House of Commons
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the effects on the size of the prison population of implementation of the provisions of the Drugs Act 2005.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
We have not recently discussed this specific point, but both the Government’s sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper and their drug strategy include commitments to encourage drug-misusing offenders into recovery-based treatment.
Paul Flynn
Jailing drug offenders costs taxpayers half a billion pounds a year—£41,000 per prisoner. As health treatments are far better value and more effective, would not it be more sensible to treat drug addicts as patients, not as criminals?
Nick Herbert
It may be more sensible in many cases. That is why we said in the Green Paper that we published before Christmas that we would test options for intensive community-based treatment—both residential and non-residential—and couple that with more rigorous community orders. It is important to have a punitive element for offending as well. The goal should be to ensure that offenders get off drugs, but too often that is not the case.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new drug strategy represents a significant shift from the present treatment system, which is characterised by repetitive assessments and conflicting funding streams, to one of payment by results—those results being the number not of boxes ticked but of addicts in recovery beyond the prison gates?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree: we do have a problem at the moment. A recent study showed that nearly a fifth of offenders in prison who had ever tried heroin had tried it for the first time in prison. In some cases, offenders get on to drugs, and we also have a problem with treatments, with drug rehabilitation requirements that are not completed. We have to get more rigour into drug treatment. That is why the payment-by-results model that we will pilot to get offenders off drugs, for both community orders and post-release treatment, is such an attractive way forward.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
2. What definition of a long-term custodial sentence his Department uses.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 defines a long-term prisoner as
“a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of four years or more”.
There are still some prisoners serving sentences under the 1991 Act, but the term has not been in use since 2003.
Dr Coffey
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I am sure he is aware that another Department is relying on the definition he provides. A lot of my constituents will be concerned that some serious offences are not attracting the term of four years that he refers to. For example, a rape recently carried a sentence of three and a half years and an armed robbery in which the offender brandished a knife carried a sentence of under four years. If we want to be serious about crime, we have to be serious about sentencing.
Mr Clarke
Nobody draws an arbitrary line. However, I quite agree that serious offences do not always attract four years’ imprisonment. I suspect that my hon. Friend’s reference to another Department concerns the Deputy Prime Minister and a prisoner’s right to vote, which I believe is the subject of the next question. The four-year divide is used for some purposes in the Prison Service: people with more than four years are regarded as unsuitable for home detention curfew before release. The approach to prisoners’ voting rights is an attempt to find a rational threshold above which it makes sense to draw the line. No doubt we will return to that issue—perhaps in a few moments.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If the term is no longer in use and is arbitrary, why are the Government using it to allow robbers, sex offenders and others the vote?
Mr Clarke
We have taken legal advice on what is necessary. [Interruption.] No doubt the previous Government did so when they consulted and suggested a four-year margin themselves. [Interruption.] They did. They consulted twice on prisoners’ voting rights but were unable to come to any conclusion. No doubt they were desperately panting for the election date in the hope of getting over the line and leaving it to us. They contemplated the four-year figure and we have to draw a line rationally to comply with the legal obligations that the previous Government neither doubted nor cast doubt on.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
3. What discussions he has had with the Prison Service on arrangements to enable certain prisoners to vote.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Prisoners given the right to vote under the Government’s proposals will vote by post or proxy in the constituency of their normal residence. That is the basis on which prisoners on remand and prisoners convicted but unsentenced already vote under existing long-established procedures.
Mr Gray
If, as the Government propose, prisoners serving less than four years are given the vote, the vote will be given to 6,000 violent offenders, 2,000 sex offenders, 6,500 robbers and burglars, and 4,500 drug offenders, which any sensible person, including the Prime Minister, I think, would find wholly offensive and unacceptable. Does the Secretary of State agree that it should not be the European convention on human rights that decides matters but Parliament, and will he listen not to the lawyers but to other European countries such as Belgium, where the vote is given to prisoners serving up to four months? Let us make it four months—even better, four days; even better than that, four minutes.
Mr Clarke
I do not think that anyone in government, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, is under any illusion about the popularity of the proposal to be introduced. We are under legal obligations which no one is suggesting we should repudiate. As I often had to explain when I practised law to dissatisfied litigants who had just lost a case that they would have preferred to win, one can get into more trouble if one seeks to define it. If my hon. Friend wishes really to enrage his constituents and mine, he runs the risk of taking a decision that will result in thousands of prisoners being given compensation for their lost rights and in tens of millions of pounds of expenditure incurred by the taxpayer. We are in government, I am afraid, as I often find myself saying to our Liberal Democrat colleagues, and we have to act responsibly, whatever our inner feelings about the wisdom of the judgment that has been reached in the Court whose jurisdiction we still accept.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State for Justice considering any additional precautions regarding the postal vote for prisoners because, after all, we are dealing with criminals?
Mr Clarke
At the moment, without anybody making any fuss at all, people on remand have been casting postal votes from prison, and have probably been doing so, as far as I am aware, throughout my political career. That is also the case for people who have been convicted but have not been sentenced, including individuals convicted of serious offences. Not many of them bother to do so, and I am not aware that they have ever made a significant difference to the result in a single constituency, but the fact is that we have to address the consequences of this judgment. We propose that, even for those people with a sentence of less than four years, there should be judicial discretion to remove the right to vote as part of the punishment in appropriate circumstances.
All of this can be debated when it comes up, but I urge Members on both sides of the House not to go too far beyond expressing understandable annoyance, and not to begin to commit themselves to a course that would cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds, to no particular effect.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I accept the difficulty that the Secretary of State faces, bearing in mind the will of the public and the will of Parliament expressed on both sides of the Chamber. However, what analysis has he made of the situation in Belgium, where a prisoner serving more than four months forgoes the right to vote?
Mr Clarke
One by one, various countries have been challenged on that front, and one by one the more restrictive measures are falling. Some have no restrictions at all, and just allow prisoners to vote. It was necessary for the Government and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to take the best legal advice on what could protect us against the risk of future claims and judgments, draw a line under that and comply with legal objections. That is the basis on which we arrived at four years, and as I have just explained, there is some logic in putting a four-year threshold in, as we can refer back to the old definition of long-term imprisonment to explain rationally why we have chosen that threshold.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is worth reminding the House that details of plans to allow people serving sentences of up to four years to have the vote was given via press release on the last Friday before we broke up for Christmas. May I ask the Secretary of State what role Ministers in his Department played in the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans, and can we take it that he, his Ministers and all the Law Officers agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that four years is the appropriate threshold?
Mr Clarke
I was obviously involved in the collective discussions, as were colleagues, and we took the best legal advice. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Government accepted the legal obligation. The Government in which he recently served undertook two consultations, and they canvassed four years as a possibility. [Interruption.] With great respect, they did canvass four years, and they also accepted that prisoners should vote in all elections, including local government elections and referendums. We have drawn back from that. We are proposing that they should vote only in parliamentary and European elections.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the likely effect on the expenditure of other Departments of his proposed changes to expenditure on legal aid.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the likely effect on the expenditure of other Departments of his proposed changes to expenditure on legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I have had discussions with a number of ministerial colleagues. Those discussions have covered a range of matters affecting our respective Departments, including the potential impact that our proposals to reform legal aid could have on those colleagues’ Departments.
Heidi Alexander
I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I push him a bit further on the longer-term costs to the public purse of withdrawing legal aid for all education matters? Obviously, that includes school exclusions. Given that the link between exclusions and offending is well documented, is it not a false economy to cut legal aid for that type of case?
Mr Djanogly
The way in which the impact will take shape in each Department—the hon. Lady mentioned education—is complicated because it involves determining whether our proposals will lead to behavioural change. We intend that that should be the case and that alternatives to court and taxpayer-funded remedies should be used to resolve disputes when at all possible.
Nic Dakin
The White Paper suggests retaining legal aid only for cases in which homes are at risk, but all housing cases carry the risk of homelessness if an early intervention is not made. A representative from a legal practice that currently gives advice to 350 people a year in the Scunthorpe area told me yesterday that most clients are referred to it by the citizens advice bureaux and the wider voluntary sector.
Right now, those agencies do not have the capacity to give appropriate support, and given that funding is being withdrawn by the state and local authorities, the system itself is in imminent threat of collapse. Does the Minister agree that if the proposals go ahead without significant additional money being invested in the voluntary sector, necessary early intervention will not take place, leading to higher levels of homelessness at a significantly higher cost—
Mr Djanogly
As the hon. Gentleman intimated, the housing budget for legal aid will have savings. However, he failed to mention that it will go down from some £50 million of spending to £38 million of spending; this area of spend is not going to disappear. If an individual or family are subjected to having their home repossessed or if there is any chance of their losing their homes, legal aid will remain available.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Are Ministers not going to have to take steps to convince people that they will not be put at a disadvantage by appearing before tribunals without legal representation? Is the Minister going to take steps to ensure that voluntary organisations can provide people with the support that they would need to appear in person at tribunals?
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. This issue is wider than purely legal aid; it is also about how we give what is often non-legal advice. To a great extent, that is provided by the not-for-profit sector. I have had some half a dozen meetings in recent weeks with the not-for-profit sector. We also accept that there is a co-ordinating role across Government to ensure that we minimise any gaps.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
May I urge my hon. Friend, in doing this review, to look at the spending of legal aid money on private investigators? There was a case in my constituency in which the Legal Aid Board funded a quite dangerous criminal, well known to the police, in the search for his badly battered wife and small children; it then went on to fund his case without making any effort at all to see whether his claim to be penniless was true. He went on to harass that low-income family; the woman had remarried. I urge the Minister to look into that kind of case.
Mr Djanogly
The question of expenses, which would be included in what my hon. Friend mentions, is mentioned in the consultation document. If he gets in touch with me, I will specifically make sure that it caters to the point that he has raised.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In answer to a recent question, the Minister stated that appeals against decisions on incapacity benefit were 65% more likely to succeed if the appellant were represented. If we apply that to all areas of social welfare law where he is proposing to cut legal aid, that would mean at least 40,000 people each year losing appeals that they would win today solely because of the lack of representation. In the light of that and of the answer that he has just given to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), will he withdraw his earlier claim that individuals will be able to prepare their appeals without formal legal assistance, and reconsider these draconian cuts, which will hit the poorest hardest?
Mr Djanogly
In most cases, individuals will be able to appeal to the first-tier social security and child support tribunal without formal legal assistance. Legal aid is not currently available for legal representation as the appellant is required only to provide reasons for disagreeing with the decision in plain language. For those who need assistance on welfare benefits matters, which I think was the point the hon. Gentleman went on to make, advice and assistance is available from, for example, Jobcentre Plus, the benefits inquiry line and the tribunal itself.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
5. What his most recent estimate is of the incidence of repeat offending for shoplifting offences; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In 2008, the rate of reconviction within one year for adults convicted of offences related to shoplifting was 78.3%. That is an unacceptably high rate and, as set out in the Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, we are committed to punishing and rehabilitating criminals and turning them away from a life of crime.
Miss McIntosh
Does my hon. Friend agree that every crime of theft is a crime against society—big society and small society—and that the fixed penalty notices introduced by the previous Government are simply not working to address the issues? Will the Government focus on rehabilitating those who reoffend, particularly if they have a known substance abuse?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate her on her efforts in this area, which led to the police guidance being strengthened in July 2009 to restrict the issuing of penalty notices for retail theft to first-time offenders who are not substance misusers and where the value of goods does not exceed £100. She is right to point out that shoplifting is usually associated with drug addiction, and I draw her attention and that of the rest of the House to our proposals on delivering effective payment-by-results schemes to deal with drug addiction in the community.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The last year for which figures are available show that 12,500 people are serving a jail sentence of under six months for shoplifting offences. Does the Minister expect his Green Paper to increase or decrease that number next year?
Mr Blunt
I sincerely hope that over the course of the Parliament and by the time we get full implementation of an effective payment-by-results scheme on drug addiction, which will address the principal driver of shoplifting, those numbers will begin to decrease significantly.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
In 2009—the last year for which figures are available—241 people with more than 101 previous convictions and 13 people with more than 200 previous convictions were convicted of shoplifting but were not sent to prison. Does my hon. Friend think that people with that many previous convictions should not be sent to prison? If so, how many crimes should people commit before anyone thinks about sending these creatures to prison?
Mr Blunt
Plainly I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition. Prison is there for prolific and serious offenders and, by any judgment, the examples he has given are of prolific offenders. I would need some explanation of why there are such cases, where people simply have not responded to the treatments available, particularly in the new environment where we can deliver effective rehabilitation. If such people fail to address that and pick up the services that are made available, they should expect to go to prison.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
6. What recent discussions he has had on research into the effect of imprisonment on reoffending rates among women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The Ministry of Justice recently published research showing that reoffending for women offenders under probation supervision was 6 percentage points lower than for similar women who served short-term prison sentences. We also publish a statistical report on women in the criminal justice system that is informed by an independent advisory group. This group has expressed interest in looking at whether reoffending rates for women vary by sentence length in the same way as it does for men.
Tristram Hunt
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will know from Baroness Corston’s 2007 report that much can be achieved to prevent female ex-prisoners from reoffending by proper intervention that addresses drug use, prostitution and domestic violence. Chepstow House in my constituency, which is run by the Brighter Futures housing association, does exactly that—cutting reoffending rates and saving taxpayers’ money. Will the Minister agree to visit Chepstow House in the coming year to show his support for a charity that is putting some of the principles behind breaking the cycle into action?
Mr Blunt
I would hope to have the opportunity to do so, but I cannot promise to do so. I have yet to visit a substantial amount of the prison estate and a number of probation trusts, but I would certainly like the opportunity to visit. I suspect what is underlying the hon. Gentleman’s question is the funding issue. On funding for centres such as Chepstow House, what I can say at this stage is that we have identified funding to sustain those projects that have demonstrated effective performance and we will make an announcement shortly about what will replace the current funding arrangements.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
With regard to imprisonment and reoffending, can the Minister tell the House how the National Offender Management Service is performing and what has happened to the C-NOMIS data system, which was supposed to assist it and cost £161 million prior to 2007?
Mr Blunt
The C-NOMIS information technology system was one of the greater disasters that surrounded the provision of IT under the previous Administration. Rescued out of that has been the P-NOMIS system, which does not deliver quite the co-ordination between probation services and the Prison Service that was intended of C-NOMIS. However, we will continue to work to ensure that we make the proper connections as far and as best we possibly can to ensure that IT properly supports our management of offenders.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) spoke about the excellent work done with women offenders by Brighter Futures. I know of the valuable work that is also done by the Saltbox chaplaincy project, which has cut reoffending rates to just 12% even among prolific offenders. However, these fantastic providers, along with many others in the third sector, are at risk of having to cease their effective work because of this Government’s ill-thought-through change to the payment-by-results scheme, which is still in consultation. I welcome what the Minister has said, but before third sector organisations with a track record of success on reoffending rates have to end those services up and down the country and make key staff redundant, is he prepared to give much greater reassurance that programmes will not come crashing to an end this coming March, with the loss of all that good work?
Mr Blunt
As I said, we have identified funding to sustain those projects that have demonstrated effective performance, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the Department is not in a position to sustain funding on the current level. A total of £10 million was put aside to set these schemes up, whereupon they were then meant to move to local commissioning. There will be continuing support for the schemes from the Ministry of Justice, but we will be looking to them to win the support of local commissioners. They also have access to the Government’s £100 million transition fund, which is precisely designed to bridge that gap, as well as potential access to the big society bank.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to increase the standard of appointments to the Bench in England and Wales.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Judicial appointments are made solely on the basis of merit. On 9 November, I announced the conclusions of an internal review of the judicial appointments process undertaken in close consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. The review did not identify concerns with the quality of appointments to the Bench.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. The judiciary in this country has for a century been the envy of lawyers across the world, but there is a perception, at least, that that has recently begun to change, partly as a result of the creation by the previous Government of the Judicial Appointments Commission—an unnecessary quango that cost an enormous amount of money. Judicial appointments were formerly made by the Lord Chancellor, having consulted the Bench and on the advice of his officials. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that was a much better system and one to which we ought to return?
Mr Clarke
As I said, we have been reviewing the system. I do not think that the Judicial Appointments Commission can be criticised on the basis of the quality of appointments; I have not heard any credible evidence that people think that quality is deteriorating. However, it is costing too much, it is not very efficient, and it takes too long. Its budget is about £10 million—£9.8 million, to be precise—and it can take 18 months from start to finish to appoint a judge. In the light of the review, we will be looking at that and making sure that it operates with efficiency. Obviously, appointment on merit and getting the highest quality of appointments remains the main focus of any judicial appointments system.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
9. What plans he has for the future funding of welfare advice services currently funded from legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
While cost considerations are at the forefront of our review of legal aid, we remain committed to ensuring that legal aid is available to those who need it most in cases where legal aid, legal advice or representation is justified. Accordingly, we propose that specialist legal aid be retained in the highest priority cases of welfare advice, such as those involving debt, housing—for example, where someone’s home is at immediate risk, or homelessness or serious disrepair is involved—and community care. The funding of welfare advice services is a cross-Government issue, and it is being considered as such.
Stephen Timms
The Government want voluntary sector welfare advice to replace legal aid, but much of the funding for voluntary sector local advice services comes from legal aid, which is about to be withdrawn. That includes a quarter of the funding for local citizens advice bureaux across the country. I was encouraged by what the Minister said about avoiding a gap. Does he accept that there will have to be new funding from somewhere to replace the funding for advice services that is being withdrawn? In looking, rightly, for cost-effective ways to deliver advice, does he recognise the evidence from the Legal Action Group that those most in need of help are the least likely to use telephone advice services?
Mr Djanogly
The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. Having spent a lot of time discussing this matter over recent weeks with the not-for-profit sector, I can tell him that very little is known about it in that sector. Even the head offices of voluntary organisations may not know what the funding is for their own local organisations. The core funding for legal help, for instance, typically comes not from the Ministry of Justice, but from the local authority. We have to make up for a decade of people overlooking the need to co-ordinate funding, by seeing what the funding streams are and ensuring that they work in the way that they should. That will involve ensuring that there is no duplication. There is currently a lot of duplication in the system.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the replies, but greater economy would facilitate progress.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Minister appreciate that those who practise welfare law have traditionally not been highly paid, and does he realise that swathes of firms are likely to disappear? Who will stand in that breach, because those who are most in need are the least likely to be helped in those circumstances?
Mr Djanogly
We believe that a cultural change is needed. We need to move away from the immediate rush to lawyers and courts, whether through mediation or, if a court alternative is required, a conditional fee arrangement, rather than legal aid. Much more should be made of those alternatives.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
10. What plans he has to ensure adequate support for victims and their families during the criminal justice process.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Victims and their families are supported through a number of schemes, including joint police and Crown Prosecution Service witness care units, the witness service and, in the case of bereaved families, the homicide service. Their rights are enshrined in law under the code of practice for victims of crime. We do, however, continue to seek ways to improve the care offered to victims through the criminal justice process.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. There are cases in which victims, including deceased victims, have their reputation defamed during a case, in particular when mitigation is being advanced. A Victim Support report in December found that as many as 44% of victims or their families were not made aware of their right to make a victim personal statement. What are the Government doing to ensure that victims are given full support and are aware of their rights?
Mr Clarke
I share the hon. Gentleman’s feeling on the importance of victim personal statements. In the cases that he describes of victims being defamed in mitigation, it is important that victim personal statements are properly made and responsibly reported. We are doing our best to encourage that and are considering how we can ensure that such statements become a more usual practice.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the police and the CPS too readily recommend bail for those who are accused of domestic violence and related intimidation, thus disadvantaging the victims and their families right at the start of the process?
Mr Clarke
These are all difficult matters of judgment. Obviously, many important considerations must be borne in mind when deciding whether to recommend or grant bail, including any further risk to the alleged victims of the offences. It is difficult for Ministers or Parliament to lay down hard-and-fast rules when the people involved are fully aware of the need to protect victims from harm while proceedings are pending.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
11. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Bradley and Corston reviews of the criminal justice system.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
15. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Corston report on women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Our plans are set out in our Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, which was published in December, and they include identifying individuals with mental health problems at an early stage in the criminal justice process. The aim is to ensure that liaison and diversion services are available in police custody suites and at courts by 2014. We continue to develop our approach to meet the distinct and complex needs of women in the criminal justice system.
Karl Turner
Given the progress made in implementing the Corston report by the previous Government’s ministerial champion for women in prison, can the Minister explain why the Government seemingly still have no plans to appoint a Justice Minister specifically tasked with dealing with women’s issues?
Fiona Mactaggart
On that note, the Minister told the House on 20 July that
“a network of women-only community provision is being developed to support…community sentences.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 163.]
Can he tell the House now what that community provision consists of, where it is and how secure is its financial future?
Mr Blunt
I fear that I will not be able to explain the whole network without irritating you, Mr Speaker, but the Ministry of Justice has funded 44 separate projects in conjunction with the Corston independent funders. I have already answered the question about what will happen to the funding after March. We will continue a degree of funding—not on the scale that has happened before, but we are identifying the projects that are working best, which we will wish to continue to support.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effects on public protection of releasing those with indeterminate prison sentences who have completed their minimum tariff.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Prisoners serving indeterminate sentences who have completed their minimum tariff are released from custody only if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that the risk of harm that they pose to the public is such that it may reasonably be managed in the community.
Mrs Chapman
The Secretary of State will be aware that inmates serving indeterminate public protection sentences will have committed some of the most severe offences. Often, the reason they are not released after their minimum tariff is that they still pose a great risk or have not been able to complete the rehabilitative courses that are available. Will he either spend more money on rehabilitation inside prisons or change the method by which risk is assessed?
Mr Clarke
We addressed this problem in the Green Paper, on which we are consulting. It is quite obvious that the IPP system has never worked as either the previous Government or Parliament intended. Indeed, the previous Government made one attempt to revise it to stop the unexpectedly large numbers of people who were going into the system. IPP prisoners are almost all high-risk, and they should be released only once they have been assessed by the Parole Board, but of course it is extremely difficult to form judgments about the risks that they pose when they are in prison and sometimes unable to access rehabilitation courses. We published our proposals in the Green Paper and are now consulting on them, but we have no intention whatever of putting the public at more risk by releasing people without some assessment by the Parole Board. However, it has to be a sensible assessment that can sensibly be made.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the last part of the Secretary of State’s answer in particular. He will be aware that indeterminate sentences are given to serious criminals such as the ring leaders in the grooming of vulnerable girls for sex convicted last week at Nottingham Crown court. He will appreciate concern that, in his desire to reduce the prison population, he may release dangerous convicted prisoners prematurely. He talked about those currently serving IPPs who have served their minimum tariff. How soon does he think his proposals will have an impact on those prisoners, and how will he address the British public’s legitimate concerns?
Mr Clarke
At the moment, more than 3,000 people on an IPP sentence have completed their minimum tariff, which is the punishment for the crime for which they are sent to prison, and a very small proportion of those are being released. The numbers are piling up all the time, and recommendations are frequently made to the Department that the matter has to be re-addressed, because we have more than 3,000 people whose release from prison is totally uncertain. We are now consulting and there will be legislation in the spring, which will have to be enacted and improved by the House before a new system comes into effect. That system will retain the need for the Parole Board to make a sensible assessment of whether the risk posed by those in question can properly be managed in the community.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
13. What recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
We continue to commission research and evaluation on that important subject. We have just commissioned an evaluation of the Peterborough social impact bond. We have also recently published the evidence report on the Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, in which we reviewed and evaluated a large volume of research.
Tom Brake
Voluntary sector organisations such as Nacro and St Giles Trust play a significant role in delivering services to offenders, and in providing related research and evaluation. As we move towards payment by results and outcome-based commissioning, which is taking precedence in the voluntary sector, what role does the Minister envisage for voluntary sector-related research and evaluation?
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the voluntary sector in helping us reduce reoffending. The great advantage of payment by results, which we will pilot for community orders and post-release supervision of offenders, is that the providers make the evaluation and take the risk, and we will pay for what works. That is different from the situation until now, whereby Ministers backed projects without necessarily knowing whether they worked in reducing reoffending.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I urge the Minister to take an urgent look at the ongoing evaluation of the Choose Change project at Manchester prison and the intensive alternative to custody pilot, which Manchester probation service is running as part of a national scheme. I visited both yesterday and they seemed very effective and in line with the Minister’s objectives, yet they face financial uncertainty. Will he see what he can do?
Nick Herbert
I would be happy to look at those projects. Our aim, assuming that the pilots are successful, is for all such schemes to be paid for by results. If they work, they will receive the funding. In spite of the prison population’s reaching record levels and despite funding, reoffending rates have risen. We therefore need to institute a new system, whereby we pay for what works.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
14. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the provision of mental health care for offenders.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
We have worked closely with the Department of Health and the Home Office on providing mental health care for offenders. The sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper highlighted our commitment to identifying individuals with mental health problems at an early stage of the criminal justice process to ensure that they have access to effective treatment. An across-Government mental health strategy is due to be published early in 2011, which will focus on achieving improved outcomes for all people with mental ill health, including offenders.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but if more offenders with mental health problems are to be dealt with in the community, exactly what funding will be available to support them? Will the NHS, which is already being subjected to cuts, be left struggling to cope, and offenders left more likely to reoffend?
Mr Clarke
Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is in the lead on the strategy. He is looking at ways in which to redirect his budget to get more effective community and other treatment for mental health problems. Offenders will be taken into account in the course of that, but it is important that we ensure that it is done within the available resources, and that those resources are used to the best positive effect for the community as a whole, not just offenders.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Far too many young offenders have undiagnosed mental health problems. May we have an assurance that the cross-departmental strategy that is being worked on will involve the Department for Education and concentrate specifically on young people who commit crime, often due to mental health problems?
Mr Clarke
With respect, my hon. Friend makes a valid point and we are examining ways in which we can divert more young offenders in particular out of the criminal justice system into mental health treatment when that is most appropriate. It is not unusual to encounter somebody about whom any ordinary member of the public would think, “This person needs treatment, rather than just being viewed as a criminal offender.”
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
16. What the reoffending rates were for those sentenced to jail terms of (a) one year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In 2008, the rate of reconviction within one year for adults discharged from custody after a sentence of less than a year was 61.1%; it was 31.0% for those given sentences of one to five years, 17.5% for offenders given sentences of five to 10 years, and 6.4% for 10 years or more. The Government’s Green Paper on rehabilitation and sentencing sets out our proposals to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
Mr Hollobone
Does the Minister agree that the figures suggest that prison actually works, and that the longer prisoners spend in prison the greater the chance of ensuring their effective rehabilitation before being released?
Mr Blunt
That is why we have to address the appalling reoffending rates of those people sentenced to short terms in prison. There were 60,000 of those in the past year, and I am afraid that the option of sending them all to prison for 10 years does not exist, so we have to make a success of rehabilitation. We have to ensure that longer sentences are given to recidivist offenders and that we effectively rehabilitate people and break the cycle of crime through the proposals that we have presented in the Green Paper to drive that number down.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
To begin with a topical statement, I must tell the House that approximately 40 prisoners were involved in a serious disturbance at Ford prison between 31 December 2010 and 1 January 2011, which resulted in parts of the establishment being set on fire. Staff withdrew from the prison’s B wing for their own safety and specially trained prison staff were deployed to regain control of the prison and assist the fire service in its efforts to extinguish the fires.
Last night, there was disorder at Littlehey prison which, I am glad to say, was brought under control quite quickly. To the credit of those staff involved, no staff or prisoners sustained serious injury.
The Prison Service manages some of the most dangerous people in society and we normally have 30 such incidents every year. I pay tribute to the prison staff and the fire service for the skill with which they handle these matters on behalf of us all.
John Mann
In a statement to the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said that Worksop county court would be transferring to Worksop magistrates court, and he confirmed that in answer to my question. In fact, the opposite has happened. Is he the kind of Minister who is in control of his Department and is his word his authority when he speaks to this House, or is he the monkey to his civil servants’ organ grinder?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The hon. Gentleman speaks with his usual charm. He raised this issue on a point of order yesterday and I was going to write to him today, so I am delighted to have this opportunity to address it on the Floor of the House. I am, of course, sorry for any misunderstanding or inaccuracy regarding county court services in Worksop. That no doubt stems from the fact that the announced closure of Worksop county court and the announced retention of Worksop magistrates court leads to a slightly more complex set of arrangements at the Worksop courthouse than is typical and I am pleased to be able to clarify the matter.
On the closure of Worksop county court, the counter services will cease to be available, but county court hearings will be retained at the Worksop courthouse. However, the administrative work for Worksop county court is already dealt with at Mansfield county court and, as now, court users will continue to be able to contact Mansfield county court by a variety of methods.
Mr Speaker
I gently remind Ministers on the Treasury Bench that answers to topical questions are supposed to be brief.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T2. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that releasing prisoners with £46 in their pocket, nowhere to stay and a delay of one to six weeks before they can get jobseeker’s allowance makes it more likely that they will reoffend? Will he seek to reach an arrangement with the Department for Work and Pensions so that benefits can start promptly on release?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
My hon. Friend alights on a significant problem. I am in discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions and I hope that we will be able to bring forward proposals that will address that issue.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In view of the serious riot at Ford open prison, does the Minister wish to revise the statement issued by the Ministry of Justice when announcing its public spending cuts—including a reduction of 10,000 in the number of front-line staff—which said that by taking such “tough decisions” it will be able to
“punish and rehabilitate offenders more effectively”?
Mr Clarke
The National Offender Management Service is undertaking a full investigation into what happened at Ford. Obviously, the behaviour there was deplorable and we must learn every lesson we can about what happened and how we can minimise the risk in future. So far as I am aware, the prison was staffed at its normal level and we had made no changes since we took office to the arrangements under the previous Government. We should not start leaping to conclusions about whether anything was at the heart of these events other than the appallingly bad behaviour of people who had been acquiring alcohol in the run-up to new year’s eve. We are looking carefully at all the circumstances and will draw the proper lessons from that.
Helen Goodman
Of course it is important to wait until the inquiry, but does the Secretary of State honestly think that Ford would be adequately managed if the number of staff on duty were reduced to four or five to supervise 500 people each night?
Mr Clarke
That is a totally hypothetical question, given that the prison had the level of staffing instituted by the previous Government to which we have made no change. It is owing to the deplorable record of the previous Government that we are having to ensure better value for money from a reduced departmental budget. It has all exploded in the past few years and now has to be looked at more carefully. However, it is complete nonsense to work out from that that we are going to reduce a particular level of staffing on the night shift at a particular prison. We are approaching the whole thing slightly more sensibly and scientifically.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
T3. Will the Minister confirm whether the Department is still contracting with Clearsprings to provide accommodation for ex-offenders? The policy undertaken by the previous Government attracted a lot of ex-offenders to my constituency because of our low rental costs, and actually caused an increase in our deprivation issues and social problems.
Mr Blunt
The contract with Clearsprings to provide private rented accommodation to defendants on bail and prisoners released on home detention curfews who are otherwise without an address expired on 17 June 2010. A new three-year contract to provide a similar service was competitively tendered and awarded to Stonham, a registered housing charity. That contract commenced on 18 June 2010. Stonham does not manage any properties under that contract in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify whether the homicide victims fund is still in operation, and if so, what size is the pot and when will Ministers be giving charitable organisations the green light to put in a bid?
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
T4. The plight and vulnerability of many of the UK’s sex workers and prostitutes was highlighted for the people of Suffolk by the tragic events surrounding the Ipswich prostitute murders. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we have in place a proper strategy to help the rehabilitation of sex workers when they are released from prison, particularly to break the cycles of abuse and drug and alcohol dependency, and to support those people with mental health problems? Will he also visit my—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his first question was perfectly good enough. One will do.
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend is right. These are extremely important issues, and the successfully piloted sex workers custody and community training course will be rolled out across the women’s prison estate with the aim of enabling staff to support the resettlement needs of women engaged in street-based sex work. Working in partnership with sex workers to support projects, it aims to assist women by breaking down barriers that may prevent them from accessing support.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Following the Minister’s decision to close Rochdale magistrates court, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) to discuss the matter further?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T5. Will Ministers take the opportunity to look at the latest report by Citizens Advice on civil recovery and consider how we can stop the use and abuse of civil recovery against shoplifters by many retailers up and down the land?
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
In view of the case involving six defendants that was dropped yesterday, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a lot of disquiet about the crossing of the line from a police constable going undercover for seven years and his inciting illegal action? Would it not be appropriate for a senior Minister, be it him or the Home Secretary, to make a statement to the House? As I have said, there is a good deal of concern and disquiet about what has occurred.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
These are, of course, operational matters for the police. I understand that there is to be an investigation into what appears to have been a lack of proper supervision of the officer concerned, but undercover operations are immensely important across a range of criminal activities, in keeping the public safe.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T6. With the Government’s announcement of the Green Paper, and their intention to cut prison numbers and strengthen community sentences, will the Minister outline to the House his plans for the role of the probation service and probation trusts, given that those two organisations are likely to have a vastly increased work load as a result of the policy?
Mr Clarke
First, let me emphasise that the Green Paper does not set out an intention to cut prison numbers and to substitute with community sentences and so on. We have given our best estimate of what we think the consequences of the Green Paper will be. However, the number of people who will go to prison will depend on the courts and their decisions. We expect that the number may be reduced by about 3,000 over the next few years. We are looking in particular at community payback, and at how we can introduce more competition in that—which the previous Government were contemplating—and diversify the way in which it is provided. We need to make community sentences more effective, but the key thing about them, as with everything else, is that they must be appropriate punishments for the crimes that the people concerned have committed.
Mr Speaker
I have been listening keenly to the Secretary of State’s every word for the best part of two decades, but I want the whole House to hear him, so may I just remind him that he must face the House?
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
In December I discovered that constituents who were appealing against their benefit decisions at the tribunal service, for which the Ministry is responsible, were having to wait for appointments or tribunal dates for between six and nine months. Given that those individuals will suffer a financial penalty in that time and that a significant number will win their appeals, does the Minister think that that is acceptable? What will he do to remedy it?
Mr Djanogly
The timetable was worsening, but more resources have been put in and we hope that the situation will improve.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
T7. Can the Minister please tell me what steps his Department is taking to tackle the levels of drugs that are available in our prisons and the levels of drug addiction among prisoners?
Mr Blunt
We announced proposals in the Green Paper on drug-free wings and drug-recovery wings, which will work in conjunction with the wider application of the payment-by-results scheme in the community. That sits alongside all the efforts to police prisons effectively and to keep drugs out of prisons, through the effective use of all the resources available to the Prison Service and the police.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow I will be meeting representatives from my local citizens advice bureaux, Merseyside Employment Law and Merseyside Welfare Rights, who are part of the Justice for All lobby of Parliament. They will be raising their deep concerns about the severe impact that the cuts to legal aid will have on people in my constituency who are disabled, have low incomes or are unemployed. Will any of the Ministers here today be meeting anyone from the Justice for All lobby tomorrow?
Mr Djanogly
I have not received a request for such a meeting, although I would be very happy to attend if a request came in. However, as I said before, the point is that we have to cut legal aid; indeed, the hon. Lady’s party has recognised that we need to cut the amount of legal aid paid. It is important that we redirect the scarce resources that remain to the most vulnerable, and that is what we will be doing.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Given his remarks about legal aid and citizens advice bureaux, does the Minister look to local authorities as core funders, or to other Departments to increase such funding?
Mr Djanogly
We need to distinguish between legal aid and general advice. A citizens advice bureau may provide legal aid services, but half do not do so. However, all will provide core advisory services, which are normally funded by local authorities.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I received a reply from the Ministry of Justice saying that the Data Protection Act 1998
“does not cover the…retention and storage”
of the records of deceased persons. That means that hospitals have incentives to lose, mislay or hide records in cases where there is some suspicion about what happened. Can the Minister read my early-day motion 1220 and have urgent discussions with the Department of Health to see whether we can review legislation in this area?
Mr Djanogly
That is a matter where co-ordination with the Department of Health will be required, and I should be very happy to do that work if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me on the matter.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree, that, according to the “polluter pays” principle, the best punishment for the people who caused the fire at Ford open prison would be to require them to take part in repairing the damage?
Mr Blunt
I am not entirely sure how welcome the return to Ford of those prisoners will be to the inmates who remain there and who have just seen their community facilities entirely destroyed. On a wider point, we want to move towards establishing proper recompense for victims, although I do not think that we will be recompensing prisoners in that institution. Restorative justice will now be a principle that we shall adopt extremely strongly.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
As part of the consultation for the Green Paper, the Justice Secretary has just announced public meetings in Leeds, London, Nottingham, Bristol and Manchester. Birmingham has the largest legal community outside London, and the west midlands is the largest conurbation, so I am just wondering what he has against Birmingham.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Before any decision is made to withdraw legal aid for families dealing with special educational needs tribunals, will my right hon. and hon. Friends work with the Department for Education, particularly in the light of its proposed Green Paper on the reform of SEN procedure, to ensure that the families of children with SEN get all the help and support that they deserve?
Mr Djanogly
We have been co-ordinating with the Department for Education on this matter, and the joint views will be going into the Green Paper.
Petition
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
The petition has 833 signatures and states:
To the House of Commons,
The Petition of supporters of Families Fighting For Justice and others in Wirral, Cheshire, Merseyside,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the wording of section 170 of the Ministry of Justice Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, regarding the Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, particularly the planned simplification to the minimum terms of life sentences which could result in changes to minimum sentencing.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Ministry of Justice to consider with severe caution any changes to Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure that the length of minimum sentences for murder are not altered so as to reduce the term served.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000876]
Bank Bonuses
(13 years, 11 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
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on bankers’ bonuses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
We inherited from the previous Government a failed system of banking regulation and a situation where billions of pounds had been provided to bail out bankers with nothing demanded in return. It was a something-for-nothing deal that rightly left the British people seething with anger, and the British people and this Government will not accept extravagant bonuses this year without a change in behaviour. So this is what we are doing.
First, we are replacing the disastrous tripartite system for regulating banks that was established in 1997. Instead, our plan is to put the Bank of England clearly in charge. Secondly, we have created the Independent Commission on Banking to review the structure of the banking sector and address the issue of banks that are too big to fail. The previous Government’s failure to address that issue brought this country’s economy to its knees. The commission will report this autumn. Thirdly, we have introduced a permanent levy on the banks, in the face of opposition from the previous Government. This new banking tax started coming into effect last week and, once fully operational, will raise £2.5 billion each and every year, or £8.8 billion over this Parliament. We are also looking at the International Monetary Fund’s proposed financial activities tax, and we will work with international partners to secure agreement. Fourthly, we have demanded that the banks sign up to the code of practice on taxation—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Well, the previous Government created the code, but we discovered that only four of the 15 major banks had signed up to it when we came into office. All 15 have now signed up to the code of practice. We are also legislating in this year’s Finance Bill for tough anti-avoidance measures directed at some of the practices in the financial sector that no one had previously attempted to stop.
Specifically on remuneration and bonuses, on 1 January this year we introduced the most stringent code of practice of any financial centre in the world. For the first time, there will be a strict limit on the amount of bonus payable in up-front cash. Also for the first time, there will be a requirement that 50% of bonuses be paid in shares or other non-cash instruments, which bank employees will not be allowed to sell on for an appropriate period. Guaranteed bonuses will become the exception and not the rule, as was the case under the previous Government, and crucially, the new bonus code has been significantly extended. It will cover payments and bonuses at 2,500 firms, whereas the code that we inherited covered pay and bonuses at only 25 individual financial firms.
When it comes to the Royal Bank of Scotland, I am having to deal with the thoroughly inadequate contract negotiated by the previous Cabinet; the House might not be aware that it puts no constraints on RBS bonuses for this year. Indeed, the contract signed by the previous Government explicitly encourages RBS to pay bonuses at market rates. Despite this, we have made it clear to RBS that we will have a smaller bonus pool than last year and that it should be a back-marker in the industry, instead of the front-runner it once was.
In the coming weeks, all the banks will be announcing their pay and bonuses for this year. I confirm that we are in discussions with the banks to see if we can reach a new settlement, where the banks pay smaller bonuses than they would otherwise have done; are more transparent about those they do pay; make a greater contribution to local communities and regional economies; treat customers more fairly; and, above all, lend materially and verifiably more than they were planning to lend to the businesses of Britain, especially the small businesses, so that they can grow and create jobs this year.
This is what a new settlement with the banks should look like: they should lend to the British economy; contribute to the British Exchequer; provide jobs for British people; be responsible on pay and bonuses; and make sure that Britain is a world centre of a properly regulated and internationally competitive financial services industry. If the banks cannot commit to that, I have made it clear to them that nothing is off the table. I will keep Parliament informed of our discussions—and if the Opposition who created this banking mess have a better idea, let us hear it.
Alan Johnson
We are here to hold the Government to account. I have with me the coalition agreement, and I believe that I can still sense the scent of the rose garden upon it. This is what it says in paragraph 1:
“We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector”.
Where are those detailed proposals? When will we see them? Here is what the Chancellor said in his spending review statement in October:
“Fairness also means that, across the entire deficit reduction plan, those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden; those with the most should pay the most, and that includes our banks… Today we set out very clearly, for all to take note of, our objective in taxing the banking industry going forward… Our aim will be to extract the maximum sustainable tax revenues from financial services.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 951-956.]
But he has given the banks a tax cut from £3.5 billion to £1.2 billion and they will benefit more than any other sector from the cut in corporation tax. Cuts affecting children will contribute well over £5 billion and students will contribute £2.9 billion. Does the Chancellor think that children and students have the broadest shoulders? The man who said in opposition that no bonus should be higher than £2,000 will not even implement legislation forcing transparency about those receiving more than £1 million.
Where is the Deputy Prime Minister who, when not signing student pledges not to increase tuition fees or unveiling posters about VAT bombshells, was saying:
“Doesn't it make you angry that the banks have been allowed to ride roughshod over our economy, and are still handing out bonuses by the bucket load?”?
So in just seven months, the coalition goes from the scent of the rose garden to the stench of broken promises. The Chancellor who said, “We’re all in this together” bows to the rich and powerful while bearing down on everyone else. His sneering arrogance will not get him out of this one.
Mr Osborne
I do not know how much longer we are going to have to wait for a serious economic proposal from the shadow Chancellor. I suspect that time is running out for him. Let me repeat that we have introduced a code of practice that extends to 2,500 firms. There were 25 firms covered by the code of practice presided over by the right hon. Gentleman when he was in the Cabinet. We have introduced a permanent bank tax, which he and the Cabinet stood against during the general election.
The shadow Chancellor says that he wants a properly regulated banking system. However, he has opposed our proposals to regulate the banking system, we still do not know whether he supports the proposal to give the Bank of England a serious role, and—let us be clear about this—he has absolutely no idea about how to increase lending in the British economy, which he did nothing to achieve when he was in the Cabinet. Part of the pattern of an Opposition who have no serious plans to clear up the mess that they created is their habit of jumping on every passing bandwagon,
People will look at the shadow Chancellor and say that, although it is difficult to think of a way in which he could reduce his economic credibility further after the week that he has had, he has done just that today.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that an international agreement is reached on the need for more transparency in regard to bonuses and remuneration? Secondly, does the Chancellor believe that shareholders should be much more actively engaged in restraining pay and remuneration, given the evidence that we heard from the chief executive of Barclays this morning that no conversations on the subject had taken place between Barclays and its shareholders?
Mr Osborne
I certainly want to see much more international action on transparency, and I have held discussions with all the European Finance Ministers about how that can happen. We also want the Basel III arrangements to be implemented by all the G20 countries, and to be translated properly into European law.
I strongly agree with the my hon. Friend’s sentiments about shareholders. We want them to be more involved in pay and remuneration, and we want to find a way of improving corporate governance in that regard. That is one of the issues that we are discussing with the banks, and I know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is considering it as well.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is, understandably, enormous interest in this subject, but I remind the House that what is being discussed is an urgent question rather than a full-length statement. If I am to accommodate a reasonable number of Members, brevity from Back Benches and Front Benches alike is vital.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Voluntary organisations and community groups face cuts of at least £3 billion this year. If we are really all in this together, would it not be better for the banks to use their profits to support those community groups, rather than paying themselves up to £7 billion in massive personal bonuses?
Mr Osborne
Bonuses amounted to £11.5 billion when the right hon. Lady was in the Cabinet, although that has not been recognised by any Labour Member who will stand up and ask a question today. What we are trying to do is persuade banks to make a greater contribution to communities, business and the regional economy, which we want to be supported.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
On 1 September last year, the last Chancellor said that the bankers’ bonus tax had failed to change the City’s attitude to pay. He said that the tax was likely to be a one-off, and would not be reinstated by the coalition because it had failed to change bankers’ behaviour. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr Osborne
The last Chancellor of the Exchequer has directly addressed the question of whether the bonus tax in the form in which he introduced it last year could be repeated this year. He thinks that it could not, because behaviour has changed. Indeed, we have seen base pay rise in response to the bonus tax. However, as I made clear in my statement, we are seeking a new settlement with the banks, and nothing is off the table if they cannot agree to that.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Why is the right hon. Gentleman not extending the existing tax on bankers’ bonuses, which has yielded £3.5 billion in the past year? Does that not prove that this is a Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, and does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this rancid stink about bankers’ bonuses simply will not go away?
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman may not know it, or perhaps he did not really believe it, but he fought the last election on a manifesto—written, incidentally, by the Leader of the Opposition—that committed the then Government to opposing a unilateral levy. We have introduced such a levy, and it will raise almost £10 billion in the current Parliament. We are extracting from the banks revenue that the last Government did not extract. Indeed, they opposed the method that we have introduced.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In the future, will my right hon. Friend come to the House and let us know the extent to which the banks have complied with the requirement to lend more to businesses in my constituency? There was little sympathy for them under the last Government, when big bonuses were provided and they received little help from the bankers who received those bonuses.
Mr Osborne
An absolute central part of any settlement we might reach with the banks will be a material and verifiable increase in the amount of lending to British businesses, especially medium and small businesses. [Interruption.] Labour Members mutter, but they secured absolutely nothing for British business when they bailed out the banks. They had the money in their hands to give to the banks, and they secured absolutely nothing in return.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
A quick glance at today’s newspaper financial pages shows that the share price of RBS is 40p today compared with 52p this time last year, while that of Lloyds was 66p today compared with 64p a year ago. My constituents in Leeds West would not expect bonuses for such performance, so why should taxpayers’ money be used for the bonuses of our nationalised banks?
Mr Osborne
The deal that the previous Government signed with RBS as a condition of being part of the asset protection scheme stated that it should not pay bonuses in 2009, but that for the bonuses awarded in 2010—the period we are talking about now—it should pay the market rate. That was the deal that Labour signed up to. I am trying to reduce the RBS bonus pool, and I have made it very clear—as has the Prime Minister—that it should be a back-marker, not a market leader.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is not the problem with the leading bankers that they are often arsonists and firemen rolled into one? The trouble with the previous Government is that they left the arsonists in charge of the haystack. They bailed them out, but they did not protect the depositors adequately, and now they want to shoot the firemen. What is that going to achieve?
Mr Osborne
Well, I think we still have the haystack at the end of all that. My hon. Friend makes an important point, however. Of course I understand and share the feeling of anger that if we do not get a change of behaviour, these bonuses could be paid, and that is what we are addressing. However, this House will have an equally important—indeed, possibly even more important—issue to deal with later this year: the report from the Independent Commission on Banking, which we have established, again in the face of Labour opposition, to look at the whole issue of “too big to fail”. That is what my hon. Friend was talking about. The commission will look at how we can ensure that the British taxpayer does not stand behind the banks, but that the banks can be allowed to fail in an orderly way without bringing down the British economy.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In August 2009, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was “totally unacceptable” for bonuses to be paid while the Government were guaranteeing the banking system, and added, “It must stop.” Why has it not stopped?
Mr Osborne
Because I am clearing up the mess left to me by the hon. Gentleman’s party. This Government have done more in the last seven months to create a safer, more properly regulated banking system than Labour did in 13 years. As of the beginning of this year, we have a new code of practice that applies to 2,500 firms, compared with the 25 firms that were regulated under the previous Government, and, as I have said, we are seeking this new settlement with the banks that will, I hope, lead to a material increase in the amount of money that they lend to the British economy, and a material decrease in the amount they would otherwise have paid in bonuses.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Is the Chancellor aware that Sir Fred Goodwin took home £15 million under the previous Government?
Mr Osborne
The clue is in the question: his title is “Sir”—and he was given that knighthood by the previous Prime Minister.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
In the real world, jobs are being lost, wages squeezed, and taxes are rising, while businesses cannot get the credit they need and home buyers cannot get the mortgages they want. Does the Chancellor not recognise that that austere backdrop makes the very idea of a £7 billion bonus-pot toxic in the real world? Does he not regret washing his hands of this last night, and, effectively, giving the green light to a return to the bad old days of big bonuses?
Mr Osborne
It is precisely the real-world situation—where businesses need more lending, communities need support and we need more investment in our regional economies—that I am seeking to address. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, as a Member from Scotland, we need a successful, properly regulated financial services sector that employs tens of thousands of people in Scotland and, indeed, hundreds of thousands of people across the United Kingdom. That is what we are seeking to agree with the banking system. The fantasy world is the one that the Labour party occupies, where it bears no responsibility for the mess in which it has left this country.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Chancellor must understand the level of public anger about huge bank bonuses and recognise that obscene rewards for short-term gain without regard to the long-term consequences were part of the problem that led to the banking collapse in the first place. Surely it is to avoid a repeat of that that bank bonuses should be restrained and, importantly, weighted towards sustainable long-term performance, rather than short-term speculation.
Mr Osborne
I agree with all of that. We want to see bonus restraint; we want to see bonuses lower this year—[Interruption.] Lower this year than they were under the Labour Government. That is one objective. Secondly, we want to see bonuses deferred. Thirdly, we want to make sure that they do not reward risk-taking that goes badly wrong—that is why we want the ability to claw back. We also want to get away from the system—again, this thrived under the previous Government—of guaranteed bonuses, which people got regardless of what happened to their financial institution. That is precisely what the code of practice addresses, it is precisely why we are looking at greater transparency and greater shareholder involvement, and it is precisely why I want this new settlement with the banks.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is not the truth of the matter that this Government want the students, the homeless and the disabled to pay for this deficit, while their banking friends—the Tories’ banking friends—will get off scot-free, despite causing the problem in the first place? It is a bucket load of hypocrisy.
Mr Osborne
Again, the hon. Gentleman has amnesia. He seems to forget that for 13 years he supported a Government who allowed this problem to develop. Indeed, as far as I can tell, half the people who were in that Cabinet have gone on to work in the City.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his Department’s excellent record on tackling banking excess, which contrasts so favourably with the lamentable record of the Labour party when it was in government. Bonuses are only part of the mix of compensation, so could he update the House on the progress that the Independent Commission on Banking has made on tackling remuneration?
Mr Osborne
The Independent Commission on Banking is examining the structure of the banking industry and is specifically examining the “too big to fail” issue. It is examining competition in the banking industry, because in recent years we have seen an enormous consolidation of the industry. On taxation, I should of course have mentioned that banks pay income tax on the bonuses and employers’ national insurance at 12.8%.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Chancellor said in his statement that he expects the banks to make a greater contribution to local economies and local communities. Can he tell the House how much he expects them to set aside for that purpose and how he proposes that they should distribute it?
Mr Osborne
One of the issues that we are talking directly to the banks about is lending into regional economies outside London and the south-east—that is in addition to the contribution that they make to the whole national economy. That regional emphasis is a very specific part of the discussions we are having.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Chancellor has already told the House that under the banking contract, bonuses were actively encouraged by the previous Government for the current year. Can he tell the House whether lending to cash-strapped small businesses was also encouraged under that contract?
Mr Osborne
Nothing meaningful was secured on lending to small businesses by the previous Government at the very moment when they had maximum leverage: when they were bailing out these banks. That is part of what we are dealing with. We are also dealing with the situation in which they bought their very large stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland—as I have said, the deal explicitly says that the bonuses covering the year 2010 should be paid at market rates. I am saying that we want to see the bonus pool smaller and the Royal Bank of Scotland as a back-marker, rather than a front-runner.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Was it coincidence or careful Treasury planning that ensured that the amount projected in this year’s bonuses was the same as the £7 billion that the Government have taken in cuts? Does the Chancellor understand why people in this country make an equation between those two and are so very angry about it?
Mr Osborne
Of course I understand the British people’s anger at the economic mess that the banking community and the previous Government helped to create, but they also support those with a serious economic plan to put right those mistakes. At the moment, they are not hearing a serious economic plan from the Labour party.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
What progress has the Chancellor made in discussions about implementing a Tobin or Robin Hood tax either with other countries or alone?
Mr Osborne
The financial transaction tax is something that the international community is looking at and it is on the agenda for the G20 discussions. Almost everyone who looks at the idea accepts that it would have to be done internationally or else business would probably disappear overnight. It is on the international agenda and we are engaging in that discussion.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor should realise that the public will be angry at a Government who do not take action against the bankers who caused the financial crisis and have got back to bonuses as usual. Can he, for the record and in a moment of transparency, tell the House whether there is any disagreement in the Cabinet about the Government’s policy?
Mr Osborne
The Cabinet is completely agreed. [Interruption.] I know that the Labour party finds the idea of a united Cabinet difficult, but there is a united Cabinet that wants to see the banks lending more than they did under the previous Government and paying less in bonuses than they did under the previous Government, with more transparency, more shareholder involvement and more contributions to the community. That is what we seek to negotiate and I am doing that with the Business Secretary on behalf of the Cabinet.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Last year, there was a one-off tax on bank bonuses. Can the Chancellor confirm that this year the higher bonuses will attract the 50% income tax and 12.8% employers’ national insurance rates?
Mr Osborne
Of course it is right that they attract both income tax and employers’ national insurance contributions. I know there is an issue with the economic credibility of the Labour party at the moment but it is worth reading what the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said when he explicitly and directly addressed the question of whether the tax he introduced a year ago could be reintroduced in exactly the same form. He said that it would be difficult to do and that it would have to be a one-off because people would find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in future. We have to deal with that reality, but as I have made very clear, we seek a new settlement with the banks and if we do not agree a new settlement—if they are not able to meet our requirements—then nothing is off the table.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Unemployment in Tottenham is now the highest in London, benefits have been cut and students are being asked to bear the burden. Will the Chancellor take the opportunity to condemn the statement of Bob Diamond this morning that bankers should stop apologising for the economic crisis?
Mr Osborne
The apology should start with the previous Labour Government. Unemployment is high in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency because it rose under the previous Labour Government and we are having to deal with welfare costs because they soared under the previous Labour Government. When it comes to student fees, I believe that he was the Minister responsible for higher education who commissioned Lord Browne to do his report. Frankly, opportunism and the Labour party go hand in hand these days.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
When my constituents complain about bankers’ bonuses, it is usually in the same breath as highlighting poor banking practices such as overcharging as well as issues with their ability to get credit for their business. What assurances can the Chancellor give that those poor practices will stop?
Mr Osborne
It is explicitly those sorts of practices that are part of the discussions we are having with the banks. We want to ensure that they treat customers, including small businesses and households, more fairly, to look at the overcharging issue and to make sure that families and business are given good advance warning of the need to renegotiate terms. That is all part of what we seek to renegotiate. As I have said, we have heard absolutely no positive proposals from anyone in opposition. That says a great deal.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Chancellor has given the impression that the new bonus restrictions have been implemented at his instigation, whereas, of course, they have been introduced to ensure compliance with EU rules, particularly those of the capital requirements directive and the Committee of European Banking Supervisors. The directive was opposed by Conservative MEPs. As for disclosure, Stephen Hester has indicated that the industry is quite relaxed about the implementation of a unilateral disclosure scheme. In the light of his comments, will the Chancellor reconsider the implementation of such a scheme, so we can at least know what is paid in the sector?
Mr Osborne
As I said, we are looking for greater disclosure. We are also seeking agreement at European level, because this is an international industry. These are perfectly sensible steps to take, and we have introduced in this country the toughest financial code on bonuses of any financial centre of any size anywhere in the world.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The UK financial industry will pay £54 billion in taxes this year—more than any other industry—and its 1 million employees will pay a further £25 billion in income tax. Does the Chancellor agree that those tax revenues will help to pay for our schools and hospitals, and to cut the record budget deficit left by the Labour party?
Mr Osborne
It is, of course, important—I said this in my statement—that we have a successful but properly regulated financial services industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of people in many constituencies represented in the Chamber. It used to be the case—although perhaps it is not the case any more—that senior Labour politicians would at least acknowledge that. That is why I would much rather reach a settlement with the banks, and that is what we are seeking to do. We want a successful industry that pays a proper contribution to the Exchequer and lends more to British business, and that is my objective.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it fair that pensioners and hard-working families in my constituency are paying 2.5% more in VAT as a result of his Government’s broken promise on VAT, while the bankers get away scot-free?
Mr Osborne
We have introduced a permanent bank levy. An argument was made at the general election by Labour Treasury Ministers and the Labour Prime Minister that we should not introduce a levy unilaterally, as it would make Britain uncompetitive. That argument was aired then, and we have now introduced a permanent bank levy. I do not know whether the Labour party supports it or not, but it will raise almost £10 million during this Parliament, and it applies each and every year, rather than being a one-off.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Has the Chancellor noted that in The Guardian this morning, when given the opportunity to support the idea of continuing the bank payroll tax, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), whom I cannot see in the Chamber, refused to back the opportunistic policy of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr Osborne
The former Chancellor has clearly made his views known, and I would suggest that he has more credibility on the subject than the shadow Chancellor.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
While the Chancellor acquiesces to the bankers’ demands, his Government propose to cut the sick pay of workers who are genuinely off sick. May I therefore ask the Chancellor: where is the fairness in that?
Mr Osborne
Where is the fairness in a record budget deficit? That is what we have to address. We are taking difficult measures; I know that every single one is opposed by the Opposition, who created that deficit, but that says more about them than it does about our plan.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
What percentage of bankers based in the City of London are British citizens, and therefore taxed at the higher rate on their bonuses?
Mr Osborne
Two hundred and fifty thousand people or thereabouts are eligible for the 50p rate, which came into effect in April. As I have said, other taxes, too—such as employers’ national insurance—are levied on bonuses, and in the Finance Bill, which we have published in draft, we have taken specific measures, on which we will seek to legislate later this year, to deal with some of the avoidance practices in the financial sector that were allowed to proliferate under the previous Government.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
In October 2009 the Chancellor said that high street banks should be banned from paying bonuses above about £2,000 in cash. Is that his policy today as well?
Mr Osborne
I have made it very clear that I want to see bonuses lower this year than they were in the last year of the Labour Government. That is the objective. The Labour party either supports that or it does not, but that is what we are seeking to achieve with the banks.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I share and understand the concerns that people have about the sheer scale of bankers’ bonuses, but it is also vital to look at how bankers are measured. When the Governor of the Bank of England came to the Treasury Committee in November, he said that he felt it was better to reward bankers according to return on assets rather than return on equity. I wonder whether the Chancellor believes that that view merits further consideration.
Mr Osborne
That is one of the issues being considered, and I noted the Governor’s comments. The code of practice has a number of constraints on how bonuses are paid. It is a vast improvement on last year’s situation, and will help create a better regulated banking sector.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
When the Chancellor’s colleague the Prime Minister said in 2009 that no bank with significant taxpayer support should pay bonuses of more than £2,000, was he jumping on an Opposition bandwagon or was it a serious policy initiative? If it was the latter, what has changed since 2009?
Mr Osborne
That was about the time when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the then Prime Minister, said:
“The day of big bonuses is over.”
That is the kind of rhetorical—[Interruption.] That is the situation that we have inherited—no proper code of practice, no permanent bank levy, no plan for improving the system of regulation. We are putting in place measures that we believe will materially improve lending in this economy and the regulation of our banking system. Every single one of them has, for opportunistic reasons, been opposed by the Labour party.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
On BBC television yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition stated that Labour’s bankers tax brought in £3.5 billion whereas the Government’s levy would bring in only £1.3 billion. Will the Chancellor confirm that the right hon. Gentleman got his figures incorrect? Actually, Labour’s bankers tax brought in just £2.3 billion, whereas the Government’s levy will bring in more, at £2.5 billion.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right. When the bonus tax was introduced by the previous Chancellor, he explicitly said that there would be displacement activity and that the net receipts to the Treasury would be less. Those have been looked at by the Inland Revenue and verified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. They are less than the £2.5 billion or thereabouts that our bank levy will raise on a regular year-on-year basis once it is fully up and running.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
What are ordinary hard-working constituents listening to the Chancellor’s announcements from millionaires’ row today to do but conclude that his message to them is that we are not all in this together, and that his message to the bankers is, “Carry on filling your boots?”
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, a Minister in the Labour Government. In the first year of this Government we are seeking lower bonuses than were paid in the last year of the Labour Government. Perhaps he will explain that to his constituents.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give the House an indication of the time scale within which he expects the banks—particularly those such as RBS, in which the taxpayer has a substantial shareholding—to make proposals on how they will increase responsible lending, on reasonable terms, to small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members across the House?
Mr Osborne
The discussions are taking place now. In the next couple of weeks, I expect to be able to come back to the House with the conclusions of those discussions. The pay packages and bonuses for UK banks will be announced either right at the end of January or in early February; those for American banks will be slightly earlier.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
A lot of people will be particularly disappointed, because how the Chancellor is speaking today is so very different from how he spoke in opposition. As someone who has recently been going downhill fast, does he understand how depressed people will be about what they are hearing from him today compared with what he said as shadow Chancellor?
Mr Osborne
I hope that what people are hearing from us today are serious proposals: to increase lending in our economy, which is very important; to reduce the bonus pool, so that it is not as large as it was under the Labour Government; and to increase the contribution to communities in the way that we all want to see. That is what we are seeking to agree with the banks. As I say, there is absolutely no proposal to the contrary from the Labour party, which actually created this mess, and feathered the nests of the banks, while it was in office.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Does the Chancellor share my view that one reason why there was no bank levy under the Labour Government was because, in Lord Mandelson’s words, they were
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”?
Mr Osborne
That was one of the things that Labour Cabinet Ministers said at the time—and indeed, quite a few of them have lived up to it since leaving office.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister threatened very serious action against bankers who sought to pay themselves unjustifiable bonuses. Should we regard the Chancellor’s answer today as a description of the very serious action that the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about?
Mr Osborne
I have made it very clear that nothing is off the table unless we can agree a settlement with the banks that allows an increase in lending, an increase in community contributions and a lower bonus pool.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Chancellor agree that, in addition to getting the banks to lend more to business, we should be focusing on getting the maximum sustainable tax take from banks? That involves concentrating on the tax take, not just tax rates—a mistake that the Opposition often make.
Mr Osborne
Absolutely. What we want is the maximum sustainable tax revenue—that is the objective of this Government—and, indeed, to get the maximum sustainable lending into the British economy. We are trying to link the two in a settlement. I have no idea what the Labour party is proposing, but this is the sensible way forward.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
May I give the Chancellor another opportunity to answer the question? When are we going to see the detailed proposals for robust action, as promised on page 9 of the coalition agreement, specifically to target—bankers’ bonuses?
Mr Osborne
“It says here.”
What I would say is that we have introduced the code of practice, which extends the coverage of the code to 2,500 firms rather than 25. We are taking that action, and as I have said, we are also seeking a lower bonus pool than existed when the party that the hon. Lady supports was in government last year. That is a sensible step forward in the current climate.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Is it not a shame that the something-for-nothing deal that was done goes far beyond just bankers’ bonuses, and has meant that small businesses in my constituency have to struggle to get a continuation of a line of credit? Can the Chancellor help me in my dealings with NatWest in this particular process in relation to a number of small businesses in Daventry?
Mr Osborne
Of course I shall be happy to look at my hon. Friend’s constituency case. He highlights the central issue that the previous Government completely failed to address: how to increase lending to the small and medium-sized business sector. That is one of our central economic objectives; that is why we are in discussions with the banks. The previous Government achieved nothing in that regard; we hope to achieve something, and we will come to the House and report on our progress.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In the Chancellor’s judgment, what is the maximum bonus that Barclays should offer its chief executive Bob Diamond for 2010?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Hard-pressed taxpayers in my constituency will rightly be annoyed at the disgraceful deal done by the previous Labour Government. What leverage will my right hon. Friend bring to ensure that bonuses are paid on the basis of bankers’ performance rather than just financial information?
Mr Osborne
That is precisely why we are improving the governance around bankers’ pay and remuneration, and why we are changing the system of regulation to replace the failed tripartite system created by the previous Government and voted for by many Opposition Members. We have done more in seven months than they did in 13 years, when they lived off a philosophy that there would be no more boom and bust. We are now picking up the pieces of that failed philosophy.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Constituents in Brigg and Goole are rightly concerned about the bonuses, but they also remember that it was Ministers in the previous Government who spent at least 12 of 13 years supping cocktails with bankers, praising them around the world and dishing out knighthoods to them. I therefore congratulate the Chancellor on his comments on social responsibility and the community fund. Can he tell us when that community fund for the banks will be established, and whether small as well as larger good causes locally will be able to benefit from it?
Mr Osborne
I do remember exactly that story of the Labour Government; indeed, I was reminded of it recently when I saw Tony Blair, that well-known consultant for J. P. Morgan. We are trying to sort out the situation that we inherited—a complete mess with no plans to put it right. Now, seven months in, the Opposition still have no serious economic policy to put forward.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer as appalled as I am by the mock anger of those on the Opposition Benches, which is a blatant attempt to mask the fact that they completely failed to regulate the banking industry that amounts to no more than blatant opportunism, and smacks of canting hypocrisy?
Mr Osborne
It is blatant opportunism, and it is a substitute for a serious economic policy. People will have long memories about what happened when Labour was in charge of our economy.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Chancellor has said several times that nothing is off the table if the banks do not conform to the code of practice. Can you explain to me and to people here today what exactly is on the table, and what you will do if they do not conform?
Mr Speaker
Order. I will do nothing at all, but I think the Chancellor might.
Mr Osborne
As I have said, what is on the table at the moment is the discussion that we are having to increase lending in a material way—in other words, more than would otherwise have been the case—and to reduce bonuses more than would otherwise have been the case. I have made it very clear to the banks that nothing is off the table if we do not agree this settlement, and we will look at all the options available to us.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Chancellor and all colleagues for their succinctness, which has enabled every Member who wanted to ask a question to do so, and to secure an answer.
Points of Order
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker—of which I hope you have had some notice. On 21 December, through a press statement, the Prime Minister announced a major change to the machinery of Government. I hope that the Business Secretary will remain in the Chamber, because that was the day on which all responsibility for competition and policy issues relating to media broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors was transferred out of his remit and into the remit of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There has been no announcement whatsoever to the House of Commons relating to that major change to the machinery of Government, and we are not clear which particular aspects of Government policy have in fact been transferred. Today, the website of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills talks of issues within this area that are the responsibility of a Minister in that Department still being the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Have you, Mr Speaker, had any indication whatsoever that this House, rather than the press, will be informed of the detail of this major change to the machinery of Government?
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have not heard of any Government intention to make a statement on this matter today. However, I remind him and the House that Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be answering oral questions in the Chamber on Thursday, when opportunities might present themselves. I hope that that is helpful.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hear what you have said, but this afternoon I tried to table some questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Table Office is uncertain about what specific responsibilities fall within which Department, so there is a very real problem for the order of this House.
Mr Speaker
It is for Ministers to decide into which bailiwick matters fall, and therefore which Minister or Department is responsible. I note the very real concern that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has just expressed. Off the top of my head, I would say two things to him. First, he will be aware that at Business, Innovation and Skills questions on Thursday there will be topical questions, and it is open to Members to try to highlight their concerns at that juncture. Also on Thursday there will be business questions, and it will certainly not be beyond the wit and sagacity of the hon. Member for Rhondda, if he chooses to be here, to pursue these matters. If he is elsewhere, in a certain part of the north-west, then other Members might take up the slack; we shall see.
If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has been patiently waiting.
Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 to provide for information about the country of origin of food to be made available to consumers; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to invite the House once more to give leave for the introduction of a Bill to promote the clearer labelling of food. The Bill is supported by Members from all parts of the House and its aim is simple: to provide clearer, more accurate and more honest information to consumers about the food that they buy than is currently required. This is my fourth attempt to change the law on food labelling, and I continue to campaign for compulsory country of origin labelling, because I believe that the consensus on the need for a change in the law continues to grow.
Many producers use ambiguous wording such as “Produced in the UK” and slogans such as “Great British Menu”, “British Classic” or “The Nation’s Favourite” on packaging, often alongside the Union flag, to imply that their product is British when it is not. When I last raised this issue, I gave the House some of the most egregious examples of misleading packaging, but I will not dwell on those today because there have been developments since my last attempt to change the law.
Recently, several organisations have issued guidance on best practice and codes of conduct on food labelling. The pig meat supply chain task force, which counts the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom I am pleased to see in his place, as a member, recently announced a voluntary code of practice for the labelling of pork and pork products. It calls for the country of origin of the pork used in pork products to be clearly displayed. That applies to the whole of the pigmeat supply chain. Those welcome standards are hard-edged and meticulous, and take careful aim at ambiguous terms such as “Produced in the UK”, which are still used.
Guidance on origin labelling has been developed by the British Retail Consortium in association with the British Meat Processors Association, the British Hospitality Association, Dairy UK, the Food and Drink Federation and the Business Services Association. The guidance, which aims to ensure that country of origin information at the point of sale is consistent and clear, applies to meat, processed meat products, milk, fresh cream, cheese and butter. It suggests that using British flags, images, icons or landmarks, or any suggestion of British or local origin through slogans such as “British Classic” should be limited to products where the meat originates from the UK. The code suggests that when a voluntary origin declaration is made on composite products such as pies and casseroles, the country of origin of the meat ingredient should be labelled if the meat is considered of primary interest to the consumer or a predominant component of the product.
Those voluntary codes are steps in the right direction, but they are not the end of the journey and there is more to be done. Significant concerns persist about the effectiveness of voluntary agreements, and the demand for mandatory country of origin labelling is growing. Helen Ferrier, the chief science and regulatory affairs adviser for the National Farmers Union, said of the British Retail Consortium’s guidance:
“Unless all companies sign up and then consistently stick to their promises, some consumers will still be misled.”
Alice Barnard, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, welcomed the guidance and urged food organisations to sign up to its standards, but lamented:
“The code is not mandatory, which would offer further protection still”.
A resolution calling for the mandatory clear labelling of food with its true country of origin received unanimous support at the 2010 annual general meeting of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. Its chair, Ruth Bond, said:
“We know that consumers want to make informed choices and surely it is not right that consumers remain dependent on the goodwill of retailers signing up to a voluntary scheme. Without legislation there is no guarantee that consumers will get the choice and information they are demanding”.
Even signatories to the British Retail Consortium’s code recognise the importance of mandatory labelling. Speaking on behalf of Dairy UK, Richard Hollingdale, the sales and marketing director of First Milk, told the all-party group on cheese:
“Although the current legislation requires origin to be included on the pack, in practice consumers can be misled. Our view is that consumer requirements for cheese can only be met by mandatory arrangements that recognise the place of manufacture of the product.”
The director general of Dairy UK, Jim Begg, added:
“We’re looking for a simple solution to resolve this issue. You don’t need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But we do think that a mandatory element is necessary to be effective.”
Even Brussels, which has often been cited as a roadblock to progress on country of origin labelling, recognises the need for mandatory rules to be more widely applied. On 16 June 2010 the European Parliament voted to accept draft food labelling legislation that would expand the EU’s requirements for country of origin labelling on food to all meat, poultry, dairy products and other single-ingredient foods. Then, on 7 December, EPSCO—the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council—reached a political agreement on draft regulation 16555/10, on food information for consumers. The proposed regulation states:
“The impact assessment of the Commission confirms that origin of meat appears to be the prime concern of consumers. There are other meats widely consumed in the European Union, such as swine, sheep, goats and poultry. It is therefore appropriate to impose the mandatory declaration of origin for those products”.
The agreement also makes provision for the Commission to report, within three years of the regulation coming into force, on the possible extension of compulsory country of origin labelling to other foods, including milk; milk used as an ingredient in dairy products; types of meat other than swine, sheep, goats and poultry; meat used as an ingredient; unprocessed foods; single-ingredient products; and ingredients that represent more than 50% of a food. The measure will be considered by member states and then the European Parliament, and if adopted it will take effect in three to five years, extending mandatory information about the country of origin to the main types of meat on sale on the British high street. It has the potential to extend to all meats, processed meat products and dairy products.
The proposals have found support from consumer group Which?, which has stated:
“We support the EU proposals and welcome the new voluntary scheme, but we want both to go further. Until food labelling is mandatory, consumers won’t get the full picture”.
Mr Meurig Raymond, deputy president of the National Farmers Union, has said:
“We believe there is no reason why mandatory Country of Origin labelling should not be extended to the remaining sectors as well as to the main ingredients of semi-processed foods.”
British farmers are keen for consumers to be well informed about where meat comes from. Information for consumers is not protectionism. I am not in favour of compulsion through legislation except where absolutely necessary, but in this area it is necessary, and there is consumer support for a mandatory country of origin food labelling scheme. We have been waiting years for a workable voluntary scheme, and despite some welcome advances, we are still waiting. It is now necessary for the Government to accept that honest food labelling requires the force of law, and that is what my Bill would provide. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Bacon, Angus Robertson, Elizabeth Truss, Mr Keith Simpson, Mr David Ruffley, George Freeman, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr Kevan Jones, Roger Williams and Sir Alan Beith present the Bill.
Mr Richard Bacon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 April, and to be printed (Bill 130).
European Union Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 39 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:17 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 41, page 11, line 25, at end insert—
‘(1) The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, page 11, line 30, at end insert ‘and not by virtue of a common law principle.’.
Amendment 52, page 11, line 30, at end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the extent to which in the previous 12 months the provisions of subsection (1) have been challenged or questioned in the courts, including the European Court of Justice, identifying any challenge to the declaration contained in that subsection that the status of EU law is dependent on the continuing statutory basis provided by the European Communities Act 1972.
(3) The report made under subsection (2) shall be laid before Parliament for its approval.’.
Clause 18 stand part.
New clause 1—Parliamentary sovereignty—
‘Section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 shall not extend to the construction or interpretation by the courts of the United Kingdom as to the nature or legal effect of parliamentary sovereignty and section 3 shall be amended accordingly.’.
New clause 4—Saving for existing law—
‘Nothing in Part 3 adversely affects or shall be construed as affecting the existing constitutional law of the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to EU law.’.
Mr Cash
The group relates specifically to clause 18, and I shall explain a little of the amendments’ purpose.
Amendment 41 would insert at the beginning of the clause, which covers the status of EU law, the simple words:
“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament is hereby reaffirmed.”
Amendment 10 would add to the end of the clause the simple phrase,
“and not by virtue of a common law principle”.
The effect of that would be to prevent the courts from applying a common law principle, which has become entrenched in certain thinking in influential academic and legal circles, and in the Supreme Court. The explanatory notes suggest that it has also become entrenched in the Government’s thinking.
I understand that the explanatory notes may be in the course of being corrected, as the European Scrutiny Committee and one of its main witnesses suggested. However, precisely what effect that will have remains to be seen. Perhaps we can debate that this afternoon. After all, the explanatory notes may have been prepared to aid interpretation of the statute—statute law is open to interpretation by the courts—but will the removal of the relevant words necessarily have the effect of preventing those most distinguished and eminent Supreme Court judges from departing from principles and doctrines to which they have apparently become wedded?
The two new clauses are directly relevant to clause 18 to ensure parliamentary sovereignty in view of the continuing trend towards judicial interpretation along the lines that I have already expressed. It is a matter of grave concern to many of us—far more than may turn up in the Lobbies today—that the courts, on a range of matters, have accumulated greater and greater influence, and, indeed, action, in relation to their judgments on Acts of Parliament. I refer not merely to interpretation or construction of the words but the underlying judicial activism, sometimes of a quasi-political nature. That has caused a great deal of concern, which has arisen particularly in the case of the Human Rights Act 1998. Although we are not discussing that today, there is an analogy because the charter of fundamental rights, which mirrors the Human Rights Act, is part and parcel of the arrangements under the Lisbon treaty. In that area of law, if there were any inconsistency between legislation—many centuries old and based on well established democratic principles—passed in this Westminster Parliament, would the judiciary presume to make judgments about the nature or legal effects of parliamentary sovereignty?
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend deal with the canard put around by Foreign Office lawyers that if his amendment is passed and we add talk of sovereignty to the statute, judges will be given a chance to intervene because it is not mentioned elsewhere? Surely the issue is clear: Parliament is sovereign, so why do we not just pass this amendment?
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful to him. Indeed, I suspect that many other colleagues, not only on the Back Benches but among the ministerial ranks, agree with me strongly. I also suspect that many Opposition Members feel exactly the same way. I hope, although without too much confidence, that one or two Liberal Democrats might take a similar view, although I would not wish to over-egg the pudding on that score.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I happened to be doing a television interview earlier today with Mr Chris Davies, who is a Liberal Democrat MEP. When I asked him what the problem was with incorporating this amendment in the Bill, he said he could not possibly disagree with it. So there are Liberal Democrats who agree, and I simply do not understand why the Government object.
Mr Cash
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Indeed, I would be fascinated to know what would happen if any hon. Member were to appear before their local association and say, for example, “I just want to inform you that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is not reaffirmed.” I think they would get a dusty answer from their constituents, especially as they elected that person to represent them in Parliament.
I am concerned to ensure that the courts are excluded from the construction or interpretation of the nature or legal effect of parliamentary sovereignty. It is of course still inherent in the arrangements, even after the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, that the judiciary are not only quamdiu se bene gesserint, as the Latin has it—in other words, they hold their position during good behaviour—but, in exceptional circumstances, it would be possible for judges to be removed, by an address by both Houses of Parliament, if they were to depart from that dictum. I would have said that some of the remarks relating to the sovereignty of Parliament that have emanated from some judicial circles in recent years have trespassed closely on the question of whether Parliament is the supreme law-making body in this country. I include that new clause because I want to exclude the courts in relation to section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, but I am not attempting to extend its range beyond that.
I find it strange that the Government say that the Bill does not attempt to embrace the whole doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Of course it could not have done so, because the scope of the Bill would prevent that. For practical purposes, my amendments are all devised and worded in relation to EU law, but without prejudice to my concern about the fact that justices of the Supreme Court should not pick and choose between the different kinds of statute to which they apply these attitudes if they were to gain critical mass.
New clause 4 states:
“Nothing in Part 3”—
the provision relating to the status of EU law—
“adversely affects or shall be construed as affecting the existing constitutional law of the sovereignty of Parliament”.
I then add, for the purposes of the scope of the Bill, the words
“in relation to EU law.”
I have provided a fail-safe mechanism and firewall against any attempt by the judiciary to interfere with the sovereignty of the House. I have done that not simply because that sovereignty is centuries old in its derivation, but because, certainly since the mid-19th century, our democratic representation, which leads Members of Parliament to convene in this Chamber and pass laws, has derived its supremacy exclusively from that democratic right.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his call for sovereignty of the House with the fact that, on 1 January, we saw established the European Securities and Markets Authority in Paris, the European Banking Authority in London, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority in Frankfurt and the European Systemic Risk Board, all of which trump national organisations such as the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England? Is this not an unreal debate? This is happening now and is constraining our action, and none of these amendments will make any difference to the fact of those constraints.
The Chairman
Order. It would help if the hon. Gentleman could try to shorten his interventions.
Mr Cash
The amendments, if passed, would enable us to deal with those questions. In point of fact, I intend to come on to the implications of my new clauses and amendments in relation to a number of matters, including what I regard as the totally unnecessary and unacceptable jurisdiction being given to the European Court and other European institutions over the City of London. I have been talking about that in national newspapers for the best part of two and a half years.
Mr Jenkin
Does the previous intervention not underline why we need my hon. Friend’s amendment? There might be no doubt in our minds that Parliament is sovereign and that the functions and powers to which he has just referred are simply delegated to the European Union by this sovereign House, but because such misunderstandings exist, it is time for the House to make a clear declaration that sovereignty and ultimate legal authority still rest with the House of Commons.
Mr Cash
I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is exactly right. Since 1972, there has been an accumulation that has now turned into a tsunami—a sort of Pied Piper of Hamelin, whom we all remember from our childhoods—as the accumulated rumbling and tumbling has gone on and on. We are now faced with a continuous stream of legislation divesting the House of its right to legislate, and this is an opportunity—one not invented by me in terms of the clauses proposed by the Government—to enable us to regain the sovereignty that belongs to the people of this country, the voters in general elections and Members of Parliament elected to the House for the purposes of protecting those voters’ interests.
Mr MacShane
Just as we start this interesting debate, I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman accepts the broad principle of pacta sunt servanda.
The Chairman
Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Is the hon. Gentleman now in favour of establishing a common European language?
Mr Cash
With the greatest respect, we have already had one intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would be kind enough to wait.
It would be ironic to say the least if the slogan “Working together in the national interest”, which we saw at our party conference, were to become “Working together against the national interest”. I do not believe that any Member of Parliament or any Minister would agree that the coalition—a “temporary alliance”, according to the “Oxford English Dictionary”—should be employed in any way to pass legislation that would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Incidentally, I am somewhat appalled at the lack of coverage not of this debate but of the European Scrutiny Committee report when it came out, given the fundamental nature of the issues at stake, and the quality of analysis not only in the report itself but in the evidence given to us by probably the most distinguished constitutional experts in the land.
I will turn first to the constitutional and legal issues that clause 18 raises and which were carefully considered for several weeks by the European Scrutiny Committee, which received evidence on a completely even-handed basis, which, because of the fundamental importance of the issues to our constitution and our democracy, was well worth doing. In the course of the proceedings it became clear that many of the constitutional experts concerned felt that, at the very least, clause 18 was completely unnecessary. The most compelling evidence—the evidence that we received from Professors Tomkins and Goldsworthy, along with a number of others—was that clause 18 was hazardous and dangerous, particularly in the light of the Government’s assertions.
The issue of parliamentary sovereignty has been a matter of fundamental concern, importance and action since the 17th century. However, parliamentary sovereignty acquired a special and fundamental significance with the extension of the franchise in the mid-19th century, from the Reform Act of 1867 onwards—for example, through the Reform Acts of 1885 and 1884—and is undoubtedly the democratic basis of the United Kingdom constitution. However, irrespective of its now democratic basis, parliamentary sovereignty has become increasingly questioned recently—and only very recently—by reason of judicial assertions. Although on the tin, as well as in many repeated statements, we were told—I refer now to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches—that we would be getting a sovereignty clause or even a sovereignty Bill, clause 18 is emphatically not a sovereignty clause. For reasons that I will explain, the clause will actually undermine parliamentary sovereignty by encouraging judicial supremacy. The explanatory notes put forward the dangerous notion that parliamentary sovereignty is a “common law principle”, and therefore subject to judicial authority. However, even if the explanatory notes were disavowed on this matter, the problem of judicial assertions relating to parliamentary sovereignty would not disappear.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues stood in the election on a manifesto that said on page 114:
“We will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.”
Is he therefore disappointed that the Government have binned that part of the manifesto that he stood on?
Mr Cash
Not disappointed—absolutely appalled.
The sovereignty of Parliament is the most important principle of the United Kingdom constitution, and has been since 1688, as confirmed by constitutional authorities without question until very recently. Indeed, the greatest judge in recent times, the late Lord Bingham, who died only a few months ago, stated in the Jackson case in 2005:
“The bedrock of the British constitution is…the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.”
I fear that the sovereignty of Parliament is in grave danger, however. There are judges in the Supreme Court whom Lord Bingham himself felt it necessary to name in black and white in chapter 10 of his book “The Rule of Law”, published shortly before his death. He publicly criticised their judgments and their attitude to parliamentary sovereignty. In the Jackson case, Lord Hope, who is now deputy president of the Supreme Court, said that
“parliamentary sovereignty is no longer…absolute”.
He went on to say that, “step by step”, it “is being qualified”. In his view, the rule of law, enforced by the courts, is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based. Lady Hale, who also remains on the Supreme Court, agreed with Lord Hope.
The fact that that case did not relate specifically to EU law does not alter the fact that the views expressed by Supreme Court judges can be as easily applied to cases involving EU law as to another judicial matter, contrary to the suggestions being put forward by the Minister in evidence earlier. It is not an answer to the question, as the Prime Minister has sought to suggest in a letter to me, for the Minister for Europe to state in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that the Government are not seeking, and have never sought, to provide
“an all-embracing doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.”
The Supreme Court justices, who have a process of selection outside the Judicial Appointments Commission, have a significant critical mass of those with profoundly Eurocentric credentials. I mention this because the sovereignty of Parliament, which is a constitutional doctrine of the United Kingdom, is also under threat by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. The construction placed on legislation emanating from that Act affects the daily lives of the electorate in almost every sphere of present-day activity. According to the Government themselves, such legislation affects at least 50% of all economic laws in the United Kingdom, including those that impose burdens on businesses small and large that, according to the best estimates, have cost £124 billion since 1998.
The threat comes not only from the common law radicalism of such judges but from the EU law itself, which claims constitutional supremacy over member states’ constitutions. We have also seen cases of terrorists appearing to get away with things and people not being deported when they should have been, as well as a whole range of other matters occurring under the European Human Rights Act, which, as I have said, is mirrored by the new charter of fundamental rights in the Lisbon treaty. We are witnessing a vast increase in the volume and impact of such legislation on the British people, and this is resulting in the anxieties I have described. Those anxieties could be allayed by my amendments, however, and it is time for us to turn the tide and make it clear exactly where we stand.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
My hon. Friend is undoubtedly correct to say that the role of the courts has increased significantly, but is not the ultimate test of the sovereignty of Parliament whether Parliament can amend the law, either on domestic matters, when the courts have interpreted the law to our dissatisfaction, or in relation to our international treaty obligations, from which Parliament should always have the right to withdraw if it so chooses? Given those circumstances, the sovereignty of Parliament ultimately remains available to us.
Mr Cash
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I agree with the sentiment; the problem is the practice. The difficulty is not only the tsunami of laws: attitudes within the Supreme Court, particularly since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, have so enhanced its independence that, in conjunction with the arguments it is beginning to present, very serious questions are raised. It was the same with the Bill of Rights of 1688—it was not an Act, but it is regarded as one of the central instruments of our constitution—when Parliament said that it was going to put its foot down and set down a marker that Parliament was sovereign. That is what I am saying in my amendments.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is surely correct in saying that there is always what the Business Secretary would perhaps call the nuclear option of withdrawing completely. Is not one of the reasons why we, as a sovereign Parliament, are feeling more and more repressed by this sort of judicial activist legislation that things are so often put forward as if they were absolute rights whereas they should be viewed as qualified rights? That is why a common-sense Parliament would say that someone had abrogated some of their rights by bad behaviour, for example, but these courts say that the rights are absolute so that no matter how badly people behave, they cannot, for example, be deported.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I think all Members will want to take into account. As a lawyer myself—there are many other lawyers in the Chamber—I know that there always exists within the framework of the judicial or court system the adversarial nature of arguments based on words. One reason I came into this House after a fairly lengthy career in the law was that having had so much exposure to parliamentary legislation and its impact on people, I was conscious of the fact that however clever or adroit a lawyer might be in expressing his opinion in court or in his practice, the impact of law on the people who receive it—the voters—was quite a different matter. The common sense mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) provides a salutary reminder of the necessity to remember that we in this House are Members of Parliament. We are legislators; we are not lawyers. We are seeking to apply principles that will enable this country’s people to be better governed.
Unfortunately, much of our legislation emanates from the European Union, for example, on issues such as food labelling. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has just proposed a private Member’s Bill to deal with that issue, but his Bill has no chance of becoming law unless we disapply the European element and pass it in this House. That is the problem, and it is, in part, what the supremacy of Parliament debate is all about.
Martin Horwood
I would like to question the hon. Gentleman on one of these principles. He is presenting this as a competition between European and British law and between judges and Parliament, yet he himself has said that these debates are happening and this authority has been conferred on British courts because of the European Communities Act 1972, which, unless I am very much mistaken, was an Act of this British Parliament. That rather reinforces the principle of supremacy.
Mr Cash
If I may say so, that is not only true but precisely what I am seeking to deal with in new clause 1, which I tabled because the courts have been allowed this unwarranted intrusion into the legislative process by judicial activism. Much of the European Communities Act 1972 invokes regulations, which come into effect in a different way from directives. In the new clause, the interpretation and the construction put on legislation by the judiciary should not under section 3 of that Act extend to the nature or legal effect of parliamentary sovereignty. What I am doing is exactly what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) highlighted—dealing with the mischief, as I see it, created for that ultimate source of authority, which lies in this House as a sovereign Parliament, to be able to make and unmake laws as it wishes.
That does not necessarily mean that we would automatically take extreme positions. Some academic lawyers—very distinguished they are, too—have gone to extraordinary extremes in trying to demonstrate, in print, the necessity for their case, and have not done themselves a service in so doing. It is at a much more mundane level that the people of this country are unreasonably affected by some of the legislation that needs to be dealt with in Parliament, and which can be dealt with only by the sovereignty of Parliament in its traditional sense.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous with his time. According to a report from his own European Scrutiny Committee,
“the term ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ bears a number of meanings which can get confused.”
Does not the risk posed by his amendment lie in the fact that it is so simple that it allows for wide and different interpretations that might be exploited by the very courts about which he seems to be so worried?
Mr Cash
I should be more than happy to show the hon. Gentleman a book that is entirely devoted to the issue of the sovereignty of Parliament. The point is that there is no need to define parliamentary sovereignty. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which gave greater independence to the judiciary and the whole of which ultimately turns on the rule of law, does not contain any definition of the rule of law. Certain fundamental principles, and methods whereby we are governed, do not require definition for that purpose. They are applied, in the case of both sovereignty and the rule of law. There is a natural constructive tension between the two, but it is our job to protect the element that involves the sovereignty of Parliament.
Mr MacShane
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but the fundamental rule of international law in regard to treaties is “pacta sunt servanda”. Those who sign a treaty must abide by it. If Parliament does not like a treaty, it has a sovereign right to withdraw from it. We can withdraw from the European convention on human rights, which is concerned with deporting people and so forth, and we can do the same in regard to the European Union. That is not a nuclear option; it is a perfectly fair choice that this Parliament could take. I rather wonder whether that is the speech that the hon. Gentleman should be making.
Mr Cash
I shall deal with that point shortly, but—with respect to the right hon. Gentleman—he will have to be a little patient.
As Members will have noticed, I have sought only to strengthen clause 18, which, as it stands, merely refers to the “Status of EU law”. We were promised a sovereignty clause, and my amendment would achieve that. The clause as it stands would be subject to statutory interpretation, and it would be strange, uncertain and hazardous not to insert this provision in the framework of the European Communities Act 1972 itself. Clause 18 is a stand-alone clause. It refers to the “Status of EU law” and to section 2 of the European Communities Act, but it does not amend the Act. I am talking here about section 2 through section 3, when the judges apply themselves to any law. The clause is only six lines long, but it incorporates and absorbs within it every single piece of European legislation, so it applies to everything. However, although we know that law from the European Union emanates through from the 1972 Act, this measure does not amend the Act when incorporating the status of EU law. I am extremely concerned about that and find it very strange. In fact I will go further and say that I think the measure is deliberately contrived to make sure it is not an amendment to the 1972 Act.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to this crucial matter. As I understand it, he, like many of us, rightly wants to reassert the sovereignty of Parliament and make it clear that Parliament remains sovereign in all circumstances, and as I understand it, those on the Treasury Bench have the same aim. Given that his proposal seems to be stronger in this regard, can he think of any good reason why they should refuse it?
Mr Cash
No, I cannot. I am a bit puzzled by that, but as I develop my speech I hope to be able to explain where I think the origin of the problem lies.
The Government and the Prime Minister fail either to explain why the 1972 Act was not amended in the way I have just suggested or to follow the route I have provided in my sovereignty Bills, and which has also been provided by the Bills that have followed from colleagues over the past few years. I have to say, however, that my sovereignty proposals of 2006 in relation to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill were accepted by the current Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition and by the party Whips. Indeed, I might add that the Minister for Europe voted for those arrangements. I am glad that he smiles, because the smile is on the face of the tiger.
The fact is that we went through the Lobby then. The Whips came up to me in the middle of the afternoon and said, “Bill, will you please be good enough to allow us to adopt your amendments and put in Tellers?” I was extremely impressed, and slightly flattered. They decided to do that, and then, having accepted that and having faced down the then Government with such incredible force, they went off to the House of Lords and whipped it through the Lords six weeks later. A degree of conviction clearly lay behind that, and it matches up rather nicely with the manifesto promises about the sovereignty Bill and so forth. We were nearly getting there—we were on the brink, it might be said. The question is: where are we now?
As I have said, it is well-established that there is an historical and constitutional tension between the courts and Parliament because of the democratic basis of parliamentary sovereignty, not by virtue of a common law principle, and I have also proposed an amendment to prevent that principle from being subject to judicial application. It is also necessary to include the reaffirmation of Parliament so that the courts would not be able to ignore those words, which are lacking in clause 18 as it is currently drafted, and in order to address the problem relating to the 1972 Act.
In one of the Prime Minister’s letters to me—he has written two letters in the last few days—he claims:
“I can, of course, assure you not only that we have no intention to affect adversely the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, but also that we do not believe that Part 3”—
that is a reference to clause 18—
“runs this risk. As you would expect, we made sure we looked at this matter very thoroughly.”
My letter to the Prime Minister of 13 December, which I have sent to a number of colleagues to ensure fairness and transparency, indicated that I thought that in the light of his previous observations and assertions about a sovereignty Bill, not to mention the manifesto and so on, this principle of parliamentary sovereignty was a given and that the drafting of clause 18—this is so in the light of the evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee and our conclusions—had demonstrated that the Government’s intentions had merely produced unintended consequences. I went out of my way to say that I was sure that he did not intend this. However, our European Scrutiny Committee was doing what he has continuously said it should do: improve the scrutiny of European legislation. That is one of our fundamental principles; we are going to make sure that European legislation is looked at properly. That is what we have done, and we have reported. We revealed, after four weeks of taking evidence and engaging in cross-examination, that, unbeknown to others, this clause will have unintended consequences.
So our Committee came up with its conclusions, as a result of having followed the Prime Minister’s advice to scrutinise as well as we have done, and he then turns around and says, through his Ministers and in letters to me, that
“we looked at this matter very thoroughly”
and that, “We do not believe that part 3 runs the risk that you are identifying.” Basically, he said that we were wrong. It is a serious matter for a Prime Minister to say that to a Select Committee, which is one of the reasons why I am taking these steps. I hope that I am doing so with a good sense of timing and humour, because it is very important that we do not turn this into something more difficult.
However, I have to say that his reply of 10 January shows that the Government stand by the wording, having made sure that they examined the matter “very thoroughly”. I must say, on behalf of myself and others, that I am afraid that the consequences remain damaging for parliamentary sovereignty, for all the reasons that I have been setting out. He goes on to say that
“the words you have suggested would create uncertainty, because the term ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ is not defined. There are no precedents for…referring to Parliamentary sovereignty in Acts of Parliament.”
He also says that attempts to define it will be “difficult and complex”.
With respect, that does not take us anywhere, because the expression “sovereignty of Parliament”, which is the one I have used, does not require definition in statute, as any examination of constitutional authorities makes abundantly clear. Some of those authorities prefer to use the expression “legislative supremacy of Parliament”, by which is meant that there are no legal limitations on the power of Parliament to legislate. I return to the words of the late Lord Bingham:
“The bedrock of the British constitution is…the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament”.
In the words of one of our greatest constitutional authorities—according to Dicey—under our constitution, Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever and, furthermore, no person or body has the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. There is no definition of “the primacy of European law”, nor, as I have just said, is there any definition in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 of “the rule of law”. The fact is that certain expressions do not require that degree of definition, so I do not agree with the Prime Minister or with the Ministers on that point.
One of our witnesses, whose evidence the Committee did not accept, argued that Dicey’s exposition of sovereignty has been based on assumptions about representative democracy that, in his view, were flawed even in 1885 and could not be made today. That witness happens to be a proponent of and is in agreement with the views of other witnesses who promote the common law principle, such as Professor Trevor Allan. We rejected that view, distinguished as those people are, as we rejected the common law principle as set out by the Government in their explanatory notes—but merely removing them from the notes will not influence this kind of thinking in the Supreme Court or in influential academic circles. One has only to see the amount of time and effort that has been expended on this in learned journals to realise that they are not going to be pushed out of thinking the way they do merely because we correct them in the explanatory notes.
The same could be said of Lord Justice Laws’ views on constitutional statutes, which do not have special status in the traditional sense against any other statute. All are subject to repeal where Parliament so decides in the national interest. That is an advantage of our organic, unwritten constitution, so that we can, in a Burkean sense, adapt as and when necessary on firm and principled foundations. As Bradley and Ewing indicate by contrast to written constitutions such as that of the United States, the legislative supremacy of Parliament amounts to a fundamental rule of constitutional law and this supremacy includes the power to legislate on constitutional matters.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Is my hon. Friend not in danger of being so learned as to confuse himself about his own amendment? The sovereignty of Parliament was not created by an Act of Parliament, and it has never depended on an Act of Parliament. How can its restatement in an Act of Parliament given any real added value to its legitimacy?
Mr Cash
Precisely because the courts have moved further and further down that route, as I explained when quoting Lord Hope’s speech. The Supreme Court has been given independence under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. I see a slight smile appearing on my right hon. and learned Friend’s face.
Martin Horwood
I realise I am on dangerous ground in quoting bits of the hon. Gentleman’s report back to him, but in paragraph 43, the European Scrutiny Committee concluded:
“Overall, the majority of witnesses thought that if an Act of Parliament were to derogate from an EU Regulation or Directive, for example, and in so doing expressly and unequivocally disapply the ECA, the courts would be likely to follow the derogating Act of Parliament.”
The majority of witnesses thought that clause 18 was at worst unnecessary. Only one thought that it was dangerous, so the principle that the hon. Gentleman has espoused is well established and perfectly defensible in British law.
Mr Cash
That would be the case if it were accepted by the judges in the Supreme Court. It is precisely because we know that they are not inclined to take that view that the amendments are necessary. We are extremely grateful for the evidence that we have received from distinguished witnesses, but the problem is not what they have said, because they aided us in arriving at conclusions in the light of our need to defend parliamentary sovereignty. The problem does not lie in Parliament or with the witnesses; it lies in the assertions of a circle of certain judges and lawyers.
Mr Jenkin
I am intrigued by the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who appears to be suggesting that Parliament can simply assert its authority over the judges by some means other than statute. I would like to know by what means it can do so. In the 17th century, it was violence, and I would prefer that Parliament should not have to resort to violence. I think that we should resort to statute, which would govern the judiciary, and we can direct them to behave according to statute.
Mr Cash
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because as I mentioned earlier, under the Constitutional Reform Act, there is no displacement of the doctrine and, indeed, the constitutional principle that judges may be removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend has mentioned the 17th century, the 1610 case of Dr Bonham continues to apply, up to and including the 2005 Act. Lord Chief Justice Coke asserted that the common law could usurp Acts of Parliament—I am paraphrasing, but he was specific—but he was dismissed by Parliament for making such assertions. My hon. Friend’s point is therefore well made, and was part of the constitutional settlement in the Act of Settlement 1701 and is still part of that settlement by virtue of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Notwithstanding that, Coke was one of this country’s greatest Chief Justices. The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing that we do not need to define parliamentary sovereignty, because it is a well-established and well-understood concept, yet he is clutching a book, which I assume is by Jeffrey Goldsworthy, who has written a lengthy, dense book on the subject. Indeed, he has written two books on it, including a recent one, so it is clearly not as simple as the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest.
Mr Cash
What is simple is that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty requires some explanation, and Jeffrey Goldsworthy does that. The question is not merely about parliamentary sovereignty; it is also about the manner in which the courts apply themselves to that doctrine. That is where the mischief lies and that is what my amendments would deal with.
I should like to respond to the Government’s reply, published only yesterday, to the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government say that they have never claimed that parliamentary sovereignty is under threat from EU law, but a problem remains for them. The evidence to the Committee was that that could well change in future, given current judicial trends; that is exactly what we were told.
The Government claim that disapplying EU law, an issue that has just been raised, would have unacceptable consequences—with infraction proceedings, and so on. But I make the point clearly that according to the evidence that we received, not only are several countries already in breach of EU law—France’s deportation of Roma immigrants, for example; no action was taken—but there is non-compliance on a massive scale. We know all about that, with the stability and growth pact.
There has also been the more recent failure to comply even with EU law itself in respect of the financial stability mechanism. Anybody with two brains to rub together would know that article 122 could not possibly justify—[Interruption.] Well, “Two Brains” could. No one could justify the use of article 122 for the purposes of that mechanism. If in the national interest, Parliament decides to do so, that is that. We obey EU law only in so far as it is a matter of statute and continues to be regarded as a matter of national interest.
As to the background of all this, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made several speeches before the general election that clearly demonstrated that we would no longer allow Britain’s laws to
“be decided by unaccountable judges.”
He said that their role was to interpret not to make law and that the sovereignty of Parliament needed to be safeguarded not only from the EU but from current trends in judicial thinking. We were promised last year:
“you can be assured that you have a Conservative prime minister who will act in the national interest. And putting your country first is about the most important Conservative value there is.”
The Prime Minister also said:
“The Conservative Party has always been a party that puts the national interest first.”
I absolutely and entirely agree. By the way, it was Disraeli who said that the Conservative party was a national party or it was nothing; I agree with that, too.
The tragedy is that the coalition and the Liberal Democrat influence in the formulation—and subsequent discussions, I suspect—of clause 18 and the Bill as a whole have gone a long way towards undermining the commitment to putting the national interest first. I fear that, far from working together in the national interest—and it is not just on this one clause—we are now witnessing policies that in relation to matters as important as the sovereignty of Parliament are actually working against the national interest.
That could be remedied very simply by dealing with the omissions, dangers, ambiguities and hazards that the clause throws up and by accepting my simple and modest amendments. My challenge is this: will hon. Members vote down an amendment that says:
“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed”?
We all know that it is not possible to constrain the judiciary in relation to EU law except by using clear words. Those are lacking in clause 18, and I have substituted words that have the appropriate effect.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On my hon. Friend’s point, is he saying that if we had a Conservative Government, we would have a totally different Bill?
Mr Cash
I congratulate my hon. Friend on that extremely perceptive remark. I entirely agree with him. If that were the case, we would not be where we are now. That is part of the lesson. [Interruption.] That might be true too, but who knows.
My new clauses and amendments to clause 18 would put the matter beyond doubt and I cannot for the life of me see why they cannot be accepted in the national interest. I believe firmly that they would have been accepted under a Conservative Government and we know that in 2006 we were almost there. The very fact that the Government might obtain a majority for the legislation should be of no comfort or satisfaction to anyone in the country, inside or outside Parliament.
In that past, those of us who have been criticised or perhaps underestimated for our predictions on Europe need only to look at the record to see how often some of us have been proved right in the national interest. Winning a vote does not always come into that category. I can only hope that failure to accept the clarification that my amendments would give will not, in a few years’ time, have seemed in retrospect a price worth paying, rather than seeking to uphold on every score a coalition of parties that on matters relating to judicial supremacy, the European Union, a written constitution and the national interest are often fundamentally poles apart.
“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow a speech by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I strongly support his amendments and hope they will be divided upon. I shall certainly be voting for them and I hope that many Labour Members will also be supporting him. He has made his position very clear and, even to a non-lawyer such as me, he has made the issues understandable.
The sovereignty of Parliament is something that voters hold very dear. We are not a polity where people mistrust Government, as is the case in many other countries, where people have had experiences that have made them historically mistrust Government. We accept that Parliament decides things on behalf of voters and if they do not like what we do, they can get rid of us individually and collectively and change their Government. One of the reasons why, among other things, I so strongly support the first-past-the-post system is that it means that electors can choose Governments. I do not want to touch on sensitive matters now, but such a system means that Governments are not created by post-election deals between parties. Sorry about that, but there we are.
By and large, people choose their Governments and do not like their judiciary to be interfered with by politicians. The judiciary should be independent and should act on the basis of statutes, which are clear and do not leave too much scope for interpretation by judges, who are human beings and have political views like anyone else. Statutes should be very clear. The hon. Member for Stone is trying to make this bit of statute very clear, so that judges do not have wriggle room or scope for interpretation. Whether judges are Euro-enthusiasts or Eurosceptics, they must act according to a clear statute
We have seen what has happened on the continent of Europe. Let us consider the European Court of Justice, about which I am deeply suspicious because it clearly acts in a political way. It has done so on more than one occasion but, as a trade unionist and a socialist, I was dismayed by its judgments in the Viking Line dispute. It found in favour of the employers, which I thought was a political judgment, not a judicial decision. We want to avoid such a situation occurring in Britain. Lawyers should make decisions on the basis of laws that are decided by Parliament, particularly by this House, and there should not be scope for interpretation. That is, of course, most important in matters involving the European Union, because it is wilfully trying to assert laws over and above us in a supranational way, which many of us deeply resent and are suspicious of.
I have said many times in this House that I want a European Union that is a looser association of independent democratic member states where we come together on matters on which we all mutually agree for mutual benefit, but is not a supranational organisation imposing laws and giving itself powers that we cannot resist.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be an enthusiast for extending that principle to not only the European Union but the British Union.
Kelvin Hopkins
I voted for devolution, so one could say that, but I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to pursue that point further. I would prefer to see us remain within the Union, perhaps with devolution, and I remain a Unionist in that sense.
Chris Bryant
I have been listening to my hon. Friend, and I have now caught up with where he was two paragraphs ago. He was arguing, as far as I could tell, for absolutely no wriggle room for judges—I think that that was his phrase. The danger of that is that it seems to sweep aside the whole history of English common law. Many of our laws have been developed by precedent in cases that have gone through courts where the judges have made an interpretation. Surely he is not really trying to sweep that aside.
Kelvin Hopkins
I accept what my hon. Friend says, of course, but it depends on how much wriggle room there is. Even with a very well-drafted and carefully written statute, there is sometimes a degree of breadth in what can be decided. If we leave too much wriggle room, judges, being human beings with political views like anyone else, will take advantage; there is no question but that they would do that. It is our job to ensure that they cannot take advantage of this House and of the will of the people.
Mr Cash
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also becoming apparent that some statutes have deliberate ambiguity put into them, and that that may be the case with clause 18 in order to allow the courts to get their hands on it and to construe it in line with the principles that they are beginning to enunciate?
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed; the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My concern is based on a suspicion that the Government are deliberately trying to leave this open and not have it pinned down so as to give wriggle room for future political events and developments. When something that appears to be so straightforward is resisted so strongly by a Government—even by my own when I was on the Government side of the House—I am always suspicious that there is a reason behind it, and that somewhere in the Government machine there are people wanting to ensure that something does not happen and that they have wriggle room in future. I do not want that to happen.
Like the hon. Member for Stone, I want to make it clear that the sovereignty of the British Parliament is retained as it should be. The people of Britain have made it clear that they want that to happen as well. Overwhelmingly, they are sceptical about the European Union, and it is our job to reflect that scepticism and not to give away to the European Union more potential power over this Parliament. We owe that to our electors. I certainly support them in that, and I support the hon. Member for Stone’s amendment.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Underlying this entire debate about the European Union, sovereignty and the exact meaning of clause 18 is the fact that many Members of this House, myself included, would like to see a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union. We would like to have a discussion about whether we control, or Europe controls, what happens in the regulation of the City, industry and business, and how we operate as a nation. There is an underlying desire on the part of many hon. Members to have a review of whether we should be part of the European Union at all. There is a desire to have a reworking of the Human Rights Act 1998 and a question mark as to whether it should be on the statute book at all—a concern that I share and that my constituents continually write to me about with a great level of invective.
Geraint Davies
In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the European systemic risk board, the European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Banking Authority. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a case for systemic regulation when there is systemic risk? An opt-out clause would put us all at greater risk, so it is not a one-way street.
Charlie Elphicke
I would agree with the hon. Gentleman were we part of the single currency and the eurozone, but we are not. The systemic risks to our currency and their regulation should be dealt with at home. We should not, as a matter of principle, be part of bailing out the eurozone, leaving the exception of Ireland to one side.
Mr Jenkin
In support of my hon. Friend’s point, it is a great mistake to believe that there ought to be identical systems of financial regulation throughout the world, because that magnifies the possibility that a systemic risk in one market will affect all markets in the same way. Various and competing regulatory systems are better for global stability.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend, and there is much force in what he says. The UK’s destiny is best controlled by the UK. The sovereign Parliament of the UK is the cockpit of our nation’s ship of destiny—that is absolutely clear.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. Many Conservative Members have been concerned about influence creep over the years. When we were in opposition, we were unable to do anything about that. Now is the time to be tight and specific in the influence that we have on European legislation.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and correct point. There is concern in this House that it does not control the laws of the nation, because so many laws come from Europe. That brings me to my key concern.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman stated that he wants to revisit our membership of the European Union. I know that he is a new Member, but he stood for election in May on a manifesto—perhaps he opted out of this part of it—that stated:
“We will be positive members of the European Union”.
It also stated:
“We believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of a European Union”.
It went on to say:
“A Conservative government will play an active and energetic role in the European Union to advance these causes.”
Did he not believe in that part of the manifesto when he stood in May?
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Allow me to explain. I did not say that I believe that we should pull out of the European Union tomorrow—[Interruption.] I did not say that. I said that underpinning this debate is a question about our future membership. I do not believe that I should be responsible for pulling us out of the European Union; that is a matter that the British people should decide in a referendum, if and when such a referendum is ever put to them. I reject entirely the idea of a European federation that mimics the United States, and of an autonomous legal system that governs that federation and is imposed automatically, as a corpus, on every member state.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that nobody under the age of 53 in the United Kingdom has ever been consulted on the ongoing changing relationship with Europe, and that the likes of he and I have never had the opportunity to cast our votes on any of the changes?
Charlie Elphicke
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Perhaps that matter should at some point be considered. I raise these issues of broad principle because if we are to rework our relationship with the European Union, it should be done by the Executive and Parliament, but whether we should stay in or leave the European Union is a matter for the British people to decide through a referendum.
Underpinning these matters is the simple principle that Parliament is sovereign. I have grave doubts about whether we should have clause 18 at all, because I am not sure that it adds anything. I have even graver doubts about the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. As a lawyer, I worry about giving hostage to fortune, and I ask the House’s forgiveness and consideration for my preliminary remarks on my general feelings and approach to Europe when I say that I am not sure that it is safe or sensible to have such matters enshrined in statute. Parliamentary sovereignty is not a common law principle, it is a constitutional principle of the United Kingdom that has long been recognised by the judges.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree. My anxiety about the codification process is that it is dangerous of itself, because it invites the courts to make judgment on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to referendums on whether we should stay in the EU or leave it. Would he support an amendment calling for such a referendum?
Charlie Elphicke
If the hon. Gentleman is planning to table an amendment on an in-out referendum, I will consider it. That is a matter for the House to debate, but I am concerned that he is trying to tempt me to stray from the subject matter of this group of amendments, which is sovereignty.
I am concerned about paragraph 106 of the explanatory notes, which states that clause 18 places on a statutory footing
“the common law principle that EU law takes effect in the UK through the will of Parliament.”
As a lawyer, I know that that is not a common law principle, as I am sure most lawyers do. It is a constitutional principle. No one case decided that Parliament was sovereign. It is sovereign, and it cannot resile from that sovereignty.
Mr MacNeil
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is going to share his views on the federation or confederation of the EU, but he has said that someone would have to be 53 years old or more to have expressed a view on membership of the EU. Will he extend his principle a bit? When it comes to Scottish membership of the UK Union, a person would have to be 308 years old to have expressed a view. I warn him that things can slip from 53 years to 308 years, so will he extend the principle that he has just enunciated to the Scottish people?
The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)
Order. I am the most tolerant of Chairmen, but we really must try to stick to something remotely connected with clause 18.
Charlie Elphicke
Thank you, Mr Gale. You have saved me from having to get myself out of that one.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend made a point about the explanatory notes. Is not the real problem with clause 18 enunciated in paragraph 109 of those notes? It states:
“This clause does not alter the existing relationship between EU law and UK domestic law; in particular, the principle of the primacy of EU law.”
That is what upsets the British people, and it is for that reason that we ought to put the matter of sovereignty and of our continued membership of the EU to the British people in a referendum.
Charlie Elphicke
Personally, I believe that it is wrong to see EU law as having primacy. I underline again that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and has decided to be part of the EU and allow its laws into our national life through the medium of the European Communities Act 1972. Equally, it is abundantly clear that the UK Parliament could change that position. To my mind, clause 18 amounts to a codification of that principle, which is clear from the Factortame case and from the metric martyrs, Thoburn case. In the latter case, as Members will recall and as paragraph 107 of the explanatory notes explains, it was argued that EU law
“includes the entrenchment of its own supremacy as an autonomous legal order”.
That argument was rejected. It is an important principle to understand: there is no autonomous legal entrenchment from the European Union. It is taken into account and part of our law only because we have made it so.
I can do no better than quote Lord Justice Laws, who hit the nail on the head. He said:
“Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the European Communities Act.”
When I was a law student, studying my books, I always viewed Professor Dicey’s principle as giving voice to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It is quite simple—I always thought of it as: the last Act to hit the statute book takes precedence. If it says anything different from a previous Act, the latter is discarded to that extent.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is not it also important in the case of the metric martyrs, Thoburn v. Sunderland city council, to note that it reinforced the fundamental point that European law could not limit Parliament in enacting legislation? The judgment reinforced the sovereignty point.
Charlie Elphicke
If I may continue, Lord Justice Laws went on:
“It cannot stipulate as to the manner and form of any subsequent legislation.”
In other words, one Parliament cannot bind another. He continued:
“It cannot stipulate against implied repeal any more than it can stipulate against express repeal.”
That is a simple and clear principle.
It is not terribly helpful to have a codification—I am concerned about that—but we do not need to say “is sovereign”, because that poses the question of what “sovereign” means, as the Foreign Office pointed out. I do not think that that is a particularly helpful or constructive debate.
The real issue in the Bill is referendums and holding them on whether we should go any further into the EU. I pray in aid some of the submissions that were made to the European Scrutiny Committee. Paul Craig saw clause 18 as “sovereignty as dualism”. He said:
“It says nothing about sovereignty as primacy, and it doesn’t purport to reiterate, or iterate, the parent idea of sovereignty. There is no harm in having clause 18 if you wish it as a symbolic reaffirmation of the common law principle”—
I agree that it does no harm, but I am not sure whether “common law principle” is right; I think that it is a constitutional principle, so I slightly disagree with him—
“that a statute has no impact in the United Kingdom unless or until it is embodied in an Act of Parliament.”
I think that Professor Hartley also made a submission to the European Scrutiny Committee—doubtless, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will correct me if I am wrong. He said:
“I think that the clause has value, because it emphasises that this is the law and this is the constitutional position. In my opinion, even without clause 18, courts would do what it says, but it would encourage and sort of strengthen them. I think that it has value even though, strictly speaking, it does not change anything.”
Although I have personal doubts as a slightly picky lawyer about the sense of including clause 18, I believe that it does no harm and it also underlines the principle that the UK Parliament has decided on and voted for membership of the European Union.
Mr Cash
I am afraid that I have to inform my hon. Friend that Professor Hartley did not address the question of the common law principle in his evidence. My amendments address that problem. The intrusion by judicial assertion to undermine parliamentary sovereignty is the problem, not the fact that the “status of EU law” says neither one thing nor another and is inherently unnecessary.
Charlie Elphicke
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, with whom I agree on so many matters about the European Union. However, I regret to say that we must part company on the subject that we are discussing.
My hon. Friend prayed in aid Professor Tomkins, who gave written evidence, which stated:
“The doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament is better understood as having its legal source in judicial recognition of political fact rather in the common law.”
I am not sure whether that is right. I do not see it as “political fact”, rather as an important constitutional principle, which underpins—and has underpinned—all our dealings since at least the time of the Bill of Rights. Professor Dicey certainly gave voice to it.
Professor Tomkins continued:
“Neither clause 18 nor any other provision in the Bill safeguards the United Kingdom from the further development of EU law by the European Court of Justice.”
That is true. The European Court of Justice is a highly judicially activist court, but it does not have authority in the UK directly through our membership of the EU. Its judgments have effect in the UK in interpreting European law because we have, as a Parliament, voted to pass that European law.
That takes us back to whether we need to state that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and to whether the codification of a constitutional principle, which is well understood and to which the courts have adhered time and again, is necessary. I think not. However, I think that we should be more honest, realistic and straightforward about what really concerns us: the fact that we have too many laws from Europe. There are too many interventions in relation to the Human Rights Act, which causes too many problems and too often gives the sense to many of my constituents that the innocent are punished and the guilty go free. That is shocking. Time and again, constituents approach us to express those concerns.
Mrs Main
Does my hon. Friend accept that we promised a sovereignty Bill because of the very concerns that he has just outlined? People felt that our country was not sovereign and therefore the Conservatives stood on a manifesto of trying to assert that sovereignty. That is why some of us are worried about the woolliness of clause 18.
Charlie Elphicke
We stood on a manifesto that stated that we would rework our relations with the EU and that we would conduct a renegotiation. Of course, we are sovereign. I repeat that it is clear that we are codifying the UK’s position as having a sovereign Parliament, and it is this place’s choice to remain in the EU. I believe that we should reconsider the number of our laws that come from the EU. We should take back some particular positions. That reflects the manifesto on which I stood. I regret that the election ended without our having a majority to allow that to happen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the common fisheries policy is a clear example of how sovereignty is affected? Days at sea, the number of boats and the quota were reduced. All those things were taken away—we gave them away. Surely we need harder and stronger legislation rather than less legislation. Fishing is a clear example of how things go wrong when we give away sovereignty.
Charlie Elphicke
There is much concern among Members of all parties about the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy, the whole thrust of financial policy and all the markets directives from the EU. There is also a general concern about the amount of activism and the way in which the EU stretches out its fingers excessively into our national affairs.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is right. However, that is not a debate about the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. It is a concern that the EU has grown too much, extended too far, cost too much and intruded too much into our national life. It should cost less, intrude less and our relations with it should be reworked.
I underline again that I believe that clause 18 is a fair reflection and codification of the current legal position. I do not think that we need it, but I will wear it and live with it. I do not believe that we need to include extra stuff about sovereignty, which is not defined, and has not been defined in the amendments. The best thing we can do is be more straightforward about the need for fewer laws and less interference from the EU.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
This Bill, and more particularly this clause, have had a long gestation. In November 2009, the then Leader of the Opposition promised that if his party won power there would be a United Kingdom sovereignty Act
“to make clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.”
He told his party that this was
“not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation”,
but that its intention would be to
“put Britain on a par with Germany.”
He said that the German constitutional court had consistently
“upheld that ultimate authority lies with the bodies established by the German constitution”.
No doubt some Conservative party activists had some reservations about the idea of Great Britain being the same as Germany; nevertheless his proposal was warmly received.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Perhaps my hon. Friend has noticed—as I have over the last six months—that there is not much point talking about the manifestos of the parties that are now in government, as it is clear that the very first thing they did on achieving power was to bin their manifestos and try to pretend that they had never existed.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On the issue of manifestos, does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that his party, when in government, broke its manifesto pledge to give the British people a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman’s comments are inaccurate, because we did not give a commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty; we gave a commitment to have a referendum if there was a constitution, and there never was a constitution.
We have heard a long and well-argued speech by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Although many of us on this side of the House would not agree with many of his views, we recognise that the European Scrutiny Committee, and he himself, have done much to ensure that this House will give proper consideration to the Bill. I have to say that I was shocked that the Prime Minister allegedly tried to block the hon. Gentleman’s appointment as Chair of the Committee. I was a member of that Committee for several years, alongside the hon. Gentleman, and I was pleased that when this Bill was presented to Parliament on 11 November last year, the Committee immediately announced its intention to conduct an inquiry and produce a report on the sovereignty clause before the Bill’s Second Reading. This report was extremely helpful during the Second Reading debate, and I am sure that all hon. Members will also find it useful for today’s debate.
I note that it is the intention of the Committee to publish further reports on aspects of the Bill, and I welcome that too. It is important to note that this is the first occasion on which the Committee has conducted pre-legislative scrutiny; I hope that its work is recognised by the Government and that the practice will be more widely adopted. Even more importantly, I sincerely hope that the Government will change the Bill in the light of the Committee’s report.
I have two disappointments. The first is that the Government did not allow the Committee sufficient time between First and Second Readings to hold thorough public evidence sessions. Given that the Committee stage of the Bill is being drawn out over several weeks—indeed, we do not even officially know when the other Committee days will be held—it is clear that the Government are in no rush to put this Bill on the statute book. Why then did they not allow the Committee more time for its evidence sessions? Are they afraid of more scrutiny?
My other disappointment is that the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to give evidence to the Committee. If he is so sure that his Bill is as robust as he says, why would he not appear before the Committee, put his case and answer questions? We all know that the reality of the Bill does not match the rhetoric that the Government employed. This so-called sovereignty clause is not what its advocates claim it is. It does not challenge the supremacy of European law; nor should it. It does not alter the nature of European law, change the relationship of European law or elevate the sovereignty of Parliament to a higher level.
In fact, what is most striking about the sovereignty clause is that it does not even mention the word “sovereignty”. It is simply a reaffirmation of the status quo. As the explanatory notes admit, this is merely a declaratory clause. It reflects the dualist nature of the UK’s constitutional model, by which I mean that EU law has effect in the UK only because of a decision taken by Parliament. In this case, the relevant legislation is the European Communities Act 1972. That is what clause 18 confirms, and as such it is nothing more than an exercise in legislative tautology—a puffed-up reiteration of what the law of the land already states.
So why have the Govt chosen to draft this clause? The reason we have been given is, in part, in the explanatory notes, which explain that in the metric martyrs case—Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council 2002—an attempt was made by counsel for Sunderland city council, Eleanor Sharpston QC, who is now the Advocate General at the Court of Justice, to argue before the divisional court that the binding effect of the EC treaty in domestic law depended, in part, on the higher principle of the supremacy of EU law. Eleanor Sharpston argued that the EC treaty did not owe its authority wholly to an Act of Parliament. That doubt, expressed by one individual in one case, is being used by the Govt to try to justify this clause.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the case also clearly rejected the notion that EU institutions or legislation could somehow limit the powers of Parliament?
Mr Cash
Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that Eleanor Sharpston has moved seamlessly upwards and has now reached a very eminent position? Does he also accept that the Thoburn case was decided only at first instance, so no one is absolutely sure what would have happened if it had gone to appeal, or if another similar case were brought and those arguments—especially given Eleanor Sharpston’s present eminence—were accepted?
Mr David
It is extremely unlikely that her arguments would have been accepted by any legal authority given the categorical rejection of them in that case.
In other words, as Professor Hartley, one of the Committee’s witnesses, stated, the metric martyrs—or Thoburn—principle is that
“the position of EU law in the UK and the sovereignty of the British Parliament ultimately depends on British law”.
In apparent contradiction of the reference to the metric martyrs case, the explanatory notes say that the Foreign Office itself sent written evidence to the Committee that stated:
“Our own analysis has led us to the conclusion that there is no persuasive legal authority to support the contention that the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer absolute. Our assessment is that, to date, case law since 1972 has consistently upheld the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. There is no uncertainty here.”
Therefore, an argument that the Government accept is irrelevant is the only one that they can advance in their explanatory notes to justify the clause. How ridiculous can things get?
Small wonder, then, that when the European Scrutiny Committee concluded that
“the legislative supremacy of Parliament is not currently under threat from EU law”,
most scholars agreed. Moreover, the Committee went on to say:
“we have no reason to doubt that Thoburn reflected the well understood and orthodox position, which left the constitutional principle of dualism intact and is unlikely to be overturned”.
In view of that assessment, it is hardly surprising that the Government have tried two different arguments. The Minister for Europe said in a letter to his parliamentary colleagues:
“it cannot be denied that the issue has been the subject of legal and political speculation.”
We know about the legal speculation. As we have heard, it was dismissed by Lord Justice Laws and even by the Foreign Office itself. But what about the political speculation? Where is that coming from?
We know from evidence submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee by Jean-Claude Piris, director general of the legal service of the European Council—in other words, its legal adviser—that in his opinion clause 18 changes nothing. He believes that it reaffirms the doctrine of UK constitutional law under which EU law has effect in the UK by virtue of an Act of the UK Parliament. Furthermore, he went on to say that the clause is consistent with declaration 17 annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference, which concluded the treaty of Lisbon, and with the case law of the European Court of Justice. It is clear, therefore, that there are no threats coming from European Union institutions.
We do not imagine that any of the Government’s Conservative Back Benchers have questioned the sovereignty of Parliament, and I can assure the Committee that it has not been questioned by any Labour Members. Can it be, however, that the sovereignty of Parliament has been questioned by the Liberal Democrats? After all, they are the most pro-European party in Britain, and of course a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), is the president of the European Movement. Furthermore, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, Andrew Duff, is a well-known European federalist.
That there is political speculation is one of the new arguments. Another has been suggested by the Minister for Europe in his letter to his own MPs, and more recently was advanced by the Foreign Secretary in The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend. He said:
“In its sovereignty clause the Bill also deals with one potential but important problem for the future.”
Having accepted that there are no current valid legal arguments, the Government are now pointing political fingers at unnamed politicians, and even suggesting that clause 18 is being introduced because of a hypothetical problem that may, or may not, materialise at some time in the dim and distant future. At the same time, the Government accept that clause 18 is not really needed at all, because Parliament is already sovereign. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that some have referred to the clause as being indicative of the Bill’s confusion, contradictions and general lack of clarity.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is ever the danger that if a sovereign authority gives away too much power, it ceases to be sovereign? That is what happened when the sovereign Crown ceded too much power to Parliament. Is he worried that his party gave away too much power to the EU?
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a risk to sovereignty it is from this Conservative Prime Minister, who last autumn signed up to EU authorities that, as I said earlier, can impose binding standards on securities, markets, insurance, occupational pensions, banking and systemic risk? We can talk about the words, but what counts is the action, and the actions of the Conservative Prime Minister are not to cling to sovereignty but to give it away.
Mr David
That is an interesting point. The Prime Minister, rightly or wrongly, certainly believes that it is in Britain’s national interest to adopt from time to time measures that he perceives to be in Britain’s national interest and then to encourage Parliament to follow suit. We have to decide whether that is the case—but that is another debate.
The debate has brought to the fore a number of important issues. I am thinking in particular of the extremely important argument made in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report on the true nature of the threat to parliamentary sovereignty. The objective evidence presented by the Committee to the House leads it to conclude that
“if the legitimate supremacy of Parliament is under threat, it is from judicial opinions in other areas of law”,
not EU law. That is true. I am thinking in particular of the Jackson case of 2004, which concerned the constitutional validity of the Hunting Act 2004, and in which three Law Lords indicated that in certain circumstances the courts had inherent powers to disapply legislation.
I am worried that the Government do not appear to recognise that there is a real debate taking place on this issue between those who argue that the absolute supremacy of Parliament remains unqualified—as explained by Dicey, the British constitutional scholar—and those who believe that sovereignty of Parliament is a construct of common law. According to those who hold this view, the sovereignty of Parliament is open to revision by the courts. In the Bill’s explanatory notes, the notion of parliamentary sovereignty as a construct of common law is expressed as though it were a matter of fact and entirely uncontroversial. Similarly, a one-page note on the Bill produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office states:
“there is a common law principle that the UK Parliament is sovereign”.
It is dangerous to view the legislative supremacy of Parliament as an offshoot of common law, because it means that the principle will vary according to the judicial whims of judges at any given time.
Mr Cash
I am somewhat encouraged by the Opposition’s line of argument because, as I explained in my speech, my amendment 10, which deals specifically with excluding the common law principle, does not derive entirely from the explanatory notes but—as the hon. Gentleman has just reminded us, and as we knew from evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee—from the fact of judicial trends, which will not go away. Whatever happens to the explanatory notes, we are still left with a problem, and I believe that the Foreign Office has known this all along.
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman might well have a point. This is something that has to be looked at carefully. I am mindful of the fact that although we are in Committee today, this is not the end of the process. I am sure that we will return to the issue on Report.
It appears that the Government hold the view that parliamentary supremacy is a construct of common law. However, if that is the case, it could be argued that parliamentary sovereignty could be qualified by the courts and that this would not be opposed by the Government. Professor Tomkins, who has been referred to already, is the distinguished chair of public law at the university of Glasgow. He submitted extremely important written evidence before the European Scrutiny Committee and gave extremely significant oral evidence. Let me be clear: Professor Tomkins is not anti-European. He specifically said in his written evidence that he considered that
“it is in the United Kingdom’s clear interest to remain a committed member of the EU.”
However, he expressed his concerns to the European Scrutiny Committee about the supremacy of Parliament and common law as follows. Referring to the Jackson case, Professor Tomkins said:
“one of the things that that case most sharply and, to my mind, alarmingly indicates is that even our highest court, as was, is not sure what to do with parliamentary sovereignty. It isn’t sure what the legal basis for parliamentary sovereignty is. It isn’t sure how much parliamentary sovereignty is under challenge. It isn’t sure how much parliamentary sovereignty continues to represent the group ‘norm’ or the ‘bedrock’ or the ‘keystone’ of the constitution—all of those words are used.
The reason why the Jackson and the Attorney-General case is so long…is that so many of the judges who decided that case…wanted to use the case as a vehicle for the expression of a bewildering variety of different views about the past, present and future state of parliamentary sovereignty. The case, I think, is authority for not much, but it is authority for the proposition that we have the right to be concerned about what is going to happen to parliamentary sovereignty in the hands of the courts.”
That is a powerful statement, and all of us who believe in the importance and the supremacy of Parliament should take note.
As I have tried to argue, the Opposition believe that clause 18 is otiose and unnecessary. It is purely declaratory and merely reaffirms what is widely understood to be the legal and constitutional position regarding the application of EU law in the United Kingdom.
Martin Horwood
I am rather confused about the Labour Front-Bench position. Having apparently endorsed the fear that there is judicial mission creep, the hon. Gentleman now seems to be rejecting a clause that seeks to resolve that issue. What exactly is the Labour party suggesting? Would it propose an alternative clause, or would it prefer that the Bill did not exist? What is the Labour position?
Mr David
I am just coming to the amendment that we are proposing, which would allow an opportunity for the issues raised by the hon. Member for Stone and others to be considered in a rational and thoughtful way. In the spirit of generosity, we accept that others may have genuine doubts. That is why we tabled amendment 52, which would ensure that the Secretary of State made an annual report—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House has read our amendment. Well done. Amendment 52 would ensure that the Secretary of State made an annual report to indicate whether parliamentary sovereignty had been challenged or questioned in the British courts or the European Court of Justice. Our amendment spells out in clear terms the duality principle, whereby the law of the European Union is totally dependent on the European Communities Act 1972. We see such a report being presented to Parliament and being voted on annually.
Martin Horwood
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall have to restate my question. I was not asking whether he was proposing a report to find out the Secretary of State’s position; I was asking him what the Labour party’s position would be. What would he want in that report? What would he expect?
Mr David
We would want an accurate reflection of what has been happening in the British courts and the European Court of Justice. I want to see the objective evidence presented to us. It is interesting that we have not heard from the Government in this debate as to whether there is more justification than what they have so far presented to us. I suspect that there is none, but there are many Conservative Back Benchers who believe that there is ample evidence. What I am saying is that there is certainly an indication that there are more things to be considered.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know from his time as leader of the Labour MEPs that for those of us who are concerned about sovereignty in the United Kingdom, there is another problem—the mission creep that is omnipresent in the European Parliament across most political groups, including the European socialist group, which is probably the worst in that respect. Does he not believe that if his amendment were to have any weight and value, it would be worth looking at mission creep from the European Commission and the European Parliament as well?
Mr David
I am not sure what the “mission creep” that the hon. Gentleman is talking about really is. We have been talking about the sovereignty of the British Parliament, and we are pretty clear that the European Union exercises its powers through European law in this country by virtue of an Act of this Parliament. That is undeniable, and it is an important principle on which I hope every Member of the House would agree.
I fully appreciate that many Members of the House have sincerely held concerns. Although we would argue that some of those concerns are exaggerated, we should nevertheless have an annual review—an annual report, an annual debate and, yes, an annual vote. If it can be shown that the sovereignty of Parliament is being questioned or challenged in the courts, either at home or abroad, we will have a strong basis on which to act.
Martin Horwood
I am hoping that my persistence will pay off. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that on the one hand, clause 18 is otiose and, according to all the eminent sources to whom he has referred, that there is no particular threat to parliamentary sovereignty. However, he also seems to be conceding that there is some generalised concern, because he is calling for an annual debate and an annual report on the subject. Let me once again ask: what would the Labour party do? Would it also suggest such a clause? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should restate parliamentary sovereignty in statute or not?
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman is making hard work of this—or perhaps he is not listening as carefully as he might. Our starting point is that we would not have this Bill in the first place. We would be talking about the issues that really matter to the people of this country and the people of Europe. Nevertheless, we recognise that we are in the here and now. The Government have introduced the Bill, dedicating much parliamentary time to it, and, as a good Opposition, we are determined to make the best of it. We are simply saying that, on the face of it, there is no case for clause 18. However, we have respect for the concerns that have been expressed, both here and elsewhere. We are saying that we should be careful to take into account all the points that are expressed, clearly and effectively. However, let us not dwell on them on a one-off basis and make a definitive decision here and now; let us instead have an ongoing process, with an annual review and an annual report. Let us ensure that the Government are fully accountable to the House of Commons. That is a straightforward position.
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see what the Opposition decide to do. As true democrats, one of the things that we want to do is listen to the debate. We are not entering into the exercise with a closed mind, and that is why we have tabled our amendment. We want to ensure that the debate does not finish here and now, but continues throughout the Bill’s progress through Parliament. I referred to Report stage earlier.
There is also the important issue of parliamentary sovereignty and all the complex ramifications involved. An ongoing debate has been started by the Government, but let us ensure that we have an annual debate on this matter in the House, based on a report produced by the Government. I very much hope that the House will accept our amendment. There may be different views on the conclusions that such reports would reach, but let us all recognise that the way to have an effective debate is to have an annual debate based on an annual report.
Many points have already been raised today, and I have listened carefully to the arguments, particularly those put forward by the hon. Member for Stone. I urge all colleagues to think carefully about supporting amendment 52. Clause 18, as it stands, means nothing from any point of view, but our amendment would make it far more meaningful. If our amendment is not successful, clause 18 will take us forward neither a millimetre nor an inch. As it stands, it is a bland restatement of a law that already exists. European Union law is enforceable in the United Kingdom only because of legislation made by this Parliament. That is a self-evident truth and, with or without clause 18, it will not be altered.
Mr Redwood
The Crown was sovereign once. It is intriguing that we are more than two hours into this debate but so far we have talked only about parliamentary sovereignty, even though the sovereignty technically still belongs to the Crown in Parliament. We all know about the events that took place over several hundred years, particularly when they were accelerated during the 17th century revolution and crisis. There was a large transfer of power from the Crown to Parliament. When a sufficiently large transfer of power takes place from someone who was sovereign to those who would be sovereign, a point is reached at which that sovereignty passes because enough power has been surrendered and the arrangements have changed sufficiently.
As other Members have suggested, we need briefly to look at how that very big transfer of power occurred in the 17th century from the Crown to Crown in Parliament and, in due course, effectively to Parliament standing on its own. One important factor was that Parliament was very good at aggregating power to itself. In those days, it decided to be very nice to bankers, which worked very well for it, because it got the City of London and the men of finance on its side. In those days, the English Navy did not have French ships in it, and Parliament made sure that it responded to the English Parliament. Parliament also took the precaution of hiring and training and paying—something quite unusual in those days—the best army in the country. It got over the problem of competing armies and, in due course, established that it had military power and could command the Army.
Parliament also needed to deal with the judges. It was established during the revolutionary period that judges were necessary and that, according to our current tradition, they had to be independent and should not interfere in parliamentary matters by trying to make the law. They simply had to deal with the law as Parliament provided it. We therefore eventually ended up with a very powerful Parliament.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, Parliament did something that everyone in the House is now united in admiring: it made the exercise of power by Parliament a democratic matter by extending the franchise until practically every adult in this country was able to participate in elections. That gave Parliament the authority of having a democratic voice and mandate. The question that we are debating today is whether that great democratic settlement, in which most Members believe, is now under threat from judge-made law, from European-made law and from other centres of power. Could parliamentary sovereignty come under pressure in the not-too-distant future? Is it being damaged because too much power is being transferred? These questions account for the nervousness, certainly on the Conservative Benches, about the degree of power that has already been surrendered by successive Parliaments over the years, particularly under the most recent Government following the treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon. Under those treaties, a large number of areas were transferred either to joint decision taking or to sole European decision taking.
That means that the exercise of power in many important areas of activity, including regulation, the expenditure of money and the provision of public services, now emanates from the continent. Those powers are trying to establish their own democratic credibility through the European Parliament. They are also trying to establish their own judicial credibility through the European Court of Justice, and their own administrative credibility by strengthening the powers that are exercised around the various collective corporate tables that constitute the ever-evolving, and ever more powerful, European Union settlement.
The nub of our debate today is whether there is something that this Parliament could and should do, no matter how much power has passed, how many decisions are taken through the European Union and how much money it now takes to itself and spends on our behalf, to make it clear that, should we want those powers back, we can have them back. If we wish to change or moderate what the European Union is doing, do we have every right to do so because we are still the sovereign?
Some of us fought long and hard to keep the currency under British sovereign control. These arrangements involve a British sovereign and preserve the settlement of the Queen in Parliament, and the Queen’s face appears on the banknotes of the realm, but we all know that they are Parliament’s notes and that they represent an expression of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, it was this very Parliament that, by a majority, approved the previous Government’s decision to print a lot more of those notes—or electronic notes—as an expression of what that sovereignty can do for the people of Britain. We can argue about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but it was an undoubted expression of sovereignty.
Kelvin Hopkins
Wisely, Britain already has a number of opt-outs from the European Union. I am thinking specifically of the single currency; it was to the great credit of our former leader that he kept us out of the euro. Would not a test arise, however, if Britain decided to opt out of something that we currently opt into? For example, if we chose to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and to place our own historic fishing grounds under democratic British control, would not that represent a test of our sovereignty?
Mr Redwood
Indeed; the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I, too, would like us to opt out of the common fisheries policy. I would like us to elect a Government in this country who had the necessary majority to go off to Brussels and say, “It is now the settled will of this Parliament that we want different arrangements for fishing, and if you will not grant them through the European Union arrangements, we would like to negotiate our exit from the common fisheries policy.” That is exactly the kind of renegotiation that many of my hon. Friends were elected to achieve, and, had we had a majority, we would have wanted our Government to do something like that. There are a number of other policy areas, some of which are more politically contentious across the Floor of the House, where we think we can make better decisions here than are being made in our name by the European Union.
If such renegotiations could be achieved, we would clearly have reasserted, or asserted, the sovereignty of our Parliament. If, however, they can never be achieved, it is difficult to see how Parliament could still be sovereign. If we are saying that nothing can ever be changed once it has been agreed under the various procedures in Brussels—including the many measures that the British Government did not want or on which they were outvoted—we cannot say that we are sovereign any longer. We would then be in a relationship with the European Union that would fall short of our preserving parliamentary sovereignty.
Tonight we are discussing a narrower, but crucial, legal issue that has been well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and the European Scrutiny Committee, whose perception is first class in informing the debate. I do not need to repeat all those arguments. Suffice it to say that I support the important amendments proposed by my hon. Friend. As I understand it, we have a Government who say that they wish to do all they can to reassure people in this country that we are and intend to remain sovereign. They do not wish to pick a fight with Brussels, and we are not asking them to do so tonight. They say, however, that should a disagreement arise in future that cannot be resolved through the usual channels, it will be settled here. I am very much in favour of that; it seems to me to be a wholly admirable and sensible place to take the debate. If that is the intention, it proves that Parliament is still sovereign.
We are arguing only about the words used to carry out that intention. It is one of those rare magic moments when the Conservative party is completely united on its intentions. The Government’s intention to reassert parliamentary sovereignty warms the cockles of Conservative Members’ hearts. It is wonderful to know that in another debate we can have a referendum when anything important happens. There may be some arguments about what is important, but we welcome the spirit. Again, we are at one with our Government.
When eminent lawyers and colleagues who have studied this matter at much greater length than I have say to the House that they have studied it carefully, that they have what sound like moderate and sensible words that basically repeat the Government’s policy and that it would be helpful if those words were written into the legislation, my feeling is—unless the Minister has a very powerful speech coming up—what is wrong with that? If the Minister wants to reassert parliamentary sovereignty, why cannot we just say that in the Bill? It is exactly what my hon. Friend says —it does not seem difficult, so will the Minister please humour us on this occasion?
The fact remains that if we succeeded in amending the Bill in this way, we would not be truly sovereign in future unless we had the will and determination to shape our own destinies, should the need arise. I hope we can do it by agreement. Any sensible person wishes to do it by agreement, given how far we are in this thing with our European partners and what a mess they are in.
Martin Horwood
The right hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent case. He and I might disagree on whether we want to withdraw from the common fisheries policy, but would he have seen any constitutional bar to that taking place had a Conservative majority Government taken office? Surely, if this was in the manifesto, he must have believed that it was possible to achieve it under the present constitutional arrangements.
Mr Redwood
Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy was not in the manifesto, although it might have been in the personal manifestos of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I gave it as an example because I believe it has a great deal of cross-party support. Most people think the common fisheries policy is extremely badly run and is not in the interests of the fish or the fishermen. Casting all those dead fish back into the sea is not my idea of conservation and it does not bring cheap fish to the fish market either, so it does not seem to be good news.
Successive Governments have always said that they quite agree with those of us who make such points, but they have never managed to negotiate a better deal. Would it not be wonderful if the Government said, “If we cannot negotiate a better deal next year, we will use British parliamentary sovereignty to pull out of the CFP”? I would like to do that and I do not think it would be tantamount to leaving the European Union. It would be pretty cross, but it would probably do a deal with us because it would be more embarrassing to have a sovereign Parliament taking unilateral legislative action than to do a deal. I hope the EU would do a deal; it would be sensible for it to do so.
If we are not prepared at some point to assert our power, we lose our sovereignty. Just as the Crown lost its sovereignty, became the Crown in Parliament and eventually lost practically all its real powers, so this Parliament is losing its powers. If it goes on losing them, without sensible provision being made of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and without at some point standing up for a better deal for Britain, this Parliament, too, will no longer be sovereign.
Mr Kevan Jones
I congratulate the European Scrutiny Committee on its excellent report. I commend it for the clarity with which it looked at the Bill and for the evidence it took. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) that it was disappointing that the Foreign Secretary did not deem it necessary to come before the Committee to explain why this Bill is so important.
Basically, the Bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is full of contradictions. On the one hand, it tries to constrain the sovereignty of Parliament by committing future Parliaments to referendums; on the other, through clause 18 it tries to put on the statute book support for parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 18 makes no difference whatever. That is the important point to be made here, and one that was made in the excellent European Scrutiny Committee report.
The reason for the Bill and for clause 18 was evident in some of the earlier contributions, particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his place. It is to placate the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party—something that it is completely failing to do, judging by the smiles on the faces of some Opposition Members and by some of the earlier contributions.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Without diverging too much, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what he would have wanted if his shotgun marriage with the Liberals had occurred as the Labour party wished?
Mr Jones
If the hon. Gentleman had spoken to me a couple of days after the general election, he would know that my views were very clear—that under no circumstances would I want a union with the Liberal Democrats. Part of me feels sorry for individual Conservative Members as they have to work with a party with which they are not at all comfortable and sacrifice some things that were very dear to them.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
On this side of the House, we work with the Liberal Democrats, and there is one aspect of their manifesto on which my Conservative colleagues—certainly those on the Back Benches—are happy to work, and that is their very clear manifesto commitment to an “in or out” referendum on the EU.
Mr Jones
If there is a referendum, it will be interesting to observe the actions of the coalition. As on many other occasions, it will behave rather like Dr Dolittle’s pushmi-pullyu. Let us be honest: the hon. Gentleman and others are unlikely to agree with the Liberal Democrats on most European issues, given their clear view that nasty foreigners across the water are somehow doing terrible things to this Parliament and this country.
Mr MacShane
Is there not an alternative reading of the manifestos? The Liberals’ “in or out” referendum offer led to their losing five seats, while the Conservatives’ isolationist sovereignty Bill offer led to their failure to secure a majority. I suspect that if the Conservatives had remained true to their vocation of being internationalists, they might have secured that majority. It was their Euroscepticism that gave them only 303 seats. That is an alternative reading of all the figures that have been given.
Mr Jones
I imagine that it is, but the real point about the modern Conservative party is that it has not changed. It is virulently anti-Europe. At the time of the election, however, the Conservatives had to give the impression that they had put all that behind them.
Another view—amplified by the hon. Member for Dover—is that these nasty people in Europe do things to Britain in which our Parliament has no say, and that if we do not stand up and make token gestures such as this, those nasty foreigners will take away the rights that we have developed over many centuries. It should not be forgotten that, early in this country’s history, the Norman invaders spoke Norman French, and for a long time northern France was part of England.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman has made a compelling point about Conservative Back Benchers, but is not part of the problem the fact that the Notting Hill set—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary—agree with the Liberal Democrats more than they agree with their own party? That may be why the Prime Minister has been so enthusiastic about spending much more time with the Deputy Prime Minister than with fellow members of the Conservative party.
Mr Jones
In some cases, possibly. However, it is clear that some members of the Conservative party feel more comfortable with Europe than many of those who are present this evening.
It is important to establish what clause 18 does and does not do. Members who have not read the report from the European Scrutiny Committee will find the details well worth examining. According to paragraph 81:
“Clause 18 is a reaffirmation of the role of a sovereign Parliament in a dualist state, nothing more, nothing less.”
The suggestion in the explanatory notes that—as has already been said—clause 18 will put an end to the notion that these nasty Europeans will do things to us is not justified.
Kelvin Hopkins
I did not intend to intervene, but my hon. Friend keeps talking about “nasty Europeans” as if this were an international issue. May I suggest to him that criticisms of the European Union, rather than of Europe, are strong among working people in Europe, including trade unionists? That is evidenced by the referendum defeats incurred by Europhiles who have tried to push through measures that are unacceptable.
Mr Jones
I entirely agree. I am another of those who are willing to criticise European institutions on grounds of waste and the untransparent way in which some things are done. The fact is, however, that—as has been made clear today—some Conservative Back Benchers, along with mainstream Conservative associations, believe that Europe is a thoroughly bad thing. I am sorry, but I do not share that view.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the duty of every elected Member of the House of Commons is to defend and protect the sovereignty of this Parliament?
Mr Jones
I think that the duty of the elected House of Commons is not to try to hoodwink the public into believing—although the sovereignty and primacy of the House of Commons are self-evident—that the Bill will bolster our credentials, when that is clearly not the case.
Members who really want to change things, and to prevent the primacy of EU legislation, should try to amend the European Communities Act 1972. EU law is enacted by this Parliament, although anyone listening to some hon. Members today and some commentators outside might believe that it had no role in it whatsoever. The primacy of EU law over national law is clearly enshrined in the 1972 Act, which was passed by this Parliament. It can also be amended by this Parliament. I should be happy for those who obviously do not wish us to remain in Europe to table an amendment to that effect—that would be the proper thing for them to do—but clause 18 merely reiterates what is already there, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.
As the European Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 82 of its report states,
“Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law.”
The idea that passing the clause would somehow enshrine, or protect, the sovereignty of the House is complete and utter nonsense. Paragraph 82 continues:
“The evidence we received makes plain that these two spheres of law coexist, usually peacefully, clashing occasionally. When they do clash, neither side gives way. The Court of Justice of the EU maintains that EU law has primacy over national law, including national constitutional law.”
That is clear from the ruling in the case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council.
I find it disturbing that some Members appear to believe that the courts have no role in the interpretation of law. As one of my hon. Friends observed earlier, the laws that we pass in relation to Europe are interpreted over time, and that is the role of the courts. It would be completely wrong for Parliament to interfere directly in the interpretation of a law once it had been passed. European law is no different from other laws in the sense that there are various possible interpretations of it. The Thoburn case made it clear that European law could not direct what the House of Commons could do in terms of making its own laws.
Kelvin Hopkins
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in the Chamber, my hon. Friend has made a point about lawyers’ interpreting law and having scope to do so within statute. Parliament does not deliberately leave scope for lawyers to interpret the law—it tries to make its legislation fairly precise—but sometimes it is not precise enough, and at that point the lawyers intervene to interpret it. Parliament does not deliberately make laws open-ended so that lawyers can have a field day.
Mr Jones
No, but it has been suggested that the courts should have no role in the passing of laws, and I simply do not agree with that, although I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
There is a danger that amendment 41, and indeed new clause 1, will enable lawyers to interpret the meaning of “sovereignty”, and that the clearly defined roles and sovereignty of the House of Commons will be interpreted by judges, which would be wrong. Clause 18 has been tabled purely for political reasons, to placate people such as the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), but I doubt that it will placate them in any way, and I believe that it poses a grave danger
Mr Jones
Well yes, but funnily enough we still see many cars parked outside this building.
The important point about the Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council case is that the council attempted to assert the primacy of EU law and EU legislative and judicial institutions but that was rejected, and that is the case law that is now in place. Therefore, although Eurosceptics in this House and commentators outside suggest that somehow these laws are coming from Europe and they are imposed on us and we have no control over them, that is not the case, so I do not see why we need this point to be reinforced through clause 18. To be fair to the European Scrutiny Committee, it makes the good point that the Thoburn case sets out the law as it is currently interpreted.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he not agree that the European Court of Justice has been saying for decades that it believes it has been creating a new legal order—I cite the Van Gend en Loos judgment of 1963—and we entered into that through the European Communities Act 1972? Therefore, we have already impinged to some degree on our parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman needs to realise that it was this House that passed the 1972 Act that took us into that. If we want to amend it, we can do so by treaty. We could also have said at the time that we were not going to accept certain parts of the treaty negotiations. However, it is not the case that some far-off distant land is imposing things on this country. I know Conservative Members do not like the 1972 Act, but at least it was this Parliament that passed it. That is the important point.
This topic was covered by the European Scrutiny Committee, which says:
“If Parliament wills it may legislate to override the European Communities Act 1972 or the EU Treaties by repealing them”
or
“amending them”.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am slightly foxed. Does not sovereignty mean that if we do not like it, we do not do it, and if we cannot do it and we do not like it, we can change it? Is that not implied by the 1972 Act that was passed by this Parliament? Therefore, if we do not want to do it, this House is sovereign and will not do it. Is that not what we are talking about?
Mr Jones
There is a mechanism by which the House can do that. That mechanism is to amend the 1972 Act or the subsequent treaties. I know it might disappoint the hon. Gentleman to hear this—although perhaps his local association is one of the most pro-European—but we must explain to people how the system through which European law becomes national law in this country actually works. It is not the case that it arrives in an envelope on the Prime Minister’s desk one week, and then it is just adopted. Different countries interpret and combine European legislation and laws into their national legislation in different ways, and in the past our country has been accused of gold-plating certain regulations and other measures.
It is not the case that sovereignty is endangered by Europe. There are powers open to us to change the treaties or Acts if we wish to do so. It is strange that there is a later clause in this Bill on referendums. Strangely, it will bind future Governments and Parliaments to referendums on a range of issues. That is trying to look too far into the future, and many people might object to such a future referendum.
Andrew Bridgen
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the clause on referendums and looking too far into the future, does he not agree that that measure is in place because we are in fact looking into the past as the last Government refused the people the referendum that they had promised?
Mr Jones
I do not want to go down that route, but I think that point has already been dealt with very well. We did not do what we are being accused of having done. [Interruption.] I do sometimes worry about some Conservative Members, as they must have to lie down in a darkened room and take sedatives after having got themselves so frothed up and excitable about the Lisbon treaty somehow being the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunately for them, the end of the world has not happened because of the implementation of the Lisbon treaty.
Mr MacShane
For the sake of some of our new distinguished colleagues, it might be worth while if we remind ourselves that a promise was made on a referendum on the constitutional treaty, but that was killed by the French and the Dutch. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is now Secretary of State for Defence, said at the Dispatch Box that he was a doctor and he knew death when he saw it. That constitutional treaty is dead, and we cannot have a referendum on a dead parrot.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)
Order. I hold to the strong belief that if I wait long enough we shall return to clause 18.
Mr Jones
My mind has been set off with thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) doing various things with dead parrots, but I shall try to resist any temptation to go down that route.
The European Scrutiny Committee was clear about clause 18:
“Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the Government, and the whole premise on which it has been included in the Bill is, in our view, exaggerated. We are gravely concerned that for political reasons it has been portrayed by the Government as a sovereignty clause in correspondence and also in the Explanatory Notes”.
I would be concerned if, because of what has been said tonight, the explanatory notes are amended during the Bill’s passage, because that might mean we do not have proper explanatory notes, and it might have an impact on our being able to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly.
The Committee also states that the Foreign Secretary was so confident of this clause that he would not appear before the Committee. I think that is wrong. To ensure that the Executive are properly scrutinised, Cabinet Ministers should appear before any Select Committee or inquiry that invites them to do so, and I cannot understand why he chose not to do so on this occasion.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that clause 18 is a smokescreen to stop the real debate taking place both in this House and the country. Does he agree that we will not establish a real position to the satisfaction of the electorate until we either allow the electorate to have a referendum on some of the big issues to do with Europe and the European Union or one of the three main parties puts in their manifesto a genuinely more Eurosceptical position that is even more in line with the majority view in this country?
Mr Jones
Yes, but interestingly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned, the Conservatives failed to do that. Obviously, they were trying to decontaminate the Conservative brand and thought that one of the elements of doing so was not saying nasty things about Europe. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that if any major constitutional changes in respect of Europe are made in future, referendums will be important. The hon. Member for Dover hinted that every so many years we should have a fundamental referendum on whether we are in or out of the European Community. That is completely wrong and does not help this country’s standing in Europe. We have a settled position in Europe and it would be best if we moved on to dealing with what is important for people on Europe. As my hon. Friend said, that is about what Europe delivers for this country and issues associated with accountability and transparency, which need to be addressed.
Amendment 41 states:
“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.”
If we are reaffirming this sovereignty, we are starting from the premise that it already exists. I am not sure, but the phrasing of the amendment may belie the fact that sovereignty is in no danger from Europe. The fudge in the Bill was included because of the coalition agreement or because once the Foreign Office lawyers got hold of the Conservative manifesto they realised that what was being promised in a sovereignty Bill was complete nonsense. It was obviously very useful for political purposes but was not needed or enforceable in terms of what is in place at the moment.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that when people reaffirm their marriage vows they are not actually married already?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman seems to have completely misunderstood the point that I was making. If someone is reaffirming something, be it marriage or, in this case, sovereignty, they recognise that it was there in the first place. So I cannot see the point of what he is trying to say.
Clearly, clause 18 has come about for political reasons. An honourable attempt is being made to get at least something out of the clause through the proposal for annual reporting. Amendment 52 states:
“The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the extent to which in the previous 12 months the provisions of subsection (1) have been challenged or questioned in the courts, including the European Court of Justice, identifying any challenge to the declaration contained in that subsection that the status of EU law is dependent on the continuing statutory basis provided by the European Communities Act 1972.”
That would at least ensure that we would be dealing with facts, rather than what we deal with on many occasions in the press and, increasingly, from Eurosceptic members of the Conservative party. They believe that if something is said enough times, people will believe it.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It seems that the hon. Gentleman missed long passages of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). One of the reasons why he argued that there was a need for the words that the hon. Gentleman found mystifying was because of judicial activism. My hon. Friend’s report, which the hon. Gentleman admired, cites Lord Hope and his comment:
“Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute…Step by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute…sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being qualified.”
The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based. Therefore, this is not just declaratory; it is a response to what is happening.
Mr Jones
I had moved on to dealing with a new point, but I am willing to go back. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I can now mention a couple of issues in response. First, any law passed in this country will be interpreted by the courts. If they do something that we do not agree with, this House has the power to change it. The danger with including the sovereignty argument in clause 18 is that courts would then have debates about sovereignty, and that would be strange. How would this House then be able to change the law or interpret a court’s interpretation of sovereignty?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I believe that what Lord Hope is saying is that this House could pass an Act that was not, in itself, lawful. What amendment 41 would achieve is a reassertion of the fact that this House could not do anything of the kind and that any act of this House is superior to any judgment of any court. If these arrangements are based on the rule of law, rather than the supremacy of Parliament, the judges could always overrule Parliament, and that is extraordinarily dangerous.
Mr Jones
Judges often do overrule Parliament on the interpretation of the law. The danger of going down the line that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we might be saying that when we pass a law it could never be challenged or changed. Would we be saying that every law passed in this Parliament is perfect and will never be in need of amendment or interpretation? As has been said, the entire case law of this country and the way in which we have developed laws in this country has resulted from people challenging laws, including in terms of European legislation. The Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council case clarified the position. I am not a lawyer, but I have employed many lawyers over the years at great expense and so I know that they will argue different ways around things. Sometimes they will do so to make a point, but on other occasions they will do so to get their fees up. On laws such as this or on health and safety legislation, which was the area that I was involved in, case law precedents always develop. In the cases I was involved in, that went on to bring justice to many people who had been involved in the asbestos industry. The important question is: do we really want judges to start giving interpretations of sovereignty? That is the danger in what the hon. Member for Stone is proposing in his amendment.
May I return to what I was discussing before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd)? I am always pleased to take interventions from him because, as he knows, I am a great fan. Amendment 52 would be useful, not only for the debate, but as a safeguard. If we were in a situation where we thought that European law was somehow infringing on not only the rights and liberties of our citizens, but the activities of this House, it would be important. This is not an ideal situation. The Government are always talking about unnecessary legislation and it is possible that this entire Bill is just that. Clause 18 certainly is unnecessary because it simply declares what is already the case. That is an important point. There is an idea that the Government have dressed this up and that they are going to make some great fundamental change or are going to protect against any changes in European law, but that is not the case at all. It is also important to make it clear that future Parliaments will interpret European law and will disagree with what is being put forward in this Bill. We cannot allow this Parliament to leave future Parliaments hamstrung in relation to freedoms.
In conclusion, clause 18 was introduced as a political fudge and I doubt whether it will placate the red-blooded, anti-Europe sceptics on the Tory Back Benches. Neither will it placate the commentators in the press who want us to withdraw from Europe. The clear option is to amend the 1972 Act, which would be more honest. This has exposed the Prime Minister not only in that the detoxification of the Conservative brand clearly has not taken place but because, judging by tonight’s attendance, it has put him on a collision course with large sections of his own Back Benchers. As this Parliament goes on, we will increasingly see the true nature of the new Conservative intake.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) mentioned marriage. That was a good point because renewing one’s marriage vows does not make one’s marriage any stronger. That is what we should talk about. It is what one does with and in one’s marriage that matters, and the same applies to this sovereignty issue. Renewing our commitment to sovereignty will not mean that we are more sovereign. That is the thrust of my speech.
Mr Kevan Jones
At least when people renew their marriage vows, they might have a party or celebration afterwards, but the measure would simply reiterate something that already exists, so there would be no party or feel-good factor afterwards. There might be a feel-good factor to some in the Conservative party, but that is about it.
Neil Carmichael
We in the Conservative party are always celebrating, especially with our coalition partners, the success of our Government, so we have lots to celebrate. The hon. Gentleman is right about the renewal of marriage vows being a cause for celebration, but I am not entirely sure that we will be drinking champagne when we have defeated this amendment and passed the Act.
The point is that if something exists, we do not need to keep reaffirming it. Funnily enough, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was absolutely right about the wording of the amendment: if one reaffirms something, one effectively admits that it is already there. Something I have noticed during the past three and half hours I have spent in this debate, except for the brief moment when I had a drink, is that clause 18, as drafted, is required because there is so much misunderstanding about what sovereignty is and what power Parliament has. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) spoke, we deviated into the 1600s in connection with the outcome and causes of the English civil war, but the real issue there was the relationship between the King and Parliament. We must remember that the monarchy is still part of Parliament, because an Act does not become an Act until it has received Royal Assent.
Another, much more interesting, dimension of this discussion is the transfer from kingdom to nation state. That has rather more to do with sovereignty than our involvement in the European Union. Suppose that we wanted to leave the European Union—we would simply repeal the European Communities Act 1972. We are not going to do that, but that is what we would have to do. But what if Essex wanted to leave England? How would that unfold? That would be a completely different situation and would bite at the issue of sovereignty. It is important to get right this issue of what sovereignty is. The shadow Minister started to speak about that and the very fact that we are debating it proves that we should not use the word sovereignty in the Bill because it will lead to a need for interpretation.
It is also important that instead of talking about sovereignty, as we have for the past three hours, we ought to discuss what Parliament should be doing to make a difference in the European Union, if that is what we really want. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham did not really answer the question he was asked about the common fisheries policy. The matter is very simple: if we did not want to be in the CFP, we would have to say so and pass appropriate legislation having made the necessary agreement with our European partners. It would no doubt be messy and would certainly be complicated, but it would not be prevented by our no longer being sovereign because we are. Parliament has the power to take the decisions necessary to bring about such an outcome.
It is important to focus on what Parliament does rather than on what we think it is. That is the difference. This discussion is about sovereignty, but we have to move away from that specific issue and focus instead on the power and role of Parliament and the way it can influence things. At the end of the day, if we decided to leave the European Union, we would have to repeal the 1972 Act, which some people might want to do. Others might want to reform or restructure it in some way—we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that that would, to some extent, be his direction of travel—but the most important thing for us to do is define the national interest and pursue it relentlessly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) talked about the national interest and Disraeli’s description of the Conservative party as always being the national party. That is what we have to do, and that is what the Conservative party, with our Liberal Democrat partners, will continue to do—try to shape a role for Britain that is constructive but without allowing the European Union to be too intrusive on how we proceed. That is the best way that we can act as a Government.
Mr MacShane
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) who, in his short and effective speech, demolished some of the more windy and high-blown rhetoric that we have heard tonight. Sovereignty is a wonderful topic for a seminar but is rather more difficult to define than one might imagine. In many continental legislations, the people are sovereign. The American constitution starts: “We the People”. In such a system, it is not the Parliament or Congress that is sovereign but the people, who grant to the President or Parliament the right to govern in their name. In other countries, there are checks and balances known as a constitution or as direct democracy through forms of plebiscite and referendum. We have never gone down that path and have always refused a written constitution. In his book, “The English Constitution”, Bagehot contrasted the flexibility that the lack of a written constitution affords Britain with the American constitution, which he said was so rigid that it could be broken only through the civil war that was taking place as he was writing or compiling his book.
The additions that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his colleagues on both sides of the House propose to clause 18 are superfluous because they will not add one extra bit of strength to the Bill. The Bill is cynical and worthless. The Government—or at least the Conservative part of the Government—may have campaigned in opposition as Eurosceptics but they have found that they have to govern as Eurorealists. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on being very Eurorealist since the coalition was formed in May. They have accepted a number of measures that require Britain to pay money or accept collective decisions, and have shown no desire to oppose the proposed changes in the Lisbon treaty to effect greater economic governance in Europe that were decided collectively by all 27 member states. They hide behind the convenient and comforting myth that that only affects the eurozone but, precisely to ensure better and more effective governance, much of which will involve a degree of fiscal discipline, we are gradually moving in the direction of greater co-ordination of our economic and fiscal policies in Europe. It will not be a case of giving orders or dictating tax levels—some countries might want to put up VAT, some might want to put up income tax, some might want to put up corporation, petrol, environmental, housing tax or whatever, and that will remain their individual decision—but much greater co-ordination is coming fast down the tracks. We live in such an open trading economy that if we want the European Union to remain open to all of our products, services, people and capital, we will require greater co-ordination.
Mark Reckless
On a point of order, Mr Evans. Would it be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to the amendment?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am listening carefully to Mr MacShane, and if he is out of order, I will call him out of order.
Mr MacShane
I am grateful, Mr Evans.
We have heard a wide range of speeches, including one from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). We had a wonderful seminar on constitutional law from the hon. Member for Stone, and we are discussing something of profound importance: whether or not our country and this Parliament want to stay in the European Union on the common terms dictated by the treaty.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s rather rambling speech just a ploy to use up time so that his colleagues can get back from Oldham?
Mr MacShane
I would politely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he wait until the early hours of Friday morning before he begins to smirk about Oldham.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. We are definitely not on clause 18 at the moment.
Mr MacShane
I am a courteous, friendly fellow, Mr Evans, so I accept interventions even if they are points of order on the dark side of the moon.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s courtesy in giving way. He is right that putting something into a Bill and stating that we reaffirm sovereignty may not in itself affect or change the law, but it sends a signal to the very people who effect our law, for example the UKRep or the Council of Ministers, and all those people who just go with the flow in Europe, instead of standing up for the needs of Britain, which are effectively written off. Saying it therefore sends a positive and powerful signal.
Mr MacShane
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to our officials, who undertake the arduous task of negotiating the treaties or agreements that affect Britain. If he travelled widely on the continent as I do—and I am sure that he does, too—he would find that in capital after capital, people think that the EU is, if not a British plot, an Anglo-Saxon hymn to free trade. Again and again, in Berlin, Madrid and Paris, I have had to defend the EU and the European Court of Justice, because the vast majority of rulings in the ECJ uphold open and free trade, and slap down the protectionist instincts of many EU member states.
Ian Paisley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for almost inviting me back. Having worked in Brussels and in France for two years on issues to do with European law and how it affects our kingdom, I found that people went with the flow unless backbone was put into the UKRep’s office or into the Council of Ministers. We see it directly in fisheries policy, as fishermen in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are prohibited from doing the job that they want to do—fishing our seas—week in, week out, because of bizarre regulations that flow from Europe.
Mr MacShane
As the hon. Gentleman spent time in France, he may have read in the French papers reports of blockade after blockade of French ports by French fishermen, outraged that the British interpretation in Brussels of the common fisheries policies prevented them from doing what they wanted to do. This is a collective decision that we have taken, and I suggest that Government Members are honest: if they do not like the European Union, they will not alter it one little bit by putting new forms of words into clause 18.
Our representatives in Brussels and in all the Ministries that negotiate every aspect of our relationship with the EU will not be impressed by the proposals. If hon. Members do not like it, they should pull out—that is the honest position to take. There is no magic form of words that can get us out of our obligations under this or any other treaty. If they do not want to be in any of the treaty-based organisations, all of which are part of international law and which can, if necessary be prayed in aid by our judges, they should say so. There is a completely separate problem concerning the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to our courts. We are writing into our unwritten constitution judicial power that exists in other countries. The Germans have a constitutional court, and its rulings guide and control part of Germany’s relationship with the EU. We do not have such a court, but perhaps we should have. We all know full well the strength and power of the Supreme Court in the American constitution. We have never allowed that; we have wanted everything to happen here in Parliament and have not moved to a form of written constitution. We could put into one an obligation to have referendums on new treaties, as the Irish constitutional court has and the Danish constitution does. All those things are possible.
The Government could simply have said, “There will be a referendum on each new EU treaty—period.” That would have been very powerful and given the sovereign people the right to decide what should or should not happen. It would have severely limited the chances of this or any future Government negotiating changes to a treaty that we judged to be in our interests.
It is no accident that any reference to a referendum on enlargement is excluded from the Bill, because the Government want Turkey to join the EU—and so do I. However, nobody in the House can possibly imagine that the question of whether 85 million Muslim ladies and gentlemen from Anatolia should have free access into this country would not receive a resounding “no” from the British people in a referendum.
So we go back to the clause, again and again. Nothing in the amendment strengthens the Government’s hand or puts backbone into the UKRep spine—straight and sturdy though I am sure it is.
Kelvin Hopkins
Time and again my right hon. Friend poses the alternative: accept what we have, or get out of the European Union. Yet now we are talking about reform and change—perhaps even withdrawing from the common fisheries policy. I shall leave that there.
I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who talked about officials. I suggest that the politicians, particularly the people at the Commission, pushed Britain to the brink. Recently, we came close to having a referendum that would certainly have produced a no vote. This signal that we are giving to the European Union will emphasise the point that Britain was pushed to the brink of a serious referendum, with a no vote being the certain outcome. This signal will make sure that they do not push us again.
Mr MacShane
There is this version of Britain contra mundum—the 26 member states all ganging up against us. We have allies and friends, and we win arguments. The European Union is seen around the world as a model for open trade. Lorries leave Portugal and arrive in Poland. A lorry cannot leave Mexico with its Corona beer and unload it in San Diego; it has to unload it on to protectionist lorries controlled by trade unions in the United States.
I put it gently to hon. Members that they should be careful before getting what they wish—the disaggregation of the European Union, with every country rejecting European Court of Justice decisions that they do not like. France believed that it was sovereign when it refused to accept a pound, or a kilo, of British beef, at the time when the whole world thought that the beef was contaminated. We could not export it to Australia, and Canada would not accept it. The Commonwealth would not have it. Hong Kong, our Crown colony, would not have it. But the European Union had to accept British beef because the European Court of Justice accepted our scientific arguments that the beef was fit for sale in the common European market.
Mr MacShane
Most of my speech has consisted of accepting interventions from right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues. With your permission, Mr Evans, I shall now sit down. [Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] I do not propose to put that to a referendum; it is my sovereign decision whether to stand or sit, but the amendments would not make one iota of difference to Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Bill itself will also make very little difference, although that, as has been pointed out, may be a point for a later day. I sincerely put it to hon. Members who do not like the EU to have the courage of their convictions and start persuading their party to be as Eurosceptic in government as it was in opposition. But a party of U-turns will probably find that difficult to achieve.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir; I call you “Sir” because I am not sure whether I should call you Mr Deputy Speaker or Mr Evans, given the seat that you are in at the moment.
It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in a debate such as this. I was a Member of the European Parliament, which is arranged in such a way that the lights get brighter if the debate gets exciting and dimmer if the life goes out of the debate. If we had such a system in the House now, I fear that I would be speaking in complete darkness.
It would be easy to answer a number of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I agree with what he said at the very beginning of his speech. I have tabled a bunch of amendments to the Bill, which deserves tightening up, although there is something in it worth salvaging. However, I looked at clause 18 and thought that it did not mean anything, so it was not worth tabling an amendment to it. It is a declaration.
Does clause 18 put the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to EU law beyond speculation? I do not think so. Does it affirm and confirm that EU law has legal standing in the UK only because Parliament wills it through Acts of Parliament? I am not convinced that it does. Equally, however, I am not convinced that the amendments tabled to clause 18 would add anything to it; they are not anything to get excited about. I do not think that clause 18 is a very good clause, and I am pretty sure that it is not a sovereignty clause. If it has a place anywhere in the Bill, it should be in the preamble. It would be a good place to start—a sort of “This is where we came from”.
I have been following this process through the European Scrutiny Committee, and I have been fascinated by the different sorts of opinion that we can get from academics. In my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament it was always interesting to get at least three academics in the room to give advice, because people knew that they could then get three completely different opinions and choose the one that they wanted.
I like to call myself a pragmatic Eurosceptic; I am a great believer in dealing with what is on the table and what we can achieve. I would like to think that the Bill will be able to achieve some things when we come to later clauses and amendments, but I just cannot bring myself to get excited about clause 18. I wish that the Government had not called it the delivery of the pledge made in the Conservative party’s election manifesto, because I simply do not believe that it is.
There are many voters across the country who are slightly sceptical about Europe. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has left his seat, but many voters in his constituency will be sceptical about what goes on in the European Union. I do not think that they will feel comforted by the fact that clause 18 is in the Bill. If we vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I do not think that they will wake up and think that that has achieved very much. Whether the clause stays as it is or the amendment is accepted, we will still be where we are: nothing will have changed.
I followed the process in the European Scrutiny Committee with great interest because some interesting and eminent people came before us. They often looked at the exciting parts of the Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill, especially the statement:
“This clause has been included in the Bill to address concerns that the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty may in the future be eroded by decisions of the courts.”
I assume that that means the British courts, but because it is fairly vague I guess that it could equally mean the European courts. I have written to the Minister for Europe asking for clarification on a number of points about the Bill, but the explanatory notes already say:
“Clause 18 is a declaratory provision which confirms that directly applicable or directly effective EU law only takes effect in the UK as a result of the existence of an Act of Parliament.”
I think that the whole House can concur with that point. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament is free to make or unmake—that is a terrible phrase, but it means to get rid of—any law if it wishes to do so, which will be upheld by the courts. That has been a keystone of the UK constitution for centuries. Nothing in the clause, or indeed in the amendment to the clause, would change that.
We must remember that the British people have a distinct lack of trust in what anybody says on this subject in this place. They do not trust Her Majesty’s Opposition, because although the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), may say that the constitutional treaty was very different from the Lisbon treaty, the majority of the public are not fools and they understand that the words were basically the same; in fact, even the order in which they appeared was basically the same. The Lisbon treaty was pretty much the same thing, and we should have had a referendum. Even if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that point, he must understand that people outside this place feel like that.
I am happy to concur with the people who say, “Let’s be honest about this.” I would like to repeal sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, and I would like to have a proper sovereignty Bill. However, that is not on offer. I am in a coalition Government and lots of compromises have had to be made, some of which I am deeply disappointed about, but all of which I understand, because we are here to sort out the economic mess that the other lot left us. I want to get on with doing that particular job. I cannot get myself excited about all this.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend is making remarks with which I must, unfortunately, disagree. In particular, I do not think that he has quite understood the nature of sovereignty. The United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign only in so far as it is not affected by decisions taken by the courts. Sovereignty is about the rule of law, which pivots between the courts on the one hand and Parliament on the other: we make and they interpret. When they get into the position of seeking, as they now are, through the common law principle and their judicial assertions to erode sovereignty by specific words, they are invading our sovereignty. In amending and eliminating that, as I seek to do, we would revert back to the supremacy that we have always wanted and insisted on.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. However, during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament I gained a rough idea of what sovereignty was and how it is viewed by different member states within the European Union. His amendment would have some strength if we had market-tested it on the academic experts who appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee. I truly believe that if we had said, “This is what clause 18 states. What do you think of that?” they would all have said what we have said about the clause, which has been repeated a number of times. If we had asked whether adding this sentence to the clause would protect us in any way, I am pretty sure they would have said, “No, not really. This is all a matter of interpretation for the lawyers. We won’t get anywhere like that.”
Ian Paisley
Is not the reason why people do not get excited about this sort of stuff—the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it—the way in which laws are changed in this country? He is right: it is not a bang theory. As someone who has worked in Europe and been a Member of the European Parliament, he will know that Europe changes laws in a very nuanced way. A European directive informs our officials what they should do and our officials make those changes, sometimes at the behest of our own courts. However, such changes happen as a result of a nuanced change in Europe. They are dumbing us down quite deliberately, so that this Parliament is no longer sovereign.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I agree, which is why I focused my attempts to amend the Bill on the parts of it where there are opportunities to get this place to debate matters more thoroughly. We should get the country more interested by having referendums on some of the big changes that happen in Europe. In the Lisbon treaty there is an awful clause—the passerelle clause—which has untold danger written across it.
There are many things that former Ministers for Europe did; I am talking not about the right hon. Member for Rotherham, but about a friend of mine, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) when he was Minister for Europe. The European charter of fundamental rights was meant to have no more relevance to British law than a copy of the “Beano,” but it is now enshrined in the Lisbon treaty. I am very wary of the process and how it works, which is why I am keen on tightening up many other matters in the Bill, and have tabled amendments to do that.
None of those issues are helped, or indeed hindered, by clause 18. The Government’s apparent intention is that the clause will combat any argument that parliamentary sovereignty is limited by EU treaties directly—in other words, that Parliament cannot act contrary to those treaties while they apply to the UK. A strict reading of clause 18 would not prevent someone from arguing that parliamentary sovereignty would be limited by the European Communities Act as applied by the courts. There are many different arguments on this matter, but I want to return to the simple fact that we can take from the expert witnesses’ testimony before the European Scrutiny Committee anything we like, to allow us to argue on any side of the issue. Sensibly, Professor Adam Tomkins submitted in written evidence to us that
“European Union law is far from being the only contemporary challenge to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty”.
That is a very salient point. Human rights law, and indeed common law itself, would also pose challenges, as would different types of law coming from different places through different courts. Those challenges will not be affected by what clause 18 states, and will not be changed or challenged by the amendment if it is passed. We will still be in the same position.
I am concerned because I have a strong belief that we will not be able to negotiate strongly with our European partners until we start banging our fists on the table, reminding them that we are the second largest net contributor to the European Union and using the vetoes that we have. We should do exactly what the French and the Spanish do in all budgetary and other negotiations, which is to play their hand as hard as they can for the best interests of their country. That is what I would like our Ministers to do, and what I would like to believe they are doing. I want to hear from our Ministers that we will not only talk and be good at the rhetoric, but that we will start instructing United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union to do the right thing by our people. Again, none of that is affected by clause 18 or the amendment tabled to it.
I humbly suggest to my colleagues who may be excited by the clause that perhaps this is not the battle we should be fighting. There may be other areas where we can give the people we represent the referendum they want, and we should be angling for that. Perhaps there are ways in which we can tighten up the Bill through other amendments to other clauses. The timing of the implementation of the Bill means that it will apply to decisions made by the Government in the future. Perhaps we can do a much better job by tightening up the rest of the Bill, rather than getting excited about this clause.
Maybe at some point in this Parliament we can have a referendum on Europe, which is something on which I have not had the opportunity to express my view. I would love an “in or out” referendum; hon. Members can guess which way I would vote in that. Based on where we are now and what we have, it would certainly be “out”. I want the British people to have their say on our relationship with Europe and I also want them to be engaged in what is going on in their name in this place and in the negotiations. Other parts of the Bill, rather than this clause, are the place to try to bring that about.
Thomas Docherty
Several Members on both sides of the Committee have referred to England, the English Parliament and Britain. Let me gently remind the House that our nation state is the United Kingdom, and it is much more pertinent, particularly when discussing the issue of sovereignty, to get its name right.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Like several colleagues who have already spoken, I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee that considered this Bill. I think that the Committee performed a very useful exercise, and I am very grateful to all the esteemed academics who came along to give evidence
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was not entirely fair to the Government in his comments. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends were absolutely right to ask the question, “Is there a need to entrench parliamentary sovereignty?” and to identify the threats to parliamentary sovereignty, which probably intensified during the period of the previous Government—threats coming not only from the European Union but from judicial activism and the role that judges have assumed for themselves in some aspects of our country’s governance. Ministers need to ask themselves whether the clause, as it stands, satisfactorily meets the objectives of entrenching parliamentary sovereignty that they set themselves. Having taken part in the proceedings of the Committee, I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that it does not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who spoke very well, was good enough to refer to the various academics who came before the Committee. I am used to hearing from experts and academics evidence that is so wildly at variance that one cannot see how they could be experts in the same subject, let alone come to the same conclusion. However, the weight of the evidence from the experts to the Committee was almost unanimous; in fact, it was unanimous about clause 18. In their opinion, the clause did not meet the objectives that the Government had set for it. One or two of them went even further and said that because of its being restricted to the European Union in its declaration of sovereignty, it could possibly damage this House and parliamentary sovereignty as regards whether parliamentary sovereignty was part of common law and could be dealt with as such by judges. The evidence that we heard was conclusive that the clause does not meet the objectives.
Professor Tomkins from Glasgow university has been referred to, and I can do no better than to quote his conclusion:
“For all of these reasons, clause 18 as presently drafted may be seen as an opportunity missed. Parliamentary sovereignty is under considerable challenge from multiple sources. For those who seek its robust defence and protection, clause 18 falls substantially short of the mark.”
Professor Craig from Oxford university, another distinguished academic with a different perspective, came to the same conclusion. He could identify only two occasions on which the clause could be relevant. One of those concerned what would happen in the interim if this country were ever to leave the European Union, and what the status of European Union law as opposed to British law would be in such circumstances.
Mr Cash
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that the expert witnesses were all agreed on the judicial trend, except that the common law radicals among them wanted it, whereas the others—Tomkins and Goldsworthy—most emphatically did not? It was our judgment that the last two were right and that the common law principle people were wrong.
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is right, as were those experts. As a House, we are right to address this matter, and Ministers are right to address it.
It was interesting that earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—a Labour Member—seemed to put forward at some length the view that we should defend the judges and not the will of the people, as expressed through this House. That was an interesting proposition to hear from the Labour party, and seems at odds with its history. The conclusion that I have come to is that the clause does not accomplish the objectives that the Government set themselves. The question is how we can meet those objectives.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Have the same experts provided my hon. Friend with an opinion on whether the amendments would make clause 18 more meaningful?
Mr Clappison
The amendments are not mine, although I would be happy to put my name to them. They were drafted after we received the evidence from the experts, and as a Select Committee member I believe that they are entirely consistent with what the experts told us. Other hon. Members might say more about that. The amendments would better meet the threat that was identified by the experts, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) set out in his considered speech.
Mr Clappison
The hon. Gentleman would do as well to ask what is the point of his amendment. The gist of his speech was that the clause will achieve nothing and we are going to have a report on it every year saying how it has achieved nothing. This is not a party political speech, but I think that the Labour party could have produced something a bit better than amendment 52, which is just a marking-time amendment that gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make a few random points, but does not deal with the problems that we face. To be fair to Ministers, they have tried to face those problems.
The clause does not sufficiently address the situation because it is a restatement of the existing position, under which the present challenges to parliamentary sovereignty have developed, as has been said. It does not go much further than what people were told before the referendum on the European Union in 1975, to which hon. Members have referred. Interestingly, the Labour party said that it would never have a referendum and yet it was the Labour party that put the issue to the people after the negotiations had taken place and after the country had joined. The people decided to stay in the European Union. I am sad to say that I am old enough to have taken part in that referendum, which probably makes me past it, as the BBC would say.
Mr Cash
Does my hon. Friend mind my mentioning that, for reasons connected with the European Communities Act 1972, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was struck down by the courts because they said it was not sufficiently within the framework of European law? With the current judicial trends, that is the kind of situation that we can envisage on an array of matters contained in the status clause. Even if we disagree with a piece of European legislation, our legislation can be struck down if it is inconsistent with it.
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is right to point out that judicial activism is a living organism. That activism is not only in the courts of this country but in the European Court of Justice, which has a free-ranging way of interpreting European law. We must beware of its activities and the precedents it might set in interpreting any piece of EU legislation to which we give assent.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who talked of the distinction between sovereignty and the exercise of power, and whether the exercise of power can grow to such an extent that sovereignty becomes a piece of fiction and withers on the vine. He drew an interesting parallel with the erosion of the sovereignty of the Crown, through the continued exercise of sovereignty by Parliament. We must ask the same questions about the European Union, irrespective of the clause, because the power that we voluntarily concede to the European Union in so many areas will, over time, inevitably erode parliamentary sovereignty, however robust our reaffirmation.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. As we have heard a lot this evening, we have an evolving constitution in this country, and an evolving European Union. Is now not the time, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, to send a clear signal domestically and internationally to Europe that this Parliament reaffirms its sovereignty?
Mr Clappison
The interesting point that was missed out by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in his contribution and by the Labour Government in their referendum literature, which tried to portray the European Union as simply a trade organisation akin to the World Trade Organisation, is that there is a commitment to an ever closer union. Attention was drawn to that at the time of the original referendum, but sufficient account was not taken of it. That commitment continues today. The European Commission has signed up to measures that promote ever closer union. Measures and proposals come before us all the time that transfer further power from this House to the European Union. There is no underground supply of new power that the House can create and hand out. Power is exercised either here or in the European Union, and over the years we have conceded more and more power to the EU, which must inevitably have an effect on sovereignty.
We need a reaffirmation of parliamentary sovereignty as far as the EU and other potential threats are concerned, but we also need Ministers who are prepared to stand up to the EU, say no and not make voluntary concessions. I am sorry to say that under the provisions of the treaty of Lisbon, we will see the creation of the European External Action Service, which can only result in more power and authority being drained away from our foreign policy and going over to the EU. The Union Jack is being hauled down throughout the world and the EU’s flag run up in its place.
The EU and the European Parliament are champing at the bit to get their hands on our security policy, and the European Commission’s second-top priority in its immediate programme is the creation of its area of freedom, security and justice. There is a constant stream of directives on the matter, and let us be clear that those directives are not about picking a measure here or there that will improve the standard of justice. The point of the European area of freedom, security and justice is to create a common European legal system, which is being put together piece by piece. We currently have an opt-out from that, and Ministers need to find the resolution to maintain that opt-out and refuse to opt in to any further such measures.
I have not mentioned the list of financial regulations and proposals for economic governance that we heard earlier, but it is very long. If we sign up to all those individual measures, they will result in a transfer of power that will have an effect on our sovereignty. We need an improved sovereignty clause in the Bill, to send a clear signal of what we are about, and we need Ministers who will stand up to the EU. I am sure that they will do that, but they need to find the determination to do so and we need to support them in finding it.
Mr Jenkin
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), who made an absolutely outstanding speech. I should like to echo a great many things that he said, but brevity does not allow. I do, however, point out that the context of the debate is the fact that the current deluge of initiatives, the possible ending of opt-outs, the new legislation that is coming through and the expansion of the legal order do not require the expansion of competences. The competences for those things are already in place, so they will not trigger referendums.
My hon. Friend was right to emphasise a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made. We live with an unwritten constitution, and institutions have powers that are not written down anywhere. If those institutions do not use those powers, suddenly the lights will come on one morning and they will be gone. That is what we have found during our membership of the European Union. Although it seems unthinkable that that could happen to the sovereignty of Parliament itself, we have to recognise that possibility.
The European Scrutiny Committee’s extraordinarily powerful report on clause 18, and the unanimity of the evidence given to the Committee, underline the threat to the sovereignty of this Parliament from the behaviour of our own Government. I would very much like to have welcomed the clause, but I cannot bring myself to do so. It simply does not deliver the reassurance, the finality and the end to ambiguity that we promised our voters at the last general election.
My hon. Friend asked about the nature of sovereignty and power. People tend to use those terms interchangeably, but power is the ability to produce intended effects and can be used legally or illegally, with or without authority. Authority is the legitimate use of power, and legal sovereignty is the ultimate source of authority. This House has had legal sovereignty, pretty well uncontested, for the past 300 years or so, and that lies at the heart of our unwritten constitution and the democratic control thereof, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) so ably explained.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that when those principles were being established in the Bill of Rights in 1688 and 1689, the very reason why the courts were precluded from interfering in internal proceedings in Parliament under article 9 was precisely to deal with that question? It set out that the courts must not get involved in trying to make determinations about parliamentary sovereignty. That was exactly what it was all about.
Mr Jenkin
Yes, and without wishing to digress, I point out that Lord Phillips, the current president of the Supreme Court, qualified article 9 of the Bill of Rights in a recent judgment by suggesting that the doctrine of implied repeal applies to it. The Supreme Court is questioning the Bill of Rights itself, and if we are not aware of how parliamentary sovereignty is now being questioned, we are not living in the real world.
I listened to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) say that the clause merely reaffirmed the status quo, but the status quo is not a static situation. It is constantly fluid, and the rather lame attempt in the clause to address the situation is causing great concern.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I could not resist coming into the Chamber when I saw the hon. Gentleman’s name on the board. Could he explain to me how the status quo has changed since 1972, when Parliament basically took the decision to give primacy to EU law?
Mr Jenkin
What has changed is the nature of the legal order in the EU and the UK’s relationship with that legal order. If it had been explained to Parliament in 1971, when the European Communities Bill was progressing through the House, that in future a UK court would be able to strike down an Act of Parliament in the name of the European Union, there would never have been any possibility that we would have joined. The development of the European legal order, with the huge number and range of powers that have been passed over from the UK to the EU, means that I fail to see what competences the EU does not now possess that it could ever possibly need in order to become a fully fledged state. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that the situation is fluid, I think he is living on another planet. He had better listen to the rest of my speech.
We know where sovereignty lies in the British constitution—here in Parliament. Under a written constitution, it does not necessarily lie with the people, although the authority to exercise it might lie with the people. I would argue that the authority of Parliament’s sovereignty also rests with the people. Under the American constitution, sovereignty is dispersed among various institutions but ultimately rests with the judges. If we moved towards a written constitution, we would overturn the democratic constitutional settlement that we have enjoyed in this country and that has given us such flexibility and agility for 300 years. We would lock ourselves into a judicial system, which was fundamentally undemocratic because it would be ruled by judges, not the British people.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Having lived in the United States, I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about judges’ encroachment on parliamentary sovereignty. However, in the context of the Bill, is not he in danger of making the perfect the enemy of the good? Is not clause 18 a great first step towards limiting the abrogation of the sovereignty of this Parliament by the EU? By outlining a perfect situation, is not my hon. Friend in danger of making the enemy clause 18, which is surely a step in the right direction?
Mr Jenkin
I fully accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have attempted to take a step in the right direction. However, by the advice that they have accepted and their framing of the clause, they have not achieved the objective or made any progress, and they may have set us back. To put it bluntly, if clause 18 is all that Parliament has to say about its sovereignty, that is an invitation for the judges to come for us, as I shall explain.
Mr Cash
Does my hon. Friend also agree that, in the context of Van Gend en Loos, Costa and all the other cases that declaration 17, which is attached to the Lisbon treaty, covers, there is no attempt, in declaring the primacy of European law, to define the word “primacy”? Similarly, there is no need to define parliamentary sovereignty. My answer to the Government’s point on that issue is, “Tosh”
Mr Jenkin
I will revert to that later. The great danger of the European constitution was that it was explicitly and legally autochthonous. It derived its authority from itself and its own roots. At least the Lisbon treaty reverted to the principle that authority comes from the member states, but it contains the important and dangerous declaration about not only the primacy of EU law, but the EU’s constitutional supremacy over the constitutions of member states. That means our Parliament. I therefore fail to understand how anyone can say that there is no threat from the EU to the sovereignty of this House. That lot over there signed a treaty, without a referendum, that created such a threat. That has given rise to a demand for clarification about the sovereignty of Parliament in some form.
Many of my colleagues—I have talked to them in the Lobbies as well as hearing one or two speaking today—think that clause 18 is not the fight to have. If I may paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), he said that other clauses were much more important. It is not an either/or. It is suggested that somehow a referendum would be a panacea. People seem to think that as soon as we have a referendum—preferably an in or out referendum—we will be able to settle the issue.
The truth is that we may one day quite soon have a referendum on the European Union. It might be on the question of an additional treaty or power, and it might turn into a referendum on in or out. But the actual fact of a referendum will not solve anything. Instead, it will throw into flux the question of our membership of the EU, and the Government of the day will have to decide how to use that referendum to negotiate a new relationship with the EU. We will not stop the trains running through the tunnels and cancel all the flights and the trading. We will still have to have a relationship with the European Union.
Suppose that we wanted to take back control over our trade and to exit the customs union. We would need to have a renegotiation, sector by sector, of every part of the British economy’s trading relationship with the EU. The point about a customs union is that there are no barriers—it is a single trading area. If we were to elect to have a separate trading area—to leave the single market—but we wanted to continue to trade with that market, we would need a trade agreement, so we would need to negotiate one. Immediately, we would need renegotiation.
We constantly hear it said, “Oh, if you Eurosceptics want to leave the European Union, why not be completely honest about it?” The pro-Euros—the people who are dedicated to the annihilation of the sovereignty and independence of this country—always put the issue as a binary question and, to an extent, they are right. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy—a referendum would become a matter of leave or stay. If we are not sovereign in this Parliament while this country is a member of the EU, the only option is to jettison all the treaties and Acts, so we have very little flexibility.
What we as a Parliament need, in those circumstances, is the ability to negotiate partially, to pick and choose from a menu of options. But that would require Ministers to be able to legislate to suspend this EU instrument or that EU instrument. For example, they would need to be able to suspend EU City regulation so that we can get our competitiveness back. The Prime Minister’s remarks on Monday, about his pro-jobs agenda and a flexible labour market, are another example. The coalition also says that it wants to renegotiate the working time directive to recreate the competitiveness of the British labour market. So Ministers would need the option of passing an Act of Parliament to suspend the application of certain EU instruments, but the question is whether that option will be available to them.
A little earlier, the beef ban was mentioned. I was a humble Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Scottish Office at the time, and we had a lot of discussion about how it could possibly be legal for the EU not just to ban the import of beef into other member states, but to ban the export of British beef from the UK to third-party countries. We were banned from exporting to anywhere, and there was some discussion about whether we could suspend the effect of that legal instrument to stop the EU preventing us from exporting our beef to other countries. The advice was, “Oh no, Minister. You can’t do that because it would put us in breach of the European treaties, infraction proceedings will be taken against us in the European Court of Justice and we will be found to have broken the law. Minister, I must advise you not to break the law, as otherwise you will be personally liable.” Do Members get the point? Ministers have to obey the law and accept legal advice. Unless we sort out the sovereignty of Parliament and make it explicit that Parliament can suspend European Community law in selected circumstances, Ministers will not be in a position to exercise the freedom that Parliament has given them.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Did the hon. Gentleman seek alternative legal advice, which is often the sensible thing when getting that sort of advice in government, as I know from experience?
Mr Jenkin
We sought alternative legal advice and were assured that, in all probability, the domestic British courts would uphold Parliament’s sovereignty and ability to suspend those legal enactments. But that is the point. We might have it now, but will we have it in the future?
Michael Connarty
Is the hon. Gentleman not willing to tell the full tale? The power given to the Commission under European Union law allowed it to stop France banning the import of our beef when it was cleared of infection. Is it not useful to have a common law that everyone agrees can be enforced in the other 26 countries? Without that, we might not be selling beef to Europe to this day.
Mr Jenkin
I fully accept that there is an argument and a balance of interests to be struck. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that it is always in our interests to accept a European Community legal order, but I am suggesting, quite reasonably, that it might not be. There might come a time when it is not in our interest to accept a European legal decision. Sadly, Governments tend to be driven by such a fear of confrontation with the EU that they will agree to anything in the long term. That is what has been happening, and this Government are thinking, “We have so many difficult fish to fry at the moment, we had better not confront them on this. This is the important thing we have to go for.” As a result, more and more power seeps away, and I put it to him that sooner or later that has to stop.
As Martin Howe QC said in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Bill might stop us on the escalator, but it does not stop the escalator going up. A constant stream of powers and functions—not new competences or changes in voting arrangements that will trigger referendums—is still travelling in one direction to the EU. It is in the textbooks: it is called the doctrine of the occupied field. Once a power has been gained by the EU, the EU can only delegate it back to member states; member states cannot get it back. It is a doctrine formulated, of course, by the European Court of Justice in order constantly to consolidate the federal character of the EU.
Mr Cash
The occupied field is virtually full; very little more can be put into it. Does my hon. Friend also accept that one of the difficulties we are confronting is the question of political will, which we have not yet mentioned, and that the real problem, which emerged from some of his previous comments, is that we have been verging on appeasement for far too long?
Mr Jenkin
I totally endorse that comment. There might even be in this coalition, for reasons of political convenience, a will in the wrong direction. It is certainly not what the British people want or what we stood for in our election manifesto.
Provided that the UK courts recognise the sovereignty of Parliament, any legal dispute or clash between the British legal system, under the sovereignty of Parliament, and the European Community legal system, would be resolved by political negotiation. However, that is only the case so long as the UK courts recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and our right to suspend selectively legal instruments. That is a very important negotiation lever. But will that lever be available to Ministers in the future? Will that option be available to Parliament and future Governments? That is where the challenge lies. This is the crux of why we need a true sovereignty clause.
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill—and no indication whatever from the Government either—to say that the Government do not accept the primacy of European Union law. That is the fundamental point that we are at. I therefore take his comments to be a direct challenge to what his Government are proposing. My second point is that we are also talking about the duality principle, whereby European Union law has effect in this country only because of an Act of this Parliament. That is our position.
Mr Jenkin
I think I am safe to agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and that is why clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause, as he says. Therefore, if he agrees with everything that I am saying, I cannot quite understand why he does not want to make clause 18 a sovereignty clause. It would be quite easy to do so. I cannot for the life of me understand this. What could be less contentious than a declaration in the Bill that said, “The sovereignty of Parliament is hereby reaffirmed”? The idea that this would somehow open the issue of parliamentary sovereignty to judicial interpretation seems to me the daftest bit of legal advice of the lot. We make the statute and statute overrules everything, so if Parliament is sovereign and says in statute that it is sovereign, we clobber whoever challenges that; indeed—it is up to Parliament—we could actually sack the judge who tried to do that.
Mr Cash
The latest Act would prevail over all the previous Acts. Therefore, in so far as there was any uncertainty or ambiguity in any previous position, including the provisions of clause 18 as drafted, if they were separately enacted, the fact that we had passed an enactment reaffirming our supremacy would be not only a signal to the courts, but a requirement on them to give effect to it.
Mr Jenkin
Absolutely, and it would not be open to Lord Hope or any others to say that the sovereignty of Parliament was being qualified bit by bit because the rule of judges was the fundamental principle of the constitution. It would not be open to him to say that, and Parliament would be able to make it clear to him explicitly that that was not in the constitution of this country. We should want to do that, because we are democrats and we believe that we hold sovereignty on behalf of the British people. We want a democratic political settlement in this country, not rule by judges. That is not just the view of a few people on the Conservative Back Benches; I would hazard a guess that, when it comes to the crunch, it is the view of the British people—the constituents we represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone represents an all-party Committee that unanimously accepted much of what Professor Adam Tomkins said.
It is now time for Ministers to accept that they might not be right on this. As I said to the Minister for Europe yesterday afternoon, I have been accused for 18 years of being much too pessimistic about the direction of the European Union, but when have I been proved wrong? That pessimism has been borne out time and again. That has not made me a bitter person; it has made me persistent. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on his incredible persistence, because one thing is certain: this argument would not have been advanced with such sincerity and intellectual rigour without his personal intervention. To that extent, it bears his imprimatur, but he speaks on behalf of the British people on these matters.
Mr Shepherd
When I first came into the House in 1979 it would have been inconceivable that anyone would even discuss the sovereignty of Parliament, because it was so much a part of the fabric of how the nation had been governed, and how it understood its Government, over nearly three centuries. We all know that the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament can be a tyranny. It is, after all, only a temporary majority in the House of Commons that can change our constitution and our laws. That knowledge was held by the House and informed the great debate that Lord Hailsham tried to start when he spoke of elective dictatorships, even though he was making a wider point about changes to the constitution. It was certain, however, that this House was sovereign, and that that could be borne because no House of Commons can bind its successor. That created tolerance for any actions that came to be seen as tyrannous, because they could not be held beyond a Parliament. That became a reality when we became a democracy.
I give a cheer for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—who should really be my right hon. Friend—for remembering the constitutional developments involved. The House has now lost any sense of narrative about who we are, what the House is and what this country is. I weep when I hear Labour Front Benchers—and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane)—these days. Some of them were not here when the wonderful Peter Shore was in the House. In 1982, speaking on a referendum Bill just before the election, he stood up and said that it was inconceivable that a whole generation of British parliamentarians had given away the most sacred trust and the thing that they prized most: democratic self-government. That is always what this has been about: who is the master? The master is the people. I think that the American revolution was the third stage of the English revolution. In fact, we are the representatives of the people, and it is their continuity and their fortitude that we depend upon for the very survival of this House.
During my time in Parliament a lack of trust has developed in the protestations of Government that nothing is really changing. We are told that we do not have to worry our heads. Honourable Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told me that nothing has really altered, and that in substance we are where we were. That is not borne out, however, by what has happened. The line of direction—where this is all heading—has become painfully clear. It was clear long ago.
The occupied field was referred to earlier, and I see close by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who made his reputation as a newcomer to this House of Commons and was advised that his career was ruined. That is one of the tortures that is extended to everyone. As I look around the House, I see many who were elected because they gave undertakings to their constituents that they profoundly believed that there was a need for an expression directly on behalf of the people on the issues that confront us. I am very interested to see how we drift when we come to the comfort of these Green Benches and we forget the solicitations of the prospect of office. We will forfeit the good will of those we count as our friends if we march towards a conclusion that is not now, I think, that of the British people.
Let me make the argument about why I think this reaffirmation of sovereignty is important. It is because I have seen in my time in Parliament—I am, of course, older than I look, to my regret—the degradation of the sense of the British people that ultimately they control their Government, through general elections. Everyone in this Chamber will have met the disillusioned and the despondent. “It does not matter what we think,” they say, “We are ruled by others.”
I have already mentioned Peter Shore, but there was also Tony Benn, who had a fivefold construction for the question of whether we are a democracy. I have always refined the issue down to two of his questions, which seemed to convey the essence of the point. First, who makes the laws? Many of our people are deeply confused about that. Are they made in this place or elsewhere? The second question he asked was: how do you get rid of them?
The British people have faced those puzzles for a long time now. We do not know who makes the laws—I am talking about the generality of those whom we represent. They do not know. “Is it Parliament?” “No, it is the European Union.” We play up to that game. On the Front Benches, they always pretend it is always someone else—“We are only doing what we have entered into because of a treaty obligation”—but treaties are, of course, subordinate to legislation. We never emphasise that enough. The Crown makes treaties. The common law is subordinate to statute. We do not state that loudly enough when we are confronted with judges who are now trying to propose that arrangements are not quite as we understood them. They know the tyranny that Parliament can be. We are the element that should make this bearable by the people whom we represent. We are their representatives. As I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the Second Treatise of Locke, which informed the American revolution, also informs our view of constitutions. It means that we can never give away that which is theirs. Yet we have done that throughout the time I have been in this House.
I support the amendment not because I want to, but because I think it unbelievable that Parliament is being asked to affirm the sovereignty that has been a feature of our constitution for 300 years, as interpreted by constitutional writers, and that we are now seeing judges who equivocate. There are now two legal orders in the country: the European legal order, made up for themselves by the courts of the European Union, and our own legal order. I believe profoundly that the latter must take precedence, and that is the assertion of the sovereignty of Parliament that I should like to see in the Bill. I cannot imagine how the House of Lords will look upon this “expression of sovereignty”. Sovereignty is a given, yet now it is questioned.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me remind the Committee that the debate will end at 10 pm. I want to ensure that the Minister has sufficient time in which to answer all the questions that have been put to him, and that the mover of the amendment has time to reply. May I ask the remaining speakers to bear that in mind?
Michael Connarty
As you see, Ms Primarolo, I am surrounded by a large number of papers. I have asked many questions during my time as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I hope that I shall not need to rehearse much of the evidence that we received. I hope that Members have taken the trouble to read that evidence rather than merely bringing their prejudices to the Chamber, warmed up for the day.
This is a joke Bill, and clause 18 is the biggest joke in it. It is a silly Bill. As we have already heard, it gives us no ability to change anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) quoted a Member who said today that at least the clause did no harm. In fact, it does nothing positive at all.
I respect the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who has often spoken very emotionally about sovereignty and our Parliament’s ability to hold back the tide of European power. He emphasised that repeatedly during our debate on the Lisbon treaty, and he spoke very well tonight about many principles that we all hold dear. The joke lies in the suggestion that those principles—of self-government, the will of the people, and the things that we wish to do—have been filtered through clause 18 to give it some force, for it is clear that the clause makes no difference to what went before or what will come afterwards. Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 gave primacy to EU law by the will of this Parliament. That will continue, regardless of whether we pass the Bill—and in particular, regardless of clause 18.
The joke is also being played on the Eurosceptics on the Back Benches, and I think that they know it. The joke is being played on them by the Government, who are suggesting that the clause somehow constitutes a response to the promises that they gave to their constituents. They are saying, “This Conservative-led Government will give you back some kind of sovereignty.” As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), if we pass clause 18, these matters may be judged in court. Professor Tomkins said in his evidence that this was a dangerous clause because it put down a written constitutional principle, and any principle that is written down can then be challenged in court. The measure may therefore tempt Back Benchers to go to court when they feel they are not getting a hearing from Front Benchers.
If the Eurosceptics did not put their careers, and maybe their finances, before their principles, the true solution for them would be to leave the Conservative party, which is clearly not a Eurosceptic party—it is not going to challenge European sovereignty—and to join the UK Independence party instead. They could then try to build up UKIP into a force that people might vote for. It would be a party that wished to change things fundamentally by opposing and overturning the 1972 Act—perhaps by making laws in this place that challenge and ignore current EU law, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) suggested—and thereby causing that to be judged in a court of law. Would a judge strike it down or not? Would the European Court of Justice try to strike it down by some other means?
That would come about only if UKIP Members were in the majority here in Parliament. It will not come about under this Government. The terrible thing is that this is a joke being played on the British people—on the people who voted for a Conservative party that cloaked itself in Euroscepticism without ever meaning to deliver any change in the relationship between the EU and this Parliament.
When the Lisbon treaty went through I said that it marked a tipping point, in that it was tipping power to Europe in a way that could not be changed unless we changed the 1972 Act, because we cannot get out of the deals that have been done. I was Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee at the time, and I think the rest of the Committee agreed with me.
I happen to like the progress that has been made, however, as I am a Europhile. I think that Europe is our saviour, rather than our enemy. I think that as part of Europe we will go forward as a stronger community and with a better culture than we would have if we broke away from Europe. I have no wish to see my world shrunk politically or culturally, or for the people’s rights, defended by Europe, to be taken away by our going back into partisan fights between right-wing capitalists and left-wing statists.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of Europe—Brussels—being the sovereign Parliament, or London or Scotland? As a Scottish MP and a Scottish Member of the southern Parliament, where does he want the major power to reside—Edinburgh, London or Brussels?
Michael Connarty
When I observe the behaviour of the current Scottish National party Government in Scotland, I see my world—where I live—shrinking. I see it shrinking to the point of stupidity, wrapped up in trivia and false history. That has no attraction for me at all. The forces of nationalism are very dangerous, particularly in small countries.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Hon. Members are fully aware that only one Member should be on their feet at any one time, rather than everyone standing up and shouting together. Mr Connarty has the Floor. Perhaps Members will bear that in mind, and perhaps they will also bear in mind the clock, in order to ensure that the final Member to be called gets a chance to speak.
Michael Connarty
I certainly will bear that in mind. I am very aware of the clock, and I think—
Michael Connarty
The hon. Gentleman is showing why my world is shrinking. The bullying culture of nationalism is very fierce.
The Second Deputy Chairman
That is enough. Mr Connarty has the Floor. I ask the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to be quiet and to listen to the debate.
Michael Connarty
I am grateful, but I really do not need protection from the bullies on the Scottish nationalist Benches.
I believe that this joke is very serious and dangerous. The Front-Bench team can be very persuasive, and it has to convince people that this Bill, and in particular this clause, changes things—but it does not.
Michael Connarty
I will at the appropriate time. I specifically chose the questions that I asked again and again in the evidence sessions: will clause 18 change the way in which the courts interpret their duty to review legislation in the light of EU law under the European Communities Act—and if not, what is the point of having it? I asked that of everyone who came to give evidence, and they all said that the clause would not change things; when pressed, they said that it would make no difference. In fact, it is a restatement of where we are, and I accept where we are. This is not about giving up sovereignty to the EU or to anyone else; it is about our deciding in this House that we would give the EU power to make laws within certain spheres and that the laws then passed would have primacy. But it is the choice of this Parliament, and if this Parliament chooses to take back that power by doing something that says, “We will challenge this,” we are able to do so.
The arrangement is not changed by this clause, but the clause is dangerous because it attempts to con the British people into thinking that it makes a difference. It is also dangerous because Professor Tomkins is right. He is a professor at the university of Glasgow, but he gives advice on constitutional affairs to the House of Lords and he has said that the clause invites a challenge and puts into a Bill something that people will use, perhaps for mischief or for some other reasons.
The clause does not change anything. We have these powers, and we could take them and use them; to put them into a Bill is to mislead people. That is shown in every piece of evidence now lying around me on this Bench: everyone we asked either said that in their written submission or answered the question by saying that it was true that the clause did not make a difference. I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), and he not only made some good points that agree with what I am saying, but cited some of the evidence that we received from the professors and others, who all said that the clause would make no difference.
It is not right to debate this matter without referring to the amendments, because that is the purpose of this section of the debate. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others just add to the confusion. They have drafted something that pretends to be different from the current situation but is not. Adding comments about common law and about preambles before the clause does not change the clause; it just says that under a law that those in this Parliament passed by their sovereign right we gave away certain primacy in law to the EU under section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. What we put before this, or what we put after it, does not make any difference.
Why does a Bill that says, “We will give the people of this country power to make choices, and power over the EU when it makes a proposal,” not contain the right to have a referendum on enlargement treaties? Such treaties are the only ones that will definitely come before this Parliament in the next period, and probably for a very long time after the Lisbon treaty. Why does this Bill not say that that power to have a referendum is going to be given to this Parliament? Why does the Bill not provide an automatic decision that such a referendum must be held? It is because the Government are playing a joke, not only on the people in this place but on all the people of the United Kingdom. If the Government were serious, that provision would be in the Bill. If they were serious, the Bill would contain something different from this clause. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Stone and others would not change that.
However, amendment 52, which was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, is worth supporting because it proposes that the Government will report annually on how much of this Bill has been used to challenge anything coming from Europe. That would give everyone a chance to see whether the Bill is the joke that I say it is, or something of substance. I challenge the Government to accept the amendment. If they are serious and really think—I cannot imagine how deluded they would be to think this—that clause 18 makes a difference, I urge them to accept amendment 52, because we would then have a serious matter before us. We would have a Bill approved by the Government that would not just be a waste of time, because it would allow us, and the people of Britain, to judge annually whether it is a waste of time. That would make a major difference where nothing else would.
I am not angry about this, because I already believed that this is what would happen if we ever got a Conservative Government. I said that from the Government Benches as the Lisbon treaty went through, and I said to the person who is now Foreign Secretary and others that if the Conservatives ever got power they would not be the Eurosceptics that they pretended to be in opposition. This Bill and this clause show how true that is.
Mr Nuttall
I am conscious of the fact that this has been a long debate and that there are many points for the Minister to respond to so I shall keep my remarks short. Much of what I would have said has been admirably covered by my colleagues on this side of the Committee.
It is a sad indictment of how much power has drained away from the House that we have to debate a sovereignty clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who is no longer in his place, said that when he came to the House in 1979, such a debate would have been unthinkable. We must ask why we are in this position now. Obviously, it is because of the European Communities Act 1972, which was the start of the problem. As a result of that Act, the House handed over to Brussels—in those days it was not the European Union but the European Economic Community—the power to take decisions on behalf of the British people on matters of commerce. Over the years, that power has expanded to include many different areas.
I know from my constituents that time and again they are infuriated by the amount of legislation affecting their everyday lives that emanates not from Parliament but from the European Union. I congratulate the coalition Government on trying to do something about this problem, but, sadly, I fear it is too late—like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The problem is that the powers have already gone and we are just putting a sticking plaster over what is sadly now a gaping hole.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for attempting to stiffen and improve clause 18 on the House’s sovereignty. We should not have to say that this House is sovereign—as Lord Tebbit said in an article a few weeks ago, it is rather like the drunk in the bar saying he is sober. The House is sovereign and we should not have to keep saying so. The clause seems to do no more than state what we already know to be the position. It does not try to amend the law at all. It was sensible of the European Scrutiny Committee, as soon as it saw the Bill and this clause, to embark on a detailed examination of what they meant, sensibly calling witnesses before it. The House sets up Select Committees, so it makes sense to heed what they say. The Committee and its Chairman have tabled the amendments to the Bill and for that reason, among others, I will support their amendments.
There are doubts about why it is necessary to include clause 18 in the Bill. The amendments seek to clarify the position, and to make it easier for judges to examine the reasons why the clause has been included, should they ever be in the position of determining where sovereignty lies, as they will see that the House wants to ensure that it lies here with the House. We derive our power from the will of the British people, who give us power. I believe that that power should stay with us in the House, and not be passed to Brussels, but those are arguments for another day. Today is about how we make best use of the work that has been done by the European Scrutiny Committee to strengthen clause 18, and for that reason I support the amendments.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke); my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael); and equally the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), for Caerphilly (Mr David), for North Durham (Mr Jones), for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).
The debate has moved between passion and intense thoughtfulness, and both those qualities were demonstrated in the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Although he and I have our differences this evening, I want to place on the record my respect not just for the contribution that he has made to tonight’s debate but for the commitment that he has shown in his chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee. He is a gentleman with whom I may disagree from time to time, but I happily salute him as a patriot and a champion of the rights and privileges of the British Parliament. We differ over which form of words and which draft of amendment will best accomplish the objectives that we seek. As today’s debate covers both the question of approving clause 18 and the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled, I want to structure my comments first by making clear the Government’s purpose in introducing the clause and then going on to address the individual amendments and new clauses.
Clause 18 addresses the concern that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, as it relates to European Union law, might in future be eroded by decisions of the United Kingdom’s domestic courts. It would provide authority that could be relied on to counter arguments that European law could become an integral and autonomous part of the UK’s legal system independent of statute. It responds to concerns that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as it relates to EU law may not be unassailably absolute, and may be qualified. The concern is that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is part of common law—a point illustrated by the report by the European Scrutiny Committee and the evidence it took, and clearly a matter that is subject to intense academic debate and contention.
The risk is that British courts might, in future, be attracted to the argument that European law no longer takes effect in this country by virtue of an Act of Parliament but has become entrenched in our legal system, enjoying an autonomous status—in the jargon, it has become a basic “grundnorm” underlying the UK legal system, to be applied by our courts and against which ultimately UK legislation falls to be measured.
There are three main sources for that concern. The first stems, yes, from the arguments run by the counsel for the prosecution in the so-called “metric martyrs” case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council. It is worth saying a little about that case because the issues raised were of great significance. The prosecution argued that the European treaties’ effect in domestic law did not depend—merely, at least—on the terms of their incorporation by the European Communities Act 1972 but, to a decisive extent, on the principles of European law itself.
The argument was that European law had been entrenched rather than merely incorporated, by virtue not of any principle of domestic constitutional law but of principles of Community law already established in cases such as Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen and Costa v. Enel, to which hon. Members have referred in this debate.
If that argument had prevailed and if it were to prevail in the future, we would need to think about what the practical effect might be. For example, let me take the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality set out in article 18 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Our courts have recognised that the provision has direct effect in the United Kingdom. Under the prosecution’s principle in the “metric martyrs” case, the courts would interpret that prohibition and seek to enforce it as part of UK law, even if Parliament were to remove the statutory mechanism by which it had been given effect in the UK, by either repealing or amending the European Communities Act 1972.
But if we pass clause 18 and enshrine in statute the principle that the authority of European law derives solely from Acts of Parliament, then the courts could not do that because article 18 could have direct effect in the UK only because Parliament had provided a statutory mechanism to allow that. If that statutory mechanism were to be repealed without replacement, there would be no basis on which it could be given direct effect in this country. Although those arguments were rejected by Lord Justice Laws, they could well be made again in future cases.
Mr Cash
That was a case of first instance and we do not know what might happen in future. Does my right hon. Friend accept the reasoning of Lord Bridge in Factortame? He clearly stated that our adherence to the principles that flowed from an Act—the European Communities Act 1972—and therefore his judgment was based on a voluntary acceptance by this House, in its sovereignty. I add the words “in its sovereignty”, because that is the key issue.
Mr Lidington
Yes, and I shall come on to say a bit more about that in a moment.
Mr Jenkin
Clause 18 can be read simply as a historical fact. It does not give continuing force to the sovereignty of Parliament. It states:
“It is only by virtue of an Act of Parliament that directly applicable or directly effective EU law…falls to be recognised and available in law in the United Kingdom.”
That is a historical fact, and can be relegated as no more than that.
Mr Lidington
What is different about clause 18 compared with the current legal position is that for the first time it provides a clear statutory point of reference, to which the courts would have to have regard in considering any cases in future that were comparable to that brought before Lord Justice Laws.
The second source of the concern that has been expressed are the various obiter remarks, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and others have referred, made by senior judges such as Lord Hope and Lord Steyn, albeit in cases that did not deal directly with European Union law. My hon. Friend starkly expressed his concern that at least some members of the senior judiciary had an agenda that deliberately set out to challenge the historic privileges and authority of Parliament.
The third source of concern arises from various academic commentators on EU law, ranging from Professor J. D. B. Mitchell back in 1980 to Martin Howe QC in 2009.
Mr Cash
The reference that the Minister slipped in about Martin Howe is quite unreasonable. What Martin Howe said in his written evidence is that he thought that the provision, if it were to be made properly and correctly, ought to be done within the framework of the European Communities Act 1972.
Mr Lidington
I will come to that precise point later in my remarks. The point I was making a moment ago was that, in a pamphlet published in 2009, Mr Howe expressed very similar concerns to those expressed today by my hon. Friend and others that there is a serious risk —if not an immediate one—that there would be further challenges to the principle that it is only parliamentary action that gives authority to EU law in this country.
We have taken advice from lawyers across Government, not just from those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—although I would be the first to defend the lawyers in my Department from some of the criticisms made during the debate. The Government’s analysis has led us to the conclusion that to date there is no persuasive legal authority to support the contention that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to EU law is no longer absolute. However, there is a need to put the matter beyond speculation for the future. By confirming in statute that directly effective and directly applicable EU law takes effect in this country only by virtue of an Act of Parliament, we are putting the matter beyond doubt for the future.
Mr Lidington
Certainly not. I am saying that we made sure we took legal advice from all the relevant Departments across Whitehall. The views I am expressing—what is in the Bill—reflect the legal advice that has been given, as well as the political decisions that Ministers have taken about what should be included in the legislation.
As I said on Second Reading, clause 18 is declaratory or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, it is a codification. The clause creates a statutory point of reference to which any future court that considers an argument about the source of authority for European law in this country must have regard. It reflects the dualist nature of our constitutional system, under which international obligations—including those assumed by the UK through our membership of the European Union—are not self-executing within the UK legal system. The fact that the UK is dualist means that European Union law is enforceable here only because this Parliament has legislated to make it so. The clause makes it clear that such European law has authority only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has, through its Acts, decided to import it into the domestic legal order.
In the event of any litigation arising where a party sought to claim that directly applicable or effective EU law had an autonomous legal existence in the UK, the other party would be able to counter that argument by referring to clause 18 and, similarly, judges would take this into account in addressing the arguments raised in their judgments.
Mr Cash
I am most grateful for the Minister’s final remarks about the judges. He tried to discharge the point, which I had already made, about the argument that comes from the judges in the Supreme Court and the judicial trends—there was pretty well unanimous agreement on those in the evidence that was given to us—towards a diminution of parliamentary sovereignty through the courts. He must accept that the very fact the judges made those remarks with regard to the Hunting Act 2004 and the case of Jackson in 2005 not only indicates but makes it a darned certainty that they will say such things in respect of other case law, irrespective of whether it is in the European framework or not.
Mr Lidington
That enforces the need for us to put on a statutory basis the position that European law has effect here solely because of parliamentary decision and not any other source of authority.
Michael Connarty
Clause 18 says that we gave away our primacy in terms of European law in section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. What is being done in the clause to take back from Europe the power that the people were promised would be taken back?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting the next section of my speech in which I want to make it clear what clause 18 does not do. I am not going to try to pretend to the Committee that it seeks to accomplish things that it does not do and is not intended to do.
The clause does not alter the existing relationship between European and UK domestic law, nor does it affect the primacy of EU law—a concept developed by the European Court of Justice well in advance of our membership of the European Community, and to which this Parliament gave effect in UK law as defined under section 2(4) of the European Communities Act 1972. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex was right to say, in quoting Martin Howe, that the clause would not stop the escalator, but that it would stop things getting any worse, as my hon. Friend would describe it, than the current position. It is worth saying that although Mr Howe made that comment about the escalator, he also said:
“In my view Clause 18 as presently drafted is valuable and is almost certainly sufficient to achieve its intended purpose of preventing judicial drift towards the erosion of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.”
As our judges have recognised to date, Parliament remains free to amend or repeal the 1972 Act, or indeed other Act of Parliament, at any time. But of course the political reality is that if we chose to repeal the 1972 Act or to disapply unilaterally a particular piece of European Union legislation, there would be a serious crisis in terms of this country’s relationship with the European Union. That might be a state of affairs that some hon. Members would wish to bring about and see as an opportunity, but that is not the Government’s aspiration.
Clause 18 will also not alter the rights and obligations assumed by the United Kingdom on becoming a member of the EU, and it will be in line with the practice of other member states such as Germany, whose federal constitutional court ruled in 1993, in the case of Brunner v. European Union, that Community law applies in Germany only because laws passed by the German Parliament say that it does. Similarly, in Denmark the supreme court held in its judgment of 6 April 1998 in the case of Carlsen v. Rasmussen that Community law applies in Denmark only by reason of, and to the extent permitted by, the Danish constitution. Therefore, although they have a different constitutional framework from that of our country, other member states have given effect to EU law through sovereign acts.
I want briefly to deal with two challenges that were made to the Government’s case: Professor Tomkins’s comments about partial legislation being worse than no legislation at all, and why we do not explicitly make this provision an amendment to the 1972 Act. On Professor Tomkins’s argument, we disagree with his conclusion. The Government are clear about the particular mischief that we are seeking to address, which is to put beyond speculation the fact that this country has a dualist system and that the rights and obligations under the EU treaty, in order to be justiciable before our courts, have to be incorporated in our system through an Act of Parliament. It has never been the Government’s intention in bringing forward this legislation to address the broader issues of potential challenge to parliamentary sovereignty over things such as human rights legislation or the impact of the devolution settlements, to which the European Scrutiny Committee drew attention in its reports.
Mr Jenkin
The confusion arises in thinking that it is somehow possible to segment European law from domestic law when in fact the European Communities Act itself is domestic law, and the judges who are likely to adjudicate on the sovereignty of Parliament are our own domestic judges. It may well be an adjudication on a European case, or it may well be on another case, but unless the Minister addresses the potential challenge from the Supreme Court on whatever case, particularly under European Community law, he is not addressing the problem.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is inviting me to go much further than my Department’s responsibilities. I am very willing to put on record that, contrary to Professor Tomkins’s fears, the Government, in choosing to legislate in this area, have no intention of indicating that other challenges to parliamentary sovereignty are unimportant or insignificant.
Hon. Members have asked why we are not amending the European Communities Act 1972. The principle that we applied is that what is important is what the clause does, rather than where in the statute book it is placed. Although the 1972 Act is the principal statute by which European law is given effect in this country, it can be argued that it is not the only statute that has that effect. Statutes as disparate as the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Chiropractors Act 1994, the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Equality Act 2006 make reference to giving effect to European law. Some provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 place Ministers from the devolved Administrations under an obligation to act in accordance with European law. That is why we have made reference in the clause to Acts of Parliament in a generic sense, rather than to the 1972 Act in particular.
Mr Cash
I thought that my right hon. Friend would give way at that point, because he could see that I could not resist making a point. The status of EU law provision—the stand-alone arrangement that is unnecessary in its present form and achieves nothing—refers to the entire gamut of European legislation. If I may say so, it is exceedingly disingenuous of him to trot out the argument given to him by his lawyers that there is a comparison with the Chiropractors Act 1994.
Mr Lidington
We wanted to be certain that the clause caught every piece of legislation that it can be argued gives effect to European Union legislation in this country. My hon. Friend would have been the first Member of this House on his feet to criticise me had I left the loophole of legislation other than the 1972 Act that it can be argued has such an effect.
I shall turn to the specific amendments, starting with amendment 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend. The amendment seeks to affirm the overall principle of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to EU law. I maintain that there is the difficulty that there is no existing statutory definition of sovereignty. The clause deals with one specific practical expression of parliamentary sovereignty. To introduce the word sovereignty more generally would invite speculative consideration by exactly the kind of ambitious judges whom he fears.
It is clear from the evidence to the Select Committee that there are differences of opinion on the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. Professor Wade is quoted as saying that
“the sovereignty of Parliament is ultimately a judicially recognised ‘political fact’. And when the judges recognise that the political facts have changed, the meaning of sovereignty changes accordingly.”
Professor Allan is quoted as disputing that:
“sovereignty should be seen, not as judicial recognition of political fact, but as a rule of the common law based on reason just like any other rule of the common law.”
Something based on reason is self-evidently subject to change. Therefore, I do not believe that passing the amendment would provide the safeguards that my hon. Friends seek. I do not think that it would achieve the purpose as successfully as the Government’s wording in the clause.
Dr Julian Lewis
My right hon. Friend is doing a grand job and has already persuaded me that I should not refuse to vote for clause stand part, but he has not persuaded me not to vote for amendment 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Why, if that amendment is defective in the way that the Minister describes, did our Front Benchers approach my hon. Friend when we were in opposition, take over an identical amendment that he had drafted and run with it extensively in both Houses?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is ingenious and teasing in his question, but I am here to represent the policies of the Government, not to account for what our party said a few years ago in opposition.
My fear is that the impact of the amendment could be the opposite of what my hon. Friends who support it hope for. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and Professor Tomkins have warned of a new trend of judicial activism, and my hon. Friend argued that powerful elements in the judiciary were seeking as a matter of policy to challenge the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. I find unpersuasive the argument that to introduce the word “sovereignty” into the Bill would quell that ambition. The word lacks a clear definition—we have found about 30 statutes that include it, and they all refer to territorial sovereignty, not to constitutional authority. There is no existing accepted definition, and I fear that the lack of a clear definition would encourage the very judges against whom my hon. Friends warn me to interpret the substance, scope and limits of sovereignty through judicial activism.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I wish to pose a question. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the nationalists in Scotland imposed the euro. What powers would we have to defend our sovereignty and economy without the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)?
Mr Lidington
Parliament has the right, which the courts would be obliged to uphold, to repeal or amend the European Communities Act 1972 or any part of it. It also has the constitutional power to disapply a particular piece of EU law, although that would provoke the sort of political crisis in our relations with the EU that I alluded to earlier.
Mr Jenkin
I am incredulous about this argument about the word “sovereignty”. Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that if Parliament put into statute the fact that it was sovereign, that would be a come-on to the judges to come and get it? I think if he reflects on that for a short time, he will realise that he has been given a lawyer’s excuse for rejecting the amendment, not a proper reason.
Mr Lidington
If one follows the logic that my hon. Friend and others have adduced this evening about the ambitions and activism of certain members of the senior judiciary, and if one considers the arguments that would be made by counsel and parties on both sides if a case were pleaded before a court—they would inevitably draw attention to the absence of any definition of parliamentary sovereignty—one sees that my hon. Friend underestimates the risk that the amendment would encourage judicial activism rather than provide an antidote to it. The concerns about definition apply to other amendments and new clauses, as well.
I wish to say a brief word about the explanatory notes, which have been mentioned in a number of speeches. I note that the European Scrutiny Committee’s report recommended that they should reflect the balance of opinion on the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading, references to the common law are meant simply as a contradistinction to statute, given that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is defined nowhere in statute. They are not meant to be determinative of the origin of the principle, which goes far beyond the scope of the Bill.
Although I do not believe that one phrase in seven substantial paragraphs of the explanatory notes bears the weight that some of my hon. Friends have placed upon it, I will respond to the concerns that have been addressed. The coalition will amend the explanatory notes before the Bill enters the Lords, to address satisfactorily the concerns that the European Scrutiny Committee has raised. That will in no sense change the effect of the clause, which is couched in terms of the status of EU law in the UK legal order, and does not refer explicitly to parliamentary sovereignty or take a position on the origins of that principle.
Mr Lidington
I have had no private conversations with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—the hon. Member who expressed concern. The hon. Gentleman is in his place. Like every other hon. Member, he has had the opportunity to hear about the proposed change.
New clause 1 deals with section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. By virtue of that Act, jurisdiction has been conferred on our courts to determine and adjudicate on disputes arising under EU law. That jurisdiction does not arise from the treaties, nor have the courts conferred it on themselves. Courts here possess that power because Parliament has determined that it is appropriate for them to do so and has legislated accordingly.
Section 3(1) of the European Communities Act provides that, for the purposes of legal proceedings in the UK courts, any question about the meaning or effect of the treaties is to be treated as a matter of law and requires the UK courts to take judicial notice of the treaties, the Official Journal and any decision of the European Court of Justice. Together with section 2, it is a cornerstone of the European Communities Act and, like the rest of the measure, subject to appeal or amendment by Parliament if we choose.
New clause 1 would restrict the exercise by the courts of their jurisdiction to interpret and address issues of EU law by ensuring that it does not extend to construction or interpretation by the courts of the nature or legal effect of parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Redwood
Will the Minister tell the House that he wishes to assert parliamentary sovereignty and resist judicial incursions, even if he will not put that in the Bill?
Mr Lidington
Yes. I am an elected Member of Parliament. I did not campaign for many years to come here to hand over the powers and privileges of the House of Commons to unelected groups of any sort.
New clause 1 is ambiguous because the lack of a definition of parliamentary sovereignty may encourage the courts to intervene rather than discourage them from doing that. I also think that it is mistaken because the primacy of EU law in the UK legal system does not flow from section 3(1) but is addressed under section 2(4) of the European Communities Act. If the intention is to guard against any risk of our courts using European Court jurisprudence to undermine parliamentary sovereignty, I do not think that it would achieve its desired objective given its drafting.
New clause 4 refers to part 3, but its primary focus is clearly clause 18. In one sense, I support the new clause’s aim. We have made it clear that clause 18 is declaratory and does not alter the existing relationship between European and UK law, and that the rights and obligations assumed by this country on becoming a member of the EU remain intact. However, I am afraid that the Government cannot support the new clause, which implies that something in clause 18 could adversely affect the existing constitutional law on the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to European law. That is not the case. As hon. Members can imagine, we examined the matter carefully and took legal advice from the Foreign Office and elsewhere in Government. I therefore urge my hon. Friends not to press new clause 4.
Amendment 52, tabled by the official Opposition, need not detain us for too long. It is misleading because it implies that the ECJ has a role in determining how European law takes effect in this country. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly next refreshes his memory by reading the treaty, he might see that this is not a matter that falls within the ECJ’s jurisdiction. It is a matter for the UK courts, and no less a figure than Jean-Claude Piris, recently retired as head of the Council’s Legal Service, said in his evidence to the Committee that it is for each member state to determine the constitutional mechanisms through which it gives effect to the legal obligations arising from membership of the European Union.
The Government think that this amendment is not necessary. It is not necessary to take up additional parliamentary time through the process that the Opposition propose. In the event that there were to be a serious challenge to the authority and sovereignty of Parliament, I would expect that hon. Members, on both sides, would want an immediate statement from the Minister and an urgent debate, instead of waiting 12 months for an annual report, which is the only remedy that the hon. Gentleman proposes.
In the coalition’s programme for government, we said that we would examine the case for a United Kingdom sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that in terms of European law ultimate authority remains with Parliament. Through clause 18, we are affirming and confirming that the status of European law in our legal order is dependent on a continuing statutory basis. That is a commitment that the Government believe it is right to put beyond any future speculation. The place where future UK law and future decisions about the authority of European law should be determined is in Parliament and nowhere else. I commend the clause to the House.
Mr Cash
I am very glad to see that the Prime Minister is in his place for these final moments. He and I have had some interesting correspondence. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in this debate, which included some brilliant speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) and others.
In the brief time that I have left, I confirm that I will press amendment 41 and I would be astonished if anybody voted against it. However, I am certain that they will. The difficulty that they will then be in is that, although I will not move the other amendments because of a lack of time and because the issues have been encapsulated in the debate, I have demolished the argument put up against the amendment that the status clause should not be by virtue of a common law principle, both in respect of the academic arguments and of those that have been put forward by the Foreign Office in the explanatory notes. I have, I believe, demolished the argument relating to the question of parliamentary sovereignty, and I refer the Minister to the State Immunity Act 1978, which clearly deals with the question of the sovereign or other head of state in his public capacity. It is already in an Act of Parliament and, by the way, it is not defined, any more than “the rule of law” is defined in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It does not need definition: the statement and the principle stand.
The sovereignty of Parliament is inviolate, but requires to be reaffirmed, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us in the past, but unfortunately will not do through this Bill. With respect to the question about section 3, it eliminates the impact of the courts seeking to use the European Communities Act 1972 to achieve their objectives in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The other provision in new clause 4 reaffirms the existing constitutional law on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law, and I am glad that the Minister has said that he agrees with the sentiments, which I believe are justified.
Having said all that, I believe that we have had a thoroughly good debate, and that, above all else, we have proved our point. We know that we are not going to win the vote. The Labour party has completely reneged on its principles, as expressed by the leader of the party when he said that their rubbish amendment was a matter of principle in defending parliamentary sovereignty. He must be joking! The fact is that clause 18 does not defend parliamentary sovereignty either.
Business without debate
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Minimum Sentence for Murder
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
The petition has 833 signatures and states:
To the House of Commons,
The Petition of supporters of Families Fighting For Justice and others in Wirral, Cheshire, Merseyside,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the wording of section 170 of the Ministry of Justice Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, regarding the Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, particularly the planned simplification to the minimum terms of life sentences which could result in changes to minimum sentencing.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Ministry of Justice to consider with severe caution any changes to Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure that the length of minimum sentences for murder are not altered so as to reduce the term served.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000876]
Benefit Entitlements (Joanna Cranfield)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
In the Christmas Adjournment debate I raised the case of Joanna Cranfield and I asked the Deputy Leader of the House to bear in mind three specific issues concerning Miss Cranfield’s circumstances. I am delighted that during the period between my raising the case and tonight, one of those issues has already been dealt with satisfactorily.
Joanna Leigh Cranfield is a 17-year-old young lady who is an exceptional swimmer. She is an up-and-coming talent whom I very much hope will represent the United Kingdom in next year’s Paralympics. Joanna was born with her left lower arm and hand missing. Also, her left clavicle is short and twisted, which results in her having a dropped shoulder and a slight curvature of the upper spine. Despite all that, Joanna is, as one might expect, an extremely attractive and glamorous young lady. As a result of the challenges I have mentioned, Joanna suffers from repetitive strain syndrome in her remaining right hand and wrist from overuse. On top of those difficulties, she also suffers from a condition known as pump heel or foot spurs—an abnormal growth of the bone that in turn makes the tendon in her legs short and tight. For that condition, Miss Cranfield has had to undergo an operation to remove part of the deformed bone in her heel. Further to all those conditions, Joanna is under the care of Moorfields eye hospital for light-sensitive eyes and poor 3D vision, which results in her having trouble with depth perception and other abilities that healthy eyes grant, which most of us take for granted.
I am only too well aware that there are hundreds of everyday tasks that Joanna cannot do, but the things she can do she does exceptionally well. Her swimming ability is an example to every one of us and I repeat that I strongly hope she will represent us in next year’s Paralympics. She has achieved British records in the swimming pool at a number of different distances within the S9 category, including the 1,500 metres long course and short course, the 800 metres short course, the 400 metres short course and the 200 metres short course. She is a highly competitive swimmer in breast stroke, butterfly and back stroke. How anyone can do all that with one arm beggars belief, but Joanna can. She is a very talented swimmer, and I strongly hope that the Minister will intervene and have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to see whether there is any way in which Joanna, with her particular talents, can be given some sort of funding. Also, if anyone out there has a little extra money in these challenging times and wants to help a Paralympian to achieve her goals, I hope they will help her.
Joanna has received numerous awards for sporting achievement. This year alone she was given the Paralympic hopeful award from the Essex Disability Sports Academy and was named the disability sports personality of the year 2010 in the Rochford district sports awards. Despite her remarkable sporting success, it is clear that Miss Cranfield has a disability that is a great hindrance to her everyday life. For the past five weeks, I have been able to use only one arm, which has presented all sorts of challenges that I had not anticipated. For a young lady such as Joanna, all sorts of tasks, such as grooming her hair and looking after her personal needs, will be jolly difficult. Having met Joanna and her mother on several occasions, the last thing that she wants to be perceived as is disabled. That said, if there is anything at all that can be done through my hon. Friend’s departmental responsibilities, Joanna and her family would be very grateful. I hope that our welfare system can help someone in Miss Cranfield’s position.
I understand all the arguments about the fact that there has to be a cut-off point, but why, on Joanna’s 16th birthday, were almost all the benefits that she received relating to her disability suddenly stopped? I would hope—again, I understand that there has to be a cut-off point, and when someone is 16, they can get married, fight for their country and all those things—that if under the system that is in place, funding has to stop, there would be other sources of funding to help her with her needs.
I return to my opening point, on which success has been achieved. Joanna had been awarded a blue badge and, without wishing to delay tonight’s debate, for all sorts of reasons she lost it when she turned 16. I had a number of exchanges with the Minister in the Department for Transport, more or less to no avail, but I have received a letter, dated 4 January, from Southend-on-Sea council that says that it has looked carefully at the legislation and has found that there is some leeway. I am delighted that Joanna has been awarded a blue badge, at least for the next three years, which is a cause for celebration. May I tell colleagues in other parts of the House that if Southend can do it, regardless of party politics, I very much hope that other local authorities will use the same leeway.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I acknowledge Joanna’s courage, what she is doing, her energy, ability and drive. It is obvious, however, that Government Departments need to be flexible. Is it the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps of the House, that that should be the case? Not everything is black and white—there are in-betweens and grey areas, and this is clearly such a case.
Mr Amess
I am a Government supporter, and the hon. Gentleman slightly challenges me. All I would say is that the two letters I received from the Minister in the Department for Transport stuck to a pretty heavy briefing. I will not enlarge on that any further. However, I challenged the local authority on it, and I am delighted that it found a way through. This is not the responsibility of the Minister responding to this debate, so it would be unfair for me to unload it on her, but I am sure that she will pass the message on to the Department for Transport, because it is utterly ridiculous that Joanna should have been denied a blue badge. I pay tribute to Southend-on-Sea council for finding a way through, and now it is up to all other local authorities, if they experience stonewalling from the Department for Transport, to find a way through the guidance.
Since Miss Cranfield was two years old, she had a blue badge, which was suddenly taken away from her at 16, but I am delighted that it has been restored. She also received disability living allowance at the middle rate, amounting to £47.10 a week; mobility allowance at the lower rate, amounting to £18.65; and carer’s allowance, amounting to £53.10 a week. Since she turned 16, all that has changed, and Miss Cranfield now receives only £18.65 a week. The reason given by the Department for Work and Pensions to Miss Cranfield’s mother was that as she was now an adult, she would have to learn to deal with her disability. I do not think for one moment that the Department meant that in an unpleasant way; I think it was saying that she had reached an age at which she basically had to get on with her disability and try to cope with it. It was argued that the condition would no longer be a factor. Her mother seemed to have got the impression that somehow the Department was saying that the disability would go away.
When the Minister replies, she will no doubt say that Joanna’s mother had misunderstood the point being made. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that in her last visit to my surgery, Joanna’s mother asked whether the Department was expecting her daughter’s arm to suddenly grow back; obviously, that would be a ridiculous proposition.
At a tribunal held in January 2010, Miss Cranfield, as was quite proper, was submitted to an intensive interview by a doctor, an occupational therapist and a judge. After the hearing, they decided that Miss Cranfield was not entitled to any further benefits aside from the £18.65 per week that she was already receiving. The main point of contention during the tribunal was that Miss Cranfield does not wear a prosthetic arm.
Joanna cannot have a functioning prosthetic arm as she retains part of an elbow—a floating, pea-sized piece of bone. As a result, doctors are unable to fashion a prosthetic arm with a working elbow. As such, Miss Cranfield can have only an inanimate prosthetic arm with no functioning capabilities. Her mother has brought the arm along to show me. I suppose it is like something that we would see at Madame Tussaud’s; it looks very good, with lovely finger nails and all the rest of it, but it literally does nothing at all.
Miss Cranfield has been advised that if she was prepared to have more of her arm amputated, a more functional prosthetic arm could be made for her. However, I understand that the risks are quite high, with the possibility of infection leading to major complications. The Minister will understand that Joanna wants to represent us at the Paralympic games, so she does not want to risk that sort of operation.
At the tribunal, unfortunately, that point was focused on, with one interviewer—apparently; I was not there—accusing Miss Cranfield of not wanting to help herself as she does not wear a prosthetic arm. Her current prosthetic arm, which does not do anything, cost £2,500. It was also said at the tribunal that she should have the operation, but I am sure that the House will understand why my constituent does not want that.
Miss Cranfield has further problems in her efforts to learn to drive. As she has only one arm, it is essential that she drives an adapted vehicle while learning. That is very expensive and she comes from a humble family that does not have the money. Again, I say to my hon. Friend that this issue is all about aspiration, and here we have a 17-year-old who has great aspirations. She does not receive disability living allowance, and that means that the organisation Motability is unable to help her with the cost of buying an adapted car or to help her find a driving school that can meet her needs. Again, she has been clobbered doubly and her ambition has been frustrated.
It is vital that this young lady is given whatever help we can offer. She will, I hope, represent our country in the Paralympics next year and she deserves our full support because she is a very brave young lady. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister if she will review Joanna Leigh Cranfield’s case again to see if there is some sort of common-sense approach that could be taken—this is not a matter of special pleading—to ensure that Miss Cranfield receives the benefits to which she is rightly entitled. I also ask the Minister to look further at the guidelines, so that we can ensure that all people who have one missing limb are not forced to go through the degrading process that Joanna has experienced. If there are no further benefits to which my hon. Friend can direct Joanna, I would welcome her thoughts on other lines of funding that may be available to Miss Cranfield to help her live as normal a life as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for bringing to the attention of the House the achievements of his constituent Joanna Cranfield. By securing the debate, he has been able to shed light on her remarkable achievements as a role model for young people in this country through her work as a swimmer. I recognise many of the challenges that disabled people can face, and that is what makes Miss Cranfield a truly remarkable young lady. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing her every success as she aims to compete in the pool at the 2012 Paralympics. It seems that she has achieved such successes thanks not only to her talent but to the support of her family, and we should recognise that.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I should perhaps have intervened on the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). I am not sure whether his constituent Miss Cranfield will be representing England or Scotland. If it is England, may I say that Scotland also recognises her great achievements and truly wishes her well?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which was well timed and well made.
However much we hope that Miss Cranfield will succeed in her sporting ambitions, I hope that hon. Members here this evening will understand that I cannot intervene to ask for any individual to be treated differently. Systems are in place to ensure that support is given fairly, and if an individual disagrees with a decision about the support they are awarded, they are given the opportunity to challenge it and ask for an independent appeal process to be undertaken.
The fact that this debate has been initiated illustrates a key concern about the disability living allowance and the widespread misunderstanding of how it is assessed. DLA is paid on the basis of the particular effects that a disability has on a person’s care or mobility needs in line with the Government’s very real commitment to the social model of disability. DLA is not paid because of a specific health condition. That approach enables decision makers who decide whether awards are made to take account of what can often be a complex set of health conditions that an individual may need to manage; my hon. Friend outlined the very complex set of conditions that his constituent faces.
I would like hon. Members to be aware that very important safeguards are in place to ensure that each case gets treated fairly on its merits. Such safeguards have been available to Miss Cranfield, although I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment on the details of her case on the Floor of the House. When an award is made, people who are unhappy with a decision are fully entitled to have their assessment reconsidered by a different decision maker. That provides an opportunity for the case to be looked at afresh. If, after that review, an individual still feels that their case has not been treated in a satisfactory manner, they can ask for the decision to be considered by an independent appeal tribunal consisting of three members: a legally qualified chairman, a doctor and a person who has experience of the issues faced by disabled people, who may indeed themselves be disabled.
Jim Shannon
I think that everyone appreciates how DLA works, and the fact that it is based on the needs of the person and the need for help with all the everyday things in their life. Perhaps consideration needs to be given to the information given by the GP, the consultant and the families, which are key factors when it comes to making a decision. As I said earlier, this is not black and white: all the facts connected with an individual person have to be considered.
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right that those details need to be taken into consideration. Indeed, as part of the tribunal process an individual, and others, will have the opportunity to attend the tribunal and answer questions so that its members can hear first hand the real impact that a disability or a condition can have on that person’s day-to-day care and mobility needs—just the sort of thing that he outlines. If it is considered that the decision of the first-tier tribunal ignored any material facts, or that there was an error in law, the case can be referred to the upper tier for consideration.
Benefit rules are set out by legislation agreed by Parliament, and decision makers have to comply with legislation when considering an individual’s case. I am sure that Members will appreciate that it is entirely inappropriate for me, or indeed any other Minister or MP, to try to influence or intervene in cases going through those independent review processes.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that Miss Cranfield was in receipt of DLA until she was 16, and then her case was reassessed. DLA benefit rules are different for children and adults, and the majority of DLA awards are reviewed at the age of 16, because as people move into adulthood they often learn to manage their disability differently. It is not unusual for a person’s care needs to change. Sometimes they significantly reduce, or they may increase, but they often change in some way and we need to take that into account. For children under 16 additional conditions must be met for DLA entitlement, so the conditions to which individuals are subject are different depending on whether they are below the age of 16 or above it. For children under 16, additional conditions will include the need for care, supervision or guidance when out of doors in unfamiliar places, which must be
“substantially in excess of the normal requirements of a child of the same age”,
or it must be the case that
“they have substantial requirements which would be expected of a younger child in normal health, but which wouldn't be expected in a child of their age”.
This case illustrates a number of drawbacks with the current DLA system. That is why we are so committed to reforming what we believe is an outdated benefit and replacing it with the personal independence payment, which is more clearly understood, more objective, and better focused on the disabled people who face the greatest challenges. We also propose to review entitlement more regularly so that disabled people can easily report changes that might affect their benefit entitlement. Currently, 140,000 people on DLA since 1992 have never had their claim looked at since being awarded the benefit. About 20% of all people on DLA have not had any contact with the Department in the past 10 years, during which their care or mobility needs could have changed significantly in either direction. We plan to introduce the new personal independence payment benefit in 2013-14. Crucially, the new scheme will include an objective assessment of individual needs, which is being developed in collaboration with independent health specialists, social care and disability experts, and of course, importantly, disabled people themselves.
My hon. Friend mentioned the blue badge. I am glad to hear that his local authority, which is responsible for assessing eligibility for the blue badge, has granted his constituent a blue badge at this stage, as it will be best placed to judge the local situation. I am pleased that at least that problem has been resolved.
The debate has highlighted a number of issues that affect disabled people, and I am grateful for the opportunity to focus on the positives, as well as the shortcomings, of the current system. The Government are committed to providing the support that disabled people, especially young adults, need to live active independent lives. I believe that we are putting the right support mechanisms in place to ensure that young adults can make a full contribution—not only through DLA reform but through other schemes such as the disabled students allowance, the disability employment adviser network in Jobcentre Plus, the disabled facilities grant, increased personalisation through right to control, and the access to work scheme. Also relevant to this case is the support provided to Paralympic athletes via UK Sport, which is investing nearly £10 million of public funds in Paralympic swimming for London 2012, from the national lottery and the Exchequer. The Government provide a network of assistance to young adults such as Miss Cranfield.
I have met colleagues across Government to ensure that we support disabled athletes as much as possible, particularly in the run-up to the Paralympics. I shall be happy to write, as my hon. Friend requested, to my counterpart at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—although that is not the Secretary of State—to ensure that Miss Cranfield is aware of the full support available to athletes in her position. I hope that hon. Members will back the Government’s work to enhance the effectiveness of support for disabled people of all ages. Many of us feel strongly that Paralympians can be incredible role models for both disabled and non-disabled young people in our community. It is important that they receive the appropriate support to reach their potential and to do their best, not only in the Paralympics but in other events.
I conclude by wishing Miss Cranfield every success in the coming months leading up to the Paralympics, and by recognising the remarkable support that she has received from her family and the broader community in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which has helped her to achieve her goals. Above all, I hope that we will see her achieve her ambition of representing our country at the 2012 Paralympics. I wish her the best of luck.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Olympic Games 2012: Human Trafficking
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fiona Mactaggart
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what organisations he has consulted to assist him to assess the risks of people trafficking associated with the London 2012 Olympics; and whether he plans to take specific steps to reduce that risk.
[Official Report, 20 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 1056-57W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Hugh Robertson:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 20 December 2010. The reference to the Olympic Intelligence Centre (OIC) being within the Metropolitan police was incorrect.
The full answer given was as follows:
Hugh Robertson
Regular threat briefings take place between the Secretary of State, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics and the Olympic Intelligence Centre, a dedicated body within the Metropolitan Police that gathers information from the security services and regional police forces about potential threats to the games. As part of this the Department have been informed that we are not currently seeing any evidence of an increase in human trafficking related to the London 2012 games.
However, we remain vigilant and will be continuously reviewing the threat of human trafficking. The Government are determined to deter traffickers from exploiting London 2012 and we are building on the considerable expertise the UK has in tackling this issue. Should the intelligence indicate an increase in trafficking we shall ensure that the appropriate measures are in place.
The correct answer should have been:
Hugh Robertson
Regular threat briefings take place between the Secretary of State, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics and the Olympic Intelligence Centre, a body which provides strategic intelligence assessments of all threats and hazards to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is staffed by representatives from across the UK intelligence and law enforcement community. As part of this the Department have been informed that we are not currently seeing any evidence of an increase in human trafficking related to the London 2012 games.
Petition
Day Care Centres (Cheshire)
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Prisoners (Voting Rights)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I wish you a very happy new year, Mr Benton, and offer my grateful thanks to Mr Speaker for giving me permission to lead today’s debate?
May I also wish the Minister and his shadow a very happy new year? The Minister is a personal friend, and I have always had high regard for him, both before he was elected to this place and since he took up his present position in the Government. I know, therefore, that we will not fall out on a personal level over this issue, but it is my job as a humble Back Bencher to stand up and to speak up for my constituents, whose view is that this country should not give prisoners the right to vote, and it is my job to hold the Government to account on that.
Here is a question for hon. Members. Who said
“Frankly, when people commit a crime and go to prison, they should lose their rights, including the right to vote”?
He also said:
“It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 921.]
The answer is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I could not agree more with him. The vast majority of people in this country would also back him in those sentiments. One difference between the Prime Minister and myself, however, is that he is actually in a position to do something about this issue. We need some backbone—we need a hardened spine—if we are to take on the European Court of Human Rights and resist its judgment.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
In making that statement about public attitudes, is the hon. Gentleman aware that research carried out for the previous Government in 2009 showed that only a quarter of respondents favoured a total ban on prisoners having the right to vote?
Mr Hollobone
The previous Government’s two consultations, which they did, by the way, to avoid having to make a decision—they kicked the issue into the long grass for five years—involved a pathetically small number of respondents. Given that there were fewer than 100 respondents, the statistical relevance of those consultations is almost meaningless. If I asked my constituents whether prisoners should be given the right to vote, the vast majority would say that they should not. I strongly suspect that if the hon. Lady spoke to her constituents, she would get a very similar reaction.
I also want to pray in aid the words of the now Attorney-General when he was in opposition:
“The principle that those who are in custody after conviction should not have the opportunity to vote is a perfectly rational one. Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences. The government must allow a parliamentary debate which gives MPs the opportunity to insist on retaining our existing practise that convicted prisoners can’t vote.”
I absolutely, 100%, agree, and I hope that this morning’s limited debate will be a warm-up act for a proper debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I apologise for sitting on the opposite side of the Chamber to my hon. Friend, but there are 20 coalition Members in here, and there is just not enough room. My hon. Friend’s one-and-a-half-hour debate is very important, but the issue surely deserves much greater coverage elsewhere in the House.
Mr Hollobone
As on so many issues, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are lots of Select Committee sittings on Tuesday mornings, and many hon. Friends and Opposition Members who would like to be here to voice their views are unable to do so.
We are talking about this issue because the European Court of Human Rights has decided once again to interfere in Britain’s domestic affairs.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend gets to the European Court of Human Rights, which was based on something written by David Maxwell Fyfe, will he please tell us when prisoners lost the right to vote and for what offence?
Mr Hollobone
Before I respond to that intervention, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent knighthood, which is extremely well deserved. His many years’ experience in this place make him far more qualified to talk about these issues than I, but my understanding is that the British Parliament discussed these issues when it passed the Forfeiture Act 1870. Now, 1870 was 80 years before the European Court of Human Rights was established in the 1950s. British parliamentarians decided that it was appropriate for prisoners not to be given the vote way before the concept of a European court was even thought about.
By the way, there would be no human rights in any part of Europe today were it not for the brave actions that this country took on its own in 1940, and some of the European Court’s judges should remember that. We are the mother of Parliaments and we have a long and proud history of democratic thought processes, debate and decision. Frankly, the British people are sick and tired of being lectured to on human rights issues by unelected judges in this pseudo-European court.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions unelected judges, but is he also aware that two people in the previous Parliament were keen to pursue this issue? One was my predecessor, who lost against me in the general election, and the other was the former Member of Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon, who also lost his seat. Does that not show hon. Members and others that members of the British public have been very unhappy with the European Court of Human Rights and with the Human Rights Act 1998 and those who pursue it and that they have showed their displeasure through the ballot box?
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend makes a telling intervention, and he has done the country a national service by winning his seat in the general election. He ably represents his constituents on these and other matters. He is right. The manifesto on which he and I stood clearly states:
“we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”
I am sure that my hon. Friend was asked about human rights issues during the general election campaign—I certainly was in Kettering. Whenever such issues were raised, constituents were adamant that it was time for us to take sensible action on the Human Rights Act, which the previous Government introduced. The coalition agreement has kicked the replacement of the Human Rights Act by a Bill Of Rights into the long grass; it may happen, but there is no timetable, which is a great shame. Nevertheless, there is huge public demand for us to take action on these human rights issues. We would be doing our constituents a disservice if we did not raise their concerns in this place. My hon. Friend’s majority in Hendon, my majority in Kettering and the majorities of many of our hon. Friends in Westminster Hall this morning demonstrate that human rights are an important issue for our constituents.
Mr John Hirst, who is serving a life sentence for an axe killing, brought his case and subsequent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. He celebrated with glee on the television when the appeal judgment was announced—how wonderful it was that the European Court was going to force Britain to give prisoners the right to vote. Many of our constituents will have seen that and have been disgusted by Mr Hirst’s joyous celebration of the Court’s decision.
The Court decision is interesting in several respects, because its main gripe is that there is a blanket ban on prisoners being given the right to vote. There are ways to tackle that issue, other than just caving in and getting rid of the blanket ban. It may interest hon. Members to know that 13 other countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights also have blanket bans. Why is this country being singled out for the treatment it is getting from the European Court, when blanket bans continue in other countries, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Moldova and Slovakia, among others? Our constituents will be outraged that the UK is being singled out for special treatment.
One of the issues that the European Court raised was that there has not been proper parliamentary debate about the issue. The judgment states that
“there was no evidence that Parliament had ever sought to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of a blanket ban on the right of a convicted prisoner to vote. It could not be said that there was any substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification…for maintaining such a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote.”
I am sorry, but those matters were discussed in this Parliament in 1870, 80 years before the European Court was even established. The judgment goes on to say that perhaps courts could be given the discretion to award disfranchisement to convicted prisoners on an individual basis. It says:
“It was also evident that the nature of the restrictions, if any, to be imposed on the right of a convicted prisoner to vote was in general seen as a matter for Parliament and not for the national courts. The domestic courts did not therefore undertake any assessment of the proportionality of the measure itself.”
It also states that
“in sentencing, the criminal courts in England and Wales made no reference to disenfranchisement and it was not apparent that there was any direct link between the facts of any individual case and the removal of the right to vote.”
There is therefore a way to address the Court’s concerns by making sure that judges can award disfranchisement specifically in individual cases and encouraging them to do so.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. For the avoidance of doubt, if the Government do not change their policy enunciated in the statement of 20 December, I shall not vote with them, but in the Opposition Lobby. My hon. Friend touches on some interesting points. Is not it true that the recent case of Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom specifically allows the Government to proceed with a range of policy options, which, like the consultation in 2009, could be put out for public discussion? Instead the Government have gone for an arbitrary four-year limit, without any further debate or discussion in the House or with the public.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend makes an interesting and brave point, and I commend his courage on the issue. He will be joined in the Lobby by many of our colleagues. The Government should be left in no doubt this morning that they have made the wrong decision on the issue and that they will not get the proposals through Parliament.
My hon. Friend is right: the Government can tackle the issue in far more imaginative ways. It was wrong for my hon. Friend the Minister to say in his statement of 20 December, which was sneaked out just before the Christmas recess, that
“we should implement the Hirst judgment in a way that meets our legal obligations, but does not go further than that.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 151WS.]
The Government have gone further than that by saying that the limit should apply to those sentenced to four years or less in prison, because there are many countries that are signatories to the European convention that apply the ban to prisoners serving far less time in prison. For example, Austria, Malta and San Marino ban all prisoners serving a sentence of more than one year. In France only prisoners convicted of certain crimes lose their right to vote.
I should therefore like to know why the Government have settled on the apparently arbitrary figure of four years. They say that it is the difference between serious and non-serious offences, but frankly I do not accept that definition. There are other ways to cut the cake. For example, the ban could be applied to those who have their sentence issued by the Crown court, rather than the magistrates court.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
On the point about limits, does my hon. Friend agree that the crimes of rape, for which a three-and-a-half year sentence was awarded in November, in a case in Warwick, and armed robbery with a knife, which has also been given a sentence of less than four years, are serious crimes, and that it is shocking that the Government even contemplate that such things should be covered?
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Her constituents and mine will be sickened if rapists are given the right to vote. It is shocking how many prisoners would be entitled to vote if the Government’s proposals were to go through. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm the present number of people serving time in prison. Statistics that, again, were sneaked out just before the recess, show that there are 28,770 prisoners serving sentences of less than four years, of whom 5,991 have been convicted of violence against the person, 1,753 of sexual offences, 2,486 of robbery, 4,188 of burglary and 4,370 of drug offences. If the Government were, for example, to restrict the limit to sentences of one year or less, the number of prisoners who would be enfranchised would go down from 28,770 to 8,096.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Those figures are startling, but does my hon. Friend agree that all the people represented in the numbers he quoted have not had the vote taken from them—they have removed it from themselves by committing the crimes that led to their ending up in prison? If voting is so important to them, there is presumably an easy way out: they should not commit the crimes that get them sentenced to prison.
Mr Hollobone
As always, my hon. Friend speaks not only for his constituents but for Britain. Lots of people would agree with him. As his local police commander will have said—and as mine has said—“Philip, everyone we catch and convict is a volunteer.” No one is forced to go to prison for committing offences. Indeed, it is difficult to go to prison nowadays, under the liberal criminal justice regime that the coalition Government are starting to pursue.
There are therefore a number of ways in which the Government can respond to the European Court ruling, other than just caving in with the four-year rule. Primarily we need a proper parliamentary debate on the issue, so that colleagues can debate the pros and cons and be given the opportunity to vote to maintain the status quo. That would satisfy the European Court’s judgment that Parliament has not debated the issue. I hope that the Government will think hard about putting that before the House.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that what the Government put forward as a justification for the measure—namely that if they did not implement it there would be a substantial cost to the taxpayer, in millions of pounds in damages—was a specious and unjustified argument? Just before Christmas I spoke to an official of the European Court of Human Rights, who confirmed that the talk about millions of pounds of compensation being payable if we did not comply was a load of nonsense.
Mr Hollobone
As a Member of the Council of Europe my hon. Friend is closer to many of the issues than I am. I share his scepticism about the figure of £160 million, which we were given as the possible amount of compensation. I invite the Minister to justify where that figure has come from. It would be extremely irresponsible for the Government to bandy around those figures when they have no realistic basis in fact. I understand that there are 2,500 outstanding court cases, pending a resolution of this issue with the European Court. I would like to know how the Government established the basis of compensation for each of those 2,500 cases, because I strongly suspect that the Government may be guilty of making up those numbers and in danger of misleading Parliament.
This is very serious issue. The British public do not want prisoners to be given the right to vote. Many other countries in Europe successfully operate blanket bans and have not been challenged in the European Court. My constituents and many other people up and down the land are furious that once again the Government seem to be bending over to the human rights lobby to introduce a measure, which is frankly inappropriate to the balance of crime and justice in this country.
Once again, we seem to be going soft on criminal justice issues. The British people will not put up with that for much longer. Here is a golden opportunity for the new coalition Government to say, “We are going to put Britain first.” If we have to pull out of the European convention on human rights, let us consider that and possibly do so. That would certainly have a lot of support in the country. However, if we are going to respond to the appeal judgment from the European Court there are many ways of doing it other than simply applying the four-year rule, which will not address my constituents’ concerns. I say to the Government with confidence that if they continue to press this issue in the House, they will be defeated.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, as a number of people have indicated they wish to speak, I propose to commence the wind-ups no later than 10.40 am.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for bringing this matter to debate. I agree with him and other hon. Members that it is right to have a proper debate.
I suspect I will not be the most popular speaker this morning, but I want to place on the record that I am in favour of giving prisoners the right to vote. I am in favour of it in this situation, first, because we are required to comply with a Court order, and it is impossible for us to run a criminal justice system around the basis of the rule of law if we then decide which laws and legal obligations we as a country will choose to follow and which we will not.
Secondly, I am in favour of it because I believe it is morally right that prisoners should have the opportunity to vote.
Kate Green
I will in a moment. I want to expand the three bases of my argument and then I will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
I believe it is morally right that prisoners should have the right to vote. I do not accept that they lose all aspects of citizenship in losing their liberty as a result of a custodial sentence. I fundamentally disagree with those who feel that prisoners’ fundamental human rights should be weakened. In a decent and civilised society it is right that we treat all, including prisoners, with respect.
My third argument is that there is potential to see the right to vote in the context of a process of rehabilitation. Cleverly managed, it could contribute to the reintegration of prisoners in our society. Therefore, there may be some efficacy grounds for accepting a right to vote.
I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention now.
Mr Offord
The hon. Lady says she feels it is wrong for the United Kingdom to decide which laws it will implement as a result of the European judgment. However, only last night at the Oldham by-election, the Labour candidate decided that she did not wish to debate with one of the other candidates, whom she had removed by the police from a public meeting. The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. If we as a country should accept all the laws, the hon. Lady and her potential colleagues should do the same.
Kate Green
I am not aware of the breach of law by the Labour parliamentary candidate in the Oldham by-election. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me later.
The hon. Member for Kettering said—I suspect rightly—that many in my constituency would be disconcerted to hear me making the arguments I do today. That is why I strongly support his call and that of others for a full and informed discussion to take place in this House, because we have not properly considered the evidence or, indeed, the purpose of our criminal justice system and the role that the right to vote or withdrawal of it plays. I hope that this debate will make some contribution to that analysis and information, but I consider that we need a far fuller understanding in the country as a whole.
I have taken an interest in this subject because I served as a magistrate for 16 years. I have sentenced people to custody and have never done it lightly. I am mindful that it entails not just a loss of liberty but puts at risk people’s jobs, homes and family life. Hence, magistrates follow a rigorous decision-making process in selecting an appropriate sentence. With 16 years’ experience on the bench, I cannot think of a single sentencing objective that removing the right to vote from prisoners sentenced to custody would have helped to achieve.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue, which I want to explore in my remarks. The hon. Member for Kettering was right to say that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am not suggesting that a blanket rule that applies before or after a four-year custodial sentence is the most appropriate way to go, but it is a step in the right direction and one on which I would like to see us build.
I would like to say a little more about how we might see restoration of the right to vote as a positive by enabling prisoners to fulfil their responsibilities as citizens, and how that might in a small way—I see scepticism on faces opposite me—contribute to reducing reoffending, which is surely the prime purpose of the criminal justice system. If we fail to give prisoners any stake in our society, it is difficult to see why they should wish to reintegrate into that society—why they should feel any sense of obligation to mutual rights, dignity and respect when we do not afford that to them. I see an opportunity alongside this new legislation to improve education and rehabilitation in our prisons.
When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State at Justice Question Time before Christmas, he expressed scepticism as to whether prisoners would take advantage of the right to vote. However, before last year’s general election the Prison Reform Trust participated in a debate with prisoners in a local prison. It reported that prisoners were intensely engaged in debating the political matters of the day: not just criminal justice but a wide range of issues that would affect them, their families, communities and society as a whole—a society, of which, like it or not, they remain a part.
Prisoners are rightly recognised as being among the most disadvantaged in terms of social inclusion prior to receiving custodial sentence. We should be looking to take steps to improve their social inclusion. What happens to them while they are in prison undoubtedly has a role to play.
Kate Green
No; I am just coming to my conclusion.
I conclude with two questions which I hope the Minister will address. First, what plans does he have for a programme of prisoner education and engagement that takes advantage of the reintroduction of the right to vote, within the context of prison education—educating prisoners in their civic responsibilities—and how that will support their planned reintegration into the community? Secondly, I would like to follow the points raised by the hon. Member for Kettering in questioning the rationale for introducing a cut-off point at four years. That seems to suggest degrees of citizenship: one is more or less of a citizen, depending on the nature of one’s sentence. I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s view on whether discretion for judges might be applied more realistically if a blanket right to vote were put in place that gave judges the opportunity in certain cases to say that such a right was not appropriate and should be removed.
I am pleased that, after many years, we are seeing some modest steps to reintroduce a right to vote for prisoners. I support the direction of travel the Government are taking. As other Members have said, I very much hope we will move to an informed and rational debate about the effect of the measures now being brought forward.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. It has generated more interest in Westminster Hall than other debates that I have attended. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She said that she felt rather vulnerable taking part in the debate, but at least she positioned herself strategically with no one sitting behind her.
Some Members will acknowledge that an announcement was unavoidable because the Minister had been put in a position in which he had no alternative. Others, however, will argue that he could have disregarded the ruling. I should be interested to know whether a majority of Members present think that we should abide by the law and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which clearly stated that the Government had to address the question.
The Government have known about the problem for a long time. Since 2004, we knew that the Government—any Government—would have to deal with it sooner or later. The previous Government found some imaginative ways to postpone taking a decision or responding to something that they knew was coming down the track, given the consultations that they launched and their unwillingness to take action.
During his speech, the hon. Member for Kettering was asked to confirm when the blanket ban came into place. As he said, it came about under the Forfeiture Act 1870. He deployed the argument that the Government and Members of Parliament clearly debated the matter in 1870. I do not know whether he thinks that once in every 140 years is appropriate, or whether those 140 years have brought about a change in the way in which Parliament and society should operate.
Philip Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in those 140 years, there has been ample opportunity for Governments to change the status quo? The fact that change has not been debated is a fair indication that the will of the House—and of the public—in those intervening years was not to change it. It has been within Parliament’s gift to change over for the past 140 years if it had so wished, but it did not so wish.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Our hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), has been very helpful. Parliament debated the matter in 1967, and gave prisoners the right to vote in 1967.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He may or may not be referring to something that I was about to say, which is that what the Government propose is not necessarily a radical departure. I understand that remand prisoners, people in prison for contempt of court and fine defaulters held in prison are eligible to vote. The principle is already established that some prisoners are entitled to vote.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
On a point of principle, does the hon. Gentleman think that the judges of the European Court should ultimately determine what happens—or should it be the Members of this House, who are elected by their constituents?
Tom Brake
The fact is that we abide by the rules of the European Court of Human Rights, and it has ruled that the Government should take action. I believe, as does the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that it is appropriate for the Government to do so. The hon. Gentleman may disagree, as may others, but they take the debate slightly away from the right of prisoners to vote to the subject of the European Union, on which there will be a longer debate—[Interruption.] I mean aspects of the European Court and human rights that will be the subject of another debate in the main Chamber.
It is right that the Minister should clarify why four years was chosen. In the briefings that I have seen, the justification is that four years is the cut-off point between a short-term prison sentence and a long-term one. I have seen no other argument for why that threshold should have been chosen. The Minister should respond to that point.
The Minister should also respond to the hon. Member for Kettering and others, who said that concern had been expressed that compensation might have to be paid. If a total of 85,000 prisoners claimed £750 compensation, it could amount to tens of millions of pounds. The Minister will have heard that some accuse the Government of making up the figures. I hope that he will tell us where the information about these potential compensation claims came from and say whether he stands by the contention that the Government might be liable for a large number of claims if no action is taken.
I hope that the Minister will also explain why the voting rights that he proposes are to apply to Westminster and European elections only, and not to other polls. If the Government were to allow prisoners to vote in local elections exclusively, it could be argued that prisoners would be less able to influence the Government’s prison agenda if they could vote only in local council elections. I would be interested to hear why those two elections were chosen.
Tom Brake
In a moment. The Minister has rightly made it clear that if the proposals go through, prisoners will be allowed to vote only in the constituencies that they came from or with which they have a connection and not in the constituency in which the prison is placed. The risk of large numbers of prisoners swinging an election result will therefore be greatly reduced.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman has helpfully answered my question, so the Minister does not need to respond to it. I presume that that is why the Government have not gone down the route of allowing prisoners to vote in local elections. However, they could exercise their local votes as electors on the register in the constituencies from which they originally came; it would not necessarily have to be in the locality of the prison.
What this argument is clearly about, and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston expressed it very well, is whether voting is an intrinsic right—a basic human right—or whether it is a right that should be forfeited when people lose their liberty. Of course prisoners lose their liberty; no one disputes that that is the appropriate response to a crime. However, to what extent do they lose other liberties that are associated with being a citizen? There are certain responsibilities that they retain. For example, prisoners pay capital gains tax on any capital gains transactions that they might be involved in and they pay tax on their savings. They are, therefore, making contributions that other citizens make, so to what extent do we inflict civic death on them and include withdrawing their right to vote as well as other aspects of their liberty?
Mr Offord
The picture that the hon. Gentleman paints is of prisoners being like the fictional characters of Andy Dufresne or Norman Fletcher—I am talking about paying capital gains tax and other tax. However, if we look at someone like John Hirst, who was originally convicted and sentenced to 15 years, we will find that he served another 10 years for his behaviour in prison. That shows that not only was he not a model prisoner when he was in prison, but he was not a contributor to society when he was out of it. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that some prisoners deserve to lose the kind of rights that we have been talking about?
Tom Brake
Of course. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly illustrated that there are certain prisoners for whom there should be no such thing as a right to vote. They have forfeited their right, and that is appropriate. However, this debate is not black and white, but shades of grey. For some prisoners at one end of the spectrum, a one-year cut-off might be more appropriate. Equally, there are other prisoners, at the other end of the spectrum, who have forfeited any right to vote in future elections.
It is also worth considering the arguments that could be deployed against allowing some prisoners the right to vote. For example, is there any evidence that disfranchisement helps to prevent crime? I am not aware that there is any evidence that suggests that withdrawing the right to vote from prisoners helps to prevent crime. Are there any concerns about the difficulties of implementation? Certainly, the Prison Governors Association and the National Offender Management Service have no concerns about the logistical difficulties of providing votes to certain categories of prisoners. As I stated earlier, is such a change a great departure? In other words, are we moving to a system in which prisoners are, for the first time, given the right to vote? The answer is no, because remand prisoners and people in prison for contempt of court and for defaulting on fines are already eligible to vote.
To conclude, it is very clear that this is an issue in which the coalition Government are between a rock and a hard place. The European Court ruling is clear. The Government, who are potentially at risk from compensation claims, have to take action within the framework of the law. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on some of these issues of detail and on how the Government arrived at the particular threshold that they have chosen.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this extremely important debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak because I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for prisoners to be able to vote. If someone has decided to step outside the law to the point where they have to be incarcerated, they should have no say on how the law is made. Part of the deprivation of liberty that comes with imprisonment is a loss of entitlements, and that should include the right to vote.
My hon. Friend quoted the Prime Minister as saying that even contemplating giving the vote to those incarcerated as convicted prisoners makes him feel physically ill, and he said that in response to a question that I asked him. It is nauseating to think of some of the worst offenders having a say over how this place, or any town hall or parish council, is run. What aggravates us is that this issue was ignored by the previous Government and kicked into the long grass. It is yet another mess that we have inherited and have been left to deal with.
Mr Stewart Jackson
Mindful of the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), is it not hypocritical of the Labour party to take a similar view, given that in 13 years, it made very little impact on rehabilitation in the penal estate in terms of putting prisoners to work and improving literacy and numeracy? To now say that preventing prisoners from having the vote is somehow attacking their human and civil rights is hypocritical and gets the priorities completely wrong.
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. During the 13 years of the previous Government, I worked in the criminal justice system and I saw their lamentable record. We are still waiting to hear what the Opposition would do about the issue of prisoner votes. We have heard the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston give her opinion, but we have yet to hear the official position of Her Majesty’s Opposition. We also want to know why nothing was implemented in the last four or five years since this particular judgment was passed by the European Court of Human Rights.
We all want to see prisoners obey the law. That is why they have been put into prison in the first place. We all have to obey the law. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Court of Human Rights and is, therefore, subject to its decisions. As members, we cannot pick and choose the decisions we want to comply with. We have two options: either we accept this judgment, hook, line and sinker, or we pull out of the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps we need to review our membership, because it should be for Britain and not the European Court to decide whether or not British prisoners vote.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
My hon. Friend was making a powerful argument, but he rather simplified the last point. It is not an issue of the ECHR versus Britain. A previous Home Secretary, now in opposition, said that he distinguished in his mind—I think he was right—between the ECHR overseeing the role of Governments and whether they properly obeyed the law, and the ECHR overruling the actions of Parliaments, which are not the same thing. One of the interesting points here is that what is being taken as a ruling to a Government is, in fact, a ruling to a Parliament, and we should challenge that point.
Gareth Johnson
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come on to the issues relating to the judgment. I am concerned that it appears that through international law, which is always a bit of a hazy subject, we are being told that the United Kingdom has to comply with the direction given by that Court, or else we must pay compensation. My objection is that it should be wholeheartedly for the United Kingdom Government to make a decision on this issue, and there should be no kind of sanction against us if we say, “No, we feel that all convicted prisoners should lose the right to vote.” I accept that there are advantages and disadvantages in the United Kingdom’s membership of the ECHR, but this debate highlights one of the most significant disadvantages. It is therefore now up to us to weigh up whether we wish to continue being a member of that Court.
It is true that no criminal thinks that they will not commit a crime in case they lose their right to vote. I spent more than 20 years working in the criminal justice system, and I never met a defendant who took the attitude that they would not commit a particular crime because they were fearful of losing their right to vote. Nevertheless, I believe that giving back the right to vote on release can be part of a prisoner’s rehabilitation, and there is a distinction there.
For me, however, the issue here is not crime prevention but the principle that it is wrong for incarcerated criminals to help decide how government should operate. It is laughable to suggest that convicted prisoners should decide how the criminal justice system is operated or what priorities should be given, for example, in the policing budget.
The Government have responded to the case of Hirst, which we have heard mention of, in the ECHR; it is the reason we are having this debate today. The Government have said that votes will be allowed if prisoners are sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, and that that change in the law would comply with the ECHR judgment.
I have a copy of that judgment. If we are simply trying to comply with it, I believe the Government can be far stricter than they are currently being. The judgment says the following in being critical of the UK Government’s position so far:
“It had regard to the fact that it”—
the UK Government’s position—
“stripped a large group of people of the vote; that it applied automatically irrespective of length of sentence or the gravity of the offence”.
My interpretation of the judgment is that if we place a bar on those prisoners serving a particular length of sentence and on the categories of offence, that would still comply with the judgment. Therefore, the Government can be far tougher and still remain within the ECHR judgment if they wish to do so.
For example, the Government could not only bar from voting those sentenced to at least four years, but those convicted of, say, sexual offences, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who was here earlier, mentioned, or any other category of offence. It is the blanket ban that the ECHR has rejected.
Imprisonment for committing a crime should bring with it a deprivation of liberty beyond a mere bar on the freedom of movement. That deprivation should include the deprivation of the right to vote.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on bringing this issue to Parliament and I hope that there will be a debate on it in the main Chamber too. I agree with him that we are the people who should make decisions. Secondly, I want to thank him for his kind words about my new year honour; in thirty years’ time, I hope to be here to congratulate him on achieving the same thing. [Laughter.]
If I may, I do not plan to give way because there are two quotations that I want to give before developing one or two arguments of my own. The first quotation is from a Home Secretary:
“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the State, and even those of convicted criminals against the State, a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man—these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]
That Home Secretary was Winston Churchill, speaking in the Commons in 1910.
The second quotation comes from an American judge, so some of the expressions that he uses and some of the experiences that he refers to may not be identical to those in this country. He is Judge Dennis Challeen, and he is quoted in a document called “Making It Right” that was published in 1986, talking about prisoners:
“We want them to have self-worth...
So we destroy their self-worth.
We want them to be responsible...
So we take away all responsibilities.
We want them to be part of our community...
So we isolate them from our community.
We want them to be positive and constructive...
So we degrade them and make them useless.
We want them to be non-violent...
So we put them where there is violence all around them.
We want them to be kind and loving people...
So we subject them to hatred and cruelty.
We want them to quit being the tough guy...
So we put them where the tough guy is respected.
We want them to quit hanging around losers...
So we put all the “losers” in the state under one roof.
We want them to quit exploiting us...
We put them where they exploit each other.
We want them to take control of their own lives, own their own problems,
and quit being a parasite ...
So we make them totally dependent on us.”
I hope that the future debates that we have in this House will not be about the effect of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and I do not actually want them to be about the European convention on human rights. The issue is not whether we join the Court; it is whether we think that the points put in the European convention on human rights by people in this country are points to which we want to adhere.
To my mind, the dominant issue is how we got into this pickle in the first place. The Forfeiture Act 1870 lifted a lot of the problems of people who are convicted; it stopped all their land and property being taken away, and it stopped their wives and children from becoming dependent on the state. It happened to include, under the heading of “treason” in section 2:
“If any person hereafter convicted of treason…”
should be disqualified from
“being elected, or sitting, or voting as a member of either House of Parliament, or of exercising any right of suffrage or other parliamentary or municipal franchise whatever within England, Wales, or Ireland.”
Incidentally, this measure did not apply to Scotland so the idea that there is United Kingdom symmetry on this issue is not right.
When I was allowed to intervene on one of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—I referred to the part of the Act that came from the modification in the 1960s. Following a criminal law review process, from 1967 prisoners were able to vote.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I said that I was not planning to take any interventions; that applies whether they are made from a sedentary position and repeated, or made by a Member who is standing up and said for the first time. [Laughter.]
As it happened, in the mid-1960s, unless someone had established a proxy beforehand, I do not think that there were provisions for establishing proxies or for voting by post, so that is a change. Nevertheless, that modification takes away one of the difficulties of how voting by prisoners could be arranged now.
I want to put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister; if he does not know the answer now, I will be very happy to receive it in a letter later on. Is there a duty at present to register prisoners to vote, until we change the registration laws to enable individual registration, and even then does that duty apply? Indeed, one question is about whether people can vote; the second question is whether they appear on the register, whether they are qualified or disqualified. I would be very grateful to know from the lawyers in the Minister’s Department, or through him from the lawyers, whether there is presently a requirement on a prison governor to register a prisoner on the electoral register and, if so, whether that prisoner is registered as being disqualified from voting in the prison or disqualified from voting from what would have been their normal address, as it were, if they were, say, an overseas elector.
The second question is about voting itself. I hope that the future debates that we have on this subject are about why it is an extra punishment or provision that someone who is convicted and then, as part of their sentence, has their liberty taken away, has their right to vote taken away as well. I am not terribly interested at the moment about the boundary problem or whether there should be a bar for those sentenced to more than four years or for those convicted of certain offences; I think that that is a subsidiary set of issues. I believe that the key point is whether we can actually say to people who are convicted, “We want to take away your liberty, but we want you to be a member of society”. That is the essential issue. That is why we try to teach people in prison to read, to work and to be interested in things around them, and why we want them to have some sympathy and empathy for the feelings of others, whether victims or otherwise.
I end by asking a question that most people do not ask themselves. Each week, how many people in this country commit a serious criminal offence for the first time, one for which if they are caught and convicted they could be sent to jail for six months or more? I will give way just once to anybody who can give me the answer.
One would have thought that, dealing with crime and punishment, we would all be interested in knowing the answer to that question. The figure is about 1,800 people a week, who are mostly male and under the age of 30, who for the first time are convicted of an offence for which they could be sent to jail for six months or more. So the figure is presumably above 1,800 a week. A third of all men under the age of 30 have been convicted of an offence for which they could be sent to jail for six months or more. I think that the fact that most of the dispositions are not to send those men to jail is a good thing, although some of my hon. Friends and others in other parties might disagree. I think that we are talking about something that is rather common, and the provisions for allowing prisoners to vote are entirely separate from the issue of how we reduce the number of criminals.
Having said that I would end, I will say it again. When I was Minister with responsibility for painting white lines in the middle of roads, which is quite a dangerous position, rather like my position in this debate, it was estimated that young men drove cars after having consumed more than the legal limit for alcohol—which was a socially acceptable, body-bending, illegal habit— 2 million times a week. Within 2.5 years, that figure appeared to have decreased to 600,000. We cut that crime, which killed 1,200 people a year, by two thirds in 2.5 years with no change in law, sentencing or enforcement.
If we are seriously interested in reducing the number of victims, which is why we are interested in reducing crime, and in having fewer criminals, the way to do it is not by having long arguments about whether to give prisoners the vote; I would vote to do so straight away. I would also try to spend more time on effective reduction of the amount of crime in this country. I hope that this debate will be one of the first steps to doing so.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) in this debate. I congratulate him on his knighthood. Perhaps one reason why he got it is that he is an independent Member of Parliament who has always been willing to go against the popular tide. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on introducing this important debate. I must say that I am on his side on this issue.
I am aware that the winding-up speeches will start in nine minutes’ time, so I will be extremely brief. Three members of the Backbench Business Committee are in the Chamber today, as are 24 coalition Members and a number of Members from Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is wholly inappropriate that this issue should be left to a Westminster Hall debate, as Members speaking on all sides of the argument have said, so I will not discuss the issue itself, as it should be debated in the main Chamber under a substantive motion. I urge hon. Members to go along to the public sitting of the Backbench Business Committee next Tuesday and argue the case for having this debate in the main Chamber on a substantive motion.
The only thing that I will say on the issue is this. We have discussed the coalition Government’s four-year rule. It is a classic case of the Government saying something and then caving in later—by reducing it to a year, for example—and saying, “There we are; we’ve listened to Back-Bench Members of Parliament, and we’re complying.” To me, the issue is straightforward: either no prisoners should have the vote, or all prisoners should. The arguments are clear. It either is or is not a good thing for society that prisoners should have the vote. If it is a bad thing, then no prisoners should have the vote; I take that view. The other, crucial matter is parliamentary sovereignty and who decides the laws of this country. That issue must be developed in much greater depth during a longer debate.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend says that the Government have gone too far in order to be seen to be scaling back. Is not the other alternative that they have gone so far as a sop to our coalition partners? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that is the case, the Government have forgotten once again that they are in coalition with the Conservatives as well as the Liberal Democrats? It is rather ungrateful of the Liberal Democrats that only one has bothered to appear to support the Government’s sop to them.
Mr Bone
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There may well be some truth behind it. I will conclude so that other Members can speak. Again, I hope that hon. Members will go along on Tuesday and urge the Backbench Business Committee to hold a debate on this subject in the main Chamber.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. It is important because it asks a fundamental question: who is in charge of our criminal justice system and our democracy?
In the time available, I will focus on the latter. The right to vote, hon. Members will recall, is not included in the European convention itself but in a protocol to that convention, for good reason. The French proposed including the right to vote in the convention, using language referring to universal suffrage. The British objected; the travaux préparatoires to the convention, which are publicly available, say explicitly that we did so because we wanted to retain restrictions on the franchise, including for prisoners. The proposal for the protocol returned two years later with the offending language removed. By the way, that was under Churchill.
I make that point because it is absolutely clear that Britain did not sign up to that idea. It is important as a matter of interpretation of international law under the Vienna convention. The Strasbourg judges should have heeded it; it is a basic canon of the interpretation of treaty law, and it is obviously critical as a matter of basic democratic accountability. We did not sign up to the idea.
It is one example among many of the rampant judicial legislation that has come from Strasbourg since the 1970s. The law of negligence as it affects the police was rewritten in the Osman judgment. Not just right-wingers or tabloids got upset about that; Lord Hoffmann, until recently the second most senior Law Lord, has complained bitterly about it judicially and extra-judicially. Deportation has been increasingly fettered, and Strasbourg has intruded into parents’ right to determine how to discipline their children, overruling not only the prerogatives of elected lawmakers in this country but a jury. Now we face a demand to give prisoners the vote.
Strasbourg does not deny such judicial legislation. It embraces it, referring to the doctrine of the living instrument, according to which the convention is a living instrument which it is the courts’ duty to update from time to time. Where did the mandate to engage in judicial legislation come from? Not from the convention or the protocol. It is not expressly or implicitly given anywhere. It was conjured up from thin air. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made the point that Strasbourg is not only checking Governments but rewriting laws written by elected lawmakers. Why is that happening? Clearly, it is because Strasbourg is not really a judicial institution at all. I reviewed the CVs of all the judges in 2007. More than half had no prior judicial experience before going to the Strasbourg bench.
In the time available, I will make one point. The question is what to do now. There is one silver lining—the backstop written into the Strasbourg enforcement machinery. Strasbourg cannot enforce its own judgments, so if the UK refuses to adhere to this judgment, as I think it must, it cannot be enforced. Of course, we could face other awards against us in Strasbourg, including compensatory awards, or be referred to the Committee of Ministers, but the judgment is not enforceable in UK law. No sanctions will apply, and there is no serious prospect of our being kicked out of the Council of Europe. We can say no, given the political will.
My question to the Minister is this. If the Government are not willing to rebuff Strasbourg in this case, arbitrary as it is, at what point, if any, will they refuse to accept a ruling? How bad must things be before Ministers stand up for the prerogatives of elected UK lawmakers? If we do not draw a line in the sand now and send back a clear message, we are inviting even more perverse judgments in future. It is time to draw that line.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was so excellent that I would happily have given up the two minutes remaining to me to hear even more from him. This is the situation in which we find ourselves: a democratic Parliament in a democratic country is being told that we are not allowed to decide primarily moral issues, by unelected judges in a court set up to deal with the trashing of human rights by dictators and by countries very different from ours. Winston Churchill was quoted earlier. He was a great war leader, but he was not famed for consistency in domestic politics. His twice crossing the Floor of the House is evidence enough of that. Were he here today, and had we a vote on the matter, I venture to suggest that he would not vote to give convicted prisoners the vote.
People do not go to prison for light offences these days, they go because they have done something seriously wrong. The real problem that we face is that judges all too often assert rights that really ought to be qualified rights as absolute rights. Even the right to life is not absolute, because it is infringed when countries legitimately go to war. Where the line is drawn should be a matter for democratic politicians, not unelected judges.
To conclude my remarks in the all too brief time that those of us who are against giving prisoners the right to vote have been allowed by those who spoke earlier and who are in favour of giving prisoners that right, I ask the Minister this: when the time comes, if the Government feel that they cannot draw the line in the sand, which I would love them to do, will they at least do the absolute bare minimum to comply with the judgment, because that is certainly not what they are proposing to do at the moment?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, wish you, Mr Benton, and all Members present a happy new year. I also wish myself a happy birthday, although I note that no one offered that unto me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. It is right that we should have the debate here and, as several Members have said, that there should be a proper debate in the Chamber so that many of the issues can be elaborated at greater length, so I hope that that will happen.
I do not wish to disturb the equilibrium between myself and the Minister, but I must excoriate him slightly, because thus far there have been only written ministerial statements on the matter. The policy should have been announced in the Chamber, not by written ministerial statement, and I say that because the Minister said on 2 November 2010:
“when decisions have been taken they will be announced to the House at the Dispatch Box in the usual way.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 722.]
That is not what happened. A written ministerial statement was snuck out—I never know what the past tense of sneak is—or sneaked out.
Chris Bryant
Put out is less pejorative, and I want to be pejorative on this point. The statement was snuck out the day before Parliament adjourned for the Christmas recess. That is an inappropriate way to deal with Parliament, let alone with the politics of making a significant constitutional change in this country.
I am afraid that on this occasion I agree with neither my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), nor our new knight, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), whom I congratulate on his knighthood. I believe that the tradition that prisoners should be unable to vote is older than the Forfeiture Act 1870, because prior to that, the property qualification was so significant that, in practice, prisoners would have been unable to vote anyway. Merely referring to the 1870 Act, although that was the point at which the idea was qualified in statute, is irrelevant. It is an old tradition and a fine one. I think that when one forfeits the right to liberty, one should forfeit the right to vote.
However, I disagree with those who have said that we should leave the European Court of Human Rights. I think that David Maxwell Fyfe was a pretty odious Home Secretary, but I agree with those who argue that he did a good job at Nuremberg in trying to ensure that human rights were protected across Europe. It is difficult for us to argue with Russia that it should comply with the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as that of Sergei Magnitsky if we do not comply ourselves.
I also believe that the Government have been entirely wrong to gold-plate the provisions that are being brought forward. If the cut-off comes at four years, that will mean that people who have committed many very serious crimes, including violent crimes and crimes of a sexual nature, and electoral crimes for that matter, will be able to vote, which I think is inappropriate. That will mean that close to 30,000 people in prison will be able to vote. Notwithstanding the comments that other Members have already made, I think that there will be logistical problems in various areas in the country, which I will move on to in a moment.
The proposals are far more generous than the arrangements in other countries. The hon. Member for Kettering referred to several countries but not to Belgium, where the line is drawn at four months. I wonder whether the Government simply got the words “months” and “years” wrong, because opting for four months would allow them to comply with the Court. In Austria the requirement is one year. In France there is an element of judicial decision making on who gets the franchise—I think that the Government intend to introduce that here—as the court decides whether someone should be deprived of the right to vote as part of the sentencing. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) commented earlier on how the French approached the creation of the Court in the first place and that their system arose because the Napoleonic code had always stipulated that. Of course, 13 countries still have complete bans, although it must be said that they are not countries that we would hold up as exemplars of liberal and civilised societies that comply with human rights.
I have 10 questions for the Minister, although I realise that he may be unable to answer all of them. I hope that he will write to me on any that he is unable to answer today, as the deputy Prime Minister has not responded to any of the letters that we have written to him on the subject—it has been quite some time now and I am looking forward to those replies. First, the current prohibition on votes for prisoners was introduced through primary legislation in the Representation of the People Act 1983, and amended by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Can the Minister confirm that the amendments to statutes to enable prisoner voting will be done though primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation, so that it can be amended on the Floor of the House? Secondly, were we to proceed with a one-year ban, rather than a four-year ban, can he confirm that that would meet the requirements of the Court and that, therefore, the four-year ban is entirely of the Government’s choosing?
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that more than 28,000 prisoners will be given the vote under the proposals, including around 6,000 who have committed violent crimes and 1,800 who have committed crimes of a sexual nature? Fourthly, the written ministerial statement states that prisoners will be able to vote in an area where they have a local connection. That seems, contrary to the remarks made earlier by several Members, to be a rather loose way of determining where they vote. What will happen if a prisoner wants to be registered in their prison, rather than in their home, or if they are registered in the place where they last lived but someone else is now living there? Frankly, they might not want someone who is serving time in prison to be registered to their home address. What provision have the Government made to ensure that that will not affect householders in their credit rating and in other ways? Will prisoners be entitled to anonymous registration, or will they be included in the electoral register, including details of their last known address, and what provisions will be made for candidates to be able to canvass prisoners?
As I understand it, the Government intend to allow judges to make specific recommendations on depriving people of the vote. On what grounds will a judge be entitled to remove the vote? Following the comments made by other Members, are there particular crimes that, while they might be subject to relatively short sentences of less than four years, should in all cases still see the perpetrator banned from voting? In particular, will the Government ensure that judges receive guidelines on when it will be expected that the vote be removed, and will those guidelines be made available when a Bill comes before the House? Will mentally disordered offenders or prisoners detained in mental health hospitals awaiting sentencing be entitled to vote under the Government’s proposals? I hope that the Minister can answer many of those questions. Many Members are understandably angry about out inaction in the past, but I must say that I prefer our inaction on the matter to the Government’s action thus far.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate, particularly on getting it as a kind of reserve option, and thank him for his generous remarks at the beginning of his contribution. As ever, of course, he and I will not fall out, even if we end up disagreeing. I would like to take the opportunity, as everyone else has, to wish all hon. Members a happy new year, although that does seem rather a long time ago.
I shall set out what the Government have announced and then try to deal with as many of the questions as I can. I will respond to questions which I believe are of interest to as many people as possible, and write to hon. Members about those that remain which I can not answer at this point. I will place a copy of the letter in the Library so that Members can see the Government’s responses.
It is worth starting with a bit of background because hon. Members have mentioned it—I will get through this quickly. We have already mentioned that some prisoners—those on remand, for example—have been able to vote for some time. The bar on prisoners who are serving a sentence dates back to 1870, and successive Governments have maintained the position that those who have broken their contract with society by committing an offence and are imprisoned should lose their right to vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering opened the debate in a perfectly helpful way by quoting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it clear that he does not want to make this change. To be frank, it is not something that I want to do, and I believe that many Government Members would rather not do it, but we do not have a choice. We have a legal obligation. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the proposals are not a sop to anyone. The European Court of Human Rights made a ruling in the Hirst case, and we are legally obliged to comply with it.
It is worth reminding ourselves what the Court actually said in the Hirst case. It said that the existing bar on convicted prisoners—the blanket ban—was contrary to article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European convention on human rights. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) referred to Mr Hirst. Although the ruling was given in his case, under the proposals that we will put before the House, he would not have been entitled to vote when he was in prison because he committed a serious crime and was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.
We in this country seem blessed—that is not really the right word. The most odious criminals appear to be the ones who run off to the European Court of Human Rights. Another odious criminal who took the Government to court—the judgment was announced before Christmas—also had been convicted of serious crimes.
The Government are following three principles in their approach. The first goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We have to meet our legal obligations, but we want to go no further than that. Secondly, we want to ensure that the most serious offenders are not given the right to vote. That is why we did not say that there would be no line, that the limit would be entirely up to judges. We want to ensure that there is a line, so that anyone above that length of sentence would not be able to vote. We recognise that the most serious offenders should not be able to vote.
Mr Harper
Let me make a little more progress. I am conscious that Members have raised many questions, and I want to try to deal with some of them rather than stack up new ones.
The third principle is to prevent the taxpayer from having to pay successful claims for compensation. One of the problems we have is that even if the compensation in an individual case is not significant, we in this country are blessed—again, that is probably not the right word—with lawyers who are assiduous, if there is money on the table, in running around and getting lots of people to sign up for cases under no win, no fee rules. Various Members have mentioned that there are already 2,500 cases pending. One can be certain that if there were a successful case for compensation, lawyers would quickly go around prisons to sign up prisoners for legal actions on the basis that there might be £1,000 compensation on the table. The Government would be faced with thousands and thousands of cases. We estimate that compensation in an individual case might be around £750 to £1,000, but multiply that by the thousands and thousands of prisoners who would bring cases if there were money on the table, and we would be looking at significant sums for the taxpayer. The one thing that would be worse than making these changes in the law would be giving hard-earned taxpayers’ money to some of those criminals. I shall take my hon. Friend’s question.
Mr Jackson
I thank the Minister for that explanation, but his argument would carry much more weight if Frodl v. Austria had been the last substantive case in the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. The ruling was very prescriptive and said, in effect, that the majority of prisoners had to have the vote. However, it was not the last case. As I made clear earlier, the last case was Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, and paragraphs 112 to 114 of its ruling specifically made it clear that the Government had a range of options on which they could consult. It is not a question of the Government having to comply with the arbitrary limit of four years; that simply is not true.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a helpful point by referring to the Greens and M.T. judgment. This comes down to what several Members have said about whether we have the option of doing what the previous Government did, which was nothing. I am afraid that we do not. In that judgment, the Court gave the UK Government six months from the date that the judgment becomes final to introduce proposals. I can say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that there are various ways of dealing with it, but the Government will introduce primary legislation in the House. That should deal with questions raised by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Proposals for primary legislation will be put before the House, and Members will have an opportunity to debate them fully. We will not try to think of a different way to implement the judgment, but we want to ensure that we have a debate in the House.
Mr Harper
In terms of the timetable, we have to introduce proposals, not pass them. The Government’s responsibility is to introduce the proposals before 23 August this year; in other words, before the House rises for the summer recess. The Court has suspended the 2,500 or so cases of people claiming damages on the basis that we will introduce proposals within the time limit. If we fail to do so, the cases will be revived and there will then be a serious risk that the Government will be faced with paying damages.
Let me deal with some other questions. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering—this is his debate—the problem would not be fixed by somehow getting rid of the Human Rights Act 1998. Even if we were to sweep it away tomorrow, we would still be a party to the European convention on human rights and the ruling would stand. The debate on the Act is important, but it is not relevant to this matter.
My hon. Friend asked whether the UK was being singled out. We have to act because British prisoners took cases to the Court, on which it has ruled. Some of the other countries that still have a blanket ban have not been put in that position. If no prisoners had brought a case against the UK Government, we would not be acting. We are acting only because of the legal judgment. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that it had been his Government’s preference to do nothing. It is our preference to do nothing, but we face a legal obligation.
Mr Harper
I, too, congratulate my newly knighted hon. Friend. He put his case in a measured and thoughtful way, as did the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). Apart from what she said at the beginning of her remarks—that this is, indeed, a legal judgment and that we are obliged to implement it—I did not agree with her arguments, and I am afraid that the Government and I do not agree with what my hon. Friend said either.
Let me try to answer some of the questions that were raised by several Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda. He accused the Government of gold-plating the provisions. We absolutely have not done that. We set a limit which we believe is the minimum required to comply with our obligations. Moreover, in contrast with the previous Government, who were proposing to enfranchise prisoners for all elections, we have said that we will make a change only for those elections where we are legally obliged to do so: the Westminster and European elections. We will not do it for local elections or referendums. Importantly, we will not do it for elections for police and crime commissioners, or for mayors. We will do what is legally necessary and no more. That was not what the previous Government were going to do. They proposed enfranchising prisoners for all elections. That would have perhaps had some of the consequences for local elections that Members have mentioned.
Also, we will ensure that prisoners cannot register to vote at the prison. It would clearly be inappropriate to have significant number of voters at prisons able to influence the results of elections. It is also worth saying, as my final point—
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. That concludes the debate. We must move on to the next one.
Parliamentary Representation
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. Given that we are debating an issue that will have a big impact on all the Members who are currently leaving the Chamber, I am sorry that there is such an exodus from it. I am delighted to have secured the debate, which will explore many of the issues that we did not have an opportunity to explore during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—in spite of the large number of amendments that I and many others tabled. That was not due to the Government’s programming of the Bill, which I do not necessarily criticise—I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will when he gets the opportunity in a moment—but because of how we as a House managed the available time and engaged in a tremendous amount of repetition. We failed to get to grips properly with the issues that needed to be debated to improve the Bill before it transferred to another place.
This morning, I intend to explore Government policy on parliamentary representation in relation to the number of parliamentary seats, the drawing up of constituency boundaries, voter registration and the role of the House of Lords in revising what the Commons produces. The House of Lords is revising the Bill, which we passed to it after its Commons stages last year.
There are currently 650 constituencies. As I indicated to the Minister during the debate on the Bill, my concern is that the Government’s approach has been far too timid, although I understand that perhaps there has to be compromise over the figures that were bandied about in advance of the general election. A figure of some 600 seats should not necessarily be hard and fast, but should be an indication of the size of the House of Commons. The current figure of 650 is an indication, and there could be more seats or fewer.
In his background reading, I am sure the Minister will have noted that seven years ago, on 15 October 2003, at columns 117 to 119 of Hansard, I brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill. The Representation of the People (Consequences of Devolution) Bill proposed a significant cut in the number of parliamentary constituencies, to about 500 in a first phase, because following devolution, and considering comparisons between the number of MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament and the number in Parliaments of similar sized countries in Europe and other western democracies, we were significantly over-represented.
There are countries in Europe in which the number of parliamentarians per 100,000 is higher than it is in the UK, but they all have significantly lower populations. All the countries with populations of about the same or more than the UK’s have significantly different representation and fewer Members of Parliament. I strongly recommend that the Government revisit the figure and take a more flexible approach. Part of the reason why I wish to emphasise that point is that the figure of 600 could have been plucked out of thin air; it need not necessarily be interpreted in the hard-and-fast manner in which the Government are approaching the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
I know that the Minister is well aware of the primary issue of contention because I and my parliamentary colleagues from Cornwall have raised it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is here today. My hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) are unable to be here today but support the principle I will espouse, which is that we did not get a proper opportunity to debate constituency equality during the Bill’s passage.
The Bill proposes that all constituencies have an electoral quota of approximately 76,000 with a margin of only 5% either way. It would carve up the country in a manner that would create bizarre constituencies and ignore important cultural, historic and geographic boundaries. We would end up with bits of islands, such as the Isle of Wight, attached to mainland constituencies, and place their MPs in an invidious position when two very different places they represent fail to see eye to eye on a matter of vital local importance. We do not want antiseptic constituencies with perpetually mobile boundaries. The five-yearly boundary review that would happen between each Parliament would mean an MP’s attachment to their constituency being perpetually reviewed, so the sense of settlement with the communities they represent would be continually undermined.
The amendments to the Bill which I and other hon. Members tabled were unsuccessful, in that they were not selected or therefore debated. They sought to find circumstances in which the Boundary Commission was given sufficient discretion to work towards the target figure, taking into account reasonable geographic, cultural and electoral issues. We want the Government to allow places to make decisions for themselves collectively, provided that they do not request more favourable treatment, such as over-representation. I hope the Minister takes note of that. It is not about more favourable treatment but simply recognising the distinctiveness of places, which the Bill does not take into account.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that in addition to the need to reflect distinct cultural and geographical differences in various parts of the country, to which he rightly referred, there are practical considerations? Cornwall, as in Devon, has more than enough people to enable it to remain whole. However, one in 20 properties is a second home and, rightly, people who are not normally resident in the county cannot register to vote. The Electoral Commission should have flexibility to consider such specific local factors when establishing boundaries.
Andrew George
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I will come to electoral registration and its inevitable impact on drawing up boundaries. The established rules follow case law to some extent, and the Electoral Commission is certainly clear about the interpretation of the relevant Acts. I agree that there is an issue that deserves further scrutiny and that will have a significant impact when drawing up boundaries.
Having said that, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and other hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and other areas have made the point that many of the justifications for distinctive treatment of areas such as Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and Orkney and Shetland—they are identified in clause 11(6) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, although their distinctiveness is not elaborated on—could easily apply to other constituencies. The Government have a range of approaches for honouring and respecting the distinctiveness of many parts of the country. They could identify further specific exceptions beyond the two identified in the Bill, or they could establish a set of principles that underlie the reason for identifying those two constituencies and allow the Boundary Commission to determine where those principles might be applied.
In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, we believe that there is a self-evident case based on Cornwall’s historical, geographic and constitutional significance, and that the boundary between Cornwall and Devon—many people in Cornwall consider it to be between Cornwall and England—should be respected not only with regard to parliamentary constituencies, but in all other matters. Indeed, the Government did so when drawing up local enterprise partnerships. One strong reason for that, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth will concur, is that the distinctiveness of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was identified, but such distinctiveness seemed, at least to the Government, not to apply in Devon and Somerset. I am not making a judgment about Devon and Somerset, and perish the thought that I would ever stray into their politics. The Government recognise this important issue in Cornwall, but do not provide an opportunity for the distinctiveness of that important historical and constitutional boundary to be respected.
There is a presumption in clause 11(6) of the Bill that Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar should be preserved constituencies. Na h-Eileanan an Iar has a population of 26,500, an area of 3,070 sq km, and geographically is apparently as long as Wales. It is a long, spread-out constituency. Orkney and Shetland has a population of 42,000 and an area of 2,450 sq km. If the decision were based purely on area, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), whose constituency has a land area of 12,780 sq km, would have a case for distinctive treatment.
I often compare my travel time with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is entitled under the rules of the highly respected Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to travel by plane, but I am not. His travel time is significantly quicker than travelling by train from the far west of Cornwall to London, so clearly travel time is not the basis.
On the difficulty of getting around constituencies, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute will recount his experience of travelling between the many islands in his constituency. As well as the 82,000 constituents on the mainland of my constituency—there were well over 100,000 before the boundary changes for the 2010 election—I have six inhabited islands, five of which are 30 miles off the west coast. It is impossible to get around my constituency in a day. It takes two days to do so by surface transport, and it is difficult.
I am not asking for special treatment, or for my constituency to be added to the list of preserved constituencies, because there is a strong case for equalisation, and the Government are right to work towards the principle as far as possible. I also want to make it clear to the Minister that I am not seeking to undermine my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is not present, and would no doubt provide a range of other arguments for why his constituency should be given special treatment. No doubt the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) would come up with another range of arguments for his constituency being given special treatment when others are not preserved in the same way. I am simply making the point that I have spoken to them—I gave them notice that I would mention their constituencies in this debate.
I have been trying to fathom the reasons why those constituencies have been given preserved constituency status. I respect and want that because there are distinctive geographic, historic and cultural reasons for them being given special status, but if those principles apply to those constituencies, why do they not also apply to others, so that the special geographic and constitutional circumstances in which they exist are also respected?
For example, if we are looking at the whole area of a constituency, there is a significant sea area around mine, just as there is around the two I have just mentioned. My constituency is a maritime one, and a large proportion of its inhabitants exist not just on the land but in their trades at sea; those who go deep-sea fishing often go out for seven to ten days, to the continental shelf and sometimes beyond. If we were to take the whole working area of my constituency in the same way as we might take that of places where there are sheep on mountains—here there are fish in the sea—its total area would be 195,500 sq km. I have visited some of my constituents when they have been more than 100 miles out at sea and I have boarded their fishing vessels, but I reassure the Minister that I do not seek to do that weekly.
My point is simply that there is a variety of ways in which to engage with one’s constituents, particularly in this modern telecommunications age when people tweet each other across the world. It is not impossible these days to communicate with people in far-flung parts of one’s constituency without regularly meeting face to face. I am not saying that that should be denied, simply that I would like to get a better understanding of what lies behind the notion of preserved constituencies and, if there is a principle there, of why it cannot be equally applied to other areas.
I am aware that some people might point to unavoidable disagreements and old rivalries between places. The Government are right to continue the practice of preserving and respecting the boundaries of nation states; there is no cross-border constituency between Scotland and England. Strangely, though, the old boundaries of the regions—the Government zones as I describe them—will be respected as well; I understand that there will not be cross-border constituencies between the south-west and the west midlands, for example. However, as there are unavoidable disagreements and old rivalries there is little point in creating new ones.
For example, a point that would be emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall were she present, is that the relationship between Plymouth and South East Cornwall is both harmonious and mutually productive, largely because both distinct communities are assured of the security of existing within their own boundaries. They are ultimately responsible for their own destiny, but can, and indeed do, effectively co-operate, because they can enjoy both that mutual respect and their own security. Destroying that relationship by disrespecting the border would heighten the potential for conflict and mistrust, and would be counter-productive. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider that issue.
Briefly on voter registration, during the passage of the Bill we debated to a certain extent the fact that if the Government applied this regimented rule of equalised constituencies, it could be justified if one believed that the numerical basis on which the rule was applied regimentally was sound. The Government’s own Electoral Commission report in March 2010 identified a wide range of variations in voter registration levels. The report, “The completeness and accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain,” states in its key findings:
“National datasets and local case study research suggest there may be widening local and regional variations in registration levels…Recent social, economic and political changes appear to have resulted in a declining motivation to register to vote among specific social groups. This is despite the fact that electors now have more options than ever open to them to register…Under-registration and inaccuracy are closely associated with the social groups most likely to move home…Each revised electoral register lasts for 12 months, from December to December; during that period, the rate of completeness is likely to decline by around 10 percentage points”.
The justification for believing that we are achieving equalised constituencies is therefore rather suspect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth has mentioned, it is not just the issue of under-representation but the risk of over-representation, at least of those who choose to register and have an entitlement, to a certain extent, to register in more than one constituency because they own a second home.
In my constituency there are nearly 3,500 second homes according to the latest available figures on the 10% council tax discount for people with second homes. A large number of properties, however, have been taken off the council tax register because the owners, although they use the properties and might register to vote from them, have chosen to pay a business rate because they are also letting them. A large number of owners chose to do that for reasons of tax efficiency and the financial efficiency of their businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has nearly 4,000 such properties in his constituency.
In a letter to me on 26 July 2010, Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, stated:
“With regard to second home owners, in our view it is unlikely that owning a second property which is visited only for recreational purposes would meet the residency qualification…Owning and paying council tax on a property alone is not sufficient to satisfy the residence qualification: although this may give an indication of connection to an address, it is not evidence of residence. However, each decision must be made on a case-by-case basis by the Electoral Registration Officer”.
She goes on to cite case law, and the fact that illegal registration carries a potential fine of £5,000.
Thankfully, in time for this debate, the Minister has very kindly responded to a letter I sent to him on 7 December 2010 on this issue. He notes the issues that have been raised by the electoral returning officer for Cornwall council, and the suggestion that people who are registered in more than one local authority should be required to nominate a main residence, which would then be designated as the area in which they were eligible to vote. The Minister says that he will give the matter further consideration, stating:
“I have asked my officials to explore the issues connected with dual registration and will keep you informed of any developments.”
That is helpful for today’s debate. We know about the parallel issues regarding student registration. The issue needs to be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will do so.
The primary theme of the debate—I will bring my remarks to a close in a moment—is the Government’s justification for applying this rigid approach to equality of constituency. The Minister is aware that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is being debated in another place. On this occasion, as perhaps on other occasions when such constitutional issues have arisen, Members of Parliament have an interest in the legislation as it primarily affects them. In such cases, I argue that the Lords should have a greater say rather than a lesser say about the outcome, and I hope that the Government will take that on board.
House of Lords reform will be considered in due course, and we will no doubt pass comment on such reform. I fear that in the coalition agreement—something I have not entirely seen eye to eye with my party over—the Government have tended to get the issue the wrong way round and they seem to have engaged in a fashionable and populist view. Of course, superficially I can see that a directly elected second Chamber sounds attractive in many ways. However, the Government are considering how people get into the Chamber before they have considered what that Chamber is for. On Lords reform, I agree with the Government that the hereditary principle should not apply and that patronage is unacceptable. However, I hope that before we get too entangled in debates about how people might arrive in the second Chamber—if indeed we have a second Chamber, and I believe that we should—we will first have the opportunity to consider what the second Chamber is for. That might inform the debate about the best and most appropriate means by which people arrive in the House of Lords.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am delighted that he has moved on to the subject of the House of Lords and its potential reform because I feel that the issue of the House of Commons has, to a certain extent, been debated and dealt with in the Chamber. We talk a lot about individual Members and the community involvement of a representative of a particular constituency. Can it be argued that while the House of Commons represents the population and should be proportionate to that, there is potential for House of Lords reform to be based around communities or regions? For example, Cumbria or Cornwall could be represented in the House of Lords. That would be regionally based and therefore different from representation in the House of Commons.
Andrew George
That helps me with the point I am making. First, we must consider what we need a revising Chamber for. I hope that it is for revision and sober second thought, but not to trump or usurp the primary Chamber. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about how to ensure that all nations and regions of the UK are properly and fairly represented within the second Chamber. That is the second stage of the debate, but first we must understand what that place is for.
The hon. Gentleman emphasises that we have debated this issue and the Bill—I have been looking back over debates on the Bill that we have had in the Commons. However, if the hon. Gentleman studies such debates, he may agree with me that we have not had adequate opportunity to explore fully the aspects of the Bill that I have highlighted today, and I hope that the Minister has taken note of that. I suspect that another place will revise some aspects of the legislation that I have just described, and I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on those amendments when they come before the Commons.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I agree that when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was on the Floor of the House, we did not have an opportunity to explore the issues as fully as we would have liked. I am glad to have the opportunity to do that today.
The role and purpose of Members of Parliament can be divided into two separate functions. First, we effectively form an electoral college for electing a Prime Minister, and secondly, we represent communities. Unlike the Scottish Parliament, for example, there is no formal vote in the House of Commons to elect a Prime Minister. As a Government can exist only if they have the confidence of the House of Commons, Members of Parliament effectively form an electoral college for electing a Prime Minister. It is clear that for the fair election of a Prime Minister, Members of Parliament ought to represent constituencies that have the same number—or as near as possible to the same number—of constituents.
The other role of Members of Parliament is to represent communities. It is obvious that not every community in the country is exactly the same size, and it is fair to have slight discrepancies in the number of people in each constituency, particularly when taking into account that representational role. When the representational role was originally introduced, for many centuries Members of Parliament represented whole boroughs or counties, some of which had more than one representative. In the early days, the representational role was considered more important and boundaries were drawn to that effect. Obviously, as the years went on and people moved, it became more important to have, as far as possible, the same number of electors represented by each Member of Parliament. However, we still have those two roles. Clearly, the role of an electoral college would support having exact numbers in each constituency, while the role of representation would need a bit of flexibility. We must reconcile those two different roles.
Until this Bill, the reconciliation of those two functions was left exclusively to the Boundary Commission. It has always had the flexibility to take community boundaries into account, rather than just seek the same number of electors in each constituency.
John Stevenson
Could that difference not be dealt with by the ways in which Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords are elected? That is a way those two issues could be reconciled.
Mr Reid
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I would like the electoral system for the House of Lords to represent larger communities—say, Scotland or the English regions. I think that the role of the House of Lords should be to represent those larger areas, rather than the smaller areas that Members of Parliament represent. I still think there is an important role for Members of Parliament in representing smaller communities.
As I was saying, the Boundary Commission has had flexibility in the past. Analysis of where the Boundary Commission has used that flexibility shows that the political effects of different constituency sizes have tended to cancel one another out. I am referring to the political effects of the Boundary Commission’s decision to have flexibility, not regulations that we have had in the past about the minimum number of MPs that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have. Obviously, having a certain minimum number of MPs for Scotland and Wales in the past has tended to help the Labour party more than any other party, but with the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, the last boundary review had the same quota for Scotland as for England, and I think it would be fair for that also to happen for Wales. However, in relation to individual constituencies, analysis shows that the political effects of different constituency sizes tend to cancel one another out.
Analysis of recent elections has shown that it takes more electors to elect a Conservative MP than a Labour MP, but that is almost entirely down to turnout. The turnout is much higher in constituencies won by the Conservatives than in those won by Labour. That is the main effect. The secondary effect has tended to be that people move from Labour-held constituencies into Conservative-held constituencies. Clearly, if there is a long time between boundary reviews, that has an effect, so I fully agree with the Government that we should be speeding up the process of boundary reviews. It would not be fair to have an election in 2020 based on electoral data from 2000, which is what we would have under the present system.
Although I agree with the Government on the issues that I have mentioned, I do not think it necessary to have the 5% straitjacket or to have exactly 600 MPs. We should allow the Boundary Commission some flexibility. The number of MPs should be, say, 600 plus or minus five. It is important to put a cap such as that on the number, because in the past, when boundary commissions have used their discretion, the number of MPs has tended to drift upwards. The number has come down only when there have been constitutional changes such as independence for the Irish Republic or the abolition of the rule that meant that Scotland had on average more MPs than England, to which I referred. When it has been left up to the Boundary Commission, the number has tended to creep up gradually over the years. Therefore, having a cap is correct, but there should be a bit of flexibility—say, 600 MPs plus or minus five.
As a country, we are fortunate in having a politically independent Boundary Commission. Many other countries have boundary commissions in which there is political interference: the United States is an obvious example. We should allow the Boundary Commission a bit more flexibility than would be allowed by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill as it stands.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the independence of the Boundary Commission, or the boundary commissions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is vital, but they quite often get it wrong. In fact, invariably over the past few years, their first version has, as they themselves have readily admitted, not fitted the bill. That is why we think it very important to keep hold of public inquiries, whereby people can test in public the arguments about the shaping of constituencies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Reid
I am not convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s argument in that regard. One of the things I have always found problematic with the present system is the fact that there are only 28 days for people or organisations to put in objections or suggestions. Many organisations—for example, community councils in Scotland—meet on a monthly cycle, and it was often just pure luck as to whether the community council was meeting at a time that would allow it to put in objections. Therefore, the Government’s proposals in the Bill for a period of three months are very important. That will allow plenty of time for local debate. Twenty-eight days does not allow proper time for local debate, because by the time that a local newspaper has carried the detail of the proposal, a week of the 28 days will often be gone, and by the time that people get together and hold meetings, the whole of the 28 days will often be gone. The Government’s proposal for three months but without a public inquiry will be an improvement, because it will allow local debate. Although there might not be face-to-face debates at a public inquiry, there will be local debates through the local press over a three-month period. That will allow many more people to participate than would be the case at a public inquiry. Ordinary people will not take several days off work to turn up to public inquiries, whereas they can engage in debate at local public meetings in the evening or in the columns of a local newspaper.
The 5% straitjacket that the Bill imposes is not an absolute principle, because there are exceptions for certain island groups and there is also a 13,000 sq km area cap. I fully support the clause in the Bill that says that Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar should have their own constituencies. Since 1918, independent boundary commissions have always allowed individual constituencies for those island groups. It was only at the last boundary review that Orkney and Shetland was written into legislation as having its own constituency, but the Boundary Commission still decided that Na h-Eileanan an Iar should have its own constituency despite its not being written into the legislation. I am fully behind the Government on that.
[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, however, we would like the Government to elaborate on the principles behind where the exceptions should be. We were not able to tease out from them during the debate on the Floor of the House why the two island constituencies I have mentioned were to be exceptions, but there were not to be exceptions for other islands. As my hon. Friend pointed out, part of the Isle of Wight will share a constituency with the mainland. There is also the island of Anglesey. Under the new rules, the constituency that it would be in would include part of the mainland of Wales.
While we are talking about islands, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my constituency, which contains many islands. In fact, it contains 25 inhabited islands. Thirteen of those have a public air service or a public ferry service, or both. I visit all those islands as part of my constituency tour. I sent the Minister a copy of the itinerary for my constituency tour, pointing out to him that it takes several weeks to get round the constituency.
That factor is important. Constituents are entitled to have the opportunity to meet their Member of Parliament face to face. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives pointed out, there are electronic means of communication these days, but that is no substitute for the Member of Parliament going to individual communities in their constituency and seeing the facts on the ground—or, as my hon. Friend pointed out, at sea. It is also important that constituents be able to meet their Member of Parliament face to face in their own community. I would therefore like the Minister to elaborate on the reasons why the two island groups I have mentioned were chosen as exceptions, and not other islands.
Let me give hon. Members some statistics. As I said, my constituency contains 13 islands that can be reached only by an air or ferry service. That compares with only three in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, because of all the causeways that have been built there. That means that every island in the island group is connected to Lewis and Harris, the Uists or Barra by a fixed link. Therefore, Na h-Eileanan an Iar is in effect three islands, whereas my constituency contains 13 islands that can be reached only by air or sea. If we compare Argyll and Bute with Na h-Eileanan an Iar, we also find that Argyll and Bute has twice the land area and three times the electorate. The Boundary Commission could therefore perhaps be allowed some flexibility to take into account islands and large areas where few people live.
Elsewhere on the highland mainland, the Government have introduced the 13,000 sq km rule. It is important to note that that rule will not result in the creation of new constituencies that are more than 5% under the quota, but it will create three constituencies that are a strange shape. To get within 5% of the quota and to meet the 13,000 sq km rule, the Boundary Commission will have to create three strange constituencies, each containing part of the Greater Inverness area and a large part of the rural highlands and islands. One constituency will comprise part of Inverness, going north and west all the way to Cape Wrath. Another will contain part of Inverness and go all the way west to include the Isle of Skye. The third will contain part of Inverness and go south and east. Those three constituencies will look very strange, and there will be little shared community interest between the different communities in them. As I said, we are supposed to represent communities, but someone in a remote, rural part of north-west Sutherland and somebody in the city of Inverness have little shared community interest.
That leads me to suggest that the Government are being too formulaic in simply writing in a 13,000 sq km cap without taking into account a constituency’s size and shape. Let me give the example of my constituency. Loch Fyne, which is a long sea loch, cuts the mainland part of my constituency almost exactly in two. If some miracle happened and Loch Fyne were suddenly filled in, my constituency’s land area would increase, which would take it closer to the Government’s 13,000 sq km cap. However, it would also make the constituency easier to drive around, because I would no longer have to drive all the way up to the top of Loch Fyne and all the way back down the other side when I went from Dunoon, where I live, to the western part of my constituency.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is not advocating filling the loch in, is he?
Mr Reid
Loch Fyne is a beautiful loch with beautiful scenery, and I am certainly not advocating filling it in; I am just giving an example of how the land area would increase if the geography were different. That would take us closer to the Government’s cap, but it would also make it easier to drive across the constituency. The point I am trying to make is that land area by itself makes for too crude a formula, and the rules should take into account the constituency’s shape and the difficulties of travelling around the constituency. It is difficult to write such things into a formula, which is why we need to give the Boundary Commission a bit more flexibility than the Government propose in the Bill. Islands, peninsulas, sea lochs and so forth must also be taken into account. The House of Lords will shortly re-examine the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be amenable to accepting amendments to give the Boundary Commission a bit more flexibility.
To sum up, I am fully in favour of capping the House of Commons, but, again, there should be a bit of flexibility. I am also fully in favour of speeding up Boundary Commission proceedings. Furthermore, although it is important that constituencies have close to the same number of people in each, it is also important to have flexibility to deal with the small number of constituencies with unique geographic circumstances—rural constituencies in the highlands and islands, the Isle of Wight and Anglesey, and constituencies in Cornwall. Members from those places have come to the House to speak to Ministers and argue for a bit of flexibility. The constituencies where the Boundary Commission would exercise flexibility would be a tiny proportion of the whole. Making provision for such flexibility would improve the Bill and mean that we represented much more cohesive communities than we would under the Bill as it stands. I hope the Government will listen. We are fortunate in having a politically independent Boundary Commission, and we should trust it with a bit more discretion over constituency and community boundaries.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part for the first time in a debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), if for no other reason than that the debate gives me an opportunity to repeat the arguments that I made on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on Second Reading. As I said then, there should be some flexibility in the 600-seat straitjacket, to borrow a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid).
Those of us who have been involved in politics for many years will have had opportunities to redraw boundaries at various stages and to make submissions to the Boundary Commission. Whether we are dealing with constituency or ward boundaries, the fact is that the jigsaw never fits together. It is a big mistake to put the commission in a straitjacket and to limit it to 600.
It is important that constituents identify to some extent with the unit of administration in which they live. That applies nationally, and I am a great believer in the idea that the nation state is the ideal unit of government. It also applies at local level. My constituency had the misfortune to be moved into the county of Humberside in the 1970s, and the legacy of that lives on. People deeply resent being moved around in that way.
I served as a constituency agent for 15 years before my move to the House. I served in the Gainsborough constituency, a large rural Lincolnshire constituency neighbouring mine, and it made me appreciate that identities vary considerably over geographically relatively short distances of 30 or 40 miles. To be perfectly honest, people in Gainsborough had no interest in what happened 30 miles down the road. Incidentally, that constituency, with the exception of one ward, had the benefit of being within one district council area.
Continually changing boundaries will impact on the vitality and sustainability of local political parties. The democratic process needs viable local parties and associations, but constant boundary changes inevitably impact on their viability. Taking one ward out of a constituency can render the local party virtually bankrupt if the ward’s financial make-up means that it contributes greatly to the party. We need to think seriously about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute spoke about the step-by-step increase in the number of Members over the years. Although it is true that there has been an increase, the population itself has grown significantly. I sat in the upper House during its debate yesterday, and I was reminded that there were 33 million electors in 1945. The number of eligible voters has now risen to 45 million. So, although I have no instinctive intrinsic objection to rounding off a reduction in the number, I think that it is extremely foolish to limit it to 600.
As to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) made about reform of the House of Lords, I favour a predominantly elected upper House, and there is an opportunity, as he suggested in his intervention, to consider framing that House so that it clearly identifies with communities, particularly if we go along with what I regard as the misguided course of having 600 seats in the House of Commons.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I had not realised, Mrs Riordan, that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), would sit down quite so suddenly, even though you gave me a warning just before he began his speech that I would soon be called.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I think he blames me for his not having been able in previous debates to make some of the arguments he has made today. I note from the giggling at the far end of the Chamber that that is probably the tenor of his argument. However, he has been able to discuss some of the issues today. He is right that some of them are being debated in the House of Lords at the moment. As I understand it, they have another 70 or 80 sets of amendments to deal with, and of course the process there is rather different from that in the House of Commons. Rather more time is being devoted to the Bill in the Lords, and some issues are being talked through in rather more depth. I hope that in what is sometimes a less partisan environment, some of the changes that the hon. Gentleman has advocated today will come about.
I note that the hon. Members who have spoken so far have constituencies that are called “something and something”; or rather, Cleethorpes is not really like that—the constituency is just called Cleethorpes—but I note that its Member of Parliament refers to it on his website as “Cleethorpes, Immingham, Barton and the Wold Parishes”. That just makes the point that in the historic past, when there were either county or borough Members of Parliament, everyone pretty much knew who represented them. If someone was described as the Member of Parliament for Manchester, someone who lived in Manchester knew that that was their Member of Parliament. However, through the passage of universal suffrage, the enfranchisement of women, and the steady process of changing the franchise and drawing up constituencies in the 20th century, we ended up with many constituencies that are incomprehensible to voters. One of my concerns is that the Bill now in the House of Lords will lead to a greater sense of uncertainty for voters about who their Member of Parliament is.
It is relatively easy in the Rhondda. Those who live in the Rhondda know they do, and the physical boundary is relatively well known, so people can work out quite easily that the person referred to as Member of Parliament for the Rhondda is their MP. In cities it tends to be more complicated. I suspect that things are fairly straightforward in Forest of Dean. My anxiety is that some of the provisions in the Bill will make it more difficult for voters to see such matters with clarity.
John Stevenson
I am fortunate, in that I represent the city of Carlisle, which is easy to identify, but interestingly enough, in the seat of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), there are three district councils; one of the divisions of the county council is split between the two of us. In our experience, there does not seem to be that much of a problem in identifying which of us represents the people of the area. I question whether it is as big a problem as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) thinks it is.
Chris Bryant
I do not question the hon. Gentleman’s experience, although it is relatively new. However, things are certainly very difficult in many constituencies. I get more people thinking that they are in the Rhondda who are not than the other way round. People who live in Tonyrefail, who might one day—who knows?—be in the constituency of Greater Rhondda, but are presently in the constituency of Pontypridd, believe they live in the Rhondda. There is confusion, and my anxiety is that we should not make greater confusion for voters. Most of the time most voters do not worry about such matters. It is not the most important issue in their lives.
Andrew George
I entirely support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, the boundary of my constituency changed at the 2010 election and those constituents who used to live in my old constituency still contact me. Given the arrangements in the Bill, that sort of thing would happen at every election, so there would be confusion. The point really is that while the hon. Gentleman is content about representing a constituency that is wholly the Rhondda—as is the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) about representing one that is wholly Carlisle—under the Bill, at some point a line could be drawn right through the middle of either of those constituencies.
Chris Bryant
Yes. For some strange reason I seem to have been up in Oldham recently. Oldham East and Saddleworth feels as it if it has been slammed together with no consideration of what constitutes a community.
I do not want to focus too much on that issue; I really want to talk about equalisation of seats. I cannot remember which hon. Member said it, but it is absolutely right that the apparent party political advantage to the Labour party from the fact that it takes more voters to elect a Conservative MP than a Labour one is far more to do with turnout than anything else. The equalisation of seats will make barely any difference, according to calculations done by virtually every academic so far, to the partisan advantage of one political party or another. For that matter, a 5 or 10% leeway would not make a great difference, on a partisan basis, to one or other party. In Labour constituencies there have tended to be smaller majorities, but still safe seats, whereas a Conservative safe seat tends to have a very large majority, because there is a much higher turnout.
I support equalisation to an extent, and certainly as things stand the situation is not right; it is not acceptable and there should be greater equalisation. However, I worry about the Government trying to get 99% of all seats within a very tight band. That is a much tighter band than in any other country, and it is being done on the basis of registered electors, whereas most other countries use population. The hon. Member for St Ives was right when he said it would be a mistake if, because of the Bill, we ended up with—I think these were his words—“antiseptic constituencies” with permanently mobile boundaries. That would not be good for representation of views in Parliament or for ensuring that a full cross-section of British society is here. Nor would it make it easier for people to understand who represents them, and to maintain that continuity.
To give one tiny instance, if a constituent comes to a Member with a case and the Member takes it up, it might take many years, as did many of the miners’ compensation cases that I took up. Someone whose Member stops representing them because of the boundary change must start all over again, from the beginning, because the data protection people have said that MPs cannot hand the file over to another MP. [Interruption.] The Minister is saying something. I do not know whether he wants to intervene; perhaps he will respond later.
On a point of information, international comparisons are often cited regarding the need for greater equalisation. In fact, in the United States of America, if the same equation is made concerning how many voters it takes to get someone elected, Wyoming has nearly 10.5 times the representation, for population, of California. They base their arrangements not on registered or eligible voters, but on population. Sometimes it is good to equalise—but only to an extent.
It is important to recognise the distinctness of various parts of the country when we are drawing up boundaries. Some have already been mentioned. The Isle of Wight was referred to in some of the debates we had in the House of Commons. We believe that the distinctness of the Isle of Wight should be recognised in the statute, and hold a similar belief regarding Cornwall. I note that yesterday was the anniversary of the crossing of the Rubicon. I do not know whether the crossing of the Tamar is still an ambition of the Government. In one sense, Cornwall is only administratively in England. It has a distinctness that should be recognised. If there were a referendum in Cornwall on whether Cornwall should have Cornwall-only seats, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour. I hope the Government will think again on that matter.
Many of the same issues apply to Anglesey, though in that case it goes the other way in being too small, as opposed to the Isle of Wight being too large. The point was made about Argyll and Bute, and, although it did not sound like special pleading, of course it was. However, the point was well made: it is in many ways a sparser constituency than the highland seats. There is a strong argument for the distinctiveness of Argyll and Bute.
Although I understand the issues about Wales—in particular north-west Wales, where there is a high concentration of people with Welsh as their first language—a drive towards equalisation may, and in some academics’ views will, lead to no parliamentary seat having a Welsh-speaking majority. That would be a mistake in terms of how the British Parliament is viewed in Wales, and would incense a greater sense of nationalism. The Government should recognise that.
My final point on specifics that should be recognised concerns estuaries. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) referred to sea lochs, but it is important that wide estuaries such as those on the Mersey, the Humber, the Clyde, the Forth and the Thames should not be crossed when creating parliamentary constituencies. Some argue that that should apply to Welsh valleys, because of their peculiarities. It would seem odd if a small part of the top of a valley—even if there was no connecting road—was bunged into another constituency. However, I think most issues in the Welsh valleys can be addressed; there is no specific reason why not.
A 10% rather than a 5% leeway would mean there was no need to cross ward boundaries in the creation of seats. In some of the big city conurbations, that is important. There would be no need to cross county boundaries—all geographical and physical necessities that the land, or God or whoever has given us could be met, and there would be no dramatic harm to the representativeness that the Government seek to achieve in aiming for equalisation. I hope that, in striving towards their measures, the Government will look again at whether 10% might not be a better leeway than 5%.
I want briefly to say a couple of words about the number of seats in Parliament. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that the number has always crept up, except when the Irish Free State was created and we cut the numbers. However, the measure we should think about first is the nature of the job of a Member of Parliament. International comparisons were made by the hon. Member for St Ives. However, to compare the UK with Spain, France or Germany—where Governments are not constituted in the same way—is to compare apples with pears and is therefore mistaken. Similarly, the powers held by parliamentarians in those countries are very different. In France, much more is devolved and done by councillors. We have far fewer councillors—one for every 3,000 voters, whereas in France it is one for every 110. Those comparisons do not bear examination.
As MPs, we create the Government; we are the electoral college, as it were, for the Prime Minister and the whole of the Government. All Ministers have to come out of Parliament, because the amendment in the 1689 Bill of Rights was lost. Dramatic cuts in the number of MPs would be a mistake. The number of constituents has grown and grown over the years, as has the amount of casework we are expected to do.
I have two final points. I wonder how the AV Bill—I cannot remember what it is called—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Chris Bryant
From a sedentary position, the Minister has helped me out. I wonder how the Bill is doing in the House of Lords. As I understand it, the Bill has to be out of the House of Lords in February in order to have the referendum in May. With another 70, 80, 90 sets of amendments, I wonder whether it is now possible for the Bill to have the two weeks between Committee and Report stages in the House of Lords, and come back to the House of Commons. I urge the Minister—indeed, I make him an offer: if he splits the two elements of the Bill, as we urged in the beginning, we could help him get his AV referendum in time for May.
House of Lords reform has been briefly mentioned by several Members. When are we going to have that Bill? It was originally going to be before Christmas, then at the beginning of the year, then in January. We hear rumours of March, April and May. When will we get the Bill?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), it is the first time I have done so.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate, and giving me and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) the chance to spend the entire morning in Westminster Hall, debating a fascinating range of topics.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives ranged widely across a number of constitutional issues. I hope I will deal with all the points he raised, but I might be a little pressed. I will deal first with the issues he raised, as it is his debate, and then touch on some raised by other Members. He started with the question of why the Government settled on 600 as the right number for the House of Commons. We were frank during the debate on the Bill. There is no magic about it; it is a judgment. The two coalition parties had different views before the election. They both wanted to shrink the size of the House of Commons: the Conservatives to 585, and the Liberal Democrats to 500, albeit with a change to the voting system. We settled on 600, which we thought was the right balance; as several Members have pointed out, constituencies should not be so large in population that Members could not do the job. With 600, most constituencies would be within a range that Members today would recognise, and we do not think it is an enormous leap.
The hon. Member for Rhondda said he would be against a dramatic cut in the number of MPs. The Government would be as well; we are not making a dramatic cut. We are making a modest reduction of about 7%. One can argue about it, but I do not think anyone can say that a reduction of 7% is dramatic.
I was aware of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for St Ives. He said that his Bill proposed a reduction to 500, primarily as a result of devolution. Prior to the formation of this Government, people argued that we should treat the parts of the United Kingdom that have a devolved Parliament or Assembly differently from those parts that do not, in terms of entitlement to seats at Westminster. That idea was put forward but the Government decided not to do that. We were keen to treat all parts of the United Kingdom in the same way, so the quota is a United Kingdom quota. Because of where we start from, the impact of the change in the number of seats will differ in different parts of the UK. That is because we want the weight of a constituent’s vote to be equal across the United Kingdom, and that is an important principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), wanted to know what principles guided us on the two exceptions. First, we wanted a set of principles that were widely applicable and that gave the boundary commissions the chance to allow it. We made only two exceptions out of the 600 seats for exceptional geographical reasons; the constituencies both have small populations but are large enough to sustain a Member of Parliament, as they do now, because of their dispersed geography.
I know that the matter is debatable. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute demonstrated an encyclopaedic knowledge of his constituency, as one would expect from an assiduous Member of Parliament; he certainly taught me something. None the less, I still believe that the Government have made the right judgment about the two exceptional constituencies that he selected. I would not be so churlish as to suggest that he was pleading for anything special. However, the hon. Member for Rhondda did so; he engaged in special pleading for Wales, something about which those who participated in the debate on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill heard an awful lot. We heard much about the Welsh valleys and Welsh constituencies, as the record will show.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who is not in her seat, made some specific points about Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives spoke about what he called—I have to be careful here—the border between Cornwall and England. I think that he raised exactly the same point when we were debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He referred today to the length of that debate; we had eight days of debate in the House, and he has obviously had the opportunity today to expand on the points that he made then.
In response to that debate, I said that although that view is shared by some in Cornwall, the Government’s position is that Cornwall is part of England and the United Kingdom; we do not recognise that boundary in quite the same constitutional way as does my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. I understand why my hon. Friend takes that view, but I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rhondda appeared to suggest that the boundary had constitutional significance. I do not know whether the Opposition have changed policy and are trying to separate Cornwall from England, but I do not suggest that my hon. Friend takes that view.
My hon. Friend made some good points, including about the difficulty of getting to London from his constituency. That is something that he and I can both take up with First Great Western. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has arrived for the next debate; he, too uses that train service and will concur. That will be the best way to deal with that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives accepted in general the strong case for moving towards equal seats. I was most impressed by his novel arguments, which I have not heard before, for claiming significant parts of the Atlantic ocean as part of his constituency. We might get into all sorts of territorial difficulties if we did so, but it was a novel idea.
My hon. Friend and his fellow Members of Parliament for Cornish seats met the Prime Minister and me to make a pitch and to explain why they believe that the nature of Cornwall is unique. I would leave him with this notion. The Government do not subscribe to the view that one cannot represent constituents in Cornwall and other parts of the country, Devon being the most obvious. “We already have Members of the European Parliament who represent the whole of the south-west of England, and so represent constituents in Cornwall, in Devon and, indeed in Gibraltar perfectly ably.” Cornwall and Devon also share a police force. The border is not inviolate.
I do not accept the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) shares his view, about a Member of Parliament representing, say, part of Plymouth and part of Cornwall. Of course, some things are more important to one group of constituents than to others, but that is true of many constituencies. I have a fairly large rural constituency, and at one end of it a particular range of matters will be important that have no connection with those at the other end because of the distance. Nevertheless, I have to represent them all and understand all those issues. That is part of the job of being a Member of Parliament. The Government do not share the view that it is impossible to deal with that.
Andrew George
Of course it is not impossible to represent Gibraltar and Cornwall; nor is it impossible to represent places on either side of the Scottish border. However, the Minister has rather inventively twisted some of my evidence on what was so exceptional about the two constituencies that have been preserved. The question that he must address is what is the problem in allowing the Boundary Commission reasonable flexibility to allow constituencies that have a clearly shared view about where their boundaries should lie? That is particularly so as those areas outside them would not be affected and certainly would not be protesting against such a settlement.
Mr Harper
The principle that votes should be of more equal weight across the country is important. Several Members have used words and phrases such as straitjacket and the rules being too tight. If we were to say that all constituencies had to be exactly the same size, my hon. Friend’s argument would have some force. However, although we are reducing flexibility there is still a 10% range in the size of constituencies. Based on the 2009 data, constituencies will broadly range from about 73,000 to almost 80,000. There is still a fair bit of flexibility, which allows the independent boundary commissions to take account of issues such as local authority boundaries, community boundaries and the geographic features that we have to contend with.
In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the boundary commissions said that they would be perfectly able to deal with the rules proposed in the Bill, and that it would not present them with insuperable problems. We are fortunate that the four boundary commissions are politically independent. Those who pretend that some sort of gerrymandering exercise is going on are simply wrong. That phrase emanates from the USA. As one of my hon. Friends said, it is not that there is just some political interference there; in some parts of the United States, the boundaries are drawn up by the legislatures. It is not that there is interference, but it is a political decision on where the boundaries should be. We do not do that here. Parliament sets the framework, but decisions about where the boundaries should go are taken by boundary commissions.
Andrew George
That is the nub of the debate. The exception argument for the two preserved constituencies that the Minister has advanced this morning does not deal with the question of why that principle was decided upon, and why that reasonable flexibility should not also be applied for other constituencies.
Mr Harper
I shall deal briefly with the other two points raised by my hon. Friend, as they were important, particularly so in his part of the country. He was right to draw attention to the need for an accurate and complete electoral register. Our electoral registration system means that 91% or 92% of eligible voters are registered. Internationally, that is pretty good. However, the Government are not complacent and want to do better. That is why I wrote to every local authority in the autumn, inviting them to take part in pilots to consider using public sector databases to improve the accuracy and completeness of the register. We had a good response, and I shall announce which local authorities are to participate in those pilots in due course.
I wrote to my hon. Friend about dual registration, which I know is important in Cornwall. He referred to people who own second homes and who choose to pay business rates because they let those properties. The rules are fairly clear. People who let their property are not entitled to register to vote. There must be a residence qualification, and there is case law on the matter. Electoral registration officers have to make such decisions on individual cases, and they should do so. I have received letters from people who object to not being allowed to register to vote, but one test is for the electoral registration system to be robust with them. Those who own a second home who pop there for only a week every year for a holiday will almost certainly not fulfil the criteria for being resident and entitled to vote. Local authorities could do a lot to help with that.
World Heritage Status (York)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Every MP is proud of his or her constituency, and I, like the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), am specially privileged to represent the city of York. As the new film “The King’s Speech” puts King George VI very much in the public eye, let me remind Members that on a visit to the city, he said that the history of York was also a history of England. When I tell people that York is applying for UNESCO world heritage status, they often express surprise that York has not already achieved such a status. To see why, one just has to look at York’s city walls, York minster, which is the largest gothic cathedral in northern Europe and contains some 60% of our country’s mediaeval stained glass, and the Roman Multangular tower that still stands 10 metres above the ground.
When I speak to people from abroad and tell them that I come from York, everyone, without exception, has heard of the city, and many have visited it in the way in which they have visited Florence, Athens or Jerusalem. York has an enormous international reputation, but I am afraid that that has made us complacent. Until a few years ago, we did not seriously think of applying to UNESCO for designation as a world heritage site, because we knew that we lived in one of the most precious gems in the western world and thought that nothing more needed to be said or done. I pay enormous tribute to Janet Hopton, who has led the campaign locally to seek world heritage designation for the city of York. I stress that it is a citizens’ campaign; it is a campaign that has come not from politicians but from the people of York. None the less, the campaign has all-party support, and we will hear in this debate from the city’s two Members of Parliament.
Over the past three years, I have worked with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister’s predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and Barbara Follett, the former Member for Stevenage, to discuss how we in the UK can possibly get the door open again so that UNESCO will consider bids from cities such as York. I should like to thank the Department and the Minister’s officials for their support over that period.
If York had applied for this status a decade ago, I am pretty certain that our application would have been accepted. Now, however, UNESCO understandably and rightly wants to see a balance in its world heritage list. There are already many great walled cathedral cities in this country and other countries on the list, and UNESCO has new ambitions. It may not accept an application for the built heritage of a city such as York. That has made us think more clearly about what is absolutely unique and irreplaceable about York, and we came to the conclusion that it is not what is immediately apparent—the Roman, the Viking or mediaeval built heritage. It is not what is above ground, but what is still hidden underground.
York has been continuously inhabited as a city for 2,000 years. It is built at the confluence of two rivers, the Ouse and the Foss, which makes the ground waterlogged. Such unique anoxic conditions—conditions where the water prevents oxygen getting to objects buried in the ground—preserve centuries-old objects, which, in any other place, would have disintegrated. The water preserves organic material, such as wood, leather and textiles, that otherwise would simply rot away.
We have a Viking shoe and Viking cloth from the Jorvik dig. Wooden buildings from Jorvik can now be seen plank by plank, beam by beam, in the same way in which they would have been seen 1,000 years ago had they not been buried. Even the leftovers from meals are available for analysis. They tell us what people ate 1,000 years ago. There is nowhere else in western Europe with similar anoxic conditions. We know a lot about York from the excavations that have taken place, but only 2% of the ancient city has been excavated; 98% is fully preserved. That is what needs UNESCO’s designation and protection.
If successful, York’s bid would provide the only UNESCO world heritage site inscribed solely on the basis of its underground deposits. York’s unique subterranean heritage is complemented by world-class archaeology in teaching, research, conservation and entrepreneurship. The university of York’s department of archaeology is a centre of excellence in computing for archaeology and bio-archaeology through its environmental archaeology unit. The Council for British Archaeology, which promotes public engagement with archaeology, is a national body but is based in the city of York. The York Archaeological Trust is respected as one of the most successful archaeological trusts. It dug Coppergate 30 years ago and not only produced an incredible record of what life was like in Viking Jorvik but turned archaeology into a commercial success.
Some 17 million visitors have visited the Jorvik Viking centre since it opened in 1984, including the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I encourage the present Prime Minister and his family to come and join the many who have visited the Jorvik Viking centre, because I know that he visits north Yorkshire from time to time. The Archaeological Trust also runs the dig centre, which provides hands-on opportunities for young people to experience archaeology. There are also many other bodies based in York, such as the York Glaziers Trust, English Heritage, the Civic Trust, the Georgian Society, the Mediaeval Guilds, the Archaeological Data Service and others. Between them, they create a culture of support for scientific study and conservation of this wonderful and great city, which the hon. Member for York Outer and I have the great privilege to represent.
This bid looks to York’s future as well as its past. We receive 7 million visitors a year, who spend almost half a billion pounds in York, which sustains 20,000 people in employment. We have a visitor economy; people have come to the great cathedral city of the north of England for centuries. The only thing that we really miss in York is a good saint, with relics in the minster. World heritage status would protect and enhance the city’s global reputation.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Just on the economic benefit that the hon. Gentleman describes, Skipton and Ripon has one of the other Yorkshire world heritage sites of Studley Royal and Fountains Abbey, and one cannot underestimate the huge benefits that such a status gives to the local economy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaign and give it all my support. For Skipton and Ripon, it makes a huge difference and it would also make a huge difference to York.
Hugh Bayley
That is a very valuable, very kind and very important testimony, because there are some people who believe that world heritage status would act as an economic deadweight on the city and it is my very strongly held view—one shared by all the parties on the city council—that nothing could be further from the truth. Inappropriate development of buildings in York cannot, should not and will not take place whether or not the city gains world heritage status, because York has a duty to respond as if it had the status whether it wins it or not. Nevertheless, the increased international recognition and support that York could receive to preserve the heritage of the city as a result of designation would further benefit the visitor economy.
I should perhaps say how pleased I am to see other Members from Yorkshire here for this debate—the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)—as well as my fellow representative of the city of York, the hon. Member for York Outer, all supporting the argument that I am making to the Minister.
I have a few questions to put to the Minister. I would like him to clarify for us the timetable for the decisions by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the tentative list of bids for world heritage status. I ask him personally to read York’s bid; I know that there are 38 bids, but I would like him to give a commitment to us during this debate that he will read York’s bid. I want to tell him that he is welcome to visit York, to see what is being proposed and to discuss with some of the archaeology and heritage bodies in the city why the bid is so important. If he is not able to visit York but would like further briefing, we can arrange for people from the city to come and visit him down here in Westminster. I also want to ask him how many of the 38 applications he believes will end up on the tentative list and, finally, how many of those he would expect to receive approval from UNESCO and when.
Those are my questions to the Minister. I will sit down now, to leave a little time for the other Member for the city of York, the hon. Member for York Outer, to make his own contribution to the debate.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mrs Riordan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.
I congratulate my neighbouring parliamentary colleague, the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), on securing this very important debate for our great city of York and I warmly welcome his speech, which I know comes from a great depth of knowledge. We may represent different political parties, but I have no doubt that he shares my desire to serve our great city for the benefit of all its residents. Indeed, as he has already mentioned, this bid for world heritage status has cross-party political support in the city, which is very important. It is vital that we put aside our tribal differences on this occasion and promote what is great about York and its bid for world heritage status, because a successful bid would be so important for the city.
Of course, I am aware that time is short in this debate and it is very important that we hear from the Minister and give him plenty of time to respond to the debate. The hon. Member for York Central has put some specific questions that I would also like to hear the answers to.
The hon. Gentleman has also outlined the background to York’s bid and he made some very powerful arguments supporting the city’s attempt to be placed on the tentative list for world heritage status. Indeed, I fully subscribe to all the points that have already been made in the debate. The hon. Gentleman talked about people within the city and visitors to the city who are surprised that York is not already on the list for world heritage status, and I share their view; I have had that same experience of people expressing surprise that York is not already on the list. That is a very important point to make in this debate.
In my opinion, York’s outstanding range of archaeological gems is almost unprecedented in the United Kingdom. The city boasts Roman cemeteries, trading settlements and other deposits that can be traced as far back as the seventh century AD. However, thus far we have only scratched the surface. I know that the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned this point, but it is very important; local experts believe that only 2% of the city has been excavated so far, leaving 98% undiscovered. That is an important point that we must mention in this debate and in the wider context of the bidding process.
Indeed, it is the potential for further archaeological finds and breakthroughs that I find the most fascinating aspect of this whole process. Crucially, the bid is not solely reliant on the deposits that have already been discovered, although they are remarkably impressive. I am grateful to see so many of our regional colleagues here today, and Members who attended an earlier meeting will have seen some of those impressive artefacts. Nevertheless, we must also give great consideration to what we have not yet seen and what can potentially be discovered. In my view, we must ensure that a successful world heritage bid is not the end of the process but the beginning of a whole new chapter in the history of York and its archaeological finds. Building a legacy, rather than merely celebrating a legacy, is at the core of this bid.
The department of archaeology at the university of York is already recognised worldwide as a centre of excellence in the teaching of archaeology, and a successful bid would further boost interest and funding, ensuring that York remains a world leader when it comes to pioneering archaeological research.
The bid has attracted support from across the city. As I have already mentioned, there is cross-party support for it and again I want to say how grateful I am to see so many colleagues from the wider region here to support the bid today.
I also want to take this opportunity to praise the York world heritage steering group, which has led the bid with determination and vigour since 2006. We must pay tribute today to the group’s determination to see this whole process through and the experience that it brings to the process.
For me, the potential benefits of a successful bid are countless. First, there are potential economic benefits, which are important. In the past, arguments have occasionally been made against the world heritage bid on the economic front, but I think that those arguments are invalid. On the economic front alone, it is estimated that 23,000 jobs would be safeguarded by a successful bid, with the potential for many more jobs to be created, which would further enhance York’s vital tourism sector and contribute substantially to our local economy.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing this wonderful debate. As a Member of Parliament for a west Yorkshire constituency and as someone who was born in north Yorkshire, I hold the subject of the debate very close to my heart. York is a wonderful city. We have already heard lots of wonderful facts about it. Personally, I love bringing my children to the National Railway museum; I love meandering down the Shambles; I like showing Australians around York Minster, and we all enjoyed Royal Ascot when it was held at York race course just a few years ago.
So I just want to stress that there is cross-party support across the region for this bid and I am very proud to be here today to support this application for York to receive world heritage status. Good luck to everybody here, and I hope that the Minister can take on board all our cross-party regional support for this bid.
Julian Sturdy
I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. It is really important that we already have cross-party support for this bid, as well as regional support, because this process is not just about York; it is about the region too and York is a key city within our region. If it is successful, the bid can bring so much to the city of York and to our great region, benefiting the regional economy and particularly tourism. That is another important point to take away from this debate.
York truly is a beautiful city, set in God’s own county. As a proud, born-and-bred Yorkshireman, I know that York’s heritage is world-class; not only the archaeological side but, as has already been mentioned, the National Railway museum and the Minster. I remember taking my children to the National Railway museum; indeed, I still take them. The city walls, the minster—it really is a fantastic city.
It is a travesty that York is not already a world heritage site and its historical importance must be recognised. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to support York’s bid, without compromising his position. I understand his position in the bidding process, but I urge him to do all he can to support the York bid as we enter what is undoubtedly a crucial phase. I look forward to hearing his comments on the bidding process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mrs Riordan, to look after us during this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing it and being supported by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and other MPs from the Yorkshire area. It is timely, given where we are in the process of assessing the various applications for world heritage site status, and it demonstrates strongly the widespread cross-party support that MPs have mentioned. It is reassuring to see such support not just in Parliament but, as I understand, at a local council and local government level. I am sure that it will underpin the bid’s many strengths and help it dramatically.
I was thankful for a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer at the end of his speech. He said—I hope that everybody here will understand this—that I will have to be a bit careful in my remarks, as I must not prejudice my position in advance of the independent report from the committee of experts currently considering the various applications. I hope that everyone here will understand that although I share many of hon. Members’ views on the quality of York’s bid, I must ensure that I take a decision after comparing it against what I am sure will be strong bids in the other applications. Although I agree enthusiastically with many of the points made about York’s qualities, no one should take that as a prejudice in comparison to the strengths and weaknesses of other bids. Others out there will also be good.
From the UK’s point of view, it is particularly important that we have as many high-quality bids as possible. As the hon. Member for York Central pointed out, world heritage organisations have become a great deal more choosy and careful about what kinds of application they are willing to accept, and are raising the bar. To paraphrase him, a large number of northern European cathedral cities, many of which are excellent, wonderful and fully deserving of their status, are world heritage sites. As York is not one of them already, it must distinguish itself in some other way, because there are many other deserving sites in other parts of the world that also deserve proper consideration. He was right to draw that to our collective attention.
The hon. Member for York Central asked whether I would like to visit York. I already have. I am delighted to say that after I became Minister with responsibility for heritage, I did an extensive tour of Yorkshire. I spent some time in York and had the opportunity to see some of the attractions and heritage features that he mentioned, both above and below ground. He is absolutely right: there are some amazing things to see, from the city walls to the minster. I was lucky enough to be shown around the minster, as well as to see stonemasons working on the very fine stonework, which must be replaced continually due to the effects of anno domini on an amazingly complex and old building.
I also visited the Yorkshire museum, where at one point I had the chance to stand on a Roman mosaic set into the floor. I must confess that I was slightly conflicted about doing so. Part of me was amazed and delighted to see such a beautiful piece of Roman mosaic, but standing on it somehow felt wrong. It is a wonderful piece of interactivity. I am told that school parties going through the museum love the chance to interact with an incredibly ancient piece of architecture. However, I also worried, standing on it, that future generations might have half a millimetre less of it to enjoy due to the wear and tear of feet going over it.
There is no doubt that York has plenty to see, much of it involving the city’s amazing architecture. However, as both MPs for York have pointed out, it has a huge wealth of heritage that is almost certainly undiscovered; 98% is the figure commonly used. Clearly, therefore, this is a great opportunity for more to be discovered and for continuing richness to be elaborated and shown to future generations.
The hon. Gentleman asked for more details about the process. I will summarise it briefly. In case I miss anything, I point out that we have put more details of the dates and timetable up on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website; that should be happening about now. I am told that that information was on the DCMS website but, for some reason that no one can fathom, was taken down by accident recently. We are now putting that right, so more details will be available after this debate for anybody who wants to discover anything extra.
In broad terms, we have encouraged people to apply to be put on the new tentative list. We have received 38 extremely good and varied applications; I am delighted that we have had so many. Those applications are being considered by a panel of independent experts who are assessing them, weighing them up and comparing their relative merits. The panel is at work as we speak, and I expect it to report to me in March, when my officials and I will consider its report and decide on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many applications we are likely to put on the tentative list and how many applications on the tentative list are likely to be inscribed as world heritage sites. I am afraid that I cannot tell him, because that will depend partly on the report from the independent panel of experts. Clearly, the experts would not be very independent if I told them how many to choose; it will depend on their conclusions. We are allowed to propose only two individual sites from the tentative list for consideration in any given year. If we have a list of 20, we will put those 20 forward in a steady trickle rather than all at once. It will then be up to the world heritage organisation to decide which ones it wants to adopt. We cannot tell whether any will be successful. Obviously, I hope that as many as possible will be.
I will finish with a comment on the questions raised and certainties expressed by both Members for York about the benefits of world heritage status. I agree with both their comments. Some people worry that world heritage status might incur additional costs of one kind or another in increased heritage protection and preservation, or that it might stunt economic growth. I take a different view, as I think do most people. Particularly in places such as York, many entirely sensible measures necessary to preserve heritage are already in place. Little, if any, additional cost would be incurred.
Making it clear that a place is special and distinct adds to its aura and demonstrates that it is worth visiting and a wonderful place to live. It makes the place distinctive. It is not just a question of tourist pounds and dollars, although they are tremendously important for any local economy; it is also important from the point of view of the beauty and sense of a place, and what makes it distinctive, different and worth living in. Therefore, I argue that from a cultural, heritage and economic point of view, the benefits of being a world heritage site are tremendous for a location such as York, and for many other places as well.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I accept that point entirely. World heritage site status for York would undoubtedly boost its already fantastic tourism industry, but it could also have a knock-on effect in surrounding areas such as my neighbouring constituency. Selby has fantastic gems, including two famous battlefields and a wonderful abbey, and it was the birthplace of a king of England. I support the bid, and I hope the Minister will take on board the wonderful representations made by the hon. Members from York.
John Penrose
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that a halo effect can be expected from a world heritage site. I have no doubt that the benefits would knock on to other parts of Yorkshire as well.
My only point of difference is with the assertion by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that Yorkshire is God’s own county. As someone from Somerset, which of course has better beer and better cricket, I cannot let that go by. Other than that—I had better stop before I get lynched—I am delighted that there is such strong and cross-party support for what I am sure will be an excellent bid.
Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Libya)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Today I want to ask questions relating to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, whether its conclusion made the release of the Lockerbie bomber, al-Megrahi, more likely, and whether, despite assurances that the decision to release him was one for the Scottish Executive to make alone, the UK Government set the stage for the release and could have intervened to stop it had they wished to do so. I am grateful that the Minister is here to respond to the debate, because his Department played a pivotal role in negotiating the agreement and advising Government Departments and the Scottish Executive on its consequences.
In December 2010, members of the United States Senate published their report on the release of Megrahi. Their conclusions are not much different from the views expressed by many other individuals who have followed the affair. They conclude that the UK Government were prepared to agree in principle to the release of al-Megrahi in return for the protection of British commercial interests in Libya, particularly those in the energy industries, and that they made it clear to the Scottish Executive that they wanted Megrahi to be released and did nothing to stop that happening. Many people find it hard to believe that the UK Government were powerless because the release was entirely a matter for Scotland and that they rightly chose to apply no pressure to Scottish Ministers on that. However, Parliament has not had the opportunity to explore the matter properly.
Like many other Members, I believe that the release of Megrahi was wrong, and like the authors of the US Senate report, I believe that there should be an inquiry to establish exactly how and why the release came about. I would rather see such inquiries and reports produced by Parliament or the UK Government. I also urge the Cabinet Secretary to conclude his review of the unpublished Government papers relating to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement and the release of Megrahi. He was asked by the Prime Minister to conduct that review last summer, and we are eager for its results.
The purpose of the debate is not to bring forward any criticism of the Libyan Government, who have been clear about their intentions in the negotiation of the PTA and always intended that successful negotiations should lead to Megrahi’s release. One might wonder at the significance of the agreement for them otherwise, as only 20 of the 13,429 foreign prisoners in the UK are Libyan, compared with 188 from neighbouring Algeria.
The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), stated in an interview that to link the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya to British commercial interests in that country was
“a slur both on myself and the Government”.
He said in the House of Commons during a statement following the release of Megrahi that
“there was no deal for the release of Megrahi in respect of trade, and that is absolutely right.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 35.]
However, we know from the records already released by the UK Government that that link was expressly made in the negotiations for the agreement.
The key period of the negotiations came in late 2007. On 23 September that year, the then Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), offered an unequivocal assurance to the Scottish Government that
“My officials will make clear to the Libyan authorities that without this addition”—
of a clause excluding Megrahi from the agreement—
“it will not be possible to conclude a prisoner transfer agreement”.
However, on 17 December a Ministry of Justice internal briefing note to the PTA negotiations confirmed that the Libyan Government had threatened to halt commercial contracts unless the PTA was agreed. It stated:
“Despite a consistent negotiating line that the case of the Lockerbie bomber would not be covered by the PTA, the Libyans have continued to press for a general agreement and linked the fate of some commercial contracts to its successful conclusion.”
The British objection to the inclusion of Megrahi within the terms of the PTA was then dropped.
Why did the Government drop their insistence on a clause excluding Megrahi from the PTA, and what advice did officials give to Ministers on their decision to drop the clause? They must have known that that would lead to an application from the Libyan Government for his release. Was the Ministry of Justice satisfied with that? Had the then Lord Chancellor been successfully lobbied by representatives of British commercial interest—the US Senate report states that he was lobbied by BP on three separate occasions—or was he lobbied by his colleagues in Government and convinced that it was not a fight worth having? The picture remains unclear. Former Ministers have acknowledged that it is perfectly proper for a Government to consider the importance of commercial relations as part of improving relations between Britain and Libya, but they were reluctant to make the link publically in that instance.
Ministers seemed at pains, once the agreement had been made on the PTA, to stress its relevance to the Libyan Government’s long-standing desire to see Megrahi released. The former Europe Minister, Bill Rammell, wrote to the Libyan Government following the negotiations to explain
“the processes that would apply as regards any consideration of transfer or compassionate release on licence of Mr Megrahi”
and noted how the PTA was “relevant” to this. Mr Rammell also confirmed to the Libyans in a meeting in Libya that the Government did not want to see Megrahi die in prison. Once agreed, the PTA, although offering no guarantees, was clearly a mechanism designed to support that wish. The former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, also advised that a decision on the transfer of a prisoner under the terms of the PTA
“may be subject to judicial review”.
Therefore, even if a Scottish Minister had refused release, the decision could have been reviewed by the courts. Is that still the view of the Ministry of Justice on how the PTA could work in practice?
Despite the often repeated line from Ministers that the final decision to release Megrahi was one for Scottish Ministers, the sensitive nature of his release, its consequences for international relations and the fact that his imprisonment was the result of his conviction for an international terrorism offence, meant that the UK Government could and should have intervened. That was certainly the view of many people around the world who were so aggrieved by his release, particularly in the United States. It is an issue that the US Senate report also explored. Does the Ministry of Justice believe that the UK Government could have intervened in such a way had they wished to do so? The principle seems to have been conceded by the former Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House of Commons in October 2009, when he said:
“Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish Ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK Government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision… British interests… would be damaged—perhaps badly—if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 35.]
In that case, the previous Government seemed to give greater consideration to the impact of feelings between Britain and Libya than with the USA if he was released. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks that there was a foreign policy dimension to the decision, and this was a matter for the UK Government to consider.
I do not wish to go into the question of the diagnosis of Megrahi’s cancer or his life expectancy. Others can draw their conclusions from the fact that a man who was given three months to live more than 18 months ago is still with us. That may say something about the quality of his diagnosis in Scotland, or the quality of health care and treatment in Libya. When the moment for Megrahi’s release came, the Scottish Government decided that they could not accept it under the PTA as that would compromise an understanding that had been made between the UK and the USA, and so they released him on compassionate grounds as a free man, rather than transferring him as a prisoner. Whatever path they had taken, once the PTA had been agreed, only one outcome looked likely.
The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Libyan Governments that led to the negotiation of the PTA was agreed in the same month that BP signed its agreement with Libya. The relationship between UK commercial interests and the fate of Megrahi has been a constant thread throughout the proceedings. Their conclusion angered many people around the world, particularly the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. I ask that we have either a full disclosure from the Government of the decision-making process that led to that, or an inquiry to establish why that happened.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this important debate and on the way he set out his argument, particularly the questions he has asked the Minister. The question being discussed today is whether al-Megrahi should have been released in the way he was. Some of my constituents have written to me on the issue. They and many others across the country are worried that the former Prime Minister or his colleagues did a secret deal on the release of al-Megrahi to help BP win oil contracts with Libya, and that devolution was used as a fig leaf for commercial purposes. It is a serious accusation to make. Like many people in Scotland and across the country, everyone is anxious to know the real facts.
As I noted last year in my early-day motion 575, in September 2007 the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the then Justice Secretary, assured the Scottish Government that al-Megrahi would be excluded from the final prisoner transfer agreement. In December 2007, the Scottish Government were told by the UK Government that they had been unable to secure an exemption for al-Megrahi and had decided to go ahead with the agreement
“in view of the overwhelming interests of the UK”.
In January 2008, Libya ratified a major oil deal with BP that had previously been stalled. That is why I asked the current Prime Minister on 6 September 2010 what meetings his predecessor or his predecessor’s officials had held with BP or the Libyan Government between July 2007 and March 2008, and whether the subject of any such meetings was
“oil drilling off the coast of Libya.”
The Prime Minister replied:
“I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all the papers relating to this issue, and we will report shortly on his conclusions.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 2W.]
A few months later, I asked when the Cabinet Secretary might finish his review. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his reply, which was:
“The Cabinet Secretary expects to conclude his work shortly. Dependent upon the outcome, this may include publishing additional relevant papers.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 681W.]
In the end, al-Megrahi was released not under the prisoner transfer agreement but on compassionate grounds. Despite the reports of terminal cancer, he is still alive today. Whatever the commercial effects on BP, al-Megrahi was tried and convicted in a British court of murdering 270 people. A mass murderer convicted by our courts was let out of prison and sent back to a dictatorship where he was welcomed as a hero and now lives in freedom. That is not something that we can forget. We need to know whether the release was legitimate, or whether it was a distortion of the will of a British court.
Let me be clear: the coalition Government are doing absolutely the right thing on transparency and opening up information to the public. I welcome this debate because Britain deserves to know the facts. I urge the Scottish Cabinet Secretary to move swiftly, so that the Government can report as soon as possible on his conclusions. Devolution or not, never again must a known mass murderer be released under such controversy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I would like to follow the usual courtesies and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this debate. The prisoner transfer agreement with Libya has attracted significant parliamentary and media attention since the negotiations began in 2007, and I know that since his arrival in the House, he has sought information relating to those negotiations and the subsequent release by the Scottish Executive of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. I hope during the course of my remarks to address a number of the points that he made, and I hope that I will have some satisfactory news about the Scottish Cabinet Secretary at their conclusion.
Let us be clear: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of causing the largest peacetime loss of life on British territory. His actions and those of his backers resulted in the death of 190 Americans, 43 Britons and 19 people of other nationalities. Shortly before Christmas, families and friends of the innocent victims commemorated the 22nd anniversary of their murder. I am sure that their pain is still great, and that the memory of what happened that night will live with them always. The release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds can only have added to that pain. In that sense, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) at the conclusion of his remarks.
Al-Megrahi’s release from custody was a decision made solely by Scottish Ministers in accordance with Scots law. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will be aware that the Scottish First Minister and the Scottish Minister for Justice responsible for the decision have made that clear in their public statements, and that the Scottish Minister for Justice has also set out publicly the reasons for reaching that decision. Many hon. Members disagreed with it. At the time, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both condemned the decision to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, and described it as wrong and misguided. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the decision to release al-Megrahi was a legitimate decision for the Scottish Executive to make.
I now turn to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement, but I should first make it clear, as my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Folkestone and Hythe did, that it was not the means used to facilitate the release of al-Megrahi. Indeed, his request for a transfer to a Libyan prison was refused by Scottish Ministers, in line with the terms of the agreement.
Hon. Members will be aware that in May 2007, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, visited Libya for discussions with the President, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and that during the course of that visit a memorandum of understanding was signed between the United Kingdom and Libya which provided for the negotiation of four agreements in the field of judicial co-operation. The agreements related to extradition, criminal and civil law, mutual legal assistance and prisoner transfers. They were intended, in part, to mark the return of Libya to the international community following its renunciation of support for international terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. That was an important policy objective of the UK Government and their European partners at the time.
Responsibility for the negotiation of prisoner transfer agreements on behalf of the UK rests with the Ministry of Justice. Since 1985, the UK has negotiated 23 bilateral prisoner transfer agreements, including the one with Libya. In addition, it is a signatory to two multi-party prisoner transfer agreements. In all, the UK has prisoner transfer agreements with more than 100 countries and territories, so the essence of the fact that there are only 20 Libyans in our prisons is not necessarily unique in terms of the arrangements that we have with other countries. There are not that many Rwandans in our prisons either; again, we have a prisoner transfer agreement with Rwanda.
Negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya was conducted over several months by a small team of officials from the National Offender Management Service with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is normal practice. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), then the Secretary of State for Justice, was the Minister responsible for the negotiations. The officials responsible for negotiating the prisoner transfer agreement did so on the basis of a negotiating mandate agreed at each stage with Ministers. At the outset, it included a remit to exclude from the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi and anyone connected with the Lockerbie bombing.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will understand that I am bound by convention in what I can say about the actions of a previous Administration. That is particularly the case in describing the motives of the previous Government in seeking to conclude a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, and their subsequent decision not to insist on a clause that would exclude al-Megrahi from it. In that sense, I am unable to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow about its being a secret deal, with devolution being a fig leaf.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), then the Foreign Secretary, made a statement to the House on 12 October 2009 in which he stated:
“In May 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair made his second visit to Libya. His summit with Colonel Gaddafi at Sirte covered the full range of our interests with Libya. Mr. Blair signed a defence accord and witnessed the public signature of a major BP exploration contract. Also agreed was a memorandum of understanding on negotiations for a judicial co-operation package, including a prisoner transfer agreement and agreements on mutual legal assistance, extradition, and civil and commercial law.
The UK had a model agreement, based on Council of Europe arrangements, that was the starting point for negotiation on our prisoner transfer agreements with any country and that provided the starting point for negotiations with the Libyans. Four points are relevant. First, a PTA provides for prisoner transfer, not prisoner release. Secondly, it provides a framework for transfer, not a right to transfer. Thirdly, a PTA cannot be used when appeals, including by the prosecuting authority, are outstanding, as in this case. Fourthly, Ministers in the sentencing jurisdiction—in this case Scotland—have an absolute right to veto any transfer.
This standard draft had no provision for any carve-out for any named prisoner. However, the Scottish Executive made strong representations for us to seek to alter the standard PTA so as specifically to exclude Mr. Megrahi. The UK negotiation team, led by the Ministry of Justice, sought in good faith to achieve this goal.
The Libyans insisted that the only PTA that they would sign was a PTA without any exclusions. So the Government had a clear choice. We could agree to a standard PTA with no exclusions, retaining for Scottish Ministers an absolute veto over any request for prisoner transfer in the case of Megrahi—a veto which they used in August this year”—
August 2009—
“or we could have ended the negotiations to prevent an application for prisoner transfer. This would have set back our wider national and commercial interests that flowed from normalised relations, as the Justice Secretary has made clear.”
I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe that some of his disappointment with the actions of the previous Administration is caused by the fact that they were not prepared to be clear about the interests at stake. The then Foreign Secretary continued:
“Since the PTA involved no prejudice to the rights of the Scottish Executive, nor pressure on the Scottish Executive, the Government decided it was right to go ahead. The PTA finally took effect in April 2009.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 30-31.]
On whether that decision was correct, I do not think I can add anything to the description of the negotiating process.
There has been speculation surrounding the role that commercial interests—primarily those of BP—played in the decision not to seek the exclusion of al-Megrahi from the terms of the PTA. In July 2010, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to Senator Kerry, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, setting out the extent of BP’s involvement. During the several months of discussion in 2007 about Libyan opposition to the possible exclusion in the PTA, there were a number of conversations between BP and the then UK Government. Specifically, there were three discussions between BP and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, or his office, between October and November 2007; at least two contacts in the same period between BP and the then Prime Minister’s foreign policy adviser; and contacts with Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tripoli. During those discussions, the progress of negotiations on the UK-Libya transfer agreement and the likely timing of the agreement being signed were discussed. As BP made clear in its statement on 15 July 2010, it had been made aware by the Libyans that failure to agree the PTA could have an impact on UK commercial interests, including Libyan ratification of the BP exploration agreement signed in May 2007, and it wished to bring that fact to the attention of the UK Government.
Damian Collins
For the record, I want to make it clear that the contact of Sir Mark Allen of BP with the right hon. Member for Blackburn coincided with the change in the British negotiating position on the PTA and the decision to withdraw the exclusion of al-Megrahi.
Mr Blunt
I confess that I have insufficient detail on the times and dates of all the contacts between BP and the various parts of the Government to be able to agree with my hon. Friend, but I imagine that what he says is probably broadly correct and probably not a matter of dispute. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to Senator Kerry, it was perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company to draw to the attention of the UK Government the interests at stake.
A significant amount of information relating to the negotiation of the PTA, including correspondence between the then Justice Secretary and Scottish Ministers, has already been made public, and I have drawn upon it in my remarks this afternoon. However, to ensure the fullest possible explanation of the circumstances surrounding the decision, the Prime Minister has instructed the Cabinet Secretary to review the papers to see if more needs to be published about the background to the decision. I know that my hon. Friends eagerly anticipate that report. I can tell them, in civil service language, that it will be published “very shortly”, so I hope that they will not have to wait very long for more information to be placed at their disposal and to see whether it brings new matters to our attention.
I am limited by convention on what can be said about a previous Administration. My hon. Friends have properly drawn the matter to the attention of the House.
Damian Collins
The report of the US Senate suggested that the UK Government had legal authority to intervene in the matter. In my remarks, I asked whether that was the view of the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Blunt
I am grateful for that intervention; I meant to pick up on my hon. Friend’s point. I am advised that, no, it is not a matter on which the UK Government would be in a position to intervene. It is properly a matter for the sentencing authority—in this case, that is Scottish Ministers—to make the decision. They cannot be second-guessed by the UK Government exercising a different authority under the agreement.
My hon. Friend also asked about judicial review of the Scottish decision. The truth is that any prisoner could seek judicial review, and the outcome would be up to the judge who heard the review, but I am advised that it is very difficult to see how a review in those circumstances would meet the test for judicial review or for a decision to be overturned.
Following the request from the Prime Minister, we can look forward to more information from the Cabinet Secretary in a short time. I note that my hon. Friends have urged that the review be brought to a rapid conclusion, and I am confident that their request will be noted and accepted.
Regeneration (Tottenham)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Riordan, for allowing me to have this debate, which comes at such a crucial time for my constituency, wider north London and the upper Lea valley. This is one of the first times that I have had the opportunity in the House to give a speech that surveys my entire constituency. I do not think that I have spoken in this way since my maiden speech 10 years ago. I said then that we have to invest in the souls of Tottenham people as well as their skills.
The decision before us would rip the soul out of my constituency and wider north London, and affect the entire upper Lea valley. I will explain why that is so in relation to regeneration. Three things make being the MP for Tottenham particularly special: one is our history, which is wrapped up in our football team, but also in our special part of north London. Tottenham is on the A10 corridor and the old Roman road that ran from Bishopsgate to Lincoln, York and the north. It is historically part of Middlesex and the home of the Somerset family. Tottenham, and the London Borough of Enfield, is a part of London that people have come to from all corners of the world to make their home, because of the nature of its housing stock and its position near places where people could find jobs.
That point brings me to the second special thing about the constituency, which, of course, is its people. In the past 50 or 60 years of Tottenham’s history, they have been people working in the rag trade, Jewish refugees from violence and prejudice in Europe, and immigrants from the Commonwealth who came to make a new life. Those immigrants included my father, who arrived in this country in 1956. Tottenham is where I grew up. I went to primary school there and I know the streets, so this debate is personal. It is an important opportunity to raise these issues.
The third special thing about my constituency is that it is always wonderful to represent a seat with a top premiership club. It is important to think about the history of the club. Spurs was started 120 years ago by local schoolboys from the Hotspur cricket club, and played in Northumberland park. The team was first brought together by a bible teacher from All Hallows church in Tottenham, and was represented by heroes from the community, many of whom were born and brought up in Tottenham. Successive generations have supported the team for 120 years, paying for tickets and supporting the team throughout its highs and lows.
During the dark days of the 1980s, we saw some of the worst violence that we have ever seen on the streets of this country, but not long afterwards, Tottenham won the FA cup and there was cheering that lifted my spirits at a bleak time. Regeneration of communities such as Tottenham, Moss Side in Manchester, Toxteth in Liverpool and the Gorbals in Glasgow also regenerates our country. Our country’s success is guided by the poorest and the weakest in our communities, so this debate and the decision that may lead to the football club leaving one of London’s poorest communities is grave. Who allowed that to happen? Whose bright idea was it to encourage Tottenham Hotspur to bid for the Olympic stadium on the other side of London, which would leave one of the biggest regeneration holes in London that we have seen for a generation? There are rumours that the Mayor encouraged Spurs to bid, which seems an absurd and ridiculous decision in the context of the regeneration of one of the poorest communities in the country.
At the turn of the 21st century, Tottenham was a town that the Government had forgotten in a part of London that too often failed its residents and especially its young people. When I became the MP for Tottenham, more young people there were going to prison than to university. Tottenham was still scarred by unemployment, with levels of more than 20% in the 1980s and 1990s, and in some communities it was higher than 40%. Some housing estates and communities experienced unemployment of more than 50%.
Imagine what that meant for hundreds of young people growing up without work, and for their families. Imagine the legacy that we still live with because of that unemployment. I need not name the headlines about Tottenham, because they were national headlines that usually involved vulnerable children who were knifed or who died in other ways—I am thinking of Victoria Climbié and Baby P. Much of that poverty relates to that legacy, and the decision on regeneration is one of the most pressing that faces the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is my job to remind the Department of that, and to ensure that plans exist for Tottenham if the team leaves.
The community has faced enormous tension and unrest and has been stigmatised, as have others in the past, but over the last decade it has begun to mend. More young people now go to university than ever before in our history. Schools have been rebuilt, and some are now national beacons of success. I am thinking of Gladesmore community school where the head teacher has been recognised by the Queen for all that he has achieved. I am thinking of the accident and emergency department at the Whittington hospital, where I was born, and the North Middlesex hospital, which have been largely renewed and rebuilt. I am thinking of the £50 million that we received in the new deal for communities, to which I am sure the Minister will refer. All of that lifted hopes and aspirations—unemployment was falling back a bit, but is now on the rise again—and happened over the recent period in order to renew the community. Housing estates have seen their housing stock renewed and rebuilt. Prior to the economic downturn, there was a period of hope for the community, but clearly, a decade to achieve all that we wanted to achieve against a backdrop of such disadvantage was always not going to be long enough. That is why we stand at a crossroads—do we march forwards or backwards? That is the decision that lies ahead. The story is not yet finished.
Tottenham still has the highest rate of unemployment in London, with more than 6,000 people currently out of work or on benefits. Tottenham still has one of the largest numbers of households living in temporary or emergency accommodation, with more than 5,000 families in Haringey having no fixed place to live. Four in five children born in Tottenham are still born into poverty, one of the highest rates in the country. It is clear, Mrs Riordan, that although things have got better, we have a long way to go if we are to ensure that every child in Tottenham grows up in a decent home, free of poverty, and in a community in which work is the norm, not the exception.
That brings me to the third factor that makes Tottenham special—Spurs. Since I have been the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, I have worked closely with three successive chairmen and owners of the club. The first was Alan Sugar—he has since been knighted—of “The Apprentice” fame. The second was David Buckler who came in for a brief period after Alan left to stabilise the club and led the way to the current owner, Daniel Levy. Before I became an MP, Spurs was not doing much in the community relative to other clubs. I am thinking particularly of clubs such as Sunderland in the north-east—I will not mention our near rivals, although I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has taken his seat and he may mention the name of that other north London club. Spurs was not doing much in the community, but there has been a transformation.
I worked with Daniel Levy to establish the Tottenham Hotspur foundation as a model, and it is now a beacon in the premiership. It was established with £4.5 million of funding, and enables thousands of young people throughout north London to take part in projects. It is transforming their lives and attracting match funding, and not just in sport. There are wonderful things happening with disability groups and pensioners, not just in Haringey, but in Enfield, Barnet and Waltham Forest where the foundation is making a huge difference.
The club has attracted a succession of top-class international players, such as Freddie Kanoute, Mido, Berbatov, who was with us for a while, and Wilson Palacios. My office assisted them and many others with work permits, and immigration requirements to enable them to come to the community. Despite opposition from some local councillors, I strongly supported the application by Spurs for a new training ground in Enfield, and permission was duly granted despite that opposition.
The club is an immense source of pride for my community, and the young people in it. In what can feel a parochial, mundane and sometimes hostile and discriminatory atmosphere, it is a permanent badge of excellence. It shows people that they can achieve sporting excellence on the doorstep, and that reads across not just to sport, but to every area of life.
That is why I am so angry about what is taking place without proper public consultation with either the fans or my community. Those young people, whose hopes were lifted when we won the Olympic dream, are now to be dumped on from a great height because of this irresponsible decision to rip excellence from the constituency. It is unacceptable. Someone is responsible, and it is not just the club, which is being encouraged to ignore its history and its community, but local, regional and, potentially, national politicians. I want answers about how this has come about, and why this is to happen to one of the poorest communities in London.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend knows that I represent Islington North and am a very proud supporter of Arsenal, the other club in north London. The relocation of stadiums is a difficult issue. Arsenal and Islington worked very closely to ensure that the new stadium was built in Islington without any public subsidy. The presence of Arsenal has meant that there is a very large number of jobs at the stadium, with all its related facilities, and a huge local community programme with more than 1 million hours spent on community training in football.
It is a badge of honour for the kids in Islington and from nearby to be supporters of Arsenal, and to be part of that community, and the same applies in Haringey, where I used to be a councillor. If we do not retain Tottenham Hotspur there, not only do the jobs and facilities go but the whole heart of the community goes with them. I strongly support and endorse what my friend is doing to try to ensure that Spurs remains at White Hart Lane, and to ensure that we can carry on being north London rivals, a rivalry of which I, of course, represent the better half.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but he knows that he actually represents a south London club, and that is why this is even more important. All those years ago, the club moved from Woolwich, but at that time it was not of the size that we see now, making the kind of contribution that both Arsenal and Tottenham make to this very, very poor part of London. I challenge anyone to visit parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency, in Holloway, parts of mine, or the constituency of our colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) and say that these clubs are not making a huge contribution. Things would be considerably worse were the clubs not there.
That is why we welcome Spurs’ plan for a new 56-seater stadium in Tottenham, why I supported the club in overcoming problems with English Heritage, and why I brokered meetings with both the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and Haringey council. Historically, relations with Haringey council have not always been at their best, but we got planning permission in record time, and in a shorter time than Arsenal. As my hon. Friend has said, it is nonsense to suggest that Arsenal received state aid, and Spurs would never have done so. However, the club is right to say—and so am I—that we need more investment in this constituency.
I have not witnessed in my constituency the kind of transformation that we have seen in cities such as Manchester and Liverpool, and that we are witnessing now in the east of London. So, is Tottenham the next big regeneration challenge for this Government? It ought to be. The people deserve it to be, and the club rightly wants to see that. The plan was that off the back of the redeveloped stadium at White Hart Lane, which has received the approval of Haringey council and the Mayor, we would get further investment from Europe and from the Government, so that yes, we would see a new supermarket, yes we would see new housing, but we would also see the new stadium. As Daniel Levy has said, the stadium has
“the potential to act as a real catalyst for the much-needed, wider regeneration of the area.”
I am disappointed, of course, that other members of the Tottenham board, such as the director Keith Mills, have said that moving to the Olympic stadium is better because
“it’s closer to Canary Wharf and to the City; and it’ll attract more sponsorship”.
I have also been very concerned about internet rumours of Spurs’ owners selling up to Qatari investors and seeking planning permission at White Hart Lane and the Olympic stadium so as to sell the club on and make more money. When Mr Levy says to me, “I’m acting in the interests of shareholders,” it is my job to remind him that he owns 70% of the shares. So, who will profit ultimately from the decision? This is important.
It is also important to recognise the entire ecology of London, and in so doing it is also important that we say, “Can it possibly be fair that Tottenham’s legacy from the Olympics is for the largest private employer to be allowed to leave the constituency?” Let me reiterate, if Spurs is allowed to leave, this Government’s legacy for the constituency with the highest unemployment in London will be to have removed the largest private employer. That cannot be right.
Is it also the case that the Olympic Park Legacy Company should take note of the entirety of London and not just regeneration in the east of the city? In my constituency, unemployment is running at 11.2% and incapacity benefit claims are at 11%. Those are some of the highest levels in London. Life expectancy is lower than in the Olympic borough. Mortality rates for women in my constituency are lower, and unemployment is higher, than in the combined Olympic boroughs. Right across the sweep, the statistics suggest that Tottenham is finding it harder than the combined Olympic boroughs, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of that.
Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable to secure a legacy in east London by condemning an area of north London to become effectively a dust bowl? Does he believe that it is fair that the largest economic project in my constituency for a generation may be sacrificed—a brand-new stadium demolished just to build a new one with a supermarket attached? The Olympics were meant to bring a unique experience to the doorsteps of ordinary Londoners. Should Spurs leave, the experience will leave a particularly bitter aftertaste in N17. Who encouraged Spurs to make the decision? What leverage are the Minister and his Department placing on the Mayor as that decision is reached? I am told that the Olympic board will reach the decision on 28 January; what consultation is going on with Haringey council and with us on a decision that is now imminent and pressing? Does the Minister not believe that consultation with my constituents by the Olympic legacy body is absolutely mandatory? Is he concerned that there has been only one phone conversation with the company and with Haringey council? Spurs owns 20 acres of site on the north side of Tottenham high road that has now been blighted. How can due diligence be done on the Spurs bid if only one conversation on the planning application has been had with the local authority?
I hope that the Minister understands that this matter is urgent; that is why I have taken the time to put it on the record for the House, and for others who are listening and watching. This is the most important thing that could have happened in relation to economic regeneration in my constituency in the past decade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, and to respond to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).
I first want to acknowledge the passion and knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman brings to this issue, and to acknowledge how he has forthrightly stood up for his constituents. He has outlined the problems, the progress and the opportunities for his constituency and for the borough, and has, with very considerable force, made clear his views about his premiership football club; about its record of success and its community involvement, which, as he has said, has been developed for the better over the past few years and, most important, his views about its future. I think I heard him talk about a plan for a 56-seater stadium, but I am sure that he meant 56,000.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has arranged a meeting with my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport so as to raise these issues with them. A number of the points that he mentioned, whatever their merits one way or the other, are matters for discussion with that Department, rather than the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind too much if I say something about the broader approach to regeneration taken by the Government, and perhaps I can give him some assurances. On his specific questions about how we got to our current position and where we are going, let me remind him that for the most part, those decisions are not the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Mr Lammy
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is a member of the Olympic board and that ultimately, the decision of the company will come to the Olympic board? Is there a seat for the Mayor, for DCMS and for DCLG to stand up for regeneration in London?
Andrew Stunell
The Secretary of State certainly has a role in the matter, and I do not seek to avoid that. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands fully that the lead Department will be the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Perhaps I can put a broader perspective on the way the Government work. We think it is important to ensure that local businesses, of all scales and whatever the business, have the opportunity to thrive. We want to support economic growth and regeneration, and we have made it clear that areas such as the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which are behind in the economic race, need to be given support. We want to see that done by giving power and the capacity to take decisions back to local councils and to London collectively, and not by having micro-management from Whitehall on every aspect of business delivery.
We have a strategic and supportive role to play, and it is important to get the macro-economic situation right. We must provide incentives, remove barriers and provide access to targeted investment. Despite all the financial pressure faced by the Government and the country, we have given the green light to some important and significant infrastructure projects.
Jeremy Corbyn
Let me take the Minister back to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I understand the philosophy behind the future planning arrangements, but in the immediate term we have two bids going in for the Olympic stadium—from West Ham and Spurs. West Ham is a local club that would essentially seek to develop the Olympic stadium for the continuation of local activities as an east London club. Spurs is in Tottenham and is an important part of the local economy. Surely the Government have a duty to take into account the effect on the local society and economy of Haringey should the transfer of Spurs to the Olympic stadium be approved, rather than if the club continues where it has been for a long time and where it is, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, a major part of the local economy.
Andrew Stunell
I understand the concern that was raised by the right hon. Member for Tottenham and brought to my attention again by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Of course it is an issue of controversy that the shortlist contains those two clubs; I understand that. The Olympic Park Legacy Company is negotiating with each club, and expects to have reached a settled position on the legacy by the end of the financial year. I was not aware of the specific date that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a moment ago. It would not be right for me to comment on the progress of that bidding process or on the state of those negotiations, and neither would it be right for the Government to seek to interfere with that. As the right hon. Gentleman says, at some further point the decision will come back for endorsement by the Olympic Delivery Authority, and no doubt points of view will be taken into account when that decision is—or is not —signed off.
Perhaps I can return to the broader picture. It is important to ensure that the Olympic investment and legacy benefits the whole of London; it is not intended to be a one-shop stop. An intrinsic part of the bid put forward by the previous Government and supported by all parties in the House, was that the value of the Olympic bid would be in the legacy that it would bring not only to a geographical area but to young people, by providing opportunities to promote excellence far into the future. All parts of that legacy programme are still in play as far as the present Government are concerned.
We must also recognise that we are devolving powers. We are taking powers out of Whitehall and passing them down to the Mayor of London, the London boroughs and the London assembly. Proposals have been published in the Localism Bill, and they will be considered by the House.
Andrew Stunell
The progress of the legislation means that if the timetable I have referred to is maintained, and the decision is taken by the end of the financial year, that will precede the Localism Bill coming into force. The decision will be made in the context of the current legislative framework, and the roles and responsibilities are those already set out.
Mr Lammy
A decision is being made that has a once-in-a-generation effect on my constituency. I am the elected representative of my constituents, but they have not been consulted. The Mayor has fixed a date for a meeting with me on 24 February, but that is unacceptable given that the Olympic board will consider the issue on 28 January. As the Minister responsible for regeneration in this country, will he urge the Mayor to meet with the elected representative of Tottenham and its constituents? Will he urge his colleagues to think carefully about their responsibilities to my locality through their elected representative?
Andrew Stunell
I undertake to ensure that this debate and the views of the right hon. Gentleman are clearly drawn to the attention of the Mayor. The Government certainly hope that there will be proper discussions with the democratically elected representatives of communities, but it is for the Mayor to decide what processes he will follow to achieve that.
Ensuring that the Olympic legacy delivers on what was offered in the bid is an interesting and challenging project. The Olympics will come after a period of economic retrenchment. Ensuring that the legacy is delivered, that the benefits are not frittered away, and that we can look back in 10 years’ time and see that the games were not only a success in themselves but that the legacy has endured, is an important and significant challenge for the Government, the Mayor and the London boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman has made a strong plea that the borough of Haringey should not be left out of that. I assure him that as our proposals for localising economic growth come to fruition, we will ensure that the borough of Haringey and Tottenham are not left out.
If we are to achieve success, we must ensure that the economic and financial framework facing the country is put right. That must be our top priority and that is why we have been working so hard at a national level to deliver on the financial programme. It is also why it is important to take the responsibility and powers for decision making on regeneration issues out of Whitehall, and give them back to the regions and communities where they need to be.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
PAYE Update
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I am now able to give the House a report on HMRC’s progress in resolving the issues on which I made a statement on 8 September 2010. Lesley Strathie, chief executive of HMRC, will be writing to the Public Accounts Committee and Treasury Select Committee separately today.
HMRC have been working hard to clear the long-standing backlogs of unreconciled tax cases.
Since September they have made rapid progress on working through the nearly 6 million adjustments needed to ensure that the correct amount of tax is collected for the tax years 2008-09 and 2009-10. By the end of last year in 90 % of cases where HMRC had received all relevant information, customers had received a refund notice or a calculation of overpayment in respect of these years.
In cases where an underpayment was due HMRC have sought to take a flexible and sympathetic approach to collecting the tax that is due. In the minority of cases where the unexpected bill has been caused by HMRC’s failure to act promptly on the information received, HMRC have considered claims to be written off under an existing concession (ESC A19).
In addition:
HMRC estimate that there are about 250,000 cases in respect of 2008-09 and 2009-10 where a taxable state pension has been paid by DWP and the tax due on this pension should have been collected through a tax code adjustment. These pensioners have not yet been issued with a notice of underpayment but would have a strong case for their underpayment to be written off in line with the concession. HMRC will not require these pensioners to claim the concession individually, but will instead write off all the relevant underpayments.
HMRC are working to clear the backlog of cases from earlier years. They will work all cases where a taxpayer is due a repayment for earlier years.
Further underpayment notices will not be issued for years earlier than 2007-08. For 2007-08, where possible, any amounts due will be included in the tax code for 2011-12 so that the money is collected over the course of the year through PAYE. HMRC will apply the same treatment to these cases as to those for 2008-09 and 2009-10. HMRC will not be collecting sums for less than £300 for that year and will allow people to spread payments in cases of hardship. Taking these concessions into account, HMRC expect to be in touch with around 450,000 people before the end of March to collect underpayments to the value of some £180 million.
The annual exercise to set tax codes for the 2011-12 tax year is about to begin. HMRC have reviewed the experience of last year when transitional issues with the new system led to some taxpayers receiving incorrect tax code notifications, and have conducted extensive additional testing designed to prevent a recurrence of these issues this year.
HMRC are continuing the process of modernising PAYE for the 21st century through the introduction of Real Time Information (RTI). This will help reduce the need for reconciliations in the future.
December Environment Council
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Deputy Permanent Representative, Andy Lebrecht, represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 20 December in Brussels. I was unable to attend due to severe weather disrupting travel between the United Kingdom and Belgium.
The Council reached political agreement on the regulation concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products. The UK welcomed the political agreement as a risk-based compromise which strikes the right balance between protecting health and environment from the biocides themselves but also from the harmful organisms that biocides are used to control.
The Belgian presidency presented the outcome of the third trilogue with the European Parliament on the regulation setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles, as part of the EU’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles. During the exchange of views that followed Environment Ministers indicated their support for the compromise that had been reached, including the long-term target of average CO2 emissions of 147 grams per kilometre in 2020. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal at its February plenary session.
The Council also adopted conclusions that welcomed the outcome of the Nagoya meeting of the convention on biodiversity in October, and committed the EU to implementation of the decisions taken.
Further conclusions were adopted on improving environmental policy instruments. Several member states expressed the importance they attach to having a seventh environment action programme to succeed the current one which covers the period up to 2012. The UK stressed the need for the new framework to be based on an assessment of the current sixth environment action programme, and highlighted the move to an environmentally sustainable, low-carbon, resource-efficient economy as a key challenge to be addressed. This could be achieved through focus on: integration of sustainability objectives in other policy areas; better implementation of existing legislation rather than new initiatives; and more involvement of society, incentivising and motivating behaviour change.
The Council also adopted a third set of conclusions, on sustainable materials management and sustainable production and consumption.
The Council took note of the presidency’s progress reports on the recast directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and on the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory. The discussion on GMOs followed similar lines to the earlier discussion at Environment Council in October 2010, with many member states raising concerns about the proposal. The UK has yet to finalise its position on this dossier, but emphasised the need to find a way through the current impasse and to achieve legal clarity on the consistency of the proposal with WTO rules and the single market. Several member states focused on the need to consider clear criteria upon which national decisions on cultivation could be taken and welcomed the Commission’s proposal to discuss this further.
Ministers also exchanged views on the outcome of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change at Cancun. They agreed that the outcome was positive and forward-looking, laying the foundation for further work and confirming the strength of a multilateral process. The UK supported Germany in their call for a new strategy building on Cancun, part of which had to be a move beyond the EU’s 20% target.
Oral Answer (Correction)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in some of the information referred to in my answer to an oral question from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) on 6 December 2010, Official Report, column 17.
The response quoted an email sent by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), which stated that “Mrs Namir Rad ... was not given only 24 hours’ notice” of her impending change of accommodation. It has since come to light that the content of his email was incorrect. Mrs Rad was, on this occasion, given less than 24 hours’ notice of the requirement to move by the accommodation provider, Y-People. Y-People has since carried out an internal investigation and the error occurred because the organisation provided inaccurate information to the UK Border Agency. Y-People has implemented controls to prevent this reoccurring and also to provide increased assurance of the accuracy of the information to the UK Border Agency.
The regional senior managers of the UK Border Agency have also implemented measures to ensure that no moves take place in Glasgow without their direct knowledge and approval and that no one will be asked to move at such short notice.
EURODAC Regulation
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The Government have decided to opt in to the EURODAC regulation. The regulation meets the criteria set out in the coalition agreement with regard to EU justice and home affairs measures.
The draft regulation will govern the operation of the EURODAC fingerprint database, which collects the fingerprints of asylum seekers, and certain illegal entrants to the EU, in order to help member states to determine who is responsible under the Dublin regulation for dealing with an asylum claim. The Government are committed to the Dublin system, of which EURODAC is an essential part, as it helps tackle the problem of people abusing asylum systems across Europe by making multiple claims in different EU member states.
The Government will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.
Patrick Finucane
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
In my written statement of 11 November, Official Report, columns 25-26WS, I set out a period of two months during which I would receive representations as to whether it is in the public interest that I should establish a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane. As part of this process my officials have had a constructive meeting with representatives of the Finucane family and a further meeting will be arranged. In light of the fact that useful discussions are under way between the family and the Government, I have decided, with the agreement of the family, to extend the period during which I will receive representations by two months. When this further period has concluded it remains my intention to consider the family’s views carefully and in detail, along with any other relevant representations I receive, before taking a decision as to whether or not it is in the public interest to hold a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 31081 on 16 December, Official Report, columns 866-67W, about the numbers of persons who habitually travel to a place of work. The table, with corrected figures for 2005, is detailed below:
Thousands | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
October to December | ||||||
Area | Mode of travel | 20051 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
England | Train2 | 1,017 | 970 | 1,072 | 1,084 | 1,040 |
Car3 | 15,649 | 14,605 | 14,518 | 14,281 | 13,998 | |
Bus/Coach4 | 1,656 | 1,562 | 1,526 | 1,477 | 1,331 | |
East Midlands | Train2 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 |
Car3 | 1,393 | 1,317 | 1,321 | 1,341 | 1,279 | |
Bus/Coach4 | 90 | 99 | 120 | 97 | 97 | |
Note: 1 Following realignment from seasonal to calendar quarters, data for December are assumed to follow the same pattern as that of October and November. 2 Includes railway trains but excludes underground train and light railway or tram. 3 Includes car, van, minibus and works van. 4 Includes bus, coach and private bus. Source: ONS Labour Force Survey (LFS) |
An investigation has shown that the error was due to a change in the Labour Force Survey methodology introduced by ONS in early 2006. Specifically, the survey changed from providing data for non-standard “seasonal” quarters (i.e. “Autumn” = September to November, “Winter” = December to February, etc.) to using more standard calendar quarters from this point. As a result of this change, the Department’s estimates for the period October to December in 2005 are actually based on only two months of data (October to November) instead of three months in all later years. The 2005 estimates given in the answer should therefore have been adjusted upwards by a factor of 1.5 to take account of this difference. However, this adjustment was not applied and the error was not spotted before the draft answer was submitted.
Localism Bill: Framework Powers
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I am pleased to inform the House that the explanatory memorandum explaining the Government’s proposal for framework powers in the Localism Bill are available in the Vote Office, Library and the Printed Paper Office, and on the Wales Office website: (www.walesoffice.gov.uk).
Proposed National Assembly for Wales Legislative Competence Order
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I would like to inform the House that the proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Health and Health Services) Order 2011 was laid yesterday, as Command Paper 7992. Copies of this can be found in the Vote Office and are also available in the Library. I have written to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the House of Lords Constitution Committee to request they undertake pre-legislative scrutiny.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first national policy statement be considered, could I remind noble Lords that, in the case of each national policy statement, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider, rather than approve, the draft national policy statement in question? If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
I am very pleased to open this debate on the revised draft energy national policy statements—the NPSs. The NPSs are a suite of documents that will comprise the decision-making framework for major energy infrastructure proposals. I will briefly explain the changes that we have made to them since the first consultation in November 2009.
First, I should explain briefly the role of Parliament in ensuring that the revised documents are as robust as possible. This debate is part of the scrutiny process set out in the Planning Act 2008. It is an opportunity to comment on the revised energy national policy statements, apart from the nuclear one, which we will debate on Thursday. The coalition Government believe that NPSs should be subject to approval by Parliament so that they have the strongest possible democratic legitimacy. This House has an important role in scrutinising draft NPSs, and this debate will help the Government prepare the final versions of NPSs. I hope your Lordships agree that we have taken on board the very helpful comments by noble Lords in shaping these NPSs. We intend to lay the final NPS for ratification in the spring.
The revised versions of the five non-nuclear NPSs take into account the previous Grand Committee debates and the recommendations from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee. Details of these are set out in the response to parliamentary scrutiny. I have also placed a memorandum on the changes to the NPSs in the Library.
Throughout the NPSs we have tried to improve the clarity and consistency and we have removed repetitive material from the technology-specific NPSs where it could be said once in the overarching NPS. We have made significant changes to the statement of need in the overarching NPS, EN-1. This now includes research that was not available for the first draft, including more detailed analysis of scenarios to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. However, the conclusions remain the same: we urgently need a new energy infrastructure.
In fact, the Pathways 2050 model shows that we might need at least twice the electricity-generation capacity by comparison with today in order to meet our climate change targets because we will need to electrify large amounts of industry, heating and transport. Our modelling shows we need about 59 gigawatts of new electricity capacity by 2025, of which more than half will come from renewables. We would like a significant proportion of the remaining non-renewable generation to be filled by either low-carbon technologies, such as nuclear or coal with CCS. New nuclear should be free to contribute as much as possible to this. We also need gas generation as part of our transition to low-carbon. We have also included more detail in EN-1 on what is required for an economic feasibility assessment to ensure that fossil fuel generation stations are carbon-capture ready.
In this Committee last February, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, suggested that the provisions in the fossil fuel generation stations NPS—EN-2—which require applicants to demonstrate the economic feasibility of carbon-capture readiness, were such that developers would have difficulty demonstrating economic feasibility. We have therefore added more detail in EN-2 on how applicants might demonstrate that their proposals for CCR would be economically feasible, including a model for an economic assessment that takes into account the difficulties of calculating variable costs over a long period. The revised overarching and fossil fuel NPSs also note that operators of fossil fuel generating stations will have to comply with an emissions performance standard. That may be introduced but it is not currently envisaged that it would be a development consent condition.
We have clarified that the renewables NPS—EN-3—does not cover alternative renewable energy technology, such as tidal and wave power or solar energy. We do not anticipate that most of these technologies will become commercially viable above the Planning Act 2008 thresholds in the near future. However, applications for consent for tidal range schemes may be submitted to the IPC or its successor in the next few years. We are therefore considering including tidal range schemes in the NPSs, either through an amendment to this NPS or through a separate NPS at an appropriate stage.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her suggestion in the previous debate that the renewables NPSs should set out specific directions to the IPC on assessing the sustainability of biomass for generating stations using it as fuel. We have considered this carefully. However, we believe that sustainability of biomass is best addressed through the renewables obligations. The revision of the renewables NPS explains that, subject to the necessary changes being made to the RO, there is no need for the IPC to consider this matter further. We have consulted on the necessary changes in the Renewables Obligations Order 2011. We are also consulting on further proposals in the EMR consultation that closes in March.
We have also revised the text with regard to noise for onshore wind farms. The ETSU-R-97 recommendations for noise limits for the operation of wind turbines have been criticised as being outdated. We have therefore made it clear that applicants should take into account the latest industry good practice on assessing noise from wind turbines, as well as existing guidance in ETSU-R-97. We are keen to ensure that planning authorities and developers have clarity about best practice to provide greater certainty and consistency in the planning system. Therefore, we have also commissioned research to analyse consideration of noise in development consents. This is due to be completed in March and will inform the text in the renewables NPS.
We have clarified that the gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines NPS—EN-4—covers only oil and natural gas pipelines, and not CO2 pipelines. We will seek views on the development of the CO2 infrastructure and intend to include onshore CO2 pipelines in a suite of NPSs at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, suggests that NPSs should address safety in LNG deliveries to terminals. The Government agree, and the NPS has been amended to include an explanation of the regulatory controls that apply to ensure safe shipping of liquefied natural gas.
In the February debates the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was concerned about the impact of overhead electricity lines—I agree entirely with his concern, as a private matter—in areas of outstanding natural beauty. We have tried to ensure that the government policy on undergrounding and the need to treat each application on a case-by-case basis is expressed more clearly in the electricity NPS, EN-5. We have also added a new section on bird strike in this NPS to reflect findings in the revised appraisal of sustainability.
We have also substantially revised the appraisal of sustainability for the non-nuclear NPSs. This will make it easier for people to evaluate the likely environmental impacts of the revised draft national policy statement. We also set out strategic alternative approaches to the NPS policies and explained why at this stage we do not think that they represent better ways of achieving our energy policy objectives through the planning system.
The Localism Bill, which had its First Reading in the other place on 13 December, sets out our proposals to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and replace it with a major infrastructure planning unit as part of the Planning Inspectorate. Under the reform regime, major infrastructure projects will be decided by Ministers in accordance with the policy framework, not by a quango, so there is an urgent need for the new major energy infrastructure. The energy national policy statements in place will provide a clear framework against which planning applications for this infrastructure will be assessed. I commend these national policy statements to the Committee.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, I see that the Government’s passion for reducing bureaucracy does not extend to bureaucratic language. The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy could have come from a satire by C Northcote Parkinson. I am pleased to hear that the Minister reduces this to “NPS” and “NPSs”.
With regard to substance, as in previous debates, I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the seriousness of intent with which they are approaching issues of energy and climate change. I am also encouraged by the constructive relationship that seems to exist between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the climate change committee. It is good to see that carbon mitigation policies are being pursued in such close conjunction with energy security and a proactive approach to adaptation. As one of those people who thinks that climate change is moving more quickly than mainstream opinion and is probably already embedded in the world climatic system, I am pleased to see that adaptation plays a significant part in these documents. We may have to prepare in more radical ways than are suggested there, depending on how we monitor the consequences of what is there in the system already.
The documents are commendably ambitious, but I wonder if there are some ways in which they are not ambitious enough. I have four main points to put to the Minister for his response. First, the Government want 30 per cent of the UK’s electricity to be generated by renewables by 2030. It sounds as if they are aiming high until one realises that in Spain 35 per cent of demand was met by renewables—namely hydro, wind and solar power—in 2010, the year just gone. Wind power alone met 16 per cent of demand. At its peak on 9 December, wind generated 43 per cent of total electricity demand. One of the key figures in Spain’s energy industry, Javier Breva, was quoted in the Guardian as saying:
“even five years ago no one would have believed these figures were possible. No one expected renewables to grow so fast”.
I would like the Minister’s response on what he makes of such comparative examples in relation to the proposals listed here. Incidentally, this example also shows, as I have mentioned in previous debates, that there is a big difference between the proportion of renewables in a system and the overall emission of CO2. Spain’s emissions were growing quite radically until the recession in 2008, so having a high proportion of renewables does not guarantee a declining curve in emissions because it depends on what happens in the rest of the economy.
Secondly, because the Government believe that dependence on coal will last for quite a while to help act as an anchor for energy security, they place a strong emphasis on CCS, which is discussed extensively in the documents. What is the Government’s fallback position if CCS does not work or encounters major problems which limit its application? Everyone who has followed the debate on CCS will know that it is surrounded by issues and problems. It is not a technology which one can immediately say will be capable of achieving the large-scale generalisation presaged in this document. Therefore, what is the Government’s fallback position if the role of CCS is limited, which I believe could happen?
Thirdly, it is stated in the documents that the,
“ETS is the single most important policy to reduce UK emissions”.
Is it right for the Government to put so much faith in the ETS? The initial phase of the ETS has basically been a failure in limiting carbon emissions. It has generated markets and it has generated a lot of money, but the studies we have on its impact in European countries in reducing carbon emissions show that the proportion of reduction seems to be about 5 per cent. However, it is also likely that some countries exaggerated their carbon emissions in order to show themselves in a better light, and so it may be that the true impact of the ETS was close to zero. We have gone through two revisions since then, but it does not seem right to say that the ETS will guarantee a positive outcome for the UK economy in these terms. The new system which has been introduced may be more effective but it is as yet unproven. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Fourthly and finally, I have a point which echoes the one I made in our previous energy debate, on the final day before the recess. No systematic attention seems to be given in these documents or elsewhere to the wider economic implications of transformations in the energy system. It seems incoherent to accept the need for comprehensive planning for the energy system while supposing that all the rest can seemingly be left to the hazards of the markets. In other words, as I argued previously, some form of targeted regional planning is surely needed.
There are many suggestions in the documents and in the responses to them. I ask for the Minister’s view on one suggestion which I read in some detail—the proposal from the Royal Town Planning Institute for a national spatial planning framework. I cannot see why the Government should accept the need for systematic long-term planning for energy—which of course is necessary—but imply that it stops there. All the economic implications are very considerable. You have to balance them out in a planning framework with the consequences for the rest of the economy and the wider society. I should welcome the Minister’s response to my queries.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, perhaps I may start by giving a personal opinion. When we previously considered these draft policy statements it was done in a Grand Committee-style rather than a Second Reading-style debate. I think that that probably works better for draft statements, although we now have only one more to consider. As the Minister said, a large number of intelligent and profound points came out of that process. That was partly because the session was less formal than today’s session will be—although I am sure that we will be equally productive.
One of the things that are always useful about this type of statement is that it goes through the bare facts of the background of the situation. Immediately when you read the first sections of the overarching statement you realise that, as an economy, a climate, a nation and a continent, we are in big trouble if we do not do something very quickly and decisively. We currently have 85 gigawatts of electricity capacity available to us, but 59 new gigawatts will be required by 2025, which is not that far away in terms of industrial investment cycles. That is a huge challenge, as £250 billion—a quarter of a trillion pounds—in investment is needed. Hence this project is urgent. We need to give investment certainty to large organisations and to smaller organisations in terms of the renewables that will make that possible.
The other thing that really stood out to me—I must have read this before but I did not really realise it—is that, on average, only half of that 85 gigawatts is used. It is a degree of peaking, which we are aware of, but, in terms of capacity, we already have to add on 100 per cent to what we normally need. One of the things that that says to me as a past corporate economist, and as an economist more generally, is that there is a major market failure here. Clearly you cannot take peaking completely out of energy markets—that would be impossible—but it is staggering that it is at that level. In conjunction with Ofgem, DECC is looking at market structures. This huge market failure also should be looked at. In consumer terms, off-peak electricity is clearly too expensive. I have a background in industry. If I saw most of my assets doing nothing for half the time, I would say that it is a very ineffective way to run the infrastructure of a business, let alone of a country. That is one of the major messages that comes out to me. I hope the Minister will take that thought forward very strongly in terms of market-mechanism reviews.
I will concentrate mainly on the overarching statement. In paragraph 2.2.14 the Government express a strong preference and commitment to reach a 30 per cent reduction in emissions at European level by 2020, rather than the current 20 per cent. I know that that is very much one of the Secretary of State’s aims and targets and I hope that he has success in that very important area.
Perhaps I may go through some of the areas that bring up more questions than answers. One of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, is carbon capture and storage. Although carbon capture and storage is an important strategy and a great technology in that, in many ways, it sweeps the pollutants under the carpet—or under the North Sea, or underground, or wherever you want to put them—the statement in fact says that there is uncertainty about that technology. The report actually states that, which I think is very honest, and it is a good thing that it does so. However, there are all sorts of areas around CCS that we need to make sure we do not completely sell our soul on. We need to make sure that it is going to work economically and, necessarily, technically. It can probably work technically, but will it work at a cost in terms of investment that power organisations will be able to absorb?
I have been a Member of this House for four and a half years now and for most of that time we have been talking about demonstration projects, contracts, competitions, getting these things on board, Britain being ahead, and regarding this as not exactly a silver bullet but as an important part of solving the whole problem of energy capacity. Yet, I am very concerned that we never really seem to have a lot of hard evidence on where those competitions have got to, when they are going to happen, and when implementation can take place. I know that all that is happening but it would be very useful for the Minister to clarify it.
Another small thing on CCS: it seems to me that if CCS is going to require anything, it will be pipelines to disperse the carbon dioxide that we take out of energy production. However, the pipeline part of the energy draft statement relates only to oil and gas pipelines. I assume that there will be quite a few carbon dioxide ones in future as well.
I return to one of the broader issues, which is air quality. I shall quote from paragraph 5.5.2. I largely welcome these statements, but this is an area—I am not sure that I have got the reference right; I apologise. The Government specifically exclude carbon dioxide as one of the pollutants in the atmosphere. The NPS goes through the sulphur and nitrous oxides and so on, but it says that carbon dioxide is dealt with through other regulations in other ways. If we look at the American experience with its Environmental Protection Agency, which finally agreed a couple of years ago that CO2 was a pollutant, we can see that the Government should not be afraid of CO2 being classified as such, and it should be taken into consideration with regard to these draft statements. There are other mechanisms by which CO2 is dealt with, but we should accept that it is an atmospheric pollutant and deal with it on that basis. We should not avoid that issue.
There is a small chapter on socioeconomic issues. I come from the south-west, and I know that in terms of new nuclear—I will not expand on this too much because this subject will come back in a future nuclear debate—there are potentially huge disruptions for local communities when construction takes place. To have a power station you have to have a construction process and inevitably you bring in a large number of contractors and workers, but there is certainly a great fear—for example, around Hinkley Point—that all the holiday home accommodation will disappear for three years and kill the holiday industry in the longer term, and that social housing will be filled or the private sector part of social housing will disappear, putting all sorts of pressures on local authorities. Perhaps I could come back to that when we debate the nuclear areas.
On consultation, I do not pretend that I have read every word of these documents but I have read pretty well most of them. There does not seem, and I do not understand this, to be any requirement to consult anyone specifically as part of the planning process. Maybe I misunderstand these documents and that is not supposed to be part of this process, but there is no requirement that the planning authority and the Minister take evidence from local authorities or, for instance, from the devolved Assembly in Wales. I do not understand from these documents who has to be consulted. Surely we have to ensure that someone definitely is consulted; everyone will be aware that a nuclear power station or an offshore wind complex is being built. There perhaps needs to be more rigour in that area, but maybe I misunderstand what these documents are supposed to do.
To come back to EN-3, as an individual document on renewable energy, I welcome the statement that the Government intend to have a test of sustainability against biomass. I am a great supporter of biomass for energy generation, but sustainable credentials of that biomass in order to benefit from renewable obligations or other incentives are very important. I congratulate the Minister on including that, but I would be interested to understand the timescales involved.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, I, too, am pleased to contribute to this debate on the revised statements. I recognise how much the Minister has taken on board points from the previous debates. I also recognise the huge importance of ensuring a continued sufficient and secure power supply to UK homes and businesses over the coming decades. I am concerned that the national policy statements, although revised from the previous Government’s, still do not go far enough to ensure that we develop green and sustainable low-carbon power generation for the future. If the UK is to achieve its 2015 carbon targets, we need to make the right decisions now about low-carbon power generation. My concern is that, notwithstanding the Minister’s reassurances, these NPSs tie us into familiar carbon-emitting power generation and do not do enough to ensure investment in renewables and the opportunity to become a world leader in renewable technologies.
While in opposition, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were vocal in their concerns about the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I was encouraged to hear the coalition Government announce in the first weeks of their tenure their intention to abolish the IPC. However, the timing of the NPSs and the Localism Bill, under which the IPC will, I hope, be abolished, means that during the next 12 months the IPC will make decisions about infrastructure planning on the strengths of these NPSs. It is therefore possible for the IPC in the coming 12 months to grant permission to build a significant number of coal and gas-fired power stations. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on this supposition. That permission is possible within the framework offered by these revised NPSs. I understand that several applications are already being considered, which, if granted, could lock the UK into another generation of carbon-emitting energy supply. I would like to be corrected and proved wrong; perhaps the Minister will do so shortly. I cannot believe that this is the Government’s intention, bearing in mind their commitment to being the greenest Government ever. However, this may be an unintended consequence of these statements.
It is also possible that this year the IPC will grant planning permission to several nuclear power stations. Again, I would like to be corrected but I understand that this is a possibility. I know that this will be debated on Thursday. I hope your Lordships will give me permission to make just one point about this now because, unfortunately, I cannot be in the House on Thursday. The Government have a responsibility to respond seriously to concerns raised in the debates on the previous NPSs which have not been adequately addressed by the revised nuclear NPS. The Minister may remember that I raised concerns about the impact of expected rising sea levels, as a result of climate change, on the security of nuclear power stations and the long-term safe storage of nuclear waste. Although there is reference to sea level rise and flooding in these papers, I encourage the Minister to look again at the risk assessment on these projects, especially in respect of four of the eight sites—Bradwell, Oldbury, Sellafield and Sizewell—which in my opinion lack sufficient reassurance for local communities.
The Minister will be aware that during consideration of the Planning Bill and in the NPS debates under the previous Government, I raised concerns about counting the carbon. I am disappointed to see that the revised NPSs still do not include this specific requirement. The Committee on Climate Change recommended that applicants conduct,
“a full life-cycle carbon assessment”,
of their proposal, to be considered by the IPC. However, even with this recommendation, the Government do not seem to accept the importance of counting the carbon. From what the Minister has just said, I accept that the environmental impact assessment directive goes some way to addressing this, as does the Climate Change Act. However, I fail to be convinced that this is enough. I urge the Minister to reconsider the inclusion of a requirement in the NPS for full carbon counting. If this is not done, we could find ourselves building stations that pull the rug from beneath the Government’s explicit targets on reducing carbon emissions.
By the time the responsibility for decisions about major infrastructure moves to the Secretary of State, a number of infrastructure applications may well have been granted. My concern is not simply that we will find ourselves locked into carbon-emitting energy generation for decades but that we will have missed the opportunity to participate in the growing global green economy. As I am sure the Minister will be aware, according to research done by the Pew Center, China is emerging as the world’s cleanest energy powerhouse. It has already become the world’s leading investor in renewables, aiming for 15 per cent of its energy to be generated through renewables by 2020. It has already designated five provinces and eight cities as low-carbon pilots, representing some 350 million people—27 per cent of the population—and a third of its economy. The centre of gravity is shifting from west to east not just for the world’s economy but for its green economy. We have in these blue folders before us a global economic opportunity. I wonder—the Minister may like to address this point—whether this was on the agenda of the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister of China yesterday.
We must look in these revised NPSs for a sound road map towards creating a secure energy supply that is green and sustainable, one which enables the Government to live up to their claim to be the greenest Government ever and enables the UK to be a global market leader in green energy generation.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I must begin by declaring a couple of interests. I am the honorary president of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear and the honorary president of the Energy Industries Council. Like the right reverend Prelate, I thank the Minister and the Government for the extent to which they have taken on board the discussions that we had at the earlier stage. The revisions make considerable improvements to the national policy statements. I single out in particular national need. Originally it was referred to as being merely “significant”. As my noble friend will perhaps realise, I tabled an amendment to say that it should be “of critical importance”. The statement has not gone quite as far as that, but the fact that the need is now referred to as being “urgent” makes the point perhaps more simply and is a considerable improvement.
I also applaud the acknowledgement in the statements that we need to look beyond 2025. We have all recognised the importance of the Pathways 2050 paper which the department produced last year. A number of points in these documents reflect that work and I shall return to them in a moment.
I also welcome the proposal to extend CCS beyond just coal. I recognise that CCS for coal is the most important because coal is the greatest pollutant, but the policy statements now recognise that any generating capacity over 300 megawatts should include gas as well as coal. Given that the market in gas is huge, such a move is very valuable. I also welcome the details that have been given in response to both Houses of Parliament on the technical and economic feasibility both of carbon capture and storage and carbon-capture readiness. I shall return to that later, because it raises a few questions.
It is right to mention one or two points which were raised during the consultation with interested organisations but which, so far as I can see, are not reflected in the revised drafts. I am an officer of the All-Party Oil and Gas Group and I have had my attention drawn by Oil & Gas UK to a couple of points. It had argued that there should be an explicit obligation on the IPC or its successor to consider prior established rights for, for example, offshore applications when they have to determine applications under the policy statements. It was disappointed that there was no statement to that effect in the key principles which are in paragraph 4.1.3. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
Then, there is a related concern that if there is a conflict between, for instance, offshore oil and gas and the requirements of offshore wind power, the national policy statements do not really represent the scale and complexity and safety requirements of offshore oil and gas activities in the UK’s continental shelf. Too many of the provisions, it will argue, are somewhat woolly and imprecise and leave the resolution of difficulties between offshore wind power and oil and gas simply to be settled by the commercial companies involved. Given the role of DECC in both these matters it would seem to me that there is a case for arguing that there needs to be rather more guidance on this from the department. These are just a couple of points where there is a little disappointment.
I think that we should look at the context—indeed, all the previous speakers have done this—in which we are considering these revised national policy statements. My noble friend mentioned the planning reforms. Like others, I applaud the decision to transfer decision-making from the IPC to Ministers. I would like to say that it would be right to applaud the decision of Sir Michael Pitt, the chairman of the IPC, and of all the members of the commission to agree to work within the new system when the IPC’s functions will be dealt with by the major infrastructure planning unit within the Planning Inspectorate. I have to say that before the election I attached enormous importance to that in my discussions with my colleagues, and it has been achieved. I think that that is wholly admirable.
However, there are certain other planning developments still to come. We are told that there is to be a national planning policy framework and some rationalisation of the planning policy statements—both of which are no doubt very desirable—and everybody agrees that it is vital to build the confidence of investors, particularly for the major energy investments, if these things are to happen. To do that one needs to reduce uncertainty and achieve policy stability. Therefore I ask two things of my noble friend. First, what undertaking can he give to designate these new revised national policy statements as soon as possible after the consultations have been completed? Secondly, given that there are going to be these further developments coming along later, could he ensure that the national policy statements should stand as clear guidance and should slot unscathed into the revised suite of policies and the guidance as they are developed? That is a point that has been put to me and I entirely support it. As has been said, there is to be huge energy investment over the next 10 to 15 years and anything that can achieve certainty on this is to be welcomed.
Can my noble friend tell me something about the future timetable on this? I have been assured by the usual channels that we could, if we wished, repeat last year’s processes and table resolutions that could be debated on the Floor of the House, and that would, in theory, be divisible. I am not sure whether that will be necessary on this occasion as most of these national policy statements will attract wide agreement. I have been told that this will happen in the other place and that there will be a vote on a Motion from the Government to approve the national policy statements. Can my noble friend say whether anything like that is likely to happen in this House?
A few moments ago I referred to the 2025 span for the national policy statements and the 2050 figure in the pathways paper. Perhaps I may draw attention to what was said about that in paragraph 3.3.16 of the overarching statement, which states:
“The Government has therefore considered a planning horizon of 2025 for the energy NPSs in general and for EN-6 in particular, as an interim milestone”.
It is important to notice that phrase. The following paragraph states:
“The Government will keep the relevance of this interim milestone of 2025 for the energy NPSs under review”.
The question that I should like to put to my noble friend is: how will that be done; and when does he anticipate that it will be appropriate to extend the review either in new national policy statements, as he suggested, or in some form of amendment? I will refer to this again on Thursday, because it is particularly important in the consideration of nuclear investment and the need for nuclear sites. I will not dwell on that today, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for that.
I return to the policy statements we are considering today. There are a great many issues to which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the Grand Committee will wish to refer. I should like to pick out the question of gas infrastructure. I refer to the figures that have been quoted at paragraph 3.8.4 and are the subject of figure 3.1, which makes it clear that there will have to be considerable use of gas over the foreseeable future if we are going to have intermittent renewable energy and sufficient overall energy to keep the lights on. All I can say is that that is a welcome realism. It has not always been apparent in some of the public statements that have been made, but it is only realistic. There are ample supplies of gas. It is much more easily adjustable to the changing patterns of demand and we are inevitably going to use it. Gas will remain a significant source.
However, it is also made clear in the paragraphs that there are uncertainties. In particular the document mentions energy prices. In this context, I was mildly surprised that there is no reference to the comparatively recent advent, especially in the United States, of shale gas. This was mentioned in a briefing sent to a number of us last November by the department. It stated:
“Additional supplies in the US may now have a limited impact on international gas markets (since it is now largely self-sufficient), unless the US were able to export some of this gas”.
I read an article the other day which indicated that although it is true that current plans to convert some of the LNG terminals in the United States to export terminals have for the time being been set aside, the fact of the matter is that the US is now producing shale gas at considerably below the world market gas price. There must therefore come a point when there will be an undoubted incentive to try to use some of that on the world markets and therefore to have an impact on prices. That is likely to have an impact on the balance of gas on our markets here and might at some stage require a revision of the figures to which I referred a few moments ago.
As the right reverend Prelate and others have said, gas is of course a fossil fuel and therefore emits greenhouse gases. If it is going to be a larger part of our energy scene, and if that is undesirable, that implies that other sources will have to be expanded to stop that happening. One sees that the obvious answer, as a very low-carbon source, is more nuclear. That is another point that my noble friend might like to mention.
Other speakers have referred to CCS and carbon-capture readiness. I shall refer to two issues related to that. One is the whole question of carbon dioxide transport and storage, and the other is the process by which the IPC or its successor is to decide on approval, or not, of a CCR plant.
On the question of pipelines and storage, there is a requirement on the IPC under paragraph 3.6.5 to take account of further developments of CCS that will require further carbon transport and storage. This seems to be really quite difficult. The industry itself, in paragraph 4.7.7, is asked when planning its investment to bear in mind further developments. I have always felt that eventually there will have to be a CO2 grid, or perhaps a series of regional grids, in the country so that one does not have a mass of single pipelines leading to underground storage offshore. Achieving that objective, though, will be very difficult to deliver in practice. How is the IPC expected to take account of future demand? The four demonstration projects, all of which will be CCS, are intended to establish the viability of CCS as an economic and technical possibility. By definition, no one knows what the future investment is going to be, so I find this a difficult concept. I hope that my noble friend might be able to explain. I realise that a lot of this is spelt out in the revisions to EN-1, but I have not been entirely clear about how they are going to work out.
I come to the more difficult, and more problematical, question of CCR, where a plant can be produced but it has to be established that it is carbon-capture ready, and how the IPC is to handle those applications. This will be a very difficult problem. One has to remember that this all came via the European Union.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, even in the benign atmosphere of the Grand Committee, the noble Lord has had 17 minutes and I am afraid that 15 minutes is the recommended time. I do hope that he will be able to conclude his remarks.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I can conclude my remarks extremely briefly by saying that I hope that my noble friend will give us some explanation of how the new guidance on CCR is intended to work, and what the remaining role of the IPC will be in that. I am sorry if I have tested the patience of noble Lords on this, but I think that these are relevant points.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary officer of both the Friends of the Lake District, which represents CPRE in Cumbria, and the Campaign for National Parks. I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Giddens said about the urgency of climate change. I find myself completely in harmony with him, although there have been moments in Cumbria in the past few weeks when I have had to hang on to that conviction. However, it remains absolutely firm.
It seems that this statement again brings home to us the question of what we are trying to achieve. There is a danger that our preoccupations with energy and energy policy become an end in themselves, which they are not. They are about how we get a society worth having. If we are to take that seriously, it is not an appendix to our considerations; it is central to our considerations that we take responsibility for stewardship of our aesthetic, environmental and landscape inheritance, which is envied by the world. It would be easy, under the pressures that exist, to repeat the mistakes of the first Industrial Revolution. With hindsight we can see that they were mistakes, but surely we have a capacity to learn as a society from the faults of our predecessors. It was not necessary to do all that was done in the way that it was done, raping some of the richest, most important inheritance in our countryside and landscape across the nation.
There are those aesthetic considerations but there are also social challenges. How do we avoid a situation in which the weight of what is being done falls on those who are already relatively socially disadvantaged or less articulate? How do we avoid the “not in my backyard” syndrome, where those who do not have the same influence end up with a disproportionate amount of what has to be done on their doorstep?
All this has to be put together, which is why a national statement has the potential to be so important. I must confess to some disappointment about the draft that is before us. In what I have just talked about, the guidance on spatial issues is inadequate. There is room for much more detailed spelling out of criteria. Quite apart from the considerations that I have just mentioned, without more detailed criteria we are creating greater uncertainty for planners and public alike. Potentially, all parts of the countryside are up for grabs as the policy goes forward. This will lead to great public anxiety and pressure that, however much the Government want to speed up the process, will in the end find ways of delaying it. If there were more information available and more specificity on these issues, it would speed up the process in the way that the Government would like.
All this is brought out rather well by CPRE. It gives a specific example in an interesting brief that has been prepared. Underlining that it is not a theoretical concern, CPRE spells out that,
“experience of pre-application consultation for the substation required to connect the Triton Knoll offshore wind farm to the national grid highlights the risk of the current approach. The location of the substation is subject to consultation, but the fact that all proposed sites for the substation are approximately 40km from the nearest suitable 400kV overhead lines is not considered. Indeed, the required overhead lines to connect the substation are entirely outside of the consultation, and risk not being considered at all by the Infrastructure Planning Commission or a future Major Infrastructure Unit of the Planning Inspectorate”.
There is an apparent underlying assumption that there is an almost unlimited need for new energy infrastructure, but how much examination has there been of what has already been consented to? What are the implications for need and what we may have to do in the future of what has already been consented to?
This is a missed opportunity to provide for effective integration of different planning needs, to examine reasonable alternatives or to complete a convincing appraisal of sustainability. I referred earlier to what my noble friend Lord Giddens said about the urgency of climate change. I endorsed that view and said that we faced a challenge. The challenge is probably of greater significance in some ways for the history of the species than the Second World War. What strikes me in any reading of the history of the Second World War, when we faced that huge challenge in which we had to succeed, is how much work was going on at that very time into the quality of society that we wanted when the war was won and what was necessary to ensure it. Are we in danger now, in our very materialist age, of getting so preoccupied with the means that we are not facing up to the challenges that were faced up to by that great Government from 1940 to 1945?
The statements are a missed opportunity, but there are other aspects, too. The protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty, to which the Minister referred in his introduction, and national parks is, I fear, weakened in the revised drafts. One can identify this weakening by looking at the issue of the national grid and the Holford principles. Perhaps I could be forgiven for drawing in this matter again on the wisdom—there is a lot of wisdom and experience there—of CPRE.
The majority of 1,100 public responses to questions on electricity transmission policies in the first drafts of the NPSs, which was almost a third of the 3,000 responses received to the consultation on all six NPSs as a whole, called for stronger policies to control the visual impact of overhead lines. That is a pretty substantial indication of public feeling and what the public are looking for.
Disturbingly, however, the second draft of the NPS on electricity networks proposes to weaken the standing of the Holford rules. The original draft stated that decision makers should recognise that the rules should form the basis for the approach to routing new overhead lines, and applicants should be expected to follow them where possible. This latest draft says only that decision makers should bear the rules in mind. This would mean a significant weakening of the rules. It is likely to mean that there will be no requirement on either electricity companies to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid damaging impacts to important areas of landscape or on the decision maker to base its evaluation of a proposed overhead transmission line scheme on whether the Holford rules have been met. Nor is there any expectation that the mitigation measures suggested in paragraph 2.8.9 of EN-5 should be carried out for schemes where one or more of the Holford rules are not met. The effect of this could well be seriously to weaken the protection of the countryside from unnecessary and intrusive energy infrastructure.
Of course, since the NPS was drafted, significant policy changes have occurred, the most notable of which is the review announced by National Grid on 15 December of its policy on undergrounding electricity lines. This review comes in the context of a review of the costs of undergrounding led by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and KEMA. Their estimate of costs appears to be much lower than the inflated figures cited in the previous draft NPSs. In the light of these reviews and of the scale of proposed new electricity transmission infrastructure, will the Minister not agree that the Holford rules should surely continue to form the basis of planning for new overhead lines, and that the IPC should be empowered to require underground or undersea transmission in areas which are environmentally sensitive?
Before I conclude, I wish to deal, if I may, with what have been described as “minor changes” to the new drafting. After quite a number of years in politics, I am always very cautious about minor changes in drafting, because they sometimes have far more implications than are recognised. I suggest that the public have not been alerted at all well to the implications of some of the so-called minor changes and their—I shall be generous—unintended consequences, although there is always the question, which, of course, I would never associate myself with, as to whether the consequences really are unintended.
I shall give examples. Paragraphs in section 5.8 of EN-1, on the historic environment, almost exactly repeat existing protections in PPS5, except that they remove references to non-designated areas. In particular, paragraphs 5.8.12 and 5.8.17 add the word “designated” to existing language in PPS5, thereby weakening protection for non-designated heritage assets, such as the buried remains of Roman Winchester. According to English Heritage, these are of at least equivalent importance to that of many places that are designated. To give a sense of scale, less than 15 per cent of historic buildings on farms are nationally designated.
Paragraph 5.9.9 of EN-1, on visual and landscape impacts, repeats the new contribution-to-the-regional-economy criterion which first appeared in the previous draft EN-1. This is a major departure from existing protections for nationally designated areas and significantly reduces their protection.
Paragraph 5.12.8 identifies developer contributions as a material consideration for planning decisions. It is right to consider these benefits through the planning process. However, the NPS should specify that contributions must relate to the purpose of the project. For example, community benefits for energy projects should contribute to local energy saving or microgeneration.
I feel very sad. I have talked about the thinking that went on during the war about the kind of Britain that we wanted to have when it was won. Paragraph 5.10.12 of EN-1 advises applicants on ways in which to circumvent green belt protection. That is deplorable.
On Thursday, nuclear policy is to be discussed and this is therefore not the time to do so. However, there is a close interrelationship. Apart from all the other issues that I have mentioned—aesthetic, environmental and the rest—there are of course geological considerations. This was recently brought home tellingly by the earthquake in Cumbria. I raised this with the Minister in a Written Question and I am grateful for his full and helpful reply, which noble Lords can read for themselves in Hansard. In that reply, he says:
“Vibrations associated with earthquakes experienced in the UK will not significantly affect a repository at depth, but any potential for changes to the rock mass containing a GDF must be thoroughly investigated”. —[Official Report, 10/1/11; col. WA375.]
We are talking about hundreds of years ahead. I wonder whether some of our successors may look very closely at that confident prediction that vibrations associated with earthquakes experienced in the UK will not significantly affect a repository at depth. It does not sound to me like quite the careful drafting that there should be on a matter of this significance.
Lord Reay
My Lords, I find myself in a position in which I may rain somewhat on the parade. As I see it, the NPSs are essentially tools designed to help force through the planning system the Government’s energy policy, which, above all, reflects a quixotic desire to achieve the most exacting renewable energy targets in the world at whatever cost there may be to economic growth and irrespective of whether any other country does likewise.
It is on wind power that the Government must place virtually all their hopes of achieving their renewable energy targets. Last year renewable energy provided 6.6 per cent of our electricity and, out of that, wind power only 2.4 per cent. Nevertheless, only wind power has shown any substantial growth, having tripled the amount of electricity it has generated in the past four years, while hydro and biomass have not managed increases of even 20 per cent. However, the main trouble with onshore wind from the Government’s point of view is that it is extremely unpopular. It is noteworthy that the Committee on Climate Change, in its recently published Fourth Carbon Budget report, recognised that the unpopularity of onshore wind turbines poses a risk to their deployment. In the measured—indeed, understated—words of the committee on page 248,
“there are questions over the extent to which the full practical potential can be exploited, given local opposition in some areas”.
There are now several hundred protest groups throughout the country, tenaciously opposing the imposition of industrial-scale turbines on their rural landscapes. In an increasing number of cases, they have persuaded planning inspectors of the justice of their case.
The Government’s answer to this seems to be to follow the example of the developers and seek to bribe local authorities with financial rewards if they grant planning permission in the first place. There are provisions to enable this in the Localism Bill. In such a way do the Government seek to reconcile their claim to be handing more powers of decision to local authorities with their determination to impose on them their green agenda. However, it may be—I hope that it will be—that the planning system that we still have, enforced ultimately by the Planning Inspectorate that we still have, will succeed in protecting the countryside from this onslaught. In that case, our planning system, so wonderfully successful in the last century in protecting our landscape from uncontrolled ribbon development, may save it for a second time this century from the worst consequences of today’s scandalous vandalism.
Offshore wind is less unpopular because it is further away; indeed, some of it is out of sight. That aside, it has even more disadvantages than onshore wind. As the Committee on Climate Change report puts it:
“Offshore wind generation has much more complex engineering aspects (e.g. relating to the salt-water environment), is at an earlier stage of deployment and is much more costly than onshore wind”.
Indeed, it costs the poor consumer, who is paying for the subsidy, twice as much per unit of electricity produced as onshore wind, and it is no more efficient at producing it than onshore wind, with a load factor last year that was no higher than that for onshore wind, at 26 per cent.
I have no doubt that circumstances will eventually force the Government to retreat from their ruinously expensive policy, as other countries have already shown signs of doing. The tragedy is that so much will have been wasted—indeed, scattered to the wind—in the mean time. Each accredited wind farm will be able to claim its enormous ROC subsidy at the rate originally applied for a guaranteed 20 years, whatever happens to subsidies in the future. In such a way has the green obsession resulted in the mortgaging of our future.
I should like to say something about gas and take up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made. I could find no proper discussion in any of the NPSs about shale gas, and I find that astonishing. Even the Committee on Climate Change, in its report that was published at about the same time, had something to say on the subject, including this:
“There is the possibility that potentially abundant supplies of unconventional gas will result in considerably lower gas prices”;
and this:
“The emergence of unconventional gas supplies, particularly in the North American market, has led to the prospect of a possible new ‘dash for gas’ in some regions of the world”.
Yet the Government apparently cannot find space in several hundred pages of their energy national policy statements to acknowledge the existence of this potentially game-changing development. Gas is now cheap, the price having decoupled from the oil price, and it is going to be accessible in many countries worldwide, not least in Europe. It emits 50 per cent to 70 per cent less carbon than coal, with the result that when the previous “dash for gas” took place in the 1990s and gas to some extent took over from coal, our power station carbon emissions fell overall by some 30 per cent.
What is the point of persisting with ever-rising subsidies for wind power in order to meet renewable energy targets when abundant, cheap and relatively CO2-clean gas is available? What is the point of having to install 130-plus gigawatts of generating power in order to be able to provide 100 per cent back-up for wind power, when 80 or 90 gigawatts would be enough to satisfy peak demand using any other fuels? Do the Government think that consumers will tolerate ever-rising electricity bills in order to be able to enjoy the mystical advantage of having their electricity powered by wind rather than more cheaply by gas? At Question Time today, my noble friend the Minister seemed to wring his hands and say that it was regrettable that electricity prices were going up. The surest way of bringing them down would be to remove renewable energy subsidies.
I turn to gas and the CCR requirement. It is clear from EN-2 that the IPC may not give consent to any combustion plant above 300 megawatts, including any gas-fired plant, that has not demonstrated carbon-capture readiness. As I understand it, it is already the case today that any new large-scale gas plant, of which there are many in the pipeline—24 gigawatts’ worth, according to the Committee on Climate Change—must demonstrate carbon-capture readiness. Is that correct? If it is, what does that add to their costs? Does it result in delays? Has it affected where gas plants can be sited? Could we have the Government’s views on that?
On CCS itself, the Government have already committed £1 billion towards the cost of just the first of the four demonstration plants that they have planned. As I read it, they have already pledged to CCS as much as all other countries combined. However, the signs of success are not universally apparent. Last autumn, Norway announced a vast increase in the cost of its Mongstad project and put back by some years the expected completion date. I wonder whether the Government still hold faith in their own timetable. What is that timetable?
I should like to say something about the grid and take up what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. According to the CPRE, we face what is expected to be the largest rollout of new power lines in a generation. This is required primarily to transport the electricity generated by wind farms in distant places to the centres of demand in the Midlands and the south-east. Even though those power lines will operate at the same capacity as wind power's load factor—that is, under 30 per cent over the year—they must be capable of carrying full capacity for when the wind is right.
Concern has been growing, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, about the damage that all this will do to the landscape. I therefore welcome with him the consultation that National Grid has launched on its approach to undergrounding energy cables, as well as the study on the comparative costs of underground and overhead cables which the Institution of Engineering and Technology has agreed to undertake. Underground cables are the rule in cities. Why cannot we see more of them in the country? Like the noble Lord, I am concerned about the apparent weakening in the NPS of the Holford rules. I have passed a question to the Minister’s officials asking why this apparent weakening has been introduced.
I end by referring to the Met Office, that old friend. The Government place all their faith in immensely long-distant temperature forecasts provided by an organisation that has time and again given proof that it is not able to forecast accurately beyond about next week, probably because its computers are programmed to provide the answers that its masters so passionately desire; namely, evidence to show that they have been right all along and that we are on the verge of being overwhelmed by a global warming catastrophe unless we do something about it. How can it be sensible for the Government to rely on that? Are the Government establishing a most urgent enquiry, as they should, into why they should continue to pay £200 million a year for the advice of the Met Office, which has just misled the whole country with regard to the weather in December, which in October it predicted would be mild? Is this the best use of taxpayers’ money? Are there no better advisers around?
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in the gap about the safety issues referred to by my noble friend the Minister. I have to say that I find paragraph 2.4.2 of statement EN-4, about the maritime risks for LNG, extremely unsatisfactory. We are told that,
“the relevant Port Authority is responsible for ensuring that the rules relating to safe port operations are followed. The IPC should be able to rely on these regulatory controls being properly applied and enforced”.
In my previous speeches, I indicated why our experience in Milford Haven suggested that we should not be able to rely on that, because a port authority with a conflict of interest might decide, as it did in that case, to vary the rules of safety that had been accepted worldwide and have led to the very good record that the industry has. At the very least, the IPC should insist that the port authority issue a clear statement of the regulatory regime that it has introduced and a clear explanation of any variations on the generally accepted standards that have produced that good safety record.
I am even more disappointed about paragraph 2.11.6, which comes under the heading “Factors influencing site selection by applicant”, and states:
“The primary technical siting considerations for a conventional LNG terminal will be the combination of a deepwater jetty for berthing LNG carriers, the availability of a suitably large site for industrial development and pipeline access from the LNG terminal to the National Transmission System”.
There is absolutely no reference to offshore berthing terminals, about which I spoke at considerable length at our earlier sessions, and of which I gave more than one example, particularly regarding the Adriatic, south of Venice. There are huge advantages in such terminals because they can mean that the LNG vessels are unloaded well away from population areas. What is more, the pipelines can be much shorter because you can site the terminals close to where you wish to consume the gas. It is extraordinary that there is no reference at all to this highly desirable siting of terminals, which is the policy followed by a good many countries overseas.
I turn to pipeline safety. I did not really raise this on the previous occasion, but people have come to see me, engineers of considerable experience, who have produced worrying evidence to me that safety standards have not always been met to the highest standards in the construction of a major pipeline from Milford Haven across south Wales into England. I have photographic evidence shown to me of some of the shortcomings, and I take it seriously. More worrying still, the HSE has said clearly that it does not have sufficient resources to inspect the whole operation and check on every aspect. Yet we have rules that say that the pipeline safety regulations place general duties on all pipeline operators, and the pipelines have to be designed, constructed and operated so that the risks are as low as is reasonably practical—ALARP, if that is the right phrase for the safety standards. In paragraph 2.18.6 we are told that the pipeline operators should be able to demonstrate “equivalent levels of safety” if they move away from the ordinary established standards, and in paragraph 2.18.5 that:
“In determining compliance, HSE expects pipeline operators to apply relevant good practice as a minimum”.
It is necessary, when we are dealing with pipelines that can create real hazards and have done so elsewhere in the world, that local people, who can be considerably worried by the safety aspect, should be shown clear evidence, and the IPC should insist on clear statements, of what safety precautions have been taken. The HSE must give full information so that people’s anxieties can be properly mitigated.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, in the gap I doff my warm woolly hat, or even my mitre, in three directions—three areas where I think the policy statements are inadequate. The first has been covered partly by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and partly by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, from very different perspectives: the economic impact of these policies simply is not spelt out. Where is the £250 billion that is required by 2025 to come from? How much will be paid by consumers through their electricity bills? My electricity bill in Scotland currently has government obligations of about 7 per cent. That will be much greater in the years to come. How great? If electricity bills in this country get out of sync with those of other competitor countries, it will produce unemployment, which is a moral consequence of policies that one does not always or often accept. How can this be spelt out in a way that is much more transparent? At the moment there is simply a deathly silence.
Secondly, due to the occupational hazards of being a bishop, I, too, cannot be here on Thursday, like my right reverend friend the Bishop of Liverpool, but I have a question about nuclear. The policy statement makes a clear case for major nuclear investment, but why is there not the same subsidy as is available to wind power, given all the constraints and difficulties that exist in relation to wind power? I hope that the Government can answer that on Thursday.
I should like to spend a little more time on the third area, and ask how these policies relate to events in the wider world. Every country on earth that has fossil fuels, especially underground oil and gas, feels a compelling economic requirement to exploit them. We are told on page 13 of the report that it is the Government’s policy to maximise production of oil and gas from the North Sea. If you are the Sudan or the United States of America, you feel the same compulsion. You would feel the same compulsion if you suddenly discovered vast amounts of additional gas in the form of shale gas. What will become of the oil and gas that is taken out of the ground? It will be turned into carbon dioxide; that is the only useful thing you can effectively do with it, because its value is tied up in the energy in the carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen bonds in the molecules. Whatever we do in this country, the great presumption must be that there will be a huge increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere worldwide. Any policy in this country has to be co-ordinated much more with international policy, lest we end up with very expensive energy and economic consequences that we are not currently facing.
We are told on page 54 of EN-1 that the global increase in coal production simply continues. What will happen to that coal? It will be turned into carbon dioxide. That is the only useful thing that you can do with it. It is extraordinary to assume that carbon capture and storage will come to the rescue of all this. In a previous incarnation, I was a chemist—the very foothills of science when compared with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and perhaps others here in the Room. There are difficulties in the chemical processes of capturing the carbon dioxide in the first place, potentially involving vast amounts of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, both of which are very combustible gases. Who will pay for transporting the CO2 through vast pipelines or for storing it underground? How secure will that be geologically? That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. These are huge questions, quite apart from the cost. We have not been told of the costs for CCS so far.
I hope that I can simply doff my cap in the direction of the Minister and ask for some replies—either today or in writing.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I had not expected to speak today, but I should like to make a few comments in the gap on carbon capture and storage, in so far as it has been mentioned in a number of noble Lords’ speeches. I declare an interest as honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. In a funny way, I wish we did not have to carry out carbon capture and storage, but as long as we are committed to providing energy to people in this country—an obligation similar to those of Governments and industries around the world—we have no choice, provided we believe that controlling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is one of our priorities. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and others on the urgency of doing something about this.
I will comment a little on the risk associated with CCS, to which the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Teverson, referred. I do not think that there is any serious technical risk associated with CCS technology; it has for more than a year been demonstrated and operated by the Chinese on a 100-megawatt plant north of Beijing, and they are implementing it at a 300-megawatt plant further south.
What is uncertain about carbon capture and storage is the longer-term cost. In terms of what we do in this country and in Europe in general, the problem, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was the first to refer, and others mentioned, is the infrastructure associated with CCS. The Minister will be familiar with the report of the expert group commissioned to look into this issue by his party shortly before the election—a group in which I have the honour to participate. One thing is absolutely clear: if we are serious about carbon capture and storage, the lead time needed for the infrastructure is enormous. Perhaps this is something that tends to be forgotten, or not fully recognised, by Governments and certainly by civil servants. We are talking here about heavy engineering. In terms of the capture technology, there is a lot of learning by doing. This does not happen simply because it appears in the report of the Committee on Climate Change or a government department. It is hard work. Frankly, the reason that we are not further ahead today is that progress at a governmental level, and in a public demonstration of government commitment, has been glacial. We must move ahead rapidly.
Although I commonly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I hope the Minister does not follow his advice and refer to CO2 as a pollutant. Let us bear in mind that life on earth would not be possible without the CO2 in the atmosphere. We have to be a little careful about what we call a pollutant.
To pick up a final point made by several speakers, shale gas is a game-changer. It is still a somewhat uncertain game-changer. It has certainly ensured the complete decoupling of gas price from oil price. This began about four years ago with the full-scale development of LNG. We are moving into a period of relatively abundant gas. I will not say that it is cheap, but it is significantly cheaper than oil and unlikely to increase in price at the same rate as oil. I find it difficult to see why anyone would want to build a further coal-fired plant in this country, given the likely availability of gas in the short term. Gas will certainly need to have CCS applied to it. Shale gas is giving us a little time to catch our breath. It is not an answer but it will help us over the next few years.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I will say a word or two in the break. I first declare my interest and my involvement in alternative forms of energy. I very much welcome these documents and the commitment of the Government to making the changes that they seek.
It would be a foolish and irresponsible Government who did not recognise that the overwhelming majority of scientific advice is that climate change is happening and that mankind is affecting it. Even if that were untrue, a population of 9 billion and a shortage of resources will mean that most, if not all, of these actions would have to be taken in any case. The argument is over. There is no point in arguing; if you do not believe in climate change, you must just accept the population argument and the changes that will be needed to reserve and conserve the resources that we have. That means that those of us who are committed to this should also be careful to ensure that the cost of the change is as low as possible. Cost-effectiveness is crucial but it would be foolish to tell people that because they do not like the rise in the cost of electricity we should not allow it to happen. They will be much angrier if we allow the world to be endangered because we have not taken these steps.
Can the Minister confirm that there is a real need to get rid of several of the impediments to what we are trying to do? I note that the Government have already set up a group of specialists in the agricultural area to look at how impediments to agriculture can be removed. There are many such impediments here. For example, the economic advantage to the providers of overhead power lines of having a new power line militates against the much more sensible policy of restringing old power lines. It is simply to their advantage to have a large amount of new investment in those circumstances. There is a whole range of such areas which are not covered in these documents but could very much benefit the nation.
Someone said that offshore wind is much more popular than onshore wind. I chair an offshore wind company, and I will tell your Lordships why it is much more popular: because it is a long way away. Once you start connecting it onshore, though, a good deal of that unpopularity will return to it. We have to be pretty tough about the changes in the planning arrangements, and I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on this. We really cannot run our whole system on that basis; if we had done that in the 19th century we would not have had a railway, and if we had done so in the 18th century we would not have had a single canal. We have to recognise that we must build for the future, and we must do it as well as we can in the context of what we have, but we really cannot look backwards in that way.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but black carbon is a major concern that people ignore at their peril. It is particularly damaging to the health of people here and throughout the world. Unless we do something about black carbon here, we will not be able to help the Indians, for example. In that country, black carbon is a real issue for the health of its population.
That leads to me to answer a point that I hope the Minister will emphasise: of course we are doing more than other people, because we are taking the lead and because we want the physical and financial advantages of doing so. If we want to get other people to do it, we have to do it first ourselves. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that I am entirely in favour of co-operation with our neighbours, but if we want that co-operation we have to set the scene and the leadership example. My only concern about the coalition policy on this is that we have to recognise that this is above all a European issue, that we have to work within the European Union, that the EU is crucial to the future of this, and that a little less attacking of the EU and a little more support for it would make it very much easier to deliver what we need to do.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, many of us here today saw the old parliamentary year out with an energy debate, and we are seeing the new year in with another one. I hope that that is not just an accident of parliamentary timing by the usual channels; I think that it shows the importance and urgency of the issues before us today and the other issues that we are debating. Today’s debate is welcome. I thank the Government for ensuring that we have two debates; there will be a separate debate later this week on the nuclear statement.
Unfortunately, I was not part of your Lordships’ House during the previous debates. Having read them, though, it is clear to me that the Minister has taken on board a number of comments that were made, which has been welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Giddens, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin of Roding. I congratulate the Government on recognising the scale of the challenge that is before us and on taking on board the comments that have been made. In many ways, these revised policy statements are aspirational, which emphasises how crucial they are—they are the framework under which the decisions, including how we secure energy supplies and the infrastructure to deliver them, will be made in future.
We have heard today that there is evidence of the urgency of the need to address infrastructure. By 2018 one-quarter of our energy capacity will close, and as much as 30 per cent will have to be replaced by 2020. We see many of our nuclear power stations coming to the end of their lives and coal-fired power stations being retired, but at the same time, by the Government’s own projections, we are seeing energy demand increasing and forecast to continue to increase significantly. If we are to meet the nation’s and our citizens’ energy demands, we have to create enough energy generation to meet them at all times.
These are huge issues that, as the statements recognise, can be addressed only by a combination or a blend of solutions. We will need to invest in carbon capture and storage and the rapid decarbonisation of the electricity sector. We will need to see increased capacity in renewables, in low-carbon energy and decentralised energy. As other noble Lords have indicated, we have to take this in the context of other issues under debate. The energy and market reform proposals, although not being debated today, are vital to progress, as will be our forthcoming debate, which I am sure we all look forward to, on the Government’s Energy Bill. None of these issues can be seen in isolation.
Can I first ask the Minister about the process? This has been also raised by noble Lords. The Government’s response to the Select Committee, which was emphasised by the Minister, made it clear that they want the “strongest possible democratic legitimacy” for these statements, and I am sure that all of us would applaud that aim. Now that the Localism Bill has been published, we have had the opportunity to look at Clause 109 on national policy statements and how Parliament should ratify them. Under this clause, if an NPS is an amended version of an earlier proposal, further consultation need not be carried out if the earlier proposal was consulted on and the amendments that have been made do not materially affect the policy. The clause goes on to state that where a proposal is laid before Parliament for approval by the House of Commons, it is not necessary to comply with the parliamentary scrutiny requirements in relation to the proposal, if they have been complied with in an earlier proposal.
I therefore have two questions—and one that occurred to me during the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The first relates to the definition of material amendments. Perhaps I have picked up on the scepticism of my noble friend Lord Judd about the language. The definition of material amendments is a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State. Would the amendments in these revised documents be classified by the Minister as being material and, as such, if the Localism Bill’s provisions were in force today, would these changes be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, in the way that they are now?
Secondly, what is the level of parliamentary scrutiny that would not be required? Does this mean that if the Secretary of State in future does not consider that any revisions made to the policy statements are not material, parliamentary scrutiny or ratification would not be required? I raise this because, given the significant legal weight that will be given to the national policy statements under the proposals in the Localism Bill to get rid of the IPC, I would totally support the Government’s intention to ensure that these statements have “the strongest possible democratic legitimacy”. What I am not clear about is how this will be achieved under the proposals. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify and reassure me on those points.
Particularly after listening to my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, it strikes me that if the Minister and his colleagues are to take on board comments made in this debate and, as a result, seek to make amendments to the national policy statements, will we have to go through the entire process of consultation, revised documents and procedures in this House again. Or is the debate today simply an opportunity for noble Lords to speak and will have no impact on what can go in the documents and what changes can be made?
Finally, given that the ratification process refers only to the House of Commons and not your Lordships’ House, would it be helpful for the other place if, prior to its deliberations, there were always to be an advisory debate in your Lordships’ House that could help inform the process?
From these statements, there has to be the political will to tackle the issues. As much as we welcome what is in these documents, the Government will want to show that they will put support and investment behind these policy statements for them to be truly effective. In this regard, can I raise two areas of concern? The first relates to another clause in the Localism Bill and the Government’s plans to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and replace it with a new body called the major infrastructure planning unit, within the Planning Inspectorate. When the IPC was established in 2008, the intention was for it to be an independent body with the expertise to make balanced independent decisions without ministerial political influence. It sought to make the planning system for major infrastructure projects quicker, more efficient and set within clear guidelines, whereby it would be more predictable. That laid down the right conditions for investment in the kind of energy infrastructure that we urgently need.
Under the new system proposed by the Government, the new body, the MIPU, will make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who will make decisions in accordance with these national policy statements. The Government will have to ensure that these plans do not add delays to the system or remove the clarity and certainty that the industry needs if it is to invest in energy infrastructure, particularly renewables and, as we will be discussing later in the week, nuclear.
Also, given that the Localism Bill is not due to be enacted until 2012, it would be helpful if the Minister said something about the transitional arrangements and what will happen before the MIPU is established. I am sure he will understand that we are anxious that a further change in the system should not create delays that have a potential impact on energy security.
My other concern is about the investment required. I concur entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the need for certainty in this. Can I ask the Minister for further information on the green investment bank in this regard? We already know that the £1 billion investment being proposed is significantly less than the suggested figure of around £6 billion needed to make the necessary impact, but I know that the Government hope that private investment will be brought in.
Can I share with the Minister one of my concerns about this? The green investment bank will be tempted to invest in and focus on tried and trusted technologies—that is, the safe bets that it is pretty certain will deliver results—rather than seek to develop new, potentially more risky technologies that could have greater long-term potential. Can the Government give any further information about how the bank will operate and how it will guard against those problems?
Turning to the specifics of the documents, I will look at the need case. Although we agree that there is an urgent need for a diverse range of new, nationally significant energy infrastructure—I emphasise “diverse range”—does the Minister consider that enough is being done to avoid this dash for gas without any carbon abatement; and that the case for additional electricity capacity has been effectively made?
In the overarching document it is calculated that the 26 gigawatts of required new electricity energy supply, over and above the 33 gigawatts that would need to come from renewables, would in effect be determined by industry. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said, there is a concern that the balance could come largely from gas, thus undermining both the Government’s declared commitment to an energy mix and carbon reduction. Since the earlier NPS, projections for gas demand have changed significantly. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why that is the case. Given that this is a significant change, when does he think the NPSs will next be updated?
If we look at the new gas capacity in the pipeline—forgive the pun—there is already over 14 gigawatts with consent, being built or still in the pre-IPC regime. There are also further gas and nuclear applications in the IPC system at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool raised concerns on this issue about the need to assess those applications at different stages of the planning process. Obviously, the Government want to encourage greater capacity for renewables as part of the diverse range, but there is a concern that the new gas and nuclear applications could crowd out the renewables. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will not happen? How will he ensure that we strengthen our renewable capacity as part of ensuring that we have a diverse range of new energy infrastructure and meet our target for renewables of 15 per cent by 2020?
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, spoke of progress on renewables in Spain, particularly on wind energy. Does the Minister share my concern that Renewables UK has reported a 50 per cent drop in planning approvals for wind farms in England over the last year? What plans do the Government have to reverse this trend?
Looking at the figures for projections of capacity in part 3 of the overarching statement, the Minister will be aware of the potential for a significant energy gap. At the same time, there are doubts about the assessment on which this is based. There will need to be a more thorough assessment of electricity demand and generation, including of that already in the pipeline of the planning process. It would be helpful and I would appreciate it if the Minister could share that information with both the House and the wider public as he gets it.
These are highly complex issues. Significant planning and risk analysis is essential. If, for any reason, any of the assumptions on which the Government have based their plans are wrong, or if there are delays in providing infrastructure caused by planning or other reasons, the Government will have to find other ways of meeting the targets to ensure energy security and low-carbon energy. The noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Teverson, also raised this issue in relation to carbon capture and storage. What if it proves not to be successful? I take on board the comments of the noble Lord about its effectiveness but that has yet to be tested so that we and investors can have absolute confidence. What are the implications if it is not successful? Is there a plan B?
I noted that the recommendation from the Committee on Climate Change, endorsed by the Select Committee in another place, that it should be clear in the NPS that the electricity sector should be fully decarbonised by 2030. That was rejected by the Government. I hope that the Government can look at this issue again to see if it is possible.
Finally, there is something that I was disappointed that the Minister did not raise in his speech. He will understand why I am doing so. The previous Government paved the way on these policy statements and did much of the groundwork on the documents. The greatest fear now must be delay. That means getting the planning, assumptions and alternatives right. If we do not, we underestimate the seriousness of the issue and the implications of not getting it right. I welcome our debate today. The challenge now is to ensure that the Government can deliver these objectives. We will do our best, as always, to co-operate with the Government to ensure that we have energy security and—as I pointed out in my question to the noble Lord in the House earlier, when I was grateful for his answer—that consumers do not pay the highest price. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Marland
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed and all those who have come to listen; it is much appreciated and shows the keenness with which we take this subject. As the noble Baroness said, we finished the year off with energy, we are starting it with energy, and, my goodness, we are going to be spending a lot of time on energy over the next month. We have got a lot on our plate. I hope that despite some complaining in the ranks, noble Lords here recognise that this Government do listen. I think that it is probably mistaken to get into the technicalities of a lot of the parliamentary procedure, because we have a lot of conversations outside the Chamber—we have a lot of listening; we have breakfast; we have had all sorts of things. I hope that you agree that we are listening.
The reason we are doing this is that this is a subject that transcends all Governments. It is fundamental to the country that we have a time line that goes to 2100, as I shall enunciate in a few minutes. In fact, our own pathway goes to 2050. So this is a major subject that in my view is largely outside the subject of party politics. As I think everyone will also understand, we have some serious heavy lifting to do. We have had a long time of inactivity; a long time of resting on the laurels of the wonderful wealth of oil from the North Sea which has kept this country afloat. As I said in an earlier Question today in answer to some of the noble Lord’s questions, we have got to spend more than £110 billion on our infrastructure just to get it up to scratch in the next 10 years. This is a massive project that confronts the Government today.
I turn to the specific questions which, if I may, I shall take in order. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, as always, is excellent on this subject. He questions our striving for renewables and indicates that we want to achieve 30 per cent. In fact, as I said in our opening speech, we are committed to 50 per cent—which, even for a thicko like me, is larger than 30 per cent. That is our commitment: to have half our energy from renewables by 2050. The noble Lord is also right that there is a huge amount to do.
The noble Lord also asked what happens if CCS does not work. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Oxburgh, who really said it all for me. It means that I have to say very little—so I will not. If it does not work, which we fully intend it to do, we will obviously rely on nuclear. I shall come back to the CCS demo project later, if I may.
The noble Lord also asked whether we should put faith in ETSs. ETSs are what we have got as a European standard. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we should listen to the EU on these subjects. I do not entirely agree with him, but we should listen on some things, and I think that this is good because it works. We should challenge it the whole time and ensure that it is ticking the box. But there is a considerable take-up in this area.
If I could wave a magic wand, of course we would have targeted regional planning. It makes complete sense. It requires a lot of cross-government co-operation, and now that we have been in government for six to nine months, it is a subject where we should be looking to achieve, particularly if we are going to develop the offshore renewables industry. If this is going to become one of our great exporting subjects, we should have a centre of excellence, and I have suggested to our Secretary of State that that is a subject we should take on. I am grateful for those comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the CCS competition update. As I am leading the negotiations on the competition, I can tell the Committee that next week we have our second meeting with the chairmen of Shell, National Grid and Iberdrola at 8 am on 19 February. They are coming back to us with their offer regarding what they can achieve within the budget that we have set them. I have no doubt that we will not accept their offer, they will go back and then come back again, hopefully, with something that is more acceptable. The timetable that we have set ourselves is a vigorous one; I want to see heads of agreement signed early this year with a view to having a legally binding document by October, and they are committed to that timetable. It is important that this should happen, and I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Oxburgh should give such encouragement in this area from a scientific point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned consultation with local planning authorities and where we go on that. It is a requirement of the Act that local planning has to happen first. That is the normal practice that we have had in this country and we are not changing it. For major infrastructure projects, we are abolishing the IPC because we believe that it is a quango—it is not an elected body—and ultimately it should be the Secretary of State who makes the decision on major planning projects. We have debated and talked about that on many occasions. The noble Lord also talked about the biomass timescale. That is set out in the Renewables Obligation Order 2011, which should be implemented in April this year.
I enjoyed hearing the dulcet tones of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool this morning on “Thought for the Day” as I was trying to think for the day and about how to deal with this debate; it was marvellous to hear them coming through on the subject of bankers. He can talk about any subject, can’t he? It is marvellous to have such expertise in this House and indeed in Liverpool. The right reverend Prelate wants to know what goals we have set ourselves. Pathway 2050 is one of the clearest documents that have been produced by the Government and shows the enormous challenges and the principles that we have to confront. The document is there as a target, and 2050 is a long way off.
The right reverend Prelate asked us to raise the subject of nuclear risk assessment, particularly in the flood areas. We can do no more than consult the experts, who have laid out the agreement up to the year 2100—hopefully, I will still be alive then—which is the timeframe within which the flood assessment is contained.
He also mentioned carbon counting, an issue that he has raised before, and I am grateful for that. There is a suggestion that the IPC should be responsible for carbon counting. We think that the Government’s policy in this area is perfectly adequate. Obviously it is something that we have to take seriously and, as with all these things, I will take the right reverend Prelate’s suggestions away and consider them further. With regard to his comments on China; yes, these issues have been raised with the Chinese delegation at a private meeting with the Secretary of State as well as through the Prime Minister’s Office.
There was the issue of the gap between planning applications and the IPC and when that will happen; the noble Baroness asked about that as well. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, we are grateful that the IPC has thoroughly co-operated in this process, and it is to be commended. In fact, I think that my noble friend went public in saying that it should co-operate with us, and I am glad that it has taken on board what he has suggested. There are two planning applications for power stations that are likely to be approved by the IPC, but anything other than that will be in this interregnum period, which looks like being a fairly smooth process.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin, eruditely as always, asked a number of questions on the issue of offshore and onshore. It is our belief, and I think it is a Conservative tenet, that market forces are best placed to determine how the two marry up together. I have referred to that, and I will do so again at a later stage.
The noble Lord also mentioned shale gas, as have a number of noble Lords. We welcome shale gas, of course; if it reduces the price of gas, that will be fantastic. There are no signs as yet that the Americans are going to supply it to the outside world, as they are intending at the moment to keep it within their own country, but anything that reduces the price of gas will be of great benefit.
I have mentioned parliamentary process, but will now mention it in more detail. I am not going to try to second-guess the parliamentary process regarding these national policy statements. It is not for me to do so; I am only a young whippersnapper in this world. But the changes that are being made through the Localism Bill will give the opportunity, within a 21-day period, for people to register their amendments, and then there will be a vote on them. The difference between now and then is that that vote will be binding, whereas before it was not worth the paper it was written on. If you add that to the general consultation that we are having through these various debates and parliamentary issues, I feel confident that all noble Lords will recognise that we are having our say. The Energy Bill is starting in this House, where it will be honed, argued over, debated and made fit for purpose. That shows the intent of the Government and the recognition of the excellent contribution that noble Lords make here.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin raised a number of other issues. I will be happy to discuss them with him afterwards or put them in writing to him. Some of the issues refer to nuclear and I will deal with them, if I may, in the nuclear debate, on which I notice his name is down to speak. He asked why we have an interim milestone of 2025. We have to have interim milestones; we have to have something that most of us can believe we will actually see, and 2025 is a perfectly reasonable figure.
I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was not as complimentary as he might be, although I took some of the serious and excellent comments that he made on board. I take no persuading of his view on overhead power cables; in fact, when I was a parliamentary candidate I was asked what was the one Private Member’s Bill that I would introduce and I said the removal of overhead cables, so he is preaching to the converted. Of course the CPRE is an excellent organisation, and we listen to it with great intent—well, I do, anyway.
I really think that the noble Lord has got the wrong end of the stick on the Holford rules. I want to read something that I read earlier, paragraph 2.8.5 in EN-5:
“Guidelines for the routeing of new overhead lines, the Holford Rules, were originally set out in 1959 by Lord Holford, intended as a common sense approach to the routeing of new overhead lines. These guidelines were reviewed and updated by the industry in the 1990s, and the IPC should bear them and any updates in mind as they examine applications for overhead lines”.
It goes on to list what the Holford rules state—on pages 12 and 13, for those who have the statement—and then continues:
“In considering whether all or part of proposed electricity lines should be placed underground to obtain the benefits of reductions in landscape and/or visual impacts, the IPC will need to weigh the reductions in visual intrusion against the impacts (economic, environmental and social) and technical challenges of undergrounding”.
That seems to be a common-sense approach.
Lord Judd
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and it is wonderful to have his emotional sympathy for the general drift of my commitment, but can he spell out what he understands by the injunction to “bear in mind”, in terms of actually achieving a situation in which we can be confident that these things will prevail?
Lord Marland
I look to the opening words, which state that the Holford rules were,
“intended as a common sense approach”.
In other words, it was a very 1959, laissez-faire rule. What we are doing is hardening the rules. We are not giving anything away on them. We have merely said that the Holford rules should apply, but if there are implications in terms of whether it is not geologically feasible to put lines underground, the rules should be borne in mind for the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said—the cost. We cannot impose unrealistic costs just because we are completely determined, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I are, to place those lines underground. However, I assure him that he has my greatest support and sympathy, and I have taken on board what he said. I shall fight the good fight, as he will, on these issues.
I am also grateful for the noble Lord’s point that we have to consider the future of our society. That is fundamental, and it is something that your Lordships’ House takes more seriously than most, because we take a long-term view of these things. What the noble Lord said was very important.
My noble friend Lord Reay is well known for his views on onshore wind. I cannot comment on whether I share them or not, because onshore wind is a government policy. However, I am always interested in his views. He asked some good questions. Onshore wind is part of a mixed portfolio required under our 2050 pathway if we are to supply this country with twice the supply that it needs today. Onshore wind supplies not a significant amount but a relevant amount. We know where the significant amounts of supply will come from, and we talked about them earlier. We want to be very careful about getting sidetracked into the smaller aspects of supply and concentrate our firepower as a Government on the major things, such as new nuclear, CCS and converting our waste into something much more effective.
Of course, onshore wind has tremendous support in certain parts of the country, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where local communities have come together and determined that there are benefits. Equally, a huge number of communities in England do not see the financial benefits to them. Luckily, we have rigorous planning procedures which ensure that fair play is maintained.
The noble Lord asked what the effects are on the CCR requirement and what extra costs there are on the companies for fulfilling it. There are no delays at the moment because everyone who applies for CCS is just buying the land next to them. There have been no problems with approval on that. The only extra cost is that of purchasing the land. I have mentioned two or three good points about CCS and the Holford rules, with which I hope the noble Lord is satisfied.
As far as the Met Office is concerned, the Government should review several things. First, should we be the owners of the Met Office? There are compelling reasons for the Government not owning an institution, and I am on the PEX-A committee which is reviewing whether the Met Office and its advice should be owned by the Government. However, people tell me that there is only one nation in the world that does not own its own meteorological office and that is Malta. That would be an interesting combination.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, did not applaud me to the rooftops for the changes that we have made on LNG and siting. We have made great strides and have listened carefully to what he has said, as I said in my opening speech. The noble Lord, who is an expert in this field, notes that this is a complicated area. There is no single legislative body and there are many different licensing conditions. Clearly, the Government are absolutely adamant that safety at all standards must be maintained. We have the best health and safety standards in the world. On the pipelines, he raises the very good point that standards should be maintained and constantly reviewed. Lessons should be learnt from the BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico. We are reappraising standards rigorously. Perhaps the noble Lord is going to applaud me to the rooftops.
Lord Crickhowell
Clearly, we are not just dealing with the safety of individuals and property. The security of our whole energy policy is dependent on these facilities being safe. However, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will look again at the possibility of referring to offshore LNG facilities, rather than taking the view that these facilities must in future always be close to centres of population with long pipelines. Examples from other parts of the world should guide us here.
Lord Marland
As I said, the noble Lord has great knowledge in this area and we take on board what he has to say. I am perfectly happy to discuss this with him later to see how we can improve. It is a complicated area, as the noble Lord knows.
I will deal with the issue, raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, of nuclear subsidy. The Government do not intend to provide a subsidy for nuclear because it is a very mature market. Subsidies should be for new technologies, which we can pump-prime to generate electricity. Of course we should maximise our resources in oil and gas, but we should also husband them because they do not last forever, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. That requirement is satisfied. We have just granted licences in the Shetlands to allow new oil drilling to happen.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for answering half my questions and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his sage-like remarks and for laying out the landscape for us. He rightly says, in the true Conservative way, that we will look at the costs. We cannot waste taxpayers’ money and must be careful. We must also remove any impediments to this substantial development.
I will be as brief as I can in answering the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, whom I thank for her co-operation. She asked about the Localism Bill and what is material in the Secretary of State putting a matter to the vote. I am not the arbiter of what is material and neither is she. We all know in our heart of hearts what is material and what we would expect. We will bring the usual pressures to bear through the other place or here to make sure that anything material gets debated because of the cross-relationship.
I mentioned earlier our reason for abolishing the IPC. The noble Baroness asked me to talk about the green investment bank, which is complicated. We have committed money to it. It is being set up primarily to commit to new technologies. We are investing taxpayers’ money and other banking institutions’ money in it. Therefore, there will be a rigorous test of whether it is a profitable enterprise. It is not a giveaway bank; it is an investment bank. However, it is an investment opportunity that will be available to people with new technologies to help them develop, provided they have a profitable end to them. We are not in the business of unprofitable enterprises.
The need case that was referred to is set out clearly in the 2050 Pathways Analysis, which is a very substantive document. If the noble Baroness would like to discuss issues on that after the event, I am very happy to do so. She also mentioned Renewables UK, the “dash for gas” and all those sorts of things. We need to have a broad portfolio in order to achieve our 2050 pathway, which is an enormous task. There is no point in saying, “I don’t like that, and I don’t like that”. We have to like it all because we need it, and we owe it to the next generations among us here to provide it. We cannot say, in our own isolated world, that we think this and we think that. We owe it to the next generations to deliver their requirements in a low-carbon, secure-energy framework. That is why I commend these NPSs to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thank the noble Lord for the time and care that he has taken to address many of the questions asked of him today. Perhaps I can press him on one point that I do not think he was able to answer. He said, in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that he would look at it again and take it back and discuss it with colleagues. If he were to do that and if changes were made to the national policy statement as a result, would that have to go through another round of consultation and another revised document, or could it be inserted as a result of the consultation and before it was put to a vote in the House of Commons?
Lord Marland
This matter goes to the House of Commons for a vote, where they can vote. It will happen in the spring. They are perfectly entitled to have amendments put in there for consultation. It may or may not be feasible that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will be something that the Government want to achieve. I am happy to explore them with him, as one would with any development of a policy, but whether that would come in this policy, in an attachment to the energy policy or in future national policy statements is another matter. We are trying to achieve what we have set out here in this policy.
Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2).
Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).
Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4).
Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5).
House of Lords
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord True
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Jolly
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Risby
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy: Electricity
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be the financial impact on consumers of the changes proposed to the United Kingdom’s private electricity networks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the provision of third-party access to unlicensed networks will enable customers of those networks to take advantage of the competitive energy market by having the right to choose their energy supplier. As such, where alternative suppliers can offer a more competitive price than the incumbent supplier, customers will be able to make savings on their energy costs.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that in the solution that he has just set out, it will require all the operators—the landlords of these private networks—to upgrade their supplies to grid standards at the cost of many millions? This applies to railways, airports, ports, sports centres—anywhere where there is subcontracted electricity. Does he agree that the Government should look at an alternative, which would be for the landlord to get competitive quotes, and so avoid this enormous cost on British business?
Lord Marland
My Lords, this is a complicated issue, and we have been in consultation with all the ports, airports and railways. That has been an extensive consultation. If the noble Lord wishes to meet with officials for further explanation and briefing on the consultation, I will, as always, make my officials available. I agree with him: it would be perfectly acceptable, if private network customers are satisfied with their private network suppliers, to go out to tender to obtain cheaper electricity. The fundamental point, however, is that in these difficult times, it is important that the customer has the cheapest and fairest electricity supply that is available.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, it is welcome that the proposed changes will help people switch suppliers and potentially save money on their energy bills. Does my noble friend agree that more market competition and greater transparency in wholesale costs and retail prices would assure consumers that they were paying a fair price for their energy?
Lord Marland
I totally agree with the noble Baroness, but in fairness, it is the role of Ofgem to ensure that electricity prices remain competitive. We strongly encourage Ofgem to be transparent and to challenge the fairness of prices. As noble Lords know, we are reviewing the role of Ofgem and ensuring that it is carrying out those methods so that we end up with a competitive electricity market in these very difficult times.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, at Question Time after Question Time we keep hearing Ministers speak about competition and reducing prices. The facts are that prices still keep going up. Electricity has gone up by 9 per cent. How can 9 per cent on people’s bills be justified?
Lord Marland
The noble Lord is completely right that electricity bills are going up and have been going up. This is very regrettable, but let us look at the facts. In the past five years, oil prices have gone up by 60 per cent and gas prices by nearly 60 per cent. Electricity prices have also gone up by nearly that much in that time. It is incumbent on us to get a competitive situation in the market and I can assure your Lordships that this Government are trying everything that they can to achieve that.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, is it not the case that owners of wind farms are to be paid a so-called facilitation fee, apparently to contribute to the costs of their facilities, even when there is no wind and they are not producing any electricity? What sort of a contribution does that make to these competitive policies?
Lord Marland
With all due respect, the noble Lord is slightly wrong in his sweeping judgment that there is no wind activity from wind farms. There is of course wind; we live in a windy country. Wind farms are seen to be an appropriate way for this country to generate electricity. However, his broader point is very well made: in order to achieve by 2050 probably twice the amount of electricity that we need now, we have to get on with obtaining it from a portfolio of ventures. That means new nuclear, wind farms, renewables such as anaerobic digesters and biomass, et cetera. We have to have a portfolio of ventures and this Government have set about achieving that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, with the announcement today of yet another energy company increasing its charges, I know that the Minister understands how worried people are about paying their bills, particularly as we have seen a spate of very cold weather. The noble Lord will be aware that his own department has forecast that the shift towards greener energy and a greener economy will increase the cost of electricity by 33 per cent and the cost of gas by 18 per cent. We welcome and support the move to greener energy, but what action will the Government take to ensure that the energy companies do not continue to make excessive profits while the costs fall on the consumers?
Lord Marland
The noble Baroness raises a very apposite question. As she says, E.ON has today raised its energy prices, which is absolutely regrettable in the current circumstances. We are very concerned about the margin that electricity companies are making in the current environment. As I said earlier, ensuring competitiveness is the role of Ofgem but let us make no mistake: we have to invest £110 billion in the next 10 years to upgrade our very redundant network. Therefore, I am afraid that electricity prices are going to go up because we have done nothing for a very long period.
Lord Geddes
Why are those who produce their own electricity—from photovoltaic panels, for instance—paid by the grid only a fraction of what they have to pay to the grid if they wish to draw electricity from it?
Lord Marland
The whole idea of incentivising people to produce electricity is for the Government to pump-prime alternative electricity uses. Photovoltaic energy is developing into a maturing market. We are reviewing whether it is mature enough and whether some of the benefits that that market has so far received should be reviewed.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, will the Minister ask his officials to reopen the file on rising block tariffs and the benefits that that would bring to consumers?
Lord Marland
I do enjoy these questions, my Lords. I have never been the smartest tool in the box—
Lord Marland
Thank you. I appreciate the response from the opposition Benches—I fished for that compliment beautifully. The answer is no.
Air Passenger Duty
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Borrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the potential effects on United Kingdom competitiveness of the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in June 2010 forecasting that air passenger duty revenue would increase from the current rate of £1.9 billion to £3.8 billion per annum by 2015–16.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s November forecast estimates air passenger duty revenue at £3.6 billion in 2015-16. The estimate reflects forecast growth in passenger numbers and the November 2010 rate increases as announced by the previous Government. It also assumes that duty rates are uprated by inflation each year—a standard forecasting convention. However, at the Budget, the Government committed to exploring changes to aviation tax and to consult on any major changes. We are considering evidence from stakeholders, including on the impact on UK competitiveness.
Lord Borrie
I thank the noble Lord for his answer. However, it does not deal with the great problem that so many countries on the continent of Europe either do not have any duty at all or have a much lower duty than in Britain. Therefore, the competitiveness of our airlines, airports and tourist industry is at a disadvantage. Apropos the last Question and Answer, this is surely one matter on which the Government have a measure of control. It is their duty that has been imposed and is suggested to be higher. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the UK tourist industry must be very disappointed with the Answer that has been given, especially when tourists from countries such as India and China—growth economies—are wanted yet are being turned away by this unduly high duty.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I do not believe that the tourist industry will be either surprised or disappointed because I have merely restated that we are consulting a wide range of stakeholders and listening to views of the tourist organisations, among others. On UK competitiveness, it is important to see the APD in the wider context. For example, we do not levy the APD on transit or transfer passengers. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, points out, other countries are introducing similar taxes—Germany introduced a similar tax on 1 January. In the wider context of competitiveness, the Government are reducing corporation tax very significantly from 28 to 24 per cent over four years from April 2011. If we talk about competitiveness, we should look at it in a much wider context.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, can the Minister explain why those in private jets are not subject to APD? This might be a very good point for his consultation paper.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am listening hard to points that are raised this afternoon. Although I cannot tell noble Lords where the consultation will get to, I am very happy to listen to points, including that made by the noble Lord.
Lord Rotherwick
Is the Minister not concerned that by raising the airport passenger duty in the way that is proposed he will damage the Government’s objective of making this country one of the major tourist destinations? If a family of four from China travel to this country from their home, they will now pay £300, even though they are travelling economy.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it is certainly not the Government’s intention to damage the competitiveness of any sector of the economy, least of all the tourist sector. I should remind noble Lords that the duty increase that came in on 1 November was announced by the previous Government and is something we are looking at. All these factors will be considered but this is not an easy matter; the previous Government reviewed the system at least once since its introduction.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I declare an interest as the president of BALPA. How does this proposed duty improve the environment? I do not think that it will at all, but I want to hear the Minister’s response. Does not this duty impose a serious and further blow to the prospects of our beleaguered airlines, so why insist on this pernicious duty?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the Government have not proposed anything yet. The coalition agreement talks about a change from APD to a per plane basis. Clearly, different constructions of the duty have different effects on usage of aircraft and on the environment. However, as I say, the Government have not proposed anything yet. We are in listening mode. The effect on the airlines, environmental effects and competitiveness are all issues that must be considered.
Lord Newby
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the APD is seen to be particularly unfair on the Caribbean? Will he ensure that as part of the review which the Government are undertaking, particular attention is given to the effect of the APD on the Caribbean, not just on the tourist industry there, which is increasingly important as a proportion of its economic activity, but on the Caribbean diaspora who live in the UK?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the Caribbean. The Caribbean Tourism Organisation has produced a very helpful report as a contribution to the debate. I have met the Heads of Government of the dependent territories in the Caribbean, so I have heard first hand their strength of feeling in respect of this issue. However, under the Chicago Convention we have to have an objective basis for distinguishing between one country and another.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of VisitBritain. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on the very helpful speech that he made last week in which he recognised tourism as an engine of growth in the economy. However, will the Minister prevail on his officials to set up a monitoring committee with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as APD will prove a significant challenge to the tourism industry at a time of huge opportunity, with everything from a royal wedding to the Olympics? Mitigating measures might well be introduced but only if there is a sufficiently adequate early warning system.
Lord Sassoon
I absolutely hear the point and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be pleased that his commitment to the tourist industry has been noted. I say again that the previous Government increased the rates to where they are now, with the burden falling on tourists and all other passengers, but we are looking at the whole construct.
EU: Hungarian Presidency
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what European Union policy priorities they will seek to promote during the Hungarian presidency from January to June 2011.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
During the Hungarian presidency, the Government will urge the EU to prioritise its support of growth and jobs, including specific actions to increase trade and competitiveness and to assist the transition to a greener, low-carbon, high-growth European economy and a common European Union energy market. We are also seeking progress on certain international dossiers, including deepening the EU’s relations with strategic partners. Finally, we will focus on ensuring that the EU delivers better value for money.
Lord Dykes
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does the Minister also agree that the beginning of the six-month presidency is a very important moment for Hungary? Is he satisfied that as a result of recent representations, both internally and externally, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán will recast the new press law in an appropriate way?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue, which has given rise to a certain worry. The appropriate bodies, which include the European Commission and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, are reviewing the proposed legislation to check whether it complies with EU law and international norms. We look forward to hearing their findings. We place great importance on the freedom and independence of the media, obviously, and we hope that the Hungarian Government will soon resolve this issue satisfactorily and that it will not adversely affect the successful operation of the Hungarian EU presidency.
Lord Wright of Richmond
I draw the Minister’s attention to a robust statement, reported in the press this morning, from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on behalf of the European Union, strongly criticising continuing Israeli illegal settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the continuing expulsion of Palestinians from east Jerusalem. Can the Minister give us an assurance that one of the Government’s priorities over the next six months will be to continue pressure on Israel not only to stop but to reverse its illegal settlement activity in the West Bank and in east Jerusalem?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, it is certainly one of our priorities and one of the priorities of the European Union. We all share a concern about the illegal settlements and the blockage that they are placing on the prospective progress between Israel and the Palestinians. I totally agree with the sentiments behind the noble Lord’s questions. These are matters that will have a high priority with us.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, inform the Hungarian presidency that they will now stop trying to push water uphill and will no longer bail out failing European economies with British taxpayers’ money?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As for bailout provisions, after 2013 we will be under no obligation to do that sort of thing unless we voluntarily wish to do so or it makes sense from our national interest to do so. Before 2013, it is, of course, a fact that we are bound by decisions of the previous Government and are bound to be involved to some extent.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that one of our priorities in the European Union will be to help to encourage and insist on fair treatment for minorities in all EU countries, particularly the Roma people, who suffer massive discrimination in many member countries of the EU?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise this concern about the Roma. We want to encourage the presidency to focus on practical co-operation between member states. Indeed, we have been working on practical co-operation ourselves with Romania on this issue. The Hungarian presidency is drawing up a framework strategy on Roma inclusion. We have strong and effective legislation ourselves and policies to tackle racial discrimination and to promote race equality, so we would not be in favour of further legislation, but very detailed practical co-operation to meet this particular minority problem is certainly very much at the top of the agenda.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Does my noble friend agree that while Hungary’s internal problems and more authoritarian stance are indeed to be regretted, one of the principal problems facing the eurozone is the financial stability of countries such as Portugal and Belgium? Can he assure the House that we will take an active interest in ensuring that financial stability remains the defining issue that this presidency deals with rather than Mr Orbán’s own political posturing?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course, we are a major financial power and we have a major interest in financial stability not merely in our region but at a global level, so these matters are bound to be at the top of the agenda. However, as I stated earlier, our actions will be governed—certainly after 2013—by our voluntary wish to move or not move in the direction of financial support. Before 2013, we are somewhat caught up in the existing mechanisms, but they will be used with the greatest care and discretion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, it is the turn of a Cross-Bencher—and independent thinker. As noble Lords are aware, our net contribution to the EU this year will be some £8.3 billion. However, I noted from the Minister’s Answer yesterday to a Written Question that we are also paying about £3 billion to accession countries. Bearing in mind what is happening in Hungary, I would have thought that we could ensure that all those countries that are allowed to join the EU will be democratic at least after they have joined if not before.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am sure that that is right. One of the core principles of the European Union is a commitment to democratic values, good governance, human rights and the rule of law. That is obviously in the minds of all those considering accession countries, and in the minds of those who govern the accession fund to which I think the noble Lord refers. I have no disagreement with the desire to see democracy spread in the best possible ways throughout the eurozone, and indeed in the wider world.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, in the third of the priorities that the Minister enunciated a moment ago, he said that he wanted to see more concentration on the relationships with strategic partners. Which strategic partners will this country prioritise in that discussion within the European Union?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We have in mind Russia, China, the United States, India and Brazil. We are developing these strategic partnerships both bilaterally and, where it makes sense and where we can combine effectively, with our EU partners. Those are the strategic partnerships on our priority list.
Health: Influenza
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the reported increase in the incidence of influenza since the end of November; and how many adults and children suffering from influenza were admitted to hospital or died in December.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, influenza-like illness, or ILI, has increased from 13 to 98 GP consultations per 100,000 people since November. The department does not currently collect data on hospital admissions. As of 6 January, there were 783 patients with ILI in critical care beds in England, and 50 flu- related fatal cases verified by the Health Protection Agency in the UK.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Last June, I asked him about the 50 per cent cut in the communications budget for the Department of Health. He said that,
“every programme of communication or marketing has to be justified by the evidence that it will do some good”.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1798.]
We know that pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the H1N1 strain of influenza, and HPA’s data show that the risk of mortality for pregnant women is sevenfold greater than that for non-pregnant women. Even so, midwives received a letter from Andrew Lansley, dated 16 December, encouraging them to vaccinate pregnant women. Does the Minister think that it is possible that, had the Government acted earlier and had a public campaign, had they not cut their public health communications budget, and had Andrew Lansley sent a letter in October rather than December, the lifes of at least one pregnant woman might have been saved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is quite difficult to substantiate that suggestion, because the immunisation figures do not bear out the noble Baroness’s argument. The level of vaccine uptake in the over-65s is 70 per cent, which is better than in most countries of Europe. Among the at-risk under-65s, it is 45.5 per cent, which is comparable to the past two years. Therefore, it is not clear that a generalised campaign would have added value.
On the question of pregnant women, the normal procedure is for the Chief Medical Officer to write to all GPs in the summer, setting out all the at-risk groups. She did that in June. We were then alerted in December by the Health Protection Agency to a worryingly high number of pregnant women who had contracted influenza, so we wrote to both the BMA and the Royal College of Midwives to emphasise the desirability of encouraging that group of patients to get vaccinated. We did the right thing, which was to respond to emerging data.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, is it the case that the highest rate of flu has been among those aged one to four? Have the parents of children in that age group been encouraged to have their children vaccinated over and above others? Also, have the Government changed their policy of publicising the need for the flu jab, which they did during last year’s outbreak?
Earl Howe
We did see a higher than expected number of under-fives contracting influenza, so we took urgent advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in December and asked it to confirm its previous advice that not all under-fives need get vaccinated unless they were in an at-risk group. It confirmed that advice and we have followed it.
Baroness O’Loan
There have been 14 deaths from swine flu in Northern Ireland from a population of 1.7 million. How would the Minister respond to the statement from the health protection agency in Northern Ireland, in which Dr Carolyn Harper said:
“Our sense and discussions with colleagues in the UK is that our reporting systems are more complete than in England so therefore we are more likely to capture more deaths here. England concede they have a larger degree of under reporting than we have here so you really cannot compare them”?
Will the Minister advise whether he is satisfied with the validity of the statistics that are available?
Earl Howe
I am satisfied with the validity of the statistics. The problem is, of course, that there is always a lag. The statistics that I read out earlier in my main Answer were supplied to us by the Health Protection Agency and regard verified laboratory tested results. We have another method of assessing the number of deaths that is retrospective. After the end of the flu season we can assess whether the number of deaths has been higher than expected. Of course, we are endeavouring to improve our statistical base all the time and no doubt lessons will be learnt from this season, as they are from every season.
Lord Patel
My Lords, what is the basis for the differing advice in the United Kingdom about the group of people who should be vaccinated compared with that given in the United States from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which advise that everyone over the age of six months should be vaccinated?
Earl Howe
That is precisely why we have an independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: to advise Ministers on these matters. Ministers are bound to take that advice. Indeed, the previous Government determined that they were legally obliged to take the committee’s advice, which is what we have done.
Lord Winston
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many pregnant women are particularly nervous about all kinds of vaccination during pregnancy, including the flu vaccination? I know that from first-hand experience. Does he feel that the Government are doing enough to inform pregnant women about the risks or otherwise in that instance? Could more be done?
Earl Howe
I am sure, as I have just said, that lessons can always be learnt about what more can be done. As I mentioned, we saw a lower than desirable uptake of the vaccine in the early weeks among pregnant women. I am happy to say that that has now been rectified and a lot more pregnant women are coming forward. However, it emphasises the noble Lord’s central point that perhaps GPs have a special duty at the moment to encourage pregnant women and to reassure them that the vaccine is absolutely safe.
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, at a convenient time after 5.30 pm today, my noble friend Lord Sassoon will repeat a Statement on bank bonuses.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bach, I intend also to speak to other amendments in the first group.
The Government have, during the Recess, had a little time to reflect on the Bill. The Minister will know of the evidence given by the Lord Chief Justice to the Constitution Committee, which, as he knows, was highly critical of the Bill. We have also very recently received the report of the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration, chaired by a Conservative MP, Mr Bernard Jenkin, which was also highly critical of the Bill. As the Select Committee report states, the review leading up to the Bill,
“was poorly managed. There was no meaningful consultation, the tests the review used were not clearly defined and the Cabinet Office failed to establish a proper procedure for departments to follow. It is important that the Government learn lessons from these mistakes as it has indicated that future reviews are likely to be run in broadly the same way. To ensure their effectiveness future reviews should not be conducted in a similar way”.
Amen to that. The Select Committee continues:
“The Bill giving the Government the power to bring about these changes was equally badly drafted. It is being significantly re-written by the House of Lords and we intend to issue a further detailed report on the Bill once the Lords have finished their scrutiny”.
It seems that, gradually, the Government are beginning to recognise that there is a need to make substantive changes to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his recent amendments, most of them made before the Recess, taking out most judicial organisations from Schedule 7. I think that that is a belated recognition of the Bill’s threats to judicial independence. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to do more in the coming weeks. I would like Schedule 7 to be removed in its entirety and the super-affirmative procedure to be used for every order pertaining to an organisation listed in the Bill.
I also hope that the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will listen sympathetically to the points made on this group of amendments. All of them, in one way or another, relate to the effective administration of justice. In moving Amendment 31, I shall speak also to my Amendments 32 and 45 and comment on Amendments 40 and 42.
Amendment 31 relates to the courts boards. The boards have not managed or administered the courts themselves but have given advice and made constructive recommendations to foster improvements in the administrative services provided. There is one courts board for each of the local management areas administered by area directors across England and Wales. Each courts board has members drawn from different communities and from a variety of backgrounds. The information from the Ministry of Justice states:
“Courts Boards were established because there was a fear that the voice of Magistrates would be lost within a unified HM Courts Service. These fears have dissipated because other structures—such as the Justices’ Issues Group and the Area Judicial Forums—are in place to ensure that Magistrates’ views are heard. There are also strong local relationships with Magistrates’ Benches Chairs”.
However, I have received a number of letters from chairs of local area courts boards expressing concerns. To summarise them, there are two. The first is that, at a time of a programme of court closures, no local independent review can take place. The chairs of the committees believe that the reduction in the number of local courts creates a greater need for mechanisms to keep in touch with communities and to identify local needs. The point is also made by the chairmen in the letters that I have received that boards can help to advise Her Majesty’s Courts Service on ways in which policies can be implemented at local level so as to help to ensure the most effective use of resources. I would be grateful for the response of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to the concerns raised by the chairs of those committees.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 40, which refers to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration. In doing so, and in wishing to greet the Minister and wish him a happy new year, I say that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has conducted what I can only describe as a hospital pass on what I think everyone I have spoken to regards as an extremely bad Bill. Frankly, the Bill needs to be taken back and thought through again because of the sheer amount of time and effort that is going to be taken going over ground that need not be gone over, although I am sure that everyone is respectful of the original intention, which was to look at unnecessary quangos, as they have been called, and other bodies. It seems that, in looking at the unnecessary, a number of the necessary have been swept up, which will require a great deal of time to eliminate or move. Therefore, I speak with interest in the outcome but with concern at the number of good things that are liable to go under the axe for all the wrong reasons unless there is some thinking again.
When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I was concerned that the prisons were a part of, not apart from, the criminal justice system. To an outsider coming in, the criminal justice system did not look like a system; it looked like a number of warring tribes competing with one another for ever diminishing resources, which in fact made the whole system less efficient. There were inspectorates of different parts of that system and collectively we came together to decide what we could do to bring to the Government’s attention the fact that, if all these different agencies worked better together, the result would be better.
Six inspectorates came together to discuss that: the Inspectorate of Prisons, the Inspectorate of Probation, the Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, the then Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate and the then Social Services Inspectorate. We did so because we felt that all of us had something to contribute not just overall when all six of us were involved, but where, as studies showed, two or more might come together in order to produce an outcome. The first report that we produced was a study of casework and information needs within the criminal justice system, which pointed out exactly what each of these six areas needed of the others, what was available, what was not available and what was available with difficulty. When we presented this report to the Ministers, it caused considerable confusion. The report showed the need for joint cross-government working, but the Government were unable to receive it. The strength of that report was that each of those separate inspectorates was able to contribute its expertise to come up with a combined whole, which would not have been possible unless they had all worked together.
In 2003, the Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate was overtaken by Her Majesty’s inspector of the courts, which looks at Crown Courts, county courts and magistrates’ courts. Its job is to report on the system that supports the carrying on of their business. At the same time, the Police and Justice Act 2006 requires the courts inspectorate to work with other criminal justice system inspectorates—in the way that I have just outlined and as we were doing ourselves until then—to look at the end-to-end justice process and to improve the experience of all people who use or work within the justice system. That is a very large remit.
The remit of the courts inspectorate covers three types of inspection: area inspections to look at court services within particular areas; thematic inspections to look at particular themes, including examples of good practice, to see how improvements can be made; and joint inspections of the type that I have just outlined. For example, recently, there has been a joint thematic inspection by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the inspector of constabulary on victim and witness experiences. That could not have been carried out unless experts were working together and bringing their expertise jointly to the result.
The courts inspectorate recently carried out an inspection of the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland. It provided a very useful report, which of course has great relevance in the context of this Bill if, as I hope, the chief coroner is appointed, as was intended in the previous Bill. In order to make the coroners service work, there has to be someone to ensure that the courts in which that service functions are working.
In addition to that, the Government have announced that 93 magistrates and 49 county courts will be cut. Inevitably, that will have an impact on the delivery of court services throughout the country. An experienced inspectorate will be needed to go around examining the impact of this and to come up with firm recommendations and advice to Ministers as to what may need to be done to ameliorate the problem or to introduce other arrangements.
Clause 8 stipulates the objectives to which the Minister must have regard when making an order under Clause 1. One of the objectives is,
“achieving increased efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the exercise of public functions”.
I put to noble Lords that nothing that I have seen in practice and in the research that has been done has been more efficient, effective and economical than the functioning of this inspectorate. The Cabinet Office, in producing the impact assessment on this Bill—I have spoken about this many times already—says that it is ridiculous to have an impact assessment on a Bill that says that there is no impact on the criminal justice system. Yet here we are in Amendment 40 getting deep into the heart of the criminal justice system, which is being affected.
Why is there no impact assessment? It is because the Cabinet Office is not the right place to produce an assessment of the impact of removing a courts inspectorate on the working of a justice system that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. The Cabinet Office says:
“It is therefore not possible to provide details of the likely costs and impacts of the Bill, as any costs or impacts arising from its use relate to orders made under its powers rather than to the Bill itself”.
That, I suggest, is a cop out. The Explanatory Notes go on to say:
“When Departments use powers, they will produce full impact assessments of the change or changes they are seeking”.
In that case, why has this House not been given an impact assessment by the Ministry of Justice of the impact of removing this inspectorate and the costs of what it will have to put in its place? If you are going to have a criminal justice system that works properly, you need the courts and, if you need the courts, you need an inspectorate to oversee their functions. I hope very much that the Government will think again about this thoroughly unnecessary proposal. If they do not, I suspect that it will be essential for this House to vote on the issue.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, it is a while since I first addressed the House with regard to this Bill. I start my present remarks by saying that I acknowledge that the Government have made a significant improvement to the Bill in the action that they have taken. I congratulate the Minister and his team on the attention that they have given, particularly to the bodies associated with the courts that had been in Schedule 7. I feel much more comfortable with the Bill in consequence of the changes that have been made. However, I have to say that this Bill, which is sometimes referred to as achieving a bonfire of quangos, would in my view be further improved if there was to be a bonfire of Schedule 7. I hope that the further consideration of the Bill, which I believe is still continuing, will bring about that result.
I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the provisions that are the subject of his amendments. I do not think that I can usefully add anything to that, apart from saying that when the boards were introduced—I was Lord Chief Justice at the time—arrangements were made for a senior judge, one no less distinguished than the present Lord Chief Justice, to serve on that board to express the views of the judiciary. However, I think that things have moved on since then, so the topic is much more debatable than it would have been some time ago. The arrangements for consultation between the judiciary and the departments with which they are particularly concerned are in general working smoothly, so the boards are no longer as important as they were in the early days of the unified criminal justice system.
On the inspectorate, I would urge that the speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who probably knows more about inspectorates than anybody else in the country, should be listened to with care. The inspectorate for the courts system was not, if my recollection is correct, a proposal about which the judiciary jumped with joy when it was first suggested. It was thought—I would say with good reason—that there could be insuperable problems over the independence of the courts system if an outside inspectorate was to look in at what the courts were doing. All that I can say is that, in practice, the inspectorate has worked remarkably well, as have all the inspectorates, of each of which I am a fan. The inspectorates make a significant contribution to the proper functioning of the administration in the areas in which they operate. I do not think that it was intended to be suggested—and if it was, I would not agree with the suggestion—that the inspectorate should act as a sort of court of appeal. If the inspectorate keeps to administration, it can perform a useful function. That function will still have to be performed even if the inspectorate does not exist and, if the inspectorate is abolished, proper arrangements will need to be made to ensure that that happens.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I was not able to be here to hear his speech. I was upstairs in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has authorised me to ask the Minister whether, as we were given to understand, we will receive the human rights memorandum from the Cabinet Office so that our committee can do its job properly. That memorandum has still not been received and we want to finalise our report by next Tuesday. I hope that the Minister can tell us in his reply that what was promised many weeks ago will happen.
My second point in general support of the amendments is that, although it is admirable that some bodies of a judicial nature may be removed from the schedules by other amendments, if Amendment 175 in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—a paving amendment for which was approved by the House on the first day in Committee—is accepted by the Government and not sought to be reversed in the other place, the provisions in Amendment 175 will be relevant to our discussions today and hereafter. It is unsatisfactory that we are having this debate without knowing whether Amendment 175 will stand. Importantly, Amendment 175 would apply not only to courts but to any body—whether a court or not—that performs a judicial function and it would deal with the issue of independence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
In a sense, we are putting the cart before the horse because a failure to insert into the Bill the criteria against which all these decisions can be measured means that we are having to proceed piecemeal, body by body, at enormous and appalling length in the Committee process. I respectfully urge the Government to accept these amendments for all the reasons that have been given so far but to deal with the system of the Bill as a whole by indicating at an early stage that Amendment 175 or a similar provision will bind Ministers when they exercise their delegated powers. That is the price that Ministers must pay if they are not to proceed by way of primary legislation. There need to be constitutional limits on the powers exercised by Ministers, as Committees of this House have indicated in the past.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot claim, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, not to have taken part recently in proceedings on this Bill, because I have been a persistent defender of my Front Bench, nor do I intend to stop being so today.
However, I want to associate myself in two respects with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. First, I think that the Bill leaves—to put it mildly—a lot to be desired. Secondly, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is to be congratulated on the way he has dealt with this poisoned chalice. I am glad to see that, if I have read the runes aright, the person speaking to the proposals today will be a Minister from the Ministry of Justice, which is where the proposals originated from and where any blame for them, if blame is justified, should lie.
By way of other brief preliminary, I should say that when I first saw the schedule of headline decisions that was published in early October—this picks up a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—I could find no intellectual coherence at all in the Ministry of Justice’s proposals, which seemed to be piecemeal suggestions with no connection between them whatever. I hope, therefore, that at least we may have some coherent explanation about the pattern of these proposals and decisions for procedure rule committees, justice councils and other bodies, including CAFCASS, that are scattered about, most of which are now to be withdrawn from Schedule 7 by the amendments that have been helpfully tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
However—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has spotted this—unless my eyes have deceived me the Civil Justice Council will potentially remain on the list of bodies in Schedule 7. If I have that wrong, I would be glad to be told. That links with my own frequently expressed concern about the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council—in which I have declared an historical interest—which has been separated out and put down for the chop in Schedule 1. There is no intellectual coherence at all to the proposals. I would like to hear some coherence this afternoon.
I will make three other points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked some good questions. My answers might not necessarily be the same as his in all cases, but those questions need answering. Secondly, I share almost completely the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We are getting rid of too much independent outside inspection or oversight of bodies and are being told, in effect, that the Ministry of Justice can take care of itself and does not want these bodies breathing down its neck. That does not correspond with my views about how government in this kind of society should work or how it works best. Thirdly, I echo the concerns expressed by other noble Lords about the way in which the proposals have been handled. I reiterate what I said at the beginning because, as a House, we need some reassurance that, frankly, the Government know what they are doing.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, we have to keep it in mind that, at this stage, the Bill seeks to confer powers and does not provide the final decision on any of these matters. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill that Amendment 175 needs to be taken into account in this connection. From the point of view of propriety in this House, one considers the Bill on the basis that Amendment 175 has been accepted. Therefore, from my point of view, we approach the Bill at this stage following a decision by this House that has accepted that amendment—an extremely important amendment—which very much restricts the powers that the Bill provides.
In connection with reviewing the work of these quangos, as they have been called, the position has to be that, if such a review is to take place on a fairly large scale, there is a need for an all-embracing Bill that provides the powers, with the detailed consideration following at a later stage of whether, and how, it is appropriate to exercise those powers in any particular case. For example, Schedule 1 provides a power to amalgamate or hand over a body’s power, principally to another body.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that this Bill was a hospital pass. If anyone wants a definition of a hospital pass, it would be to have to reply to a debate on the criminal justice system when the contributions have come from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Newton of Braintree, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and, just for good measure, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It makes you feel plumb inadequate. However, I shall do my best to take the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice for the proposals that these amendments seek to change.
In some ways, to sound a philosophical note on this, I have never seen it as being a weakening of our system when a ministry takes responsibility and says that it will be responsible to Parliament and to the scrutiny of Parliament for what it carries out in its remit. In some ways, in recent years, with proper and due respect to the work of independent inspectorates, we have sometimes got over-reliant on, and have tended to reach for, the independent inspectorate for responsibilities which should be the responsibility to Parliament of the department and Ministers in that department.
In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we believe that the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has made an important contribution and have no intention of abolishing it. We have now removed it from Schedule 7. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, the problem in Committee is that if you make changes you are accused of U-turns and if you do not you are accused of inflexibility. Those are the burdens that we carry.
I shall try to address the issues raised by the group of amendments, which would remove the courts boards, the Crown Court Rule Committee, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, the Public Guardian Board and the Magistrates' Courts Rule Committee from Schedule 1. We oppose these amendments because it would mean the retention of five arm’s-length bodies whose functions will no longer be required, either because their role has significantly diminished over recent years and is now being performed by other bodies or because alternative ways of performing these functions have been identified.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bach—who is not here today—has tabled these amendments in relation to the courts boards and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, given that he was the Minister in the Ministry of Justice when the decision to abolish them was originally taken by the last Administration.
For the convenience of the House, I intend to respond to the five amendments in this one speech, because part of the rationale asked for is overlapping. I hope that it is compelling in the reason for the abolition of these boards. The first reason is, in following their review of all arm’s-length bodies, the coalition Government have agreed with the judgment of the previous Administration that the function of certain of these bodies is no longer required. Like the last Administration, we believe that the courts boards and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration should be abolished and that this Bill represents the best mechanism to effect these reforms. The second reason is that the function of some of these bodies has greatly diminished over recent years and is now largely performed by other bodies. The Crown Court Rule Committee and the Magistrates' Courts Rule Committee fall into this category. It was exactly to identify these sorts of near-defunct bodies that the coalition Government’s review of the arm’s-length bodies was conducted. Again, the Bill provides an excellent and timely opportunity to remove such bodies from the statute book. I am pleased to note that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with the Government’s proposals in relation to these two bodies.
The third reason is that although the Government recognise the need to perform particular functions, we believe there are more efficient ways of doing so. The oversight function performed by the Public Guardian Board falls into this category, and I will explain in a moment how the Government propose to develop new governance arrangements to oversee the work of the Public Guardian.
Beyond these three broad reasons, I will outline our reasoning for each of the five bodies covered by the amendments. In the case of the 19 remaining courts boards, this decision was first taken by the previous Administration, and announced in March 2010. Courts boards were established partly because there was a fear that the voice of magistrates would be lost within a unified courts system. These fears have dissipated and there are now other structures in place such as the Justice Issues Group and area judicial forums to ensure that magistrates’ views are heard. There are also strong local relationships with magistrates’ bench chairs. The Magistrates’ Association was not consulted before inclusion, but of course will be available for the consultation which will precede implementation of any of these proposals.
Courts boards only ever performed an advisory function, and the function was significantly diminished over the last five years. As I mentioned, as a result of amalgamations, the number of courts boards has reduced from 42 to 19.
In terms of those functions, I should emphasise that courts boards do not themselves manage or administer the courts, but rather give advice and make recommendations to enable Her Majesty’s Courts Service to improve the service it provides. The Courts Service sought the views of the judiciary. It is the view of the Courts Service and members of the judiciary that courts boards are no longer necessary to assist in the administration of the courts in this way. Not abolishing the courts boards will cost the Ministry of Justice approximately £450,000 a year.
The senior presiding judge himself recognises the difficult decisions needed to be made in the light of the financial pressures which Her Majesty’s Courts Service faces. Although clearly it is a matter for Parliament, the senior presiding judge does not take the view that courts boards constitute an essential part of the business of the courts. He agrees that the savings which will result from that abolition, although relatively minor, could be used to support front-line services.
In terms of maintaining an oversight on the local delivery of court services, it is true that the role of the courts boards is to use their judgment to ensure that the perspective of the local community and of those who use the courts is taken into account. But there are other ways to ensure that the needs of the community are met, such as customer surveys, open days and more effective use of court user meetings. Her Majesty’s Courts Service is committed to building and maintaining links with local communities, and local areas will be encouraged to explore other options to ensure that links between the courts and local communities is not lost, specifically within the wider context of the current proposals to modernise and improve the use of courts.
The previous Administration originally took the decision to abolish the courts boards, and the coalition Government have agreed that their function is no longer required and have introduced this Bill to effect this reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, and I will discuss the rationale behind the Government’s decision to abolish that. The context within which the inspectorate operates has changed significantly since its inception in 2005. The inspectorate’s predecessor, Her Majesty’s Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate, was set up before the magistrates’ courts were part of a national Courts Service. It was right that an independent body existed to inspect court administration. However, Her Majesty’s Courts Service has since been established as a single body, responsible for the administration of all courts, with its own robust management information systems and internal audit processes. The Courts Service is subject to external scrutiny by the National Audit Office and, by extension, the Public Accounts Committee. I draw the Committee’s attention to the 2009 National Audit Office report on the administration of the Crown Court as an example of this external scrutiny. For these reasons, Her Majesty’s Courts Service will no longer be subject to independent inspection.
Lord McNally
Like the seventh cavalry coming over the hill, my noble friend Lord Taylor nudged me to say that the Government will answer any questions that the JCHR has and will deal with that in correspondence with the committee. The Government consider that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights but I am sure that the promised exchange of correspondence will clarify that matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry but that answer is not compatible with the general approach of this Government and previous Governments to that committee. The undertaking that has been given in the past is that the Minister’s compatibility statement in every Bill is followed by a proper Explanatory Memorandum to enable the committee to do its job properly. Therefore, it is for the Government first to come forward with their account of why the Bill is considered to be compatible and the committee then comments on that, rather than the other way round. I very much hope that that can be reconsidered because otherwise the committee will have to complain about the fact that it has not had the usual memorandum from the Cabinet Office and therefore cannot do its job properly. That simply wastes public money and time.
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the advantages of having Hansard and of having my noble friend Lord Taylor sitting next to me is that he will have heard that exchange, will read it carefully in the morning and respond to it appropriately.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, as the troublemaker, or one of them, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that I thought that was a pretty reasonable reply overall. If it were my amendment, I would be minded to withdraw it while reflecting on some of the points that have been made, particularly about inspectorates.
Lord McNally
That now puts me 3:2 up as regards interventions by the noble Lord, Lord Newton—by that I mean that he has supported me three times and has caused trouble twice—so I think I shall quit while I am ahead.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on that quick pass to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in relation to the memorandum. I can helpfully confirm that it was the practice of the previous Government to submit very lengthy memorandums to the Select Committee, and no doubt the Cabinet Office will be pleased to do so to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in due course.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is a privilege to take part in a debate in which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Lester and Lord Newton, have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, went to the heart of the matter when he talked about the architecture of the Bill. We are going through the schedules, debating each organisation, without knowing the final outcome of the architecture. It would be helpful if, at an early stage, the Government could set out some of their thinking about whether they are prepared to make changes to the architecture.
I have added my name to Amendment 175. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that it is very important. I certainly believe that it is consequential to Amendment 1 and would expect the House to accept it formally when we reach it. However, we have yet to hear whether the Government intend to seek to reverse it in the other place or to make substantial amendments to it. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made some very promising comments in relation to the meeting that is to take place tomorrow between the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the officials of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. However, we will have to await the outcome of that. To a certain extent we are still working in the dark with regard to the final architecture. I believe that the architecture would be immeasurably improved, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has suggested, by removing Schedule 7 altogether. That would commend itself to many noble Lords in all parts of the House. I also believe that the super-affirmative procedure order should be used when it comes to the use of orders in the Bill. In the mean time, it is right to treat each body listed in the Bill on its merits. I was very happy with the response given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to my Amendments 31, 32 and 42. I shall certainly not seek to press Amendment 31 this afternoon.
I also understand what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said about the balance between the contribution of independent bodies and the role of departments and Ministers. There is a balance to be drawn. It is right that Ministers should be held to account for the major decisions that are made, albeit within individual government departments. Equally, I think we all agree that independent bodies have a role to play as well. It is a question of where you draw the line. My own party is not opposed to the abolition of a number of the bodies that are listed in this Bill. We support the general proposition that these kind of bodies need to be reviewed regularly and that no public body has a right to exist for ever. On the other hand, I listened with great interest to the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration. He made a very good case. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right; this appeared in a Green Paper in 2009 as a candidate for abolition. None the less, when we come to Amendment 40, the House needs to listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said.
On the Public Guardian Board, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his response and for his commitment to the Mental Capacity Act. He recognised the role that has been undertaken by Mrs Rosie Varley and her committee members. I take it from what he said that his department will wish to ensure that this work, albeit in a different form, will continue in the future.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment 40. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that it would be churlish at this stage to press for a vote. I am enormously grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which frankly I and many other Members of the House would have welcomed before this stage. If all that information was available, why could it not have been put in the Explanatory Notes and given to us in another form? We are going to have the same sort of debate when other issues, such as the Youth Justice Board, come up for discussion. If alternative plans have already been made it would be enormously helpful to know those in advance so that we can weigh them against the bald statement in the Bill.
I listened with great care to noble Lords’ contributions, particularly that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, whose wisdom I respect hugely and whose advice I listen to. In that spirit, it would be sensible to withdraw Amendment 40 with, I hope, discussions to follow with the possibility of resuming it later. I have read the National Audit Office report—I worked for the National Audit Office in other respects. I am not sure that it completely fills the remit, although it fills some of it. Again, this is an issue it would be sensible to look at in detail before necessarily pressing it to a vote.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
We are, of course, on Amendment 31. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 34. These two amendments start life as probing amendments. They in effect seek further information about the proposed demise of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. For the former, the October 2010 announcement merely recorded that the Government are exploring options for continuing to gain the disability advice that is needed through a more flexible, accountable structure. For the latter, it is proposed that the functions can be carried out between the DWP, external specialist advice and Equality 2025. It seems that in respect of these two particular organisations, the decision has already been taken that they will be terminated. What is to go in their place is as yet unclear.
We are promised consultation on the successor to DPTAC. Perhaps the Minister will advise us on the exploration of the options and on what precisely is so inflexible about the current arrangements. One complaint about the current structure that seems to drive the proposed change is that DPTAC has a degree of independence and takes forward areas of work that reflect its own priorities and not necessarily those of the Government. This seems a particularly perverse reason to close it down. Surely this is a case where independence should be welcomed. DPTAC can rightly claim that much of the improvement over the past 20 years in the mobility of disabled people can be traced to the work that it has undertaken.
The Minister will be aware that DPTAC started life as an informal group and, because of its success, was placed on a statutory basis in 1985 by a Conservative Government. The Transport Act of that year requires the organisation to consider any matter referred to it by Transport Ministers, and to give advice on any issue that is relevant to the transport needs of disabled people.
I am advised that DPTAC also has statutory functions through other legislation. For example, the Equality Act requires the Secretary of State for Transport to consult it before making rail vehicle accessibility regulations. Who will be consulted in future when such regulations are made? Has the Minister given equivalent consideration to other duties that are currently imposed by statute? I thought that we had common cause with the Government in recognising that disabled people were experts in their own lives. How will the Government ensure that their voices are not drowned out by those of transport providers?
The Minister will be aware that DPTAC publishes guidance and statements, carries out research into disabled people's experiences, promotes accessible transport and solutions, and develops training. Who will do this in future and where will the funding come from? I will give one example. The DPTAC Olympic working group has been working closely with the delivery authorities on an accessible transport system for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. Why is it imperative that this should be changed now? Big strides have been made over the past decade towards more accessible public transport. Rights of access to public transport are in place, along with end dates for the accessibility of all buses, coaches and trains, and a new EU directive on access to air travel for disabled people.
However, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation contends that a major investment in accessible transport has not yet been matched by a major increase in disabled people's confidence in getting out and about. It states that there remains a huge amount of awareness-raising to be done and some gaps in the regulatory framework to be plugged, for example around taxes. It states that, despite considerable progress, the building blocks are not fully in place to deliver a truly integrated system that guarantees independent, safe mobility. Such a system is vital for ensuring that disabled people have proper access to services and jobs. RADAR acknowledges that DPTAC has greatly influenced progress to date and that there is a great need for its role in future. The loss of an independent voice will need considerable justification by the Minister if we are not to return to this on Report.
The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board was set up in 1991—again by a Conservative Government. Its statutory role is to give advice on request to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to advise medical professionals working for the DWP on cases as and when requested, and to produce annual reports. The board draws members from across the health and social care field and must include at least six disabled people. The Government's justification for its demise is that they now have available to them a number of sources of advice, including medical practitioners and experts in the disability field such as Equality 2025. We acknowledge that. They suggest that the board has not been commissioned to provide any advice since November 2008 and that this position is likely to continue. One presumes on this basis that the board is not being consulted on reform of the DLA.
As we know, the Government propose to introduce the replacement to the DLA—the personal independence payment—in 2013-14, and will start with a reassessment of the working age case load. It is proposed that there will be no automatic entitlement to the PIP, and each case will be looked at individually to consider the impact of the impairment or health condition. Key to the benefit will be an objective assessment of individual need, which is being developed in collaboration with a group of independent specialists in health, social care and disability, including disabled people. Does not this description fit the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board? Are you not in danger of removing it from the scene at the very point when its expertise might be brought to bear in aid of government policy?
It is accepted that the Government have sought to involve a wide range of individuals and organisations in the consultation, and that is how it should be, although the Minister might explain why the consultation period is shorter than the recommended 12 weeks and included the Christmas and new year breaks. Although we hold no particular brief for the board—it might perhaps be refreshed rather than terminated—we are entitled to ask the Government what mechanisms they will put in place to ensure that disabled people and experts working in health and social care can monitor the implementation of the new arrangements and provide independent advice to ensure that the descriptors are accurate and relevant, that the process will be fair for disabled people, and that assessments are carried out by appropriately qualified individuals with capable and confident decision-makers—in other words, learning the lessons of the ESA.
Now is not the time for a detailed debate on the proposals to reform the DLA other than to say that we will examine the detail of the final proposals specifically to see that they maintain the principles of a universal benefit that recognises the additional cost of living for someone with a disability and supports those who can work as well as those who cannot, and that disabled people are fully involved in the design of the gateway. We accept that the Government have made clear that they accept their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to consult disabled people in the design and monitoring of decisions and policies affecting disabled people.
However, the removal of the mobility component of the DLA for people living in residential care has increased apprehension in the disabled community that the thrust of policy has more to do with budget cuts than with the modernisation of support for disabled people. Removing this disability component will have a huge and regressive impact on the independence of thousands of disabled people, with many left unable to afford to leave their homes and denied the independence that most people take for granted.
Appropriate advice from the advisory board on this proposal would have made it abundantly clear up front the damage that it would inflict. Promise of a full consultation after the announcement and before implementation will not do much to allay the fears of some 80,000 people whose lives will be impaired if this proceeds. If the advisory board is to go, what will replace it? How will the independent knowledge and expertise of disabled people and others be systematically brought to bear in shaping and monitoring government policy. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments and speak as someone with recent experience of the situation. I was disabled for six months and realised in that time how difficult life can be if you do not have mobility. It is often difficult to move outside your own front door, to do your shopping, or to come to this place, which I like to do. You rely entirely on the services available to enable you to go outside your front door. Unless there is a body to see that the facilities you need are available, many disabled people will simply be prisoners in their own homes.
This is an increasing problem, because, as we get older, more of us become disabled. I hope that I am not permanently disabled, but I do not know whether I will be. It is certainly a difficult life. It is no longer possible to pop round to the shops or to post a letter. You are entirely dependent on the support provided by other people. I am fortunate in that I have some very good neighbours and some very good friends, but not everyone is in that situation. There is no doubt that an increasing number of people can find themselves simply unable to move outside their front door.
We need to maintain bodies of the kind that is referred to here to ensure that the facilities that are available are maintained, because a lot of them are provided by local authorities and, as we all know if we have read some of the material issued by the Government, local authorities will have their financial resources cut. Will they be able to maintain some of the excellent services that exist in many places? We want to ensure that the services that we have are available and are improved so that many people are not simply unable to utilise services that ought to be available because the finance is not there. What will be done if those two bodies disappear? They should not disappear. It is evident that they have done a lot of work already to maintain services. We want the services to be improved. Please keep them and ensure that they are available to us.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I had not thought of declaring my disability as an interest but, in view of what the noble Baroness has said, perhaps I had better. I certainly sympathise with some of the points that she has made.
However, I had been going to declare two other interests in a speech which I do not think will count on the McNally scorecard, partly because it is not related to his department and partly because it will be as neutral as I can possibly make it. One interest is that I must have been the Minister responsible for disabled people at the time when DPTAC was established—albeit not by what was then the DHSS, or the DSS; I have forgotten which. I was certainly the Minister responsible, as Secretary of State, for creating the disability living allowance in its current form and therefore for establishing the advisory committee. I do not regard either of those points as an argument for me to defend the status quo without regard to what has happened in the intervening period, but it clearly gives me an interest in the matter.
I am bound to express some caution, particularly in respect of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, when I am told that one reason why it is thought to be no longer needed is that its function is to give advice only when asked for by the Secretary of State, so that when the Secretary of State decides that he does not want the advice—which may well be because he knows what he is going to get but he does not want it—it should become redundant. There appears to be a certain amount of circularity about that argument, which I hope that my noble friend from the DWP will be able to deal with.
As to DPTAC, I understand that some alternative arrangement is to be made, but no one knows what that will be. I hope that we can be told today but, if not, we are back in the situation of the previous debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, all of this would be much easier if the Government came clean and said, “We need something. It isn’t this, but this is what it is”. What we are being told time after time is, “We don’t need this. We know we need something, but we don’t know what it is”. That is very unsatisfactory indeed.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I support the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie. There is not much that I want to add to the excellent case made by my noble friend. In some ways, I want to echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. These are two advisory bodies affecting disabled people and there are some fairly standard questions about both of them that it would be useful for the Minister to answer. How are the bodies being replaced? How much money, if any, is being saved by their abolition? Given that these are advisory committees made up of people with disability, rather than people who might describe themselves as experts in matters of disability, how will the Minister ensure that the voices of people such as my noble friend Lady Turner, who spoke of her own experience of being disabled, are heard and that people’s experiences of the transport system in relation to the disability living allowance are properly heard by Ministers as they make their decisions?
More specifically, I note that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has as its aim that,
“disabled people should have the same access to transport as everybody else”.
On its website, it says:
“We want this to happen by 2020”.
Why not let it run on until 2020, when it thinks that it might have achieved its aim? Why not give it that target and that very clear end date? The chair of the committee, Dai Powell, in response to the announcement by the Government that, under the Bill, DPTAC would be abolished, said:
“I and the Committee consider there is still so much to be done, the transport system is still inaccessible to many people, and we have more work to do with our stakeholders (not least the Olympic Delivery Authority)”.
If the Minister is not willing to be as generous as 2020, would it not be sensible at least to be clear, here and now, that he will not use the powers that he is seeking in the Bill to abolish DPTAC until after the Olympics? Then at least it could continue the good work that it is doing with the ODA to ensure that the Games and the Paralympic Games are successful and accessible for people with disabilities.
Finally, in respect of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, clearly the Minister shares our concerns that consultation is important and has been consulting over the changes to disability living allowance to create the new personal independence payment. However, is the normal, statutory consultation process enough? Is he getting consistent expert advice from people with disability, given how regularly problems around DLA are in the news? Within the last month we have had the Public Accounts Committee report on 16 December, which said that the appeals procedure needs improvement. Already this month we have had reports that the new payment may be in breach of people’s human rights. Clearly, as we move from one system to another, there are going to be sticking points and difficulties. It would seem sensible for the Minister to seek advice from the advisory board that he has at his disposal to try to iron out some of those difficulties as we move from one system to another. If, after that, he thinks that he can make a good case for getting rid of the board, perhaps he should seek to do so at that point.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I should like to say a few words about these two amendments. In so doing, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, had very much hoped to be present to speak to these amendments this afternoon but, sadly, she is not well and very much regrets that she cannot be here. However, she has asked me to say that she would like to be associated with my remarks.
The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board seems already to have disappeared. Its website has been removed and the telephone numbers associated with it are now being answered by other DWP staff. This might be thought to be jumping the gun somewhat. DLA, as we know, helps many thousands of disabled people with the higher cost of living as a disabled person, but, as we have heard, the Government have announced that they wish to make significant changes to the benefit. The June emergency Budget announced plans to cut working-age DLA expenditure and case load by 20 per cent. This would represent well over 360,000 disabled people aged 16 to 64 losing their disability living allowance. The Government opened a formal consultation on this proposal in December, but have indicated that they are considering extending the changes to children and to people over 65, potentially affecting many more thousands of disabled people and their families. However, the consultation is full of inaccuracies. One example is the repeated claim that there is no process to check that awards remain correct, but the DWP can require a review with an independent medical adviser of any DLA award at any time. The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board would, of course, have been able to advise the department on this issue, had it been asked.
The October spending review also made it clear that the Government want to end mobility payments to disabled people in residential care. This has been particularly controversial. Not enough detail is yet available on this proposal, but the DWP has already had to recalculate its figures on how many disabled people will be affected. Originally, the Government suggested that it would be about 50,000 people, but they now suggest that it will mean 80,000 disabled children, adults and pensioners losing benefit. One might have thought that, in the context of such significant DLA reform, an independent expert advisory body would have been useful to the Government and could have helped to ensure that reform was effective. Instead, it is apparent that the Government made their DLA pledges without expert support or full consideration of the impact. An adequately resourced DLA advisory board properly involved in policy development could have saved the Government some red faces. Axing the body risks undermining the Government’s ability to understand the benefit and provides ammunition to those who suggest that the Government’s plans are unfair. The inaccurate statements and the need to revise figures on the numbers of people affected only add weight to the belief that quango reform has been botched, as the Public Accounts Committee has suggested.
The Minister for Disabled People has now convened, as we have heard, a new expert panel to help to design a different DLA assessment procedure and to facilitate a new stakeholder group on DLA reform more generally. I believe that the work of these groups could have been informed, if not led, by the advisory board, possibly, as has been suggested, in a revised form, and I hope that the Government will reconsider abolition.
On Amendment 34, DPTAC has a strong record of bringing about change in a considered and measured way. Its influence can be seen across all forms of transport, from bus design specifications to guidance for the aviation industry. By recognising the constraints and characteristics of transport industries, it has been able to win over those in that sector who might otherwise have been resistant to change and it has ensured that the transport needs of disabled people are better met. For example, features that we now take for granted on buses today, such as colour-contrasted handrails, bell pushes that can be reached by passengers in wheelchairs, clear information displays and so on, were all introduced as a result of the work of the committee. The DPTAC spec, as it came to be known, was a standard accessibility specification for the bus industry and to this day remains a central part of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations.
Of course, one cannot make a case for retaining a body on the basis of past glories alone, but in recent years the Department for Transport has, I am sorry to say, lost its focus on transport and disability issues, as witnessed by the complacent attitude that it has adopted towards the development of so-called shared surface schemes, in which pedestrians are expected to take their life in their hands and mingle indistinguishably with motorised traffic as all pavements and security barriers are dismantled. This has come about as a result of the closure of the specialist unit in the department, which had for 20 years led on these policy issues and provided secretariat support to DPTAC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, this group of amendments would remove the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee from the list of bodies to which the Public Bodies Bill applies. I can see no circumstances in which this would be desirable. Both these bodies were set up for very good reasons but they no longer reflect the world in which they operate.
Let me first turn to the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. The board was established in 1991 to provide advice to the Secretary of State on matters relating to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. I am delighted to thank members of the board for the advice that they have provided over the years, which has contributed to policy debate in the department. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it should be noted that the board has not been asked to provide advice since November 2008 by the present or the previous Administrations.
Medical experts in the department are already providing the department, including disability living allowance decision-makers and departmental medical officers, with medical advice and medical input into policy decisions. When required, the department can obtain expert medical advice in specialist medical fields using “task and finish” groups. Members of Equality 2025, a public body, are well placed to provide personal insight into the effects of policy initiatives.
One of the things that has changed since 1991 is the creation of the Office for Disability Issues. The fact is that it has managed to organise a much wider range of channels from disabled people’s organisations and groups which completely changes the environment in which this advisory body, among others, operates. It is in that context that we should look at this step.
I turn now to a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the reform of the DLA and the involvement of experts in that reform. We have a group of independent specialists in health, social care and disability, as well as disabled people. The group includes individuals from a range of professions such as occupational therapy, psychiatry, physiotherapy, social work, general practice, community psychiatric nursing, and representatives from RADAR and Equality 2025. We are pulling in from widespread channels a huge variety of relevant expertise.
A question was raised by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Knight, about the length of the consultation period. We did consult widely with disability organisations, letting them know our thinking well in advance of the publication of the consultation, and we will continue to work with and involve them in the overall process going forward.
Let me finish my remarks on this particular board. This is a classic example of a body that was set up for a very good reason, but which has now outlived its useful life. Things have moved on since 1991 and the Public Bodies Bill will allow the Government to reflect those changes by abolishing this body.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can he tell us how much he is saving by getting rid of it?
Lord Freud
This is not a change being made with any view to making savings because I think that this board does not cost anything at all. I believe the services of the board members are given on a pro bono basis, for which we have been very grateful. Neither of these are money-saving measures since in money terms these bodies are rather inexpensive sources of advice, but the point is whether they are a relevant and necessary function in a changed environment.
Let me turn to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The Government’s approach to disability and transport has moved forward significantly since 1985 when the committee was established and the important issues of disability equality are now a core element of departmental policy and delivery. At a practical level, although there is still more to be done about the kind of improvements that still need to be made—no one would disagree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Low—nevertheless it is the case that access to all modes of transport has been transformed over the past two and a half decades. Rather than seeking access for disabled people as a specialist topic, transport operators across the sector are now expected to incorporate their needs into the mainstream of transport planning and delivery. All public bodies have a statutory duty under the Equality Act 2010 to take equalities issues into account in their decision-making. Against this background, and while recognising the valuable work that the committee has done for the department in areas such as accessibility and mobility policy, there is scope to reform the way in which disability advice is delivered to increase flexibility and accountability to the taxpayer.
The question was raised by a number of noble Lords about what or whether anything replaces the DPTAC advice. We intend to commence a consultation in the near future on successor arrangements to DPTAC in order to ensure that we continue to get the advice that we need, thus improving accountability and flexibility and, therefore, value for the taxpayer. It is worth noting that the policy divisions within the Department for Transport increasingly seek advice from specific modal groups. For example, in aviation the department tends to use sources of information closer to the aviation sector—airlines, airports, the CAA, and so forth. The question of timing was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, particularly in relation to the Olympics. DPTAC continues to exist until such time as it is abolished by order and this is unlikely to occur before 2012. Therefore, the Olympic work will carry on as routine.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised the point about whether local authorities would continue to perform their duties in this respect. No local authority should ignore the needs of disabled travellers. Local authorities are subject to clear equalities duties and, as such, should be actively promoting equality for disabled people. All transport operators within local authority areas are subject to provisions under the Equality Act 2010.
Let me pick up one or two other points. First, moving back to DLA and the mobility component, local authority contracts with care homes oblige those care homes to make sure that their clients or inhabitants have access to doctors, dentists and other local services and to help residents pursue their independence. That is part of the confusion of obligations that we are trying to disentangle and will do so under the DLA reform that we are undertaking.
Secondly, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, on the replacement of DLA with PIP, or personal independence payment, about 14,000 people on DLA have never had their claims looked at since getting the benefit in the period from 1992 to the present day and around 20 per cent of people on DLA have not had any contact with DWP in 10 years. The reduction in the forecast working age expenditure, which we are looking at in the DLA reform, effectively brings expenditure in 2014-15 back down to what it was in 2009-10. We are talking about a cut in a projection, not an absolute cut.
I close with our reason to abolish DPTAC. The Secretary of State for Transport and his department will continue to ensure that transport policies promote equality. We will also, as I said, be taking forward a consultative process on successor arrangements to the committee in the coming months. As part of that process, the Department for Transport will of course publish the full impact assessment. Given that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, not to press the amendment.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Before the noble Lord responds, I do not want to make too much trouble, but I must say that I did not find that terribly persuasive. I can well understand that the Secretary of State did not wish to seek the advice of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board on the proposals that have just been put forward because he would have got a major flea in his ear. I do not want to enter into that argument, which is not for today, but there is serious concern of the kind that various noble Lords have alluded to in the debate and that would have been reflected. The easiest way of not having that reflected is to say that you do not need the body that gives you that type of advice. Having been a Minister myself, I have to say that I have an unduly cynical view of what the real motivation may be, but it is very unreasonable of me to say that.
On DPTAC and the two bodies taken together, if I hear the Minister right, he is a very self-sacrificial man. He is saying that these bodies cost nothing, do no harm and we are going to have to spend money to get advice somewhere else, presumably also at nil cost. I am bound to say that if I were one of his ministerial colleagues, certainly in the Government in which I served, I would have said, “Why do you want to stir up all this trouble? Why put off all these people who have been giving their services pro bono in order to spend time and trouble consulting about how to replace their efforts? It does not make sense”. I rest my case.
Lord Freud
I ought to respond to that, especially to the creator of the board. The core point is that these advisory bodies are rather narrowly focused and we are now looking at a much wider set of obligations and a much wider capacity. We have the Office for Disability Issues, which was never thought of in the 1990s. That provides a whole range of channels into the community that did not exist. We are talking about moving from a narrowly focused piece of advice to a much wider set of interchanges with the disabled community. My noble friend was right. This has not been done for monetary reasons, but to reflect the world that we live in and to get advice on the broadest possible scale in the right way when we need it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short but well informed debate. I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I said when I introduced these amendments that I did not propose to press them today and I do not, but he has given me special food for thought when we come to Report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I was not totally convinced by the Minister's response although as ever he did a sterling job trying to hold the government line.
To summarise the contributions of all noble Lords other than the Minister, I say that they recognised the importance of hearing the voices of disabled people in these situations and not just a lone voice—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We need to hear about the full range of issues that disabled people face. We heard about the importance of an independent voice, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said—not just speaking when you are spoken to and asked a question. There needs to be an independent means for people to input. I agree with that point about not just responding when you are asked a question.
Each noble Lord who spoke did so from a particular standpoint. My noble friend Lady Turner spoke of her own challenges with mobility in recent times. She raised the issue of local authorities and the Minister reminded us of the equality duties imposed on local authorities. We have to recognise that the financial constraints currently imposed on local authorities are draconian—the worst they have faced for decades. That provides them with challenges.
I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was the creator of the DLA and DPTAC that we are discussing today. To date, before his Government’s measures, they have stood the test of time. We are not opposed to a recasting of DLA. I mentioned in my presentation the sort of issues we look to come out of the review. My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth raised some important issues. On the timing, I am delighted that DPTAC will at least outlast the 2012 Olympic Games. That is to be welcomed.
The other general theme on which all noble Lords focused was that of knowing, if you are going to get rid of something, what is going in its place. We had one veil lifted this afternoon in relation to the advisory board and the engagement on the recasting of DLA, although the noble Lord, Lord Low, rightly pointed out some of the problems with the consultation. If the input the Government are now getting is, as they argue, so important, valuable and different that it displaces the advisory board and DPTAC, how have they ended up with this huge challenge around the mobility component of DLA and the need to revisit and revise the numbers? There is an inconsistency in the Minister’s argument.
Prompted by the question on cost of my noble friend Lord Knight, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that if something costs nothing then we do not need to spend money on putting something in its place. We can get advice for free so why change it? I acknowledge the role of the ODI and the new engagement that it has brought to the whole issue of dealing with disabled people and their challenges. However, that in itself is not a reason for doing away with these bodies, particularly DPTAC. I was not aware of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the Department for Transport having just one person along to their bus advisory board. How can that one person possibly represent the full range of issues faced by disabled people needing to access public transport and buses in particular?
There are some issues there that the Government need to be clearer on if we are not to take forward at least one of these amendments on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 33 but we need to look at the record of this debate and think seriously about what we will do on Report.
Baroness Thornton
“Food Standards Agency.”
Baroness Thornton
I realise that putting down an amendment to add something to this hotchpotch Bill may seem perverse in the extreme but assure the Committee that there is method in my madness. This is a probing amendment, designed to achieve what we seem to have signally failed to achieve so far with this Bill: that is, to gain some understanding of the rationale, the explanation or the philosophy that lies behind (the arm’s-length institutions that are included in the Bill and those that are not). I use the Food Standards Agency as an example of a body that is not in the Bill but about which reform is being proposed.
The Food Standards Agency, is, as it says on its website,
“an independent Government department set up by an Act of Parliament in 2000 to protect the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food”.
What has already been announced is that some of its functions will be taken away and given to Defra, and nutrition and dietary health will be moved back to the Department of Health. That is a very retrograde step in the view of many people concerned with diet and health. I think we can safely say that the Food Standards Agency was specifically formed after the BSE food scandals to try to re-establish public confidence in food advice by creating an arm’s-length body and an independent organisation. If the Government wish to change that fundamentally, they have to have some justification for addressing those issues specifically. Even if they wish to make the FSA a leaner and more cost-effective body, as they have done and to which the FSA has responded very well, cost-cutting is not the point here. It would seem that the FSA can be changed and its powers taken away without recourse to Parliament, without consultation and without this Bill.
Why is the FSA not included in this Bill? I was tempted to table an amendment for all the non-departmental government bodies that are not included in this Bill just to try to make sense of the Bill, and I have not ruled out that idea. For example, we will address later the other health bodies that are included in this Bill: the HFEA and the HTA. They were created with a similar motivation to that behind the Food Standards Agency—the need to have an arm’s-length body independent of government that could be trusted by the public to give good advice.
So far, the passage of this Bill has resembled a familiar song that we may all know, “The Hokey Cokey”. You put Channel 4 or Ofcom in the Bill, then you take them out of the Bill—or you think about it—and maybe shake them all about a bit. In the case of the recent government amendments on the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, and a host of the other judicial-sounding bodies, they are out, but why? Perhaps we should rename this Bill the Hokey Cokey Bill.
Since tabling this amendment, the Public Administration Select Committee in another place has very obligingly published, Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State. I had intended to use the Treasury’s admirable publication, Reforming Arm's Length Bodies, and the Institute for Government’s document, Read Before Burning, as a theme for this discussion, because both contain a sensible description of the different kinds of arm’s-length bodies, what they do and how they might be reviewed and reformed. However, I think that they have been overtaken by the admirable report from the committee under Mr Bernard Jenkin MP about the dog’s breakfast that is not just this Bill but the whole process of reforming arm’s-length bodies.
To go back to basics, the coalition agreement merely said:
“We will reduce the number and cost of quangos”.
I have to say that my own Government’s policy was along the same lines. The Reforming Arm's Length Bodies document outlined how to do this in an orderly fashion over a period of time and save money in the course of doing that. So the Government started a cost-reduction exercise. Shortly after the election, they undertook to review public bodies sponsored by departments, including executive agencies. The stated aim of the review was primarily to increase the accountability of government. To achieve this, the review attempted to indentify functions that could be transferred from public bodies to central departments. The Government argued that Ministers could then be directly responsible for those activities and could be held to account by Parliament for the discharge of those activities. Indeed, Francis Maude, the Minister in the Cabinet Office—I particularly like this bit—said:
“I have led an intensive review into public bodies, subjecting each to four tests. The first test was existential and asked, does the body need to exist and do its functions need to be carried out at all?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/10; col. 505.]
I think that existential is a really good word to use in the process of these discussions. Those tests were whether,
“a precise technical operation needs to be performed to fulfil a ministerial mandate”.
The second area was,
“where it may be right to delegate power to an independent body … when there is a need for politically impartial decisions”.
The third area was,
“where there is likely to be a need for independent action … when facts need to be transparently determined”.
The fourth area, of course, was the existential test.
Added to that, we have another test, which appeared slightly late in the day: transparency. According to the report:
“The Ministry of Justice has retained bodies on the grounds of ‘transparency’”,
so we know now that we have at least four or five tests that the Government have said need to be applied to arm’s-length bodies.
The report goes on to say:
“It is also unclear whether all three of the tests the Government set were necessary in determining whether a function should remain at arm's length from Government”.
The report adds that the Institute for Government,
“during its research for its report, Read Before Burning, conducted its own evaluation of public bodies and the level of independence they need to discharge their functions properly. Their evidence states that: The key issue for deciding to put a function at arm's length is the degree of independence from day-to-day ministerial intervention needed to enable the body to command public confidence that it can perform its function in the public interest”.
That test applies completely to the FSA, and indeed to several bodies that are included in this Bill. We therefore have the importance of the independence test.
The additional test that is brought to bear is that of value for money. As well as the four or five tests that I have already outlined, the Select Committee says that the Government,
“are silent on a range of other issues, such as the implication of changes on the wider public policy framework, value for money, or current performance of organisations”.
The report concludes:
“The Government did not consult properly on these proposals. When undertaking such a fundamental review of the machinery of government it is desirable and sensible to do so”.
Our own Merits Committee did, as I recall, agree with that.
The report goes on to say that the Government do not apply the tests consistently and have declined, in some cases,
“to provide an explanation for why it intends to retain a body”.
It seems to me that asking for an explanation of why the Food Standards Agency is not included in this Bill is exactly the point of this Select Committee report. The Government have been inconsistent about what is in the Bill, what is out of the Bill, and what tests should be applied to the bodies that they intend to keep and to reform. The conclusion of this very critical report says:
“We are not convinced that the Government has applied its tests consistently. Neither can we find any evidence to suggest that it took any steps to ensure a uniform approach was taken. We recommend that the Cabinet Office publish details on how the tests have been applied to all public bodies that are still under review, so we can ensure that in future these tests are applied consistently.
The lack of consultation and inconsistent application of the tests, which are themselves confusing”—
I would agree with that—
“have led us to conclude that there was no coherent and consistent process for reviewing public bodies”.
I return to the Food Standards Agency, which I would not wish to include in this Bill. Whether or not I proceed to add a whole host of other bodies into the Bill in a desperate attempt to understand the rationale is dependent on the Minister’s explanation. I would really appreciate him addressing the very important issues that are raised in this report—and this is the first opportunity we have had to say this. I would like an explanation of the broader implications that this report has for the Bill. Obviously, it involves not just the Food Standards Agency but many, many bodies.
Finally, we on these Benches are not opposed to modernising arm’s-length bodies. Indeed, in March last year we published a document about the reform of arm’s-length bodies that said that we intended to reduce their number by 123 and to save money by doing so. However, we intended to do it in an orderly fashion with consistent and consistently applied criteria. This Government have not done that, and we need an explanation of what they intend to do next. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton for raising three very substantive matters with this amendment: first, what is to happen to the FSA; secondly, the process by which the Government have undertaken this review; and, thirdly—coming back to the debate on the first group of amendments—the architecture of the Bill.
I was the Department of Health Minister who, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as the Defra Minister, took through the legislation that created the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I are singing off the same hymn sheet here. I remind the noble Lord that the reason for this was that there was a great deal of public distrust, it would be fair to say, arising out of the BSE issue along with some concern about the advice that the relevant government departments had been giving to the public. Therefore, the decision was taken to create an independent agency sponsored not by Defra but by the Department of Health.
Overall, that agency has worked very well indeed. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to Mr Geoffrey Podger, the first chair and chief executive of the FSA—and, indeed, to their successors—for doing what I think has been an outstanding job. It has certainly advanced the credibility of the advice that that body gives to the public and, importantly, has also enhanced the credibility of the British food industry. I therefore have some reservations about the changes that are now being proposed to the FSA. I understand that there will be a transfer of some of its responsibilities to the Department of Health. I must declare my interests in relation to the health service and to public health as they are recorded in the Register. The FSA has a tremendous reputation and, in the Government’s place, I would hesitate before making substantive changes.
However, the second point raised by my noble friend relates to the rationale for the Government’s approach both to those bodies that are contained in the Bill and those that are not. It is still not clear to many noble Lords what the rationale is. This is a good opportunity for the Minister, who, as noble Lords have already remarked, has been very helpful to the House, to explain some more about the rationale for the bodies contained in the Bill and those that are not, even where those that are not are actually to have substantive changes made to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be a little tired of having Select Committee reports quoted back to him because it would be fair to say that all of the Select Committees that have so far looked at the Bill and at the review undertaken by the Government have been not exactly complimentary. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has to answer the central charge of the Public Administration Select Committee, chaired by Mr Bernard Jenkin, which said:
“This review was poorly managed … no meaningful consultation, the tests the review used were not clearly defined and the Cabinet Office failed to establish a proper procedure for departments to follow”.
Apart from rejecting the Select Committee’s report out of hand, the Government have been rather silent in responding so far. We are entitled to some comment on the review process itself.
My noble friend Lady Thornton referred to the Bill as being the “Hokey Cokey Bill”. I think it is more Gilbertian myself. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor has a little list. In fact it is a very big list that is gradually becoming smaller. I note that the Jonathan Miller production of “The Mikado” is back at the Coliseum yet again. The noble Lord might take care and reflect by going to see it.
It brings us back to the architecture of the Bill. In an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the question of Amendment 175, which is consequential on the paving Amendment 1 that the House passed. That is a very important amendment because it sets very clearly the restrictions on ministerial powers to be used in the Act. If, as a result of the discussions that I know that his officials are having with noble Lord, Lord Lester, tomorrow and other discussions, the Government were able to accept the principle of Amendment 175, while making it clear that they do not intend to reverse this in the other place, then we would make more progress.
There are other substantive issues in relation to the architecture. I have already mentioned the use of the supra-affirmative procedure and the deletion of Schedule 7. Some reassurance that public consultation will take place when it is proposed to deal with any of the bodies in this order would go some considerable way to reassuring noble Lords. In the absence of the House understanding what changes the Government are prepared to make to the architecture, we go inevitably through these bodies one by one and, in a sense, in a vacuum—a point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We are due a Committee day next week when, no doubt, we will hear when further Committee days are to take place. I hope that in a fairly short time the Government will be able to make a little clearer their sense of where they are on the Bill and whether they are prepared to make the kind of changes to its construct that would reassure noble Lords considerably.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling this amendment. I know that she has done so with good intentions but we have enough on our plate without adding an extra dish to the menu. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his recommendation to see “The Mikado”. I saw it when it was previously on at the Coliseum. In fact, I have tickets. Should time allow, I hope to see it in revival.
As your Lordships are aware, the Public Bodies Bill exists to take forward the review of public bodies undertaken across the Government in 2010 to enable changes to be made. I acknowledge the report of the Select Committee produced by another place and no doubt we will be replying to that report in due course. However tempting it might be, I do not want to use this debate as an opportunity for expanding on arguments that the Government will bring forward in their discussions with that committee. We are negotiating with the opposition Front Bench and the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House to try to improve the Bill. It is interesting that, as the noble Baroness said, there is a determination across the House to ensure that we have a public bodies sector that is fit for purpose.
Perhaps I may address the changes that have occurred within the Food Standards Agency in the context of the recent history of the department. The previous Government announced in their public health White Paper, published shortly before the election, that they would bring dietary health and nutrition away from the FSA into the Department of Health. That is the background against which, under the new Government on 20 July 2010, the Department of Health announced its decision to retain the Food Standards Agency as an independent regulator, while transferring some of its functions to the Department of Health and Defra. I shall shortly put those into the context of the size of the organisation. These changes are non-statutory in nature and do not therefore require the use of the Public Bodies Bill, or any another legislative vehicle, to bring them into effect.
The proposed changes to the role of the FSA are designed to contribute to the Government’s objectives to improve efficiency and are paramount to the key priority of improving the health of the nation by creating a public health service. To achieve this coherence, some policy-based functions are to be brought in-house to give a more co-ordinated approach on health and food issues. These changes affect approximately 5 per cent of the 2,000 staff employed by the Food Standards Agency. About 25 labelling policy posts will move to Defra and 85 nutrition policy posts will move to the Department of Health. These proposed changes reflect the Department of Health’s desire to bring together all the policy levers to enable it to deliver a coherent public health strategy. This will allow the FSA to focus on its key core remit of food safety underpinned by scientific expertise. It has been mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in establishing the Food Standards Agency, provided a foundation of science which has greatly benefited that organisation. The proposed changes will enable government food policy to be communicated and delivered in a coherent and consistent manner. The Department of Health, Defra and the FSA—we must not forget that the Food Standards Agency is classified as a government department—will work together to ensure that this structure protects consumer interests, reinforces efforts to improve the public’s health and supports a competitive food industry.
I acknowledge that the last thing the noble Baroness seeks is the extinction of the Food Standards Agency. On the basis of the assurances I have given, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I assure him that we are in agreement about not adding the FSA to the Bill. I will read his remarks and consider how we might usefully take forward the process of injecting coherence into this modernisation. However, I shall not do so now. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Banking: Bonuses
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the response given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, we inherited from the previous Government a failed system of banking regulation and a situation where billions of pounds had been provided to bail out bankers with nothing demanded in return. It was a something-for-nothing deal that rightly left the British people seething with anger. Let me explain what we are doing to change this.
First, we are replacing the disastrous tripartite system for regulating banks established in 1997. Instead, our plan is to put the Bank of England clearly in charge. Secondly, we have created the Independent Commission on Banking to review the structure of the banking sector and address the issue of banks that are too big to fail—an issue that the previous Government’s failure to address brought this country’s economy to its knees. The commission will report this autumn. Thirdly, we have introduced a permanent levy on the banks in the face of opposition from the previous Government. This new banking tax started coming into effect last week and once fully operational will raise £2.5 billion each and every year—£8.8 billion over this Parliament. We are looking at the IMF’s proposed financial activities tax and we will work with international partners to secure agreement. Fourthly, we have demanded that the banks sign up to the code of practice on taxation. The previous Government created the code in a flourish of press releases, but we discovered that only four out of Britain’s 15 main banks had actually signed up to it. This coalition Government have made sure that every one of those 15 banks signs up. We are legislating in this year’s Finance Bill for tough anti-avoidance measures directed at some of the practices in the financial services sector that no one had previously attempted to stop.
Specifically on remuneration and bonuses, on 1 January this year we introduced the most stringent code of practice of any financial centre in the world. There will be for the first time a strict limit on the amount of bonus payable in upfront cash. There will be a requirement that 50 per cent of bonuses are paid in shares or other non-cash instruments, which bank employees will not be allowed to sell on for an appropriate period. Guaranteed bonuses will become the exception and not the rule. Crucially, the new bonus code has been significantly extended. It will cover payments and bonuses at 2,500 firms, while the code that we inherited covered pay and bonuses at only 25 individual financial firms.
When it comes to the Royal Bank of Scotland, I am having to deal with the thoroughly inadequate contract negotiated by the previous Cabinet, which this House is probably not aware puts no constraints at all on RBS’s bonuses this year. Indeed, it explicitly encourages it to pay bonuses in line with market rules. But despite this we have made it clear that RBS will have a smaller bonus pool than last year and should be a back-marker in the industry, instead of the front-runner that it once was.
In the coming weeks all the banks will be announcing their pay and bonuses for this year. I can confirm that we are now in discussion with the banks to see whether we can reach a new settlement where the banks pay smaller bonuses than they would otherwise have done, are more transparent about those that they do pay, make a greater contribution to local communities and the regional economy, treat customers fairly and, above all, lend materially and verifiably more than they were planning to the businesses of Britain, especially the small businesses, so that they can grow and create jobs this year. That is what a new settlement with the banks looks like—one where they lend to the British economy, contribute to the British Exchequer and provide jobs for the British people, where they are responsible on pay and bonuses and where Britain can be the world centre of a properly regulated and internationally competitive financial services industry. If the banks cannot commit to that, I have made it clear to them that nothing is off the table. I will keep Parliament informed of our discussions and, if the Opposition who created this banking mess have a better idea, let us hear it”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating as a Statement the Chancellor’s reply to an Urgent Question asked by my right honourable friend Alan Johnson in another place, although it is notable that the Chancellor’s Answer had very little to do with the Question asked, which was about the Government’s view on the level of bonuses to be paid in the current round.
Is the noble Lord aware that the Government’s cut in taxation of the banks and the Chancellor’s rather obvious evasion of the substance of the Urgent Question will be received in the country with a mixture of despair and indignation, but not with any surprise? There will be despair because it was the reckless behaviour of the banks and others in the financial sector that imposed economic hardship, even misery, on millions of British people, particularly the most vulnerable. Does he agree with the Financial Services Authority that the bonus policies of the banks encouraged that reckless behaviour? Would he agree that the payment of large bonuses at this time is morally indefensible? Of course, there are lots of things in economic life that are morally indefensible, but the payment of large bonuses now is not just immoral but also against the national economic interest. That is why despair will be laced with indignation.
I believe that no one in Britain objects to the view that those who work hard and take risks with their own money deserve substantial rewards, but would the noble Lord agree that the profitability of the banks over the past year is due less to hard work and more to the financial support provided by the Government and to the low interest rate policies and other policies of the Bank of England? Is it not the case that the banks were reckless with our money, then we bailed them out and then they hoovered up the funds to pay themselves bonuses? Would the Minister agree with me that socially responsible banks will be using their profits to rebuild their balance sheets, strengthening their underlying finances, rather than frittering away our money in excessive bonuses?
Turning to the question of the taxation of bonuses, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are considering following the practice in the United States, where remuneration in excess of $1 million is not allowable as an expense against corporation tax? The Chancellor asked for ideas and there is one. Members of the House will be aware that in the United States there is not a single non-dom, so will the Minister tell the House his estimate of the proportion of bonuses paid here to residents claiming non-dom status? What proportion of bonuses to non-doms is paid via non-UK jurisdictions? More generally, is the Minister able to tell the House what proportion of gross value added is paid in tax by the financial sector as compared to other major sectors of the economy?
Of course, once issues of taxation are raised, the bankers seek to hold the British people to ransom by claiming that they will simply leave these shores rather than pay their fair share. Will the Minister tell the House what proposals Her Majesty’s Government have made to the G7, the G20 or the European Union for a concerted international policy on financial sector remuneration?
The truly distressing factor about this Statement is that there is really nothing surprising in the Chancellor’s reply, other than his flagrant disregard of the heartfelt and legitimate concerns of the British people.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am disappointed in the response and the questions that we have just heard. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he is concentrating on what is really important: the big picture issue of getting rid of the former system of financial regulation, which was proven to have failed in the crisis. We are making fundamental changes to that. As I explained in repeating the Statement, there are ongoing discussions about what really matters, which is about treating customers fairly, making sure that lending is materially and verifiably more than the banks would otherwise be planning to lend and, in that context, ensuring that the banks pay smaller bonuses than they otherwise would have done. It is precisely the switch from bonuses towards lending, which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is asking for, that we are concentrating on now.
In answer to the noble Lord’s questions about taxation, far from introducing any cut in tax on banks, we have introduced a permanent levy rather than a one-year levy—a levy that raises in each individual year more than the previous Government’s one-off bonus tax did. Even the previous Chancellor, Alistair Darling, admitted that that bonus tax failed to change bankers’ behaviour, whereas the bank levy that this Government have introduced reflects the relative risk in different banks’ balance sheets.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for rising to the challenge about the allowability of bankers’ bonuses or total remuneration against tax. It is an interesting suggestion. We look at the total package in the round and I am always grateful for interesting new ideas.
In respect of taxation of non-domiciled individuals, whether they are bankers or others, I remind the noble Lord that it was my right honourable friend who, when in opposition, first raised the question of non-domiciled individuals making a proper contribution to tax in this country. We have taken the lead on that.
The overall priority must be to make sure that the banks pay a fair share, as we believe they now will. At the same time, we recognise the need to keep a vibrant banking sector in this country and to keep the UK as a centre of global banking, with banks continuing to lend to all businesses, particularly the small and medium-sized businesses in this country. We will continue to work with our European partners to urge agreement, particularly on a disclosure regime by banding of remuneration. We will continue to work with our partners on consideration of a financial activities tax. The critical thing, as my right honourable friend set out today, is that the Government are working in a thoroughly practical, hands-on way to deliver results and, in particular, will continue to work with the banks to make sure that lending to the businesses of this country supports the recovery that this economy is on track for.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I do not know whether he has read it lately, but I have here an excellent document, The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, in which Nick Clegg and David Cameron promised,
“radical plans to reform our broken banking system”.
Item 1 said on banking:
“We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial sector … We want the banking system to serve business, not the other way round”.
There is not much sign in the briefing that has been coming from No. 10 and the Treasury that they are very aware of those commitments. Can the Minister assure us that he will draw those commitments to the attention of the people in the Treasury who are working on these schemes, because frankly the messages that are coming out are not right when we are trying to do a serious negotiation with the banks to improve their behaviour?
Specifically on the Royal Bank of Scotland, what possible justification is there for Mr Hester, who is one of the highest-paid public sector workers in the country, to get any bonus at all when his bank has missed its legally binding mortgage and business lending targets by a mile?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend Lord Oakeshott for reminding us of what is in the coalition agreement, which is always at the heart of what we do. I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury will need absolutely no reminder of what the coalition agreement says in this area, because it is precisely because we are guided by the coalition agreement that we now have a package that, as I have explained, means that 2,500 banks as opposed to 25 are caught by the code. For all their talk, the previous Government had not actually brought in any new remuneration code. We now have one in place. We are continuing, as I said, to urge our European partners to work with us on a common set of banding disclosures. The current discussions are precisely to make sure that bonuses are lower than they would otherwise have been and that lending is higher.
In respect of the Royal Bank of Scotland, as I said in the Statement, we found ourselves having inherited a most extraordinary agreement negotiated by the previous Government that put absolutely no restrictions on RBS’s payments and bonuses this year. We want to see RBS now not as a front-runner, which seemed to be where it was encouraged to be under the previous Government’s agreement, but as a back-marker when it comes to its bonus payments for this year.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Does the noble Lord recall the words of Nick Clegg, who asked whether it did not make one angry that the banks were being allowed to ride roughshod over our economy and were still handing out bonuses by the bucketload? Is the Minister satisfied that that situation should continue and that he should issue sanctimonious and tired Statements to the House? Does he not feel ashamed of what is happening?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am sorry if I will become tediously repetitive, but if the questions cover points that I thought I had made clearly, I will have to make them again. We are taking far more practical and effective action than the previous Government did. We have extended very considerably the scope and form of the disclosures on bonuses that must be made. As to the quantum, I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that discussions led by my right honourable friend the Chancellor are ongoing, with the intention of making sure that bonuses are lower than otherwise they would have been and that lending to British businesses is materially and verifiably higher than it would have been. That is what we want in the context also of a vibrant and healthy banking system, which is good not only for this country but for the UK's global competitiveness.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us whether bankers in New York and Frankfurt are being offered the same type of bonuses as bankers in London? Will he further tell us whether the American and German Governments take the same attitude to bonuses as this one?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ryder for enabling me to remind noble Lords that other Governments are increasingly following the lead of the UK and introducing variations on the measures that we have introduced for the taxation of banks. Since the announcement of our bank levy, Germany, France and other countries have followed with similar constructs. It is critical that we make sure that, while the UK regime is the toughest interpretation among global financial centres of what has been agreed internationally, we seek to work within the framework laid down by the Financial Stability Board and endorsed by G20 Ministers. Whether it is in relation to the US, other European countries or global financial centres, we will continue to work energetically with our partners to secure, as far as is possible, common standards in this area.
Lord Myners
My Lords, in 2009 the Prime Minister said that no bonuses of more than £2,000 should be paid to bankers while banks were in receipt of government support. The coalition agreement talked about robust action and detailed programmes to handle unacceptable bonuses. On that we have heard nothing at all. When we proposed disclosures about remuneration under the Walker report, this was supported by both the Conservative and Liberal parties. The Government have done nothing to implement the Walker recommendations.
The Minister asked for ideas. I will give him four. First, shareholders should be given a clear fiduciary responsibility, for which they can be held accountable under law, to take appropriate action to oversee the companies in which they have invested their clients’ money. Secondly, banks should not be able to offset the past losses against current corporation tax liabilities while they are in receipt of central government support, which most of our major banks still are through the special liquidity scheme and the credit guarantee scheme, as a consequence of which very few will pay any corporation tax for the foreseeable future.
Thirdly, there should be a charge for the capital that banks effectively enjoy through the state guarantee. The Bank of England has estimated that this is worth £100 billion. A fair charge for that would be of the order of £12 billion to £15 billion—the annual charge for risk for capital, which the Minister will understand—rather than the derisory £2.5 billion pounds which ultimately, but not initially, will be raised under the Government's bank levy proposal. That is a considerably smaller amount than was raised under the bank payroll tax.
Finally, if the Minister finds the RBS employment agreement with Mr Hester unacceptable, he can terminate it and replace it with a new one. Will he do so, because the people of this country will not accept a situation in which in excess of 5,000 people working in British banking will receive total remuneration in excess of £1 million per annum? This is totally unacceptable and we are entitled to a decent answer from the Minister to these questions on bonuses, rather than the blather that we have heard about other matters.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am not going to stand here and listen to the ridiculous tirade from the noble Lord, Lord Myners. If he had all these brilliant ideas, why did he not implement a single one of them when he was in office? It ill behoves him to come here with this litany of ideas, which may or may not be good but are given to me not in the spirit of co-operation but as a lecture telling me what we are not doing. I could repeat—but it would bore noble Lords interminably—the Statement of my right honourable friend, which gave a great list of things that we are doing and have done. The Government of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, left only 25 banks with any sort of disclosure requirements. We have extended that figure to 2,500. His Government managed to get a paltry four banks signed up to the much lauded taxation agreement. We now have the top 15 banks signed up. I could go on. It is no good the noble Lord giving me a lecture about what we should do. He had years to deal with the matter and completely failed. We are getting on in a very practical way to make sure that the banking industry and regulatory system is fixed.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government are absolutely right to get rid of the failed tripartite agreement that caused many of the problems that we now face? Does he agree that we are making some progress in reducing cash payments, deferred bonuses and so on? However, I have some difficulty with his argument that bonuses are all right so long as the banks lend more. That seems to be a non sequitur, except in the sense that if we agree to the bonuses, the banks may lend more. However, they ought to be doing that anyway. The two issues are not connected except in the sense of, “We will be soft on you if you do what we want”. That is not the right approach.
As far as concerns RBS and the other banks that have been bailed out by the Government, I understand my noble friend's point about the agreement made by the previous Government. However, given the extent of participation in those banks, ought there not to be clear representation on behalf of taxpayers and the Government on the boards of the banks so that those directors could take appropriate action—because at the end of the day it is the board that decides these matters—with regard to bonuses?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Higgins for recognising the progress that we are making on reform of the regulatory structures, and in relation to bonuses. We are absolutely not going soft on the banks, which is why, as we speak, discussions are ongoing to make sure that bonuses this year are lower than otherwise they would have been, and, in parallel with that, that banks will lend in a verifiable way more than they would have lent. We are not back-pedalling on any of this and are continuing to work actively with the banks.
As far as concerns the management of RBS and Lloyds, the basic construct put in place by the previous Government ensured that the banks would be managed on an arm’s-length basis without the Government directing their day-to-day operations. That is the broad principle to which we are sticking. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government, as a significant shareholder in RBS and Lloyds, make their views very clear on all matters including bonuses.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, it would help if we had some honesty in dealing with some of these issues. The Statement says that the previous Government’s failure to address them brought this country’s economy to its knees. Presumably the previous Labour Government were responsible for the banking failure in the USA, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Spain and other parts of the world. This is a worldwide problem that is not solely related to the previous Government.
To come back to the Statement, the Chancellor said, and the Minister concluded with it, that, “if the Opposition that created this banking mess has a better idea, let us hear it”. My noble friend Lord Myners asked four questions and we await answers to them.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, all I can say is that I will listen to any ideas. I did not hear the question at the end of the four ideas put forward but I am willing to listen to all ideas from noble Lords on a whole range of topics. I am always listening but I am puzzled that when the noble Lord had so much time in government to put those ideas into operation he did not think that they were so good at the time.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
At the Treasury Select Committee this morning Bob Diamond is reported to have said that Barclays is in the position that it is not too big to fail. Does the Minister agree with that statement and, if so, does that mean that if any big bank in distress comes to the Government in future the taxpayer will not be on the hook?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, for reminding us that there are other challenges as well as bankers’ bonuses to be resolved. The too-big-to-fail one is absolutely at the heart of strands of ongoing work. I did not have the opportunity to listen to the whole of what Mr Diamond said to the Treasury Select Committee but I certainly believe that whether it is in the work of the Independent Commission on Banking or in the discussions that are going on in international fora, the question of how to resolve bank failures is one to which we need to continue to give considerable priority. We are reminded that the question of the structure of banking is multifaceted and we should not focus exclusively on one aspect of it.
Lord Beecham
Will the Minister tell the House by how much the banks will benefit from the pending reduction in corporation tax?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, clearly it depends on the level of profits they make as to how much they will benefit from the reduction in the rate of corporation tax. We look at the total package of taxation on banks, as we do for the rest of industry. We believe that by introducing in particular the levy on banks, they will be paying a fair share to the Exchequer. We need to take account of the remuneration taxes, continue to consider the costs and benefits and talk to our partners about a financial activity tax, but we must take the whole of the taxation burden on the banks in the round.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, does my noble friend not think it strange that the party opposite seeks to evade any responsibility for the situation in which we now find ourselves? Having created the situation in which the taxpayer has ended up as a very large shareholder in a number of UK banks, is it not now most important that those banks return to profitability so that the share price and the performance of the banks will enable the taxpayer to earn a profit on the investment? To do that, do the banks not need to be properly staffed and remunerated? Will not our proposal enable us to do something to mitigate the disastrous economic incompetence of the previous Government?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson and agree with his analysis. We need a successful and vibrant banking system in this country. We need healthy banks across the system, but it is particularly important for the taxpayer that the health of RBS and Lloyds is restored so that they can get a decent return in due course from its interest in those banks.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is it not fair to say that bonuses based on share options could be quite remunerative?
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, bonuses based on a number of forms can be remunerative. It is now a fundamental part of the package agreed by G20 Ministers, incorporated in the European capital requirements directive in force from 1 January in the UK, that a significant part of bonuses now has to be paid in a non-cash form and cannot be cashed in for a considerable period. Absolutely, that needs to be part of the structure.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Independent this morning has some devastating quotes in recent months from the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary that can only be taken by ordinary people to mean that large, multimillion pound bonuses would be stopped by the Government. That is the only reasonable interpretation to put on them. Would it be sensible, if senior members of this Government cannot deliver such things, for them not to give the impression that they are going to do so? That is simply a propaganda own goal. Would the Minister also comment on the view from a former Business Secretary that the rich have suffered enough?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am conscious of the time. All I can say is that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made it completely clear what we are doing today, which is a considerable package of things, one element of which is to talk actively to the banks with the aim of ensuring that the bonuses they will pay this year will be lower than they would otherwise have paid.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
In moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendment 91, which is grouped with Amendment 37. Both amendments refer to the future of the Football Licensing Authority.
Those of your Lordships with long memories may recall that the FLA was originally set up under the Football Spectators Act 1989 to oversee the introduction of the compulsory membership scheme so beloved of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who believed that such a scheme was the right response to the football-related hooliganism of the 1980s. One of the worst examples of such hooliganism had resulted in the Heysel stadium disaster of 1985. However, before the Act could be implemented, almost 100 people lost their lives at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield at an FA Cup semi-final match and the subsequent inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Taylor reported that the scale of the disaster would have been even worse if a compulsory membership scheme had been in force. Therefore, that provision in the Act was shelved and has not seen the light of day since. Lord Justice Taylor’s principal recommendation in his final report that the grounds of Britain’s professional football clubs should eliminate standing and become all seated was accepted by the Conservative Government of the day and supported by subsequent Labour Administrations. The one variation was to exempt clubs in the lower two divisions of the Football League from the requirement to go all seated.
At this point, I should declare that not only was I at that cup semi-final at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 but, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, I was deputy chairman of the Football Trust. Our distinguished chairman was the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whose son sits on the Cross Benches today. The Football Trust was the body charged by the Government to provide the funding from football pool competitions for the transformation of Britain's football grounds. The Football Licensing Authority was given the responsibility for licensing grounds and ensuring spectator safety—principally by implementing the all-seater policy.
Over the past 20 years, not a breath of scandal has been attached to the work of the FLA. The Football Licensing Authority has acquired a worldwide reputation as an authority on stadium safety and is the Government's principal adviser in this area. Mercifully, there has been no repetition of the Hillsborough disaster or the dreadful fire at Bradford City's ground in May 1985. So why is the FLA listed in Schedule 1 as facing abolition?
The DCMS statement does not help us very much, as it suggests that the proposals involve,
“continuing the Football Licensing Authority as a separate body until after 2012 when its expertise and functions will be transferred to another body”.
Bizarrely, included in that announcement was the statement that,
“The Government will support the Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill 2010-11, a private members’ bill, presented on 30 June 2010 by Jonathan Lord MP. This would rename the Football Licensing Authority the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and allow it to provide advice, on request, about safety at sports grounds to any national or international organisation, person or body (including local authorities and Ministers of the Crown) and to charge for these services in certain circumstances”.
The FLA has been seeking such powers for years, and I was looking forward to giving that Bill my full support once it reached your Lordships' House. That Bill has every prospect of coming here because it has already secured its Second Reading in the other place without opposition and has been committed to a Public Bill Committee.
I must ask the Minister what on earth is going on. How can the Government support a Private Member’s Bill that will extend the scope of an organisation that they list for abolition? To refer vaguely to transferring the FLA's responsibilities after 2012 to “another body” is just not good enough. Cleverer people than me have been racking their brains to think what other body the FLA could be moved into. Bearing in mind that the FLA has licensing and regulatory functions, it is hard to see how those functions could go to a body such as the Local Government Association. Nor would the Health and Safety Executive be appropriate. The FLA deals with spectators and with professional football, whereas the HSE is responsible for the safety of workers and the places where they are employed. The ethos of the HSE is to investigate accidents; that of the FLA is to prevent accidents in the strictly specialist environment of sports stadiums.
The truth is that the Football Licensing Authority enjoys the support and respect of all the authorities and individuals with which it deals. It would be a public relations disaster for the Government to give the impression that football spectator safety somehow did not matter any more. What sort of message would that send, for example, to the Hillsborough victims, whose grievances are now being addressed by the Government's own Hillsborough inquiry panel, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool? I hope that the Minister can give us some answers and, better still, accept my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I support my noble friend and have attached my name to Amendments 37 and 91. Over recent weeks, since we first tabled the amendments, there have been many opportunities for the Government to clarify the situation, but we are as confused as we were. The comments of my noble friend Lord Faulkner summarise very well the dilemma that we face in trying to understand the Government's intentions. My noble friend gave a brief but accurate history of the formation of the Football Licensing Authority. He mentioned in passing the Football Trust, of which he was not only a leading member but fundamental in its establishment. I pay tribute to the work that he did, which was very important.
My noble friend also mentioned the Hillsborough disaster. Many of us who have a serious and long-term interest in football will remember exactly where we were on that day. All of us who have been involved in considering safety issues remember many of the details—the work that went into the Taylor report and the public concern about other disasters as well as Hillsborough—and the great leap forward that everybody in football had to make to come to terms with the improvements necessary to provide spectators with the safety that they deserved. From those unfortunate beginnings, from those disasters, we have made significant progress in this country and, as my noble friend said, become world leaders in football stadium design and football safety generally.
The reputation of the FLA is without doubt—I have heard no one in another place or in general conversation criticise its work—but over the past few weeks we have seen incredible confusion, as my noble friend has pointed out. Originally, there was reassurance from the department to the FLA about its future. There has been the suggestion of extra responsibility through the Private Member’s Bill, which I think received more or less universal acclaim when it was introduced in another place. Nobody dissented to that Bill; indeed, the Government so supported the Bill that they introduced a money resolution to facilitate its passage, which is somewhat unusual. So far, so good for Football Licensing Authority, but then we got this Bill. No one has said that the FLA is not doing a good job—many say that it should have more responsibility—and there have even been plans to make it more efficient, but then we got suggestions of abolition or merger.
We all know how important football is in this country. I am one of those people—some would say, sad people—who spend most Saturdays on either a high or a low depending on the result of the Bolton Wanderers match. Hundreds of thousands of people, myself and many others in this House included, go regularly to football matches. We go today safe in the knowledge that the stadiums that we attend are up to scratch. I have taken my children since they were quite a young age. It is important to people such as me who believe that football is a family sport that we can take our children—and, for many people, grandchildren—to football matches in the knowledge that everything is done to provide the right safety standards.
As my noble friend said, the FLA has world respect. People come to the FLA for advice. Other countries would very much like to have the kind of authority that we have in this country. The Government’s confusion over the past few months has undermined, and is in danger of destabilising, the good work that has been done over many years. This provision in the Bill raises questions about the Government's commitment to football and to sport in general. We saw what happened with the school sports money. Although there was a partial U-turn on that, similar damage has been done.
The FLA is critical to the safety of spectators and participants in sport, exists on a very small budget and is very well thought of. Indeed, the FLA is rather strange in the lack of criticism that it attracts. The FLA has pushed out new grounds, has developed stewarding and has got the co-operation of clubs—even very senior clubs—which have listened to its advice and taken its encouragement. The FLA has not had to be heavy-handed because of the respect in which it is held by all in football.
I hope that the Government tonight will give some thought to clarifying just what is their commitment both to the FLA and to all of us who watch football matches live and who depend on the FLA to ensure the safety of ourselves, our families and those who watch football with us.
Lord Greaves
I should follow the noble Baroness by admitting that I, too, spend more of my time than is good for me watching football matches. In my case it is nowadays mainly non-league football in the north of England. It is a wonderful thing to do, but not to be discussed here today.
This proposal is one of the most mystifying of the proposals in the various schedules to the Bill. We have discussed a number of them so far and we have quite a few more to go. By and large, they fall into one of two categories. There are those which the Government want to abolish and simply close because they are no use any more or because the Government think their functions should no longer be carried out. That is not the case with this body. There are those where the functions are being transferred to the appropriate government department on the grounds that, in the Government’s view, that provides more democratic accountability for their functions than an arm’s-length body, a non-departmental public body or some other sort of arm’s-length body, as at present. That is not the case with this body because the information we are being given so far makes it absolutely clear that the functions will continue, that no staff will be made redundant and presumably, therefore, there will not be any significant savings.
Certainly, the Government have not provided any information about whether they think savings can be made. That is the second group of bodies—those which the Government want to reorganise because they believe that savings can be made. If sensible savings can be made by reorganising quangos, it is difficult to argue against that if the proposals are otherwise reasonable and sensible. However, that is not the case with this body. The functions are to remain, the staff are to remain and it does not appear that there will be any significant savings, although perhaps the Minister can tell us about that. What, therefore, is the purpose of the change?
Some suggestions have been made that it might be better for it to be part of a larger body with a wider remit, although the Private Member’s Bill being put forward would allow for that to happen anyway, as I understand it. So, why is it being done? That is the fundamental question that has to be asked and that the Ministerhas to answer. He has to provide some information about what new structure, what new system of transfer or merger of powers the Government want to bring about. If the powers are to be transferred to some other body, or merged with those of some other body, which other bodies are we talking about? Again, the information we have been provided with is incredibly vague. In fact, it is completely vague; it simply has not been stated.
It seems that this goes back, yet again, to the basic deficiency of the whole architecture of the Bill. Given the architecture of the Bill at the moment, and the way in which these bodies can be closed down, or merged, or have their powers transferred or whatever it is, simply by ministerial order, subject only to a relatively brief take-it-or-leave-it debate in this House and the procedures in the House of Commons, we have no alternative but to try to probe, in Committee, what is going to happen with each and every one of these bodies. That is why it is taking so much time.
As for this body, the information we have been provided which so far is absolutely and utterly inadequate and, unless proper information is provided by Report, the House would be entirely justified in taking this body out of the Bill.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I intervene briefly to support the amendment of my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Taylor of Bolton, both of whom have long experience in the administration of football. Their introductions were wise and full of knowledge. It is interesting to find myself, yet again, on the same side and making the same arguments as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as I have so many times during the proceedings on the Bill. He is absolutely right except in one thing. He said that the information provided by the Government as to the raison d’être for proposing this abolition was vague. It was not vague; it was basically non-existent. That is why we have these amendments at this stage.
I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Carlisle United Football Club. I pay particular attention, in that role, to the safety of the ground and of the crowd. Before I venture down that route, I can say that I discussed this proposal with people at various levels of football administration and they are unanimously bemused and mystified. The Government seem to be saying that they are in favour of the work of the FLA but the FLA should not do it. Yet, on the other hand, it is unclear what is the alternative body so to do, as my noble friends have argued this evening.
On the importance of the directors of football clubs to the safety of supporters, I take a great interest in the safety aspect. I regularly take fans around and explain what we do and what we are required to do to ensure their safety. At virtually every home match I pay a visit to the safety room and discuss with the safety officer and his staff what is happening and ask whether everything is okay. It is interesting that, when I take groups of fans around, the safety officers tell the fans that, if you are going to be taken unwell, the place to do it, if not at hospital, is at a football ground because they are very safe, physically. We have medical and ambulance staff, and we always have paramedics and at least two doctors—one for the crowd, one for the teams. A great deal of attention is paid to the safety of fans. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is in his place. I have seen him at the same football ground and I will very happily take him to see the safety work that we do at Carlisle United.
My main thrust is to try to tease out of the Minister what he has in mind. The FLA has, perhaps, not struck strictly to its remit. It is the Football Licensing Authority. Its job is to co-ordinate and to make sure that standards exercised by the licensing authorities, which tend to be the local authorities, are standardised and up to standard. That applies not just to football grounds. There have been many examples of the Football Licensing Authority assisting other sports with their stadia, almost ex gratia, and, in doing so, it has protected the supporters of other sports.
Lord Mawhinney
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He knows my declarable interest and he also knows the very high regard in which I hold him and the role that he has played at Carlisle for many years. I can tell other Members of your Lordships’ House that he is held in extremely high regard. What I am not entirely clear about from the noble Lord is not the history, which was well rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, or the hugely significant difference that the FLA made 20 years ago and built on, but what he thinks would happen to safety at Carlisle if the FLA were abolished. Surely he is not trying to argue that safety at Carlisle United would diminish as a consequence. In which case, what is the point that he is trying to make for the Committee, not 20 years back but 20 weeks ahead?
Lord Clark of Windermere
The noble Lord is very perceptive. I am just about to deal with those points. I compliment him on the excellent work he did when he was chair of the Football League. It was much appreciated. He was able to bring to that role the discipline and vision that we all respect.
The key point I want to turn to now is what the Government have in mind when the FLA is abolished. At one stage, there was talk that it would be taken in-house by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I have serious doubts about how viable that would be. The alternative is to look at the safety of sports grounds. I am in favour of that because the point I was making was that the FLA has in the past performed this job which is outside its remit. It would be helpful if all sports grounds were regulated by the same body. I am trying to tease out of the Minister whether that is what the Government are trying to do. If they are, will they give us some ideas about the funding? It is not only about the regulations. One thing the FLA did was to work with City & Guilds to have an NVQ course for people who work in safety in grounds. That is the sort of thing that we ought to be encouraging.
This is not clear. We want some clarity because at the end of the day we do not doubt that the Government have in mind some agency to provide this and to guarantee this standard across the country, but many of us would like to see it right across sports.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lady Taylor for allowing us to debate the Football Licensing Authority. My noble friend Lady Taylor described supporting Bolton Wanderers as being a mixture of highs and lows; of course, as a supporter of Birmingham City, I fear it is usually all too low and very few highs.
I want to start by paying tribute to the Football Licensing Authority. There is no doubt that safety issues are very important in our football grounds and that there has been a huge improvement over the years. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said, there has been an improvement in overall safety culture. I believe that the development of stewarding by the clubs themselves has enhanced the development of a secure environment in a non-confrontational way and that we have seen a big improvement in facilities. However, with all the improvements that have taken place, can we say that the problem has gone away in its entirety? I do not think it has. There have been some incidents—I am sorry to say at my own football club in a derby against Aston Villa only a few weeks ago—where there were issues of concern about safety. That suggests to me that we can never be complacent. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is that however much—
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
While my noble friend is on this point and talking about the future, does he agree with the comments of Paul Thorogood, the chief executive of the Football Foundation, which is responsible for many of the support packages for improvements at smaller clubs, that he would be extremely worried were the FLA to be abolished because that would affect the future safety of the projects with which the foundation is involved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My noble friend raises a most important point. Even if you take Carlisle United, with the dedication of my noble friend as a director and his concern for safety, surely directors in their responsibilities regarding safety can still take advantage of the advice and presence of a body such as the FLA. I am convinced that the FLA or a similar body has an important role to play in the future.
I see from noble Lords opposite that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, whom we welcome to our debates on the Bill, is going to give a positive assurance about the future. That would be very welcome. However, I have to say to her that our problem with the Bill, as described by the Public Administration Select Committee only last week, is that the overall reviews by individual government departments were very poorly managed, there was an absence of meaningful consultation, the tests in the reviews were not clearly defined and the Cabinet Office clearly failed to establish a proper procedure for departments to follow. That has left noble Lords in a vacuum regarding the intention of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the mysteries of the Bill, and this is a classic case in point.
The noble Lord then went on to say that the real problem is the architecture of the Bill. I do not think he was in his place when we had our debate on the first group of amendments when we discussed the architecture, but it is perfectly clear that if the Government were to come forward and make it abundantly clear that they are now prepared to make changes to the architecture of the Bill in relation to Schedule 7, in particular, and also on public consultation, on the procedure under which orders would be debated in your Lordships' House for bodies that come under the Bill and other matters that we have discussed, then noble Lords would have much more confidence. At the moment, we have been left in the dark. It is clear that noble Lords do not know about the Government’s intention regarding the FLA. I do not think it is satisfactory that we are here in Committee debating the Bill when there is uncertainty in your Lordships' House and in the sports world as a whole. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some comfort that the issues of safety will be taken forward in future, but I hope that she will give some comfort about how the Government intend to deal with the Bill more generally.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who put down this amendment for us to discuss, and all the other speakers. This debate gives me the opportunity to clarify, which the noble Baroness asked for, and to clear up many of the misunderstandings and points on this issue.
Amendment 37 removes the Football Licensing Authority from Schedule 1, and Amendment 91 inserts the said body into Schedule 5, allowing its functions to be modified or transferred while retaining the body in its current form. The Government are very clear that the Football Licensing Authority carries out an important role, and we want this to continue. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, the Government are supporting a Private Member’s Bill that seeks to reconstitute the Football Licensing Authority as the sports grounds safety authority and will extend the authority’s advisory functions so that it has the power to provide advice about safety at sports grounds to any national or international organisation, person or body.
Our intention is that the authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, will continue as a separate body, whether in its existing form or as a new sports grounds safety authority until after 2012, when its expertise and functions will be transferred to another body. Doing so would allow the authority to share the back-office functions of a larger organisation. This should lead to greater efficiencies and make it less constrained from broadening out its role. It will therefore be able to make the best use of its expertise and reputation.
I indicating that we will abolish the FLA as an independent public body only after 2012 will allow us time to make certain that we have an appropriate home for its expert role and functions. Over the next 12 months, we will discuss the options with the FLA potential host organisations and interest groups to make certain that we have an appropriate solution in place in time to meet the commitment to implement reforms after the 2012 Olympics. This proposal would not risk the important strides made over the past 20 years to improve safety at football after the Hillsborough disaster.
I take this opportunity to assure the House that we do not intend to change the law in relation to football ground safety and, as I have made clear, these important functions need to be retained.
Lord Mawhinney
My noble friend said that she is planning, on behalf of the Government, to discuss with interested parties what might be the new arrangement. Those of us with experience of government know that there is a difference between discussions and public consultation. I was wondering whether she might be tempted to commit to a public consultation, so that anyone with a view worth expressing and listening to would have the opportunity and no one would feel excluded from the sense of ownership of the new body which the Government are proposing.
Baroness Rawlings
I thank my noble friend Lord Mawhinney for that question. As he would know, having been a distinguished government Minister, at this Dispatch Box I am unable to confirm consultation. But I can assure him that there will be further discussions and that that will be looked into.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom or otherwise of abolishing the body before what is going to happen to it has been decided, in view of what the Minister has said about the continuation of the functions of the FLA, surely she could accept transferring the FLA from Schedule 1 to the provision in Amendment 91. That would allow proper consideration of what should be happening in a full way and everyone could be consulted. Just transferring the FLA from the first schedule to later in the Bill would accomplish what she is trying to do.
Baroness Rawlings
The FLA is not being abolished. I would not like to take any decisions with great rapidity at the Dispatch Box. All decisions on what will happen to it in the future will be discussed at great length. This is a very important matter and the Government would not want to take such a decision without that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I must say that this is a bit of a puzzle because Schedule 1 lists the bodies where power to abolish is being given. My noble friend has suggested that the FLA be moved to Schedule 7. I have a theological difficulty with that because—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Yes, it is Schedule 5; I would like to see Schedule 7 removed from the Bill. It is very difficult to know why the noble Baroness’s department is not using the Bill in the way in which it is constructed. Schedule 5 is headed “Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices”. Why on earth is the FLA not in that schedule?
Baroness Rawlings
That part of the Bill will be looked at later, as I have said. With its important functions, it is not being abolished in this Bill. However, as I have set out, the Government’s proposals include the abolition of the FLA as such after 2012 and not now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, no date is given as to when bodies are to be abolished. Schedule 1 sets out the bodies where this Bill gives power to abolish. The puzzle is that, because Schedule 5 gives the flexibility to list bodies where at some stage—not at the moment maybe but at some time in the future—you might want to transfer or modify their functions, why on earth is the FLA not in that, given that the Government have clearly designed the Bill to give flexibility for such organisations? The noble Baroness might want to come back on that.
Baroness Rawlings
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have just said that the FLA will not be abolished until after 2012. We believe that there is a strong rationale for doing so, while acknowledging and seeking to protect the benefits associated with its important public functions. The Government will continue to support the Private Member’s Bill and will work with Parliament to secure what we hope will be an extremely positive outcome. On this basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
Before the noble Lord tells us whether he is prepared to do that, perhaps I may just pick up on a couple of points. From the statement that the Minister has given, it is very clear that the Government are proposing, in due course after 2012, to merge the FLA with an unspecified body. In those circumstances, it seems to me that its appropriate place in this Bill would be Schedule 2, which gives power to the Minister by order to merge the bodies listed there. Equally, it could be in Schedule 5, as suggested in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which would transfer its functions. It would leave a shell organisation that has no function; nevertheless, that would be a sensible place to do it.
I still want to press the Minister on some questions and I have to congratulate her on the way in which she is coping. If I may swap sports, she is batting on a sticky wicket here, which she is doing fairly well and she is not out yet. First, as I have asked previously, can she confirm that the Government do not intend to save money by this proposal and that in no way is there a money-saving aspect? That seems to be what was in the briefing. It would be useful to know that because that would then be put to one side and would not be an issue any more.
Secondly, the Government must have some idea of the existing organisations that are in line to merge with the FLA or are in line to absorb the FLA or its staff and functions within their organisations. Can the Government give us a shortlist—perhaps not today but before Report—of those organisations that they consider might be appropriate to take on the FLA en bloc or just its staff and functions?
Baroness Rawlings
I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his questions. The savings are not a number one priority in this case. Regarding the Private Member’s Bill, it is going through Parliament at the moment, and the FLA has to be abolished in order to be merged with something else afterwards.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her attempt to answer the debate. I have to say that this bit of the Bill is an indication of the problems the Government have with their whole approach, in that the Cabinet Office decided on a series of death sentences in advance of publishing the Bill, and then decided to put forward the trials and amass the cases in order to prove that those sentences are justified. In the case of this body the DCMS, to its credit, is resisting what the Cabinet Office is doing. It does not believe for a moment that there is any other place which the FLA or, in its new form, the sports grounds safety authority can go to for the reasons I set out in my opening speech. I am pretty sure that at the end of this rather painful period, it will be concluded that the sports grounds safety authority, which is what it will become with the passage of the Private Member’s Bill, will continue as an independent body.
The Minister has said helpfully that the functions of the FLA in its new guise are essential and that there is no intention to weaken football stadium or sports ground safety legislation, which is very welcome. The logic is therefore inexorable in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explained. The conclusion has to be that the authority will continue in some guise or another.
I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, whose support for the FLA is greatly appreciated. He asked my noble friend Lord Clark a question about what role the authority has now. The answer is that sports ground safety is not a piece of history. Local authorities are obliged to license sports grounds year by year. New stadiums are built and new sports are going to come under the remit of the FLA as a result of the Private Member’s Bill, which I hope your Lordships will pass in due course, so the role of an independent body is going to be very considerable indeed.
I am tempted by the amount of support that this amendment has received to test the opinion of the Committee, but it would be fairest if I gave the Minister an opportunity to reflect on what has been said, and I hope that we can come back to this on Report, when she may be able to give a rather better explanation about just where she thinks this authority is going in the future. It cannot go to the Health and Safety Executive, and it cannot go to local government, so the Government are going to have to create a new authority to take over this one. That strikes me as barmy. It would be much more sensible if the Government accepted this amendment, and agreed that the authority should go into Schedule 5 and was reconstituted along the terms of the Private Member’s Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, this is something a little different. The purpose of Amendment 39 is to remove the Inland Waterways Advisory Council from Schedule 1. This is not the most controversial proposal in the Bill, but I believe that the 14 members of the IWAC, all of whom are volunteers and unpaid, its part-time chair, John Edmonds, and the two support staff deserve at the very least an expression of public thanks and recognition for what they have achieved since April 2007, when the council was set up as a consequence of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The same goes for the predecessor body, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, which was formed in 1968.
The IWAC does exactly what its title suggests. It gives independent advice to the UK Government, the Scottish Government, navigation authorities and other interested parties on matters appropriate to our inland waterways. If no one wants to listen to that advice, of course that is up to them, but before IWAC disappears it is worth making the point that the next two or three years are going to be absolutely critical for the inland waterways as the British Waterways Board turns itself into a charitable trust. That will represent a huge change in culture as well as in status for the BWB, and I would have thought that it would benefit enormously from being able to call on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council for advice, particularly bearing in mind that there is not a lot of experience in Defra in this area.
My question to the Minister, who on this occasion I think is going to be the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is: how long do the Government expect the IWAC to stay around for? Would he not agree that it makes no sense to get rid of it before the British Waterways Board has completed the process of converting itself into a charity? One only needs to look at the CVs of the IWAC board members to realise how much talent is assembled at its meetings. It has economists, accountants, environmentalists, campaigners, academics and heritage experts—they are all there.
What I feel is so sad about the Government’s approach towards the quangos is that it seems to be based on knowing the price of everything but the value of very little. Most countries would give a great deal to be able to draw on a group of volunteers who are experts, who cost the state virtually nothing and who come together out of a sense of public duty and service. It may not be apparent for some time just how much is being lost as a consequence of this Bill, but we should be in no doubt that we shall as a nation be the poorer because of it. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Faulkner in this amendment. He has outlined the role of and described the people involved in the Inland Waterways Advisory Council extremely well and he will be aware from the briefing that we have all had from Ministers that two secretarial staff are involved in the council. To abolish something because two people are employed there seems quite extraordinary.
The role of the IWAC seems to fit very well with the Government’s plans for localism because canals are a wonderful local amenity. However, there are challenges in maintaining them. We have all read of how volunteer labour is used so often because canals are expensive to maintain and do not produce a lot of revenue. Their transport was rather taken over by the railways about 150 years ago, but they remain a wonderful amenity for leisure purposes and for what they provide to communities. We shall debate this issue again when we talk about the future of the British Waterways Board, but there will be some tension when the BWB becomes a charity. We have not been and we probably will not be told where it will get its funding from and it struggles hard to find funding at the moment. Indeed, there are occasions when I see it turning itself into a property company to the detriment of people trying to use the canals.
I heard about an example of this a couple of years ago in Brentford on the Thames. Some of the BWB people had done a deal with a property company to build some very nice waterside houses at Brentford. To make them even more attractive to the buyers and to make more money, some pontoons were put into the canal so that lots of canal boats could be moored there. The problem was that the pontoons and the boats together were so wide that it was almost impossible to get a canal boat into the canal, which is after all the point of the lock connecting to the River Thames. There are quite strong tides there. Anyone who has driven a canal boat will know they are not like motor cars. They respond to the wind and the tide and they do not steer very well, so you need a bit of space not to hit things. But these people were quite happy to put these pontoons in the river at the entrance to the canal and to allow things to moor, because that would make more money. There were allegations, which I do not want to pursue, that people were making personal gains but, regardless of who got the revenue, it affected navigation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I support this amendment and have little to add to what the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, have stated. The inland waterways of this country are one of its glories and, in the present age, the public resort to and benefit from the inland waterways can only increase. We as a Parliament have for too long done things which were well intentioned but which, in the event, proved to be counterproductive. One of the great problems of the present age is that the public are so confused about different bodies, particularly in the voluntary sphere, that a great deal of the good will and potential effect of a body such as the Inland Waterways Advisory Council can be inadvertently lost by chopping and changing. As all Members of the House will know, the inland waterways are covered by a wonderfully diverse mix of mainly charities—I am patron of the charity that looks after the River Stour, for example, but there are hundreds of them. To have a competent, known, well regarded advisory body taking a valuable overview and bringing together the often conflicting demands and interests of the individual charities with their different responsibilities seems indispensable. If that is right, then for mercy’s sake let us leave this body alone and not at some future date have to resurrect it with a loss of public identity and continuity in the mean time.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I will pick up from where the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just left off. I have a past interest as a Waterways Minister, which is a fantastic job. I cannot remember if it is part of the portfolio of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but if not, that is regrettable, because it provides a welcome relief from most of the rest of what one has to do. I also have a present interest as a member of the board of the Environment Agency. British Waterways is the dominant organisation for canals and the Environment Agency is the dominant organisation for rivers. An amendment recently tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, points the way that the Government are thinking of going in handing over British Waterways to a trust in the third sector and transferring the Environment Agency’s navigation and waterways responsibilities to that body.
I am, broadly speaking, subject to a few caveats, in favour of that sense of direction. Eighty to 90 per cent of British Waterways will probably be covered by that new organisation, which will make it a very dominant organisation. All the small navigation authorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred, supported by volunteers, charities and local efforts for relatively small stretches of canal and river, look to this body for technical advice and for a forum where they can sit and be treated equally with the representatives of British Waterways and the Environment Agency. They will be the people who will most miss out as a result of the abolition of this body. British Waterways, including the Environment Agency’s navigation aspects, will take care of itself, and the charitable status, I hope, will ensure that it does a good job for the public and the environment. However, the smaller navigation authorities need this body and we should seek to retain it for them, certainly for a significant period beyond any transformation of the status of British Waterways, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I compliment the speakers this evening on giving their thoughts on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. I suggest that this body has been included in this part of the Bill to add some weight, but the timing has not been properly considered. In rural areas, the inland waterways are a thriving enterprise for a lot of people. Volunteers undertake restoration and development work, which offers enjoyment to many people along the waterways, reconstructing our industrial heritage and providing diversification opportunities in rural areas. I tease the Minister when I say that we are not looking at a dead parrot. This situation is working extremely well. I ask him to consider the thoughts of all the noble Lords who have spoken tonight, to clarify some of the background as to why British Waterways is one of only nine bodies in the Public Bodies Bill being made into a charity, to expand the Government’s thoughts on why they think that British Waterways is best suited to charitable status and to say how, given its activities, it is likely to be able to raise the funds necessary to continue to provide all these excellent opportunities in development and restoration in rural areas for our wonderful waterways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, we will come to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, when we get to Amendment 86. I offer my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, on avoiding the whole wider question of the British Waterways Board, which we will deal with at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether this was part of my brief. I can confirm by shaking my head that it is not part of my brief within the department. I will certainly discuss the matter with my honourable friend Mr Benyon. He might be prepared to take on dangerous dogs and in return I could have waterways. I could spend the weeks and months ahead cruising the waterways and avoiding this House until my noble friend the Chief Whip brings me back to reality. I make that point because it is important to remember, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the importance of the waterways and canals to all of us. Again, as I implied in my remark to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Berkeley, that is a wider question, which we will come to when we get to Amendment 86, which I do not suppose we will reach tonight.
We are debating not the British Waterways Board but the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. I want to make it clear that, after careful consideration, the department, the Government and Ministers have decided that they no longer need a statutory arm’s-length body to help to develop policy for the inland waterways. Although the Inland Waterways Advisory Council has provided very useful input, policy development is rightly the role of government departments and Ministers working closely with delivery bodies and stakeholder representatives, including such bodies as the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We will continue to develop closer working relationships with all waterways interests. That will enable Ministers to benefit from more direct and tailored input into policy development.
Our proposal to move the British Waterways Board into civil society in April 2012 will also mean that, for the future, the Government will no longer need an organisation to provide advice on policy development. The Government and navigation authorities need to engage with stakeholders directly in the design, implementation and management of the new structure. The Government’s decision has been discussed with the chairman of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and individual members of that authority have been notified.
That decision does not indicate that we will place any less emphasis on the importance of inland waterways. Indeed, the department will be more directly involved as it seeks to place inland waterways on a more sustainable footing through our work towards moving the British Waterways Board from being a public corporation, as has been mentioned, to a new charity in civil society. As I said, we will discuss that when we come to Amendment 86. For that reason, we do not think it necessary to continue to have the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. Noble Lords asked in simple terms how long it would stay around. We will consider precisely how long we need to keep the body in place when we have the results of the consultation on the British Waterways Board, which will be under way fairly soon.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I do not understand. Did my noble friend say that after the British Waterways Board is made an independent charity the Government would not need to have a policy in relation to inland waterways? If I have that wrong and the Government will still need a policy in relation to inland waterways—and it seems to me that they will—I still do not see what is wrong with this body as the conduit for that.
Lord Henley
The Government will always need to have a policy on these and a great deal of other matters, but policy should be a matter for the department, Ministers and the Government and not for a body such as this. Therefore, we do not see that it is necessary in the future. I cannot give a precise time as to when this body will disappear. That will be part of the wider consultation on the British Waterways Board and what we propose to create there. That, as I said, is something that we will discuss on a later amendment. With that explanation of our intentions, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the members of the IWAC will have been heartened by his opening comments about the useful input that they have provided to waterways policy. He could have been a little more fulsome, but at least the remarks were made. They will appreciate that. The Minister has not been able to answer the question of how long this organisation will be around, which is unsatisfactory. I understand that that is due to a process of consultation. This is one of those areas where it would have been better if the consultation had happened before the Bill rather than the other way round, but that is true of so much of this part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made the most telling point. It does not seem sensible to abolish a body such as the IWAC and then to find in two or three years’ time that you have to reinvent it because that role is still needed under the new status of the British Waterways Board. We shall have to wait and see. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. There were some words of comfort, although his comments were not totally satisfactory. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, Amendment 41 is intended to be a probing amendment. The Advisory Council on Libraries developed the policy document that formed the basis of current public library provision. Public libraries are one of our national treasures and in all the countries that I have visited, including the most developed, I have never seen public provision to match them. Nobody would say that advice to the Government on how best to provide this unique service can be done only through a structure such as that of the ACL, but advice there must be or the provision will wither. Even the best educated policy officials do not have the skills and experience of professional librarians—nor perhaps the needs of many library users.
It may be that noble Lords opposite do not themselves use public libraries much, but many of us do. More than 320 million visits are made to our public libraries every year, and that would include visits by primary school children who may have little other opportunity to experience the enjoyment of choosing and reading books. Many writers testify to the resources of the public library that started them on their careers. Over the weekend, the rising young pianist Paul Lewis was interviewed. From the age of eight, he made visits to the local public library to borrow albums of the music that he discovered. He was the son of an unemployed Liverpool docker. What use the public library was to him.
At my library, I see scores and scores of students using the library’s resources as well as elderly people who may not be able to buy as many books as they want to read. It is no surprise that library use plays a part in driving up literacy rates and in raising and changing skills levels at all ages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said in Questions on 2 December 2010, at Hansard col. 1574. Public libraries help small business start-ups, promote healthier lifestyles and engage people in local democracy. They also help to bridge the digital divide by providing facilities and support to help the reluctant and fearful take the first steps towards digital skills. They are an essential player in the Government-sponsored Race Online 2012 campaign.
Libraries themselves do not necessarily have to be housed in separate buildings—as most of them are in their current form—but housed they must be, with enough room for their stock and for people to study it. What is government policy on public library development and where is the Government’s expert advice to come from? The Arts Council has many responsibilities, a severely truncated budget and little expertise in libraries. In the absence of specific policy for this truly magnificent national resource, the Advisory Council on Libraries should stay. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland
I rise to support the noble Baroness on her interesting probing amendment. Over the years, I have spoken several times about libraries, particularly during the previous Conservative Administration when there was some concern that local authorities were not supporting libraries as they needed to be supported to react to changes in demand, new technologies and so on. Libraries are as useful as they ever were. The demands placed on them may be different, but with an ageing society even those who are now young may turn to books when they get old.
I have a bad habit of reading a book and keeping one eye on the television to see whether there is anything on the breakfast programme that might be interesting. This morning, I caught an interview with a man who has just written a book about having been unjustly imprisoned for some time. He was asked by the interviewer how he dealt with spending so much time in solitary confinement in the United States. Without hesitation he said, “By books”. Books are more than just information. There are people who say that books will not exist long after you are dead because books will be replaced by new electronic technologies, which have already had quite an impact. Such people are missing the point about books and particularly their usefulness to those who are poor, deprived or lonely—whom we find, I am afraid, in increasing numbers.
Local authorities often do not have the budgets to pay too much attention to the demand for libraries. I do not know—and in her interesting speech the noble Baroness did not mention—what the Advisory Council on Libraries does, but I take her point. When libraries in London, for example, decide whether to order new books, have more talking books or invite people to discussions and that kind of thing, what kind of advice do they get from the advisory council? I take her point that advice of some kind is obviously needed. Taking an overall view, as one would expect of a council of that kind, and seeing the changes in population, their needs and the budgets available, the advisory council may be able to spot things that make libraries better places.
When I have visited libraries in America, I have been impressed that there is almost always a cafeteria, which brightens them up. There are always bright colours and the impression of innovation, which goes apace with changes in the population. I support the concerns of the noble Baroness and am interested to hear how the Government view libraries and whether they agree with the idea—with which I disagree—that libraries have a limited lifespan. Do they agree that books are not only information but also therapeutic things to handle, whether they be history, biography or fiction? A lot of people ignore the fact that a book is paper that has wonderful print on it; there is the quality of the cover and all kinds of things. Particularly for people living through a stage in their life when they are lonely, depressed and poor, a book is a wonderful thing.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
If the Advisory Council on Libraries is allowed to continue, it may be about to have its finest hour. I suspect that my local authority, Suffolk County Council, will be the same as many councils in having to shed a great many of its libraries on to charitable bodies that have yet to be formed. If ever there was to be a time when the advisory council came into its own with knobs on, it is surely in this important transition. Could the Minister say a little about that?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is with a degree of trepidation that I rise to speak on issues of libraries, particularly with my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting sitting on the Front Bench. He is of course far more knowledgeable than I am and has been engaged in this subject for a long time. I put the Opposition’s position on this in relation to local government, where it has a big impact.
Like so many things we have discussed under Clause 1, there is here the potential demise of something without any clear indication of what will go in its place. This is especially bad for libraries given their vulnerability at the moment, and we know that local government has been subject to huge cuts. We can argue the macroeconomics of that but, even within the Government’s framework, the front-end loading and the degree of cuts focused on local government are profound and give huge challenges.
To my regret, I do not use libraries much these days because of Front-Bench duties. A lot of the Minister’s time will be eaten up by quite turgid policy documents and we miss the chance of reading that we might previously have had. Yet my local council, Luton, is striving hard to preserve library services. My mother-in-law, who is 91, thrives on the mobile service. You can see her light up when they come with the delivery of, I think, eight books at a time. She is surrounded by books; they are an important part of her life. If that were at risk it would be a problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that this organisation should have its finest hour at a time when libraries across the country are more vulnerable than they have been for many years. I was surprised by the extent to which there is still library provision in the UK. I think there are more library branches in the UK than branches of McDonalds or Boots. Apparently, 10 times more people visit libraries than go to football league matches. That is really encouraging and something we should cherish. It is not just about reading. There are something like 300 million visits to public libraries each year. Those visits play a significant role in driving up literacy rates, increasing the number of people adopting healthier lifestyles, raising skills levels of all ages, providing diversionary activity to reduce crime, building bridges in the community to aid cohesion, reduce radicalisation and improve integration, engaging people in local democracy and getting more people to vote.
We fear that the coalition cuts to libraries mean that an estimated 6,000 people—a quarter of librarians according to the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals—will lose their jobs in upcoming years. That would prove an incredible indictment of what this Government is about. Plans to replace professional librarians with volunteers may protect some libraries but will inevitably jeopardise the quality of services. The effects of the cuts being faced are expected to be felt across the country, with North Yorkshire reducing 42 libraries to 18 over four years, Leeds axing 20 small libraries, and Cornwall, Brent, Lewisham, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond, Barnsley and Warrington also planning closures.
I ask the Minister whether the Government believe that untrained volunteers are any substitute for the services of professional librarians. What assessment have they made of the impact of library closures and reduced library services on efforts to improve adult literacy? How will the Government ensure that library closures and cuts to library services will not adversely affect those people who do not have access to the internet—the very poorest in our society? It is a route to that technology for many. Do the Government still believe that libraries are a vital lifeline for families with children, as well as elderly and vulnerable people? Have they assessed the likely impact of cuts to library services on those members of our communities?
I am conscious that we have conflated the cuts that local authorities face and the challenges that that brings with particular references to the Library Advisory Council, but losing the council at this time has very severe implications. I ask the Minister to comment on what would replace it, and what role that replacement would take in encouraging working with local government, given the challenges faced with the cuts that are being imposed.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and all noble Lords who have spoken on the importance of libraries. They are our national treasures. Everybody has expressed very clearly the great importance of libraries and how we cherish them in every possible way. On a personal note, one of my proudest moments as chairman of King’s College, London, was establishing the Maughan library in the old Public Record Office in Chancery Lane. Libraries have always been an integral part of my life.
This amendment, however, seeks to maintain the Advisory Council on Libraries as an advisory NDPB. The ACL is a statutory body which is no longer sufficiently flexible to be relevant to current structures, and whose functions are duplicated elsewhere. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service. The Secretary of State has a statutory oversight and promotion of improvement role in respect of such local library services and a statutory duty to intervene when a library authority fails, or is suspected of failing, to provide that service.
It is important to make certain that the Secretary of State has sufficient support to fulfil his legal duties. However, the current system involves a degree of duplication. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council provides information to Ministers about the 151 library authorities in England. Officials within the DCMS provide advice. The Advisory Council on Libraries also provides Ministers with information and advice. Abolishing the Advisory Council on Libraries will not save a lot of money, as ACL members give their time freely and it employs no staff. But neither will it compromise the Secretary of State’s ability to fulfil his legal duties. Officials will work with relevant bodies in the absence of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to ensure that appropriate intelligence about the library sector is captured, and that mechanisms are in place to communicate it to the DCMS. Officials will continue to advise the Secretary of State on the use of his statutory powers in the absence of the Advisory Council on Libraries.
Knowledge of the sector is an essential criteria for recruitment to the ACL, but members cannot know about, or advise on, all issues. People involved with relevant expertise and knowledge will be brought together as required to supplement the skills and expertise available in the DCMS and its NDPBs. This flexible approach to the provision of information and advice has proven effective already in enabling the Secretary of State to exercise his statutory duty and will be adopted as an alternative to an established advisory council. By drawing together experts as and when needed, rather than convening a formal group with limited membership and which meets only three times a year, the quality and depth of the information and advice needed to support the Secretary of State in policy development and oversight will be improved.
I hope that has clarified the point on the advisory council and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke and to the Minister for her detailed explanation. I thought that the point from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about the timeliness for continuity of advice for libraries was particularly telling. Although I shall read carefully the detail of what the Minister said, the problem of funding for the museums, libraries and archives and their transfer to the Arts Council provides real resource problems for exactly that continuity of policy development.
I know that a number of other Lords who support this amendment cannot be here tonight, so I shall certainly withdraw the amendment for the time being but I cannot promise not to return to the subject at report.
UK Border Agency: Visas and Passports
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hooper
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to review the work of the UK Border Agency with particular reference to the issuing of visas and passports in Latin America.
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I originally tabled this Question for Short Debate more than a year ago when a number of horror stories were drawn to my attention about the then relatively new regional visa application process. Before doing so, however, and in the light of the information that I had been given from a number of sources, I tabled a Question for Written Answer to find out how many complaints have been received about the work of the UK Border Agency in administering the new process, to which I received a breezy reply from the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, saying that no complaints had been received. Given the number of cases that I had heard about, the volume of correspondence in the press at the time—in particular in the Independent—and the reaction of ambassadors and high commissioners posted here who were clearly at the receiving end of a lot of requests for help, I was surprised at the Minister’s reply, to put it mildly.
Perhaps I may illustrate this by quoting a couple of examples that were drawn to my attention. One was the case of a nun and her companion from the Dominican Republic, who wished to attend the celebrations to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the foundress of her order. With the guarantee of full hospitality throughout the short visit and payment of air fares also guaranteed, there seemed no reason why these two exemplary Catholic women should not be able to experience this once in a lifetime event. However, the original application was rejected, as was the subsequent appeal, without reasons being given and in spite of a considerable campaign mounted on their behalf.
Another example is that of a most distinguished retired diplomat. Indeed, he was a former deputy Foreign Minister for his country, who is married and currently living in London. He returned home to visit his sick relative and was told that he would require a visa to return to the UK and to his wife. He did eventually get the visa, but the process took months and it was very traumatic for him and for his family.
I can also quote the case of an elderly English woman living in Chile who needed to renew her passport. She discovered that she had to send it off to Washington, which alarmed her greatly and delayed the whole process.
These examples relate to Latin America, but there are many more that I could refer to, relating to other parts of the world as well. The problem common to all these cases was not just that visitors from some countries found they needed visas where perhaps they had not previously been required, but that they could not go to the British embassy in their home country in order to process the application. I discovered that the new regional system set up in, I believe, April 2008, meant that anybody from anywhere in the Americas, from Patagonia, through south and central America, Mexico and the USA, all had to make their applications to the UK borders centre in New York, online and in perfect English. This seems to be carrying centralisation to extraordinary lengths.
I am aware that the business of applying for a visa wherever you are—and whoever you are—can be tedious, time-consuming and irritating, but the UK Border Agency, on the evidence I have seen, appears to be making the process unnecessarily difficult, protracted, bureaucratic and unfriendly. I am also aware that the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in a report out almost a year ago, stated that the UK Border Agency provides “very poor customer service” and has repeatedly failed to read and reply to letters, keep proper records, keep case files together and notify applicants of decisions.
That report related mainly to asylum applications, for which the considerations may well be different. But do we really want other potential visitors to our country, who simply need to make a short visit, to visit relatives, to attend a conference or perform in a music or poetry festival, to have to go through such a bureaucratic and unfriendly system, which must make them feel unwelcome?
It seems perverse, too, that on the one hand, our education establishments are encouraged to recruit overseas fee-paying students and then the full rigours and costs of the visa application system are applied. This has certainly been mentioned to me frequently by people concerned about the subject and the need for our education establishments to be able to finance themselves independently. The same goes for the entry of people who wish to establish businesses and so on.
It seems to me that although it may be undeserved, there is undoubtedly a widespread feeling that the whole system of visa applications is a nightmare and a daunting process. This perception may exist because the new, centralised system was introduced without any explanation or, as far as I am aware, consultation. For most people, the border agency is an anonymous, faceless body. Applying for a visa used to be a personal, face-to-face transaction and that has now become a long-distance paper transaction—or rather a long-distance online transaction. Obviously, for those who are not computer literate, who tend to be older people, this creates particular problems.
The time has come to ask the Government to review the work of the UK Border Agency, to find out whether the regionally-centred system is working according to plan—whatever the original plan may have been—and to make sure that complaints are followed up and that there is a clearly understood system of complaints. It may even be necessary to devise a system whereby short-term applications—because most of the grievances I have heard about have tended to be for short-term visits—are separated from long-term applications and treated more sympathetically and sensitively, and certainly differently.
With 2012 and the Olympics drawing ever closer, we really must get this right. I thank all those taking part in this short debate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s interest in all matters Latin American is well known. Today, with remarkable timing, she has asked us to consider the work of the UKBA at the very moment when the Home Affairs Committee in another place has published a report on the subject this morning, echoing some of the criticisms the noble Baroness has made.
This is also the first time we have looked at Latin America—I think—since the Foreign Secretary delivered the Canning Lecture outlining a policy of greater engagement with the region, halting the decline of Britain’s diplomatic presence there and giving it much enhanced ministerial attention. He said that at present, we are lagging behind Germany, France and Italy in our exports to Latin America and that was partly due to the transition from authoritarianism to democracy which had deterred investment and close political relations. He went on to say that now that most of the countries in the region were stable democracies, we would support ambitious free-trade agreements with the sub-regions of Latin America. In addition, we would broker a strategic alliance between Latin America and Europe on climate change, and work closely with our partners in the region on tackling drugs and violence, supporting sustainable development and addressing energy security.
These are indeed ambitious goals, and no doubt UKBA and UK Visas have a walk-on part to play in making it as easy as possible to travel between Britain and Latin America. There was a review of the services provided by UKBA, starting three years ago, with the announcement of the visa waiver tests in 2007. It was decided that Bolivia and Venezuela posed a sufficiently high level of risk to justify a requirement that short-term visitors from those countries would be required to obtain visas. In the case of Venezuela, there was an exemption for travellers using the new biometric machine-readable passports, because our main concern related to the ease with which old style Venezuelan passports could be forged or fraudulently obtained. Apparently there was some resentment in Bolivia about the way that it had been singled out by the visa waiver tests. Has our embassy posted an explanation for the requirement on its website, and is there an opportunity to revisit the decision to require visas if the values that go into the visa waiver tests alter as time passes?
As the Foreign Secretary pointed out, we have closed our embassies in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay over the past decade. A citizen of one of those countries wanting to come here for business, marriage, studies or medical treatment has to apply to a visa section of a British embassy in some other specified country, which must be something of a deterrent. A citizen of Paraguay, for example, must fly to Buenos Aires twice: first to have his digital photograph and fingerprints taken, and then to collect the document he has submitted in support of his application including his passport. At least, that was the impression that I got from the website, and I hope the Minister will correct me if that is not right.
Passports, however, are issued by the Identity and Passport Office, an executive arm of the Home Office. I can well believe that when a British traveller’s passport is lost or stolen, it does cause enormous problems. The IPO website deals only with passports lost or stolen in the UK. When I rang the IPO this afternoon to ask what the traveller should do if his passport is stolen, for example, in Asuncion, it was suggested that the traveller should telephone the FCO.
It cannot be said that the issuing of visas and passports would come high up on the agenda in the Foreign Secretary’s programme for enhancing our relations with Latin America. It did not figure in the Canning Lecture and there is no mention of it on the FCO’s website; nor does it come up in discussions with leading politicians in the region.
I had several meetings at the end of last year with people from Peru and Colombia where the main subject was the EU free-trade agreement with those two countries and its possible side effects. NGOs were concerned that the agreement would facilitate even more investment by EU-based companies in mineral extraction and oil and gas development without adequate consultation, particularly where the interests of indigenous people were concerned. There was no complaint about the procedures for issuing visas, which of course theoretically are the same in Latin America as in the rest of the world. There is, I saw, a variation between the visa centres in the time it took them to process applications, but at a quick glance the average processing time is no slower in Latin America than in the rest of the world.
The biometric information that has to be submitted with an application—10-digit fingerprints and a digital photograph—has to be generated at a specified visa centre, which may be in another country. If you live in Paraguay, for instance, where the embassy was closed in April 2005, you have to travel to Buenos Aires to apply there in person and collect your passport from the embassy in Buenos Aires when it has finished processing the application. It seems that an applicant from Asuncion would have to make two trips to Buenos Aires on top of the £220 application fee. I wonder whether it would be possible to come to an arrangement with France or Germany, for example, for their embassies to collect biometric information on our behalf.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, whose knowledge of Latin America and ear to the ground on all things Latin American have such benefits for this House. It is useful that she has secured this debate today to allow the Minister to update us on what has happened in the intervening year and to give us a flavour of a change of attitude, perhaps, with the change in government. Before I continue, I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on Bolivia and the chair of the All-Party Group on Street Children—the reason for the latter will become apparent shortly.
As we have heard, there were particular problems with the process when it changed over but the problem now—as I have heard it mentioned by people from both South America and central America—is perhaps less with the process than with the attitude. Indeed, that is reflected by the large community that we have living in London, whose members feel strongly that they are still not recognised in the UK as an ethnic group, a point that they have made time and again. They should be recognised as one, but there is no provision on the census form to ask whether people are Hispanic. Considering their numbers, I think that that would be a reasonable thing to do. The fact that they are not really recognised as a group has, I believe, a knock-on effect in their feeling about applying for visas.
My noble friend Lord Avebury mentioned that the Bolivians felt singled out. It was perhaps unfortunate that, even under a Labour Government, the two most left-wing Governments in Latin America—those of Bolivia and Venezuela—failed to get the visa waiver through. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, raised this issue in the House some eight months ago and was told of the various reasons for it. Have those criteria since changed and, indeed, would those people wishing to come and visit their relatives here for a short time, for example, be able to do so and to benefit from the visa waiver? We benefit from the many people who have come here. Perhaps they came here as economic migrants but they now work in some of the most invisible jobs in London, in cleaning in particular. Living as I do in Kennington when I am here, I often catch a bus home towards Elephant and Castle and meet them in the evening. We need to recognise that they, too, need their families to be able to visit without too much difficulty.
We heard today that the UKBA has lost thousands of asylum seekers through the system, which highlights again the question that the Government are at some stage going to have to address: amnesty for long-term residents. These people, who have been here for a long time, are working. Their children are probably in schools and their lives are made extremely difficult because they can have no legal status. We lose out as a country from the fact that they cannot pay taxes because they cannot officially exist. That is a problem—and all the more of a problem in these times of austerity.
Before closing, as we have the Minister from the Home Office replying to this debate, I want to mention the issue of Britons going the other way to Latin America. That is why I declared an interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on Street Children. It has been brought to our attention by a number of NGOs working in the area that the problem of sex tourism, where people from the EU are going to Latin America, is growing and that it is children whom those people are preying on. That is a big issue, so we should not think just of people coming from South America as the risk to the UK, which is what the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, suggested. We pose a threat to them as well.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, like other noble Lords I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her splendid introduction. Nobody knows more about Latin America than she does and it is good to hear from her at all times. I want to follow up on one of her horror stories. A couple of years ago, the then Peruvian ambassador had difficulty getting his daughter back into this country because she was over 18. She was still resident at home in this country, because in Latin America people frequently stay on at home past 18 until they get married, so she was coming back. He had considerable difficulty getting her in and some of us had to try to intervene on his behalf to get that sorted out. It seemed fairly ridiculous. That is another example of a horror story of dealing with the UK Border Agency.
I am also happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is not, unfortunately, my noble friend but he is a very long-time friend. We are the same age and have had all sorts of dealings together for many years. He mentioned Paraguay; I was fortunate to be the leader of the last parliamentary delegation there, so I feel that what he said was relevant and important. The Paraguayans are very welcome here but have considerable difficulty, as the noble Lord pointed out, in getting that sorted out. They have to go down to Buenos Aires as the nearest place, even though there is an extremely efficient honorary consul in Asuncion, who was extremely helpful on the visit that we made, so I am totally sympathetic.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, did, I have to declare a multiplicity of interests. I am not only chairman of the All-Party Group on Central America but vice-chairman of just about every other Latin America-related group, as it happens—including the one shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the All-Party Group on Latin America. That group encompasses them all, in a way, although there are separate subgroups that are equally important. Latin America is such an important area of the world that we need to concentrate on it.
It is interesting to look at this subject because the number of countries in Latin America from which we require visas is quite small. It includes Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, plus the three island republics: the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, divided as that is between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Apart from that, people from all the other countries, including the whole of the Cono Sur—Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay—and Brazil, as well as Panama and Mexico in central America, have no visa requirements to come here. It seems rather strange that these particular countries have been singled out for this sort of treatment. One wonders why.
I told the Minister that I was not going to ask her any awkward questions, but this seems to be a matter of some principle that we might like to have enunciated. How are the criteria that bring about these various and rather curious ad hoc distinctions between important countries in Latin America identified? It is an important part of the world, as has been pointed out. The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has announced in the other place that the Government are making a new and special drive in relation to it. It is unfortunately correct that during the 12 years of the Labour Government the interest in Latin America heavily depreciated and declined, but one hoped—and it seems to have been the case—that when the coalition came into existence, with William Hague as Foreign Secretary, there would be a new and important drive. This seems to be part of it.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her effort in bringing this subject to our attention. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I have always received courteous and helpful responses from the UK Border Agency whenever I have had reason to contact its officials, either in country or in Whitehall. My most recent experience was of a difficult case that peaked over Christmas and New Year. Throughout that most difficult period, with constant telephone calls from me and my staff, we received nothing but helpfulness, for which I thank the agency.
The UK border officials discharge an exceptionally taxing task effectively and well, despite the considerable pressures that the agency and its staff are under constantly. They deal with one of the most basic human needs and desires: the freedom to move. With people in difficulty and trouble, there will always be an enormously emotional, as well as an effectively practical, exchange with the staff. The many people whom I have invited over the years from central and South America, the Middle East, central and eastern Europe and other places have never commented adversely on their treatment, even most recently, from the UK Border Agency. On the other hand, the policy is something that gives rise to considerable, consistent and powerful objections from all quarters.
The hub-and-spoke policy creates a routine that I and my visitors have experienced. It needs profound review and total overhaul. Noble Lords have spoken of many instances, but there are hundreds more available. I give just one. About a year ago, I invited 12 Iraqi high tribunal judges to visit me in Westminster so that they could see our own new supreme constitutional court and meet high-level judges both here and throughout the country. Some of those judges had already spent many months here on many occasions and were familiar with the United Kingdom, because we had been offering them training. The hub-and-spoke policy meant that those judges had to travel from Baghdad to Beirut and to stay there for more than 10 days awaiting visas. This is the most extraordinary process that any of us have ever experienced.
I can give your Lordships many more instances from different parts of the world, impacting not just on high-level judges but on businesses, industry, tourists and visitors. I do not wish to take up noble Lords’ time, but surely implementing this policy must be deeply frustrating for UK Border Agency staff. I believe that the policy gives an insurmountable barrier to visitors on grossly unfair grounds. Who can afford to travel to the hub of the spoke system and stay there for many days awaiting a visa that they may or may not get? It is simply not a possibility. At the spoke end, staff of the British embassies become deeply and greatly frustrated because they face the frustration of those who apply, are told to travel, cannot travel and have to go away. Yet the British embassy staff are those who, at all times and in common with the UK Border Agency, are putting forward the best of Britain—the best face of the Untied Kingdom—and presenting us in our most positive light.
The hub-and-spoke policy, I therefore suggest, gives a shockingly false picture of our traditional welcome to visitors and guests to the United Kingdom. I suggest that this policy has failed lamentably and that the Government should review it as an urgent preoccupation and priority. After all, has the Foreign Secretary not declared that economic movement, investment, trade and business should be at the heart of foreign policy? Yet if businessmen cannot visit the United Kingdom without this extraordinary formulaic lunacy, how on earth is that foreign policy to be achieved? We believe powerfully—do we not?—in democracy and the rule of law, yet we put up these barriers in a policy that all who have discussed it with me at official, political or personal level have declared to be an utter disaster. I beg the minister to change it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for securing this debate on an issue that, as the noble Baroness said, has previously been the source of concern to Members of your Lordships’ House. Operating in some 135 countries, the UK Border Agency provides a front-line border control before people ever reach the UK. As we know, that is an important role, since over 75 per cent of the world’s population require a visa to come to the UK and all businesspeople, workers and students staying longer than six months need a visa regardless of their nationality.
The UK Border Agency international group visa services directorate handles the overseas visa service and, as I understand it, at the start of 2009 managed over 150 visa application centres in British missions. Of these, 73 were spoke posts, from which some or all of the applications are transferred to a hub post, where the decision is made. In addition, there are large numbers of visa application centres run by the border agency’s commercial partners and by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States.
In 2006, the independent monitor for entry clearance refusals, whose role was to oversee and review the visa clearance system, reported on the inconsistencies and lack of fairness faced by people when applying for visas. The report was made following visits to different parts of the world, including Latin America. Some three years later, in 2009, the independent monitor reported on what she described as an organisation under pressure and identified a number of issues for the UK Border Agency international group to address, including what one would have thought were fairly basic points, such as ensuring that all the evidence is taken into account when reaching a decision and ensuring adequate data capture.
A report by the Home Affairs Committee in the other place in early 2009 indicated that the independent monitor had said that refusals of UK visa applications were taking too long and were unintelligible. She also expressed concerns to the committee that UKBA staff were predisposed to approving entry to the UK because of the increased workload caused by visa refusals. We have heard examples this evening from your Lordships of apparently complex and time-consuming procedures for application that appear to at least some of those having to go through those procedures to be far from user-friendly and lacking in easy contact with a human being who can give information or guidance about the application. This, of course, is not some new or recent development, as the reports from the independent monitor make clear.
From the point of view of the Government of the day, over recent years there has been a desire to tighten up border controls and to have procedures and processes in place that are consistent and fair but achieve that objective. Overseas, all visa applications are checked against security, criminal and immigration watch lists and the e-Borders system allows the agency to vet passengers bound for the UK before they arrive.
While its focus is on protecting the UK by ensuring that harmful and illicit goods and people do not reach this country, the UK Border Agency—this has been said in the debate—also has an important role in facilitating the smooth passage of legitimate travel and trade, which benefit the UK economy. In 2009-10 the agency processed nearly 2.5 million visa applications, of which just over 2 million resulted in a visa being issued. The independent monitor identified in her final published report—her role has now been taken over by the independent chief inspector—that in just under 85 per cent of 906 cases sampled the refusal notices were reasonable and provided correct information.
In his annual report for 2009-10, the independent chief inspector states that he is now also reporting in his capacity as the independent monitor for entry clearance refusals and highlights four major recurring concerns, including the need for the UK Border Agency to make good-quality decisions, the need for agency staff to maintain and have reliable access to accurate case information and the need to treat people fairly and consistently. The independent chief inspector also states in his report that during his inspections he repeatedly found examples of agency staff not following the agency’s own standards and guidance.
The UK Border Agency has as one of its objectives the implementation of fast and fair decisions, but the concerns being raised in the debate this evening, which seem to have been shared at least in part by the independent monitor and now by the independent chief inspector, are whether speed, consistency and fairness have been achieved to the extent that they should and whether the procedures and processes in place are always geared to taking account of the fact that there are very different categories of people making applications who are seeking to spend widely differing periods of time in the UK.
I am sure that when she responds the Minister will want to address the points that have been raised this evening, including the extent to which the recommendations and issues for action identified by the independent monitor, and the independent chief inspector now that he has taken over the role, have or have not been implemented and the progress that has been made. No doubt the Minister will also wish to say where the Government are with their review of the student visa system in the light of the criticisms of the student visa provisions.
More than 2,600 UK Border Agency staff are directly involved in the overseas visa operation, of whom around 350 work in London. Visa sections around the world employ just under 700 UK-based staff who go overseas on short-term postings and just over 1,600 locally engaged staff. Following the recent comprehensive review, the UK Border Agency is facing cuts of about 20 per cent and is expecting to take that percentage out of the front line as well as making cuts in support services. There were 1,700 job cuts last year and a further 5,000 are anticipated by the UK Border Agency over the period of the spending review. Obviously, the UK Border Agency employs many more staff than those directly involved in the overseas visa operation, which is the principal focus of the debate this evening, but will there be any job cuts among staff involved in the overseas visa operation and, if so, how many? Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever job cuts are made by the agency, there will be no adverse impact on the quality of service and decision-making in the overseas visa operation, particularly in the light of the concerns already expressed about the current situation—this has been going on for some time—by the independent monitor and the independent chief inspector?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, I join other Members of the House in congratulating my noble friend on introducing the subject of Latin America in the context of visas. That gives me the opportunity to say something about the Government’s attitude to the relationship between this country and Latin America.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the Foreign Secretary’s recent speech at Canning House. If noble Lords have not had a chance to read it, I should inform them that it took place on 9 November. He said, in terms, that we will halt the decline in Britain’s diplomatic presence in Latin America; Britain’s retreat from the region is over and it is now time for an advance to begin; we will seek intensified and equal partnerships with countries in Latin America; and we will give much increased ministerial attention to them. I can testify to the fact, as I have been present at such meetings, that there is indeed a plan for a series of visits on different subjects to countries of the region. The Foreign Secretary’s speech spells out in greater detail what that concept of an intensified relationship should mean in practice. I hope that the House welcomes that as a starting point as it signifies a determination on the part of the Government to develop a close relationship with, and make a greater impact on, an increasingly important part of the globe with great prospects ahead of it. I am sure that in the end that redounds to the security and prosperity of this country.
I am sure that noble Lords will say that our ability to travel backwards and forwards should contribute to that and that therefore travel should be made as easy as possible. The answer to my own rhetorical question is, “Of course and indeed; that must be the objective”. The current hub-and-spoke system was introduced by our predecessor. I note the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the system. Some cases that have been cited by noble Lords undoubtedly took place on our predecessor’s watch. That apart, we need to try to make this system as friendly and efficient as possible for both parties; that is, for the authorities in this country and those who wish to visit here. The Government are conscious of this and so is the UKBA as an agency of government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, quite rightly said that there are only nine countries which are visa countries for the purposes of short-stay visits. There is a wider visa regime—this is quite normal—for longer-stay visits. For short-stay visits, only nine of the 20 or so sovereign republics in South America require a visa. The Government were asked what the rationale was for the distinction between those countries that are required to apply for a visa and those that are not. The basic reason is the reliability of their documents. There must be doubt about the authenticity of the application in those countries where the documents being provided to support the application are of doubtful reliability. This is the main reason why in some countries we have to insist on a visa, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, noted in the case of Venezuela, if people are able to supply biometric detail they would be exempt. Over time one hopes that the reliability of the documents can be improved and that the number of countries where we demand a visa for a short stay can be reduced.
The aim must be a fast and fair process. I will spell out what we are trying to do to achieve that. As noble Lords clearly understand, the hub-and-spoke system has been operating since 2007. In Latin America, there are two hub countries: Columbia and Brazil. In Brazil, it is not in the capital; it is in Rio. The reason for this is that those two countries generate a sufficient number of applications to justify having a hub on the ground. Apart from that, it is a spoke system.
It is indeed the case that individuals have to apply online. There is no alternative, but I will come to some of the services that are allied to that in a moment. I understand the reservations that noble Lords have about the obligation to apply online and in English. All I can say is that, in the end, this will turn out to be advantageous to those making applications in a country where the internal distances are very great. I shall spell out why I think that is the case. Not everybody lives in Buenos Aires in Argentina; they may live in Patagonia, and so on. One has to be both realistic about the costs that we are expected to bear as the supplier of visas, but also about the relevant efficiencies for both sides of introducing modern technology into the system. I understand that the elderly are not always able to cope with a computer, but usually there is a young relative who can help them. So I do not think that we will depart from the notion that the application should be made online.
Once the application has been made online, there is then the question of the provision of biometric data. A number of noble Lords have said that this requires a journey. In the case of Asuncion, where unfortunately for some time now we have not had a mission, it would require a visit to Buenos Aires, which is the nearest point. One of the improvements that the Government are introducing to countries where this problem arises is the so-called mobile clinic, where people are available on the ground. This requires a suitcase-full of kit in order to be able to take people’s biometrics. Increasingly we want to introduce mobile facilities, most particularly in those places where otherwise a long journey, possibly even to another country, might be required. I am not saying that that is going to be the case everywhere immediately, but the aim is certainly to make the system itself self-contained and more efficient.
Another complaint, not in fact mentioned this evening but which I understand to be the case, is that while the online system is painless for both parties if all goes smoothly and there are no hitches in the application, if there is something anomalous in an application it might result in a rejection. One of the other things that we are trying to do—and a lot of these services are now supplied by commercial partners of the Government—is to improve this with the use of the telephone, and not to require payment for that; that is to say that I can ring up and discuss this application with those processing it for me. I hope that, over time, this will reduce the number of rejections that take place for reasons that the applicant feels they need to appeal against. Of course, there are rules about the basis on which appeals can take place. Again, I come back to the point that we are trying to make the system efficient but also flexible and friendly.
In trying to improve the system that people are using, we must also have regard to the efficiency of the operation in New York, which is the processing centre for the Americas. I do not have to say that that situation will not change. A number of noble Lords asked whether we would nevertheless review the system. Within its terms, we shall do just that. The independent inspector will shortly review the operations of the New York hub and the relationship between that hub and its spokes. The review is within striking distance. If there are systemic problems with how the system is operating, I hope that this will be the opportunity for change and improvement to take place. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that notice is taken of what the independent inspectors say and do in relation to the operations of the UK Border Agency.
Apart from the regular review, if it becomes obvious that there is a problem with the system—and it is very important that we learn of the various issues that noble Lords become aware of—we would try to see if it was a systemic problem or something that was in need of correction. I assure noble Lords that under this Government the system will try not to be deaf but will respond to complaints about the inadequacies of the system if clearly there is something that we can do about them.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords. I will give one statistic that I hope demonstrates that the system is both capable of improvement and is improving. In 2009, when some of these examples of slow procedure took place, it took up to 25 days to process applications from Latin America. By July and August last year—12 months later—the average time had fallen to nine days. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that is a significant improvement.
The agency is looking at one further thing that over time will improve the system. I cannot promise that it will happen immediately, but it is being trialled. Instead of the individual having to lodge their passport or travel document with British authorities while the process takes place, which I accept can be inconvenient and may inhibit their travel plans, we aim to move over time towards a situation in which there can be a remote printout of the visa at the spoke, which will mean that the document does not have to travel backwards and forwards. That will be a material change which depends to some extent on the technological capability of the spoke, which is also something that, costs allowing, we intend to try to rectify.
I am not able, I fear, to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about staffing, but I shall write to him. I do not believe that in the case of the area we are talking about there will be moves of a kind that will decrease efficiency. I hope that I have answered the material points that have been raised.
My noble friend Lady Nicholson asked about Baghdad, which is outside the scope of this debate. It is fair to say that the circumstances reigning in Baghdad are exceptional. They are not typical of the system and the safety of our staff has to be taken into account. That lies in the background, among other things, for the arrangements that may prevail there, although I am not intimate with them. That is not typical of the hub-and-spoke system, or indeed of the conditions in Latin America.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, although I now have no involvement with Consumer Focus, I was on the National Consumer Council—something that I gather I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—before its merger with Energywatch and Postwatch. The merger in 2008 that created Consumer Focus, under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, was the result of extensive parliamentary debate. The merger was carefully designed—including here in this House—and was implemented with good planning as well as wholehearted and widespread support. The merger has created a highly successful independent champion for all consumers across England, Wales and Scotland and for postal services consumers in Northern Ireland. Consumer Focus has specific responsibilities for energy and postal services users—and, from next year, for water users in Scotland—and is admired around the world as the leading voice for consumers.
I have a number of fears about the Government’s intention to abolish Consumer Focus and to pass its work to Citizens Advice. My concerns centre partly on the very different roles of Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice and partly on the duties that Parliament gave to Consumer Focus. I also have concerns about the impact on devolution, on consumer affairs and on accountability as well as on the capacity of Citizens Advice. There is also a fundamental concern about the undermining of consumer protection. Consumer Focus is not an advice or complaint-handling body but a policy and advocacy voice across the whole of consumer affairs with a record in industry-wide investigations and achievements. I have real concern about how Consumer Focus’s work on behalf of consumers—the least represented group in our economy compared with unions or business—will be maintained.
Let me start by taking the example of a current consumer topic—this may sound an unusual issue—which is the volume by which bread and beer may be sold. Over the Christmas Recess, David Willetts, the Minister in the other House, started his new year by suggesting the abolition of the regulations that provide the 400-gram rule for the sale of bread and that require beer to be sold in pints and wine to be sold in specified measures. I emphasise that the National Consumer Council and Consumer Focus have never been pro regulation for the sake of it. Indeed, Consumer Focus has often championed and helped to obtain deregulation, for example, over dispensing opticians and over the numbers of licensed hackney cabs. However, it seems to me that in any such discussions on the issue of how bread is sold or whether beer should be sold only in pints, it is absolutely right that the voice of the consumer is heard.
On such matters, producers will have their own view, whether that is about the profit that they can make or the freedom to innovate—which probably means selling smaller loaves. Government will have a view on whether, in the case of beer and whisky, a proposed change could affect the tax take, or, in the case of bread, on the cost of monitoring compliance. Regulators will have a view on competition and whether rules ease or hamper new entrants. However, where is the voice of the consumer without Consumer Focus? An experienced trading standards officer wrote to me when he heard about the possibility of bread quantities being changed and all those safeguards going. He said that he could not imagine that any well informed consumer would call for those changes. I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but I know that there needs to be a body that will obtain the views of consumers and reflect those in the debate.
Citizens Advice is much more focused on providing advice and guidance to individuals who come through the doors of citizens advice bureaux. Theirs is not the role of looking at market structures and at future regulation, in which Consumer Focus—independent of Government and with a specific consumer interest—is so expert.
Bread is just one current issue that requires what Consumer Focus can contribute to our national life, but another historic example is that of ombudsmen. Consumer Focus—then the National Consumer Council, which was possibly even chaired at the time by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—made one of its most significant achievements for consumers by its original support for the concept of ombudsmen, which we all now take for granted. The National Consumer Council saw not only how consumers, once they knew that they could get their complaints heard and assessed independently, would have more confidence in the product or service but how businesses could learn from good systems of complaint handling and how regulators or the press could judge industries or individual suppliers from such intelligence. The ombudsman system has been copied worldwide, but the credit for this forward-looking advance for consumers must lie with the NCC as was. We risk losing that service to consumers by placing the policy function within an organisation whose local funding is seriously stretched and whose core function is to help those who come through its doors rather than to plan systems for decades ahead.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. The way in which she has constructed her argument in terms of six precise questions behoves the Government to give a clear answer, either tonight or in writing, as to how they see the future for consumer protection in the regime they are proposing here.
I declare a past interest in that up until last month I was the chair of Consumer Focus. I am now much freer to say what I think. It was a great experience, both there and at the NCC. I am extremely pleased to see that the Minister replying is one of my predecessors and that one of her predecessors is also with us—the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I am pleased to see them because they will know what we are talking about. I am sorry for the Minister, however, because the part that will suffer most from the loss of Consumer Focus is the part that was covered by the old NCC. The energy and post will have to survive in some form or other. Politically, it is not possible for the Government entirely to retreat from those areas. What will go will be the more general work on consumer protection, consumer law, the international dimension, as my noble friend mentioned, and looking at markets which are not necessarily at the top of the Government’s agenda but which are at the heart of the experience of the average consumer and the most vulnerable consumer.
The bit of paper which the Government have provided as justification for this—I am grateful that we have a piece of paper—is deeply misleading. It says that the headline decision is to,
“Abolish, transfer functions to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland”,
and that aim of the reform is to,
“rationalise the consumer protection landscape and reduce the number of bodies”.
Actually, the Bill does none of that. It does not provide for any transfer, nor does it provide for any rationalisation. I appreciate that the department conducted a major consultation in relation to the consumer landscape and was considering several propositions in terms of rationalisation. I agree with the view of the previous Government and the current Government that some rationalisation was necessary but this Bill does not provide it. Instead, it confuses the position, as I shall go on to argue.
My noble friend outlined the recent history of the construction of Consumer Focus out of the National Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch. There is, of course, a much longer history to which she also alluded. The late Lord Young—by whom I do not mean my noble friend on the Front Bench but Lord Young of Dartington—was a progenitor of so much in the consumer field and in 1975 he argued not only for the establishment of a membership organisation, now Which?, but also for the National Consumer Council and for a consumer congress. That was the high noon of the corporate state and he and others saw that a representation of consumers alongside employers and representatives of workers in trade unions was an important part of that structure. But the NCC has developed through changes in government policy and institutions and through the disappearance of the nationalised industries. It has survived through all this. The regime of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, quite rightly looked at the possibility of dropping the NCC but backed away from it. It is not a route which this Government, in an attempt to create the big society and to engage with groups such as consumers, ought to be going down today unless there is more to the story than we have yet seen.
What happened in the intervening years since 1975 is that we had a whole construction of different consumer bodies as well as the NCC. The privatisation and liberalisation of nationalised industries led to consumer bodies being set up in different sectors, on a different basis and in many cases with different forms of funding. There was a confusing picture and the previous Government quite correctly decided that they needed to address that and bring a lot of those bodies together in Consumer Focus. The previous Government did not go as far as they intended, partly because of internal Whitehall barriers and partly because there was some resistance from some of the industries. But they took a significant step in the right direction. It is clear that Consumer Focus made the best of a bad job in the sense that we were covering only part of the consumer representation that was laid down in statute and paid for, in part at least, by taxpayers or by statutorily laid down levies in one form or another on the other sectors.
Rationalisation, therefore, was sensible. At one point I thought that the Government would come up with a rationalised body, pulling together several of the institutions that existed into something like Consumer Focus. They need not have kept the name but could have created a new and wider body. Had that happened I would have been a strong supporter. I do not necessarily think that the status quo is defensible or the best possible representation of consumer interests in the best possible world. But they did not do that. Instead, they seem to have backed off the rationalisation, and this Bill has different bits of consumer interest representation in different schedules. For example, whereas Consumer Focus is in Schedule 1 for abolition, the Consumer Council for Water is in Schedule 7 for limbo and Passenger Focus is in Schedule 3 and Schedule 5. I am not entirely clear what will happen to that. There has been some threat about what will happen to the consumer panels within regulators, including the one that my noble friend chairs in the legal services area. There is no clarity on how any rationalisation will take place. What is stated here as the main aim of this reform, rationalisation, is not provided for within the Bill. Instead, further confusion is provided for.
Consumer Focus has carried out functions on behalf of vulnerable consumers and the average consumer—because average consumers and even quite well-off consumers are often vulnerable in certain circumstances. I am always pretty vulnerable when I am dealing with a garage mechanic. Most people of my age and technological illiteracy are pretty vulnerable to people arguing on intellectual property or new technology, and I know that that is also an interest of the noble Baroness. It is not just the most vulnerable who we represent but the most vulnerable are probably likely to lose out most from these changes.
However, I will not argue with the Government that this body should always be in the public sector. There are arguments for moving it into the third sector. I am reinforced in that view by the attitude that the Government have taken to quangos in general—by not distinguishing between the role of quangos. Quangos are not allowed to lobby the Government and make public statements that are critical of government policy. It is difficult to do that when you are in the tradition of the NCC and Consumer Focus. You are always criticising or trying to improve government policy, the policy of regulators as well as the policy of public service providers. Therefore, it is quite difficult to maintain a degree of silence in that context. In that sense, it might be more sensible to move it into the third sector. It would still require significant public support and the Government recognise that. Unfortunately, they are not providing that support.
What is likely to happen is that two-thirds of the activity of Consumer Focus will be in energy and post. Legislation going through Parliament reinforces that role. In the Energy Bill—particularly in relation to the Green Deal—which had its Second Reading in this House just before Christmas, there are functions for Consumer Focus inherited from Energy Watch and a recognition by DECC and Ofgem that there is a huge role for a consumer representative body within this area. I do not think any government would be allowed by their supporters in the Commons let alone by the opposition to get rid of the energy role. I think that will largely survive. The post role will probably also survive because of the present propositions for the future of the postal service and Post Office network. I do not expect the Government to be hugely generous in providing for consumer representation in those areas but I believe it would be politically difficult for them drastically to cut the support they give to consumer representation, whether the body is in the public sector or in the third sector.
That leaves the rest of the economy. Consumer Focus, inheriting this from the NCC, looks at consumer protection, customer service, consumer law, the general principles of regulation in this area, the EU level representation to which my noble friend referred and the international dimension of it. The reputation that Consumer Focus and its predecessors have in this area is an important asset. My noble friend referred to cuts in the budget here. The previous year’s budget for consumers in the rest of the economy, outside energy and post, is just over £5 million. That is going to be cut this year by about 30 per cent and indications are that next year it will be cut by something close to 80 per cent.
If it is intended to do that, and to switch this to Citizens Advice, we would expect some concomitant increase in the allocation to Citizens Advice—a partial if not a full one. There has been no such compensating allocation to Citizens Advice which, as my noble friend said, is under severe financial pressure itself because of the cutbacks by local authorities. There is no increase in the central government grant to Citizens Advice. It is not a transfer in terms of money because the money is simply being cut. The note we have been provided with says that the full transfer will not take place until 2013. By 2013, the budget will be less than 20 per cent of what it was last year. In terms of resources, what is there to transfer?
There is also the question of transfer of powers, which are significant in relation to information. It is not clear which powers the Government intend to transfer or which powers Citizens Advice could accept in view of its charitable status and its need primarily to act in pursuit of its charitable objectives. Nor is it clear that the Government can allocate powers of that nature to what is after all a private body without at least some degree of tendering process or whatever. The Government’s intentions here have always been unclear. I have heard it said that there are bodies other than Citizens Advice which could take these powers. I do not see them queuing up but maybe that is what is behind the Government’s intentions. At the moment it is not clear that the powers would be transferred or that any of the expertise represented by the staff would be transferred. It has not been clarified whether TUPE applies. My Amendment 105A deals with that aspect more generally. If the budgets are cut significantly then there will not be any staff left to transfer. That intellectual asset would disappear with the staff.
None of this is a criticism of Citizens Advice, which does a fantastic job in many respects under growing constraints and pressure for its services. There is little that Citizens Advice does that duplicates the work of Consumer Focus, despite what has been said. I would be surprised if 10 per cent of the non-energy, non-post budget is in any sense duplicated. Even in the sectors where we both work, we do different things. A savings rationalisation to avoid duplication is not a reasonable justification for this.
Citizens Advice will find it difficult to take on these roles. Nothing in the experience of Citizens Advice relates to the intense relationship that we have on energy and post with the regulators, with the energy companies and with Royal Mail or the degree of knowledge of those markets that has been established over the years. I therefore think that Citizens Advice would have to create a whole new division if it was to take on the energy and post functions. It will be necessary for the Government to provide for that in some form.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Whitty. I have known this body very well for a long time. It was created in 1975, which was precisely a year before I became head of the Office of Fair Trading. We often had to work together, although I should not say “had to work together”, as it was a pleasure to do so. The NCC operated under the chairmanship of people of different political beliefs, but it always had a strong reputation for the quality of its research and its work and it was beneficial that its influence should be felt at every level of government. It has, as I indicated, had very different chairmanships, including Michael Young, the Labour Peer Lord Young of Dartington; the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim- Barnes, who had been a Minister in charge of consumer affairs at the DTI; Michael Montague, the Labour Peer; and not only the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is going to reply today. Each of them served Governments of varying political hues, not necessarily with the politics that they adhered to.
The National Consumer Council always researched and campaigned on a variety of consumer issues and we at the Office of Fair Trading certainly found its work and its publications to be of tremendous value. The coalition Government seem to intend—I think that we would all agree that nothing is all that clear at this present stage of flux—that the Office of Fair Trading’s consumer enforcement powers should be transferred to the local authorities’ trading standards services, for which I have the highest admiration. They do an excellent job at the moment and could do more.
The Consumer Direct line will go to Citizens Advice. I do not want to examine closely this evening the problems that this proposal gives rise to, but the abolition of the National Consumer Council or Consumer Focus—with the Postwatch and Energywatch powers that it has been given in more recent years—raises at once the issue of who is to perform the powerful and important high-quality research and advocacy campaigning role, if anyone is. It seems—no doubt the Government have had to search around to see who they can say will take on these roles—that the answer is Citizens Advice. Of course, I share the view of my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Whitty that Citizens Advice is something of which everybody in this country, whatever their politics, must be hugely proud. It gives advice across a whole range of things—not just consumer matters but welfare matters and all sorts of things.
However, I noticed recently at a meeting that the chief executive of the charity Citizens Advice—I emphasise that it is a charity—Gillian Guy, whom my noble friend mentioned, has bravely expressed delight at Her Majesty’s Government indicating confidence in Citizens Advice to the extent that it is to be given those extra powers now held by the National Consumer Council. It admits that it will need more finance; that is always more easily said than done, of course. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, as far as I can see, Citizens Advice has been given very little reassurance, if any, that adequate finance will be available to provide it with the expertise that it would otherwise lack or the other things that it must need in order to replicate in any way the work of the National Consumer Council.
The Government seem to have ignored the value that the National Consumer Council has in statutory powers and expertise. Consumer Focus and the National Consumer Council have built up expertise and developed statutory powers over the years. The noble Baroness has already raised this point, but will the Government give or be willing to give to a charity the sort of statutory powers that they and successive Governments have been willing to give to the National Consumer Council? Will the Government give a charity statutory powers to demand information from companies, which is essential if that charity wants to investigate the company and its behaviour towards consumers? There is, as far as I can see at the moment, no reassurance on that score at all.
The idea of the National Consumer Council way back in 1975 was very ambitious. It was to give the consumer a voice equal to that of the employer in the CBI and the worker in the TUC—to exaggerate in the manner of the speeches of the day. It was probably always a bit of an overstatement and an overambitious thing to try to achieve, but the National Consumer Council has over a quarter of a century and more certainly done a great deal for the consumer, which would be missing if it disappeared.
Finally—I say this only in passing, because I do not wish to emphasise it—I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about charities and the third sector perhaps being able to do this work just as well as a statutory body. I doubt it. I would prefer to speak on the basis that I agree entirely with the amendment—namely, that the NCC should not be among those public bodies listed for abolition.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I speak with no expertise but as a down-trodden consumer, which is probably how many people in this House see themselves. I therefore have the greatest admiration for the work that has been done for years by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others in this House who have fought for consumers. However, things have never been worse. Just look at the past few months. What agony it has been to be a rail or airport passenger, to suffer from the delays in post and from the inefficiencies of our garbage collection, to suffer at the hands of the banks and pension providers. I could go on. It seems to me that the voice of the individual consumer is not being heard; that we need more individual voices, less ideology and fewer vested interests.
This Bill has come under more attack than perhaps any Bill that I remember in recent years. But if it can result in a thorough shake-up and rationalisation of consumer matters, it will be a good thing. Citizens Advice is an institution of which we are all proud and which has been run on a shoe string. There will be even more demands on its services in future years because of the cuts in legal aid. With my legal hat on I can see that the citizens advice bureaux will have an enormously important part to play as more and more people, unable to afford legal advice, go to them. They need every support that we can give them. If there was an undertaking that the 154 staff apparently working for Consumer Focus, and its £13.9 million of funding, were to move over to Citizens Advice, it would offer some reassurance.
In many respects things have changed regarding its lack of statutory powers. Data protection and freedom of information legislation have enabled individuals to find out more than was the case in the past about the way that their consumer affairs are being handled. However, as an outside observer, it seems to me that there are too many bodies in this field. Google and you will find hundreds of consumer panels and consumer advice organisations. Consumer Direct lists about 50 organisations with which it co-operates. There must be room for some rationalisation and saving. There must be a way in which the voice of women, passengers, landlords and tenants—and not so much the voice of politicians, other regulators and so on—can be heard. I would support any move resulting from this Bill that would enable the Government to look—not ideologically but in helping the individual—at the whole field of consumer protection and advice because I believe that things have not gone well for consumers in recent years. If the recession continues and things do not improve, it will be equally bad for consumers who are a very important part of our citizenry. In fact, we are all consumers and need looking after. The Government should take this opportunity to ensure that consumers are cared for individually and should show great respect towards, and support for, Citizens Advice.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I remind the noble Baroness that the National Consumer Council did not give, and was not created to give, individual advice to consumers. Some considered that a great drawback. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly drew attention to the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, which did indeed provide that service—I was always extremely envious of the fact that it was able to do so—and was a far better organisation as a result. To combine consumer research and services with CABs, which can give advice or, indeed, with the organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has referred, would be a step forward, not a step back.
Baroness Deech
The noble Baroness is, of course, right. It seems to me, as a consumer, that the need for individual advice is very great and will become greater. There is perhaps less of a need for research at the moment but the nation is replete with individual sector-specific consumer bodies and national ones. There should be rationalisation. As I say, I am not an expert but I see a great need for individual advice and perhaps a slightly lesser need at the moment for research. Noble Lords who have been involved in this field for years, as the noble Baroness has been, have made us all very much aware of the needs of consumers. To some extent a battle has been won but things have been bad in recent months. I suspect that they may get worse for the individual in the future.
Lord Berkeley
Is the noble Baroness aware that the Passengers’ Council is included in Schedule 7, and is therefore due for abolition, transfer or heaven knows what? That body is also funded by the Government at present and looks after rail and bus passengers. Does she have any views on whether the rationalisation should encompass that or whether bus and rail passenger issues should be taken over by a consumer organisation?
Baroness Deech
The noble Lord makes a good point. I am a long suffering commuter and I will not bore the House with my experiences on rail and bus. I do not feel that the voice of the consumer has been properly heard. I have stood on Oxford railway station and argued with the guards in relation to the passenger charter when the queues were too long and they would not let us on. I am not convinced that rail passengers are well protected at the moment. This passenger body exists but things are bad on the ground. I just hope that someone more expert than me can do more for those such as myself who have suffered.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, this has been an authoritative debate which has brought into the discussion on the future of consumer protection the voices of those who have given great public service in the field and who speak from direct knowledge. My personal credentials are somewhat dated although I was a Minister at the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection when the National Consumer Council was established in 1975. My concern about the inclusion of Consumer Focus in Schedule 1 reflects concerns that have been expressed across the Committee: namely, that it is not clear how the functions exercised by that body, which were endorsed by Parliament as recently as three years ago, should be redistributed. It has been suggested that the work of Consumer Focus should pass to Citizens Advice. I am bound to say that in its present form it would not seem to me sensible to pass the work of the NCC to the Citizens Advice network. That body draws its strength from its localism, from its ability to speak for the individual and from its selfless commitment to work with all the other agencies, tribunals and sources of legal advice to amplify the effectiveness of individual citizen protection. The work of the NCC has always been very different. I do not believe that a marriage between these two bodies would work. In fact, it would probably lead to a subsequent divorce.
Before Parliament takes a final decision on this, we need to have much greater exposure of the thinking across government about how consumers should be protected, particularly in the times in which we are living.
When the NCC was set up, inflation was rising to the peak of 26 per cent. We are not in that situation at present, but we see inflation rising by an amount which is approximately twice that predicted by the Bank of England a year ago. There are very clear threats to individual consumers in the present economic climate. The voices of those consumers will be represented in their individual difficulties and Citizens Advice has a very great role to play in that. Its work will be enormously added to by the changes in legal aid which have been adumbrated—indeed announced—by the Government. But it does not seem to me to be an organisation that is at all suitable for work which requires probing, research and access to information which, notwithstanding the changes in freedom of information and data protection, is still very hard to grapple with. It is even harder to influence the way power is exercised by those commercial bodies that have it.
I am not attempting to turn back the clock. I am susceptible to the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made earlier that there could be a number of different ways of ensuring that the voice of consumers is expressed. I am clear, however, that an ad hoc active citizenship role cannot provide that. It needs to be professional; it needs to be committed; it needs to be knowledgeable; and it needs to be authoritative if it is going to influence policy judgments. We have that at present. We have an authoritative body. If a complete rethink of consumer protection is required, then I profoundly hope that no steps will be taken to implement any change of this kind unless and until the voices around the industry and around the country have been thoroughly tapped into and collated, and a consensus is arrived at how best to give structure to the change. I do not think that that is impossible, but at present it is not in the forefront of people's imaginations or discussions and we need to get it there again. It is of interest that in 1974, at a time of economic crisis, the Labour Government established a separate department of state to try to deal with these matters. That was taking upon government responsibility and accountability. I remember well having to answer questions about these matters. My noble friend was a very distinguished predecessor.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My noble friend is almost bound to have to add that the Department of Prices and Consumer Affairs was created by a Government—of whom he was the Minister for Prices and Consumer Affairs—that presided over an inflation rate of more than 26 per cent, which we inherited.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My noble friend must have been momentarily nodding during the part of my speech in which I referred to inflation of 26 per cent. I was about to refer to the embarrassment of having to answer questions about the prices of fundamental items in the domestic budget at that time.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, if we are now going into history, it should be put on record that the inflation rate, which peaked at 26 per cent, was going down at a substantial rate by the 1979 election after the beneficial influence of the Lib-Lab pact.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I am not trying to resurrect history tonight, but merely to call in aid some of the relevant factors. It is true that inflation dropped to 10 per cent, but that is still more than three times what it is at present.
I agree that the nexus and concatenation of consumer protection bodies played a considerable role in helping to focus policy-making on what was necessary. I appeal to the Government to recognise the inadequacy of the present proposals for change. The Bill is primarily about winding up bodies, not about indicating what is to take their place. That is one of its defects. It is an attempt to make things possible, but it will not command the approval of Parliament if we do not know what are to be the alternatives, and if we are not satisfied that they are satisfactory and will deliver what the bodies that are for the chop have delivered. No one can pretend that this body has passed its sell-by date or ceased to have a useful potential purpose in future. I say yes to rationalisation and reorganisation—but let us know how it is to be done.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment. We have had an excellent debate. I cannot believe that the Minister, who knows a lot about this subject, is not somewhat uneasy in the light of what she has heard. We have had excellent contributions from my noble friends Lady Hayter, Lord Whitty and Lord Borrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who really know their stuff in this area, as I know she does. If she is thinking about how to win an argument within government for a change of policy on this issue, perhaps I may suggest that abolishing the National Consumer Council—Consumer Focus—is a deeply anti-big society move. If you look at the history of the consumer movement in Britain, you will see that in the 1950s there was a tremendous growth of interest in consumerism on the part of social democrats, such as the late Lord Young of Dartington and some of the progressives from the Conservative Party who wanted to see a different kind of politics from the clash between employers and trade unions, and who wanted a third voice—a consumer voice—to be represented.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
As a number of my noble friends have said, there are real concerns about the viability of the coalition Government’s proposals on the vital issue of consumer representation. As my noble friend Lady Hayter reminded us, Consumer Focus was created under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007. It was a new organisation, carefully designed with good planning and as a result was implemented with widespread support. It has become the acknowledged champion for consumers in England, Wales and Scotland, and for postal customers in Northern Ireland.
I think my noble friend Lord Borrie talked about the enthusiasm of the chief executive of Citizens Advice for the new role, and I reflected on the comments of the chief executive of Consumer Focus, who said:
“Consumer Focus has achieved big wins for consumers in just two years—including a £70 million energy bill refund and cash ISA reforms saving over £15 million a year. We’ve delivered our biggest results in the last few months but the biggest challenges for consumers are ahead, with major reforms to the energy, post and financial services markets … What matters now, is that the transfer happens in a way that works in consumers’ interests. The expertise and knowledge that has enabled us to fight for consumers must not be lost. Changes must not be at the expense of the public’s rights and needs—which organisations like Consumer Focus were created to protect”.
That is an important and interesting comment.
There has not been much reference to the role of trading standards. The response states:
“Trading Standards is at the centre of the Government’s proposed new regime. Local challenges to fair trading will continue to be handled at local authority level, but national and regional consumer challenges will be handled by one or more dedicated, expert teams, within Trading Standards with work co-ordinated nationally for this purpose”.
Perhaps the Minister in her reply can expand on that national role of trading standards. It also states:
“In respect of Scotland and Wales, specific arrangements may need to be made”.
In the light of this debate, that is perhaps a bit of an understatement.
I am conscious of the time, so I will cut my contribution much shorter than I had intended—for which relief, much thanks; I see the Minister nodding. I cannot help remembering, given the history of inflation that we have heard tonight, negotiating a wage increase of about 23 per cent during that period in the 1970s. I was reminded of those heady days.
I shall make a couple of quick points in summation. At the moment, Consumer Focus receives approximately one-third of its funding from BIS. The remainder is gained from a mixture of licence funding paid by energy suppliers and the postal industry and funds that it may raise itself—for example, through externally funded projects. I add my voice to the cause and ask the Government whether they yet know how much it will cost to outsource those services to a local community group. What proportion of that money will come from the Government? How will the plan help to ensure that the body performing those functions is more accountable? A thread through what, as a noble Lord already said, has been an authoritative and interesting debate is that question of accountability either to the people that the body seeks to serve or to the funding providers—in the case of the Government, the funding providers being the British public. In the interests of time, I will let the Minister respond.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, this has been an amazing debate. I knew that it would take some time, but I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will be pleased at the amount of time and thought that has been put into some of the speeches heard here tonight—I know that I have been. It has been a real trip down memory lane too. The only person who seemed to be missing was the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who, I believe, in those distant days gone by, set this all going in the first place. It is amazing who we have heard from: the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie and too many others. I shall try hard to answer some of the questions, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that, given that it is six minutes to 10, I will try not to keep you here past 11 o'clock. Settle on down then.
Consumer Focus has been placed in Schedule 1 because the Government believe that its functions will be better carried out by transferring them to the citizens’ advice service, which includes Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. There will therefore be no need to retain Consumer Focus. The National Consumer Council, in its original incarnation, has a proud record. Over three decades, it established a fine reputation for representing the interests of consumers through careful research, robust policy development and by using its influence with policy-makers. I, of course, declare an interest as a former chairman of the National Consumer Council from 1990 to 1996. Prejudiced though I may be, I say that it was certainly right for its time.
The previous Government merged the National Consumer Council with Energywatch and Postwatch; and the new National Consumer Council, which took the name of Consumer Focus, opened its doors for business in October 2008. I recognise that barely two years have passed, but over those past two years, Consumer Focus has eagerly grasped its new range of powers and responsibilities on behalf of consumers. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who chaired Consumer Focus with flair and commitment from the very start until stepping down rather loudly and cross only in November last year.
I will try to answer some questions as I go, which may distort the speech a bit, but will give some answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked whether abolition of Consumer Focus means that the Government are giving up on consumers. Not at all. The Government will continue to provide funding for these objectives, which we regard as highly important, and we see Citizens Advice as the most effective conduit to deliver the desired outcomes.
What about vulnerable consumers? Consumer Focus and its predecessors have played a very important role in this area. Citizens Advice also has substantial experience of addressing the needs of vulnerable people across a wide range of subject areas and we are confident that it will be able to deliver the outcomes with no loss in quality. While Consumer Focus currently assists around 7,000 customers directly, Citizens Advice is advising and supporting millions of individuals. Citizens Advice also has well developed policy and research functions as will be known to some noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked whether the Government need to look at the whole landscape of consumer protection right across the economy and make it more effective for consumers. I agree. The Government’s proposal is further to improve consumer protection and advocacy in general and we believe that the shift of Consumer Focus’s role to Citizens Advice will deliver those services and protections closer to the citizen via the network of citizens advice bureaux, making it even more relevant and effective than it currently is.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether vulnerable consumers will be those who lose out most. The Government propose to transfer Consumer Focus’s statutory powers with regard to vulnerable consumers to Citizens Advice. Discussions about how we can achieve this appropriately are still going on with Citizens Advice and internally within BIS.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced on 14 October last year that the Government would consult early this year on proposals to rationalise the functions of consumer protection bodies, eliminate confusion and duplication, strengthen local delivery and provide a stronger role for front-line consumer services. This is what we hope will be achieved.
We are taking the next, great, positive step forward in consumer advocacy, building on the strengths, the expertise and the bold initiatives that have gone before and of which we have heard so much tonight. Consumers need protection no less now than in the past. Increasingly sophisticated products and services need an increasingly clued-up consumer to take maximum advantage and avoid coming a cropper in the marketplace. We need to deliver assistance and advice to individual consumers at the point of need at a local level. At a national level, we need a body to continue with quality research which is capable of taking on the big policy issues of the day and fighting for the consumer interest with businesses, regulators and Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, says that things have never been worse. Maybe she is the consumer on the Clapham omnibus and not one of us who have been involved deeply in our parts of the consumer world and do not like to see any of the bits we were involved with go. Maybe her voice is the one we should be listening to now.
Citizens Advice is widely recognised and trusted by the public. It has a distinct advantage which we should seek to turn to our advantage. It has local representation, through the citizens advice bureaux, in communities throughout the country. It offers a presence on the high street so that people can call in to get advice and information. It can cater for those who need personal contact people who are not necessarily comfortable with a telephone or online service. It can assist vulnerable consumers face-to-face, identify problems and help with solutions. Citizens Advice has an excellent track record of advocacy on behalf of consumers at a national and local level. We therefore intend to direct almost all central government resources for non-financial consumer education, information, policy and advice to Citizens Advice.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Minister waxed lyrical and fluently about a vision in which services were concentrated on what she called the “high street”, directly providing services of advice and everything else for consumers. The question that comes to mind is: have the Government got any plans of what they will do if, as a result of local government cuts in the funding of citizens advice bureaux locally, there is not a comprehensive service on the high streets of this country? If there are big gaps and towns where citizens advice bureaux disappear from the high streets, is it the intention of the Government to provide extra funding directly to keep those services going? The vision that she put forward depends on a comprehensive network of Citizens Advice in every town in the country.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, late though the hour is, that is a very good question. The consultation that we will have will take on board everything that has been raised tonight and is raised by people taking part in the consultation. Obviously, if we intend doing something as changing as this, everything will be considered. It would be foolish indeed if we just allowed everything to close. We must remember that Citizens Advice back at base is where so much of the work will be done. People will be able to contact Citizens Advice online, but I agree that the high street is where Citizens Advice as majored and I am sure that we will do all we can to make sure that that visible presence does not get reduced.
It is perhaps worth saying that the consultation will happen in the spring, which of course is within the next few weeks. We propose to make any changes in the consumer landscape by April 2013, so we have plenty of time to get this right and to see exactly what is happening out there and what we are creating.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the speakers, who have been impressive, if not overwhelming, for me today. They include a former director-general of OFT, three—including the intervention —former chairs of the NCC and a former Minister in this area. It shows the degree of concern about how consumers within civil society can have their voices heard in decision-making, whether that be in the public sector through industry, by regulators or by elsewhere. It seems to me that this is a key area.
The original purpose of the Government was to reduce the number and cost of quangos—hence its so-called review. We hear that the consultation will be early this year or in springtime. It is at least something that that review has taken place. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee in its report thought that the review to date was poorly managed. I fear that even the Minister’s answers have substantiated that. I am delighted to hear her say that the Government will look at, are looking at and are giving consideration. That is great. It is just rather sad that that has happened after the decision and after this Bill is before us rather than before.
There was precious little consultation with Scotland and none with Wales, none with the wider consumer movement or representatives of users or clients, or indeed anyone else. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the Bill does not provide for a transfer of functions—it is an abolition. My noble friend Lord Borrie did not ask who is going to provide help on the high street, important though that is, but put the vital question of who will do the high-quality research, investigatory and advocacy work across the whole economy that is being done by Consumer Focus and the NCC before that. I do not think the Minister has answered that question.
The proposal, according to my noble friend Lord Liddle, is anti-big society, and I think that is right because the big society should be about having the consumer voice at the heart of every decision that takes place. The reasons given for other bodies in the Bill is that they are old, a bit cranky and in need of an MOT, or even removal. That is not the case with Consumer Focus because it is two years old. Nevertheless, I agree very strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. If this Bill had led to rationalisation and to better protection and advice, she would be with it. At the time when I was still with the NCC and we were discussing the mergers, we would have loved to have the water watchdog, Passenger Focus and others coming in so as to provide a really strong and dynamic voice for consumers. Had this led to such a rationalisation, I would not be here arguing against it—I would be cheering it on. We need consumers across all sectors to have a stronger voice, so if the desire expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was to be met, I too would be with it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, it is not a positive proposal for change; rather it is a winding-up process. I think he also agreed with the notion of “Rationalise, yes; abolish, no”. He said he did not think that the Bill would achieve the aims of better consumer protection and certainly is not going to save public money. The noble Lord fears that this marriage will not work. I think he may be right and that it may be a marriage made in hell. He also asked whether Citizens Advice could undertake the probing, analytical work that has been done. Citizens Advice is about solving individual problems, but we need a consumer voice that goes to Government, to industry and to services.
I am delighted that the Minister said that discussions and talks are now taking place. They may be late, but better late than never. I will also be delighted if Scotland and Wales have time to consider whether there is an alternative model that suits the devolved areas better. The Select Committee also said that the Government face the much larger challenge of successfully implementing these reforms. That is right because there are still questions about funding. I was sorry to hear the Minister use words like “efficiency” and “savings” in her discussion on funding when I had rather hoped to hear about a promise and, “Yes, that is fine”. I would have liked that better. There are still questions of accountability and about whether Citizens Advice is the right organisation to do this job. There is also the question of what happens if finally it says no.
I hope that the Government will continue in their thinking and do a proper consultation, even if it is being done a bit later than perhaps it could have been. But in order to assist them, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.