AV, like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Leader of the House says that he is not bulldozing this through, but he says that only in terms of time. He has accepted none of the amendments, many of them sensible. He shows no prospect of accepting any in the future. His leader is packing this House with 50 more coalition Peers to get this through. He calls them in from the hinterlands and backwoods to vote us down on every occasion. If the Leader of the House showed any flexibility or willingness to take on board some of the things that we said, I would take back what I said about bulldozing the Bill through.
Lord Strathclyde
We will have to agree to disagree on almost every single aspect of what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said. We are not in favour of thresholds. We are in favour of having a referendum on 5 May. The noble Lord disagrees with us. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, shaking his head. He is not in favour of having a referendum on 5 May, which is why he and his party have consistently supported amendments which oppose that.
It is widely known what this clause does. It provides for when the alternative vote provisions will either take effect or be repealed, and it is carefully worked out what all the provisions do. Subsection (2) provides that if there are not more yes votes than no votes in the referendum, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions. The two policies are included in this Bill because they are both crucial issues relating to how people are elected to the other place. This referendum will, for the first time, give voters a say in how they elect their MPs and the boundary proposals will mean fairer and more equal constituency boundaries can be put in place for a general election in 2015. Both these policies went through another place with clear majorities, and I very much hope that this clause will stand part.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the noble Lord really believe that 13 per cent of the vote can be described as the will of the people?
Lord Strathclyde
I am afraid that I lost a long time ago where this 13 per cent figure came from. It might have come from the noble and learned Lord at some stage.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It came from my noble friend Lady Hayter, who is sadly not in her place, who proposed a 25 per cent threshold, which with extreme enthusiasm the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rejected. When asked whether he was therefore happy that 13 per cent could lead to the change, he said, “Yes”. That is where it came from.
Lord Strathclyde
Are we not just building one hypothetical proposition onto another?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Thresholds deal only with a situation where the vote is that low. If it is higher than that, you never rely on the threshold.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord says this is hypothetical. I have read out to the House a whole series of statistics from Manchester City Council showing that it is unlikely that it will be more than 13 per cent, based on the historic record of the elections in 2007. How can he call it hypothetical? That is what is going to happen.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I really do not think so. All the evidence points to the fact that considerably more than 13 per cent of the people will vote because we are having a referendum on 5 May, when so many other elections are taking place across the United Kingdom. That is the point. It is not just a referendum in Manchester; it is right across the United Kingdom, where no doubt the turnout will be average. But we fully expect there to be a reasonable turnout.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I reassure noble Lords that it is not my intention to divide the House at this hour, but my intention may well be to divide the House on Report on this amendment. It simply tweaks the supplementary vote system whereby, instead of using two Xs, it requires the use of numbering of first and second preferences on the ballot paper. I have tabled it as a probing amendment to establish whether the Government accept that my wording meets the high standards of legislative language that the law would require if the Bill were passed with those words included within it.
A fair criticism of my amendment is that it reflects my unyielding persistence in belief in, and pursuit of, a credible electoral system as an alternative to first past the post. That is true, because I remain deeply concerned about the system which the Government have used, the Queensland AV system—the optional multipreference voting system. The advantage of this proposal is that while it might look like the supplementary vote, it is not a classic supplementary vote. You can call it the alternative vote. It gets around the language references to AV already embodied in the Bill. For those who have not been present during the course of our many references to SV and to how the system would work, for ease of reference, I refer them to col. 194 of House of Lords Hansard of 8 December. I would be ill-advised at this time of the evening once again to set out the case for my proposed system. However, I would refer the House to the contributions of Mr Christopher Chope, the Member for, I think, Chichester or Chislehurst.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Member for Christchurch, in the House of Commons, who was supported by Eleanor Laing, Greg Knight, James Clappison and Robert Syms. He stated:
“I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert ‘but no preference beyond the second may be indicated’.—[Official Report, Commons, 19 /10/10; col. 837.]
He went through the use of a numbered system. I hope that the noble Lord in reply can simply clarify the position as to whether the language that I have deployed in this amendment, if it were enshrined in the Bill, would be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What the group does is bring into the Bill both the federal Australian system, which is that you have to use all your preferences, and it also brings in the SV system, which is the one used in London. It goes back to the question as to what is the best AV system to use. The Government have made a choice as to what they think is the best AV system, which is one where you have the right to use a number of preferences, but you do not have to use them all. The second option is the one used in the federal system in Australia where you have to use them all and the third option is the one used in London which is where you identify the top two candidates from first preferences and then you divide all the second preferences from the other candidates between those two candidates. As I read the group—although the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is shaking his head—it seeks to put in those two systems.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On the ballot paper, instead of putting two crosses, as you do under the London system at the moment, you would put one and two. That is the only difference. But at least it looks like the alternative vote for those who are obsessed on the other side of the House with that system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Does the drafting work? Is it appropriate? Why is it not in there? These are the questions for the Government. It might not necessarily be in the form or in the shape that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, put it, but as an alternative that the Government can select, after a proper consultation. Ultimately, one way of dealing with this issue would be for there to be a simple referendum on replacing first past the post with AV. Assuming that there was a yes vote—ignore the complications that we talked about earlier on—choosing which of the three systems was best could be done by the Government. There could still be compulsion in introducing AV, but there could be a proper debate with the public and in Parliament as to which is the best system, rather than the way it is done at the moment, which is that the Government have selected a particular system of AV, about which there has been no consultation and no explanation to the public. There are two questions. First, is the drafting right? Secondly, why not incorporate in the Bill the three options and allow Parliament to decide after a public consultation which is the best?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I appreciate the fact that, in introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that he did not wish to re-rehearse the issues on the supplementary vote, which we have already been through. Was it on day three of Committee? He gave us the Hansard references. Indeed, I do not want to rehearse again the reasons why the Government do not support the supplementary vote for the purposes of the Bill that were outlined by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I do not think that the House would welcome being detained at present.
We believe that the noble Lord’s amendments would limit voters’ choice in expressing preferences for the candidates who would be standing for election, as they would be able to express a preference for only two candidates. Our preference, if I may put it that way, is that there should be more optional preferences that can be exercised by voters without any compulsion to vote for each candidate.
There is clearly a difference of view about the type of system that should be used. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that it was not the classic supplementary vote but perhaps the supplementary vote with cosmetic—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The supplementary vote, but tweaked. That does not commend itself to the Government, who have indicated that their wish is for the system that I understand goes under the term optional preferences. The noble Lord has indicated that he is not pressing his amendments, but I have no doubt that we will return to this.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister did not deal with my central question and the reason why I moved the amendment. In terms of legislative language, is it in good order?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Certainly not in order to achieve the objective that we as a Government wish. No doubt, however, it would achieve the objective that the noble Lord wishes. If he has any suggestions about the drafting of other options, we would be happy to hear from him. Still, so far as I am aware, the amendment would probably achieve what the noble Lord wishes to achieve but certainly not what the Government wish to achieve.
Lord Campbell-Savours
At this stage, on the basis of the response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) Where a voter marks a ballot with a cross against the name of a candidate, that cross shall count as if the voter had placed the number 1 opposite the name of that candidate.””
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who is sorry that she cannot be in her place at this stage of the evening. I was rather amazed to have had an impact with my previous amendment and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this one.
It is a perfectly simple amendment. It does not go to the heart of the Bill, the core of the coalition agreement or anything like that. It simply says that if someone marks just one preference when they go into the polling booth and, instead of putting 1, they mark it X, that should count. I do not want to labour the point because I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, nodding encouragingly. We are in agreement on a lot of things here—we want the maximum number of valid votes in the referendum, as does he—so it is good from that point of view.
Lord Rooker
I do not understand this. My noble friend is a supporter of AV. Those of us who have been in the other place—that is, those who have been to an election count, and I do not know whether my noble friend has—know that, under the present first past the post system, if someone puts a 1 against a candidate, that counts as a vote because it is a clear indication. So it is bound to be the case under AV that if you put an X against a name, it will count as a vote; the normal rules allow for that.
I thought that the idea of this was to persuade people to use second choices. This is where the con comes in of it being the “optional” AV system. There will be a campaign out there of people saying, “You don’t have to bother with all these numbers—just put an X against my name”. That is what it is all about. The argument that AV gets rid of tactical voting is fraudulent, as I hope my noble friend will admit.
Lord Lipsey
I enjoyed listening to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made under the guise of an intervention, but I am making a perfectly narrow point. In the Bill as drafted an X would not count, and under the amendment that I would like to make an X would count. I must say an X is about the only bit of our electoral system that is truly traditional. It goes way back to the times when many people could not write numbers. First past the post is not the only system that has been in use in Britain. If you look back to the last century there were the university seats and two-member seats in the cities. Nothing else is traditional except the use of X. I am here in the guise of a traditionalist trying to preserve the tradition of the X. The final thing I would say is that, although most people have no difficulty with 1, 2 and 3, older voters and others have perhaps become accustomed to a certain way of casting their vote, and I do not think there is any need to force them to change their mind if they just want to put an X in the right place.
I do not think this amendment will benefit the cause that I hope to see prevail at the election when it comes. People who use X may well not be the best informed voters, and certainly the best informed voters will vote for AV, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, may say. It may not benefit my cause but I do think it is a democratic advantage to allow an X and I cannot see any argument why not.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will find it possible to accept this amendment. It does seem to be eminently sensible in that people have been putting Xs on ballot papers for a very long time and it is conceivable that they might continue to do so. I am not totally reassured by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that there is all this flexibility among returning officers. You might not find that this flexibility is there. I would be more comfortable if this was in the Bill and it was made absolutely clear that an X was just as valid as a 1 and vice versa. This is a very sensible amendment which all sides of the House should feel very comfortable about supporting.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have to say to my very good and noble friend Lord Lipsey that I am totally and unconditionally opposed to this amendment. It completely undermines the intention behind those who are pursuing this legislation and indeed this system. It defeats the objective. If all the elector has to do is put a cross on the ballot paper, under this system it will invite precisely what has happened in Australia, which was referred to in that article by Rallings and Thrasher which I drew to the attention of the House a couple of weeks ago. They talk in Australia about people plumping. If you allow people just to use an X on the ballot paper, as my noble friend has said, canvassers—in particular Liberal Democrat canvassers, who are always masters of tactical voting—will go from door to door saying, “Don’t worry, don’t bother, we know it’s complicated. All you have got to do is put an X against the candidate you want”, completely undermining the system. I am surprised my noble friend did not see this problem inherent in the system when he decided to move this amendment. I do hope that the Government do not fall for this one, because if they do and then say that they have started to be flexible by giving way on amendments, that is not the kind of flexibility—
Lord McAvoy
Does my noble friend not realize that he has a problem with the language he is using? He spoke about “allowing” the voters to put an X. “Allowing” is strange language to use. They are going to force voters to vote a certain way or somehow they are invalid, undemocratic or they just do not count. “Allowing the voters” is strange to me.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Behind my noble friend’s intervention is his support for my noble friend Lord Lipsey. That is what he is arguing when he argues about the word “allow”. My noble friend will want to put his case to the House in support of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I hope the Government will not accept this amendment or anything resembling it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The elegant speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was a powerful argument in favour of the amendment. I was not convinced by the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and of some people who from a sedentary position said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is unnecessary. At all the counts that I have been to, where an X was not used—perhaps a 1, a tick or a signature was used—the votes are counted as doubtful. The candidates and the agents gather round as the returning officer goes through the count of the doubtful votes saying, “Yes, that is accepted” or “No, that is rejected”, and so on. Does that sound familiar to those others who have been candidates? It was certainly my experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is making it absolutely clear that if in this election an X is put on the ballot paper, it should count. It is then beyond peradventure or doubt. It is a clear indication of preference. I might have suggested some other indications of preference, such as a tick or some other indication that the candidate who has the mark next to their name—it could be a cross, a tick or another positive mark, as well as a 1—is the person chosen. I have the greatest admiration for my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He and I have been friends since we were elected together all those years ago and we have worked closely together. I say to him that I do not think it would be the Liberal Democrats but the Tories and us who would go around saying, “Put an X next to our man”, or, as an old friend of mine used to say, “Just put a kiss next to the guy you like”. That is a little old fashioned, although I see the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, likes the thought of it, which gives me some encouragement. I would certainly support it. This reminds me of the old story about people who would come in and sign an X when you said, “Would you sign here?”. I knew someone who put two Xs. I said, “Wait a minute. What’s the second X for?”. He said, “Oh, that’s my PhD”.
Lord McAvoy
I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment. X has been around for a long time—not just in current elections or the past century’s elections. The amendment means that if we allowed people to put an X and everyone knew that, the various people who put ticks, 1s, kisses, sweethearts and all that sort of thing would then know that putting an X is a recognised way of voting. My noble friend is absolutely right about people not being able to read and write. I have my grandfather’s wedding certificate—or his wedding lines, as they are called in Scotland. It says, “Bernard McAvoy: his mark here”. The mark is an X. If it was good enough for him, it will be good enough for me and my noble friend.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which is entirely appropriate. I do not quite follow the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Presumably a candidate could just go around inviting supporters to put a 1 beside their name and leave it at that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is being a modern-day Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whom I remember opposing amendments that had been introduced for the avoidance of doubt on the grounds that there was no doubt to be avoided in the first place. However, in this case the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has raised an appropriate doubt that reflects people’s experiences. The amendment would be extremely valuable for that purpose. There is one other point. Particularly if it is a transitional period, many voters who have not got used to the new system might put an X against a name. If there are a large number of those, it would undermine the legitimacy of the system if all those votes were then discarded.
Lord Rooker
I want to go home, to be honest. I did not realise how serious my noble friend was about his amendment. I know he supports AV, which I do not; I support PR. It is not our job to sow confusion in the ballot system, which is what this amendment would do. The Electoral Commission will spend a fortune distributing leaflets to every dwelling, informing the voters about the change in the system. They will not be talking about using Xs. I gave the example from my own experience. As every ex-Member of Parliament will know from being at a count, it is the indication of a candidate by the voter that counts. The officers have a whole list of charts, showing what you can put on a ballot paper, what counts and what does not. That is how you get your spoilt votes. Not every vote is like it is. The public do not understand this but the system works and I have every confidence in it.
What if the voters put an X against one and, because of all the publicity that has gone on, they put a 2 against someone else? How do you know the X is a 1 in that case? Only an X alone on the ballot paper would indicate a preference for a candidate. That, however, is the very antithesis of what we are trying to do with the alternative vote; it is not my preferred choice but it is a choice against first past the post. I ask the Government not to put this amendment in the Bill because custom and practice dictates, with returning officers, that the vote would count. This would actually sow confusion. Are we going to send back to the other place a Bill that we got from them and say, “By the way, we want you to use Xs.”.? Come on, that is absolutely preposterous.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend did not say that we want to use Xs, just that it might happen that way. My noble friend Lord Rooker says that it is very clear that a returning officer has all these charts, but that is not my experience. I will give him an illustration and ask whether he thinks that this should have been counted as a vote for me. Next to my name—and there is nothing else on the ballot paper—someone has written HMFC. Now, is that a vote for me?
Lord Rooker
No, because no words are allowed. That is part of the rules. A tick will do if it clearly indicates a preference, but words are not allowed so it would not count.
Lord Lipsey
If my noble friend wants to go home, he should not intervene in the debate. If he would care to read new Section 37A(1)(a) in Clause 9(1), it changes the present situation whereby returning officers can take any old mark and says that there has to be a 1, which is all I am trying to change.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
We have a lot of choices for the Government here in what they can do. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly draws our attention to new Section 37A in Clause 9(1), which says:
“A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with … the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference”,
and continues,
“if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s second preference, and so on”.
I understand that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is designed to deal with the situation in which there is only one X on the ballot paper. There is no X, 2, 3 or 4, nor is there X against more than one name. Under the amendment, it would not be possible to count that as a vote in favour or a first preference for the person against whom the X is granted. You would need to be an idiot not to believe that the X against one name and one name only is the first preference.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is an expert in all matters, says that it is perfectly obvious that the returning officer would treat that as voting for your first preference. Well, that would not be consistent with Clause 9(1); I do not have the noble Lord’s experience to know how returning officers might deal with it, but I suspect that some would deal with it in some way and some would deal with it in another way. It seems right that if you put an X against only one name, as your intention is so clear the right course for the Bill is that it should reflect that course. I do not think that the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, quite achieves what he wants because it says:
“Where a voter marks a ballot with a cross against the name of a candidate, that cross shall count as if the voter had placed the number 1 opposite the name of that candidate”.
That does not deal with the situation in which he has X against more than one name or with the situation in which he has put X, 2, 3, 4 or 5, but this is Committee and the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was absolutely clear. It was understood by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, by me and by everyone else in a particular way. I do not accept the actual drafting but I strongly support the intention behind the amendment. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does my noble and learned friend not recognise that it completely undermines the intention behind the introduction of the AV system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—and I respect him greatly on this matter—he overstated the effect of this and I also think that if in 2015 there is a system of alternative votes, some people who have been voting for a very long time might well think that the thing to do is to put an X against their favoured candidate. That should be treated as their first—
Lord Rooker
Look, I can guarantee that somewhere in the current election rules for first past the post, the instructions are that a voter places an X against the name. That is the reverse of this proposal. Yet, if voters put a 1 or a tick which is clearly indicated and is not applied to more than one name, that vote will carry for that person. The cross would count in extreme circumstances and that does not need to be put in the Bill. Doing that would send all the wrong signals to the voters when we are moving away from first past the post.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
There now appears to be agreement that we all want an X against one name only to count as the first preference. The only issue appears to be whether or not one puts that in the Bill or in guidance. If one is changing the system and saying that the way you vote is by marking a 1, I should have thought that the sensible way to do that was by making it clear in the Bill. I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and, above all, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I hope, although I accept that redrafting is required, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who has proved to be a gem, if I may say so, can see that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In response to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has indicated that I might send him home happy. I hope that in the spirit of the remarks I am about to make he will still go to his Christmas retreat a happy man. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the amendment as drafted would not necessarily meet the point, but I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and other noble Lords who have supported him, some clear reassurance.
The amendment is unnecessary because in Schedule 10 to the Bill, on page 294—which I hope we will get to one day—it is stated at paragraph 6(2C) that under rule 47:
“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which … is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but … is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an arabic numeral), shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number (written as an arabic numeral) had been marked instead”.
I hope that that addresses the issue. If there is one X, it will be very clear.
The important point is that the returning officer has discretion to make a judgment as to whether a clear intention has been made. That is why two Xs would not demonstrate a clear intention. I believe that one X would demonstrate a clear intention and that is provided for in the rules.
Lord McAvoy
In the past, I have seen a cross on someone’s name, which has been interpreted as, “We don’t want this one, and I am ruling them out”. Perhaps the situation is not quite as clear as the noble and learned Lord genuinely thinks.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is a matter for the returning officers to determine ultimately whether they believe an intention has been indicated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I thought that the general agreement around the House was that if there is an X against only one name, we want the returning officer to say yes. That is a vote for a first preference. If you are saying that X is okay, but you are leaving it to the returning officer, that seems to be inconsistent. Why not put it in the Bill?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There may have been a misunderstanding. I wanted to make a particular point to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who said that an X had been put through a name, rather than against it. There was a suggestion that in such cases, far from wanting a candidate, the voter did not want them. Those are circumstances where it would be invidious to suggest what would happen. Certainly when an X is marked against a name, it is clear from the provision in the Bill that the vote would be valid.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is concerned —and I understand his concern—that this might lead to undermining the system. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who indicated that if there was a yes vote in the referendum, in the run-up to a general election in 2015 there would be advertising making the position clear. There were indications that that actually happened in the Scottish elections where a single transferrable vote requiring numbered preferences was used.
The night is drawing on but perhaps I may relate one small anecdote. I stood in the first ever European election in the south of Scotland and I have the dubious distinction of being the first person ever to lose their deposit in a European election. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Alderdice will recall that the 1979 European elections in Northern Ireland were carried out on the basis of the single transferable vote, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom they were carried out on the basis of first past the post. A corner of Galloway in the south of Scotland received Ulster TV, on which the advertising encouraged people to use their vote by marking 1, 2 and 3. In several polling stations in that part of Galloway a number of ballot papers were marked with a 1, 2 and 3, although the election was on the basis of first past the post. However, there was agreement that the number 1 on a ballot paper would be accepted as a valid vote.
Let us not underestimate the voters. There will be ample advertising to indicate that the nature of the election will be a preferential vote system. I do not believe that that will undermine the election or that it will give rise to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On the question of undermining, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, consulted his election guru sitting near to him on his right and asked him what he thinks the effect of this would be in terms of undermining the AV system, which he has been advocating so passionately over recent weeks? He is sitting there and has not said a word. It would be very interesting to see whether he is prepared to get up and advocate this when he knows that Liberal Democrats more widely would be opposed to it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I do not think that anyone is advocating this—in fact, the opposite is true. We want to make sure that there is a proper advertising campaign for the system. I hope that I have said sufficient and that what is already in the Bill is enough—that is, if someone places an X against a candidate’s name, the intention will be clear. It will be taken as being the equivalent of putting a 1 and the vote will count.
Lord Lipsey
The Minister is in such a jolly mood that I am reluctant in any way to spoil his anticipation of hogmanay by cavilling at his remarks. However, I should say that the last time a Minister pointed to a schedule to the Bill as being the right place to deal with a certain issue, I read that schedule for the first time and found that five amendments badly needed to be made to it. They now feature on the Marshalled List and will be debated by us in the new year.
I have heard what the noblea and learned Lord has said and I have looked at the schedule to which he referred. I cannot help thinking that there is a bit of a clash between the words in the first part of the Bill and those in the schedule. A helpful way forward—I suggest this to the Minister with due humility—might be if the Association of Electoral Administrators were to write to him and he made available to the House a statement saying that the association would interpret the Bill as it stands with those two provisions in the way that he has suggested they should be interpreted—namely, that a mark against one candidate will be accepted. If he were able to make that small concession, I would happily drop this amendment and not resurrect it on Report.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord is inviting the electoral registration officers to write to me and clearly, if they do, I shall make what they say available. The schedule states:
“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which … is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate”—
I think I would include within that putting an X or even a tick against a person’s name—
“shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number … had been marked”.
I hope that the wording there is clear but obviously the electoral registration officers may wish to clarify that. I suspect that it will be a while before we get to Schedule 10, although perhaps not as long as might otherwise be the case.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble and learned Lord mentions an X or a tick, but would even HMFC in a maroon heart be acceptable?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am very doubtful about that last one but I could not possibly make a decision on it.
Lord Lipsey
I think that the noble and learned Lord would do well to try to get something that nails this point once and for all before we reach the schedule. We have been discussing it for 26 minutes tonight and we can discuss it for another 26 minutes at a later stage, whereas it is well within his powers to deal with it by getting in writing from the appropriate electoral registration officers a clear statement of how they read the Bill. I think that it can be read in two ways, although I accept that his way of reading it is one. With that, and given the hour and the imminence of the festivities, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rooker
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, before we come to consider my noble friend’s amendment, I ought to advise the House that it is customary that we conclude our business at 10 pm, other than by agreement.
I was happy in discussions with the usual channels to agree to the House going until taxis. Taxis is commonly understood to be 10.40 pm. We are now at 11.10 pm and this would be an appropriate moment for the House to draw its proceedings to a conclusion, given the inclement weather, among other good reasons.
I do hope that is going to be the case, and I was rather looking to the government Benches to move that the House now be resumed. It would be very helpful to the House if the government Benches indicated exactly what they do intend, because there are many people at work this evening in the House and we have a number of Members here listening to the debate. The agreement was to taxis; we are now well past that point.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we seem to be getting on very well. Let us just finish the clause.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, this is a fairly corrupt voting system. I am not going to go over the details of what we discussed in the earlier clauses; this amendment essentially deals with the second preference of the losing candidate.
We had a speech earlier on, which may have been from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but was certainly from the Conservative side, which quoted what Winston Churchill had said about the alternative vote and what made it a very false system—that the second preference of the voter who had voted for the least popular candidate was used to create the winner. On balance it looks like you are giving two votes to voters who choose the least popular candidate. You are not giving two votes to the voter who chooses the most popular candidate, or the second most popular candidate, but the voter who chooses the least popular candidate is effectively given two votes.
I do not think that is fair, and we have to address this issue of using AV, which the Lib Dems now appear to love. I have visions. I have been listening today to the debates, which will not get reported, but I cannot wait to watch the television studio performances in March, April and May of the leading lights of the coalition Government as these provisions are dissected by the Paxmans of this world. They are paying no attention to it now—and I am not complaining about that—but who, when it comes to the minutiae, will start to think back and say, “Oh, bloody hell, they raised this in the Lords and we never listened to what they were saying”.
On this one I am giving you another lifeboat; what to do with that least popular vote that looks unfair to the public. Why should someone have two votes? It is clear that the alternative vote can be used to ensure that every voter can influence the results in a way that is not possible under first past the post. I freely accept that it can be used. Under this Bill, however, it is not possible to claim that every voter will be able to do it because it is an optional system. You still have the problem of what you do at the end with the vote that gets transferred.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, the past seven minutes have illustrated to me that people who are obsessed by systems really twist themselves into all sorts of knots because they have a flair for it. My noble friend Lord Rooker certainly has a flair: a flair for hard work, a flair for mastering systems and a flair for coming up with solutions to other people’s systems. Quite frankly, I understood about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what was said, and I cannot fill in a three cross treble line pool or a betting line or whatever it is. I am just not able to do it.
This is what happens when the pro-systems people think that changing the system is the answer to all democracy’s problems. They will twist and turn, go up blind alleys and around corners and all the rest of it. It sounds absolutely brilliant, but despite what my noble friend says, I do not think the average person will understand it.
I have never understood the obsession with PR or AV. The system of first past the post, with whatever imperfections people like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours can show in it, is tried, trusted and people understand it. Once you get into different systems, you have unforeseen consequences. It is okay for folk to say “We’ll legislate for that the next time” or “We’ll iron out that glitch in the system”, but all they do is twist themselves into further knots. The elections to the Scottish Parliament had unforeseen consequences because we had the Leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, wangling away, despite the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, being present, I think, is some sort of administrative role. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.
Alex Salmond was allowed to put himself at the top of each ballot paper—“Alex Salmond for First Minister”. The situation in Scotland was that the SNP did not win the election. Thanks to the daft list system, it finished up with one MSP more than the Labour Party, which allowed it to claim under a convoluted and twisted voting system that it had somehow won the right for Mr Salmond to be First Minister. Not satisfied with that, in the 2004 election the Labour Party made the mistake of indulging its Liberal partners in the coalition—what was a genuine coalition in Scotland, not a collaboration like we have at the moment. They were on opposite sides of the Chamber. But the Labour Party allowed itself to be blackmailed, cajoled—call it what you like. Almost within hours of the election result, the Labour Party at Holyrood had caved in and given the Liberals PR for local government.
They have still got that system until it is changed. The candidates are listed in alphabetical order. My understanding of it is tangled because I kept back from Holyrood. I did not particularly want to get involved in MSP matters, but it affected the political party I am committed to. As far as I can recall—again the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will correct me if I am wrong—the Liberals and others, mainly the SNP, blocked the situation whereby there was a suggestion that the political candidates should be put into alphabetical order within party blocks on the ballot paper. I accept that I am vague on this but I blame the Liberals for everything else so I might as well blame them for this. Folk looked at the paper and said, “There is the Labour candidate and that is the Liberal candidate, so that is who I am going to vote for”, instead of starting at the top alphabetically. The debacle of 2007 was confusing. It was caused by exactly the same proponents of systems rather than democracy and appealing to people.
There was a situation in Rutherglen and Hamilton West where a candidate had been a councillor for four years. She was an outstanding candidate, but she had the unfortunate handicap that her surname began with the letter “O”. She was at the bottom of the ballot paper and she lost her seat. Even the local Liberals felt guilty, which was quite an unusual occurrence. They said to her that they were sorry that she was the one to lose out to the system. What happened was that the Labour Party won two of the three seats in that ward. The Labour candidate who won was a new candidate in the area, a good councillor in his former area, and he is now a good councillor in his current area. But he ended up with almost double the votes that the poor candidate with the surname starting with “O” got, and therefore she lost out to, I think, the SNP candidate, who has also turned out to be a good ward councillor.
What happened there was an unforeseen consequence of this fanatical obsession for tinkering with systems. I shall not persuade anyone who is PR or AV-obsessed, in the same way as they will not convince me, and that is fine, but, given the convoluted nature of my noble friend’s amendment—it is like a Gordian knot—I hope the public will copy Alexander and put a sword through it.
I say to your Lordships’ House—not in a partisan sense but because I genuinely feel it—that these systems do no service to the public: they confuse people; they are for the anoraks. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not win but, when the anoraks start to win and the amendments come forward for AV and for trying to make AV work, you end up in a mess. I am totally opposed to my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has a powerful point, which I shall attempt to put into two sentences. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, is not right; this is not complicated. It may be complicated for the people who count the votes—a point which I expect the Minister to comment on—but it is not complicated for the voter. It is the same as it would have been under the system put forward by the Government—you just put your preferences.
The noble Lord said that when the votes are counted they will be given a weighting. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with AV. It is completely wrong that the winner of an election may be determined—and he used the quote from Churchill that I used—by the least worthwhile votes of the least worthwhile candidate. They may well be votes for the BNP or for an extremist party, but it is wrong that in some cases the outcome should be determined by the second preferences of the bottom candidate. The system put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for addressing this by weighting the votes according to where they come on the list seems a logical answer. Whether it would be workable, I do not know—no doubt we will be told that it would be too complicated for the counting officer, and that may be so—but it illustrates what is so grotesque and ridiculous about the system that is put forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend puts forward an interesting argument. This is an area on which I did some work in 1989 when we were designing the supplementary vote—we called it “weighting”—and a number of the scenarios that we ran through lengthy computer runs were based on a reduced value being given to subsequent votes under the supplementary vote.
I wish to ask my noble friend whether there might be a slight difference between what we were working on and what he was working on. When he moved the amendment, he referred to the value given to these additional preferences being based on the position on the ballot paper. I presume he meant that if a candidate was in seventh position and yet was the third preference of a particular elector, they would have only one-seventh of the value, whereas under the system on which we worked in 1989 they would have one-third of the value. Can my noble friend clarify the position? If he is working on the basis that there are seven candidates and the candidate at the bottom—candidate Peter—is the third preference of the voter but gets one-seventh of the vote for the third preference, I would not be altogether in favour of it. But if it is simply his intention that the first preferences of every voter should have 100 per cent of the value, that second preferences should have 50 per cent, that third preferences should have 33.3 per cent and fourth preferences 25 per cent, there is great value to the amendment.
I understand that a number of academics have also worked on AV and supplementary vote systems since 1989 to establish whether weighting votes in this way would work. The only problem that arises if one does that is that the minority candidates—in this case, the Liberal Democrats say that they would gain more seats under AV—would not gain as many seats. Although AV tends only marginally to be more proportional—it some circumstances, it can be considerably more so—the effect of weighting votes in the way being suggested will be to reduce the likelihood of outsider candidates winning seats.
My noble friend Lord McAvoy was worried about the anoraks. I apologise to him for being one of those rather pathetic creatures, but electoral systems is a particularly interesting subject. It is the sort of thing you go to bed at night thinking about. I welcome the amendment moved by my noble friend and look forward to the response of the Minister.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I very rarely go to bed at night thinking about alternative voting systems, I must confess. Like the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I am a great believer in the first past the post system. It may not be perfect, but I suspect that it is rather better than any other system that anybody might like to introduce. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has to be right. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that, if you want a fairer system, you should do something to make sure that everybody’s second votes under an alternative vote system do not all count for the same and that they are graded.
The problem is that, in its wisdom, the House has decided that we should hold the referendum on the same day as the local elections. I have argued in previous debates that it does not give us a very good opportunity to explain to the country an extremely complex change in our voting system when we are trying to hold local elections and elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly at the same time. I hate to say it to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but to try to explain his even more complex way of doing the alternative vote would take even longer. I suggest that, before we even entertain the idea, we agree that the vote should be held on a different day. I was quite relaxed about the referendum being held, let us say, a month after the local authority elections. If we are going to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, perhaps we need an even bigger gap between the local elections and the referendum, because an awful lot of explaining of this major change in our electoral system will have to be done to the country.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the noble Lord really believe—I am sure that he does not—that the country will even understand AV as it is proposed in the Bill? I have no doubt that 99.9 per cent of the population will not have the first idea how AV works, so this additional little complication will be neither here nor there.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I accept that there will be great difficulty explaining to the country what the implications of the AV vote will be, but that is why the referendum should be held on a separate day. I am convinced that it will be extremely difficult to explain to the country what the AV vote is about. If it is held on the same day as the local elections and all the other elections, it will be virtually impossible. People will not understand the implications of any different voting system if we stick it in on the same day as the local elections. However, that is what the House has decided to do, in its wisdom, and we are therefore in a very difficult situation, making the whole business of what the vote is even more complicated than it was already.
I am just amazed at how calm everybody seems to be in this House, collectively, about allowing the Bill to go through and allowing the referendum to be held on the same day as the local elections, which will fundamentally change the whole way that this country votes, when I think that we mostly agree that people will not really understand the implications of what they are doing when they vote in that referendum.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this is by no means the first time that I have been not asleep at this hour due to the joys of debating the merits of AV and so on, but there is something still more exciting to come, because before the Bill is finished I confidently predict that at one or two in the morning we shall get on to the relative merits of d’Hondt and Sainte-Lague and the three Imperiali largest-remainder formulae, a matter on which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours will no doubt illuminate the House as he has on this. I cannot support, however, the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Rooker any more than he could support the one put forward by me earlier.
It takes me back to the days, the happy days indeed, when I was sitting on the Jenkins committee. We got many, many proposals on the Jenkins committee for various systems of weighted voting. D’Hondt as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with his great knowledge of these matters surely knows, is not a weighted voting system. All the many proposals on weighted voting systems had one factor in common; they were invariably written in green ink and therefore we on the commission did not have to spend as long considering them as we might otherwise.
There are two reasons of substance why this amendment should be rejected. The first is that Churchill’s neat phrase does not reflect the reality in many voters’ minds. It is not true that the most important choice for voters is who they put first and who they put second and they do not care who they put sixth and who they put seventh. If you take my case, in a constituency where there were some serious candidates and towards the bottom of the ones with a chance there was the Democratic Socialist Crosland Labour-affiliated candidate and, on the other hand, the British National Party candidate. I would feel extremely strongly that I preferred the first of those options, whatever I was doing further up the list between those candidates who really had a chance. In reality, there is no way of measuring the strength of people’s preferences, or the amount of thought they have put into them, and it is therefore better to treat all preferences, as AV does, as of equal weight.
The second argument has been touched on and it concerns complexity.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When my noble friend goes into the polling booth and casts his first preference for Labour and he might be tempted to cast his third preference for the Liberal Democrats, is he, in his own mind, giving that third preference the same weight, when he votes for the Liberal Democrat as he would to Labour, his first preference?
Lord Lipsey
It depends on the circumstances in the particular constituency. In my own constituency of Brecon and Radnor, there are very real choices to be made, due to the fact that the Labour candidate, alas, is not a front-running candidate in that seat. That is a choice that I hope to avoid having to make when AV has come into being and I can put my first preference first and then my other preferences in their order without any danger of defeating my preferred second choice by voting for my preferred first choice.
I was going on to say that I think the complexity of the Rooker system and the sheer difficulty of explaining it counts very heavily against it. I do not take the view that voters need to understand absolutely everything about voting systems in order to cast their vote, any more than, when I get into my car and turn the key, I require to know all about how the engine works before I drive off. I need to know certain things, such as how to steer, but I do not need to know how the engine works. There are degrees of complexity and, frankly, the Rooker system would be simply impossible to explain. I do not think many people would buy the explanation that was being given. I am sure my noble friend did not have this even in the back of his mind, but one is tempted to think that a complication of this kind is a well-designed sabotage bomb to make sure that the referendum on AV is lost. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment and hope that the House will not support it tonight.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
One of the advantages of the Leader of the House effectively throwing the Companion to the Standing Orders out of the window is that we have this extra time to contemplate voting systems. My understanding has always been that you think what outcome you would prefer and then choose a voting system to get that outcome. That is why the Liberals have always campaigned and pushed for PR and the single transferable vote, because they want to have more power and influence.
While my colleagues have been talking about the theory, I have been looking at what might happen in practice if we had an election for the leader of the group of Labour Peers on this side of the House. There are five candidates, Campbell-Savours, Falconer, Foulkes, McAvoy, and Rooker. Those were the only five candidates put forward. Alphabetically, Campbell-Savours is number one, Falconer is number two, Foulkes number three, McAvoy number four and Rooker number five. There are 40 electors. Some of them are not here tonight. They are around somewhere and will come in if necessary. If we were to carry out this election under first past the post, the result might be Campbell-Savours 10, Falconer nine, Foulkes eight, McAvoy seven and Rooker six. In that case, Campbell-Savours would be elected and would be our leader. That is the system that we all know. Campbell-Savours would be welcome and we would accept him as our leader and worship him and follow his every lead. He would carry out that leadership with his usual kindness, wisdom and grace.
However, we could have accepted one form of the alternative vote, which from my recollection of what my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Rooker said in previous speeches, is the Australian federal system in which everyone has to vote one, two, three, four, five. Then we might get this result: 10, nine, eight, seven, six on the first vote. Then Rooker is eliminated and all of his votes would naturally go to Falconer. Noble Lords have seen that in the debates that have taken place. Falconer would now be leading with 15 votes. Campbell-Savours would have 10, Foulkes would have 8 and McAvoy would have seven.
Lord McAvoy
Does my noble friend realise that he is starting to give me a bigger headache than my noble friend Lord Rooker?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It will all become clear.
McAvoy is now eliminated. His seven votes are distributed. Four go to Falconer and three go to Foulkes because he cannot quite make up his mind. He is hedging his bets and sees the way the wind is blowing. That leaves 10 to Campbell-Savours—he has not attracted any more votes—19 to Falconer and 11 to Foulkes. But supporters of Campbell-Savours, who is a Foulkes fan, give all their votes to Foulkes, who gets 21 and Falconer only 19. The person who was the third preference is elected. That is the sort of thing that can happen with the alternative vote, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has pointed out on previous occasions.
So my noble friend Lord Rooker has come up with the most imaginative suggestion. It may be complicated for the counters, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said. We do not need to worry about the counters, because that will all be done electronically—and we all know how efficient computer systems are at producing election results. Go back to the Scottish elections of 2007 and you will know how really efficient they are. So we do not have to worry about that. We do not really have to worry about having to explain it to the electorate, because they will just vote in the same way—one, two, three, four, five. It is a much more logical system. I agree with my noble friends who have supported my noble friend Lord Rooker—your second preference should not have the same weight as your first preference, and your fourth or fifth preference should certainly not have the same weight as the first preference. On the basis of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker, he would certainly never get elected on my five choices. I have not had the time yet to work out who would get elected on the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker, but later on—today or tomorrow—I shall be able to give noble Lords the outcome in relation to that.
I do not think that we need to worry about how complicated it is for the counters—
Lord McAvoy
I do not want to sound like an intellectual anorak, although I am probably not in any danger of that, but it does not gel with me when people say that the electorate do not need to know. Surely there is an intellectual and principled basis that the public should own, have knowledge of and fully understand all aspects of any system that elects a political representative.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Absolutely. That is why I do not support this system. The reason I support the amendment is because it makes the alternative vote system look so ridiculous that we come back to first past the post.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, one can only think that this is like Heathrow at the moment. First we are told by the Government Chief Whip that we are going to go on till taxis, then we are told that we are going to do the next amendment—and then the Leader of the House says that we are going to go on to the end of this particular clause. So information is short. I look across at the Benches opposite and am glad to see that Ministers are using the seating to try to get a bit of a snooze in while this debate is going on. I imagine that quite shortly blankets will be produced for people across the Benches.
This is quite an important amendment. The need for it comes from the fact that, as a result of it being a compulsory referendum, you need to resolve issues about how the alternative vote system works. My noble friend Lord Rooker raises the question that your third, fourth and fifth preferences may not be treated with the same enthusiasm as your first and second preferences and he deals to some extent—although he eschews this in what he says—with the problem that your third, fourth and fifth preference may include unacceptable extremist parties. We do not want their second preferences to determine the vote in the election. We have to address this issue if there is going to be a referendum. We have to address it on the basis that, whether or not you like AV, if the AV referendum wins, how we deal with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker will determine how we deal with second, third and fourth preferences.
I can see the intellectual force of the position taken by the great intellectual, my noble friend Lord Rooker, but it seems to me to lead to the following problems. First, it says,
“reallocated … by the proportion of its preference (that is to say if the candidate was ranked 3 then one third of a vote, if ranked 4 then one quarter of a vote and so on)”.
So if there are 12 candidates, as there are in by-elections from time to time, it could go down to as low as one-twelfth of a vote. That is complicated and it leads to the proposition that somebody could win an election by one-twelfth of a vote, because you end up with one-twelfth of a vote being given. If number one and number two are equal and the twelfth candidate’s preferences are given and it is a twelfth for one and none for the other, you win by one-twelfth of a vote. That strikes me as an absurd system of a very high degree of complexity. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has indentified a real problem in relation to AV which has to be addressed in the Bill, because it is a compulsory referendum. We can draw our own conclusions as to whether AV is the right system or not, but this does have to be addressed. While I recognise the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, points out, my own view is that the right course is to go with something that is clear, simple and practical, rather than a system that—
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble and learned friend says that the system is complicated. How would it be complicated with electronic voting? There would be no manual intervention at all. It would all be sorted out by the computer run.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, from a sedentary position, is contemplating whether there is one.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
One of the valuable lessons that we learnt from the previous Government was that new computer systems cost fabulous sums of money and never seem to work properly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not think that we needed the previous Government to tell us that. Nor do I think that all computer systems did not work. I do not know where computer systems are involved heavily in counting at the moment, but I accept the basic proposition that eventually they will be.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I think my noble and learned friend has missed one of the merits of the system. If the canvasser goes to the door and says to the voter, “I’m not asking for you to give me a full vote, but if you just vote for me as your third preference, I will get one third of the vote”, that is actually an incentive for those people who might worry that if they give their third preference weighted at 100 per cent in terms of value, they might actually be interfering with their first preference. I would have thought that that is quite a considerable argument.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It is a matter of saying, “How much do you like me?” and being told, “Not enough to give you the whole of my vote”. The answer could be maybe a quarter, a fifth or a sixth. The candidate says, “Unfortunately, there are only four candidates in this, so you can’t give me a sixth”. I do not think that it is realistic. I recognise the problem, but I do not favour the solution. I described the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, as a gem but what I meant was a pearl.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am not quite sure how to take that. I start by reassuring the House that although I have an interest in electoral systems, I cannot recall ever going to bed thinking about them. I doubt I will even do so tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has put forward a system that would involve some fractional vote. As I read his amendment, at first I thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours understood it, that the second preference got half of a vote, the third preference got a third of a vote, the fourth preference a quarter of a vote, and so on. However, in the light of the comments the noble Lord made on 8 December, his intention may instead be that where there is no winner in the first round of counting, and a further round of counting is necessary, the value of any votes reallocated from the eliminated candidates to the candidates who are still in the count would be determined by the position the eliminated candidate had in the first round of counting. In other words, if the eliminated candidate finished fifth, the value of the reallocated vote would be one-fifth and so on. The fact that there is that dubiety in the amendment—when I first read it, I took it to mean the same as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, obviously did—underlines the complexity that arises.
My noble friend Lord Lamont said that the important thing, in terms of simplicity for the voters, is that they are invited to number their candidates 1, 2, 3 and 4 and, if there is complexity, that is for the counters to work out. If we went down the road proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, there would be some complexity when we were being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman and we were trying to explain where the one-quarter vote and the one-fifth vote came into it. However, I also take the point that the noble Lords, Lord McAvoy and Lord Lipsey, and others made, that although at one level voters are invited to order their preferences as 1, 2, 3 and 4 so far as they wish, there nevertheless is a requirement that they have some understanding. They do not need to know all the complex details, but they need to have some understanding of how the system will work.
The purpose of the alternative vote with the system that we are proposing is that it gives equal weight to votes that are still in the count. That meets the clear, simple and practical tests that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested that there should be. The amendment goes against that; it says that some votes should count for less. Where some would say that people “part company”, I would suggest instead that there is a misunderstanding of the position in failing to make the distinction between a preference and a vote, or in somehow suggesting that if, for the sake of argument, the BNP came last and were first to be eliminated, it would be the second preferences of the BNP’s vote that determined the outcome. In fact, it would be the voters’ second preferences that determined it.
It was said that everyone should have two votes and it is not right that, at the second count, someone has only one vote, whereas the person whose second preference has been transferred has two votes. In fact, at the second count, the person who expressed the first preference and who is still leading has a vote again. The vote still counts as a full vote in the second count.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
How can the Minister describe the situation where, let us say, the BNP voters’ second preferences just push the top person over 50 per cent, as “50 per cent of the votes”, when the other preferences of all the other candidates are ignored? That is not 50 per cent in any meaningful sense.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is the preferences of the votes allocated to those who are still in the count, as it were. If someone has been eliminated from the count, it is not the party’s vote that is being transferred—it is the voter’s preference that is still being allowed to have a value.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I think that the noble and learned Lord has missed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, which is critical to the operation of AV. The noble Lord has hit it right on the head. The additional preferences, the second preferences, of those voters who voted BNP as their first preference, when transferred, could take the top candidate over the 50 per cent threshold and thereby secure the election of that candidate. At the same time all the other second preferences, or whichever preferences, of all the other candidates would be completely ignored. That is the central flaw in the AV system, which is why Conservatives should be opposing it. The only AV system that gets over that problem is the one that I designed—SV. It is built to avoid precisely that happening, because the second preferences are all transferred in one go to the top two candidates, and you avoid all that nonsense. The noble Lord hit it right on the head.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Because of that second count, everyone, other than the person who came bottom the first time, still has their first preference. It is the first preference that counts then, and it may be that the person who came top the first time gets elected or the person who came second takes over. Those people’s first preference will still count. Some people say that you might prefer your second preferences over your first; that is a matter for the individual voter. However, this allows individuals to give their first preference to the party that they actually want to support, and then they can vote for a second preference, a third preference and so on.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Why should it be only the second preferences—those cast as the candidate at the bottom—that are the ones to take them over 50 per cent? Why just those? Why not all the others?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is the way that particular system works. It is the system we have used in this House for electing the Lord Speaker. I do not recall anyone challenging the validity of the system working for that purpose. It is the system that works in Scottish local government by-elections and I have never heard any suggestion that it is perverting the result.
What it could do is potentially dissuade voters from exercising the wider choice that is offered by the alternative vote. If it may be suggested that their subsequent preferences are somehow not going to have any weight at all, they may be deemed to be wasted votes. I would hope there was some degree of consensus that, whatever system you wish to adopt, the idea of having a wasted vote is one we should seek to avoid. By the proposal put forward in this amendment, some votes, if they are down to fractions, cease to have the value which I should like to see—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What if you have wasted a vote and vote for a candidate who does not succeed?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
We could go into the merits of the first past the post system and there are a considerable number of wasted votes for candidates who do not succeed. In some cases it can be up to 40, 50 or 60 per cent of votes for candidates who do not win. Under the present system, anyone who votes for a candidate who wins, which is more than a majority of one, is technically described as a wasted vote, too. We are getting into the debate of the first past the post system against the alternative system. That is a matter for the referendum campaign. We could go round the houses debating the relative merits of the system, as I will do during the referendum campaign, but what I am seeking to do for the purposes of this amendment is to indicate that the reallocated votes of the fractional votes imports a degree of complexity and it means that votes do not have full value in subsequent counts, which would happen under the system proposed in the Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Some Members opposite seem to adjust the rules of the House as we go along. Up till now, when someone has got up the speaker goes down. I will watch it carefully in future.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, used again the election of the Lord Speaker as an example. Previously it was used by his colleagues who also used the election within a party of a leader. These are not party political elections, however, as between parties, as we saw when we ended up with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as the Lord Speaker. Within a party, it is not party political. Surely these are not parallels that can be drawn.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
To suggest that the election of a leader of a party is not political—I understand that it is not party political but maybe it will be factionally political within a particular party and therefore the comparison is apt. Also, as the noble Lord would recognise, Scottish local government by-elections are now conducted on an alternative vote basis and they are very party political.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
They are also eccentric and aberrant in some ways because, if you take a four-seat ward, as we have had recently in Edinburgh, you can get a councillor of one party which managed to scrape one seat in that four-seat ward, he retires but it is the party which got the three seats which manages to get the by-election success because it is the biggest party. So it is aberrant.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is again rehearsing the kind of arguments that we will no doubt exchange in some television or radio studio in the coming weeks and months. I thank him for giving me forewarning of the arguments that he proposes to adopt. With regard to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as I have indicated, we do not favour an approach that would involve a reallocation of votes on a fractional basis. There are practical considerations. Nor, I understand, does the Front Bench opposite. There could be complications for voters in understanding it. I take the point that all the voter has to do is go into the polling station and write 1, 2, 3, 4. Nevertheless, understanding is required. I am not aware of anywhere else that uses the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Therefore, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble and learned Lord is right that I do not support this amendment but he is completely wrong to say that we should not debate the anomalies in the AV system that is being proposed. As we keep saying, this is a compulsory referendum so the system that is being adopted must be subject to rigorous scrutiny to see what its shortcomings and anomalies are. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is making are inevitable when you are looking at the detail of a system.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I decided not to move two earlier amendments today. I wanted to concentrate on the main cause, which is this one and I freely admit is not run of the mill. I came across a reference—only a reference—to the system in a footnote to some text I read recently. I thought it was the solution. One way or another, the central flaw in AV has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It will be incredibly difficult to explain to people.
I am not arguing about the text; I know what I understood and I explained what I wanted. It is the vote for the person who comes last, whether they are third, fourth or fifth, that gets transferred. It is true that that is the only vote that gets transferred. I might be accused of being completely unfair but I look on that allocation as a new vote. The others have not been altered. These are new votes coming into the system. If there were seven candidates, the one coming seventh would be knocked out. I have assumed that the bottom one would be knocked out but sometimes it might be the bottom two. The reallocation of the second choices of the voters who voted for the candidate who came seventh would be new votes for the top six. In a way, it is not the same election. That is what is so unfair about it. Nobody else’s second preference comes into play. As I say, there is an inherent difficulty in this system, which will be apparent only when we come to use it.
Lord Deben
Does the noble Lord agree, therefore, that there is an advantage in being a Monster Raving Loony Party voter? You automatically get two votes. They are two votes because the first was for the Monster Raving Loony Party and the second is for someone else, whereas every other voter has one vote because he does not change it at all. The argument stands constantly, which is why AV is such a silly system.
Lord Rooker
It is inherently difficult when you are asking people to go into the polling station and make their choices on a ballot paper, whether it is an optional system or not, without knowing what the outcome of the first choices will be. This is why the French have a two-round system. You can see what happens and adjust your vote accordingly. You do not get the chance to do that with this system; it is all or nothing when you put your preferences in. All I am saying is that there must be a fairer system than what is proposed. This will fall apart.
I will conclude on this. Examples have been given of the Scottish by-elections. We have not tried this in 600 or 650 constituencies in every part of the country under the full glare and analysis of every local anorak. I am not an anorak; I resent that term, I must say. This system has not been exposed to what will happen in 2015, assuming five years and assuming this system. That is where it is likely to come apart and there will be a backlash. I am trying to put some more fairness in the system. I made the point earlier about the fairness in the constituencies, the equal numbers. It has to be apparent to people that what is proposed is a fairer system—I might argue about the detail, but I agree with that. This puts a bit of fairness into the way the votes are counted under this proposed AV system. It would not be my first choice but it is genuinely trying to put fairness into the system. I am not saying it is perfect and it would be complicated for the counters. If it is done by computers fair enough; it is not a problem but it might be difficult to explain. I have to say though that it is not half as difficult to explain as the paragraphs the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, read out when explaining the Government’s views. I kept thinking, what will that sound like in a television studio?
I can honestly say that I will not be returning to this amendment but I may come back to some of those I did not move. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Beecham
“( ) Any reallocation of votes referred to in subsection (3) shall only occur if the eliminated candidate received over 5% of the vote in the first round or the round before that candidate was eliminated.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, like most of your Lordships I do not go to bed dreaming of the alternative vote. In fact, at this hour and having got up today at 6 am to come here I have rather forgotten what going to bed is like at all.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I am a recent entrant to this House. Unlike him, I was never a Member in another place. I do not find the debates we have had on this Bill, particularly today’s debate, in any way calculated to bring this House into disrepute. It has been a thoughtful, if somewhat protracted debate. Whether the Faustian compact which the parties opposite have entered into might bring politics into disrepute is of course another matter.
One thing that surprised me today—as it has on previous occasions—is the remarkable claim that this Bill is somehow the greatest constitutional Bill ever brought since the Great Reform Act of 1832, which we celebrate in Newcastle by having a statue to Earl Grey who promoted that remarkable piece of legislation. Surely it is not to be compared with the extension of the franchise, first of all to all male voters and then eventually to all women voters, let alone the Parliament Act of 1911 which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, expatiated on with some passion during a previous debate. Nevertheless, we are where we are and we certainly still have much to discuss.
I could not possibly compete with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and his mastery of the electoral consequences of a variety of systems, nor could I imagine acquiring the extensive knowledge that his research has produced. I would however suggest that he slightly errs in saying that Liberals and Liberal Democrats have opposed AV. In fact, 80 years ago this very month an agreement was reached between the then minority Labour Government and the Lloyd George Liberals to bring forward proposals for an alternative vote. I think they were overtaken by rather more dramatic events even than we have experienced recently within a few months of that date. It may have been a different system but it was AV.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who has spoken about theoretical elections among Members on these Benches, will know as I do that the Labour Party has most of its elections conducted on the alternative vote system. Indeed, the use of that system deprived me of the opportunity of joining the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in another place some 35 years ago. I maintained the same vote in three ballots for a selection in Newcastle East, whereas the successful candidate eventually, one Michael Thomas who will be known and remembered fondly by some on the Benches opposite, succeeded in garnering the votes of the unsuccessful candidates. I do not complain about that. In fact, I remain in support of the alternative vote.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
I must inform your Lordships that if the amendment is agreed, I cannot call manuscript Amendment 52AA, by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I can understand the case that my noble friend Lord Beecham is making and it is seductive. However, it removes some of the most desirable features of the AV system, which is designed to produce a much wider choice for voters. That includes, for example, the possibility of voting for a party that really has no chance and which you know will come bottom of the polls, without at the same time wasting your vote. There might be, for example, a local campaigner with a specific goal which you strongly support, but you do not necessarily want to waste your vote entirely by supporting that candidate if there is a danger that it will be eliminated. The amendment means that it is less likely, rather than not likely, that the winning candidate will get 51 per cent of the vote. As we know, under the present system, only a third of Members of the House of Commons received as much as half of their electorate’s votes. We do not have an exact figure as to what that would increase to under AV, but if you said 86 per cent or 90 per cent, you would probably be right. The amendment would reduce that back down again nearer to the present third. For those reasons, I cannot support my noble friend in his well meant amendment.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham but only in the context of where we are with that system. I believe very strongly that the first past the post system should stay and I do not want anyone to say—although, of course, I cannot stop anyone saying it—that supporting the amendment in the context of where we are necessarily means that I am deserting my support for first past the post.
This is a modest amendment. On the other hand, romantic candidates, Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates and the “independent with a cause” candidate can all sound okay but, in a serious parliamentary democracy, is it right that such a small proportion of the vote should be used elsewhere? We are running serious elections for serious and responsible elected positions and, although having the freedom to stand for election and to campaign and so on is an absolute right, I do not think that that type of candidate who polls less than 5 per cent of the vote should be allowed to distort the electoral system and the democratic process. Then again, I keep asking myself why people get involved in that kind of party when it is all a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless, speaking as a realistic politician, I have to say that the amendment is before us and it needs to be discussed. However, if anyone wishes to use their charms on me, I am still willing to be convinced by an objection to my noble friend’s amendment.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey is great to listen to and I admire him. He is a formidable person but I do not think that he came up with any reason why the amendment should be opposed. He came up with an intellectual reason, and it is right and proper that that is aired. However, we have to take the real world into account and I do not think it is right for a party with a small percentage of the vote to distort the vote. In the context of what we are discussing, I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham basically says that, if a candidate gets 5 per cent or less of the vote, the second preference votes for that candidate are not reallocated. I do not think that it necessarily follows that, if you get a low vote, your second preference votes should be any less valid than if you get a higher percentage of the vote. In certain circumstances, one can imagine Green Party candidates, for example, getting a very low vote—well below 5 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, in regarding Green Party candidates as more worthy than those of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, is effectively making a value judgment about parties based only on the number of votes that they receive. It seems to me that it is very difficult to see a logical or intellectual basis for saying that 5 per cent or below is not an acceptable figure. Is there a political argument that says that 5 per cent or less is the sort of figure that extremist parties get? Possibly there is but, again, I believe that in relation to an electoral system it is dangerous to start characterising people whom you do not like as “extremist”. Of course, we all regard the BNP as extremist but there are other parties that some of us would regard as extremist and others would not. Therefore, although I understand the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment, I do not think that it stacks up, so I am afraid we will not support it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I agree with much of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Just because the total is a small figure, there is no reason why the second preference votes should carry any less value. It is also important to reflect, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, that the purpose of a system is to provide a wide choice for voters. Under this system, every vote has equal value and is allocated to the candidate who is ranked highest in the preferences marked on the ballot paper and who is still in the contest. It is only fair to assume that in a second round the person marked as the first preference is the one whom the voter wishes to see come first, and it is important that that vote has full value.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can the Minister help me? I have had a quick look through the Bill and I cannot find any provision, although it is probably carried over from existing legislation, where candidates have to pay deposits and, if they get less than a percentage of the vote, they will lose that deposit. Is that provision still there? If that is the case, I am afraid my noble and learned friend, Lord Falconer, might have to rethink because, if someone is going to lose their deposit, why should the votes be transferred? The threshold for losing the deposit was set at that level for a particular reason. I do not remember when it was set and what the reason was, but presumably it was that the candidate had failed to convince enough electors.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Where you take someone’s deposit away because they get less than 5 per cent, you are in effect “punishing” the candidate for standing because he could not get enough support. You would be wrong to punish the people who vote for him.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble and learned Lord virtually took the words out of my mouth. There is a difference in that, if there is a penalty on the candidate, it does not follow that the penalty should then be on the voter who has in all good faith expressed a second preference. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made the point that it could be a way to penalise smaller parties, or indeed, as he put it, local campaigns. Let us remember that at recent general elections in this country and at a Scottish election in 2003 a candidate opposing hospital closures won. It might not necessarily have been obvious at the outset that these people were going to get far more than 5 per cent, but the fact that they are perhaps not mainstream in no way means that they should be devalued. It may well put people off from voting for candidates who appear to be coming from a local campaign, or let us say a non-mainstream party, if it was thought in some way that the second preference was not going to count. The object, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, is to broaden choice, and I fear that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would not contribute to that broader choice. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this takes us to a wholly new and equally riveting topic: namely, the process of making the results public in the course of an election count.
I refer your Lordships—those who are still awake—to the following:
“If no candidate is elected (as mentioned in rule 45A(2)) at the first stage of counting, the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information … the number of first-preference votes obtained by each candidate … which candidate was eliminated; the number of rejected ballot papers”,
so we will have a very different series of announcements during the course of an election. Obviously what happens now is that the returning officer says what votes everyone has in the first past the post system. We know who has won and who has lost.
On the basis of new Section 45B(1), I envisage after the first round of counting, in which most prospective parliamentary candidates will not get 50 per cent of the votes, that there will be a public announcement in each constituency of where it has got to. I take that from the words:
“If no candidate is elected … the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information … the number of first-preference votes … which candidate was eliminated”,
and so on. The public will therefore know how the vote is going in each constituency and where it has got to. My knowledge of how the system worked most recently was in the Labour Party leadership election when they went through the whole calculation and then announced what had happened at each stage, so there was transparency about what happened at each stage but it occurred only at the end of the process.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Do I understand the noble and learned Lord to be actually suggesting that instead of this being made publicly available, it should be given to the representatives of the candidates so that it can be done by leak?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
A lot of information is given to candidates and their representatives at the moment that is not leaked, entirely legitimately, and not made public. I would like to hear the Government’s position on this.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, these amendments provide that if no candidate is elected at the first stage of counting—that is, if no candidate secures more than 50 per cent of first-preference votes—the returning officer would not make publicly available certain specified information about the state of play at that stage, including the number of first preference votes obtained by each candidate and which candidate was eliminated, but would make the information available to candidates and their representatives only. I have a lot of sympathy with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord King. It would soon leak out, and I think it is far better that it is done publicly.
The clause is not prescriptive, so it is up to the returning officer in each case how he or she will make that information public. The purpose is so that there is transparency. There is no requirement for an announcement to be made, although the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that was recently not moved would have required a public announcement to have been made, and the specified information, which would include the details of the number of votes obtained by each candidate and the candidate who had been eliminated, could well be displayed, for example at the end of each counting stage, in written form or could be relayed on television screens at a count venue.
I was not present at any count on the morning of the last Scottish election because I was in radio studios with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but I understand that at least at one count that my wife attended in Orkney the votes—based on a slightly different system—were being shown on a screen as they were being counted, so it is possible for that information to be made available. I can make it very clear that this is to ensure that the candidate, the media, accredited observers and other persons present at the count are aware of the state of play at the end of the counting stage and that the count is conducted in an open and transparent manner. I hope with that reassurance that it is intended to promote transparency, that it is not prescriptive, that it is a matter for the returning officer as to how that information is made public and that there are ways of doing it in written form as well as by making an announcement, that the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I found that a helpful and clear description which, from the sound of it, is a sensible way of doing this. However, I shall read in Hansard what he has said before making a final decision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Clause 9(4) reads:
“The Minister may by order make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation (whenever passed or made) that are consequential on amendments made by this section or Schedule 10”.
It gives the Government a power to amend any section of primary legislation or secondary legislation in order to give effect to these provisions. Normally, we would expect to see the provisions that are being amended so that Parliament has an opportunity to consider them. Why are we not seeing the respective provisions that are being amended, and does this include the power to amend Acts of Parliament made after the passage of this Act? I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I can reassure the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that the breadth of the power is limited to amendments that are consequential to the changes being made by Clause 9 and Schedule 10. It is envisaged that in order to introduce the alternative vote system, should that be the wish of the referendum, amendments will be required to provisions in existing secondary legislation which concern the conduct of United Kingdom parliamentary elections. For example, changes will need to be made to certain forms that are prescribed for use at a UK parliamentary election including the poll card issued to electors prior to polling day to provide them with information on how to exercise their vote at the election, and the postal voting statement which postal voters must complete and return with their postal vote, and which again includes information about casting their votes. These forms are set out in secondary legislation. While we believe that all the necessary primary legislative provisions are in the Bill, it seems sensible not to have our hands tied. This power therefore covers any possible consequential changes to primary legislation that may be deemed necessary to implement the alternative vote.
I can offer a reassurance to your Lordships’ House that, as Clause 9 is currently drafted, before making an order under subsection (4), the Minister would be required to consult the Electoral Commission, which would give an independent view on any change. Such an order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would therefore have to be debated and approved in each House. I can confirm that it could allow amendments to be made to Acts passed before and after the Bill, but as I have indicated, this is for technical issues and not to change any matters of policy. In our memorandum concerning the delegated powers in the Bill for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we covered the order-making power in Clause 9.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If, by any chance, the Government were to decide before May that the system they have selected should be tweaked in some way, that would require a change to primary legislation. Does not subsection (4) actually preclude such a change being possible in the event that it needed to be made? Should not subsection (4) be a little looser to allow for the possibility that the Government may want to tweak the system in some way?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I do not think that that would be an appropriate use of the power. It is important that when Parliament determines what the system should be, that is the system which is put to the people in the referendum and should not be tweaked. As I have indicated, this makes provision for amendments to primary or secondary legislation to be made that are consequential and necessitated by this clause or by Schedule 10. As I have indicated, they are related to things like the poll card or the information that goes with postal votes.
Just before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, intervened, I was going to end by saying that we have not been made aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made any critical or adverse comments in respect of these provisions. We believe that they are necessary and appropriate. In the event of a yes vote in the referendum, they will facilitate the implementation of the alternative vote.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I quite understand the noble and learned Lord’s position in relation to secondary legislation. Clause 9(7) states:
“An order under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”.
So we will get an opportunity to debate it.
Does the noble and learned Lord have in mind some provisions of primary legislation? He rather glossed over primary legislation. If changes in primary legislation are envisaged, why are we not being told what they are so that we can address them head on?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I indicated—perhaps I did not make it clear enough—we believe that the necessary primary legislative provisions are in the Bill and therefore we do not have anything in mind. I have indicated some of the provisions which are in secondary legislation, but we believe that the primary legislative provisions are already in the Bill. However, it seemed sensible to ensure that we did not have our hands tied if something was to arise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is an interesting answer. Does the noble and learned Lord think it would be sensible not to include this power in relation to primary legislation? It is dangerous to include in a Bill a power to amend primary legislation when you have no primary legislation in mind but think it might be useful later on—particularly in relation to future legislation where you think you might have made a mistake and you then want to use the power to amend it. It appears to circumvent the important scrutiny that this House and the other place give to primary legislation. Will the noble and learned Lord think again about primary legislation? I am happy with secondary legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, on the basis of the generous assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that he will consider what I have said in relation to primary legislation, of course I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am pleased that we have managed to get to Amendment 54. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, shares my pleasure. I should declare an interest because I am a Member still of the Scottish Parliament, elected by the bizarre election system of AMS, the additional member system.
I remind those who are not too familiar with the Scottish electoral system that 73 Members are elected by first past the post—that is 71 for all the mainland constituencies and Orkney and Shetland have the special advantage of having a constituency each. That should please the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. So 73 are elected by first past the post based on the votes that individual candidates got in each of the constituencies, and then 56 Members are elected—seven Members for each of eight regions—on a top-up basis based on the vote obtained by the party in that region. I would find it very interesting if someone could explain to me—I ask the Minister because he was the acting First Minister as well as the Deputy First Minister—how I managed to get elected because I could then explain it to the electorate. I am not sure how the votes came to be transferred to me and, ultimately, I was the last person elected on the Lothian list.
I do not think the electorate understood. It was a fascinating campaign. When I used to stand in south Ayrshire, in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, as a Member of Parliament, I spent right up to—and certainly not beyond—the limit of the election allocation. In spite of the fact that my majority in 1997 was over 21,000, I still campaigned very hard, went around every part of the constituency, and fought a huge campaign putting my name before the electorate in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. When I got elected to the list in Lothians, I spent nothing on the election campaign. We did not run a huge campaign for me, though we did for the Labour Party and for the constituency members. It is a bizarre system, which even the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who was one of the main architects of the system—it is a pity that he is not here tonight—regrets having introduced and would like to see revisited. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has come round to that point of view yet—I hear the muttering of the Leader of the House—but it indicates how unwise it is to go into systems without fully realising their implications, because there are huge, unintended consequences.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment. To one such as me who has been in this House for four or five months, it certainly gives rise to a new experience. It may sound pretentious or boastful, but my instinct tells me that some kind of watershed has been breached tonight, and not for the better. Why are we debating this amendment at this time of night? I do not think that it is the best time to be discussing legislation, and never have done. In the other place, it was one of these things that Oppositions would do to strut their stuff and Governments would do the same. After a decent couple of nights, both sides would behave themselves. Today is unique because we are debating this issue at almost one o’clock in the morning. We have to look at why and how we arrived here. A big chunk of time was taken out today by three Statements. I am not complaining about that, because they were very important, and it was right that the House should have the benefit of listening to Ministers.
As I understand it, there was co-operation, through the usual channels—if I am wrong on this, I am sure I will get pounced upon. Because of the three Statements, and in co-operation with the Government, we waived the right to a fourth Statement. Nobody has pounced upon me yet, so I think that there must be something in it. That shows, in my book, that the usual channels on the Opposition’s side was responsible for saying that as there already going to be a chunk of time taken out of today’s deliberations, therefore it was a reasonable and fair—a much used, or abused word in here at the moment—to waive the right to the fourth Statement. I think it was right that the Statements were heard; I respected the Government for that. They are under pressure to get the Bill through, yet they have still lived up to their responsibilities as a Government and made these three Statements.
I do not know what has happened since then. I am not party, first hand, to what has been said and done tonight, but I know enough about the place, because traditionalists such as my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes have drummed into me the importance of the conventions here and of the conventions being honoured and recognised.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has commented that I have taken to the place like a duck to water, which means that I have supported the conventions up till now; I agreed with them and saw the need for them because this place is special. I know that he was gently making fun of me and that is fine, that is part of the routine. I hope he was—he did not agree when I said that. I assume that it was said in a jocular way and I certainly accept that. If you are going to poke fun, you have to be able to take some fun back.
However, my understanding, again from the usual channels—my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton mentioned this at the Dispatch Box, so I am not breaking any confidences—was that there was an understanding/agreement, that going past 10 o’clock would be fine, but that we would finish at 10.40 pm, which I understand is something called taxi time. I do not know what that means; I take it that that is for the staff. When my noble friend Lord Bassam mentioned that, the Leader of the House just completely ignored him, completely bulldozed him and said we would finish the clause. I do not think that that is right. If there is timetabling to be done—I do not know all the rules in this place, but I will learn over time—would it not have been possible for the Government to have given notice that they wanted extra time so that folk could prepare?
Lord Rennard
I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but after listening to him for the last five minutes or so, could I ask him whether his arguments are for or against the amendment of his noble friend?
Lord McAvoy
I thank the noble Lord for that. I am trying to explain the context of why we have reached here and why I intend to take time, without repetition, being boring or whatever.
I have left the Liberals alone up till now, but the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, invites me in. How can any Liberal, with their high sense of duty, their superiority complex over the years, looking down at mere politicians, not only of the Labour Party, but of the Tory Party—they are a cut above, intellectually and spiritually pure—endorse, support and even vigorously lead the behaviour tonight? They ought to be ashamed of themselves, because not only have they endorsed it, they have given enthusiastic leadership to it and it is a breach of the conventions of the House.
My noble friend rightly mentioned the Scottish Parliament. In passing, and he did not get pulled up for it, he mentioned how Orkney and Shetland had two seats in the Scottish Parliament. I remember at the time thinking, “That’s okay for them isn’t it?” How anybody can advocate and support that position and maintain a credible reputation is beyond me. Certainly, on this side of the House, it is okay for that part of the world, part of my own country, to get preferential treatment on the basis of two seats in the Scottish Parliament and influence the governance of the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament is there and it is coming to be respected more by the Scottish people. To be treated in a cack-handed, offhand way by the Westminster Government only gives succour to the nationalists and separatists and those who think that independence will carry a crescent of prosperity for Scotland, the Nordic countries and the Republic of Ireland.
It was said that the Electoral Commission should be consulted/notified and not the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament was not even consulted about the date of the referendum. That is a complete insult and an offhand way of doing things. It was under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister—a Liberal. There is a situation where a Liberal has played a leading role in insulting the Scottish Parliament.
It is not the best kept secret that my personal position prior to Scottish Labour Party decisions and the position of the relevant constituency Labour Party was of complete, total and utter opposition to the foundation of a Scottish Parliament because we saw it as a slippery road to separation. We are a unionist constituency party and all our representatives are unionists and always have been. Behaviour such as has been indulged in by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of this Tory-led Government has shown that they will damage the union.
I can sense from the Scottish non-political public that there is resentment about that. I will be quite honest about this. Scotland is not one homogeneous nation in every single sense of the word. There are different attitudes in each area. I think I am an average west of Scotland person. I would certainly say that I am not Glaswegian. We are a bit contrary in a sense because as an area we might be critical of the Scottish Parliament. We may be critical of some decisions and the way it sometimes behaves. We may even say, “I wish it wasn’t there”. Sometimes the west of Scotland takes that attitude. But any insult slung at the Scottish Parliament from somebody from outside the area, especially from outside Scotland and—without being racist in any way because I am British and Scottish—especially from England, gets the contrary side of the west of Scotland people. They then start defending the Scottish Parliament and take umbrage and exception to the behaviour of any critical comments or attacks on it coming from outside Scotland, especially from England. They give succour to the Scottish Nationalist Party and separatists.
For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, if he is listening, I fully support my noble friend’s amendment. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should be recognised. It has been elected and to me that is above all else. It should be given a place in Scottish public life. Quite clearly, it has not been by this Government and not by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I shall very briefly intervene and just make a comment before this debate closes this morning. This amendment would provide for making an order to amend the primary or secondary legislation consequential on amendments made by this clause. Any such award would have to be the subject of consultation with the Electoral Commission and also with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The question is, “Why consultation?”. I shall address my remarks to the two new noble Lords elevated to this House today, the noble Lords, Lord Lingfield and Lord Dobbs. This is a bit of a baptism of fire for them, really; they must be wondering what they have come into. It is a very good question, and the answer is very simple. We are dealing with a Bill that has been the subject of no consultation whatever. There was no inquiry, no prior scrutiny and no real notice of what was coming, and we object. We are now scrutinising this legislation line by line. Much of this could have been avoided if we had been through a proper process. What those two noble Lords are now seeing is just an abuse of Parliament by way of introducing a Bill in this way. I would advise them—and one hopes that they will stay here for many years to come—that if ever they are in a position to influence events in future, to advise their colleagues not to introduce legislation in this way in the future. Because this will go on for weeks, and only because the process that led to this legislation was wrong. That is all that I have to say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the effect of the amendment is that before making an order under Clause 9(4), which allows the Government to,
“make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation … that are consequential on amendments made by this section or Schedule 10”.
At the moment, the Minister has to consult the Electoral Commission. Inevitably, amendments made under Clause 9(4) could affect the position in relation to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. As to how they might affect primary legislation—I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, looking troubled by that. He has just said very candidly that he has no idea what primary legislation might be amended by using Clause 9(4). His inability to understand that it might affect the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly is surprising, I have to say.
Before you produce an order that amends primary legislation, which currently cannot be identified—I am not criticising the noble and learned Lord for that—and which may not even be passed, because it may include future legislation, what is wrong with consulting the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly? We have had read to us the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly on a number of occasions about the fact that they were not consulted about the date of the referendum, which is taking place on the same day as the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections. They were plainly upset by that. What is the purpose of not consulting? What is the anxiety about consulting? We are talking about a national electoral system here, and a national vote. Surely the Scottish Parliament might have views that could be taken into account. I ask the noble and learned Lord to take that position into account. Points have been made about what has happened this evening. It is four minutes past one now. My understanding of how the House operates is that the Government Whip and Leader consult and then decide what to do. The Leader of the House today appeared not even to consult his own Chief Whip about sitting until four minutes past one. The reason I say that is because I am told by the Opposition Chief Whip that the noble Baroness was proposing that we went on for one more amendment. It might well have been sensible to go on to four minutes past one, but we have done it without, for example, giving the staff warning in advance and without there being proper consultation. All I say to the Leader of the House, who is much liked in the House, is please consult before going on till five past one.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has invited me to give a description of the working of the Scottish Parliament voting system. I will resist that. I do not think that it is necessary. He came to be elected, I suspect, because more Labour members lost their first past the post seats than he had anticipated in the Lothian region. If he has any queries about the system, it is a system which of course he agreed in the constitutional convention. He was a member of the Government that brought it forward and passed it as indeed that Government proposed in primary legislation separate seats for Orkney and Shetland, which I certainly supported, but it was of course a measure which was brought forward in a Bill from a Labour Government. What we are dealing with—
Lord McAvoy
Yes, of course it was agreed at the time, and there were many pressures for it, not least the inducement to the noble and learned Lord—I do not mean illegal or anything improper—as I understand it, made by the leader of the Labour Party, the late Donald Dewar, that Orkney and Shetland would get separate seats; of course that was agreed at the time. But does the Minister still think it fair, in an atmosphere where everything has been quoted as fair, that the area that he used to represent gets special treatment compared to mine?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The previous Labour Government did a wonderful job when they brought forward the proposals for the Scotland Bill, which I was happy to support, and which indeed were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in a referendum. But the effect of the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be that, before any order was made under Clause 9(4), the Minister would be required to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, in addition, of course, to the Electoral Commission. As I indicated in my response to the previous amendment, the kind of changes that are anticipated under this order-making power are for matters such as the information that goes on the polling card; information that would go with a postal voting statement; matters which currently reflect the first past the post system, but obviously would need to be changed with an alternative vote, should that be the will of the electorate in the referendum.
In all fairness, I am not sure that that is high on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly, or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Voting systems for UK parliamentary elections is a reserved matter. It was a matter of common ground in the Act that was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which I was happy to support and was supported by the Scottish people; the Government of Wales Act was supported by the Welsh people in a referendum; likewise for Northern Ireland, where it was agreed that UK parliamentary elections are reserved.
It is not necessary, therefore, for the UK Government to be subject to a statutory requirement to consult the devolved Parliament and Assemblies before making an order, which will be of a technical nature. We are not aware of any similar requirement to consult the devolved Administrations in respect of existing aspects of electoral law relating to UK parliamentary elections.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I was just going on to say that I accept that when the United Kingdom Government develop proposals in relation to UK parliamentary elections, it is important that issues affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considered as part of the process. The practice of the Cabinet Office, which leads on electoral policy issues, is to work closely with colleagues in the territorial departments—the Scotland Office, the Wales Office, the Northern Ireland Office—on policy proposals. They would be able to highlight any concerns or issues affecting the particular part of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that, if the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament had particularly strong views on the wording of a polling card that would be taken into account but I do not believe that it is necessary given the fact that this is a wholly reserved matter. It has been accepted on all sides that it is a wholly reserved matter that requires a statutory requirement. The Electoral Commission is in a different position, because the Electoral Commission has a host of responsibilities with regard to the material that is published and goes out in association with an election. As I indicated, I am sure that if representations were received from the Welsh National Assembly, they would be considered on their merits, but on a matter which is entirely the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government, a statutory requirement to consult is not necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy and for his careful and clear explanation. He mentioned that if the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament had particularly strong views, even on a matter that is wholly the responsibility of the United Kingdom, they would be taken account of. I do not know if he was in at Question Time today—no, it was when the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, repeated a Statement about the immigration bar. The Minister will know from his own experience that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are very exercised about the particular concerns of Scotland in relation to imposing an immigration bar, but, when I asked the noble Baroness whether the Scottish Government had been consulted, she did not even know.
That goes against the kind of assurance that the Minister has given. I am sure that he is genuine and that he is right, but there are people like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones—I do not know if she has ever been to Scotland; she certainly seems to know very little about it—who do not really pay much attention to what is happening in Scotland. This is a matter of importance. I hope that the Minister, since he has a wider responsibility than just this Bill, will ensure that some of the departments are taking account of Scottish issues.
My noble friend Lord McAvoy raised a number of issues, particularly in relation to what has happened tonight. I ask him to give some sympathy to the position of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Can you imagine how difficult it must be for him when every time he goes to a Cabinet meeting or bumps into David Cameron in the Lobby he has to explain why he is not managing to get his legislation through? I understand the difficulty that he is in, and it serves him right. No, I sympathise with him. However, I hope that he will also genuinely understand—just as I genuinely understand the pressures that he is under—our concern for parliamentary democracy and scrutiny, which are of absolute importance. He has been on this side of the House often enough, and he will be again—sooner, probably, than he realises. So I hope that he will take account of that.
I welcome the new Members. I am sure that they did not know what to expect. One of them has written a novel about this place, which is how I know there is a toilet behind the Throne; but for that, I would not have known. You learn a lot of interesting things, and I hope that he has learnt some tonight. I really am tempted to push this to a vote, to give them the opportunity on their first day to go through the Lobby, get their name down and get their tick to say that they have participated in the vote. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greenland—is it Greenland? Is it Lord Green of Shuttland? I see that the noble Lord is equally enthusiastic about having a voice, since he would be one of the Tellers; I see his happy face every time I go through the Lobby.
I am tempted to vote on this. However, because of the clear and convincing explanation that the Minister gave, and because my noble friend Lady Browning, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and George Reid are on the Electoral Commission now, I have much more faith in it better representing some of our interests. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.