House of Commons
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
1. What recent progress he has made in introducing GP commissioning consortia.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
3. What recent progress he has made in introducing GP commissioning consortia.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
6. What recent progress he has made in introducing GP commissioning consortia.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
8. What recent progress he has made in introducing GP commissioning consortia.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
11. What recent progress he has made in introducing GP commissioning consortia.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Last week, I announced the second wave of GP-led pathfinder consortia. There are now 141 groups of GP practices piloting the future GP commissioning arrangements. Those groups are made up of more than 4,000 GP practices, with over half the population starting to benefit from services that better meet their needs and improve outcomes for patients. The Health and Social Care Bill, which had its First Reading last week, sets out the legislative framework that supports our reforms.
Mark Lancaster
Consortia in Milton Keynes have been given £1 per patient as a transition fund. That money is most welcome. It will rise to £2 per head next year. The problem, however, is that the fund is proving hard to access because of the bureaucratic nature of the local primary care trust. Will the Secretary of State look into that and ensure that the money is accessible?
Mr Lansley
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. The PCT’s role is to support the development of consortia, not inhibit it. The operating framework that was published last month sets out the range of support that PCTs should be offering emerging consortia. Milton Keynes PCT has confirmed that it will actively support Premier MK, one of two consortia in the area, with its application to become a pathfinder, and that it is actively working with another consortium in the Milton Keynes area.
Stephen Mosley
Pathfinder consortia will play a crucial role in improving the NHS, so it is imperative that any problems are sorted out as quickly as possible. How does my right hon. Friend propose to help any pathfinder consortium that finds itself in the unfortunate position of failing to deliver the results expected of it?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will recall that before the election, the Select Committee on Health severely criticised the way in which primary care trusts were going about commissioning. We are looking to consortia because they are clinically led and responsive to patients in designing far better clinical services, and they will have considerable support in doing so. Over the next two years, we will enable them to develop support arrangements, whether through existing primary care trust teams, local authorities, the NHS commissioning board, or a range of voluntary and independent sector organisations.
Nick de Bois
Will the Secretary of State outline the role that charities and voluntary organisations will play under GP commissioning to ensure that the needs and views of patients are at the heart of services?
Mr Lansley
To give my hon. Friend one example, last Friday I spoke to the Motor Neurone Disease Association, which has developed a commissioning support organisation with the Multiple Sclerosis Society and Parkinson’s UK. The voluntary sector can therefore be involved directly in helping GP consortia to commission for those critical diseases more effectively. My hon. Friend might have seen what Sir Stephen Bubb, the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said last week:
“These reforms could herald a new and dynamic relationship between local GPs and charities that both deliver good services and act as a powerful voice for patients.”
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend might like to speak to general practitioners in Redbridge in London who, as a pathfinder consortium, have been pioneering GP-led commissioning for 18 months. They have redesigned care for patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease, and are shifting care in ophthalmology and dermatology to primary care settings. They are demonstrating how this form of locally and clinically-led commissioning is more responsive to patients and more effective.
Christopher Pincher
As we shift from PCTs commissioning services to GP consortia doing so, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the important work done by pharmacies, such as providing anti-smoking clinics and the supervised consumption of drug substitutes, will not be left out in the cold?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend enables me to say that I and my colleagues entirely understand and endorse the stronger role that pharmacies can play, including by assisting with the provision of services such as minor ailments services and medicines use reviews, which will be commissioned through arrangements led by the NHS commissioning board. In addition, the services that he describes, such as stop smoking services, will be commissioned as part of the public health efforts, which will be led by local authorities through their local health improvement plans.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State comment on the apparent conflict between, on the one hand, a general practitioner being an advocate for their patient and taking purely clinical decisions and, on the other hand, GPs having to allocate resources in the new system? Will that conflict not lead to a breakdown of trust in the relationship between the GP and their patients?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid the hon. Lady sees a conflict where, to GPs, there is none. It is their responsibility—[Interruption.] No, their first duty is always to their patients, whose best interests they must secure. When she has an opportunity to look at the Health and Social Care Bill, which we published last week, she will see that it makes very clear the duty to improve quality and continuously to improve standards. We all know that we have to achieve that with finite resources, but we will do that much better when we let clinical leaders influence directly how those resources are used rather than letting a management bureaucracy tell them how to do it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain why, at a time when front-line NHS staff in my constituency and elsewhere across the country are in fear of their jobs, it is proposed that the NHS commissioning board will be able to make bonus payments to a GP consortium if, to quote the Bill,
“it considers that the consortium has performed well”,
and that a GP consortium may
“distribute any payments received by it…among its members”?
Is that not the worst kind of excess? We do not want to see it in our banking system, and we certainly do not want to see it in our NHS.
Mr Lansley
I am glad to have the opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady to the Opposition Benches and wish her well in representing Oldham East and Saddleworth. I am sorry that she did not take the opportunity to welcome in particular the Government’s commitment to the new women and children’s unit at the Royal Oldham hospital.
For years, general practices have been remunerated partly through a quality and outcomes framework. The principle is that if they deliver better outcomes for patients, they should have a corresponding benefit from doing so. In the same way, if the commissioning consortia deliver improving outcomes for patients, that should be recognised in their overall reward.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks a lot about GPs using £80 billion of public money to commission services, but if they are to carry on being family doctors, the planning, negotiating, managing and monitoring of hundreds of commissioning contracts will be done not by GPs but in their name, either by the people who do it now in primary care trusts or by the big health companies that are already hard-selling the service to new GP consortia. Is he not deliberately disguising the true purpose of his changes, which is to open up all parts of the NHS to big private health care companies?
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, the purposes of the Bill are very clear to see—for example, the duty to improve quality and raise standards throughout the health service. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will acknowledge that putting clinical leadership at the heart of the system is essential. I entirely understand that leadership is not the same thing as management, as do general practitioners. The Prime Minister and I will meet the first wave of pathfinder consortia tomorrow, and we will support them in taking clinical leadership in designing services for patients and bringing to bear the best management support in doing so.
John Healey
Why will the right hon. Gentleman not be straight with the public? I have with me the White Paper—57 pages and only three references to the market, all of them to the social market. He talks about GP commissioning, but not about the hard-line political ideology that underlines these changes. The Bill puts no limit on the use of NHS beds and staff to treat private patients, it puts no limits on big private health care companies undercutting and undermining local hospitals, and it puts at the heart of the new system an economic regulator charged not with improving services but with guaranteeing and enforcing competition. Is this NHS reorganisation not like an iceberg, with the substantial ideological bulk being kept out of the public’s sight?
Mr Lansley
The shadow Secretary of State cannot actually criticise what we put forward in the White Paper or the Bill and is resorting to inventing something else and attacking that. Let me tell him that the one thing we will not do with the private sector is rig the market so that private companies get contracts and guaranteed money whether or not they treat patients. We are not going to give them 11% more money than the NHS would get for doing the same work. We will give NHS organisations a proper chance to deliver services for patients.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Whatever the Secretary of State claims about his reorganisation, a King’s Fund survey showed that more than three quarters of doctors do not believe that it will improve patient care, and even his Department’s impact assessment on the Health and Social Care Bill says that the reorganisation risks distracting staff and making them less focused on patient care.
Will the Health Secretary now confirm that the number of patients waiting more than six weeks for their cancer test has already doubled under this Government, and that routine operations are being cancelled? Will he finally listen to the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association, which have told him that his plans are
“extremely risky and potentially disastrous”
for the NHS and patient care?
Mr Lansley
I find it astonishing that the hon. Lady should attack the NHS because some elective operations have been cancelled. We have been through a flu outbreak and very severe weather, and that is what happens as a consequence. She should not try to make a political point out of it.
It is also astonishing that the hon. Lady gets up and says that she does not agree with our policy. On 3 December, she is quoted in GP news as saying that
“it is ‘absolutely right’ that GPs are ‘better involved’ in commissioning services.”
She supported it. The truth is that before the election the Labour Government instituted practice-based commissioning, introduced foundation trusts, started payment by results and said that patient choice was right. The shadow Secretary of State said just last week that
“these plans”—
our plans—
“are consistent, coherent and comprehensive”,
and indeed they are.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Cumbria’s current health commissioners—the PCT—chose to scrap the heart unit at Westmorland general hospital, despite medical, clinical and public opposition. Will the Secretary of State confirm that new GP fundholding arrangements allows the possibility of returning services that are clinically supportable, such as a heart unit at Westmorland general?
Mr Lansley
I know, not least from visiting that hospital, how strongly people in my hon. Friend’s area feel about their access to services locally. I am pleased to say that he will see in the Bill that one of the duties of the NHS commissioning board is to reduce inequalities in access to health services, and GPs can do precisely that.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows fine well that the British public knew nothing at the general election of his plans dramatically to dismantle and privatise the NHS. Will he give them a say now and have a referendum on the issue?
Mr Lansley
Since we have no plan either to dismantle or to privatise the NHS, it is no surprise that people were not told of any such plan. Before the election and in the Conservative manifesto, people were told of our determination to cut bureaucracy and get money to front-line care. They were told of the determination of both parties in the coalition to get decision making close to the front line, to enhance accountability, including democratic accountability, and to give greater responsibility to clinicians to lead the development of services.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
2. What steps he plans to take to increase cancer survival rates.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of the effects on survival rates of his Department’s cancer strategy.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
We published “Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer” on 12 January, which sets out a range of actions to improve cancer outcomes, including diagnosing cancer earlier, helping people to live healthier lives to reduce preventable cancers, screening more people, introducing new screening programmes, and ensuring that all patients have access to the best possible treatment, care and support. Through those approaches, we aim to save at least an additional 5,000 lives every year by 2014-15.
Charlie Elphicke
May I raise the case of my constituent, Suzanne Lloyd, who was diagnosed with breast cancer a decade ago? She was told that she had two years to live, but has successfully battled cancer for the last decade. The problem is that she has also been battling health chiefs to give her the drugs that she needs to extend her life. Will the Minister tell the House about measures to increase longevity through greater drug access?
Paul Burstow
Just last year the national clinical director published a report on the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage, which revealed that the UK tends to lag behind other countries in its use of newer cancer drugs. That is one reason why we have introduced the interim cancer drugs fund of £50 million in this current year and will introduce the full fund of £200 million from this April. That will help my hon. Friend’s constituent.
Graham Evans
What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that all GP consortia will have access to the expertise they need to commission cancer services effectively?
Paul Burstow
The national cancer director will work with pathfinder GP consortia on commissioning cancer services, and that work will be fed into a cancer commissioning support pack that will be developed to support GP commissioners in discharging their functions effectively. Cancer networks will also be well placed to support GP consortia in that activity.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
We all agree that properly evaluated, appropriately prescribed drugs make a big difference to survival, which is why patients welcome what was described as the additional special fund, of which Ministers made mention this afternoon, of £200 million for the coming two years. Why is it, therefore, that the budget for Sheffield has been top-sliced for next year to the tune of £1.5 million to pay towards this £200 million, which was supposed to be additional—to add to and not subtract from—what was available through GP commissioning?
Paul Burstow
The NHS has real-terms increases in its resources, and those resources are going into the programme that we outlined in our outcome strategy. Three quarters of a billion pounds will be going into that programme to deliver improvements in cancer services and the £200 million, being extra, will go into improving cancer services. That is the commitment that the Government have made and that is the investment that we will make.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Is the Minister listening when Macmillan warns that the proposed changes to the NHS risk us losing expertise in the cancer networks? If that happens, Macmillan says that
“cancer treatment will get worse…some treatments could even collapse in parts of the country…more patients could die earlier”.
As the Minister in charge of cancer services, should not he be on the side of cancer patients, not backing his boss’s reckless reforms?
Paul Burstow
The last comment was pretty cheap, and no Government Member has suggested that the future of the cancer networks is in doubt. Indeed, in the coming financial year, the funding is secure. As we move to the new arrangements, it will be for the NHS commissioning board to decide the appropriate arrangements for commissioning in the future. We are clear that the expertise of those groups could, should and will continue to be used to support commissioning in the future.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
4. What steps he is taking to improve co-ordination of social care and health care for the benefit of patients.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
We have set out in the White Paper “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” and the Health and Social Care Bill how we will deliver the coalition programme for Government commitment to promote greater integrated working. This includes local authorities taking the lead role in the future in joining up local NHS services, social care and health improvement via council-led health and well-being boards.
Annette Brooke
Can my hon. Friend assure me that there will be a joined-up approach when addressing patients’ interests and complaints when they straddle social care? Perhaps a single point of contact for a complaint would be a good step forward from what we have now.
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to integrate not only the way in which we deliver and plan services, but the way in which we manage complaints. That is why the Government have included in the Bill our proposals for the establishment of local healthwatch and healthwatch England. Local healthwatch will have the ability to deal with complaints and also have the capacity to refer concerns about services to the Care Quality Commission so that it can take the necessary steps to investigate. In that way, we will deliver a more integrated system for dealing with such complaints.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that most of us are in favour of much better co-ordination of these services, but we worry about the backdrop of the reforms? In Yorkshire, some doctors are saying, “Come on, guys, this is a bonanza and we will all be California-style millionaires under these reforms.” What sort of a backdrop is that for health care reforms and better co-ordination of services?
Paul Burstow
The backdrop that the hon. Gentleman has just painted is a rather thin one. In fact, it does not exist at all. The Government set out in the Bill we published last week that there will be clear responsibilities on GP commissioning consortia, working in partnership with their colleagues in local government, to commission services in ways that will improve quality of life for people in his constituency, my constituency and the constituencies of all hon. Members.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that improved co-ordination between health and social care is fundamental to the delivery of the efficiency challenge faced by the health service and social services? Does he further agree that the £1 billion provided by the health service to reinforce that relationship is an important step taken by the Government to reinforce that interface? Can he assure the House that, as we move into the new world, the existing arrangements for good practice across that interface will be preserved?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that three questions will attract one answer from the Minister.
Paul Burstow
The answer to all those questions is yes. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the additional money going into social care via the NHS. It is intended to kick-start the collaborative working that was often so absent under the previous Administration.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The care that someone gets can be defined as either “social care” or “health care”, and that can determine the benefits to which an individual is entitled. With that in mind, what conversations has the Minister had with the Minister with responsibility for disabled people about the Government’s proposal to withdraw mobility disability living allowance from those staying in residential care?
Paul Burstow
I and the Minister responsible for disability issues in the Department for Work and Pensions meet regularly. In fact, a further meeting on this and other matters is coming up shortly.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
5. What recent steps he has taken to reduce levels of alcohol misuse among young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The public health White Paper, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”, sets out how society can harness the efforts of individuals, families, local and national Government, and the private, voluntary and community sectors to take better care of our children’s health and development.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for that reply. Hon. Members will be aware of the recent publicity given to vodka eye-balling, which is a dangerous practice. Members of the ArcAngel volunteer team in my constituency are going into schools seeking to alert young people to this and other dangers of binge drinking and excessive alcohol abuse. What support can the Minister offer to ensure that we can eradicate, in particular, the dangerous practice of vodka eye-balling?
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, particularly in highlighting this extraordinary practice. I have to say, it was news to me. I congratulate the efforts of that local organisation on highlighting this sort of issue with school children. There is no doubt that vodka eye-balling can cause damage to the surface of the eye, ulceration and scarring. Although it has got some publicity, however, a lot of young people are likely to be drunk in the first place when they do it, so the effects are probably overestimated.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Did the Minister hear the report on Radio 4 this morning that in the past decade there has been a 50% increase in the number of young people in their 30s being admitted to hospital with alcohol-related liver disease? Does she think that we ought to be looking at how alcohol is promoted and advertised around young people?
Anne Milton
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I heard the report, and I think that it made particular reference to the worrying trend among young women as well. There is no doubt that our public health White Paper is timely. We need to do something about this. It is important to remember that no one tool will fix this problem; we need to take a wide variety of measures and alter, in particular, young people’s relationship with alcohol. However, we will not do that until we get a proper strategy out there.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Do Ministers clearly understand that the price of alcohol is a relevant consideration? Will they look at whether we can get relatively cheaper prices for soft and sports drinks? They are a viable alternative for many young people, but the price is often double that for alcohol.
Anne Milton
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. There is no doubt that price is one of the tools to which I referred. However, we need to take a huge number of actions. Reforming the Licensing Act 2003 via the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will bring in a number of measures—for instance, doubling the fines for under-age alcohol sales to £20,000 and giving councils and the police the power to shut permanently shops or bars that persistently sell alcohol to children. That is one other way. Also, the Bill will make local health bosses responsible authorities for licensing decisions. That is an important shift and demonstrates the fact that this is everybody’s problem—no one public body can cure this on its own.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
7. What recent representations he has received on his plans for the internal reorganisation of the NHS; and if he will make a statement.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
17. What recent representations he has received on his plans for the internal reorganisation of the NHS; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Government received more than 6,000 responses to the NHS White Paper consultations. As a result, we have strengthened both our approach to implementation and our proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill, which was introduced in Parliament last week.
Alison McGovern
The Government have embarked on a reorganisation of our health service that involves altering the commissioning process, handing responsibility to those with less experience of contracting, and at the same time unleashing the market, allowing a whole load of new providers in. What risks does the Minister see might be associated with that approach?
Bridget Phillipson
Last week, north-east regional board members of the British Medical Association made it abundantly clear to me and other north-east colleagues that they have serious concerns about the Government’s plans and that they risk patient care. How is it that the Minister is right and they are wrong?
Mr Burns
Because I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not read the whole document, in this case from the BMA, or those from other organisations. What many say, including the BMA, on many of the proposals is that they are supportive of them, but naturally the hon. Lady and others cherry-pick those parts that suit their arguments.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
The Minister will be only too aware of the worries of my constituents in Newark about the future of the hospital. Will he assure me that the internal reorganisation of the NHS will run in parallel with and improve the delivery of the Newark health care review, rather than the contrary?
Mr Burns
Yes, and let me reassure my hon. Friend—because last summer I had the pleasure of joining him to visit what is an excellent hospital for the people of Newark—that under our reforms, given the commissioning powers of the GP consortia in the area, they will be able to help strengthen and tailor the health care that the hospital delivers, ensuring that it meets the needs of the people of Newark.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
How does my hon. Friend envisage the commissioning of ambulance services under the new GP commissioning regime?
Mr Burns
Ambulance services will be commissioned through the GP consortia at the local level. What I envisage—this is not prescriptive from the Department of Health, but what I think will develop—is that, just as ambulance services are currently commissioned for geographical areas in England through one PCT, the consortia will appoint lead consortia to commission the services for that area.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with the representations of the Select Committee on Health, chaired by the hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), when it said that it was
“surprised by the change of approach between the Coalition Programme”
in May
“and the White Paper”
in July? The Committee continued:
“The White Paper proposes a disruptive reorganisation of the institutional structure of the NHS which was subject to little prior discussion and not foreshadowed in the Coalition Programme.”
If he cannot convince his hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, how is he going to convince the rest of us?
Mr Burns
Let me begin by congratulating my, in fact, right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood on the report that his Committee produced. The Government will give a full response to it in due course, as is usual. What I would tell the hon. Lady is that what happened in the Bill and the White Paper was what we and our coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, had outlined in our election manifestos, which—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that, but I suggest that they look at pages 45 to 47 of the Conservative manifesto, which probably very few of them have bothered to do. GP commissioning, along with “any willing provider” et al, are there, and if one looks at the Liberal Democrat one—[Interruption.]
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker.
If we look at the Liberal Democrat manifesto, we can see that it also contains proposals for the abolition of strategic health authorities. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has alluded to the abolition of PCTs, and the reason for their abolition is that, when we have given the commissioning to GP consortia and the public health responsibilities to local authorities, there will be no job for the PCTs to do. Why keep them? There will be £5 billion savings during this Parliament that can be reinvested in front-line services.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of video link medical consultations in prisons.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The Department has made no assessment. PCTs and prison partnerships may consider using telemedicine as an alternative to hospital appointments for offenders, after considering any security issues and the benefits for improved health care. Decisions about treatments for offenders, including video link consultations, are made by local commissioners.
Philip Davies
Red Embedded Design, an SME technology company in my constituency, is working in partnership with Airedale NHS Foundation Trust to enable video link medical consultations to take place in prisons. May I suggest that the Minister look closely at this scheme, which has been rolled out in a number of prisons? He will see the cost benefits and the lack of risk of absconding involved. Will he encourage other PCTs around the country to introduce the system in their prisons?
Paul Burstow
As part of a wider programme, a demonstrator project looking at telemedicine and telecare, we are looking at a possible roll-out of such approaches. In regard to the specific case of the Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, I would be only too happy to look further at the details and the benefits that have arisen.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Telemedicine is obviously a help, but nothing beats talking to a real human being about our medical problems. Would the ministerial team consider copying the Conservative-Liberal Government in Sweden, who have banned from all public agencies, including health agencies, automatic answering machines—the kind that tell us to “Press 1”, “Press 2” or “Press 3”? Instead, people calling those agencies have to speak to a real live Swede in Sweden. Would not that be a good step forward for our health service?
Paul Burstow
The right hon. Gentleman has found a cunning way of getting in a point that does not directly relate to the question. He makes a very fair point, however. It is important that people should feel confident that, when they pick up the phone and make a call, they can speak to a person. Telemedicine can provide that route as well, through allowing people to get a diagnosis and treatment, as well as access to the appropriate support at the right time.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
12. If he will take steps to increase the availability of the BCG vaccine for children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are no problems with the availability of the BCG vaccine. I am also aware that he takes a personal interest in this subject because of his local experience. I am confident that those most at risk of contracting tuberculosis are being offered the BCG vaccination as part of a targeted national programme.
Nic Dakin
Does the Minister not think that it is time to widen that targeted national programme? Tuberculosis is an airborne infection, and it covers a broader area than the areas that are being focused on at the moment. Would not the widening of the programme improve protection?
Anne Milton
Yes, I would just like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that TB has changed from being a disease of the whole population to one that affects high-risk groups. In fact, the Joint Committee on Immunisation and Vaccination looked at this in 2005 and reaffirmed it in 2009. We are confident that this targeted approach is the best way of addressing the problem.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
13. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on waiting times of his proposed reorganisation of the NHS.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The proposed changes will focus the NHS on quality and the results that matter to patients—such as how successful their treatment was—and not just on bureaucratic processes such as waiting time targets. Waiting times are important to patients, along with the quality of their experience and outcomes, which will drive improvements in the future.
Mr Bradshaw
Well, what a revelation! I think that the Minister will find that the public do care about waiting times. Will he confirm that waiting times are already going up, that more people are already waiting more than 18 weeks—the maximum that we achieved when we were in government—and that the performance of accident and emergency departments has deteriorated since he watered down our A and E targets?
Mr Burns
I think that the right hon. Gentleman either did not hear my earlier remarks or had penned his question prior to hearing them. What I said was that waiting times are important to patients—and if he looks at the record tomorrow, he will see that. May I also explain to him that the average median time for the latest month available—November—shows patients completing a referral to treatment pathway in about 8.3 weeks? The right hon. Gentleman’s comments on A and E are just factually wrong and somewhat cheap.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There are concerns that some of the expertise of cancer networks might be lost because of the funding gap between the end of the Government’s funding for the networks and the transition to full GP commissioning. Will the Government consider bridging this gap, at least until GP consortia are fully up and running—and therefore better able to make informed decisions about the commissioning of cancer network services?
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend in view of the considerable interest he takes and work he does in this field of health care. Let me reassure him that we have guaranteed the funding for next year, so it can work itself out to a successful conclusion thereafter through the cancer networks in the commissioning plans.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Under Labour, hospital waiting times were at a record low and satisfaction with the NHS in its current form was at a record high. Over the last few months, however—no matter how much the Secretary of State does not like it—we have seen more and more operations cancelled or postponed at our hospitals. A number of nurses in my constituency have written to tell me that they are short staffed. One of them pointed out that
“those who have left are not being replaced”.
Is that not the true picture of what is going on in the NHS at the moment? If the Minister is confident in his Secretary of State’s plans for the NHS, will he guarantee that under those plans, hospital waiting times will not rise—or is he going to duck the question like the Prime Minister did last week?
Mr Burns
Under these reforms, by concentrating on raising quality and outcomes, we will give improved quality health care for patients. What I can guarantee is that under these reforms, when implemented, people will not only get improved quality treatment but will see times based on clinical decisions rather than being distorted by political processes.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
14. What recent discussions he has had with primary care trusts on their policies on halting elective treatments in cases where such treatment has been demonstrated to be effective.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Strategic health authorities have recently been reminded of the statutory commissioning responsibilities of their primary care trusts in this area, and the need to base commissioning decisions on clinical evidence and discussions with local GP commissioners, secondary care clinicians and providers.
Fiona Mactaggart
What is the Minister’s response to the trusts that have been saving money by halting procedures such as hip and knee replacements, hernias and hysterectomies, which have proved to be clinically effective? My constituent, John Deas, has just lost the care of the nurse practitioner who has managed his prostate cancer over some years and has been referred to a GP who will not see him. As the president of the Royal College of Surgeons said that the immediate need to
“save money by going for the soft targets of elective surgery will leave a lot of people with unpleasant symptoms and build up future health problems. Medically that makes no sense.”
Does it make any sense governmentally?
Mr Burns
I am sorry to hear about the example that the hon. Lady mentioned; if she would like to write to me with the details, I would be more than happy to look into it. PCTs have a continuing responsibility to provide clinical treatment for their patients. Obviously, once the PCTs cease to exist, that will happen through the GP consortia and the national commissioning board. There is also a legal right in the NHS constitution for patients to be treated when they need to be.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
A number of patient groups across the country are concerned about the future of in vitro fertilisation treatments, particularly when many PCTs downgraded it and put it on a par with things like tattoo removal and cosmetic surgery. Will the Minister confirm that, in future, IVF treatments will fall under the remit of the NHS commissioning board?
Mr Burns
Let me reassure my hon. Friend on IVF. PCT commissioners should have regard to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for fertility treatment, including to the recommendation that up to three cycles of IVF treatment are offered to eligible couples. To reinforce this, in November last year, the NHS operations board reminded PCTs, through the SHAs, of that responsibility. Indeed, Mr David Flory of the Department of Health has in the last month or so written to PCTs to remind them of their responsibilities.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
15. What recent estimate he has made of the monetary value of medical aids issued to patients by hospitals and not returned in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
As my hon. Friend knows, NHS patients are provided with NHS aids free of charge and requested to return them when they are no longer required. Obviously the cost of recovery must be weighed against the cost of the items being lent, but it is the responsibility of the local NHS to monitor the position and arrange for the recovery of medical aids when that is safe and cost-effective.
Andrew Selous
For many years the experience of my constituents, and indeed my own family, has been that hospitals often provide patients with, for example, crutches, without ever asking for them back. I accept that this is a matter for the management of local hospitals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Department has an interest in ensuring value for taxpayers’ money, and that the medical aids involved could be used by other patients who need them?
Anne Milton
I agree. One always hopes that people will act responsibly, and that they or their families will return medical aids. My hon. Friend may know that Bedford hospital has organised a scheme for the collection of aids, and that a number of voluntary organisations are also involved. However, the cost of collection and decontamination or cleansing is sometimes greater than the cost of the equipment itself. Crutches, for instance, cost between £11 and £20. Such is life today.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My responsibility is to lead the national health service in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service which improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care which supports and protects vulnerable people.
David Rutley
Cheshire East council is working closely with local health care partners in my constituency to tackle the growing challenge of alcohol abuse, which not only causes serious illness and injury but costs our local primary care trust £34 million a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the right way in which to tackle this growing problem, and will a member of his ministerial team meet me, along with representatives of the council, to help secure the best possible outcomes in Macclesfield?
Mr Lansley
Of course we will support the efforts of my hon. Friend and his local council to tackle alcohol abuse. He will have heard what was said earlier by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), which I entirely endorse.
Local authorities and their communities should have a greater say in what happens in their areas. We will enable them to do so, through the Health and Social Care Bill, the establishment of local health improvement plans, and—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said—the alcohol strategy that we will introduce following the public health White Paper later in the year.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
T3. Does the Secretary of State envisage a time when GP consortia may be purchased by foreign companies, and operated and administered thousands of miles away across the globe?
Mr Lansley
No, I do not. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because I think that there is a world of difference between the question of the exercising of clinical leadership by general practices as members of a consortium in an area and the question of from whom they derive management support. I believe that many will derive it from existing PCT teams, the voluntary sector and local authorities. Sometimes the independent sector will be involved, but it is a question of the consortium choosing where to go rather than being taken over.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T2. Some care homes that have received critical reports from the Care Quality Commission are reopening under the same management but with different names. The CQC’s practice is to remove earlier poor reports from its website, leaving potential customers in the dark about the poor record of those homes. Will the Minister remind the CQC of its responsibility to highlight poor practice in care homes, and request that it change its practice?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I will certainly ensure that the CQC understands that that is a matter of concern. When it discharges home owners and deregisters them, after receiving an application for a fresh registration, it conducts a thorough appraisal and assessment of their fitness to provide the service. The new owner of a home may well have done a great deal of work in improving the quality of training given to staff, but I agree that it ought to be possible for people to look at the CQC’s website and see reports on the quality of the previous provider so that they can assess that as well.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T5. A year ago, writing in The Sun, the Prime Minister made a firm and passionate pledge to increase the number of midwives by 3,000. Last week, the chief executive of the NHS told the Public Accounts Committee that the NHS is now short by 4,500 midwives. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he intends to implement plans to honour the Prime Minister’s pledge—or can we take it that it is just another Conservative broken promise on the NHS?
Mr Lansley
Well, I do not wish to embarrass the chief executive of the NHS, but actually, he told me he made an error—he was referring to health visitors, not midwives, when he was talking to the Public Accounts Committee. We are short of health visitors precisely because, through the life of the last Government, the number was continuously going down, and we are going to recruit more. Actually, we share the last Labour Government’s commitment to increase the number of midwives, not least because of the increase in the number of births, and to do so in pace with that. As a consequence, in conversations that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), and I have had with the Royal College of Midwives, we have made it clear that we will do all we possibly can. We already have more midwives in training than at any other time in our history.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
T4. As Ministers are aware, GPs in north Cumbria are supportive of GP commissioning and are already working hard for its success. However, given the rural nature of the area, what support will be given to the local hospitals to ensure that they can provide secondary health care within the new regime, when they have to accommodate the additional costs of providing health care in a rural environment?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says about GPs in Cumbria. They are indeed very forward-looking and show that, even under the last Government, practice-based commissioning was demonstrating its benefits, and we are building on that. I mentioned earlier the duty in the Health and Social Care Bill on the NHS commissioning board to reduce inequalities in access to health care. That will be important for rural areas. The pricing arrangements, led by the commissioning board and Monitor, must also take into account varying costs associated with the delivery of care in different localities.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
T8. If the Government will not even trust GPs with the responsibility of ordering flu vaccine, how on earth can they trust them with commissioning the care and treatment of cancer victims?
Mr Lansley
Of course, it was the last Government who agreed the arrangements with GPs. It was the last Government who, in 2007, undertook a flu review when central procurement of flu vaccine was recommended, but did nothing about it. The public health responsibility is distinct from the commissioning responsibility for health care of patients. We will look at, and we have still to make a decision about, how we procure flu vaccine in future years. We may do it through central procurement or through continuing GP procurement; but either way, we will make sure that we improve on the system we inherited.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
T6. Can the Minister tell us how much money is spent each year on disposable surgical instruments, and whether any thought has been given to greater use of properly sterilised reusable instruments?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The straightforward answer to my hon. Friend’s question is, £18 million per annum. The decision to use single-use instruments as opposed to reusable ones is based on many complex clinical factors. For this reason, these decisions are left for the determination of local trusts on the basis of safety, quality and value for money.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T9. May I ask the Secretary of State directly about leaked documents seen by The Northern Echo? They show that a £53 million NHS contract to provide health care services to the prison service in the north-east was awarded to a private company, Care UK, even though the NHS provider was marked higher on quality, delivery and risk. Care UK beat the NHS provider only on price. Is this confirmation of the Minister of State’s remarks on Newsnight, that this Bill will create a full market and full competition?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is asking about arrangements that we have inherited from his Government; they are from before the election and are nothing to do with the White Paper or the Bill. The contract to which he refers was let by the North East Offender Health Commissioning Unit. This was its procurement decision and it states that a competitive, robust and transparent process was followed. This was not a decision taken or influenced by the Department of Health.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T7. In support of national obesity fortnight, which is currently running, I wish to raise awareness of this serious condition, which causes numerous deaths and other serious health conditions. Redditch has high levels of obesity compared with the average in England. NHS Worcestershire is doing a fantastic job, but what more can the Government do to ensure that the NHS will not be overly burdened with increasing obesity problems?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I know that her local council is running a number of schemes. As she knows, we have published a White Paper on public health, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”. In the spring, we will publish a document on reducing obesity, and we will set out how this will be tackled in the new public health systems and in the NHS. It is important to remember that at this time of year a number of people go on diets and try to lose weight and get fit, and I urge them all to carry on, including Members of this House.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that during times of illness people often experience associated problems, for example, difficulties with employment and housing, and personal problems, with which they can be helped by the information available through StartHere? Will he ensure that his Department and others treat StartHere as essential to the provision of high-level public service?
Mr Burns
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question because, as he is aware from meetings that we have had, we have been supporting StartHere through NHS Choices. We are now reviewing the benefits of this joint working, and that will help us to understand potential contributions to savings to improve the information flow to those who may be excluded from the use of the internet. He may be interested to learn that I have today written to Ms Hamilton-Fairley, outlining where we are at the moment. I am anxious to resolve this as soon as possible, once the review has been completed.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T10. What does the Minister think is the likelihood of the pathfinder consortia examining commissioning arrangements for neurological conditions? This is particularly important, because conditions such as Parkinson’s are not familiar to many general practitioners, and commissioning arrangements for these complex conditions are tricky, so they need specialist knowledge. They need to be getting expert support and advice, including from patients and third sector groups.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about how the new system provides the opportunity to access a range of new resources to develop the way in which commissioning is provided for people with neurological conditions. Not the least of these are the way in which the Neurological Alliance is working to provide a new structure for its way of operating at the local level to offer commissioning support and, from the Department, how the neurological commissioning support group will be able to work with early implementers of the health and well-being boards and pathfinder GP consortia to provide them with the necessary support to develop their capability in this area.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State referred earlier to Labour Members cherry-picking quotes, but I do not believe that Laurence Buckman, chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, was mincing his words when today he described the Government’s reorganisation plans as “fatally flawed”, warning that they
“would see the poor, elderly, infirm and terminally ill in large parts of the country losing out”.
Why does the Secretary of State believe that he knows better than Dr Buckman?
Mr Lansley
I do not recall the BMA ever agreeing with the previous Government. Let me provide one quote to the hon. Lady:
“The general aims of reform are sound—greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes—and are common ground between patients, health professions and political parties.”
The shadow Secretary of State said that last week.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The NHS Litigation Authority has presented NHS Wiltshire with a bill for more than £3.5 million in clinical negligence scheme payments this year. Nationally, among closed claims, legal fees made up more than a third of costs last year. How does the Minister propose to switch this expenditure away from lawyers and towards front-line health services?
Mr Lansley
I wish, first, to say two things, but there may be further to add. First, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is working on the implementation of the Jackson review. That, in itself, will help considerably in reducing the extent to which these costs are consumed in legal fees, rather than proper compensation for clinical negligence. As we made clear in response to Lord Young’s report, we will also pursue the question of whether we can have a fact-finding phase following up a claim against the national health service, so as to mitigate what is otherwise considerable additional cost on conditional fee arrangements and getting expert witnesses.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why is it that the Secretary of State does not compliment the Labour Government on providing £110 billion, starting with £33 billion in 1997? Is it not a fact that waiting times have fallen as a result of the nurses, the doctors and that money? Is he frightened to utter the words because in 2001 every single Tory MP marched through the Lobby not to give the money to the national health service?
Mr Lansley
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that at the general election we just fought we were the party that was committed to increased resources for the national health service. We are the coalition Government who, over this Parliament, will increase resources for the national health service by £10.7 billion, even in the face of the deficit we inherited from Labour. The hon. Gentleman’s party’s response was to tell us that we should cut the NHS, and we are not going to do it.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State please explain why it is taking so long for him to come to the House about the regulation of herbal medicine? He has to do that before April to comply with European legislation. What is the hold-up?
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I know that he has a keen interest in this subject. I share his frustration that the previous Government spent a long time not doing anything about it. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has identified the possibility of creating a national regulatory scheme, allowing authorised herbal practitioners to continue to commission unlicensed manufactured herbal medicines after 30 April. We are in discussions with the devolved Administrations, the Health Professions Council and the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council about the feasibility of a statutory register. As I say, I share my hon. Friend’s frustration but we will make proposals shortly.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Specialists in the field state that the figures that point to a more than 50% rise in young drinkers ending up in hospital are a gross underestimate of the serious problem. What further steps can the Department and the Government take to address this important problem?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman will recall from earlier exchanges, it is absolutely right that we must have a series of measures to tackle alcohol abuse. Price is part of it, as is the enforcement of legislation. Community alcohol partnerships have been very promising. We must have better alcohol education, and I spoke at the first annual conference of Drinkaware yesterday, encouraging it in the work that it does. We must understand that we have to change people’s behaviour and that the damage that can be done is intense. As a consequence of chronic alcohol abuse, large numbers of people are coming in and out of intensive care units, presenting an enormous burden to the health service as well as doing great damage to themselves.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
The College of Emergency Medicine recently stated that if a hospital A and E unit is to be downgraded to an urgent care centre, the nearest A and E unit should be no more than 12 miles away. Will the Secretary of State revisit the cases of A and E units that were recently downgraded by the previous Government to urgent care centres when the nearest A and E unit is more than 12 miles away?
Mr Lansley
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I promise I will discuss with John Heyworth of the College of Emergency Medicine precisely the point that my hon. Friend has raised. The College of Emergency Medicine says that it does not recognise what an urgent care centre is. From its point of view, hospitals should either have an emergency department or an A and E or they should not. If they do not, it is very important to be clear that they do not. I feel that we need to be much clearer about the nature of the service provided in A and E departments and the distinction between that and the service provided in minor injury or minor illness centres.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
Do not the reorganisation plans for the NHS, coupled with cuts to local authority budgets, mean that public health projects in this country will effectively be binned?
Mr Lansley
No, they will not. We are making very clear our determination to ring-fence public health budgets so that prevention does not suffer, as it did under the hon. Gentleman’s Government. In 2005-06, the first things to disappear as a consequence of financial pressures were the public health budgets and public health staffing. We will not allow that to happen.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending mixed-sex wards, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is both unnecessary and extreme to extend that policy to children’s wards and to enforce it with the threat of fines?
Mr Lansley
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point, and the rules we have set out for the NHS are very clear. We are also clear that we will ensure, through the NHS, that people have access to the privacy and dignity they have a right to expect, contrary to what the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has said. She said that as long as they get the treatment through the NHS, it does not matter whether they are in mixed-sex accommodation, but that is not our policy. It does matter, and we will enforce it.
Points of Order
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has today made an announcement of grave importance for the future of media in this country. Despite a clear recommendation from Ofcom and the Secretary of State’s admission that he has been unable to reach agreement with News Corp on adequate remedies, he has failed to do the right thing and refer the bid to the Competition Commission. This follows the shambles of the Business Secretary’s prejudicial conduct and doubts about the impartiality of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Surely the Secretary of State should come to the House and justify his actions.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving me notice of his intention to raise a point of order. As he knows, there is a written ministerial statement today on this subject. I have not received any notice of an oral statement at this stage. What he has said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and I trust that when the Minister has anything more to say, he will do so to the House at the first opportunity.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you would give the House your guidance. A few months ago, in topical Health questions, I asked the Secretary of State about a £53 million NHS contract that was awarded to a private health care company called Care UK. I have already written to the Cabinet Secretary about the apparent conflict of interest in relation to companies such as this and donations to the Conservative party, but I seek your advice on whether it would be more appropriate, in the interests of openness and for the benefit of people watching, if Ministers declared their interest when right hon. and hon. Members raised these issues in the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
There are very clear rules on these matters, which it is the responsibility of every Member of the House, including Ministers, to observe. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, in all gentleness but helpfully, I hope, that that is not a matter for the Chair. Some might think that he is continuing or starting a debate, which is not a matter for a point of order.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that you have received a letter from the hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) indicating his resignation from the House? Can you indicate that he will not be allowed to breach any of the constitutional requirements that he, like any other Member, must receive office under the Crown before he can leave the House? If that is the case, can you indicate when you will reply to him instructing him of his obligations as a Member of the House?
Mr Speaker
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for his point of order, that correspondence with the Speaker is private and is not the subject of exchanges on the Floor of the House. What Members might or might not say about their correspondence is a matter for them, but I intend to keep my own counsel. There are procedures to be observed, and observed they must be.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have learned today that the economy shrank in the last quarter of 2010 and that, even taking the inclement weather into account, growth would have flatlined; that is on top of yesterday’s remarks by Sir Richard Lambert of the CBI. Have you received any notification from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his intention to come to the House to explain what steps he is going to take to deal with this emerging crisis?
Mr Speaker
No, and I think I can recognise an attempt to initiate a debate at this distance.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a minimum age for holding a shotgun licence of 14 years.
The Bill is purposely rather limited in its scope and objectives. It is not about banning recreational shooting or the proper use of shotguns for legitimate rural estate management. Rather, I am seeking to close a loophole in our current firearms legislation—legislation that the Home Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), has identified as both complicated and confusing.
At present there is no minimum age for possessing a shotgun licence. This is at odds with the legislation covering other firearms, where there is a minimum age of 14. According to figures that I obtained from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), almost 5,000 children in England and Wales possessed a licence to fire a shotgun. Of those 5,000 or so licences, 26 were issued to 10-year-olds, 72 to 11-year- olds, 134 to 12-year-olds and 231 to 13-year-olds. It is unfortunate that neither the Scottish Executive nor the Northern Ireland Executive keep figures centrally for their devolved areas. However, I am sure we can assume that the figures are proportional to those elsewhere.
Currently, as the House knows, licences are issued by the chief constable of the police authority for the area in which an applicant resides, although for practical purposes the decision is often delegated to a more junior officer. For the purpose of this debate, it may be easier to refer to the chief constable. The applicant needs only to state their reason for wanting a shotgun licence, and needs to provide no evidence. If a chief constable wants to refuse a licence, the onus is on the chief constable to demonstrate their reasons against granting it. As the report from the Association of Chief Police Officers on the Cumbria shootings spelled out, an application for a licence can be refused only if the police can demonstrate that they believe that the person is a danger to the public, or that the applicant has “no good reason” to have a shotgun, or that the applicant is subject to certain statutory prohibitions.
So at present chief constables have very little, if any, scope to refuse an application from a 10 or 11-year-old. This is, I believe, a most unsatisfactory situation for our chief constables to find themselves in. As I said at the beginning, the Bill is limited. It does not necessarily preclude the young person from firing a shotgun, because the current legislation merely provides that a young person be supervised by an adult, whether or not that young person possesses a licence. However, the Bill will send a clear and straightforward message that our society is not comfortable with the principle of young children handling lethal weapons.
I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing information on the situation in other countries. For example, in Finland applicants have to be 18, but a 15-year-old can get a permit for hunting or shooting with consent from guardians. In Ireland, New Zealand and Lithuania, 16 is the minimum age for possessing a shotgun licence. These are just a few examples to illustrate my case.
Even the United States, a country known for its liberal or even libertarian views on the control and use of firearms, has recognised there must be some limits and controls. More than half the states—32 now—have set a minimum age for the use of shotguns and other firearms. The majority of these states have set the minimum age at 18. Surely if the United States accepts the need for a minimum age, it is not unreasonable for the House to consider the case for restrictions.
I am grateful for the cross-party support that I have received for my Bill, and the fact that the Scottish Executive, although they obviously have no legislative competence on the matter, support the principle of a minimum age of 14.
In conclusion, the Bill seeks merely to tighten the existing legislation, to bring shotguns in line with other comparable legislation at home and overseas, and to ensure that access to dangerous—nay, lethal—weapons is restricted for the very youngest members of our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Thomas Docherty, Mr Michael McCann, Mr Jamie Reed, Pete Wishart and Steve Rotheram present the Bill.
Thomas Docherty accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012 and to be printed (Bill 135).
European Union Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:31 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:46 - divided: - Ayes: 31 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move amendment 57, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
‘(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification, under Article 4 of Protocol (No. 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to TEU and TFEU, which relates to participation by the United Kingdom in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office or an extension of the powers of that Office unless—
(a) the notification has been approved by Act of Parliament, and
(b) the referendum condition is met.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 54, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
‘(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not confirm the approval by the United Kingdom of a decision under the provision of Article 25 of TFEU that permits the adoption of provisions to strengthen or add to the rights listed in Article 20(2) of that Treaty (Rights of citizens of the European Union) unless—
(a) the decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and
(b) the referendum condition is met.’.
Government amendment 58.
Amendment 81, page 4, line 42, at end insert—
‘(aa) a decision under Article 43 of TFEU which would result in the removal of the existing powers of the United Kingdom in relation to nautical limits;’.
Amendment 36, page 5, line 5, at end insert—
‘(ba) a decision under the provision of Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that permits the application of the ordinary legislative procedure in place of a special legislative procedure;’.
Amendment 37, page 5, line 5, at end insert—
‘(bb) a decision under the provision of Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that permits the identification of further specific aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;’.
Amendment 38, page 5, line 5, at end insert—
‘(bc) a decision under the provision of Article 83(1) of TFEU that permits the identification of further areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;’.
Amendment 100, page 5, line 27, after ‘(enhanced co-operation)’, insert ‘except in the field of EU patents’.
Amendment 13, page 5, line 33, at end insert—
‘(ja) a decision which results in the participation of the United Kingdom in any enhanced co-operation procedure.’.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
‘(l) a decision to extend the use of the European Financial Stability Mechanism to member states other than the Republic of Ireland.’.
Amendment 79, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
‘(4A) In subsection (1) “decision” includes a further implementation of the decision under Article 122 of TFEU to extend the use of the European Financial Stability Mechanism to any member state other than the Republic of Ireland.’.
Amendment 40, page 14, line 9 [Schedule 1], at end insert— ‘Article 81(3) (family law).’.
Amendment 55, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 44 to 46.
Mr Lidington
We turn now to decisions on which a referendum would always be required. Decisions taken in accordance with the treaty provisions listed in clause 6 would always require approval by Act of Parliament and a referendum. One group of decisions covered by clause 6 are the one-way, irreversible decisions that would transfer competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union, including a decision that the UK would participate in a European public prosecutor’s office, which can be set up to combat crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests. Should the UK ever take part in the European public prosecutor following such a referendum, the decision that this country should take part in any expansion of the powers of that prosecutor is also listed in clause 6 and would therefore also be subject to primary legislation and a referendum.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
With regard to Government amendment 57, will the Minister make it clear to the Committee why the Government have singled out the European public prosecutor’s office in their opt-in to justice and home affairs and why they are not including other measures in that area on which they have a decision to opt in? The amendment is slightly untidy, so will he clarify that it will amend clause 6(2), as the European public prosecutor’s office is mentioned in clause 6(4)(c)?
Mr Lidington
The wider issue of justice and home affairs opt-ins is the subject of a number of amendments and new clauses that have been selected for debate tomorrow. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I think that that will be the appropriate time to deal with it. We have decided to single out the European public prosecutor because that was a clear and explicit commitment in the coalition agreement and the coalition programme. The agreement stated:
“Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.”
In accordance with that policy, we are putting a referendum lock on a decision by any future British Government to join the European public prosecutor and a further lock on the UK taking part in any expansion of that prosecutor’s powers.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Crawley (Henry Smith) for noticing a potential gap in the drafting of the Bill. As drafted, clause 6(4)(c) and (d) might not automatically trigger a referendum in the event that the UK chose to participate in the European public prosecutor after it had already been established. That is because the measure under the United Kingdom’s protocol on the area of freedom, security and justice, which would be used to allow us to take part in the European public prosecutor’s office or in an expansion of the office’s powers in those circumstances, does not have to cite the legal base of article 86 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
Government amendments 57 and 58 respond to the concerns identified and expressed by my hon. Friends in their amendment in order to close that potential loophole. We did not intend to leave any doubt about the matter and, being keen to make that correction, I therefore urge the Committee to approve those Government amendments. These would ensure that a referendum would be required in all cases before the United Kingdom could join the European public prosecutor’s office or an extension of its powers, whether the decision was taken before or after the prosecutor had been set up, or before or after the powers had been extended.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am very grateful for that concession, which improves the Bill. Now that the Minister is in this spirit of concession, does he not understand that most people think that criminal justice is central to their sovereignty in Parliament, and that the same provision should apply to all opt-ins under the criminal justice provisions? Why will he not concede that?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend makes his point firmly, as I expect him to, but as I said earlier we will have the opportunity to debate justice and home affairs opt-ins in more detail during debates on the clauses that are set down for tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the concerns that he and other Members express on that occasion.
A number of amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry seek to add a limited number of further JHA articles to either clause 6 or schedule 1, and I say to him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that I am well aware of and understand the Committee’s concerns about justice and home affairs matters. I share their view that they are matters of political, often of legal and sometimes of constitutional, significance, so I look forward with interest to the arguments that my hon. Friend might put forward later today.
On those amendments, which will be the subject of debate later today, I signal now that I am confident that I can make a compelling case why those particular articles should not be listed in clause 6 but be left, where they are appropriately dealt with, in clause 9. I shall explain briefly today and, I expect, at greater length tomorrow how that fits into wider JHA issues, as I set out in my written ministerial statement last week.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the courteous and generous way he is piloting the Bill through the House and through its long period in Committee. He will be well aware that I warmly welcome the general principle of the Bill and, indeed, supported it on Second Reading. He will also be aware, however, that I have to be honest and say that it is not the Bill I would have preferred to discuss today. I make no secret of the fact that I think we should be discussing a Bill to give the people of the United Kingdom a referendum on our continued membership of the European Union, but we are where we are.
I supported the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that I would use every opportunity to try to strengthen and improve it as it progressed through its remaining stages, and I am heartened by the announcements that the Minister has already made this afternoon. He has demonstrated that he feels the Bill is capable of improvement by virtue of his bringing forward the Government’s own amendments to it.
My amendment 54 and consequential amendment 55, as with so many amendments tabled for discussion in Committee, seek to strengthen the Bill by improving the scrutiny that would have to take place should any future transfer of competence occur.
Under clause 7(2)(a), a Minister may not confirm the approval by the United Kingdom of
“a decision under the provision of Article 25 of TFEU that permits the adoption of provisions to strengthen or add to the rights listed in Article 20(2) of that Treaty”
unless
“the decision is approved by Act of Parliament.”
Amendment 54 would require such a decision to be approved not only by an Act of Parliament, but by the people of the United Kingdom in a referendum. It proposes a new subsection (2A) to clause 6, rather than including the decision in the list of decisions in clause 6(4), because the procedure for the ratification of decisions under article 25 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is essentially the same as that for decisions under article 42 of the treaty on the European Union, which relates to a common European Union defence policy.
Under the European Union treaties, all citizens of member states are also citizens of the European Union. As the Committee will be aware, the list in article 20(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is separate from and additional to the list of rights in the European Union’s charter of fundamental rights, which was given the status of treaty law by the Lisbon treaty. I will list briefly the European Union citizenship rights set out in article 20(2). The first is the freedom of movement and residence within the European Union. The second is
“the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament”
and in local government elections in the member state of residence
“under the same conditions as nationals of that State”.
The third is the right to
“the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State”
when the EU citizen’s member state is not represented in a non-EU country. The fourth is
“the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.”
A decision to strengthen or add to the rights set out in article 20(2) could be of great importance, and could be wide-ranging. Article 25 of the same treaty appears to place no limit on the sort of rights that may be added. For example, there appears to be nothing to prevent the adoption of provisions that give European Union citizens the right to vote in national elections in member states other than the state of which they are a citizen. Such a new basic right would constitute such a major transfer of power that such moves should be approved by all the people of the United Kingdom in a referendum. By definition, new or extended rights for European Union citizens transfer power from the United Kingdom—the power over whether it accords such rights to the citizens of other European Union member states. The UK would be required to respect those rights for all EU citizens as a matter of treaty obligation, and they would ultimately be enforced by the European Court of Justice, whose rulings are binding and are backed by its power to levy unlimited fines on member states. The new or augmented rights would be enshrined in the EU treaties and could be reversed only by a new, full-blown amending treaty. That would be, for all practical purposes, an irreversible transfer of power of constitutional magnitude, as it would deal with our citizens’ rights.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to consular protection, which, as he knows, has been enjoyed by all citizens of each EU member state for some considerable time. If we have no representation in a particular country, British citizens can go to a French, German or Spanish embassy and receive the same consular protection that they would expect from the UK. Does he really think that that should require a referendum?
Mr Nuttall
As I understand it, that is already provided for in article 20(2), so there is no need to introduce it again. Amendment 54 would apply only to future extensions of that article.
Chris Bryant
But following the creation of the European External Action Service, there is provision for some extension of that right. That is for obvious reasons, namely that many of the smaller countries in the EU have no diplomatic service or representation in quite a lot of countries. Just as we use the services of the Australians in some cases, for instances in Laos, and the French diplomatic services in other cases, surely it would be wrong to put the need to have a referendum in the way of an extension of that provision for British citizens or any other EU citizens.
Mr Nuttall
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the difficulty is that article 20(2) covers much more than just that matter. As I said, it covers the likelihood of citizens of other EU states being allowed to vote in our national elections. There is real concern about that, and there would be a drive and desire for citizens of the UK to have their say if the EU ever sought to allow it.
Chris Bryant
When I was Minister for Europe, I probably had more correspondence with British people living in Spain than with those living in any other country in Europe. The best part of 1 million British people now live in Spain, and many of them feel that they need greater protection by the EU—for instance, if their houses are being pulled down because of the changes to housing and coastal laws. They would like to be able to vote in Spanish general elections, so that they can have a voice in Spanish society. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is wrong that they should be allowed that?
Mr Nuttall
I believe it should be up to the Spanish to decide who should vote in Spanish elections, not the EU, just as I do not want the EU telling our country whether citizens of another EU country should have the right to vote in our national elections.
I might be reading too much into this, but I wonder whether the reason the current article refers only to European parliamentary elections and local elections is that people in the world of the EU would like national elections done away with. In their world, there would be only regions within the great European Union. Is that why no mention of national elections was made in that article?
Emma Reynolds
Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that hard-headed, pragmatic pro-Europeans say that we should do away with general elections in member states?
Mr Nuttall
I have no idea what each individual thinks—that is up to them. All I am saying is that those who promote the EU project, which states the need for ever-closer union—[Interruption.] Those who promote the EU project would very much like there to be simply EU elections and local, regional elections, effectively bypassing Members of Parliament. The thrust of the legislation means that that is where we are headed, and it is one of many reasons why I tabled amendments 54 and 55, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
My treat, which I can never find the resources or time to put into effect, is to send the comments that hon. Members on both sides of the House make to our fellow European politicians. I should like President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Tusk or the representatives of any one of the nine Nordic and Baltic states that were hosted by the Prime Minister at Downing street last week, to read that someone stood up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and said that we are about to abolish national elections. They would realise what a wonderful world the House of Commons can become. To paraphrase Karl Marx on history in the famous opening lines of “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, the House of Commons, when it debates the EU, starts as muddle and descends quickly into farce. We are already firmly into those two categories today.
Clause 6 refers—
Mr MacShane
Might I just finish my point on clause 6? My hon. Friend and I have had many exchanges here and in the Tea Room over a number of years, and my affection for him grows with each passing moment.
Government amendment 57 calls for a referendum with reference to an extension of the powers of the European public prosecutor’s office, but clause 6(4)(c) already lists the requirement for a referendum when there is any change in the treaty involving the participation of the UK with the EPPO. That is just the technical muddle.
I remember sitting on the Government Benches, where the hon. Member for Broadmoor is now sitting.
Mr MacShane
There are times when the European Union debate makes me think that I am in Broadmoor—in respect of speeches made on both sides of the House, some of which reach the highest clouds of fantasy and invention.
When I was on the Government Benches, getting the wording right was interesting. Foreign Office officials are brilliant draftspersons, but they are not necessarily quite as focused on the detail or on internal contradictions in legislation, because they do not always produce Bills. Clause 6 and amendment 57, which I assume will go through tonight with a Government majority despite the best efforts of Conservative Back Benchers, actually contradict themselves.
Kelvin Hopkins
The important thing about elections is not just that they are a method for electing people to a Chamber such as this, but that those people have power to exercise on behalf of the people who vote for them. Should we not be careful to ensure that this House, this Parliament and our Government retain power? Otherwise, democracy becomes meaningless and we would just be a decorative part of the constitution instead of an effective part, as Bagehot would say.
Mr MacShane
My hon. Friend is one of the most decorative parts of this House, and I hope that, after the reduction of representation in the wretched Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill becomes law—it will weaken the House of Commons unless the other place defends our constitutional rights—when there will be 50 fewer of us, he is to be found among the survivors.
This is the eternal argument. The most sovereign person in the world was Robinson Crusoe on his island. No one could tell him what to do, and he did not tell anyone else what to do. Our nation’s history is entirely about finding partners and allies and making treaties. I invite hon. Members to go to the National Gallery and look at the depiction of the signing of the treaty of London signed in 1604, which has four British dips and four Spanish dips and you cannot tell the difference between them. That treaty brought to an end 50 years of conflict between Spain and Britain because—
Mr MacShane
That is a good crack, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that Spanish power messed up the continent for another 100 years until we won again. If the House of Commons only exists to express the sentiment of the football fan that “We won, and they have to lose”, Britain will never advance.
Chris Bryant
If the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is correct that we won in 1604, why did we spend the next 20 years trying to marry off the heir to the British throne to a Spanish infanta?
Mr MacShane
I am glad that we are now marrying off one of our royals to someone who has the attributes of a very normal, pretty Englishwoman. We wish William and “Caterina” every success.
To return to the Bill and the clause, I campaigned for many years in this House, on an all-party basis, for laws and measures to combat human trafficking. That cannot be done on the basis of a single decision of this House alone. In the last Parliament, it took a great deal of work by hon. Members on both sides of the House to persuade the then Prime Minister to first sign and then ratify the Council of Europe’s convention on trafficking. The Home Office’s view was that it did not want to be told by anyone—and this was the Council of Europe, not the European Union—what to do or to accept any obligations. Ministers and officials came up with argument after argument about why the Council of Europe convention should not be signed. I am glad to say that parliamentary pressure from both sides wore them down and the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, signed and ratified it. It was an important step forward. As ever, it was not the final solution to that dark and wretched side of globalisation, but it was a step forward.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the case of the person in Leek, Staffordshire whom it was proposed, under an arrest warrant, should be taken over to Italy, and who was convicted in his absence to 15 years, but who, thanks to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and the Prime Minister, has been completely exonerated? He was not even within 1,000 miles of where the murder took place.
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but we could all list examples in Britain of improper arrests. It does not vitiate the need for international co-operation against criminality—I mentioned trafficking, but there are other examples—if that is what we want. International co-operation on the basis of, “Well, you’ll co-operate with us, but we won’t co-operate you”, will never happen. I am glad that there was not a referendum lock on the EAW, because otherwise that gentleman from 7/7 would still be waiting in Rome until we had had our referendum.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was invalid, but that his own similar individual example is valid. Why is it valid when it supports his argument, and invalid when it does not?
Mr MacShane
On the contrary, there are anomalies with the EAW. I have cases myself involving the Polish authorities, in particular, sending out generalised arrest warrants for people who have done little more than nick a bike. None the less, a law is a law is a law. If we want criminals whom we want dealt with in Britain to be sent back here, we have to accept that what is sauce for our criminal goose has to be sauce for other criminal gander.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by an eminent lawyer in the field of extradition about the extent of the problem he has just described: arrest warrants coming from Poland and other eastern European places for trivial offences, resulting in many of those on the receiving end of one being locked up in British prisons and police stations, wasting a considerable amount of time and occupying valuable space.
Mike Gapes
Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently a Romanian national was arrested in east London and taken back to Romania on an extradition warrant issued by the Romanian authorities? This individual had been involved in the most terrible form of trafficking of human beings and criminal activity in Romania.
Mr MacShane
May we bring an end to these individual cases from right hon. and hon. Members?
I am glad that the “costa del crime” has been shut down thanks to enhanced European co-operation. I put it to hon. Members on both sides that in a few years’ time it might be to our country’s advantage to have an effective prosecutor’s office working to ensure that the people whom we bring to justice can face inquiry and remedy. I accept that the Bill will pass, but I am nervous about saying to our European colleagues, “Forget that idea, because we will have to have a referendum on it first.” I do not want to use hyperbole, but were I a trafficker or someone who did not want to be brought to justice on a trans-frontier basis, I would be quite happy to see a referendum take place before effective action could be taken against me.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
As it happens, the European arrest warrant has recently been of great use to one of my constituents who had suffered a grave injustice in Spain, which is an argument in favour of the European arrest warrant. We have also heard some arguments against it, but these are all arguments that can be put to the British people. We can have a mature debate in front of them. Why does the right hon. Gentleman oppose that?
Mr MacShane
That takes us into a slightly broader aspect of the debate, where there are differences between us. I started my political life campaigning in pubs and elsewhere against the demand, which was very prevalent after my student days, that there should be a referendum on capital punishment. Again and again, the cry is for a referendum, and we heard it in health questions today, when it was asked whether we could have a referendum on NHS reforms. I do not think that any hon. Member on the Government Benches would give a fleeting thought to that proposition, but if a referendum on a public prosecutor’s office is good, why is a referendum on something that will impact far more directly on the British people—namely the Government’s proposals to change significantly the way that our health service is delivered—not good?
Mr MacShane
To be told to sit down by the hon. Gentleman, who, to his great credit, has never long warmed a Bench if he could stand up, is undoubtedly a real pleasure to be had from my small contribution to this debate.
Mr Redwood
The big difference is that the Government’s health reforms are reversible if they do not work or if a future Government do not like them, whereas the surrender of power to Europe is irreversible.
Mr MacShane
Again, this shows a failure to understand that if we do not like a treaty, there is an alternative. I have been told over the 16 years in which I have sat in the House that almost any change would undermine Britain. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman famously said that the Amsterdam treaty would mean the abolition of the United Kingdom. Can anybody in the Committee tell me a single thing that was in the Amsterdam treaty?
Mr MacShane
There we are: when we need an anorak, there is always one from Rhondda. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I respect the Member for Europe, for whom there is a great deal of affection among those of us in the House who are first-class Euro-bores. The Member for Europe—[Hon. Members: “Member for Europe?”] I apologise: the Minister for Europe is a sincere and serious chap. I have recently been much involved in the issue of Kosovo. One of our great problems there is that whereas the United Kingdom recognises Kosovo, along with 21 other member states, led by Britain—there is, I hope, not a cigarette paper of difference between those on our Front Bench and those on the Government’s on the importance of helping Kosovo find its way to a future—five EU member states do not recognise Kosovo. As a result, we are utterly stymied in so much that we could and should do to help Kosovo find its way towards some stability, and because Kosovo has no stability or sense of security, that is contagious in other countries in the Balkans. There are times when this Government would, if anything, like to exercise a little more authority in Europe, in order to achieve key foreign policy goals.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Jesse Norman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much, and I am greatly enjoying his comic turn. On a point of information, is he engaged in a one-man filibuster, or is this a genuine contribution to the argument?
Mr MacShane
If the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member had remained seated, rather than jumping up and insisting on making interventions, I would have sat down about 10 minutes ago. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I am hearing cries for me to go on and on—I do not think that anything similar is happening in the other place—but I will sit down in due course.
I have no intention of filibustering; I have come here to make the point that remains at the heart of the Bill. That is that no Minister of the Crown—whether of this Administration, a Lib Dem Administration or, in four and a half years’ time, when my right hon. Friends are on the Government Front Bench, a Labour Administration—is going to sign either a brand new treaty or a significant amendment that so unacceptably transfers authority and power away from this House and the Government of the nation that that Minister would have to come back here and say, “We have looked at this and we are very uncertain about it. We think it is significant and we are going to give the British people a referendum on it.” “Significant” is the key adjective in this regard.
That shows the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of all these debates. The Bill is being introduced simply because the Conservative part of the Government could not honour its commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, could not repatriate any powers and could not alter the existing treaties. Because the Conservatives are locked into their coalition agreement with the Lib Dems, the only reflection of five years of consistent, campaigning Euroscepticism they can offer to the British people is this Bill. I accept that it reflects the prevailing mood among the largest single party, the Conservative party. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have campaigned consistently on Eurosceptic themes.
Mr MacShane
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will make his points in due course.
In opposition, it was possible for the Conservatives to campaign as Eurosceptics, but they cannot but govern as Euro-realists. This we have seen in whole range of—
Mr MacShane
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point very shortly.
As Euro-realists, this Government have been—by my standards—responsible and helpful, shovelling out money to Ireland and working with Chancellor Merkel on serious treaty amendments that will increase economic surveillance of all the 27 member states, on foreign policy and on other issues. I really have no huge complaints to make about the Government at all. I say again, however, that it is inconceivable that any Minister of any Government in the future is going to come back from Brussels and say, “I’ve signed such a bad treaty. I’m not really sure about it. It is so significant in its alteration of the powers between the UK and the rest of the EU that I want it put to a referendum.”
Mr Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is making a big show about all this. First, there was a referendum in 1975 under a Labour Government. Secondly, there was also a promise in the Labour manifesto about a referendum on the constitutional treaty. Thirdly, if the right hon. Gentleman had been here yesterday, he would have heard those on his own Front Bench proposing a mechanism to ensure that, in certain circumstances, there would be a referendum on all matters within the treaties. So, for practical purposes, he needs to ask himself whether the Labour party is now contradicting the position that he is adopting.
Mr MacShane
I will leave that point for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am not sure whether their new clause has been selected for debate today, but it proposes to set up a broad oversight committee, which might indeed be a rival to the Committee of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I do not think that the proposal will make much progress, however.
The worry for me is that, at least among the majority party on the Government Benches, we have a Eurosceptic majority. We have to accept that. There are also many Eurosceptics on these Benches—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr MacShane, could you please turn your phone off? This is the second time that it has rung in the course of your contribution. While I am on my feet, may I ask you to refer to the amendments, and not to be tempted by interventions to reflect on anything that is not within them?
Mr MacShane
I apologise, Ms Primarolo. I thought that the phone was in silent mode, but it was not. I have learned something. At least my tie is sober and silent! I accept that interventions have dragged me here and there, but we are a friendly kind of House when it comes to European debates—to begin with, at least. I have been trying to sit down for about 10 minutes, but hon. Members just will not let me.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman to sit down. Has he concluded his remarks? If not, he may continue, but he should not reflect on what I have said.
Mr MacShane
I was concluding my remarks until various Members got up to intervene.
My conclusion is simply this. There may come a time—not now, I accept—when a majority in this House and a duly elected Government feel that they want to take the lead to alter a European Union treaty—to propose a new one or make amendments to an existing one. They will then find that they are being held back by the tone, if not the strict legal content, of this Bill. This is coming dangerously close to what an Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr Henry Hopkinson, said about Cyprus in 1956—that it would “never” be free.
I genuinely worry about the signal we are sending to our EU partners at a time when we all, quite irrespective of our party political positions, need more co-operation and more enforcement in Europe, whether it be on Tunisia, on growth policies or on finding solutions to the problem in Ireland, where, as the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, we export three and a half times more British goods than we do to China. I worry greatly that this Bill, and particularly the new clause on the need for effective prosecution of criminality in Europe, will send out precisely the opposite signals. Our nation might well suffer, not tonight or in the next few weeks or months, but in the future, as a result of this deeply isolationist proposal.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The last time I spoke after the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), I was slightly unkind to him. Even though he has given me lots of material to do the same again, I will not. I was a Member of the European Parliament when he was the Minister for Europe and we would have had many disagreements, but I would like to think that we could at least agree to disagree in a friendly manner. The right hon. Gentleman was definitely treading on thin ice when he spoke about Robinson Crusoe being cut adrift, but it is all welcome for the purposes of debate.
I wish to make a point about the European public prosecutor, which I am against, and it is one of the reasons why I tabled the amendments. When I was an MEP, there was a great Scottish National party MEP, Sir Neil MacCormick. In the first debate that ever took place on this subject, he reminded me that having a European public prosecutor would mean changing the way we do criminal law in this country—moving away from habeas corpus towards a more Napoleonic code. Perhaps that is worth reflecting on in this place and giving the British people a chance to have a say on it. I very much welcome Government amendments 57 and 58, and I am pretty sure that the great Sir Neil MacCormick would have done so.
I tried to explain to my constituents at the last general election that I had a bit of experience of European matters and that, given the opportunity, I would try to use that experience in this place. I also explained how the Conservative party would try to stop any future power grab by the European Union, as set out in its manifesto. When this is coupled with my membership of the European Scrutiny Committee, I hope that my constituents in Daventry will forgive me for continually talking in the Committee stages of this Bill. It is a very important Bill which contains a great deal of merit.
My amendments 36 to 38 would simply require approval by an Act of Parliament and a referendum before a United Kingdom Minister can give final agreement in the Council to a proposed justice and home affairs ratchet decision when the UK has already opted into the proposal for that decision. Such proposals are subject to unanimity in the Council.
Amendment 40 requires a decision under the amending treaty, a decision under article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union or a 48(7) ratchet decision that abolishes the veto of EU proposals on family law to be approved in a referendum. Family law matters can fall under EU competence, and the veto could be abolished by an article 81(3) ratchet clause. I know that that is highly unlikely, and I know that the EU’s ability to become involved in family law has existed for a long time—since long before the Lisbon treaty—but I think that Members on both sides of the Committee can agree among themselves and with our European partners on matters such as the mutual recognition and enforcement between member states of judgments and decisions in extra-judicial cases.
However, genuine concern is felt by many people, and I am definitely one of them. In December 2005, the European Commission tried to make a case for applying the pre-Lisbon ratchet clause to qualified majority voting in EU proposals concerning maintenance obligations, which are obviously a family law matter. It was knocked back in the Council at that point, but anyone who listens to or reads debates in the European Parliament—as I now do—and anyone who reads statements from European Commissioners will understand that a bit of pressure is beginning to be applied. I should appreciate an assurance from the Minister that he is aware of that pressure and will continue to keep an eye on any challenges that may be forthcoming. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Clappison
Amendment 40 is very important, and my hon. Friend is making a very good speech which is clarifying matters. I understand from what he is saying that family law matters are currently subject to unanimity rather than qualified majority voting, and that he is concerned about what is being proposed. He will know that the Commission has a long history of moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting, and seeks to do it on many occasions. Can he confirm that, as this is within the framework of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction over the family law matters to which he is referring?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I believe that that is the case, although the Minister for Europe may correct me, as he is much better qualified to answer my hon. Friend’s question.
My main amendments are concerned with problems that I have identified in the justice and home affairs ratchet clauses or opt-ins. We saw an example here not long ago. Just after the general election, the United Kingdom had to decide whether to opt in to the European investigation order. Many Members considered the way in which the legislation was scrutinised and enacted to be unsatisfactory. Along with others, I tabled an urgent question with the aim of establishing whether we were going to opt in.
I think that there is a better way of scrutinising important justice and home affairs matters. I appreciate that in that instance the general election and various recesses caused a problem, but nevertheless I am sure that this place can do a great deal better when it comes to scrutiny, and I believe that the Government can do a great deal better when it comes to enactment. I therefore very much welcome last week’s written ministerial statement. Someone like me could pick a few holes in it—on dates and who has the first say, for example—but it is a massive step forward and I thank the Minister for it. I also welcome, as I said, the Government amendments in this area.
The Government have already opted in to the negotiations on the European investigation order, which allowed European police forces to insist that the British police put citizens in the UK under surveillance and grant access to their DNA. I suggest that that is quite a big deal to the United Kingdom. The way in which the EIO was put before the House—eventually, in an oral statement in July—was most unsatisfactory. The intention behind my amendments is to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of such matters.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for correcting me. He knows that I am often wrong, so he corrects me quite regularly. I appreciate the help and assistance that he gives me, as a new Member in this place.
In the simplest terms, on the JHA ratchets, the Government have wisely looked at article 86 of the TFEU and have closed down in the Bill many of the policy areas that could be taken up to European level. Article 86 deals with the European public prosecutor, as I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) alluded to earlier. However, it does not pay attention in the same way to the justice and home affairs criminal law ratchets, because those are contained in article 83. Is there a reason for that? Essentially, I am seeking from the Minister an idea of how we will deal in this place with matters similar to the European investigation order when the Bill is enacted.
The criminal ratchet clauses are often very important, but some, while important in themselves, would not be as important to the British people on the whole. It would be a very daring move for anybody—a Eurosceptic, a pro-European, or any Minister—to recommend such matters for a referendum. I am quite happy to think that we could deal with this by putting before both Houses of Parliament a motion or Bill that could be amended to include a referendum clause, should the need arise. However, we can do justice and home affairs scrutiny a lot better. Although the written ministerial statement goes some way in that regard, could the Minister give us some real-life examples to explain how such matters will be dealt with in future?
I do not want to detain the Committee further. I have explained the reasons for my amendments on family law—I will not be pressing those to a vote—and on the JHA ratchets, which I hope I will not need to press to a vote. All parties should be able to agree in general terms to better parliamentary scrutiny of justice and home affairs opt-ins—or, indeed, opt-outs. This is the right place for that to be done, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Emma Reynolds
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as I make my first speech on the European Union Bill, Ms Primarolo. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). He and I have something in common, because I, too, worked in the European Parliament for a number of years. He was an MEP for a decade and I congratulate him on his speech today.
Mr Clappison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a very good case in a very cogent way. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, however, may I gently say to say to her that although I will have certain points to make about the written ministerial statement, it goes much further than anything that was permitted under her party’s Government? For 13 years, we had no votes on opt-ins or anything else to do with these matters and, by and large, we had scrutiny without votes at the end of it.
Emma Reynolds
That is certainly true, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that both the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty involved a much greater transfer of powers than anything we have seen since and the Foreign Secretary voted against a referendum on such matters. Let us talk not only about consistency on this side, but about consistency by those on the Treasury Bench, too.
The Government have decided to opt in to eight pieces of justice and home affairs legislation since the general election. The hon. Member for Daventry has mentioned one of them—the European investigation order. The Opposition would have liked to have had a say on the Government’s decision not to opt in to the EU directive to combat human trafficking. Indeed, we judge the Government’s decision not to opt in to be a dereliction of duty as regards combating this modern form of slavery. I imagine that some Back Benchers sitting behind the Minister—as I have said, the hon. Member for Daventry has mentioned this—would have liked more time on the Floor of the House to discuss not only the European investigation order but the other seven measures that the Government opted into.
Another area that the Government have totally neglected to mention in the Bill is the wholesale transfer of the body of justice and home affairs legislation to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The decision that the Government have to take in 2014 either to opt in to the body of legislation in its entirety or not to do so was also referred to in the Minister’s written ministerial statement last week, but it is not mentioned in the Bill and is surely of equivalent significance to many of the changes in clause 6. In fact, the Conservative party manifesto stated that the Conservatives wanted to repatriate powers in employment and social affairs and criminal justice.
In his ministerial written statement, the Minister said there would be a vote in the House on the decision in 2014—we welcome that. However, I am sure that some of his Back Benchers will tell him that it is his best chance to repatriate powers in the field of criminal justice. Such a move would be unilateral and could be carried out with relative ease. The Government will not be able to do the same in the field of employment and social affairs without the unanimous agreement of all the other 26 member states. Given that this is the Government’s only chance to fulfil that manifesto commitment, are they minded to take up this opportunity? Are not these changes more important than those in clause 6?
Emma Reynolds
We are not in favour of repatriating power; I am simply pointing out that according to their manifesto, the Conservatives committed to doing so. Far be it from me to intrude on private grievances, but I am simply trying to point out that there may be disagreement on these issues between those on the Government Front and Back Benches.
Mr Cash
The hon. Lady has been talking with great eloquence about opt-ins and the number of opt-ins that have taken place and she has referred to the excellent amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which reflect the views of the European Scrutiny Committee. In the light of her eloquence and determination, and the expressions of support she has given to my hon. Friend and therefore to the Committee, I should like to know whether the Opposition would be interested in voting on these matters.
Emma Reynolds
I was simply pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bill.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for being so kind to me and I congratulate her on her first contribution from the Front Bench; she is doing a sterling job. I very much appreciate the tone in which she is delivering her words. Given the welcome for last week’s written ministerial statement, I wonder whether there is a chance, bizarrely, for some collaborative work to break out across the divide on how we should deal with justice and home affairs opt-ins and opt-outs. Perhaps we could all, together with our Lib Dem colleagues, come to a better arrangement for the future.
Emma Reynolds
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes the point well. There are elements of agreement regarding last week’s written ministerial statement with which we can work. The Opposition favour any greater parliamentary scrutiny of the opt-in decisions that the Government make in this area. So, yes, there is quite a lot of agreement between us.
The Conservative party has come on a long, tortuous and at times destructive journey regarding the European Union. A Conservative Prime Minister took us into the then European Community and subsequent Conservative Prime Ministers signed up to the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty—the biggest transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels in our history. There were no referendums on those issues. The Foreign Secretary has been part of that long and tortuous journey. He was not so keen on referendums in the early 1990s, when he and the hon. Member for Stone were on different sides of the argument during the long and heated debate on the Maastricht treaty that went through the night. The Foreign Secretary opposed a referendum on the treaty and the hon. Member for Stone consistently argued for one.
Mr Lidington
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is an important distinction to be made here? With the UK’s accession under Edward Heath and with the treaties she has mentioned that were agreed to by Conservative Governments, those policies were made clear in the Conservatives’ manifesto when they sought the people’s confidence at a general election. The difference with the Lisbon treaty is that, for the first time, referendums had been promised but were not given by the party that won office at the general election.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the Minister for Europe for that intervention. I will say two things about it. The first is that I do not remember the 1983 Conservative party manifesto. The second is that the Single European Act involved a massive transfer of power with the introduction of the four freedoms—goods, capital, people and services. The Maastricht treaty also involved a massive transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels through the inclusion of justice and home affairs within the competence of the European Union treaties. I would argue that both those treaties were much more significant than the Lisbon treaty. We will not take lessons from a party which has never, within my lifetime, granted a referendum to this country on—
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend remember the 1983 Labour general election manifesto?
Emma Reynolds
I have read it, and it is unforgettable, but perhaps that is not for this debate. We have become more sensible since then.
Mr Cash
The hon. Lady may not remember the precise terms of the 1983 Labour manifesto, but it was described as
“the longest suicide note in history”.
On the treaties, the Maastricht treaty indeed represented a massive transfer of powers. As Professor Simon Hix confirmed, in his view it should have been subject to a referendum. There are very few on the Conservative Benches now who do not agree that we were right when we pressed for one at the time. However, the Lisbon treaty contains the ingredients of the Maastricht treaty. That is where the problem lies. A referendum was required on that because of the things that are now entrenched in the Lisbon treaty which come out of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, plus all the add-ons that the Front-Bench team of the Labour party in government put through.
Emma Reynolds
I know that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that back in 1993 he did not manage to win the vote on securing a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. I would like to look forward, rather than look back. I shall continue and conclude my remarks.
The changes outlined in clause 6 and other parts of the Bill pale into insignificance compared with the wholesale transfers of power in the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act, as I outlined. In the House, on the Second Reading, both the Foreign Secretary and Minister for Europe reiterated the Government’s commitment, as set out in the coalition agreement, not to agree to any transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels for the duration of this Parliament. If the Government are so committed not to transfer power, why do we need the Bill? Is it that their own Back- Benchers do not trust them to keep to the text of the coalition document?
The Bill is unnecessary. It is a dog’s breakfast. It is a political gesture to calm the fears of the Eurosceptics on the Conservative Benches. The Government have failed to achieve their objective.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous. Does she agree that the Bill recognises the mood of the country? I am an enthusiastic supporter of the European Union, but the mood of the country is not the same as mine towards the European Union. Parliament needs to make a statement that guarantees that this place is sovereign, and that the public’s power over our membership of the European Union is ultimate and paramount. The compromise in the Bill is surely intended to achieve that confidence among the public and to ensure that we do not wrap ourselves up in so much red tape that we cannot have a meaningful relationship with the European Union.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and I will say two things in response. First, European Union legislation can, by its nature, be deregulatory if it is framed precisely and well. Several pieces of European Union legislation replace 27 sets of national legislation. A number of business organisations recognise that fact and are in favour of it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, I will say this: I am new to the House, but since last May I have not had a single constituent bring that subject up, either in a surgery or on the doorstep, and I was knocking on doors on Saturday. My constituents are more concerned about their jobs, the trebling of tuition fees and the risks from overhauling the NHS than about technical procedures called passerelles, which, I wager, none of them has heard of.
In conclusion, the Bill is a political gesture that has not succeeded in calming the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party. In fact, it seems to have inflamed the passions of the Eurosceptics on the Benches behind the Minister. I am sure that that will be demonstrated today, as it was yesterday and in previous consideration of the Bill. In the words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), the Bill is “shadow-boxing”. According to the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), it is a “piece of legislative PR”. This political device has not only backfired, but resulted in a Bill that is confused, contorted and contradictory.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds).
I rise to speak to amendment 81, which stands in my name, but first I would like to make a wider point. I fundamentally believe that it is a landmark piece of legislation. I have strong and clear views on Europe and on our relationship with it. It is fair to say that since 1972 this country has seen what I would describe as open-door encroachment on our sovereignty and decision making. When I speak to my constituents about all matters related to Europe, and when they raise those with me, one of the fundamental questions they ask is who governs this country. Is it Britain, or Parliament or Europe? I think that the Bill will bring some clarity to some of those questions and issues.
Mike Gapes
Given the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks, should she not be calling for an in/out referendum, and is she not disappointed that the Government have come up with such a weak and ineffective measure?
Priti Patel
I have spoken previously about various clauses in the Bill and have made it abundantly clear that I welcome it. There is no doubt about that. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about an in/out referendum, I would like to see a referendum on many, many issues, some of which are in the Bill. I will now speak to one fundamental issue that I think should be in the Bill.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady has just said that we should have a referendum on many, many issues. Does that mean many, many referendums, or one referendum on many, many issues? If it is the latter, how would one know on what one was voting yes or no?
Priti Patel
As the debate has proved, many issues to do with the way in which we do business in this country are related to the laws and the decision-making powers of this House and the judgments exercised by Europe, and reflect the views of members of the public. Fundamentally, the British people have a right to vote on where we stand with Europe and on our relationship with Europe. I have been clear on that and consistently maintained that view.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, for which I am grateful. She has just used rather Treasury Bench words. That is intended not to promote her, but to denigrate her, I am afraid, because those words seem rather woolly—I am merely recognising my previous sins. Does she mean in or out?
Priti Patel
I would be very happy if the country had a referendum on in or out of Europe, and I have consistently maintained that view. That is my personal view, but it is not the subject of debate on the Bill.
Amendment 81 would guarantee a referendum in the event that the EU proposed to reduce our powers over our inshore territorial waters up to the 12 nautical mile limit. I therefore ask the Minister and the Committee, through this debate, to put that safeguard in place. The amendment would not solve all the historical problems with the common fisheries policy, but importantly it would protect many of the efforts that this Government and the devolved Administrations are making in our sovereign territorial waters.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On that point about the devolved Administrations, is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am about the evidence that the Scottish Parliament submitted, in which it worries that the devolved dimension is not being considered properly?
Priti Patel
Those issues should be given proper and due consideration.
As it stands, the Government and the devolved Administrations collectively exercise control and restrictions in our territorial waters up to the 6 nautical mile limit, and access is for British fishermen only. Access to our territorial waters between the 6 and 12 nautical mile limit is restricted to a handful of neighbouring countries. Those arrangements exist only by regulation, so at any time they could be amended by qualified majority voting and Britain could effectively lose control over access to its territorial waters within the 12 nautical mile limit of our shoreline.
The current regulation, passed in 2002, details the common fisheries policy arrangements for national territorial waters, and it expires at the end of 2012. As we know, the EU has plenty of flexibility to determine the future of our territorial waters, and I fundamentally believe that that is not in our national interest. The European Commission is, however, consulting on the post-2012 arrangements, and my significant concern is that through either that reform or future measures the majority of our European counterparts in the European Parliament or in the Council of Ministers will be able to determine the future of our territorial sovereignty.
I have been in touch with the Minister for Europe about the issue, and he has very kindly written to me to confirm that currently the Commission has no plans to change the arrangements, but I do not believe that we should leave it to chance, as it is simply not in our national interest to have other EU countries determining the future of access to our territorial waters.
Mr Cash
Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the infamous Merchant Shipping Act was taken through the House in 1988? It was struck down by the House of Lords for not being in compliance, it argued, with the European Communities Act 1972. I do not want to trespass too much on her speech, but I think she may appreciate that she is in what I would describe as extremely sensitive and, in my view, very sensible waters.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. There is no doubt that these are sensitive issues.
The Bill is significant and designed to protect Britain’s interest, and now and in future we must think about the safeguarding of our territorial waters. We know about the state of fishing in this country, and I seek from the Minister an assurance that we will not concede more powers but consider the implications when changes come to the fore affecting our sovereignty and decision making in this House.
I shall touch on a couple of other issues. During the debate a fortnight ago on clause 8, the Minister for Europe, when challenged at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others, gave a very strong reassurance that this Parliament is sovereign on all matters. On this narrow issue regarding the common fisheries policy, however, my amendment would allow Parliament to exercise its constitutional power and disapply EU law that in my view is clearly not in our national interests.
As my hon. Friend says, these are sensitive issues, and I am not advocating a bust-up with Europe over them, but the amendment is about asserting our parliamentary sovereignty, on which many Members will agree. I seek the Minister’s assurance that the Government are listening to the points that I have made. To summarise, I hope that they will safeguard the powers that we have over our territorial waters and that they are prepared, come what may, to defend the country’s interests on this issue.
Chris Bryant
I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her speech, but it exemplified the fundamental problem that I have with clause 6 and, for that matter, schedule 1. The Euroscepticism at the heart of the clause is a classic example of our exaggerated understanding of our own significance—in particular the significance of Britain and of our parliamentary tradition. That has been exemplified in many speeches this afternoon.
I always think it is ironic when people inveigh against other Europeans, often misquoting John Bright to say that this Parliament is the mother of all Parliaments, when he actually referred to England as the mother of all Parliaments. It is particularly ironic when people then refer to the first summoning of commoners to a royal Parliament—Parliament is of course a French word, not an English word—by Simon de Montfort. They quite often forget that he was in fact a Frenchman, and a profoundly anti-Semitic one at that. Incidentally, we only know the names of those who attended the 1258 Parliament because they had their expenses paid.
Mr Cash
We are enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I thought I would mention that although he is right about what John Bright said—I have just finished writing a book about him—John Bright was defending democracy. Given the problem of the democratic deficit that we so often have, he would have been appalled at clause 18 and absolutely appalled at the manner in which power has been accumulated and moved away from the people of this country, particularly those who are less well off.
Chris Bryant
I think that John Bright would have been appalled by nearly every economic decision that has been taken by the coalition Government since they came to power, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on good territory in summoning him up in support.
I also point out that the first royal to build on this site was King Canute, who, of course, was Danish. We must therefore take a less effortlessly superior approach to the European Union in our discussions.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman said that Euroscepticism lies at the heart of the Bill. However, he will have heard the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is ardently pro-European, also supporting the Bill. What is the hon. Gentleman’s take on that?
Chris Bryant
The attitude of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is rather different from that before the election, as is that of the Liberal Democrat party. That will not surprise many Conservative or Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that a vast army of people are constantly campaigning on Europe and our relationship with the European Union. In my time in this House, which is coming up to 10 years, I think that I have received four letters from my constituents about our relationship with the European Union. I have received quite a lot of letters from other people’s constituents, but remarkably few from my own. I agree completely with the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about the failure in the way in which we scrutinise the mandate that Ministers think they are taking to meetings of the Council of Ministers and the legislation that comes from the European Union. I have made that point many times to the House.
Chris Bryant
I do. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the House has adopted the approach of insisting that pre-Council debates have to be provided for by the Backbench Business Committee from its allocation. Those debates are about the Government’s mandate, and they should be in Government time. I hope that at some point the Leader of the House will change his position on that. We may well not need a full day’s debate—two and a half hours might be sufficient. Having participated in nearly every one of them since 2001, along with my hon. Friend and neighbour from the south Wales valleys, I can fairly safely predict who will take part in them. I can pretty much guess exactly what they will say, as quite a few of us have single transferrable speeches.
I wish to refer specifically to some of the amendments in this group, and my points will be made against the background of my belief that the whole of clause 6 is nonsense. It will harm the power of the British Government to negotiate on behalf of the British people and advance the British interest. It will make Parliament look like a body that is not genuinely interested in significant economic or trade advances. To Indian, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian and Mexican potential counterparts, we will look like the country that is standing in the way of the means of enhancing trade with their economies. I believe that that is a mistake.
The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) tabled amendment 54 and referred to it earlier. As he knows, it would ensure that there could be no extension of the rights afforded to members of the EU by virtue of article 25 of the TFEU, which is related to article 20(2). I say to him that in the middle of the general election campaign earlier this year, as Europe Minister, I had to go to a meeting—I cannot remember whether it was in Brussels or Luxembourg—to agree to the paper on the founding of the European External Action Service that Baroness Ashton had brought forward as High Representative. Many member states were keen for the paper to contain specific provision for consular services, because as I said earlier, many of the smaller countries in the EU have no representation in many of the 190 or so countries in the world. They frequently use the consular services of other EU member states, and most of the larger member states, such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and ourselves, are perfectly happy to extend the hand of friendship in that way. Sometimes it is paid for by the country concerned and sometimes it is not, but there is give and take between different member states, so we are perfectly happy for that arrangement to exist.
Mr Nuttall
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a give-and-take arrangement would be perfectly possible even without the existence of the EU? It would also be possible for countries outside the EU to make such an arrangement.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, of course. I referred earlier to the fact that we have no representation in Laos. The Australians use our old embassy and residence—I am not sure whether they have bought them now—and provide consular support to Brits who get into trouble in Laos. Indeed, last year I had to visit Vientiane to try to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Laos. We were eventually successful, and a couple of people have come back to the UK and are now serving their sentences in British jails.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we would not have to invent the EU for that, but there are different expectations of consular services in each member state. When we had the ash cloud during the general election campaign, British newspapers were just about the only ones in the world to campaign for the Government to intervene. They wanted the Government to bring British nationals back to the UK, but French newspapers, for example, thought that getting French nationals back was entirely the responsibility of the French people and their airlines, travel agents and insurers. As more people across the EU exercise their right to the freedom of travel within it, citizens’ expectation of their consular rights will change.
I remember talking to my German counterpart. He said that he expected to close possibly half of all German embassies and consular services around the world over the next five years. Other member states may well do the same. There might come a point when there is an enhanced desire for a shared EU consular service around the world, but I was keen in the negotiations with him to ensure that Britain did not sign up to something that had not gone through a full process of consultation in each member state.
I was also keen to say that the main actions of the EAS should be far more concerned with extending our influence with the Brazil, Russia, India and China economies, ensuring that we had a shared attitude to the middle east and Russia, and ensuring that we enhanced our action in the Balkans to protect our security, rather than with matters such as consular services, which could involve significant additional costs. Obviously, if the EU acts to introduce its own consular services, the danger is that a significant amount of the cost will be borne by the UK.
I think the Minister would be happy with the agreement that I eventually signed at that time. He is studiously ignoring me and not listening, but I think he, too, would have been happy to sign up to that agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservatives did not originally want the EAS to come into existence because they were opposed to the Lisbon treaty—[Interruption.] I think the Minister is nodding—certainly with his eyes if not his whole head—but without being contradicted, I will assume that he would have been happy.
Under amendment 54 tabled by the hon. Member for Bury North, that agreement would have required a referendum, but that would have been a mistake. It was perfectly possible to achieve the outcome that the UK wanted—namely, that the EU should not be extended to provide consular services, except in the way that is already laid down in unanimously endorsed treaties—and consequently, amendment 54 would have limited the Government’s power to negotiate.
King Canute was trying to prove to his consiliare that he could not hold back the waters, but the Bill is like the King Canute of myth—the one who actually tried to hold back the waters. However, in seeking to create a bulwark, there is a danger that the Government have so limited Ministers in what they can give away that they will be unable to achieve anything on behalf of the British interest in other matters. In the long term, and indeed quite possibly in the short term, that will lead to significant dangers for us.
In particular, amendment 13 is misguided because it applies to the whole of enhanced co-operation, which would mean that Britain would never be able to sign up to an existing area of enhanced co-operation or initiate a new area of enhanced co-operation. Enhanced co-operation is an entirely voluntary process, so I cannot see how it could possibly be in the British interest to put such a dramatic brake on the power of the British Government to enhance their co-operation in a particular area.
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman refers to an amendment that I hope to address shortly. Part of my argument will be that that financial mechanism is unlawful. It was entered into by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and endorsed by the coalition Government in circumstances that I shall describe. It is also still subject to scrutiny by the European Scrutiny Committee.
Chris Bryant
I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. However, I do not understand why it is okay to support Ireland without a referendum, but impossible to provide such support to another country without a referendum.
Stephen Gilbert
I am grateful for the old hon. Gentleman’s time and patience in giving way.
Is not a further problem that, in a time of crisis, quick action might be required, and a referendum lock could mean that the problem got a lot worse before action could be taken?
Chris Bryant
Indeed. Obviously, a referendum would also incur significant costs. The Government are trying to argue that holding the alternative vote referendum on any day other than 5 May this year would cost some £30 million. I presume that any referendum under the amendment would also cost some £30 million, and I think that that is inappropriate. The clause refers to “a common EU defence”, and although I do not want to hand over the setting up of a standing army to the European Union, I acknowledge that there is already a European army, because there are troops from member states acting in Kosovo—and they have done so in Bosnia—as well as Swiss troops under an EU banner. I am reluctant to say that a referendum would be needed on any aspect of a common defence policy, because that would be a mistake in our national security.
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of a referendum, but my amendment provides that a referendum would be held on the mechanism if the decision involved £5 billion or more. That is a vast amount, and that is why it should not go off to Spain or Portugal. I shall explain why if I get the chance to speak.
Chris Bryant
I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s arguments.
My final point is that my anxiety about the drafting of this Bill, and in particular this clause and its attendant schedule, is that it is a lawyers’ paradise. There will be constant judicial review of decisions made by Ministers. For instance, in the case of the agreement on the External Action Service, the eventual format would have been agreed by a Minister from any political party in this House, but it could well be subject to judicial review under the amendment. It is also true of many other elements of the clause, and it means that Ministers’ actions at meetings in Europe will constantly be subject to judicial review. Rather than increasing the power of Parliament, that will actually increase the power of the judges in this country, which I consider to be a very big mistake.
Mr David
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but is he aware that the European Scrutiny Committee, when considering the issue of judicial review, concluded that the clause, which has been projected by the Government as an apparent safeguard, was an illusory protection, because, in its view, a decision on a referendum would be a political decision and therefore not subject to judicial review?
Chris Bryant
Indeed, I have read the Committee’s report. I thought it was interesting, not least because the Committee includes significant Eurosceptics on both sides of the House. Much as I admire and respect—and almost adore—the Minister for Europe, I fear that the Bill is a complete and utter chimera. It does not do what it seeks to do, it will not do what many hon. Members on the Government Back Benches hope it will do, and in the end, it will damage the country’s interests.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow so many excellent speeches, including, obviously, those from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and especially—to be honest—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the style and structure, if not always the content, of whose speech were particularly impressive. It was absolutely first class—except in content.
I want to talk first about the general purpose of the Bill to remind us what we are trying to do, which is to restore the trust between the electors and any Government over their relationship with the European Union. It is really important to restate that, because we can get so confused about the detail, as I have noticed during today’s and yesterday’s debates. It is a matter of restoring trust. The second important thing about the Bill is that it is all about ensuring we have clear decisions that can, and should, be made by a referendum where appropriate.
We are arguing not so much about the useful lists in the Bill, but about some of the areas that might require more clarification. My key point is that the Bill addresses the transfer of power and competence: it is neither a retrospective measure on things we might not necessarily agree with nor an opportunity to tear up things already in place. We have to understand that and the Bill’s limitations. Of course, its value lies in the fact that it ensures that, from now on, we as a country will have a clear capacity to decide whether we want powers and competences transferred. We have to get that clearly understood during these discussions.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the Bill. It strikes me that a theoretical key test for the Bill—I would like him to apply his mind to this—is whether, had it been passed in 1996, the previous Labour Government would have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Had it been law, would it have guaranteed a referendum? I have the greatest doubt, given the composition of the Commons at the time.
Neil Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that helpful intervention, to which I will give an emphatic answer: yes, we would have had to have a referendum to ratify the treaty of Lisbon. That is the whole point of the Bill: to prevent such decisions—decisions such as the one by the previous Government not to have a referendum on such an important measure—from ever being made again. So the answer is yes, absolutely, and quite rightly so. The hon. Gentleman’s question is a good one—and my answer is good too.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way again. I participated in the debate on the Lisbon treaty and I voted for a referendum, but I had no doubt in my mind that whatever was in the three parties’ manifestos, there was a majority in this House against having one. That majority was so strong that it would have simply repealed a Bill such as this, and therefore it would not have applied.
Neil Carmichael
I really cannot imagine a Government repealing such a Bill—or Act, as it would be—in order to deny the country a referendum. That would be a recipe for attracting an incredible amount of unpopularity, because nobody would trust such a Government ever again. They would have to repeal such an Act in order not to consult the people, which is a highly improbable course of action—certainly by a Conservative Government and even, I would suggest, a Labour Government—so the hon. Gentleman should not worry about that. When this Bill is passed, it is likely to be in place for generations to come, because it will act as a powerful bulwark against the very machinations to which he has referred.
Mike Gapes
Does the hon. Gentleman believe in parliamentary democracy, or does he think that referendums should be the way we govern our country?
Neil Carmichael
Oh, I believe in parliamentary democracy. I made that clear when we discussed clause 18. I pointed out just how important it is to recognise that we are in the European Union because of an Act of Parliament. I stand by that, because I think it is vital. The Bill does not seek to undermine parliamentary power or parliamentary sovereignty, however we want to define it; it would simply ensure that we consulted the people over such major decisions as, for example, extending the European Union’s power over us.
Mike Gapes
If the hon. Gentleman believes in parliamentary democracy as strongly as he says he does, how on earth can he say that the Bill would act as a bulwark for generations to come? Surely a House of Commons of a different composition could and should have the right to repeal any Act with which it disagrees. The Bill would not act as a bulwark, because if the people elected a different Parliament, that Parliament should have the right to make such decisions, rather than have them made through an ephemeral referendum, held on one particular day, which is then apparently binding for generations.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I gently remind him that this is not a Second Reading debate about the entire Bill? We are discussing specific amendments to clause 6, to which I am sure he is about to return, as he said he would.
Neil Carmichael
You are absolutely right, Ms Primarolo. I have been taken down this track by others. I am very keen to answer any questions, because it is important that questions are answered—I would not want to be accused of ignoring them—so I am going to respond quickly to that one. I did not say that the Bill could not be repealed; I simply said that it would not be repealed, because no Government in their right mind would be keen to deny a referendum in that way.
The Bill will strengthen Britain’s negotiating position, because it will make sure—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Mr Carmichael, I would like you to refer to the amendments. You have been speaking for some time now, and you keep saying that you are coming to the amendments. I would now like you to talk about them and not the general principles of the Bill.
Neil Carmichael
Thank you very much, Ms Primarolo. The problem is that I keep on getting interrupted.
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with himself. If he supports amendment 13, he surely cannot support amendment 100, and vice versa. It is a matter of quid pro quo, or perhaps quid pro euro.
Neil Carmichael
I am sorry if I did not make myself clear enough: I do not support either amendment.
Chris Bryant
But amendment 100 removes some elements from the Bill, while amendment 13 includes some, so it must be either A or B.
Neil Carmichael
My position is that neither of them needs to be supported. I believe that the present situation is perfectly acceptable, and we need to concentrate on the question of power and competence.
The European financial stabilisation mechanisms are also very important. The critical point is that we are not in the euro, and that ECOFIN makes the decisions through the qualified majority voting procedure, so any attempt to make changes in that regard would not necessarily have the desired effect. We have no plans to join the euro. Amendment 8 would be necessary only if we decided to join it, which we certainly do not intend to do. I might add that this legislation will make it a necessity, for the first time, to have a referendum before we are able to join the euro. That is really useful.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend is talking about my amendment, but I am afraid that he really does not seem to understand what it says. I say that with great respect. It has nothing to do with the euro; it relates to a financial mechanism that was brought in by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9 May last year and endorsed by our own Government. I can assure him that the amendment has nothing to do with the euro, so he can relax.
Neil Carmichael
But it has got something to do with ECOFIN and with our interest in ensuring that the euro remains strong, because we must remember that 50% of our trade is with the euro area. That is not to say that we should join the euro; we should not. I am simply reflecting our economic position.
Chris Bryant
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point about ensuring that the euro is strong; otherwise, there could be enormous impacts on the UK economy, not least because we are, in many regards, the banker for the rest of Europe. However, I think he is wrong to say that clause 6 means that a future Government could not join the euro without holding a referendum. All that a future Government would have to do would be to pass an Act of Parliament saying that, notwithstanding the provisions in this Bill, we were none the less going to join the euro.
Neil Carmichael
I anticipated that point, which is why I made so much effort in response to the interventions by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). I just do not believe that any Government would repeal this legislation, because it would be suicidal to do so. I am therefore absolutely confident that the provisions in the Bill will be implemented, because no Government would ever decide to go against public opinion so flagrantly. That would be tantamount to postponing a general election for years and years. It would simply not be an acceptable step.
I come now to amendment 81, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). The first thing to say about the common fisheries policy is that it does not really work very well. We want to find ways to protect fish and fishermen, but the CFP is not an effective tool. Let me say a few words about it. The CFP was introduced to this country in the early ’80s after the 10-year moratorium agreed and negotiated under the original Act of Parliament that brought Britain into the European Union in the first place. It was the late Lord Walker who, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food negotiated it in the early 1980s. Our Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the day, pointed out, as I saw on a memorandum released under the 30-year rule, that “these are our fish” and so forth. There was a lively debate about how the CFP was constructed.
We cannot be retrospective about this issue, however. What we must do instead is make sure that an empowered British Government demand the reform of the CFP. Having a referendum on it now will not be effective. A ruthless approach to reforming the CFP so that it reflects the interests of Britain, the interests of fishermen and, indeed, the interests of fish is the most urgent and necessary requirement. I do not think that amendment 81 is particularly helpful, although I recognise and understand that all the amendments I have mentioned are in this grey area, where some clarification is required.
The Bill helps us in many ways; so, too, do the explanatory notes. We should rely on the list set out in schedule 1 and on the details of clause 6, as these provisions set out the substantive issues that we need to debate—and the British public will expect us to vote on them, as these are the areas that have been neglected in the past, as a result of which we have lost the trust of British people.
In summary, it is critical to remember that the Bill is about having referendums on the transfer of power and competence. It is not about tinkering with policy, which is the job of Ministers in the various Councils in the European Union. It is the job of this Parliament to secure and protect the capacity of the British people to be able to say no to a transfer of power from Britain to Europe. I believe that that is an acceptable position, and it is the right one for us to support. It is, I think, captured very well in the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Before we proceed, I want to say to Members that given the breadth of the debate on this group of amendments, I am not minded, under the Standing Orders, to take a clause stand part debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind when they make their contributions—although those who have already spoken do not appear to have done so.
Mike Gapes
Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I take it, then, that if I widen my remarks, I will remain in order—subject, of course, to the occupant of the Chair.
I begin by following up a comment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) when he said that the former Prime Minister had said, “They are our fish”. One thing about fish is that they do not stay in one place; they can move. If they do not move, they may be over-fished, and there may be a need to have some kind of collective policy to protect “our fish”. It is very easy to say that these are “our fish”, but the fish might swim away and not come back another day.
Mike Gapes
That is very true. The hon. Gentleman should therefore welcome the fact that I am a signatory to an early-day motion on this very issue, which was tabled recently by one of his colleagues.
Mr Redwood
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that signing an early-day motion never succeeds in doing what we wish. Does he have any better ideas for saving our fish? I am with him in wanting to do so.
Mike Gapes
We need a general approach that recognises that the planet’s resources are finite, so we need to try our best to conserve them. In saying that, however, I am sure that I am moving well away from a clause stand part debate or indeed from a debate on any of the amendments to clause 6.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is no longer in his place, tried to explain why the Liberal Democrats support the Bill and clause 6 in particular. I was struck by the fact that the real reason for that support was not explained. The real reason lies in the fact that a party that is allegedly pro-European—and whose Chief Secretary to the Treasury used to work for the European Movement—has become very European in the sense of taking on the Stockholm syndrome.
The Liberal Democrats have been captured by their partners to such an extent that they have signed up to making a gesture towards the Eurosceptics, giving the impression to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others who would rather have an in/out referendum—she said as much in response to an intervention—that the proposals before us are highly significant. I suspect that, in many respects, they are not significant, but if they were, and if many referendums were to be triggered in respect of the list of items set out in the Bill, and particularly those in the amendments in the group, the cost of having them would be enormous. I refer not just to the costs of running the referendums, but to the costs of the litigation and judicial reviews that would be incurred—as usual, it would be the lawyers, not the British people, who reaped the financial benefit out of the provisions. We would simply have to pay for the processes brought about by these measures being incorporated into the Bill.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I had an exchange about these issues on Second Reading. He seemed to agree that there are dangers in bringing about a large amount of litigation and in conferring extra powers on the courts, taking them away from our parliamentary democracy. What we face today is the potential for this to become a dog’s breakfast and a lawyers’ paradise.
Amendment 8, tabled by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, deals with the European financial stability mechanism. This would not only be costly; it would not be in this country’s national interest. As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, more than half our trade—I think it is 60%—is with our fellow EU member states. We therefore have a national interest in the success of the euro; we have a national interest in growth in the German, French, Danish, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese economies, for example; and we have a national interest in the prosperity of the European region.
It follows that measures will be required to stabilise the financial institutions in the EU, to stop the collapse of banks, to deal with a crisis such as we have seen in Greece, and to deal with the change in the Irish Government that is likely to happen in the next few weeks or perhaps to respond to the welcome return to government of a man who was a Finance Minister under the excellent Labour Government in Ireland, Ruairi Quinn. In light of that, it will be in our national interests to assist the stability and success of the other European economies. Amendment 8 should be opposed vigorously, because it is not in the interests of this country.
Mr Cash
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I tabled amendment 8. He has described the apparent tremendous advantages of the eurozone to us, and indeed the Government sometimes say much the same. The problem is that as a result of the failures of European economic governance and the failure to repatriate the regulations that are imposed, there is no growth in the EU as a whole. We are in the process of being enmeshed in an imploding European Union. So I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although the reasons for my amendment are not directly connected with that.
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman and I have been debating these issues for nearly 20 years. We have never agreed on matters relating to the European Union, and I do not think that we are going to do so now.
I do not believe that it will benefit our country if the European Union and the European economies implode, as the hon. Gentleman seems to wish them to do. Certainly there are problems in some—not all—European Union economies, and some, including the German economy, are growing quite rapidly. At the same time, the world’s economic centres are shifting, overwhelmingly to Asia but also to other parts of the world, and as a result we as Europeans will face a very difficult period in the coming years and decades. We need to think carefully about what will happen if the British economy is speculated against in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, and—given that the coalition Government are presiding over a return to recession—about what will happen to the long-term future of the economy if, as the hon. Gentleman wishes, the European economies fail and the European Union implodes.
Mr Redwood
I certainly do not want those economies to fail. However, if, according to the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, it is right to involve ourselves in economic governance and in mutual subsidies to protect our trade in physical goods with euroland, should we involve ourselves in the same way with the rest of the English-speaking world? Should we aim for stronger economic governance and more transfer of subsidies to protect our extremely important trade in services, most of which takes place outside Europe?
The Temporary Chairman (Martin Caton)
Order. I am advised that that question is not strictly relevant to clause 6, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech.
Mike Gapes
I was about to seek your advice, Mr Caton. I would love to become involved in a debate on the merits of European co-operation and a new Bretton Woods, and numerous other such issues, but I do not think that they are covered by clause 6.
The questions with which the Bill confronts us are “Is it necessary?”, “Does it do what it says on the tin?”, and “What will be the effects of it and, in particular, of the amendments and clause 6 if they become law?” In my opinion, either this is a recipe for litigation and a lawyers’ paradise, as others have said both on Second Reading and today, or it is irrelevant. Indeed, it may be both: it may be irrelevant in essence, but may none the less serve as a mechanism enabling people to opt for judicial reviews and litigation when referendums are not proposed on certain aspects of decisions made in the European Union and the Council of Ministers.
We are experiencing a difficult period in this country. Very few politicians have had the courage to stand up to the Murdoch press and the Eurosceptic media, and the capitulation of the Liberal Democrats over the last few months, as they have changed their previous approach to the one to which they have signed up in the coalition, further weakens the voice of pro-European people in the country.
Stephen Gilbert
I note the accusation of Stockholm syndrome, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is suffering from amnesia. The Liberal Democrat manifesto was clear: it said that there would be a referendum
“the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”
The coalition is committed to ensuring that that does not happen.
Mike Gapes
Perhaps when he makes his own speech the hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify whether the Liberal Democrats are still in favour of a “big bang referendum”, as was suggested on some occasions, whether—as happened with the Lisbon treaty—they will vote in three separate ways on any of the issues that arise from clause 6, and whether the Liberal Democrats in the other place will vote in line with their Front-Bench colleagues here or will also be split in three directions.
I believe that the measures before us are not necessary and should be rejected. I shall vote against clause 6 and the amendments concerning, in particular, the European financial stability mechanism, which I think would be positively damaging to the future of our country.
Mr Cash
Excellent amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), and perhaps by others whom I have omitted to mention. There are quite a few amendments here which deal with matters raised by the European Scrutiny Committee, and which relate in particular to gaps—as we described them in our report—in the control mechanisms of part 1. Those matters, which have been discussed quite extensively, involve extensions of European Union competence in criminal law and procedure and in family law, opt-in decisions, and enhanced co-operation in internal passerelles. The amendments deal comprehensively with those issues, and in doing so demonstrate their necessity.
The proposal relating to criminal procedure has been raised by the European Scrutiny Committee in the past. In particular, the Committee has raised the issue of serious crime with a cross-border dimension. Despite denials over the past decade or so that there would be any serious engagement in the field of criminal law, there has been an increasing encroachment on it. There are serious problems, which are often procedural. We should also consider the manner in which criminal justice is activated and operated in other member states. We do not want to assume that everything that we do is perfect; indeed, we have plenty of evidence that it is not. However, there are certain basic principles that go to the heart of the manner in which trial by jury operates and the manner in which people are arrested. I could continue at great length.
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech about a very important point. He has referred to the rationale behind the proposals from the European Union, and has cited serious crime with a cross-border dimension. Can he confirm that when jurisdiction is given to the European Union through an opt-in, it applies not just to cross-border crime but to all criminal law, and brings all the criminal law in this country within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and future proposals from the European Commission?
I do not wish to use the word “bogus” or the word “misleading”, but the European Union’s rationale is apt to mislead. The creation of a common European criminal justice system is profoundly significant.
Mr Cash
Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, played an important role in the preparation of its report. As I am sure he will speak in the debate, and given his expertise as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I shall restrict my own remarks, and leave it to him to deal with these questions in his own time and his own way.
I simply make the point that these are well-founded concerns, and I can think of no reason on earth why the Minister would not want to accept these amendments. Perhaps he will, but while the Government have had regard to what the European Scrutiny Committee has said in a report that has been universally welcomed—by both Front-Bench teams and by all those with the competence to understand these matters—they have tended to ignore that almost entirely in considering our recommendations. I shall return to that issue later, but not today.
I turn to the reasons that we gave in the European Scrutiny Committee report regarding questions of criminal law:
“To be consistent with the extension of shared competence under clause 4”—
we debated that yesterday—
“the application of both of these provisions”—
the two provisions and the amendments relating to criminal procedure and serious crime—
“should be premised on a referendum and Act of Parliament, as in clause 6; not an affirmative vote before the Government’s opt-in decision and an Act of Parliament before it agrees to the adoption of the legislation.”
The fact that the report states that ought to be put on the record. Our view is that family law
“is…of similar if not greater importance to social or environmental policy and ought to come within clause 6, triggering a referendum as well as an Act.”
We can see no reason for not doing all those things.
On opt-in decisions, I defer entirely to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. Our conclusion is that it
“would seem to us consistent with the aim of Part 1…for all opt-in decisions to be subject to formal Parliamentary approval.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham referred to fishing, and there she was in sensitive and deep waters. She explained very well the six-mile limit, the fisheries limit of up to 12 miles, the 2002 regulation and the associated issues, but that does not alter the fact that this is a serious problem for the fishermen of the United Kingdom. In considering the idea that there should be any restriction of our sovereignty and territorial limits in these matters, we should remember that the entire fisheries policy, which we shall not debate in detail today, I can assure you, Mr Caton, is a complete travesty. There is no question about it: it constitutes the most monumental waste of good fish, which are thrown away and literally left to rot. It is pathetic, and I need say no more than that. That we should regain a degree of sovereignty and territorial competence in relation to fishing is to my mind a given.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend has made a very powerful comment. Many of us have felt for many years that the fisheries policy was a scandal. Successive Governments have said that they would do something about it; none have yet succeeded. Does this not show why we are also worried about the surrender of criminal justice powers? We are surrendering them to the very people who have made such a mess of our fisheries.
Mr Cash
Absolutely, and the same problem permeates so much of what goes on in the European Union. I am anxious not to get into discussing the merits of the European Union as a whole, and I shall certainly ensure that I keep to the amendments; but I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I will come on in a moment to the financial stability mechanism, and try to demonstrate exactly how wrong I think the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is about the broad questions attached to it. I shall also deal with the mistaken remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) regarding the necessity for my amendments.
Mike Gapes
Just for the record, is it not a fact that the outgoing Chancellor would have consulted the then shadow Chancellor, who was about to become Chancellor, at that time? So rather than inadvertently giving the wrong impression, perhaps we should put it on the record that in that transition period it would have been necessary and proper for the previous Chancellor to be in discussion with his successor, so that there would be no ambiguity about what would happen.
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that important point, and I was immediately coming to it—I have in my hand the explanatory memorandum, to which I referred before he intervened, precisely for that purpose. It stands in the name of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. A scrutiny matter is still outstanding, so paragraph 26 comes under the heading of “Other observations” and states:
“The Government regrets that the Scrutiny Committees”—
those of the Commons and the Lords—
“did not have time to consider this document before it was agreed at Council.”
I can tell the House that that happened because we were in a caretaker period and the European Scrutiny Committee, as such, was not sitting in that interregnum. The memorandum continues:
“It should be noted that whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration, cross-party consensus had been gained.”
That is why I made the point that the responsibility lies with both this Government and the previous one.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I am following the discussion with great interest and some concern. As I understand it, we are talking about a decision that could have been taken, and was being taken, by a majority vote, and our outgoing Chancellor could not have stopped it anyway. Is that correct?
Mr Cash
People keep saying that, but let us examine the actual operation of the European financial stability mechanism. The final decision is taken under the regulations concerned—this is what happened in the context of Ireland—only after the request has been made by the member state. I do not know whether this is one of the reasons why the current Taoiseach—only for the time being, it appears—is in deep trouble, but that is possible. What I do know for certain is that the prescribed procedure laid down under the regulations made under article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union was infringed by the manner in which the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and others moved into Dublin before a request had been made. As we can recall, the Irish Government were saying that they had not made a request and that they did not need the money. It is also true to say that Mr Socrates is saying much the same at the moment.
Austin Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is being very patient with us and the serious explanation he is giving is well worth considering. I also understood that article 122 was intended to apply to a destabilisation of the euro because of some kind of natural disaster. The destabilisation that took place was caused by the inherent faults in the euro, so why has article 122 been extended to cover a destabilisation resulting from the cracks and failures of the euro itself, given that it should have applied only to natural disasters?
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in debates on the European question since we first met. I have the greatest respect for him and he has hit the nail right on the head here, because this problem does not just arise because of our exposure to what happens in Portugal and Spain in the future; it also arises from the lack of a sound legal base for the decision taken in the first place by the outgoing Chancellor and endorsed subsequently by the incoming Chancellor. We know that there was a consensus and that an agreement was reached—that answers the question put by the hon. Member for Ilford South. I would not be going about this if I did not believe that substantial matters of principle and of huge cost to the taxpayer are involved.
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely important point. I wish to emphasise that he is correct to say that there was a consensus between the outgoing Chancellor and the incoming Chancellor—proper discussions and consultation took place—but that was not the impression given to this House by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr Cash
I was not necessarily here when an impression was being given one way or the other. What I do know is that I have an accurate record of what did take place. I also have with me an article from Monday 10 May containing what are clearly accurate descriptions of the position of the then Chancellor—I believe he was just still the Chancellor then, because the coalition agreement had not been entered into. I recall writing to the Prime Minister on that day, suggesting, among other things, that he should go for a minority Government. I also said that if he was determined to go down the route of a coalition, he should require the Liberal Democrats to abstain on any matters relating to Europe that came up. That possibly explains some of my concerns as matters have developed and more and more European decisions, roadblocks and other difficulties in respect of the decisions we took in our manifesto have emerged.
Austin Mitchell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very patient. I normally agree with his views, even though I usually express them in rather shorter compass. He still has not answered my question, however, about whether what was agreed at the meeting was a distortion of the original purpose of the machinery, which was intended for coping with natural disasters and should never have been extended to destabilisation and problems caused by the euro.
Mr Cash
Absolutely, and I shall elaborate on that very quickly. Article 122 concerns matters of emergency and natural disasters, and its use for the purposes of financial stability is clearly—as the European Scrutiny Committee has said—not based on a sound legal footing. That is the issue. I had made that point, but I am happy to repeat it. However, it goes further: because of the failure of the legal base, the whole deal is vitiated. That is the problem. The deal was done in an interregnum and by consensus between the two Chancellors, but it ends up being vitiated as a matter of law. That is very serious given that the whole deal is for €60 billion—£52 billion—but according to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the United Kingdom is exposed to a risk of £8 billion.
Mr Redwood
Although we must ask the former Chancellor and the Chancellor to speak for themselves, as I understand it the former Chancellor quite properly consulted the then shadow Chancellor, who said, “You are the Chancellor”—he could not be sure at that point that he was about to become the Chancellor, because there was no coalition agreement—“and it is for you to make the decision.” It is also fair to say that I do not think that the present Chancellor objected to the proposal or sought to block it. I think he felt that it was not his decision to make. It was not a co-decision; it was a decision by the former Chancellor, which the present Chancellor knew about.
Mr Cash
It was indeed. Furthermore, this is not just a bit of esoteric dancing on the head of a pin. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has examined the matter and I happened to be watching its proceedings when there was a discussion involving Professor Hennessey and two other eminent professors, Professor Hazell and Professor McLean. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) asked a perceptive question about the status of the arrangement in the context of the Cabinet manual, which, as we know, is now out in the open and being discussed by that Committee in relation to caretaker Governments. The conclusion was that it was within the province of the incoming Chancellor to enter into such a bilateral arrangement in that context, in which he made his decision based on the information he was given by the outgoing Chancellor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is right. The problem is that, if that was unlawful, there was no basis on which either of them should have come to that conclusion.
Mr Redwood
As I understand it, the current Chancellor refused to make a decision. It was not a co-decision. He did not object or support it, but said that it was for the outgoing Chancellor to make the decision. Of course, in practice, if he had not agreed he would have unscrambled it when he got into office, because he had the majority and the outgoing Chancellor did not.
Mr Cash
I am very happy for that matter to be looked into further. My right hon. Friend might well be right, but I have an article that quotes the outgoing Chancellor of the Exchequer on the BBC’s “Today” programme, saying:
“Overall it is a very good deal for all of us in Europe but also for the wider world. It is”—
something for us “together”. He also said:
“Our exposure for the additional amount of money could be £8 billion”.
The article also states that he
“confirmed he had spoken to Shadow Chancellor George Osborne and Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable about…responsibility for it”
and goes on to state:
“All three had agreed ‘there was no way Britain was going to underwrite the euro’.”
When he was pressed, he said:
“I am not going to disclose the conversations we had, because we had them on the basis that they were private and confidential.”
The article goes on:
“A statement issued after the talks confirmed that the new fund placed the potential risk squarely with the eurozone.”
That worries me. I do not know where that came from, because it most emphatically is not the case, as we are not part of the eurozone.
I hope that the Select Committee on the Treasury will look to considering all that. We are talking about substantial sums of money, about an interregnum period and about a rather unusual situation. We might be talking about errors of judgment involving considerable exposure for the taxpayer. For all those reasons, it is very important that we get to the bottom of this. We do not need to turn it into a witch hunt—I do not believe in those sort of things—but as regards scrutiny and accountability, this is an important matter that needs to be resolved properly and efficiently.
Proper answers need to be given, the Treasury needs to put forward the arguments that it presented and it should disclose the papers. We know perfectly well that, in the kerfuffle of 9 May and the days leading up to it, the then Chancellor might understandably have had a lot on his mind. In the circumstances, all sorts of things could have gone wrong. That is the moment, as I see it, when important strategic decisions involving enormous amounts of money and affecting the taxpayer on what I would term an unlawful basis—a basis that certainly is not legally sound—need to be considered very carefully.
It might not surprise some hon. Members that I tabled amendment 8. In all such circumstances, other than the situation vis-à-vis the Republic of Ireland, attention should be drawn to these matters, but under no circumstances whatsoever should we give money to Portugal or Spain when there is a facility, agreed at around the same time, for €400 billion to be available for the eurozone. Now a new arrangement has emerged which will be made available permanently after March 2013. If Portugal and Spain are going to go under, however, they will definitely go under before March 2013.
Mr Redwood
On the important point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), is it not the case—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) would know—that the German Government are so worried about the legality of what was done under article 122 that they think we need a new treaty to cover that point?
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have here an incredibly interesting article from this week’s edition of Newsweek. It is headlined, “To Rule the Euro Zone”. Hon. Members will know that I have tried to take a mild interest in European matters since I came to the House—I notice that one or two people are quite surprised—and I do so for good reasons. Indeed, in the first book I wrote on the subject, “Against a Federal Europe”, I drew attention to what I then perceived to be a significant danger that Germany would take a disproportionate and predominant role in European affairs, for which I received a great deal of censorship and some abuse. It was suggested that I was talking about the Germans in rather disrespectful terms, which was quite untrue. However, the sub-heading to an extremely interesting article by Stefan Theil, dated 23 January 2011, reads:
“The unified currency was supposed to limit German power. Now the Germans are in charge—and no one is happy, not even the Germans.”
The article merits careful reading.
Mr Clappison
I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. In his analysis, if the events that he predicts were actually to occur, how would they be covered by the Bill as it stands, without the benefit of his amendment, or would they not?
Mr Cash
The short answer is not at all—that is the problem. That is why I tabled the amendment. I am very sad that more people do not have the opportunity to listen to this, because we are talking about a grand total of £8 billion of British money, which is a vast amount given the austerity that is expected of people. After the Irish bail-out payment has been excluded from the same zone, there is also the completely unwarrantable notion to which the decision commits us, unless it is unlawful and is challenged. I invite the Government to challenge it in the European Court—that is the route they should be adopting. That is what I have recommended to the Chancellor. I said, “You must vote against this and challenge the legality of it.” Whether or not he entered into some understanding at the time is a matter to be unravelled, but what is certain, to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), is that the decision does not come within the framework of article 122—and the European Scrutiny Committee believes the same.
Austin Mitchell
I am puzzled, because the hon. Gentleman is attaching his faith to the €400 billion fund, which would mean that the new arrangement, which was agreed by the then Chancellor and the European Council on 9 May, would not be necessary. That is a puny fund compared with the scale of the problems. If Portugal goes and Spain follows, all that fund will be absorbed and will be necessary, and we will have to fall back on the provisions of article 122. The Irish loan has been portrayed by the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor as a one-off loan between friends and business partners, but it must have been paid under the article 122 arrangement, so we have already sold the pass.
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman is not wrong to say that the situation has already taken place for Ireland, but that must be seen in light of what has yet to be established—whether or not it was lawful. More investigation is needed on whether that payment would ultimately be ultra vires, or beyond the law, and therefore reclaimable. I do not want to go too far down that route other than to say it needs to be looked into. Furthermore, the financial stability mechanism has not yet passed the scrutiny of the European Committee that is meeting on 1 February, so it is still subject to a decision of the House, although some might argue that the Rubicon has already been crossed.
Austin Mitchell
This is an important amendment for which I shall certainly vote, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman pushes it to a Division so that I have that opportunity. The legality of the decision and the use of article 122 in this way—for a purpose for which it was not intended—is subject to a decision by the European Court, which is a federal institution and always rules in favour of the federal side of the argument. So, I am afraid that his hope that the decision will be ruled illegal will not prevail.
Mr Cash
That is a general proposition with which one might agree in many instances, but analysis of the use of article 122 in this case, if it is examined as carefully as it should be, would give rise to so many uncertainties that the Court would have grave difficulty in trying to justify its use. However, that is looking to the future.
Mr Clappison
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who made an important contribution. Having had the opportunity to hear the argument that fleshed out the bare bones of the amendment, I believe it requires a detailed response from the Government when the time comes.
My hon. Friend’s amendment is a good illustration of a point that has been apparent throughout the consideration of the Bill. Although the Bill is worth while, covers events that may or may not arise in the future, and is a great step forward, we must not lose sight of the things that could take place in the meantime which would amount to a transfer of power from this country and this Chamber to the European Union, undermining our self-government.
The example that my hon. Friend gave the Committee this evening is a good example of that because, as I understand it, it does not involve a transfer of competence. The competences of the European Union, as we know, are very wide already. There is a long list of them in the treaty of Lisbon. My hon. Friend referred particularly to article 122, which is in the treaty of Lisbon. It is an example of an important decision which has an effect on the exercise of power in this country and on our economic policy, and which takes place under the existing treaty.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe sums up, he will explain how the eventuality that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described would be covered by the Bill, and what his view is on article 122, which seems to be another example of the way in which the competences of the European Union and the existing provisions can be stretched considerably to encompass decisions and policies that seem to be very far from the original intention of the clause on initial reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) made some important points in her amendment 81 about nautical policy.
I shall speak to my amendment 13, before turning to amendments 36, 37 and 38 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which cover some of the ground I hope to cover in another group of amendments on the same subject, but on a different clause. He for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that amendment 13 was misguided. He is no longer in his place, so I do not want to say too much about him, but I do not think he had entirely grasped what I was trying to achieve with my amendment.
I had not planned to press amendment 13 to a Division, but I would like to hear the Government’s response to it, particularly on this point: my amendment seeks to deal with enhanced co-operation which, as was suggested earlier, is an important step indicating that member states engaging in enhanced co-operation are moving on to a higher level of integration than other member states of the European Union, are adopting qualified majority voting in place of unanimity, and are going ahead of the other states. I should have thought that that was something that we wanted to cover by way of an Act of Parliament and a referendum, if there was a proper list of events that should be covered.
Would all examples of enhanced co-operation that could take place within the terms of the treaty of Lisbon be covered by the Bill? I know that some of them are, but can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that if there is a move to enhanced co-operation, it will be covered by the provisions of the clause? I hope he will deal with that later.
Amendments 36, 37 and 38 are extremely important. I respect the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke to them. I am in full sympathy with the points that he made and with what he is trying to achieve. He has taken three examples from the chapter on freedom, security and justice under title V of the treaty of Lisbon. As he knows, there is a whole chapter that contains similar provisions from which other important elements could be taken. To be fair to my hon. Friend, he has been diligent and chosen three important examples, but there are other equally important examples in a long chapter on freedom, security and justice in the treaty of Lisbon.
My hon. Friend made the case for his amendments, and I have no problem with that. He has selected items from the field of family law, minimum rules of criminal procedure to which new directives may relate, and identification of further areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate. Inserting these in clause 6 would require them to be approved by a referendum and an Act of Parliament.
I am interested in the whole field of freedom, security and justice, which used to be called the justice and home affairs pillar, and all the matters contained within that, from which, as hon. Members know, this country currently enjoys an opt-out. I hope that the case I am trying to make will be without prejudice to the later arguments I hope to make on a different clause that these items be dealt with by way of a vote in the House each time an opt-in takes place. In this clause we are debating whether in each case they should be subject to an Act of Parliament and a referendum. Some of the matters covered are so serious that that would be justified.
It is worth while looking at the history of the provisions. We have had reference to the single market. At the time of the single market, these matters were dealt with by informal meetings of Home Affairs Ministers of member states. Things were put on a more formal footing by the treaty of Maastricht, under which these matters were included in what was called the third pillar, in order to keep them separate from the other provisions of the treaty of Maastricht, which dealt with the single market on a quite different basis.
Under the treaty of Amsterdam, which was passed in 1997, three or four years after the treaty of Maastricht, that pillar began to be dismantled, and the European Union moved these matters from the third pillar to the first pillar, where they were subject to a separate regime, a different system of voting and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That was a very significant step indeed. It continued until the pillar collapsed as a result of the treaty of Lisbon, under which the area of justice and home affairs was renamed freedom, security and justice.
The important point for the House and the United Kingdom is that we enjoy an opt-out from the freedom, security and justice provisions, as we have always done. That was important to this country. The then Labour Government argued at the time that the constitutional treaty differed from the treaty of Lisbon. Because we enjoy the benefit of the opt-out, we have to take a decision whether to opt in when particular measures arise. It is rather different from what happens when directives or other legislative proposals relating to other part of the treaties come before Ministers because we have an opt-out, which means that we do not need to vote, take part or do anything. We enjoy that opt-out unless we choose to opt in.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I just want to clarify the practicality of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. He mentioned minimum judicial procedural rights as one of the home affairs subjects that relate to this. We opted in to that because it is important, for instance, for British citizens arrested abroad to be protected. Is he seriously suggesting that if that issue came up in future he would want it to trigger a referendum, even though it is within the existing competence that we have already conceded to the European level of government?
Mr Clappison
The hon. Gentleman is furrowing his brow, so perhaps I can help him. We have heard it argued so many times that because a measure has merit we should opt in to it, whether it relates to victims, tackling crime, or this, that and the other. He must come clean and see it, as I have been arguing, as all of a piece, because it is part of a programme of the European Union. It is set out in the treaty of Lisbon as one of the objectives of the EU, and the European Commission is forever coming forward with proposals. It has a whole programme for creating what it describes as an EU area of freedom, security and justice. On the example of judicial procedural rights, the issue is where we determine which judicial procedures should apply in what country. Do we decide that our judicial and criminal procedures should be determined here in this House, or do we hand it to the EU so that it is decided on qualified majority voting and subject to the European Court of Justice?
We have heard those arguments many times. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that this is part of a programme from the EU, and it was set out in the EU’s 2011 work programme as one of its five main political priorities. President Barroso set that out in his state of the Union address to the European Parliament on 7 Sept 2010. The third main priority, after dealing with economic matters, was building an area of freedom, security and justice. We must take it as a whole, rather than picking compartmentalised issues one by one and looking at them judiciously because doing so might make an improvement here or there. It is part of an overall programme for building a European area of freedom, security and justice.
Martin Horwood
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a point of principle and that what he has described adds up to a general direction of travel that he is legitimately concerned about. However, I would ask him to consider the practicality of it. If we have an uncontentious and pretty technical issue that is relatively minor in the great scheme of things and that no one particularly objects to it, such as the minimum judicial procedural rights that are intended to protect British citizens abroad, would he really want that to trigger a referendum or, as is more likely because of the fear of a referendum being lost, for it simply not to happen?
Mr Clappison
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is again quite wrong. None of the items being put forward by the EU are being put forward because they are minor, technical changes that will make little difference; they are being put forward precisely because the EU believes they will make a difference and will help to build a European area of freedom, security and justice.
So much of this is bogus. Much has been said about what will happen in different countries and about the cross-border dimension, but the decisions will affect every single criminal and civil case that takes place in this country in so far as we have adopted the European directive in question. The EU is trying to introduce its jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in this country into the whole of our legal system on the basis of what might happen in cross-border cases. I think that individual members states should decide on their criminal and civil legal systems for themselves, as that is a characteristic of a member state and part of its nature. If the hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in what takes place in other member states, he could start by relying on the fact that we are all signatories to the European convention on human rights, as are a number of other countries.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. My point is not really about the point of principle that he is labouring. He should imagine a hypothetical situation that would apply in this case, in which a matter is important but not massively so in the great scheme of European government and the whole European project and is something that everyone agrees should happen and that is uncontentious. In such a situation in which even he supported the practical step, would he really want to put the UK to the vast expense of a referendum on something that everyone supported?
Mr Clappison
It is difficult in the field of civil and criminal procedure to disconnect one step from another. The European Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction will be opened up, can always come along and make a decision that goes far beyond what was originally envisaged. We must look at the whole system of civil and criminal justice, including whether decisions are taken in this House, or whether we abnegate self-government and hand those decisions over to the EU.
The hon. Gentleman can make his case, but I am concerned about the scrutiny and decision making that take place each time we take one of these decisions. He referred to technical matters, but in the course of this short Parliament we have already had two very important directives in the field of freedom, security and justice: the European investigation order and the draft directive on the right to information. I do not know whether he or his colleagues took part in the debate we had in the European Committee, but it was accepted on both sides—it was put forward by the Secretary of State for Justice—that it was an important step in itself. I am not sure what his party’s participation in that was, but that was the basis of the decision. That process took place under the existing scrutiny of this House.
The European Commission has an ambitious programme for the year ahead, and the Minister has conceded that there are 30 or 40 more such measures coming along from the EU. In Mr Barroso’s work programme, “Pursuing the citizens’ agenda: freedom, security and justice”, the first three items listed are: a legal instrument on European contract law; a regulation on improving efficiency and enforcements on judgments in the European Union; and a directive on the rights of and support for victims of crime. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think any of those could be described as minor or technical.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend is not only an expert on this matter, but knows what he is talking about. The reality is that every time one of those decisions is taken—I say this with great respect to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), when he starts talking about comparative advantage—it relates to people and justice. It is about whether they get a fair trial and matters of that kind, which are matters that his constituents would be concerned about. It is terribly important to remember that one paragraph of one of these directives, or even one line, is equivalent to an entire Act of Parliament that we might spend the best part of six months discussing in both Houses. Does my hon. Friend agree that under the proposals such matters will just go whistling through?
Mr Clappison
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), whose opinions differ from mine, has made his case very honourably, and it is one that might attract many people outside this House. I have to ask whether he is happy with the ways in which those matters are currently dealt with before this House. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone seeks to make those matters subject to an Act of Parliament and a referendum. My own humble amendment, which we will come to later—I hope that this debate will not prejudice its consideration—would make matters within the area of freedom, security and justice subject to approval by a vote of this House, which I hope is not too radical a step to propose.
On any view of it, these are matters that will come before the House, whether as my hon. Friend describes, or, as I shall try to argue later, as a minimum, in the way I am seeking. The hon. Gentleman must look at the system that we have in place for scrutiny of these matters as they come before the House. When they come before the House, as in the case of the investigation order and the right to information order, which we have already had, it is very hard for the House to express its view on those important issues.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has brought forward some proposals and made a statement last week on how to improve scrutiny of opt-ins to the area of freedom, justice and security. If I may pay my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Foreign Secretary a compliment, I should say that they have made a real step forward with their proposals, but we need to find out just how far that step forward is going to go.
The following questions are relevant to amendments 36, 37 and 38, because they cover the same area. In each case, when the opt-in to certain European areas such as freedom and security is exercised, a decision will be taken whether the United Kingdom is going to opt into specific measures that the European Union has brought forward. There have been half a dozen already, and there are another 30 or 40 down the track, but, under my right hon. Friend the Minister’s scrutiny proposals, will the House have an opportunity to vote on each occasion? That is very important.
How will the scrutiny override proposals work? I hope the hon. Member for Cheltenham agrees on this point, because he would want to make his case about what a good idea such measures were, and what benefits they would bring. I should want to make my case that such measures should be decided in the House, but we could each make our case and have a vote in the traditional way. I should hope that that was not too dramatic a step for any hon. Member.
I am concerned about what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about scrutiny override in his statement. That is one aspect on which we could improve, because he said:
“As currently, the Government will not override the scrutiny process unless an earlier opt-in decision is essential. Where the Government consider an early opt-in to be necessary, it will explain its reasons to Parliament through the statement set out above. In these circumstances, it would usually be appropriate for the statement to be made orally.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]
I am not sure that we should put the administrative matters that lie behind the decision, the timetable of the European Union and whatever interminable administrative processes have to be gone through in the Foreign Office before the House’s approval. It really does not put us in a very good place—behind what are termed “essential” decisions. The House should have an opportunity to express its view on the decision first, so I invite my right hon. Friend to go away and think about that. It is all very well having a statement after a decision has been taken, but the House would like the opportunity to express its view through a vote before such a decision is taken.
I have taken part in European Scrutiny Committee debates, and decisions have been taken, the Government have agreed to legislative measures and then we have had the debate in a European Committee. We do not have any opportunity to inform the Minister’s thinking or to debate the matter before the decision is taken, let alone to take a vote on it. Under the current procedures of the House, we cannot do so; it is very difficult to have a substantive vote on security matters. The most that the European Scrutiny Committee can do is to hold a matter in reserve until it has been debated in a European Committee, but neither those nor debates on the Floor of the House provide for a vote to approve or disapprove of particular legislation.
Mr Clappison
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very reasonable on these matters.
Martin Horwood
I return the compliment. The hon. Gentleman is spending a lot of time talking about the existing scrutiny process in this place and the importance of having a substantive vote. There is a real debate to be had about that, and I am certainly in favour of proper parliamentary scrutiny, but as I read the substance of his amendments I find that their potential impact is to trigger a referendum. That is of a wholly different order of cost and complexity, and it is likely to discourage the very act that we are discussing. In fact, his proposals would probably stop any measure coming before the House for a vote at all, because it would be deemed impractical to go through a referendum.
Mr Clappison
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who made an extremely good case, will have heard what he said and decide whether to press his amendment to a vote. I take it from what the hon. Gentleman says about proper parliamentary scrutiny that that would include approval for a vote in the case of opt-in, however, because it is no use having just scrutiny, talk and the expression of opinions; we need to have a vote each time an opt-in takes place. I am open to correction from him through another intervention, but I take great heart from what I think he says about regarding a vote on an opt-in as a part of scrutiny, because there is not much point in scrutiny unless we can vote. I think that he agrees, so that is a great step forward. He made some very good points—fair points—about referendums, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on those matters, because they are important decisions.
Austin Mitchell
I rise to speak for two reasons. First, I do not want all the speeches from Opposition Members to be an unremitting chorus of euro-enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I are stalwart opponents, and I do not want the chorus from the Opposition Benches to be like the slaves chorus from “Nabucco”, singing the praises of the instrument of our own punishment—the European Union. Secondly, I support some of the amendments—81, 8 and 79 in particular.
I am very supportive of amendment 81, which was tabled by Members representing two glorious ports—I did not know they were fishing ports—in Essex, because it involves an important principle. There are constant attempts to remove our national limits, which were agreed when we entered the common fisheries policy in 1972. A few months before we began our entry negotiations, the policy was stitched together to get European hands on our fish, but we managed to preserve some national limits: the 6 nautical miles around most of the English coast, and the 12 nautical miles around north Britain and Scotland. We police the waters up to the median line, or 50 miles.
When I went out on a fisheries protection vessel, I was distressed to find that when the crew detected European vessels over-fishing, they did not have the right of hot pursuit, so all the European vessel had to do was to beetle across the median line and it was safe. My suggestion that the protection vessel should shell and sink the European vessel was taken as an unfriendly act towards Europe and, for some reason, discounted, but it is important to preserve our waters.
My concern arises from the recent Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall programmes, which provided a very good service by highlighting the problem of discards. They are inherent among fish allocated by catch quotas. Indeed, if one allocates fish by catch quotas in mixed fisheries, one is always going to get discards. The discards increase as the quotas go down, because fishermen are bound to catch fish that are not in their current quota.
Indeed, I wrote to Fearnley-Whittingstall, suggesting that it would be a brilliant idea to establish a very expensive restaurant on a cruise ship that went round picking up Grimsby fishing vessel discards and cooking them for an exclusive clientele at enormously high prices. He does not seem to have implemented it yet, but it is a viable idea. It is very difficult to stop discards when there is equal access to a common resource, but that is the basis of the common fisheries policy to which Ted Heath unfortunately agreed in 1972 as the price of entry into the EU. He was so desperate to go in that he accepted that condition.
We certainly have to work to control our waters, as amendment 82 suggests, and to stop or reduce discards. There are various ways to do that. I am hoping that Fearnley-Whittingstall will come along to the all-party parliamentary fisheries group to tell us his ideas. I will not tell the Committee mine, because I would go off the subject.
Kelvin Hopkins
As my hon. Friend knows, I agree entirely with everything he is saying. Does he agree that we could operate British waters in the way that Norway operates its waters? It controls its own fishing grounds, every fishing boat is monitored, there are no discards and there is no over-fishing. It protects its fish in a proper way. That can be done only if countries husband their own resources in their own fisheries. That is the only way forward.
Austin Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as usual. The key is the ability of a nation to control its own waters up to the 200-nautical-mile limit, which it would have been sensible to retain, and which we could have retained had we negotiated harder in 1972, but we did not. Only a nation can conserve its own national resource—what is handed on to the next generations of fishermen. The Heath Government made a tragic decision from the point of view of the fishing industry. I want to reverse that, and we should work to do so. I still want to pull out of the common fisheries policy. Perhaps it would require a few gunboats around the coast to establish that.
Martin Horwood
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but does he not fear that if we returned fisheries entirely to national competence, not every nation would be quite as observant of their own rules as the Norwegians, and there might be a free-for-all that would fatally damage the British fishing industry?
Austin Mitchell
That, of course, is nonsense, because nations that have taken control of their own waters and their own 200-nautical-mile limit, such as Iceland, have operated very good and effective conservation policies. It is only nations that have to admit other nations into their waters, under force of European law, that cannot do that.
Kelvin Hopkins
I support my hon. Friend, yet again. Clearly, it is simple to monitor what is landed in one’s own country, but impossible to monitor what is landed in another country. If we had our own fishing waters with our own fishing vessels—
Kelvin Hopkins
Spanish fleets would not fish in our waters, because the idea is that countries would fish in their own waters. I cannot see the problem and I agree with my hon. Friend.
Austin Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Liberal Democrats are slavish in their idealism of Europe at any price, and will abdicate any British interest to express their devotion to the nefarious construction called the European Union.
Austin Mitchell
If the hon. Gentleman wants to express more devotion to the farce of the European Union, he is welcome to do so.
Martin Horwood
I am just intrigued about precisely what method the hon. Gentleman would use to defend our waters. The Icelanders use gunboats. Is he advocating gunboat diplomacy from the Labour Benches?
Austin Mitchell
Frankly, yes. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not so distrustful of our European partners and friends that he believes that if we took legal control of our waters, they would come in and try to steal our fish. Is that his estimation of their character? Is he telling us that there are nations of thieves that would come in and steal our fish if we took our own waters, as is our right? Is that what he is saying? Apparently not.
Amendment 81 expresses an important principle that we need to express and defend constantly. The amendment is a way of defending that principle, so I shall certainly vote for it if it is put to the vote.
I shall move on to amendments 8 and 79. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in drawing the attention of the Committee to this situation, because it is extremely dangerous from a British point of view. He said essentially that we will be liable, under article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, for difficulties produced by the failure of the euro, and that we will have to make a contribution. That will be decided on by qualified majority voting. If correct, that is an appalling situation. It is important for the Government to tell us tonight whether it is correct.
In my view, one of the greatest achievements of the previous Prime Minister was that he kept us out of the euro when he was Chancellor, against the overwhelming enthusiasm of the then Prime Minister, who saw joining the euro as a romantic gesture of support for Europe—almost an emotional spasm of support for Europe—against the wishes of the majority of the Cabinet, and against the pressure of the Liberal party, which has always been slavishly devoted to any European instrument, however damaging the consequences.
Austin Mitchell
During the debate on the exchange rate mechanism, I remember the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) leading a huge Liberal crowd up and down Whitehall chanting, “Move to the narrower bands now! Move to the narrower bands now!” That was the Liberal party’s contribution to that great debate. It is slavishly attached to European gestures such as the euro, as was our former Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister, when Chancellor, kept us out. That was a great achievement. He kept us out and warned that the regime was unstable.
There cannot be a common currency without a common Government to back it and redistribute money to the regions that are damaged by the common currency and the higher interest rates imposed by it. The basic problem is that the euro cannot work, because it brings together regimes under one currency that vary enormously in their productivity and power. The southern economies are not only weaker, but insolvent to boot and certainly uncompetitive. Those uncompetitive economies cannot be united in a currency with the powerful German economy, which is extremely competitive. Inflation is kept very low in Germany by investment, the restructuring of the economy and the agreement with the unions to keep wages down. It is impossible for economies such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland to remain competitive in that situation. To be competitive, they face a constant diet of cuts and attempts to get their inflation rates down to the German level. That is difficult and it has to go on for years. By joining the euro, those countries effectively said that they would deflate their economies, punish their people and face riots in the streets for 20 or 30 years in a desperate attempt—which will not work—to get their levels of competitiveness down to the same as Germany’s. That situation does not work.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend again. It is interesting that there has been friction recently between France and Germany because France wants to integrate the whole European economy more deeply and Germany is holding back. Germany can see that it will constantly have to shell out euros—or disguised Deutschmarks—to help the poorer countries in Europe, and it does not want to do that because it would become the paymaster of the whole of the European Union in perpetuity.
Austin Mitchell
That is true. Under the old system, the inflation rates in France and Italy were higher than that in Germany, so they were constantly getting out of kilter and becoming uncompetitive. They constantly resorted to devaluing, which brought them back to a competitive level because it reduced their costs of production in terms of foreign currencies. There is a history of France and Italy devaluing. They cannot do that when they are in the euro.
Mr Cash
Would the hon. Gentleman be interested to know that the Library has given me some figures showing that our balance of payments deficit with Germany was £12 billion in 2009? Heaven alone knows what it is now. Between 1999 and 2009 there was a deficit of £5 billion between the other 26 EU member states and ourselves, but we have a surplus of £11 billion with the rest of the world. His point is extremely sound—the EU is just not working.
Austin Mitchell
I am grateful for that point, which is absolutely true. We are earning a surplus in the rest of the world, which then goes as a tribute to finance our deficit in Europe. Before we entered the Common Market in 1972, we had a surplus in our trade with Europe. It then became a deficit, which has become ever heavier as the years have gone on because of our economy’s uncompetitive nature compared with the German economy. All the other weaker European economies face the same problem, and there is no way for them to get around it without facing a diet of cuts, freezes and squeezes for decades, and having to depress the living standards of their own people to keep costs down. That strain is built into the system, which Germany dominates and swamps because of its competitiveness and low inflation. Good luck to it—it has worked for that and run its economy in a very sensible fashion, but a common currency cannot be maintained in that situation. There will therefore be crises.
Those inevitable crises have, under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, now been portrayed as the results of a natural disaster. That means that we, who have wisely stayed out of the scheme and warned of the consequences of going ahead with that insane regime, must also contribute to cost of clearing up the mess that is implicit in the system. That is a monstrous imposition.
I take it that at his last Council of Ministers meeting on 9 May, our previous Chancellor was conned. He was told that article 122 would apply under qualified majority voting, so it was no use his opposing it because we would be bound by it in any case. That was just not true, because if it applies to mutual support in the event of natural disasters, it cannot apply to faults inherent in the structure of the euro itself. That is not a natural disaster; it is a folly of man.
Mr Cash
I add a point that I really ought to have made in my own contribution. When the European Council arrived at the new mechanism that it has just set up, which the Prime Minister announced the other day, it used the most extraordinary language. It used the expression that there was “no need” for the continuation of the mechanism that was set up last May. It is not anything to do with need, however; it is about the fact that they know perfectly well that it was unlawful.
Austin Mitchell
Absolutely right. We need to be intellectually devious in trying to read through European documents, because they are extremely cunningly written and always cover up the reality very well. The same is true of Government statements on matters European. The Government do not want the full horror to emerge, so statements are rewritten to make them safe, saleable and acceptable. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is correct, and he has done the Committee a great service today in warning us of the situation and pointing out the consequences if it is prolonged. I believe that the arrangement extends to March 2013, or is it May?
Austin Mitchell
Right, and then it will lapse. Until then, we could be liable for enormous sums. Imagine what the British electorate would say. We have already extended a massive loan to Ireland, even though the Chancellor tells us that our country is over-borrowed and cannot borrow any more because world markets will cancel our credit cards and stop our credit on the bond markets. Suddenly, however, he can borrow huge sums—billions—to help Ireland. He says that it is a one-off and not a precedent, but if it is carried out under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, it is a precedent for acceptance of a mechanism that is designed to deal with natural disasters.
The hon. Member for Stone hoped that the mechanism would be ruled illegal by the European Court, but I have given up faith in the European Court. It never rules how I want it to rule, whereas our courts do sometimes. It is probably composed of Liberal Democrat jurists, for all I know. It certainly gives that appearance.
Kelvin Hopkins
Again, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The ECJ has shown itself to be a political organ, not a legal one, by taking the side of employers in the Viking Line dispute and other cases. It is a court of the business class and of big business, not a court for ordinary people.
Austin Mitchell
That is true. It gives any verdict one wants, provided that it supports and advances the EU. That is the nature of the European Court, so should we ask that body to rule on the legality of treating article 122 as an all-purpose rescue operation to which we have to contribute?
The Minister smiles—indulgently, I hope. I hope that he will explain the Government’s view on the matter, because to my mind it is crucial that amendments 8 and 79 are accepted. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Stone will force a vote, because they are key amendments. We need to be sure that the British electorate will not be faced with a series of massive loans, such as the Irish loan, to support Portugal, for instance, or Spain if things go belly-up there. That is quite possible, and the costs there would be huge because Spain has a much bigger population than Ireland, Greece or Portugal. Why should an electorate who are facing a blitzkrieg of massive cuts and tax increases welcome with joy a decision to fork out more billions to help people whom we warned that they were entering into a disastrous situation by taking on the euro? That would be totally unacceptable, and the Government would be laughed out of court.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people from the UK are very generous people, and that they always like to help, but they do not have bottomless pockets and cannot keep on bailing out every country in the EU. Does he agree that a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, so that lending to other countries and subsidising them stops?
Austin Mitchell
I agree absolutely, and that line in the sand is here. Actually, it has to be a line in the concrete, because we cannot go on making contributions under article 122, which is meant for another purpose entirely.
Ben Gummer
Notwithstanding our treaty obligations, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is getting hung up on article 122. Is he really arguing that even if it were in our economic interest to support the bail-out of a country whose trade with us means that intervention is necessary, he would still oppose it?
Austin Mitchell
I have not actually said that, have I? I have said that the Chancellor treated the Irish case as a one-off, but it is not. It opens the door to giving aid to other countries that have put themselves in the same situation through a foolish adherence to a euro that is fated to collapse. I make no judgment about the Irish case, although it is a big bill to pay for a country that the Chancellor tells us is over-borrowed and has no credit on the world market. Why should that country start raising huge loads more money to pay other countries because of the failures of the euro?
Stephen Gilbert
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but can he imagine a situation in which rather than being a giver, the UK is the receiver of aid under that arrangement? Is he really saying that rather than get the aid that our financial sector might hypothetically need in a quick and timely way, he would want a referendum lock to apply?
Austin Mitchell
I am afraid that that is ridiculous. I was leaping with joy when the hon. Gentleman, a Liberal Democrat, said he was taking a point that I had made. I thought that sense had at last dawned, but alas it turned out to be only stupidity. Nobody is suggesting that the UK would want Europe to be liable if our system failed. The crucial point is that we did not enter the euro. Having not entered it, we should be immune from the consequences imposed on those who did. That is all I am saying. I do not want European aid. The wisdom of former Chancellors in keeping us out of the euro allows us to adjust our exchange rate. Other nations have problems because they cannot do that. We have had a 25% devaluation, and the pound could—and should, in my view—go lower. That reduces the cost of our currency and makes us competitive once again. That is our adjustment. We do not need help or aid because we have the flexibility of being outside the euro. Does the hon. Gentleman want this economic education class to continue or will he keep quiet?
Stephen Gilbert
Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we are both outside the euro and outside the effects of the euro? Is he saying that Portugal, Ireland, Italy or any country that needs European financial help in future can be allowed to collapse, and that that will have no effect whatever here in the UK?
Austin Mitchell
Oh it is difficult talking to Liberal Democrats! I did not actually say that we would be outside the effects of the euro. In fact, the foolish deflation that is going on all over Europe damages us, because half of our trade is with Europe and we want our exports to Europe to increase. With our ability to devalue, we have the ability to increase our exports, and they are increasing for the first time in many years—thanks to devaluation. I want markets in Europe to be healthy, but I do not want the British taxpayer to be asked to support Europe in its folly.
Kelvin Hopkins
I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend is saying. We have a massive trade deficit with the rest of the EU. Even if in some mad world we decided to have a trade block, that would be beneficial. We would have more money to spend on our own things and to generate our own economy, and more money to spend elsewhere in the world. The idea that we benefit massively in trade from the EU is complete nonsense. It benefits massively from having us next door.
Austin Mitchell
That is true—and then the EU forces us to eat its overpriced agricultural products. The EU gets it all ways. It steals about £3 billion-worth of our fish every year through the common fisheries policy, and costs us about £18 billion on the common agricultural policy, and then expects us to buy its overpriced exports.
Martin Horwood
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Iceland has just unilaterally increased its mackerel quotas, which if anything—I would not use the word “stealing”—is potentially damaging to Scottish fish stocks? That is quite a major diplomatic issue at the moment and it has occurred under precisely the regime that he is recommending.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr Graham Brady)
Order. May I suggest that we are ranging a little wide? Ranging as far as discussing Iceland might be out of order.
Austin Mitchell
You are absolutely right, Mr Brady. By raising mackerel, the Liberal Democrats were seeking to bring a lot of red herrings dancing into my view. I hold no brief for the Scots who want the Icelanders to stop catching mackerel. They have a perfect right to do so. It is daft to talk about cutting quotas of imports for Icelandic fish, which we need, to punish Iceland for mackerel fishing.
That Liberal Democrat red herring has robbed and wasted the Committee’s time and delayed my final peroration. The final word from me is this. The situation can be remedied by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, particularly amendments 8 and 79. It should be remedied, because it is potentially disastrous to accept that article 122 of the Lisbon treaty can be applied to extract support from the UK for the failures of the euro, when we are not members of the euro. I hope that the Government clarify that position, and that the amendments are made.
Stephen Gilbert
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Anybody watching us must think that they have fallen through the looking glass. We are debating amendments to a Bill that prevents further transfer of power from the UK to the European level of government, in the context of a coalition that has said that it will allow no further significant transfers of power in the duration of its office, and yet Conservative and Labour Members are attacking the Bill while Liberal Democrat Members try to defend it.
Mr Cash
I cannot resist intervening. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Minister for Europe has said that there is no chance or intention of holding a referendum under the proposals in this Bill until the next Parliament at the earliest—we are in dead parrot territory. The Minister will not deny that. The debate is about what is happening right now. Europe is in total chaos. Every country bar Germany is imploding, but the hon. Gentleman is carrying on as if everything is fine.
Stephen Gilbert
I feel like I am entering into my own version of “Back to the Future” in debating the EU with the hon. Gentleman. The Government’s position is quite clear. There will be no referendum over the next five years because there will be no significant transfer of power or competences. The Liberal Democrats welcome that, and I would have thought that he would too.
Stephen Gilbert
I am more than happy to give way to the Opposition spokesman.
Stephen Gilbert
In fact, what we know from yesterday’s debate in this Committee is that the Labour party, given the bizarre system it proposed in its defeated amendments, is in favour of giving the House of Lords a veto on whether the British Parliament chooses to put a referendum to the British people.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say a moment ago that there will be no further significant transfer of power to Brussels? Will he outline which not very significant powers will be transferred during this Parliament?
Stephen Gilbert
The Bill is absolutely clear on that. A number of criteria have to be met and a number of hurdles must be jumped. We debated the significance test yesterday—the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber and would have carefully listened to the debate—but let me give him an example. At the moment, in the objectives of the EU as I understand them, there is no requirement to combat climate change. Of course, the EU is rightly and properly taking action on environmental issues, but the simple codification of that into one of the objectives of the EU would be quite a minor change, and one that we would all welcome and accept as necessary and important.
Mr Cash
Almost everything the hon. Gentleman says demonstrates the complete divergence of views between many Conservatives and many Liberal Democrats. Does he accept that a key problem facing the coalition Government is not only the integral federal views of the Liberal Democrats on matters relating to Europe, by which they are totally besotted, but the implementation of the Lisbon treaty? That is where the problem arises. People talk about transfers of power, but actually, the implementation of existing arrangements under the Lisbon treaty is causing so much difficulty—it is also an embarrassment to Opposition Front Benchers.
Stephen Gilbert
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is not for me to judge who or what might be an embarrassment to those on the Front Benches. The reality is that there are clearly a number of safeguards in the Lisbon treaty, including the emergency brake clauses, which can be exercised by national Parliaments. In some cases, they would not require the UK Government to take a view—Parliament can take a view of its own volition. However, I shall resist further temptation from hon. Members and press ahead with my comments on some of the specific amendments in the group, particularly amendments 81, 54, 8 and 79.
Amendment 81 is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and I have a slight declaration of interest to make in that my great-grandfather was a fisherman along the north Cornwall coast out of Padstow. My constituency also includes many fishing communities, for whom the common fisheries policy in its current iteration is a significant problem. There is huge agreement across the House that having nationally decided quotas rather than regionally set quotas is a problem. The discard policy is also a problem, because it is absurd for this nation to have to throw back hundreds of tonnes of perfectly good fish when we could be using it to feed people in this time of pressures on food security around the world and concerns about the sustainability of fish resources.
I share my hon. Friend’s determination to secure real reform of the CFP. We need to put sustainability at its heart and ensure that local communities are driving it. We also need to review the policy on discards. However, amendment 81 is—to shamelessly snag a pun that has already been used tonight—a red herring. I do not see how it will strengthen our hand when it comes to reform of the CFP—
Priti Patel
As I said earlier, the amendment would not reform the policy per se, but I tabled it because the future of our territorial waters cannot be left to chance. It is a fundamental issue.
Stephen Gilbert
I have some sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes, but it is a misnomer to call the amendment an effort to reform the CFP. As I understand it, the competences under which the CFP sits were transferred three decades ago. They are already decided under qualified majority voting, and having a referendum on this issue—should it even be a topic for debate, and I know of no such plans—would have no effect.
Thomas Docherty
It might help the debate to know that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, will shortly carry out an inquiry into fishing policy. I am sure that the Minister will be excited to have the chance to give evidence on the issue of discards.
Stephen Gilbert
I am grateful for that intervention and I am sure that the fact that the Committee will look at this issue will be as worthy of note as the fact that I have joined hon. Members from both sides of the House in signing the early-day motion on discards policy. On every occasion that this House has debated the CFP, a clear signal should have been received by Ministers that we want reform and we want it now. However, amendment 81 is not that reform.
It is clear that negotiations on the CFP will start later this year. I would like an assurance from the Minister that he has heard the concerns that have been expressed in this debate and will put protection of the UK’s fish stocks at the heart of those negotiations.
Martin Horwood
What is my hon. Friend’s opinion on some of the other amendments that have been tabled? Does he think that reform of the CFP might be made more difficult if we have such a hair trigger for referendums that it brings the whole process grinding to a halt?
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We need to be careful what we wish for. Many of the amendments we are discussing would introduce a hair-trigger—an apt expression—approach to referendums that could end up shooting the UK’s best interests in the foot.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member mentioned regionalisation and the opportunity for other parts of the UK to be in control of fishing. Does he think that the localised control of fishing is the way forward to take control away from Europe and ensure that local people, who have the knowledge and the experience, can have an input into the process?
Stephen Gilbert
I share the approach that the hon. Gentleman outlines. It is the fishing communities who understand sustainability and the importance of ensuring that we have viable stocks for the future, and they will respond to those needs. It is right that responsibility for fishing policy should be reduced to the region, if not further to local areas.
Amendment 54, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is a little bizarre, because it promotes the notion that being given extra rights would require a referendum. The rights of EU citizens come under article 20 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and, as far as I can tell, they number four at the moment. They are the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states; the right to vote and stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in the state of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that state; the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the European Union; and the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the member state of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities—a point about which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke at some length. My contention is that adding to the rights of citizens cannot be seen as a transfer of power or competence from the EU to the UK.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that, by definition, if citizens of another European Union member state are given rights by the European Union to do things in this country, the rights of our own citizens are diluted and power is therefore transferred to the rest of the European Union?
Stephen Gilbert
I simply do not agree. If rights are transferred to the EU level, every European citizen will benefit from those rights, including the many hundreds of thousands of British citizens who live and work in the other European Union member states.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that they have rights and we have liabilities, and that is the difference?
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend and I share an interest in many matters, and I was delighted that the other place came to his rescue in the Parliamentary Constituencies and Voting Bill—although I am less pleased that it did not come to Cornwall’s rescue. However, on this issue I disagree with him. It is a caricature to say that they have rights and we have liabilities. The reality is that many of the people I went to school with now live and work in member states of the European Union and it is right that they should have protections extended to them in the same way that protections are extended to EU nationals living and working here.
My hon. Friend’s philosophical disagreement does not detract from my central point, which is that this is not a transfer of power or competence from the UK, so I do not see the need for the referendum lock to be introduced. More broadly, is it not belief in those human rights and the shared view of human nature—the belief in the rule of law, the sanctity of human life and that all individuals are born equal—that unites member states in the European Union and leads to our ability to have a common view on many issues?
Mr Cash
On the question of human rights—of course, our manifesto committed us to the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998—what makes the hon. Gentleman think that the people of the United Kingdom would have been that much worse off if the European Human Rights Act had never been passed? What makes him believe that the vast amounts of money going to all the lawyers in the human rights environment are doing the people of this country any great service?
Stephen Gilbert
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The European Human Rights Act gave rights to people in this country that they did not enjoy previously. Those rights are now in statute. Of course, hon. Members can make the argument that the House could have conferred those rights—but then this House is exactly the body that did confer them, first through the 1972 treaty, and secondly under the previous Government through bringing the European human rights treaty into British statute, as I understand it.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend is touching on one of the fundamental differences between how the European Union sees rights, and how this sovereign Parliament sees them. Parliament does not think that citizens need to be given any human rights because they are free to do anything under the law, whereas the European Union thinks that it has those rights to hand out to citizens of its European superstate as part of some great, grandiose gesture. That is the difference.
Stephen Gilbert
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a loyal subject of the Crown, I am equally pleased to be a citizen of the EU.
I will finish with some brief comments on amendments 8 and 79, which deal with the notion of a referendum lock on giving further financial aid to countries other than Ireland—an issue on which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and I have just engaged. If the amendments are passed, they would damage diplomatic relations, delay the EU in helping struggling economies and potentially deny to the UK the same kind of benefits that Ireland has had in the past.
I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill: it is about reconnecting the British people with the European issue; about saying that over the next five years, there will be no further transfer of powers and competences; about putting that commitment in law; and about raising the benchmark significantly higher than it has been to date.
Ben Gummer
I had many comments to make but, happily, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has covered much of the ground I wanted to cover. I shall therefore be quite brief. Yesterday, in a memorable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) described the Bill as the William Cash memorial Bill. Although I would not like to use such lapidary language with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, it is certainly a memorial in the sense that all that he has done over the years to protect the House and nation from the transference of powers to the European Union is contained within clause 6, so that it will not happen again without a referendum of the British people. I suspect that that is why my hon. Friend, whom I admire and have watched with great interest today, as a newcomer to the House, is uncertain about parts of the Bill.
Mention was made earlier of the fact that my hon. Friend’s seat is often left cold while he explains the dangers of the transference of powers. The Bill will render much of that function, which he has served with such honour over the years, no longer necessary, because it encompasses what the British people have wanted for so long, as has been pointed out by so many people in this debate, which is for the powers of Parliament to remain here and not be transferred. Whether on the euro, social policy, finance, jurisprudence or border control—all those things that he has spoken about so many times—will now sit here in statute unable to be moved to a qualified majority voting system in the Council without the matter being referred to the British people.
The Bill does not just enshrine in law the wishes of the British people over many years; it is also a testament to the intellectual coherence of the coalition’s project. It is about retaining power at the most local level possible. That does not just apply to this Parliament, but involves pushing power down to local communities wherever possible. That is why the cat-calling about the Bill from the Opposition is so misguided. They do not understand how it fits into the wider revolution being instituted by the coalition Government of bringing power as close to the people as possible. That is why I suspect they do not like it very much. It goes against everything that the Labour party believes in, which is to push power up to people who know best at all times.
We need only look at some of the comments made in this and previous debates. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who is no longer in his seat, said in a previous debate on the European Union that the Bill would be a mistake because it would make it harder for Turkey to accede to the EU. Today, we heard points about the European arrest warrant—because, of course, it is he who knows best, and not the British people. Of course, it is the Opposition Front-Bench team who know best—in their minds—and not the British people.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Brady)
Order. In order to ensure that the voice of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is picked up, may I advise him to address the microphone and the Committee more directly? That would be helpful.
Ben Gummer
I apologise, Mr Brady.
As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) knows, my general point is that the comments that Opposition Members have made today betray the fact that they do not trust the British people with these decisions. They said, “Well, of course, we could put a whole series of things to a referendum.” But this is the point: it is about the transference not of decision making, but of powers by treaty to an outside body. Whether in their attitude to the European constitution—it is odd to try to force a constitution on the British people and a nation that does not have a constitution—or whether on the Lisbon treaty, on which a referendum was promised but not given, at every single point, the Labour party has shown its contempt for what the people want. In the course of that, it has damaged the very European project that it supports. For instance, it makes it very difficult to make the argument for the European arrest warrant—it actually helped one of my constituents in a moment of great difficulty, as I mentioned earlier—because every time it is rightly perceived to be a decision by people who think they know best but who do not trust the people with the arguments.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very gracious. Is it not the case that the Conservative Government in the 1980s and 1990s agreed to massive transfers of powers, without a referendum, from Westminster to Brussels in the form of the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty? Is it not also the case that in our lifetime—in fact, since 1973—no Conservative Government have granted the people of this country a referendum? We actually have quite a good track record on referendums in this country—we granted many on devolution and one on membership of the European Union in 1975—but no Conservative Government have ever done such a thing.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady, who made an excellent speech earlier—I believe—said then that she had not read the 1973 Conservative manifesto. Well, I am of a similar age—I think—and I cannot stand here and answer for the actions of previous Conservative Governments, except to say that every one of those Acts and treaties was prefigured in a Conservative party manifesto. The difference between the Labour and Conservative parties is that we were promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but did not get one. We were also promised a referendum on the euro, which is why the relevant provision is in the Bill. Had we decided to join the euro, that referendum would never have happened, because we did not have one on the Lisbon treaty. The Labour party would have been true to form.
The hon. Lady asked what the need was for the passerelle protection in the Bill and why would we not just veto each action at the Council of Ministers. The answer is precisely this: although we can trust the coalition Government not to transfer powers, if and when the Opposition show themselves capable of government, we will not be able to trust them precisely because on two occasions they failed to do what they should have.
Emma Reynolds
First, if our Government had decided that the economic conditions were right to go into the euro, which we did not, we would have given the British people a vote on that, because it would have been a significant monetary change. On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I did make the remarks to which he has referred, but I do not think they are as significant as he claims.
Ben Gummer
I thank the hon. Lady for that, but the British people have lost their trust in what the Opposition say on matters European. The Opposition’s only contribution to this debate is one pathetic amendment—amendment 100—which does nothing to address the needs of their constituents, providing no constructive proposal whatever, unlike so many that my hon. Friends have proposed.
Ben Gummer
I am sorry, but if the hon. Lady does not mind, I am going to wrap up now.
What the Opposition do not understand—and what I think many on the Government Benches do—is the entirely radical nature of this Bill. It will fundamentally change the relationship between the people of this country—our constituents—and the European Union, and in so doing will change the functioning of the European Union. It is without doubt one of the more exciting Bills to be put before the House by the coalition Government, and I support it wholeheartedly.
Mr Lidington
Clause 6 lists those decisions that would always require approval by an Act of Parliament and a referendum. Most of the amendments that we have been considering today seek to add new provisions to clause 6. I want to try to do justice to each amendment and to the various topics that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have raised in this debate.
Let me turn first to the issue of citizenship, which is the subject of amendment 54, as well as the consequential amendment 55, both tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). The amendments would mean that if a decision under article 25 of the TFEU were to add to or strengthen the list of rights for citizens of member states in the European Union contained in article 20(2) of that treaty, there would have to be a referendum before the United Kingdom could agree to it. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and he is right to say that the question of citizenship is important and sensitive. However, where I took issue with him was when he suggested that there was no limit to the ability of the European Union to confer new rights upon European citizens. There are a number of such limits specified in the treaties. Article 20(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
“Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.”
Article 20 also states that “rights”—that is, rights that people possess in their capacity as European Union citizens—shall be
“exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties”.
Article 25 is not a new article, but it does concern a sensitive issue, and that is why the Bill proposes to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of this important ratchet clause and to require that an Act of Parliament be passed before a Minister could notify approval by this country of a Council decision extending the rights attaching to EU citizenship.
That is also the reason—I hope that this will give my hon. Friend some assurance—why the Bill puts a referendum lock on any proposal that the United Kingdom give up its veto over article 25. We have also put a referendum lock on any proposal that the UK should give up other vetoes in the treaty chapter on citizenship of the Union, such as its veto over the arrangements for allowing EU citizens to vote in local elections or the arrangements for allowing people to stand and vote in European parliamentary elections. However, we do not believe that we need a referendum before agreeing to legislation to strengthen or to add to the rights of citizens of member states under article 25, because such legislation can be made only within existing competence. If there were any proposal to change the treaty to extend those areas of competence on which the rights of EU citizens could be based, such a treaty change proposal would be caught automatically by clause 4 and its requirement for a referendum before any extension of or addition to European Union competence.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, given the time allowed, I must first try to do justice to the points raised in the debate.
What we are pressing for will mean member states taking more responsibility for management decisions, and working together regionally to agree appropriate measures. It will also mean giving member states the tools to apply conservation measures, and holding them to account for implementing these, regardless of which nations fish in their waters. A draft proposal for reform of the CFP is due to be published in May or June this year, but so far there is no indication, in any of the many discussions that have taken place on the subject, that the Commission will propose changes to the powers of member states in relation to nautical limits. I can assure my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that the Government would vigorously oppose any such move on the part of the Commission.
However, in respect of amendment 81, I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham that, for better or worse, the European Union has had competence over fisheries matters for more than 30 years, so there is no transfer of competence from the UK to the EU involved here. Changes to the CFP are agreed by qualified majority voting and co-decision with the European Parliament. Amendment 81 could therefore result in a referendum being held on a decision that this country could not subsequently block.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend feel that if amendment 81 were accepted and there were a vote, and if nothing could then be done as a result of such a referendum, it would undermine the confidence of the British people in a fantastic Bill?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is therefore important that we focus the referendum lock on those decisions that are of real significance to the people we represent. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Witham has tabled amendment 81, which has provided us with a good opportunity to debate a subject about which she cares passionately, but it would not achieve the objective that she and other Members who want reform of the CFP are seeking.
Amendments 36, 37 and 38 would add any decision by the United Kingdom to vote in favour of, or otherwise support, measures brought forward under the justice and home affairs ratchet clauses contained in articles 81(3), 82(2)(d) and 83(1) of the TFEU to the list of measures subject to the safeguard requirements contained in clause 6 of the Bill. Amendment 40 would have a similar effect to amendment 36, but seeks to achieve it by adding article 81(3) to the list of treaty provisions in schedule 1. What those amendments seek is a referendum, rather than such provisions being made under the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), speaking in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), broadened the debate into matters of justice and home affairs more generally. I hope that we will get the opportunity to debate those matters tomorrow, but I will respond briefly to the important points that he made. I know that his concerns are shared by many other Members.
On justice and home affairs opt-ins, we are talking about something that, like it or not, is a matter of existing European Union competence. However, where we have a choice, we cannot be compelled to take part in a particular measure. Furthermore—this affects how we deal with our systems for requiring scrutiny and accountability—where there is a three-month time limit, during which the United Kingdom has to decide whether to take part in the final negotiations on the shape of the legislative measure, that will impose a practical limit on what we can do while still keeping open the option on whether to join in.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that the policy of the coalition is to consider on a case-by-case basis whether we should opt in to a measure or not, and to judge each decision on its merits. There will be occasions when it will be in the national interest of the United Kingdom for us to take part. I would use the example of passenger name records to illustrate that. The United Kingdom Government are pressing the Commission and other member states to introduce measures on that, because we, along with the Government of the United States and a number of European partners, believe that such a measure would help all European countries and the international community generally to strengthen our counter-terrorist policies and provide a means of giving greater assurance of safety to our citizens when they travel by air. So we need to look at these measures on a case-by-case basis.
On scrutiny, as I said in my written ministerial statement of last Thursday, we are proposing not to reduce or limit existing scrutiny powers but to add to them. The minimum that the Government would offer is a written ministerial statement on each decision and, for more important measures, an oral statement. When there was an especially strong parliamentary interest, the Government would commit to setting aside their time for a debate in both Houses on a motion supporting the Government’s approach. Such a motion would, of course, be amendable.
I believe that it would generally be right for such debates to be called when it was proposed to opt in to a measure that would have a substantial impact on this country’s civil or criminal law, on our national security or on our immigration policy. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that it is certainly our view that, under the policy that I announced last week, the European investigation order would indeed have been referred for a debate of that kind. As he knows, the Commons Scrutiny Committee had not been fully constituted when that decision had to be taken within the three-month time limit. I know that the Government were uneasy about the fact that the non-existence of the Committee meant that we could not go through the appropriate scrutiny procedures.
In sorting out the details of these matters and putting flesh on the policy that I outlined last week, there will be a need for the Government to talk to Parliament, and to the scrutiny Committees in particular, about exactly how we translate this policy into practical action. There will also be a need to deal with matters such as recess periods and periods of Dissolution. On the question of override, there will, I am afraid, occasionally be cases in which an early opt-in decision is required. There has been one such case this year, in which it was in our interests to opt in to the EU-US agreement on the terrorist finance tracking programme, and we had to do that before the completion of scrutiny. We do not ever take those decisions lightly, and we always seek to keep Parliament informed when the risk of an override exists. To that end, we need to establish how these new arrangements will be managed, especially during periods of recess.
I shall now respond in more detail to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. In practical terms, although the UK could block any attempt to move article 81(3) to QMV using either treaty revision procedure, we could not block the result being achieved through the use of the specific ratchet clause in article 81(3). We would simply be ejected from the measure under article 3(2) of the area of freedom, security and justice protocol, and the other member states would continue without the UK. So, in the unlikely event of the UK seeking to use either revision procedure to move article 81(3) to QMV, we could veto that and block the treaty change, but all that would happen, assuming that other member states wanted to go ahead, is that the EU would use the ratchet clause to change the legislative procedure without UK participation. On that basis, it does not seem sensible to put a referendum lock on the use of either of the treaty revision procedures to move the article 81(3) legal base to QMV, because it would not have the desired effect of stopping a move to QMV for individual measures of family law.
Article 82(2)(d) enables the Council to add to the list of issues that can be made subject to EU legislation on criminal law procedures, and article 83(1) allows for additions to the list of criminal offences where the EU can set minimum standards. The exercise of those two articles is already foreseen; they are known entities. They add to what can be done within existing areas of EU competence, rather than creating new competences, and we expect them to be used in relatively obscure areas. For example, on the criminal side, there is a possibility that a proposal will be introduced to use the ratchet to add the crime of female genital mutilation to the list of serious crimes, where the EU can set minimum standards under article 83(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. We will have the choice whether to opt in or not, in line with Government policy. If we wished to opt in, each House would have to agree that it could do so within the three-month period and, before the UK could finally sign up to such a proposal, there would have to be an Act of Parliament. Should we decide not to opt into the negotiations but later decide to opt into the final decision, there would then need to be an Act of Parliament before we could do so. We believe that that is the correct level of control for such decisions, and a considerable increase on the present amount of control provided for under the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, under which the Lisbon treaty was approved.
I turn now to enhanced co-operation. I might want to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere at greater length on this, given the limited time available to me now. I can tell him, however, that we have provided that, if the UK is participating in an area of enhanced co-operation that touches on one or more of the treaty provisions listed in schedule 1 and there is a proposal to use the ratchet to allow a move from unanimity to QMV, an Act of Parliament would need to be passed and the proposed move supported in a referendum before the UK could agree to that proposal.
My hon. Friend’s amendment 13 would mean that, if the UK wanted to join in legislation agreed under an enhanced co-operation arrangement after that legislation had already been agreed by others, a referendum would be required if the smaller group had already decided to move to QMV on an article listed in schedule 1. The reason for the different approach that we are proposing in those circumstances is that the UK would be deciding whether to participate in enhanced co-operation on a specific piece of legislation, rather than on a whole area of policy, and we would be taking that decision in the full knowledge of what had already been agreed. We would be deciding freely whether to take part—we could not be forced to take part—and we would take that decision in the knowledge that any future negotiation to amend that legislation would also have to be done on the basis of QMV.
That is different from taking a decision to move to QMV in the middle of a negotiation on a piece of legislation being agreed under enhanced co-operation to which we were already committed to taking part. That could lead to us being outvoted on the final piece of legislation, having gone into the process under different circumstances altogether. Any such decision, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the customary way. I am certainly prepared, in the context of the broader reform of scrutiny that I announced last week, to look at the particular point that he raised.
The official Opposition’s amendment 100 is simply unnecessary. The policy on the patent is already subject to qualified majority voting, apart from two areas that are subject to unanimity. We propose that those should require an Act of Parliament, not a referendum.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I say that we are not happy with the position on the European financial stability mechanism; it is one that we inherited from the previous Government. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought hard—and successfully—at the European Council to make sure that article 122 was extinguished for the future as a source of bail-outs for other countries. I ask my hon. Friend to recognise, in turn, that the stability of the eurozone, and the eurozone’s success in solving its serious problems, are in our interests, too.
Mr Lidington
It would be helpful if, by way of introduction, I gave a brief explanation of our approach to how the referendum provisions in the Bill would work—the referendum mechanics, in other words. I stress that provision for the conduct of UK referendums on all issues, including those in the Bill, is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That statute covers the overall regulatory framework applying to referendums and sets conditions in relation to the referendum period, the date of the poll, the wording of questions, the role of the Electoral Commission in commenting on the intelligibility of those questions to ensure that questions are “clear, simple and neutral”, and the conditions to be set in relation to the registration of campaign organisations and for financial and other assistance to be given to designated individuals or organisations. For this purpose, the Act allows the Electoral Commission to designate one individual or organisation for each possible outcome of a particular referendum, which could include political parties, and to award them a public grant of up to £600,000 and other benefits.
In addition, the provisions of the PPERA impose financial controls on the expenditure and income of campaigning individuals or organisations that are not political parties. They place controls on referendum publications by Government and others, and make provision for enabling secondary legislation to be made for the conduct of referendum polls. Those provisions in the PPERA would apply to any referendum conducted under the terms of the Bill and, as the Committee knows, the referendum proposed in the Bill on the parliamentary voting system. Similarly, any amendment to, or replacement of, the PPERA in the future would correspondingly apply to any referendums held under the Bill.
The PPERA, however, does not cover matters that are inherently specific to a particular referendum. Those include the precise wording of the question, the date of the referendum, its franchise, or the precise length of what is termed the referendum period, which is that period during which campaign expenditure is regulated. The Act does not cover how challenges to the referendum result are to be handled, the payment of counting officers, or the conduct of the referendum—for example, decisions on locations, opening hours of polling stations, permitted size of posters and any electoral offences related to the holding of a referendum.
When considering how many of these specific issues to address in the Bill and how many to leave for a specific Bill at the time of a particular referendum, the Government took account of our commitment in the coalition agreement that there would be no further transfer of competence or power from the United Kingdom to the EU over the course of this Parliament. Logically, therefore, there will be no referendums about the transfer of competence or power until 2015 at the earliest, as there would be no such transfers on which the British people should be asked to opine. But as I made clear in earlier debates on the Bill, any proposed treaty change even during this Parliament would none the less be subject to the rigours of this legislation—a statement would have to be laid before Parliament setting out the Government’s analysis on competence and whether any transfers of power would result, and that treaty change would still require Parliament’s clear approval through primary legislation.
Mr David
May I take the Minister back to what he was saying about the Electoral Commission and possible financial support to those putting forward a case for or against an issue under consideration? A referendum is due to take place in Wales on 3 March and, because there is no recognised body advocating a no vote, no finances are being given in that direction, but that means that no finances have been given to those who support a yes vote. Could a similar thing happen to any referendums that the Minister is outlining?
Mr Lidington
We would certainly want to avoid that and would look at the experience that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is important to recall that the principle of grants being made available for lead campaign organisations was recommended by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life and approved by Parliament in legislation passed under the previous Labour Government in 2000. I hope that he agrees that it would not be in the public interest for one side in a referendum campaign to be able to outspend the other hugely. A grant ensures that both lead campaign organisations can campaign effectively and that helps the public make an informed choice.
I emphasise that the Bill is not intended to serve as a vehicle for providing for all the detailed referendum rules required to supplement the provisions already contained in the PPERA. That is because we cannot anticipate exactly what referendums might be required in the future, when they would be held or, indeed, what the relevant electoral and referendum law would look like at that time. I do not want to write on tablets of stone arrangements that could prove to be at odds with a subsequent change in general electoral legislation. Therefore, we cannot provide everything on the convening of those specific referendums in the Bill. Rather, it sets out the circumstances in which those referendums would have to be held.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On the issue of who can vote in referendums, I notice that specific mention is made of the right of the people of Gibraltar to have a say in a referendum. It seems to me that they would like to be part of the United Kingdom for many purposes when it comes to European matters. Would it not be right to allow them more of a chance to have a say?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, we must look at the question of whether the franchise for a particular referendum should include the people of Gibraltar in the context of whether it would affect Gibraltar. As he will appreciate, although Gibraltar is in most respects treated as part of the EU, some parts of the treaties do not apply to it. It is therefore right that the Bill specifies that the electorate in a referendum should include the people of Gibraltar when the subject matter of that referendum also applies to them. To provide further reassurance, I call tell him that I have consulted the Chief Minister of Gibraltar formally and discussed the matter with him face to face, and he has assured me that he is content with the arrangements for Gibraltar as set out in the Bill.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
This is not the time to talk about changes to the Representation of the People Act 2000, although it is probably the place, but the Minister will be aware of the great concern here and in the country about extending the right to vote to prisoners. My understanding from the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is that that applies only to general and European Parliament elections, so is it not possible to include in the Bill a specific disfranchisement of prisoners, who otherwise would have an opportunity to vote on constitutional matters?
Mr Lidington
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are considering how to comply with the Court’s decision. Article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights sets out the right to vote in elections. Importantly, that right extends to elections to legislatures, within the meaning of article 3, so we are not under an obligation to enfranchise prisoners for local elections or referendums, and the policy is that we will not do so. The Government accept the need, as did our predecessor, to change the law to give some prisoners the vote in the light of the Court’s judgment. The right to vote will be restricted to UK Westminster parliamentary and European Parliament elections only.
Charlie Elphicke
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on prisoner voting in, I believe, Hirst v. the United Kingdom. Despite what my right hon. Friend says, and given that case, how can we be confident that an element of judicial activism will not enable prisoners to vote on a referendum question?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is perfectly right to be alert to any sign of judicial activism, but I assure him that one thing that will be very much on the mind of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is to devise a policy that takes us forward in compliance with the judgment while keeping to the minimum the risks that my hon. Friend fears.
We recognise the need to ensure that Parliament and the British people have a degree of clarity now about any referendums that will take place under this Bill in future. We want to provide as much clarity as we can from the outset in order to reduce any scope for wriggle-room, and we therefore propose specific measures in this Bill to ensure that any referendums held under it are to some extent standardised. Clauses 11 to 13 include three mechanical provisions for every referendum to be held in future.
Clause 11 concerns the franchise for any future referendum held under the terms of the Bill. The most appropriate franchise for future referendums on questions of transfers of competence or powers from this country to the EU is one based on that for elections to this House, rather than on that for either local government elections or European parliamentary elections, for example. If we were to adopt an alternative franchise, we would allow for voting by citizens of other European Union countries resident in the UK, and that would sit rather oddly with the principle of having the British people decide on whether they wish to pursue further transfers of power from their country to Brussels.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will the franchise for voting in a referendum under this legislation be extended to peers, whether or not they are Members of the House of Lords?
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether this delights my hon. Friend, but peers would be able to vote in a referendum; it might well delight Members of the other place. The purpose of the referendum would be to obtain views about the transfer of competence or power from the UK to the European Union, and the Government do not consider there to be a strong, principled reason for excluding peers from expressing their views as part of such an exercise. We therefore propose the same franchise as that used for the European Economic Community referendum in 1975 and that which will be used for the referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections, namely the parliamentary franchise plus peers.
Charlie Elphicke
One concern that I have about using the referendum mechanism is that it does not contain thresholds. Recently we had before this House a Bill, which has become jammed in another place, where thresholds were discussed. Does the Minister not think that, in the case under discussion, thresholds might surely be worth considering?
The Temporary Chair (Mr Brady)
Order. That is outside the scope of the clause, which is about people who are entitled to vote.
Mr Lidington
I shall bear your guidance very firmly in mind, Mr Brady, and simply say that the Government do not propose to specify in this legislation any further thresholds on the turnout.
In response to my hon. Friend, I mentioned the Government’s reasons why the franchise should be extended, where relevant, to Gibraltar, but it is worth me explaining, because there has been some concern in the House, why people from the Crown dependencies and British overseas territories will not be included in the franchise. Very little EU law applies to the Crown dependencies, mainly because of the provisions of our Act of accession to the then EEC in 1972, and also because of the current provisions of the European Union treaties. By virtue of article 355(5)(c) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the European Union treaties apply to the Crown dependencies, but only to the extent described in protocol 3, which provides that EU rules on customs matters and quantitative restrictions apply to the Crown dependencies
“under the same conditions as they apply to the United Kingdom”,
that the Crown dependencies are inside the EU customs territory and that certain aspects of the common agricultural policy are applicable to allow the free movement of agricultural products.
Mr Nuttall
The explanatory notes on clause 11—perhaps we ought to refer to them as the first edition of the explanatory notes—state:
“A person who is entitled to vote in a parliamentary election in the UK must be a British citizen, Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a British citizen who qualifies as an overseas elector.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that all those classes of people will be entitled to vote under the Bill, but not necessarily, from what he has said, people from British overseas territories?
Mr Lidington
Our position is that people who are resident in the United Kingdom and who are enfranchised for general elections will count legally as UK nationals for European purposes. That is the electorate, with the addition of peers, that we envisage for any referendum that is required under the terms of the Bill. The distinction that I tried to make earlier—I apologise to my hon. Friend if I did not explain myself with sufficient clarity—was between Gibraltarians living in Gibraltar, who would be entitled to vote if the subject matter of the referendum affected Gibraltar, and citizens of Crown dependencies or British overseas territories living in those places. An analogy might be made between those people and citizens of Gibraltar, but as I have tried to explain, the relationship of the Crown dependencies and other British overseas territories with the EU is very different from that enjoyed by Gibraltar.
Charlie Elphicke
I hate to press the cause of the people of Gibraltar, but I understand that for the purposes of elections to the European Parliament, the people of Gibraltar are able to vote for Members of the European Parliament for the south-west region. Given that they can vote in elections for that Parliament for all purposes in the European arena, surely they should be able to vote on referendum questions for all purposes.
Mr Lidington
No, I think that we have drawn a fair distinction by saying that it is right to confine the electorate for a referendum that does not affect Gibraltar to people in the UK who are entitled to vote in UK elections, and to say that Gibraltar should be allowed to vote when the issue in question affects it. I repeat to my hon. Friend that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has assured me that he is perfectly content with what we are proposing.
The franchise proposed in clause 11 is also referred to elsewhere in the Bill, namely in clauses 2 and 3. I believe that what we propose is proportionate and justified to ensure that citizens in both the UK and Gibraltar who would be affected by a treaty change, or by a decision that would transfer power or competence from this country to the EU, could express their view in a referendum.
Emma Reynolds
I have just two questions of clarification for the Minister and to ask him whether he can confirm that the Government will not repeat the recent mistakes on the alternative vote referendum. First, will they commit to consulting the devolved Administrations regarding the timing of any referendum triggered by the Bill? Secondly, will he make a commitment today that any such referendum would not take place on the same day as the devolved Assemblies elections?
Mr Lidington
We will not give a commitment about specific dates for referendums that are not going to be held before 2015 at the earliest. There are advantages and disadvantages to holding referendums on the same days as other elections, and it is certainly considerably less expensive to the taxpayer if a referendum can be combined with a ballot for other purposes.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
In the United States, where much more use is made of local referendums in states such as California, do not such votes almost always take place on the same day as gubernatorial, mayoral or House of Representatives elections? What America understands, which we somehow fail to understand, is that people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between different questions and quite like being asked to go to the polls only once.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I suspect that a number of Members of all parties can recall occasions when both a general election and a local government election of some kind have been held on the same day in the same place. We have found that our electors have been perfectly capable of deciding to split the ticket if that is what they wish to do.
Mr Dodds
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned—I cannot speak for Scotland or Wales—the objection has always been to the idea of a general election for Westminster and for the Northern Ireland Assembly on the same date. There has not really been the same objection to holding a referendum or a local government election on the same date as the Northern Ireland Assembly election. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) about people not having to go out to vote over and over again, and we have certainly had plenty of experience of that in Northern Ireland over the years.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.
The other point that a future Government would have to bear in mind in determining a referendum date would be whether there was any particular urgency to a treaty or passerelle proposal that required a referendum. In normal circumstances the various national ratification procedures take quite a bit of time, and if there were a proposal under the ordinary revision proposal, it is probable that more than one member state would have to have a referendum. There would therefore be quite a long period between agreement at European Council level and ratification by all 27 member states, or more by then, I hope. However, it is conceivable that there may be a particular need for urgency, and the Government of the day would have to bear that in mind.
The other point that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made was about the relationship with the devolved Administrations. The Government take that seriously, and we have regular formal meetings with them about Europe through the joint ministerial committee on Europe. I am also in contact with Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations. I can assure her and the Committee that they never hesitate to bring their concerns to me. We would certainly want to continue that process of consultation, bearing their interests in mind.
Mr Lidington
We try to do both. We in the Government can pride ourselves on enjoying a rather better relationship with the devolved Administrations than the previous Government were usually able to manage.
Mr Lidington
The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. He will know that the Prime Minister personally takes the respect agenda very seriously and that he is determined that his Government pursue it. I hope that the Committee agrees to clause 11.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Separate questions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Lidington
Clause 12 provides that separate questions should be set out on a referendum ballot paper in specified circumstances. You will not need reminding, Mr Hoyle, that it is this Government’s clear commitment not to agree to any treaty change or decision to transfer power or competence during this Parliament, but if and when the time comes to hold a referendum under the Bill, nothing in the legislation prevents more than one referendum from being held on separate but coincident treaties or decisions on the same day, or the combination of a referendum with another poll.
As the Committee is aware, a combined poll is the Government’s intention when it comes to the referendum on the parliamentary voting system. As I explained in relation to a previous clause, the rules that govern whether such a combination could take place for referendums under the Bill are provided for in the overarching legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—and we recognise that the Electoral Commission would have an opinion on what combinations would be feasible.
There are considerable savings to be made in terms of money, disruption and people’s time if polls are combined, but in addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) pointed out, the electorate often wish to combine different voting opportunities on a single day. People do not really relish the task of having to traipse to the polling station more frequently than they regard as necessary.
The Electoral Commission has previously said that it would consider on a case-by-case basis proposals to combine different ballots on the same day. The Government believe that that is a sensible approach. We therefore do not seek to make any specific provision in the Bill, particularly as we do not know at this stage when any future referendums will be proposed.
Clause 12 would ensure—should more than one referendum be proposed for the same day—that it is not possible to set a single combined question on all of the issues to be decided upon that day. People have a right to the utmost clarity and choice, and the clause sets a standard that we intend will provide that.
To give an example, if a future Government ever took the step of proposing that the United Kingdom should join the single currency, and separately took the decision to give up our border controls, and if those two referendums were to be held on the same day for reasons of efficiency, the question on joining the euro would be separate from the question on giving up our border controls. There would be two separate questions on the ballot paper and two separate results, because obviously, some people might wish to support one proposition but to oppose the other.
Mr Nuttall
I can quite easily see how it would be a significant saving to the public purse to have more than one referendum held on the same day, and I have no doubt that our fellow citizens are more than capable of determining two complex questions at the same time and on the same day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for ease of counting if for nothing else, it would be preferable if the two questions put before the electorate were on separate ballot papers, possibly even of differently coloured paper? That would make it far easier for the returning officers to sort the ballot papers and determine the outcome of the ballot.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion, and I am sure that the Government of the day and the Electoral Commission would wish to take it into account in framing the rules for any particular referendum or combination of referendums.
Mr Dodds
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), and the Minister has said that it will be taken into account, but the clause states that
“a separate question must be included on the ballot paper”—
singular. If this clause is passed in its current form, we will not have the flexibility or freedom to have a separate arrangement. Having separate ballots is a good idea, given the experience in Scotland at the last Assembly and parliamentary elections, when the fact that there were different elections on the same ballot paper was the problem.
Mr Lidington
There is a principle in the interpretation of the law that the singular can include the plural. If the wording proved to be an obstacle to what the Government of the day and the Electoral Commission considered to be the best way to operate a referendum, it would certainly be open for a change to be made in the Bill authorising the referendum. I am prepared to have a look at that question between now and Report. I am reasonably confident that we would not run into the problems that the right hon. Gentleman described, but I am prepared to seek detailed advice and come back to it on Report.
Christopher Pincher
I suspect that the number of occasions on which multiple referendum questions are on the ballot paper will be quite rare, but on those occasions will the Government agree to spend more money to publicise the referendum and allow campaigning organisations more money to spend campaigning for or against the questions? The more questions on the ballot paper, the more complex the issues are and the more money needs to be spent to explain them.
Mr Lidington
That is one of the very good reasons for not trying to cover all the ground in this Bill. That kind of detail will be a matter for the application of the 2000 Act or its successor statute, and for the Government of the day to authorise a referendum or combination of referendums. That might depend, for example, on whether one lead campaign organisation could be said fairly to represent the views of the yes or no camp on more than one referendum, or whether separate lead organisations were needed. It is reasonable for my hon. Friend to ask those questions, but answers to them can be provided only when we come to consider a specific case in due course.
Mr Nuttall
Does that not lead us to the interesting question of whether there is a practical maximum number of referendums that could be held on the same day? I can understand how we could deal with two, but it gets rather complicated if there are more than two. We could have three different organisations with three separate streams of funding from the Electoral Commission, and soon the whole thing would begin to look rather unwieldy.
Mr Lidington
Although one can never guarantee against the utterly implausible happening, the scenario that my hon. Friend describes would require a commitment of political energy on the part of every EU member state, because the decisions subject to a referendum require unanimity among member state Governments. Furthermore, he assumes that the UK Government of the time would be prepared to accept and recommend to the people three different treaty changes, or the implementation of three different passerelle clauses, or some combination of those on a single occasion. That is unlikely in the extreme.
A more plausible scenario—although I do not think, from talking to my colleagues on the Council of Ministers, that people have any appetite for this at the moment—if European countries wanted an ambitious treaty change covering a number of different competences, would be to seek treaty amendment through the ordinary revision procedure. That is the instrument available to the EU for an ambitious, wide-ranging treaty change along the pattern of Lisbon, Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht. In those circumstances, the total proposal for a treaty amendment—regardless of which city it was named after—would be the subject of a single referendum question. It is most unlikely, therefore, that there would be a multiplicity of narrowly focused referendum questions, given the availability of that instrument.
Nick Boles
On a related point, it is dangerous ever to underestimate the deviousness of those who wish to build the grand European project—of course, they are entirely honourable in this, because they believe that their aims are honourable. However, would it not be conceivable that a Government—a future Labour Government, probably—who wanted, for example to set up a set of common European defence forces to replace our national defence forces, might agree a treaty in which they also agreed to repeal the common fisheries policy, which Conservative Members would strongly support? Would we then have a single vote on a single treaty that combined some elements that this country would strongly support and other elements that it would find very difficult? Or would the Government still be able to separate the different elements of the treaty and ask separate questions?
Mr Lidington
No, in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, in which an omnibus treaty amendment is delivered under the ordinary revision procedure, there would be a single question. It would be ridiculous for the Government to present that to the people as a number of different questions, because the Government, on behalf of the United Kingdom, would have to ratify the entire package en bloc, or refuse to ratify it en bloc. The negotiation would have resulted in a compromise among member states on something to which they all felt able to give their assent, and they would all have to be accountable to their respective electorates for that overall decision.
Charlie Elphicke
On this matter of referendums being held on the same day, will the Minister explain the revenue implications of separate referendums on separate days?
Mr Lidington
As I said in response to an earlier intervention, if different decisions about treaty amendments were being taken at roughly the same time—I imagine that they would be either passerelle clause decisions or simplified revision procedure decisions—it might well be sensible to combine the referendums on those measures on the same day. The public would get pretty impatient with Parliament if we suggested that should they pop down to the polling station every other Thursday to put their cross in the box for yet another referendum proposal. They would quite rightly be asking why we were requiring their local authorities, as the electoral registration authorities—and ultimately them as taxpayers—to go to such expense and bother on so many different occasions. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that common sense would prevail, regardless of which party was in office.
Mr Lidington
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to make a bit of progress. In particular, I want to deliver a bit of good news to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), to whom I am always pleased to give good news. Advice has reached me that confirms the point that I made to him somewhat tentatively when I responded to his intervention. The law does indeed make it clear that when it comes to the interpretation of statutes, the singular can be interpreted to mean the plural. Under the language that we have used in the clause, it will be possible to have either one ballot paper with multiple questions or several different ballot papers, depending on the circumstances at the time. That would obviously be a detailed decision that the Government of the day would have to make, taking, I would very much hope, the advice of the Electoral Commission into account.
It should be noted that neither clause 12 nor any other clause in the Bill sets any other explicit parameters on the framing of the question. However, it is a condition separately in clauses 2, 3 and 6 that, for a proposal in a referendum to be passed, the majority of those voting should be in favour of the ratification of the treaty or approval of the decision, whichever it may be. That condition would logically require that the question be framed as a simple choice between two options, rather than a menu of options to which the responses would be much more difficult to interpret. In other words, it is implicit in the Bill that the question would be a binary one. It is the Government’s clear view that this should be the case for all and any referendums held under the provisions of the Bill.
Mr Nuttall
On the binary question, and whether we should have no/yes or yes/no, does the Minister agree that it is rather unusual that whereas individuals standing in an election are listed on the ballot paper in alphabetical order based on their surnames, when it comes to a referendum, for some reason the yes comes before the no? That is rather odd. I think that the no should be first and that the yes should come second.
Mr Lidington
I am sure that my hon. Friend means well, but I would urge him to have more confidence in our fellow citizens. In particular, I would point him to the referendum on the proposed assembly for the north-east of England. A yes vote was strongly supported by the then Labour Government, as well as enjoying the support of quite a number of public organisations in the north-east of England, but the proposition was resoundingly rejected by the public when it came to the ballot in that region. It is a good old Tory principle to trust the people, and I think that we should be content with that.
Mr Nuttall
I want to make it absolutely clear that I entirely agree with the principle of trusting the people. I have no doubt whatever that the people of this country are more than capable of working out which is which. I just thought it was rather odd that the yes should appear above the no, and I wondered whether there was any reason why that should be so.
Mr Lidington
As far as I am aware, there is no particular reason for it. However, the Electoral Commission will have a duty to comment on the question that the Government of the day have chosen, and I am sure that, if the Commission felt that placing yes above no gave an unfair advantage in some way, it would so opine and the Government would take account of that. It is quite difficult to envisage a ballot paper that did not have either yes or no at the top of the paper. At the end of the day, it comes down to a choice by the people: they have two options available to them, and I think that they will know which side they are on when it comes to the vote.
Mr David
I am tempted to ask the Minister whether Welsh will appear above English on the ballot papers in Wales, but I will not. Is there anything in the legislation that would prevent the Government from going back to the electorate if a no vote had been secured when the Government clearly wanted a yes vote? Could the question be put to the electorate for a second time, and, if so, what period would have to elapse before that could happen?
Mr Lidington
The Bill makes it very clear that the referendum condition has to be satisfied, in the circumstances in which the law requires a referendum to be held, before the Government are able to ratify the proposed treaty. I simply do not believe that any British Government who had been defeated at a referendum would then come forward and say to their electorate, “No, you’ve got it wrong. Let’s dissolve the people and have a new one!” That really does not make political sense.
Mr Lidington
What happened in Ireland was that the Irish Government went back to their EU partners and received various assurances, which were incorporated into a protocol to the treaties. We can debate whether the Irish Government were right or wrong to be satisfied by those assurances, but I actually think that it is a matter for the Irish people, not for me, to decide. In such slightly far-fetched, hypothetical circumstances, were a British Government to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, they would have to bring the protocol back here and go through the entire process again, including the assessment of the ministerial declaration and the Act of Parliament. There would then have to be a new referendum. I just think that any Government who tried to do that would be punished so severely by the people every time they got the opportunity to go to the ballot box that it would be the last thing on any Minister’s mind.
Mr Lidington
Before I give way to my hon. Friend, may I just say that I am very conscious that we have another important clause to consider, if we can, before the 10 o’clock deadline?
Mr Nuttall
I, too, am conscious of that. The Minister says that the Irish situation was a rare occurrence, but he will be aware that it also occurred in Denmark and France. It is therefore not all that unusual in the European Union for second referendums to be held on the same or a very similar question.
Mr Lidington
I go back to what I said earlier: I trust the people. If a Government wanted to ask people to vote again, they would have to go through the entire procedure again—assuming that a new protocol or slightly revised treaty wording were involved—as well as having to persuade a pretty sceptical electorate that they should change their mind. I think that my hon. Friend is at risk of exaggerating the likelihood of those circumstances arising. While I do not think that the loss of a referendum vote on a European treaty amendment should determine whether a Government should fall, it would undoubtedly be a very severe political blow to that Government.
Once this Bill becomes law, I think the pressure will be the reverse of what my hon. Friend fears, as the pressure will be on any British incumbent Government to be very confident that they can carry support among the electorate for a treaty reform transferring new powers or competences to the European Union before they agree to it at the European Council. The arrangements we are putting in place thus provide safeguards against what my hon. Friend fears.
In any event, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires the Electoral Commission to consider the wording of any referendum question when a Bill to provide for the holding of a poll is introduced in Parliament. In the case of a draft instrument, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question before any such draft is laid before Parliament for approval, and he or she is then required to lay before each House a report stating any views as to the intelligibility of that question which the Commission has expressed in response to the consultation. We have not sought to disapply that requirement, as we think the Electoral Commission plays an important role in ensuring both the neutrality of the question and that it is correctly and easily understood by voters.
Under PPERA, the Electoral Commission is required to consider the wording of the referendum questions for UK, national and regional referendums and for some local government referendums. Having done so, it is required to publish the statement of its views as soon as practicable and in such a manner as it may determine. Helpfully, the commission has developed guidelines to aid the drafting of intelligible referendum questions. In these, it says that a referendum question should present the options clearly, simply and neutrally so that it is easy to understand, to the point and unambiguous; and should avoid—I hope this helps my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North—encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another, and avoid misleading voters. In reaching its conclusions, the Electoral Commission adopts a systematic and thorough approach, which now has the advantage of some considerable experience behind it. It is also important that it publishes a report of methodology to enhance transparency and its credibility.
Clause 12 is thus a proportionate and sustainable provision to ensure that the voice of the British people can be heard on each question asked of the people. That, in turn, will help us with our commitment to rebuild the trust between Government, Parliament and the people, and to reconnect our people with decisions taken in their name on our continuing relationship with the European Union. For those reasons, the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Charlie Elphicke
I want to make a few brief points and hope that the Minister will come back to me on them. I note that after the Scottish elections of 2007, the Gould report concluded that it was preferable for referendum questions not be done as a multiplicity, but to be put separately after separate campaigns. I am particularly concerned because there has been a tendency on the part of some Governments to play somewhat fast and loose on whether there should be a referendum at all or, indeed, in respect of asking loaded questions. We need to be careful to ensure that if there is a combination of questions, the key issues are not edged together and confused, leading to a muddle in the public’s minds. That is a serious and substantial concern, so I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to it.
Also, I was not being frivolous when I asked the Minister how much it would cost if referendums were held on separate days—leaving aside the annoyance that voters might feel in being called time and again to the polls.
Mr Lidington
On my hon. Friend’s second point, I do not have precise figures. Clearly, our experience of national UK referendums is limited—the last being in 1975, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has frequently reminded us today. The referendum on the voting system planned for later this year will no doubt give us some guidance. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend if I acquire any firmer indication of what the costs might be. Clearly, there would be financial advantages in combining more than one poll, whether it be a combination of referendums or of a referendum and a local or devolved election on the same day.
Let me say in fairness to the Gould report, to which my hon. Friend alluded, that although it criticised what happened in 2007, it also recognised that there were benefits in the combination of polls, such as reduced costs and a higher turnout. A well-managed referendum, involving close co-operation between us and the Electoral Commission and others, should allow us to maximise those benefits while avoiding the problems that undoubtedly occurred in 2007. Let me emphasise again, however, that the decision would need to be taken in the future, and would depend on the circumstances at the time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Role of Electoral Commission
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Lidington
Clause 13 covers the role of the independent Electoral Commission in the administering of any future referendums held under the Bill. The clause would supplement the existing provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Neill committee originally suggested the establishment of such a commission to supervise the restrictions on spending by, and donations to, both political parties and third parties.
As I have explained, we have not sought to disapply or replace any of the general provisions of PPERA. There is, of course, nothing to prevent Parliament doing so in any legislation that might be needed for a referendum in future, in order to reflect the context and the circumstances in which that referendum would be held. Significantly, however, the Act contains no provision to confer on the Electoral Commission power to promote public awareness and understanding of the subject matter of referendums.
We feel that, as part of the Government’s firm commitment to helping to rebuild trust and reconnect the British people to decisions made in their name on the European Union, it is important that the administration of any future referendum to be held under this Bill facilitate the understanding and clarity required to enable the British people to make informed decisions on whether or not to approve a treaty change or decision that would transfer power or competence from Britain to Brussels. Clause 13 provides that if a referendum is triggered under the EU Bill, the Electoral Commission has an obligation to take whatever steps it thinks appropriate to promote public awareness of the referendum and how to vote in it.
Mr David
I hear what the Minister says about an appropriate public debate and a high degree of awareness, but the clause states that the Electoral Commission
“may take whatever steps they think appropriate”.
If the Minister thinks that public awareness is so important, why did he not ensure that the word “will” was used rather than the word “may”?
Mr Lidington
The Electoral Commission was rightly established as an independent body. I think it important for the Government not to issue instructions to it, and to be seen not to do so. Given that the commission’s value to our political process is by virtue of its being a completely independent statutory body, I consider it right for us to give it these new powers without laying down rules requiring it to use them in a particular way. It is for the commission to make its own judgments. How it chooses to promote awareness is rightly a matter for it, but we are giving it a statutory duty to promote awareness before any referendum held under the provisions of the Bill.
Mr Nuttall
Perhaps I can help the Minister. Clause 13(a) says that the commission
“must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness”
of the existence of the referendum, but
“may take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness of the subject-matter of the referendum.”
I suggest to the Minister that that may mean giving appropriate amounts of money to the yes campaign and to the no campaign.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend’s helpful intervention will probably have given some reassurance to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David).
We are seeking to encourage greater participation, and providing clarity so that the people know what they would be voting for regardless of which way they choose to vote. We are following the practice adopted for the North East assembly referendum in 2004, and the approach taken in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
If I may, I refer the hon. Member for Caerphilly to the 2003 enabling Act for the north-east regional assemblies referendum. It included clause 8, supplementary to PPERA, on “encouraging voting”, and that—
Business without Debate
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Documents
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
RAF Leuchars
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I am glad to have the opportunity to initiate the debate on the future of Royal Air Force Leuchars, which lies near St Andrews in my constituency of North East Fife. A number of other hon. Members have indicated a wish to make short interventions, and I am happy that they should do so. In addition, I have the authority of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) to say that he supports the campaign for the retention of the base.
I want to begin with the recognition of the professionalism and commitment of the men and women who serve at RAF Leuchars, who in recent weeks have endured a period of unnecessary anxiety. I particularly wish to pay tribute to those members of 111 Squadron, whose time at Leuchars will come to an end in March, and who have served the defence interests of the nation with distinction and effectiveness. The reason why I say “unnecessary anxiety” is this. I believe that the case for the retention of RAF Leuchars is overwhelming. In short, Leuchars is in the right place at the right time and doing the right job. Geographically, it is uniquely positioned to fulfil the responsibility for the air defence of the northern half of the United Kingdom, a responsibility which, even as we have this debate, it fulfils 24 hours a day. In particular, that responsibility now has to deal with the terrorist threat, which is recognised in the strategic defence review as a tier 1 threat, and therefore one against which the most serious precautions need to be taken.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that contribution has been further strengthened by the £27 million investment in the runway, the designation of Leuchars as the home base for the Eurofighter Typhoon squadrons, and the excellent performance of the quick reaction alert force? In other words, RAF Leuchars is a strategic necessity for the effective defence of the UK.
Sir Menzies Campbell
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come to all the elements he referred to in a moment.
Why was Leuchars chosen? It was chosen to fulfil the responsibilities that the hon. Gentleman has just described, and because 80% of the Scottish population lives within 80 miles of Leuchars. Aircraft from RAF Leuchars can be over Edinburgh and Glasgow, the two major cities of Scotland’s central belt, within a matter of a few minutes. Leuchars also has the capacity to protect the two most sensitive installations within that area: the nuclear power station at Torness, and the Trident submarine base at Faslane. But we would do wrong to consider that the responsibilities of Leuchars extend only to Scotland, because the arc of responsibility of this air defence base extends far into northern England—as far as Sunderland, some have said—covering substantial populated areas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is it not the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s understanding that the coverage also extends as far as Northern Ireland? I believe that it does, but perhaps he could give confirmation.
Sir Menzies Campbell
I have been approaching this matter on the basis of the speed of deployment within certain arcs. I understand that the approach is to take the base as the centre and then draw a circle, but there is no doubt that, because of its operations over the sea, there may well be occasions when RAF Leuchars would be deployed for the purpose of protecting interests in Northern Ireland.
I have heard no strategic argument for the closure of RAF Leuchars. The strategic case for its retention is exactly the same as the strategic case for its selection for the role that it now plays. It has been chosen to be the home of three Typhoon squadrons, one of which, 6 Squadron, is already in place there. The case stood up on 6 September, a few days before one of the last surviving air shows, which drew a crowd of some 50,000 people. That made it the second largest non-sporting event in Scotland—the largest is a rock festival entitled T in the Park. The fact that 50,000 people are able to go and want to go is a reflection, of course, on the base’s geographical position adjacent to the main centres of population.
RAF Leuchars was chosen for its role because it has ready access to training areas over land and over the North sea. It was chosen because the local weather—its particular climate—is very suitable for flying operations. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) said, Leuchars has been chosen to perform two essential components of the quick reaction alert, or QRA. The first is to protect northern Britain from unwelcome and illegal intrusion into United Kingdom airspace, which it is called upon to do on an almost regular number of occasions as other air forces seek to determine the state of readiness of the Royal Air Force to defend the UK’s airspace.
The second part of the QRA is the duty that RAF Leuchars has to protect us from terrorist attack from the air and stop any malign effort to do damage to the fabric or population of the United Kingdom. Only a few years ago that possibility would have been thought so remote as not to be regarded but, unhappily, it now has to be given more serious consideration because of the attack on the twin towers and its consequences.
RAF Leuchars was chosen, therefore, because the established strategic considerations were favourable, and they remain so. It was chosen because the fact that 80% of the Scottish population live within 80 miles demonstrates that it provides the immediacy of protection required. As 111 Squadron, to which I have referred, comes to the end of its service at Leuchars, 6 Squadron will take over. The 111 Squadron has been flying the Tornado F-3, an aircraft that has given us valiant service since its introduction. It is to be replaced by the Typhoon, formerly the Eurofighter, the most modern and up to date of aircraft available to the Royal Air Force.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an extremely strong case for the retention of Leuchars, which the Scottish National party supports. May I ask him to ensure that we do not allow the Government to play Lossiemouth off against Leuchars and to make the case for the retention of all the capacity we have and against the overall reduction of the RAF footprint in Scotland?
Sir Menzies Campbell
I am an advocate for my constituency, but I am also an advocate for the proper disposition of defence installations throughout the whole of Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when there have been occasions at Lossiemouth and opportunities for joint political action in Scotland, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, Tavish Scott, has been present. The hon. Gentleman allows me to make another point, which is that the case for Leuchars and its retention is supported by members of all political parties and of none. I shall refer to that a little further when I come to discuss the impact on the local community. As 111 Squadron, flying the Tornado, has disbanded, 6 Squadron, flying the Typhoon, will take over. It is already fulfilling the responsibilities of the quick reaction alert. At new year, one of the Typhoons had to be scrambled to fulfil the obligation of the QRA. Between them, the two squadrons are working up to the point at which 6 Squadron will resume responsibility and 111 Squadron will stand down.
Leuchars is also a centre of defence excellence. Apart from 6 Squadron and 111 Squadron, it houses 71 TA Engineer Regiment—I know that will interest you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of your interest in the Territorial Army—58 Squadron RAF Regiment, 612 Auxiliary Surgical Squadron, recently back from Afghanistan, the Universities Air Squadrons in Scotland, the air cadets and mountain rescue. Shortly, in March 2011, No. 6 RAF Force Protection Wing will accompany 58 Squadron to Afghanistan. I take this public opportunity to wish them Godspeed and a safe return.
Of course, the speculation has brought about great uncertainty in the local community. An economic impact study is in the course of being prepared by Fife council and I understand that it might be published within the next few days. I shall ensure that the Minister receives a copy hot off the press. We all know that the closure of any base has an impact, but let me illustrate the nature of the impact to which the closure of Leuchars might give rise. In the Leuchars primary school, more than 80% of the children come from RAF families, and in the nearby village of Guardbridge, a substantial percentage of the children are also from RAF families. There is a long history and tradition of integration between the base and the local community, with a heavy accent on charitable activity, all of which helps to create a bond of friendship and respect between community and base. A new community centre has recently been opened outside the wire so that it can be available to both military and civilians. I had the honour to open it in October of last year. A little more mundanely, but of great practical assistance, during the recent snowstorms, personnel from RAF Leuchars were deployed to Edinburgh to help to clear the environs of hospitals so that patients and ambulances could gain easier access.
The arrival of 6 Squadron did not take place without some consequences, which are to be found in the costs. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, the runway has been resurfaced. A new building programme has nearly been completed and I saw evidence of that on Monday when I visited the base in the company of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Reasonable estimates are that some £40 million has been spent on RAF Leuchars in recent years and as part of these preparations. In addition, there is intensive training not only for air crew but for engineer and ground support. Leuchars is also to be subject to additional investment in information technology for the purpose of improving communications, which are so essential to the successful deployment of military force.
Ministers have consistently said that decisions about Royal Air Force bases will be made on sound defence principles. I have asked myself, and I ask the Government, what sound defence principle justifies reversing the recently made and paid for decision to deploy three squadrons of Eurofighter Typhoon at Leuchars, confirming Leuchars as an essential component of the UK’s air defence? That responsibility has for many years been fulfilled from that base with professionalism, commitment and distinction. I have an alternative principle to offer the Ministry of Defence: if it’s not broke, then don’t fix it.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for giving me a short time to make additional comments. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate. He has been a long-standing champion of both the community and the military in Fife. He is respected a great deal on both sides of the House for his tireless work. He has mentioned the cross-party support that exists in Fife and Tayside, and it is comforting that Members from both sides of the House and from across the water are present.
I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments about the vital role that servicemen and women continue to play at home and overseas at this very difficult time. The Minister will recall that when we had a similar debate in November on the future of RAF Marham, I counselled Members on both sides of the House to conduct the debate in a sensible and considered manner so that we did not end up with communities being pitted against one another. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done a superb job of articulating his case without seeking to disparage the case of another base that might be under threat.
The Minister will be aware of the concern among Members of all parties that there is some confusion about the Government’s thinking and the priorities that might be afforded to decision making. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has suggested that decisions might be made on a socio-economic basis, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that the decisions will be financial and the Minister and the Secretary of State have said they will be defence-driven. I hope that the Minister will give some clarity as to the weighting that will be given to each of those categories.
The Minister will also be aware, as I am sure are you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the Opposition’s proposals to place the base closure programme on to a statutory footing in the Armed Forces Bill. I do not seek to rehearse the arguments that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and I had on that Bill’s Second Reading, except to say that all the communities up and down the UK under some threat of base closure would benefit if the Government accepted an amendment to the Bill that would provide a transparent and clear process. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline tonight the Government’s latest thinking on whether they are prepared to accept such an amendment.
My final question for the Minister is about the continued uncertainty, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, about the time scales for the decision-making process. There was a rather regrettable incident before Christmas in which a Scottish newspaper seemed to have acquired fairly coherent information about decisions that might have been made. Hon. Members will recall the Standing Order 24 debate that we had about that. It would help if the Minister outlined what the timetable for any such decision will be. Will he also guarantee to do all in his power to ensure that the communities affected, rather than media outlets, will be the first to know?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for initiating this debate on the future of RAF Leuchars which, as the House will understand, is a subject of great importance to his constituency and more widely. My right hon. and learned Friend knows Leuchars very well, and I hope that during his visit yesterday with the Secretary of State for Scotland he saw once more what a fantastic job our personnel are doing.
I put on record my thanks to all those who work at RAF Leuchars and to the local community who have, over the years, given such strong support to the station, the RAF and the nation. I know this support is appreciated by all who are serving at the base.
RAF Leuchars has a long and honourable history. Aircraft from Leuchars have policed UK airspace for nearly 60 years, demonstrating the ability to intercept unidentified aircraft and thereby provide an effective deterrent. Given RAF Leuchars’ history and contribution to defence, it is understandable that my right hon. and learned Friend has spoken so passionately about its retention, both here in Parliament and in representations to me and to the Secretary of State.
In October, we published the strategic defence and security review, which was based on two clear priorities: supporting our mission in Afghanistan and setting the path to a coherent and affordable defence capability in 2020 and beyond. This took place against the Government’s clear determination to address the unprecedented fiscal deficit that we inherited. Every Department has had to make a contribution, and the Ministry of Defence is playing its part, but because of the priority that we place on security, the defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction than many other Departments. Even so, this has regrettably meant tough decisions. It is painful, but we have to make sacrifices to get the economy and the defence programme back on track.
Our fleet of Harrier and Tornado air defence and ground attack aircraft have performed magnificently over 30 years, but those aircraft risk becoming outdated as threats continue to become more varied and sophisticated, and maintenance of the fleets will become an increasing challenge, so the decisions to retire the Harriers and to reduce the number of Tornados were difficult, but we have to focus resources where they are most needed now—in support of our current operations.
The RAF plans to make a transition to a fast-jet force comprising the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter by the end of the decade. This makes both operational and economic sense. We know from our work on the SDSR that RAF Kinloss and two other bases will no longer be needed by the RAF. Public and parliamentary attention has focused on the consequences for Tornado ground attack bases at RAF Lossiemouth in Moray and RAF Marham in Norfolk, and the Typhoon and Tornado fighter base at RAF Leuchars.
Today, RAF Leuchars’ mission is to deliver and maintain UK quick reaction alert (interceptor) north, concurrent with the growth of Typhoon, while supporting other military operations. The delivery of the northern element of quick reaction alert is RAF Leuchars’ top priority and requires Typhoon and Tornado F3 fighter aircraft to hold high alert to scramble and intercept unidentified aircraft approaching UK airspace. RAF Leuchars is geographically well located for the delivery of QRA operations. However, it may be possible to mount northern QRA from another location. Lossiemouth and Leeming in north Yorkshire would be possible options.
As well as the support for RAF Leuchars offered by my right hon. and learned Friend this evening, I have had similar representations from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) regarding RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, and from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) regarding RAF Marham. It is essential to stress once again to the House that a decision on which of these bases will no longer be required by the RAF should not be taken to mean that they will no longer be required for defence purposes. We are now taking forward work to analyse the basing and estate consequences of the SDSR in their entirety, and to develop a coherent plan for the future of the whole defence estate. This piece of work goes well beyond the bases directly affected by the SDSR. For example, the Prime Minister has announced our intention to accelerate the rebasing of the Army from Germany, which must also be taken into account, along with the greater efficiencies that must be made through broader estate rationalisation.
The Ministry of Defence will need to determine what makes the most sense for the structure of our armed forces, including where they are based, where they need to train and operate from and the need to ensure value for money for the British taxpayer. Contrary to media speculation, no matter how well informed Members might have believed it to be, no decisions have been taken on our future basing requirements beyond those I have outlined. It will take time to work out which bases we will retain and the uses to which they will be put.
We know that these are important decisions and that we must get them right. The Ministry of Defence has been clear, and I repeat, that we do not expect that work to be concluded for some time yet, but we hope it will be by the summer. I know and regret that that means uncertainty for the people and communities concerned, but we will not rush to a conclusion without deep and proper analysis. As the SDSR states, we will aim to do so in a way that is sensitive to economic and social pressures and the needs of our people and their families.
We also want to ensure that any decisions fully take into consideration the implications for Tornado personnel operating in Afghanistan over the coming year and for their families. We are consulting other Departments, the Scottish Government, local communities and relevant agencies, as appropriate, to manage the local impact of our decisions. We must do further work to establish the detail of how to progress, but I am determined that at the end of the process the United Kingdom will have a coherent plan to deliver an estate that supports the capabilities we need to keep our people safe, meet our responsibilities to our allies and friends and secure our national interests.
As they were in the SDSR, our decisions have to be objective, unsentimental and based on the military advice we receive. I stress again that the military considerations are paramount among the factors that we will consider. We need to focus finite resources where they are most needed. We know that the RAF will be smaller and will inevitably need fewer flying stations. Although it will become leaner, we can maximise investment in new aircraft and also assure full support to current and contingent operations. The transition to the combined fast-jet fleet of joint strike fighters and Typhoon will certainly provide the RAF with world-class capability for the future.
Nick Harvey
I think that I might be about to answer the point that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wishes to raise. My right hon. and learned Friend has called on the Government to base our decisions on military necessity, the reality of the public purse and the socio-economic impacts on the areas affected, and I assure him that that is precisely what we will do. I have chosen carefully the order in which I put those criteria: the military considerations come first. They must be in line with economic considerations, but we are in no way immune to the wider impact that those decisions will have and, of course, and will listen to representations from Members from both sides of the House on the impact they will have on communities. All three factors will be taken into consideration. I think that that was the point that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. Am I correct in thinking that there is perhaps a fourth factor that should be seen as part of the whole discussion, which is the consideration given to what other uses the surplus bases could be turned?
Nick Harvey
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the other military uses to which bases can be put are part and parcel of the decision making, but I think that he is wrong to view that as a fourth factor. They are absolutely part and parcel of the military considerations that will inform us first and foremost, and of the economic considerations that will flow from that. Indeed, they will have considerable socio-economic impacts on the communities in each case. The SDSR is a process that will transform our armed forces to meet the challenges of the future. That includes the defence estate. We will now press on with that work.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Bus Fares (Bristol, Bath and surrounding areas)
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 10 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
Library Services
(13 years, 10 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
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I initiated the debate because libraries are under threat. In the Wigan borough where I live, the library service faces a £1.1 million reduction and the 18 libraries in the borough all consequently have an uncertain future. Nationally the picture is even bleaker. An estimated 400 libraries have closed or are under threat of closure, and some predict that by the time the process is finished the number will run into the thousands. I am pleased that so many hon. Members are here for the debate, but I suspect that it is because many of them are also concerned about the libraries in their area. That should trouble us all.
The Government appear to have abdicated all responsibility for the matter. Time and again I have listened to Ministers, when questioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, saying that local authorities bear legal responsibility for library provision. The Minister pledged, in the debate on the subject obtained by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), that he would
“stand shoulder to shoulder with local authorities”—[Official Report, 7 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 72WH.]
to protect library services. He must have been as surprised as I was to see that my local authority took a hit of £55 million in the spending settlement, front-loaded, thus allowing no time to find the Government’s much lauded efficiency savings. As a result the local authority is in no position to protect anything but the most essential services, such as child protection and care for the elderly. Urging local authorities to take responsibility for libraries while slashing their budgets is condemning libraries to closure. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady has secured the debate, because like her I believe that libraries are extremely important. Does she applaud the Government, as I do, for the future libraries programme? It is considering the future of libraries, involving communities more in how they should be shaped, whether through the use of technology, as community centres or by facilitating transactions and access to local services. Does she see that as a positive thing that the Government are doing as a commitment to libraries?
Lisa Nandy
I do not welcome the future libraries programme when the libraries in my area have, it seems, no future, because of the incredible reduction in the council budget. I shall talk later about ways in which libraries can be improved and about work that is happening. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman to understand that libraries cost money to run and cannot simply be run by volunteers on thin air.
We all know the value of libraries. That is not in dispute. It is clear that they have a particular impact for the disadvantaged. Catch22, a charity that works with young people, sent me in advance of the debate compelling evidence of the value of libraries for young homeless people in my Wigan constituency, particularly in relation to the internet. One in five people still does not have access to the internet. At a time when six people are chasing every job in Wigan, taking away internet access does not just feel like a kick in the teeth—it is a kick in the teeth. Catch22 sent me the story of Sam, aged 20, who said:
“My life is made more difficult by not having access to the internet or a PC...It seems that everything now requires the internet; often other organisations tell me to look online to find information. This includes the Job Centre, Housing Benefit, choice based lettings, Sure Start, health information. On occasions when I have not had enough phone credit to contact an agency by phone, they have suggested that I email them. If I can’t afford credit for my phone what makes them think I can afford the internet? I do not see how I will be able to save up to buy a PC in the foreseeable future as it is difficult to manage on benefits. I do want to better myself, but it is all a struggle.”
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. Further to her last point, does she agree that libraries are a sanctuary and haven for many young people where they can do their homework when they do not have the right conditions at home and the school library is not open? To deprive them of that, especially in the most disadvantaged communities, as Oxfordshire county council proposes to do with its closure of libraries in Blackbird Leys and Littlemore, as well as in Bury Knowle and Old Marston, is a disgrace.
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my right hon. Friend and know, having worked with many disadvantaged young people in the Oxford area, that people often make the mistake of thinking that Oxford is an entirely affluent area when in fact there are significant pockets of disadvantage. I am sure that libraries are a huge asset to those young people in trying to better themselves.
Libraries also obviously provide clear benefits for older people, children and single parents, but they are not merely havens for those groups. They are the heart and soul of communities. I shall not bore hon. Members with my love of libraries, which I expect is the same as theirs, forged since early childhood. I shall not explain how I have kept libraries going in my area by paying fines over years; they can rest assured that I have done my bit. The women from Standish library who are running a campaign to save it came to my surgery and explained eloquently why it is the heart and soul of the community and how it brings people together. They told me that removing the library would be like ripping the heart out of their community. That is why campaigns are springing up around the country and it is why the people of this country fought so hard in the first place for free public libraries to be established. We should pause to recognise what a struggle that was.
The Public Libraries Act 1850 was much disputed. It was a huge victory and marked a clear step forward in the advancement of working people. It was part of an era of enlightenment and social progress. It is a bitter irony that the Liberals fought for those libraries against their Tory counterparts, and that today we witness the spectacle of a Tory-Liberal coalition presiding over the unravelling of that landmark legislation.
In the north-west, that history could not be more important. Manchester central reference library was the first free public library to be established under the Act. Salford colleagues would probably remind me that Salford managed to establish a free public library under an earlier museums Act, but Manchester’s was the first free public library to be funded by public subscription under the 1850 Act.
Opening the library, the Conservative politician Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton said:
“I call it an arsenal for books are weapons whether for war or self defence.”
Incidentally, Charles Dickens also attended the opening of that library, and talked passionately about the advancement of working people, and the step that had been taken. It was in Chethams around the corner, the first free library in the English-speaking world, that Marx and Engels researched the “Communist Manifesto”. I appreciate that that argument might not appeal to the Minister, but it is important to note that the history of working struggle was rooted in one of the first free libraries in the world. Free public libraries marked a huge advance towards a better, more enlightened society. We have continued to build on that legislation and progress ever since.
Now the Government seem hell-bent on unravelling 160 years of progress, but I want to tell Ministers that the evidence suggests that once those libraries are gone, they are gone for ever. Ministers should think carefully before they take such a step.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing an important debate, although I am slightly disappointed that it has immediately become very partisan. In Aberconwy the library service faces cuts, but they have been happening since 2006. Indeed, the local authority has commented on a severe lack of investment in the past 10 years. How does she square that with her comments about the current proposals, or with her accusations against the coalition?
Lisa Nandy
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is upset that my remarks are partisan, but this is politics, and people make political choices, which is what I want to point out.
I am sure that many hon. Members and the Minister will want to point out that library use has declined and that some library services have declined as a result.
Mr Andrew Smith
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of the huge community campaign that is growing up around the country—more than 300 people met in Oxford town hall last week—is that it is non-partisan in the sense that the campaign supporters include many Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens and others, as well as Labour supporters, who are appalled at what the coalition Government are doing?
Lisa Nandy
That is also the case in my constituency. Those people are all united in a desire to protect their library services. They do not care whether a Conservative, Liberal or Labour Government are doing this; they value their libraries and want to see them protected.
The argument that library use has declined has been much overstated. Last year, 83 million children’s books were issued by libraries across the country, just 10% fewer than a decade earlier. If we consider the pressures that libraries are under—from cheaper books, online texts and different forms of borrowing—it is not their decline that is remarkable but their very survival.
In my Wigan constituency, library usage is up by a phenomenal 17% in six years as a result of the investment programme under the stewardship of Rodney Hill, the director of our culture and leisure trust, who himself used to be a librarian and who understands only too well the value of libraries.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On the question of library usage, is she surprised to learn that at Bromborough and Eastham libraries in my constituency, the reading groups have waiting lists?
Lisa Nandy
I am delighted to learn that, if not surprised. I am sure that the people of Bromborough are extremely well read and passionate about reading. I certainly do not want to say otherwise.
User satisfaction with libraries in my constituency stands at an all-time high of 91%. That shows that libraries can be an enormous success and that they can go from strength to strength.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In the borough of Wigan, which I also represent, there have been concerted campaigns, such as Bookstart, to encourage people to use libraries. People are already taking ownership of their libraries. When the residents of Ashton heard that their library was under threat, they almost immediately set up an online petition to prevent it from being taken away.
Lisa Nandy
I am aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and she is a passionate supporter of it.
I gave the example of my Wigan borough, because it shows that libraries can continue to improve and to be relevant, but they need investment. In researching this debate, I was pleased to see that web hits on libraries nationally are up by 4%, which shows that libraries are starting to adapt to changing usage and that they can be a success. I say to the Minister that library usage is undeniably changing, so by all means let us debate the future and the improvement of such services, but let us not pretend that libraries can be run on thin air and that this Government are presiding over anything other than the unravelling of one of the great steps forward in civilised society.
I have heard a great deal of talk about volunteers, and the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has asked me about them. Coming from the charity sector, I am well aware of the value of volunteers, but we cannot run a service on volunteers alone. We need infrastructure and paid staff. To suggest that volunteers can take the place of skilled librarians is an insult and not something with which I want to be associated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Does the hon. Lady have a specific reference to someone saying that volunteers should take the place of librarians?
Lisa Nandy
I have heard a great deal of talk in this debate about the use of volunteers. I am interested to know whether other hon. Members share my sentiment about the use of volunteers. I presume that the Minister is dissociating himself from the view, and I am grateful to him for that, because it is insulting to skilled librarians to suggest that they can be replaced simply by volunteers.
Mr Andrew Smith
I know that in the Minister’s own county, the leadership has suggested that volunteers could provide services that were previously provided by librarians.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I expect that the Minister will go back and have strong words with his colleagues as a result of this conversation.
Lisa Nandy
In conclusion, this is a test of whether this Government value not just libraries but communities. If the Minister takes this step, there will be no way back for generations. I urge him to ensure that libraries are protected. If he will not, I urge communities to make themselves heard on the national day of action on 5 February.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this 90-minute debate. She referred to the fact that earlier in the parliamentary Session, I had a Westminster Hall debate on the future provision of library services. I am delighted to see so many hon. Members here today to debate this important subject.
Libraries face challenging times. First, the funding of library services is not a statutory requirement. There are certain rules, criteria and aspirations that councils should change, but when facing challenging budgets and the need to make efficiency savings or cuts, they often see libraries as a relatively soft target. When I visited libraries across the country in my role as lead member for libraries on Swindon borough council, I found all too often that officers and councillors did not use the libraries themselves and so did not appreciate their value to local communities.
We must acknowledge falling usage. Five years ago, 48% of adults visited libraries compared with 39.4% now. Such a fall is against a backdrop of increased reading, particularly among children, so the decline in visits is a worrying trend. Plenty of surveys have been commissioned and much money has been spent on asking people how they would like to see their library service improved rather than on actually improving it. The surveys have shown that the public want good choice, convenient opening hours and a pleasant environment. That sounds obvious, but all too often local authorities do not embrace such factors. I will briefly touch on each of them and on how local authorities can embrace the new opportunities that present themselves.
Let me first turn to good choice. When I was preparing for my Westminster Hall debate, the fact that staggered me the most was that only 7.5% of a library budget is spent on book stock. Too much is spent on the corporate structure, different layers of managers and the bureaucracy of categorising and labelling books. We do not have a universal system. Imagine Amazon getting different towns to categorise the same books; it is madness. That money should be released back into the local libraries. It should be given to local library managers, who understand their own individual communities, to spend on books to get people back in. We would not see a commercial bookshop spending only 7.5% of its turnover on books. We should also allow residents to have a greater say on the books that are stocked. When we opened our new £10 million central library—unlike many public sector projects, I am pleased to say that it was delivered on time and on budget—we allowed local residents to choose the book stock. Unsurprisingly, those same residents came to take out those books after it opened.
As for convenient opening hours, libraries must embrace the mentality of the retail sector. We opened the new North Swindon library on a Sunday. It is next to one of the largest Asda/Wal-Marts in the country and so Sunday is one of its busiest days. Moreover, the new central library is open on a Sunday. A community library should always match the footfall of the local area. Self-service equipment inside new facilities that are not traditional libraries also provides a good opportunity to improve services. For example, I have visited leisure centres and community centres that have installed self-service equipment. Such facilities offer an extension of the mobile library service project in the sense that they are taking books out to the community. Such facilities should not necessarily replace traditional libraries in an area, but if there is no library and there is not enough money to provide one, they can help.
Self-service equipment often costs only £5,000. If a mobile library service is already touring in similar areas, it does not take too much to replenish the stock. All too often, existing community libraries are open for limited hours—in many cases it can be between eight or 10 hours —so volunteers can step in and help to ensure that that facility is open for longer. Users who rely on and appreciate the expertise and skills of the traditional core staff can still go to the library in the hours that already exist. If volunteers wish to open beyond those core hours, then more power to them, and such action is certainly something that the big society should embrace.
On the importance of having a pleasant environment, another challenge for libraries is that as much development has taken place in this country over the years, all too often libraries have been overlooked for section 106 contributions. If hon. Members look back at the history of many of their community libraries, they will struggle to remember the last time that they received a lick of paint or a modernisation. Too many libraries are not meeting customer expectations. I am delighted that in my constituency section 106 money was used to rebuild the Highworth library and it has just been announced that Moredon community library will have a major refurbishment on the back of a 350-house development just down the road. Those are the types of opportunities that local authorities should embrace and we as politicians should lobby to ensure that libraries are considered seriously where section 106 money is available.
We should also look to combine facilities. There is a very big national campaign for libraries. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) talked about the 300 people who came to an event at Oxford town hall. We have had similar experiences in my constituency. There was a threat of closure to the Old Town library and my hon. Friend the Minister came to visit Swindon during the campaign against that threat. The Old Town library was a very poor facility with limited opening hours and falling usage, but the local community passionately supported it. When I was still the lead member on the council for libraries, I challenged that community to get behind their local library and boy, they did so in droves. In the end, a compromise—
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for a good future for libraries, and I am pleased to hear about the changes that he has described. What impact does he feel the current financial settlement that local authorities are dealing with, including the speed and depth of the reduction in their funding, will have on the ability of people doing the job that he used to do—being a lead member on the local council for libraries—to deliver the type of vision that he is outlining?
Justin Tomlinson
The obvious answer is that it is a challenge, not only for libraries but for any service. However, we are in the reality that we are—we have to tackle the public deficit. I do not want to get all political, but I think that any debate that we attend in Westminster Hall will show that all services face similar pressures. That is why libraries must look in particular at their corporate structures and at the fact that they are only spending 7.5% of their budget on book stock. It does not take a brain surgeon to realise that money is not being efficiently spent right across library services, so there is still a challenge ahead.
I was talking about the threat of closure to the Old Town library in Swindon. This is what we did. About 400 metres up the road, we had a relatively new and refurbished arts centre, called the Old Town arts centre, with a 200-seat theatre in wonderful condition. So we moved the Old Town library into the arts centre, and we transferred the core 18 hours of service that already existed in the old library, so that if people liked that traditional service they could go along to the arts centre in those core times. However, there was a much larger and more pleasant library environment at the arts centre. Also, because the arts centre was manned for 40 hours a week with box office staff, the self-service library machines could be left on and if anybody had a problem using them the box office staff could step in and say, “This is how you use this facility.” So the opening times for the library went from 18 to 40 hours. In addition, every time that there is an evening show at the arts centre, the theatregoers, if they are so inclined, can use the self-service machine, so sometimes we are looking at an extension of opening times from 18 hours to 60 hours.
Obviously, the usage of that library has increased—by 24%—and membership has increased by 193%. The arts centre café had kept opening and closing, because it did not have sufficient footfall in the daytime to make it viable, but it is now viable and the arts centre itself is now selling more tickets, because people come in to the library to take out a book of their choice, they see that the show that evening has not sold out and that it is their particular choice, and so they go and buy a ticket for it. It is an absolute win-win situation, and in these times of challenging costs the council has saved itself quite a lot of money, because it is paying for one building rather than two.
Furthermore, when we built the new Central library in Swindon we made sure that the opening hours were tied up with the footfall, which hon. Members have already discussed. Again, we ensured that there was a café environment at the heart of the library, so that people did not just pop in, grab their book and leave. Instead, people spend time using the café and the library as an enjoyable environment. We also created the library so that it could be opened in part, because I have seen some fantastic new flagship central libraries being opened across the country that have then proved to be simply too expensive to open for long hours. I went to one that had cost £15 million but it was only open for four hours on a Saturday in a town centre, which was dreadful. So, within the new Central library in Swindon an express zone has been built, so that at the non-peak times a chunk of the library can remain open, matching the available budget. Also, within the library there are areas for cultural events to take place, such as readings by authors and poets, and meetings involving different groups, because libraries should be a focal point for local communities.
To summarise now, I will talk about some of the opportunities for libraries. Many people have already mentioned volunteers, and they have an important role to play. It is right to say that volunteers cannot simply replace all traditional library staff. However, the best model is one where existing core library staff are transferred, so that those people who rely on an excellent library service in core hours can still go at those times. Nevertheless, we should not then lock the library doors for the rest of the week. We should empower local communities to take over the running of local libraries at those times.
Yvonne Fovargue
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his view of libraries, where the librarians are actually in the library and simply giving out information and books, is rather narrow? I went to an excellent event run by local librarians for young children, where the librarians showed children books. The enthusiasm of those children and the professionalism of the library staff were unparalleled. Those children were then motivated by the visit of those librarians to go to their local libraries.
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady must have spectacular mind-reading abilities, because that is my very next point. By empowering local librarians to run their local libraries and to participate in their local communities, libraries should be looking beyond their traditional facilities and urging their staff to go out into their local communities to encourage people, particularly young children, to embrace the wonderful services and facilities that are available in the libraries themselves. Part of that process involves reducing the corporate structure and trusting local librarians to understand their communities. We all represent very different communities with different challenges, and library services should be tailored on a localised library-by-library basis to suit local demands. So I agree 100% with the hon. Lady’s comments.
The final point about volunteers is that where there is no alternative but to close a library—I am not advocating the closure of libraries, but when there is a “last chance saloon” situation—there are examples of volunteers stepping in and local authorities should be willing, at the very least, to say, “We will hand you that facility.” A good example of that process in the South Swindon constituency is the Walcot library. The local council decided that it was no longer viable, in part because the Parks library, which was not too far down the road, had been refurbished on the back of section 106 money. However, the local community took over the Walcot library, and the library is now partly a charity shop, partly a community facility and partly a library, which is far better than having no library service at all.
I have already talked about extending self-service, both into non-core library buildings and within library buildings. I repeat that there is a need to refocus library budgets on book stock. The fact that only 7.5% of library budgets is currently being spent on book stock is simply unacceptable.
Moreover, as politicians we are always talking about empowering local people, but if we are going to empower local people we need to pass on local information and engage with local residents, and in turn local residents need to register their views. Where better to do all that than in a local community library? People can pop in, look at the notice board, see the latest grand scheme that elected politicians or communities have put forward and register their comments. There are many examples of such schemes. In my constituency, there is the “Connecting People, Connecting Places” scheme, which the council has introduced. Although the council is trying to push that scheme, it must understand that the best way to deliver it is through libraries.
Another point is that where there are facilities that are only open for eight or 10 hours, surely we should open them up to other community groups, whether they are youth clubs or different local organisations that can use the building in which the facilities are situated. The council has already paid the rent and the rates, and these days most bookshelves are on wheels. Consequently, if a youth club wants to attend a community facility in the evening, it does not take much to move the bookshelves to the edges of a room and the youth club can take on that facility and use it. It is a crying shame that local authorities and local council tax payers are paying for these wonderful buildings to be shut for the vast majority of the week.
My final point is that it is essential that local authorities do not sleepwalk into a situation where our much-loved libraries experience a steady and continual decline. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, because he is a passionate advocate of libraries. We just need to convince all local authorities of all political parties that they need to make libraries a priority.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
I think that there are eight Members who are trying to catch my eye to speak. I am looking at their having about five minutes each to speak.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this important debate and on making such a cracking speech, which encapsulated the central arguments that are facing every single constituency in this country at the moment where there are people who are passionately concerned about the possible loss of their local library. I equally congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on a splendid speech, detailing—in no small degree—the kinds of changes that have already taken place within my constituency and other constituencies to improve our library services, so that they actively engage with the local community and become part of it in ways that are both imaginative and innovative.
However, the bottom line is that none of those improvements can be developed and none of our libraries can advance without some financial support, and this issue is going to spread beyond libraries. People in my constituency are concerned about not only the threat to local libraries, but the threat of closure of sports facilities. This is an example of what the Government have touted as central and essential to the big society: localism. Yet, when one looks at the local reaction, constituents’ opinions are being ignored. My constituents are being ignored because my local authority simply does not have the money, however much the amount needed might be reduced by the engagement of volunteers and more imaginative opening hours.
As an aside, many of the libraries in my constituency are housed in historic buildings. Kensal Rise library, which is under serious threat, began part of its collection with a donation by Mark Twain of his own books. That gives an idea of how old the building is, and as we all know, older buildings are much more difficult to maintain.
There are legal issues involved in the opening and the public use of libraries, and it is not possible to provide that use without some financial support. It is fantasy on the part of the Government to sit there and say, “Well, this is a choice for local authorities. They have to balance their budgets. We’ve given them money in real terms,” when the Government know absolutely that the authorities have not been given money in real terms to support the services that are central to local communities.
In my constituency, thank heavens there has been an election and the political colour of the council has changed. For the five years up to 2010, the budget, which was very generously donated to local authorities by the Labour Government, was balanced by a Lib Dem-Conservative council in my constituency. Well, if Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are supposedly much better at balancing their budgets than a Labour Government are, where has the money suddenly gone? Why are all the community facilities upon which constituencies such as mine will increasingly depend, under threat?
There is an irony in the Government’s failure to think their own policies through. We are entering an era of something called welfare to work, and while no one argues with the pressing need to get people off welfare and into work, the Department for Work and Pensions says that it expects the majority of first contacts with those who are looking for work to be via the internet. My hon. Friend pointed out that that already happens in her constituency, as it does in mine. For young people who are looking for work, are very confused by the benefits system and have no computer access of their own, the local library is the first port of call, because the equipment and the information are there, and highly skilled and highly trained people can help them. With the best will in the world, in many instances volunteers will not be able to provide the multifarious layers of expertise and information that our libraries are capable of furnishing at the moment. I am not going to stand here and pretend that this is very often the case, but it is certainly the case at the moment that we value things only when we think we are going to lose them, and when it comes to things such as local libraries, this has certainly been the case for many years. People suddenly think, “My goodness, we might be losing this but it’s so valuable for our community.”
It has already been touched on that libraries provide services for the whole age range, from the very young to the very old. I remember that when I was a child we were not allowed to speak in a public library—it was a silent place—and it is fascinating to see that now there are special areas for children. Children are having stories read to them, and we have heard from the hon. Gentleman about local poetry readings. That is very big in my constituency, because I am fortunate to have a lot of poets there—quite apart from authors—who are very well recognised around the world. The central issue here is that if the Government are genuine in their talk of a big society, of localism and of passing power down to local people to make the decisions, they have to acknowledge that at the moment their stringent slashing of funding to local authorities—
Mel Stride
I realise our economic inheritance has been skated around very diplomatically in this debate, but it now needs to be raised. I understand that the hon. Lady’s argument is that there should be more funding and resources for libraries. We inherited a debt the interest alone on which is £43 billion a year—more than we spend on the education budget. For there to be more resources, would the hon. Lady increase the deficit, or cut expenditure elsewhere—in which case where? Or would she raise taxes and, if so, which ones?
Glenda Jackson
First, I would nail this gothic novel that runs through the Conservative-Lib Dem Government and has been expounded by all their adherents, that our present economic difficulties are the exclusive responsibility of the previous Labour Government, who spent excessively. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole world went through a major economic crisis because the present Government’s friends—the bankers, whom I have not noticed taking any major cuts under this Government—threw the whole world’s economic structure into parlous peril.
What I am talking about is what this Government purport to be a basic principle: localism, in which it is the voice of local people that is overwhelmingly heard. The point that I was making before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman was that that voice cannot be heard if central Government stifle it and put a gag around it, as they are doing. It is an offence to us all to pretend to local people that they can have the same level of the services upon which they depend when there are massive cuts in the financial support for those services. It is equally an insult to all our intelligences to presuppose that volunteers—the charitable sector—will be able to take up the slack and continue to provide the services.
In concert with my hon. Friend, who was fortunate to secure this debate, it seems to me that the number of right hon. and hon. Members hoping to participate today is an indication of how important the issue is throughout the country, and the Government really should think about it again.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and I agree entirely that libraries are, and should be, the heart and soul of our communities. I also agree with the point that volunteers provide an add-on, and we have to take on board the differences between our communities which mean that the services that volunteers can contribute will differ greatly from one community to another.
I have a distinct sense of déjà vu. Just four years ago I spoke in the House, to a Labour Minister at that time, about Dorset county council’s plans to close 13 libraries. The 13 libraries were saved after a long battle, with reduced opening hours at most libraries in the county, and new friends groups set up and existing ones strengthened. Usage at all those libraries has gone up over the four years. The current county council proposal is that funding will cease for up to 20 communities where there is currently a library—20 out of 34 libraries. Originally, those communities were asked to come up with a business plan, by May this year, on how the community could run the library, and yet very few details have been provided on what, if anything, the county council will contribute. A book fund is, of course, vital, and if there is no centralised book fund can a community actually say that it has a library? I do not think so.
Given the scale of things, Dorset county council has had a relatively good settlement. It is still not good for the county, but these are local choices. The council has made a decision to spend £1 million on a new library in Dorchester, which cannot be accessed easily from places in my community that might lose their libraries. Interestingly, in one of its reports, Dorset library service states that its vision is of a
“dynamic library service fostering the joy of reading, learning and a love of knowledge to enhance lives and build communities”.
Could we possibly disagree with that? No, we could not, but I hope that most of us would disagree with the closure of 20 libraries. Dorset county council’s own equality impact assessment talks about the impact on older people and children, and on people in rural communities. It also talks about providing mobile library services, but they are not a real substitute where children’s gaining a joy of reading and learning is concerned. Equally, the council’s report accepts that there is a risk that the reconfigured service will be deemed not to comply with the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, which requires library authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. I ask the Minister to monitor closely what is happening in Dorset. We have been here before, and we had the support of the previous Minister.
In my constituency, it is proposed to seize the funding of four libraries. I use all of them for my surgeries, so I declare an interest. For the most part, they are in quite large communities rather than small villages; one is in a large village, and the others are for the most part in built-up urban areas. Those libraries are used, and there are plenty of potential users. Two of the libraries are now co-located with children’s centres, which is excellent. Parents come in to see the health visitor and then sign up their baby for a library membership card. We need those services and have been working on them for the past four years, but now libraries are the first thing to be cut, because that is seen as an easy option, even though they are important for our children.
In the limited time available, I will concentrate on children. Our Government are committed to raising children’s reading standards. The introduction of a standardised test is being discussed, although I have some doubts whether test results should be published. We want to equip our children with the skills that they need for later life. Surely we must build on the use of libraries. The Bookstart scheme was saved recently. I know that authors made many representations. I say this to them: a child gets a book at 11. It is great that one book will go into a household without many books, but children must have libraries to go with it. Libraries are the complement to the Bookstart scheme, so I hope that those authors will come along to Dorset to argue for the survival of our libraries.
Dorset has a high proportion of older people, and the importance of libraries to older people cannot be overemphasised. Libraries allow them to get out of the house and engage in activities. The number of book and reading clubs has grown enormously, which is excellent. As has been said, there are lots of innovative ways to get more people into libraries, and communities are willing to play their part, but that part must be reasonable and must be backed not by expensive offices at county hall but by skilled librarians and other staff. I want efficiency and joint use, and I want to work with the excellent friends groups within the county council to retain a dynamic library service, but we need a bit of help from the Minister, whom I commend for his commitment to the country’s library service.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on obtaining this extremely important debate and on how she presented her case. I will not repeat everything that has been said about the value of libraries, but I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), particularly about libraries’ value to older people—they help get them out of the house—and to children. In my rather deprived constituency, libraries are critical to the future of children and young people and help supplement their education.
Lewisham council is in a somewhat different position from some of the councils discussed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who, like me, has supported saving our libraries, would be here if she were not on a Standing Committee. Lewisham council has 12 libraries, which it has worked hard to reorganise and bring up to date. From 2005-06 to 2009-10, Lewisham invested £6.5 million in capital expenditure on libraries. It also entered into partnerships with Croydon and Bromley councils in order to negotiate jointly new e-book and e-audiobook services. The consequences have been increased library use, increased opening hours and general huge success.
In a constant drive for efficiency, Lewisham has also developed new models. We acquired three additional community libraries over those years. One, at the Pepys resource centre in my constituency, is run by ECO Computer Systems in partnership with Hyde Housing and is supported by local volunteers and, crucially, by the council’s library and information service, which supports new facilities by providing up-to-date stock, delivering professional advice, organising activities and promotions, training partner organisations and offering technical services such as access to online resources.
Lewisham was a beacon Labour council that innovated, widened participation and met the needs of the most vulnerable in the community while reducing costs wherever possible. However, the Tory-led Government have changed all that. Last autumn, like so many other councils, Lewisham was forced to propose closing five libraries as part of the programme of cuts imposed by central Government. Understandably, that led to public outcry with protests and marches as Lewisham council undertook a wide-ranging consultation on how best to meet the Government’s demands. As in all other local authorities in the country, most of the budget was devoted to social care, so it was obvious that our libraries could not be shielded. My bottom line was that we must keep the buildings for community use. The last thing we need in Deptford is another betting shop.
The council agreed to consult further and draw on the experience of the three new libraries. The community response has been amazing. People are determined to keep their library service. Local Labour councillors and community activists are working with people who have never before stepped forward to find a solution to the problem.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My library service faces severe cuts; eight libraries will be largely turned over to volunteers. The right hon. Lady touches on something that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) mentioned. Does she not agree that it is incumbent on every local authority to consider its entire property estate to see whether it can combine services in one building in order to reduce maintenance and running costs?
Joan Ruddock
Of course. There is no doubt about it. One of the new libraries that I mentioned does exactly that. My council, under a Labour Government, did everything as Labour dictated in order to make the best use of community facilities and become as efficient as possible. That is why we were awarded beacon status.
The community members coming forward are ambitious. They want longer opening hours and further innovations. I am confident that New Cross and Crofton Park libraries in my constituency will be saved. They will certainly have my continued support. The council has received 10 expressions of interest from organisations wishing to take on one or more of the library buildings and run library services from them. It seems like a great success in the making, but we must remember that front-line library jobs will be lost, perhaps forever. Most importantly, community effort can be maintained only with council support and council tax payers’ money. The installation of self-issue technology will be essential to the operation of the libraries, and that is likely to cost about £59,000 per building. The council’s outreach unit will probably be required to contribute more than 100 hours a week to servicing the outreach offer.
The cost of Lewisham’s service was already the lowest in inner London, and the cuts will bring it down to just over £14 per resident. Thanks to the Labour Government’s investment, a new library is due to open in Deptford later this year. But what lies ahead? The cuts being imposed by this Government on Lewisham are already destroying other services. The Deptford job centre has been closed and a second employment advice service, Opening Doors, faces closure as a direct result of the cuts in Government grant. As my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) have pointed out, it is the young and the unemployed in particular who need library services if they are ever to stand a chance of getting a job and a future career in the present climate.
I am proud of the way in which my community is endeavouring to meet the challenge of library closures, and I hope that the new ways of working will help us meet other challenges, too. However, let no one be in any doubt that this is not a panacea. None of us is going to become a volunteer brain surgeon very soon, and I doubt and would be surprised if many of us would volunteer to change incontinence pads. Whatever we may learn and/or achieve with our libraries in Lewisham, we will still face a Government who are bent on destroying our communities and their prospects.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will be brief. I note that I am the only representative of a Welsh constituency present. I am surprised by the stories that Opposition Members have been telling about the land of milk and honey that existed in this country before 2010. The library service in my constituency of Aberconwy in north Wales has been under constant threat of closure for the past five or six years, a period in which we have had a Labour-led Assembly Government and a local authority led by either the Labour party or Plaid Cymru in coalition with Labour.
My point about partisanship is important, because the campaigns undertaken in my constituency to protect library services have been led not by political parties, but by communities. They are concerned about the future of the library service because they understand, as does the rest of Wales, how important libraries are. After all, not many countries can claim to have a pop group such as the Manic Street Preachers, who sang about libraries giving us power. Indeed, that lyric is now in place above Cardiff city library, so we take our libraries seriously in Wales. The libraries in Wales grew from the slate quarrymen of north Wales and the miners of south Wales—they grew from a feeling of society. I am astounded at the lack of confidence expressed by some hon. Members about the ability of our communities to contribute to the protection of library services.
My constituency of Aberconwy faces a threat to many rural libraries. There is no doubt that people in those communities would much rather ensure that the future of those libraries is fully funded and fully staffed from the local authority. However, we also understand that, over the past five years, despite repeated attempts to persuade the local authority and the Welsh Assembly to fund those libraries properly, that has not happened. We therefore face a challenge, and that challenge is to make the most of the resources available to us. I am confident that, if the rural communities in my constituency —places such as Llanrwst and towns such as Llanfairfechan, which are pretty far from the main, central library in Llandudno—are forced to choose, they will work as a community to ensure that they protect the libraries. After all, even though the Welsh Assembly has said that the local library service in Conwy is underperforming, it is still a fact that, in an area with a population of less than 100,000, there were 500,000 visits to libraries in Conwy last year and more than 500,000 books were lent. Most importantly, there were 90,000 hours of internet use.
The communities that I represent fully understand that, despite five or six years of campaigning against the decisions made by a Labour-led local authority and Assembly, they will have to continue to fight in order to try to ensure a prosperous future for their libraries.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I know from my experience in north Yorkshire that local communities are coming together and are excited about the opportunities provided by changes to library use. What does my hon. Friend have to say about the opportunities for libraries in rural areas to become hubs for internet usage by their local communities? It is a good opportunity for libraries to grow the range of their services.
Guto Bebb
I concur with those comments. I recently attended a town council meeting in Llanfairfechan that was held to try to ensure a future for the local library. One of the key issues at stake is that the internet services in that library are heavily used by local people who would not otherwise have access to the internet. Therefore, the provision of other services in libraries, and combining them with those offered by the local authority, offer a way forward. We thoroughly appreciate that libraries have to move forward.
I am surprised that this debate has been so partisan. Ultimately, we have seen an ongoing threat to libraries over a long period. If that was not the case in England, it was definitely the case in Wales. We, as communities, have to take responsibility for the services that we want. We should try to ensure that funding continues to be provided to ensure that we have a selection that appeals to people. We need a professionally led service, but the comments that have been made about the bureaucracy, the different labelling, the central cost and so on need to be taken on board.
Ultimately, however, the big difference between the coalition in Westminster and the Labour-led coalition in Cardiff is simple. The Minister has stated time and again that local authorities and communities should make decisions about the future of library services. That is in complete contrast with the Labour-led Welsh Assembly, which has basically told Conwy council to modernise—in Wales, modernise means “close things”—or it will take over the service. I commend the approach of our coalition Government and can only say that people in my constituency would be delighted if the Welsh Assembly Government took the same approach.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate. I have been struck by the remarks of all the hon. Members who have spoken so far about how passionate we are about library services. In some sense, there is a shared vision that library services are part of our future and not a thing of the past.
A recent ten-minute rule Bill of mine argued that the 1964 Act, which covers library services, should be extended to cover related cultural services as well. That set down a marker and said that not only are cultural services important, but that the Act—limited though it is, and which protects library services—is important and that we should all stand up for it. During that debate, I explained that part of the reason why I am so passionate about libraries is that libraries were not always free in Liverpool. My grandfather used to steal books from Liverpool central library, but I have checked with my dad and apparently he put them back. It is good to use this opportunity to restore the reputation of the McGovern family.
I have two brief points that build on those that have already been made, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. My first point is on the situation in which local authorities find themselves and how they might go about supporting libraries in difficult times. My second is on the role of the professional librarian and how we can support them and ask them to go further in what they do.
On local authorities, it was great to hear the comments of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I did not know that he was previously a leading member, but it is always important to hear from those who have been local authority members. I was a local councillor in the London borough of Southwark, and I learned a great deal from that experience. One thing that I learned is that the best way to make decisions is to consult widely, listen, marshal a great deal of research and think about a vision for the service that fits the needs of the locality. Never mind what central Government say, in dealing with a community, a town centre area or similar, we must ask what they need. We need to think hard about that, which is what the best local authorities do.
Unfortunately, local authorities face a crisis. If we think of local government as another Whitehall Department, it is the one that is under the most financial pressure, because it is being asked to make the deepest cuts and to deliver them in the shortest possible time. How will any leading member of a local authority have the time to do the work that I have just described in terms of understanding the picture of a locality and talking to community groups, especially in areas in which there is poverty? Those of us who have worked with communities that suffer great poverty know that one has to expend a lot of time getting to know people and understanding the issues. I am sure that that experience cuts across the Chamber.
That all takes time, effort and resources, which are three things that local authorities do not have. Local authorities are being forced to look at libraries from the wrong end of the policy telescope. Instead of working out how to deliver a long-term vision and to stack up the financial business plan behind that—either from co-location or from involving the private or voluntary sector—they are being forced to cut first and deal with a vision for the service after. Local authorities are being forced to say, “What can we possibly afford? Okay, well that is what we have to give people.” They do not really have a choice here. As much as it is wonderful to hear comments about the different ways in which we can do things—I absolutely support that—we must be real about the situation that local authorities are in.
I accept the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is very experienced at working with local authorities. We cannot say that local authorities are in position to do the kind of visionary job that we want them to when they are facing such severe cuts. One thing that the Government have done regarding the role of professional librarians, for which I give them credit, is to re-establish that it is important for politicians to assert trust in the professional. They have talked about trusting GPs and teachers, and they are right to do so. So let us start talking about trusting librarians.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that although the professional librarian is clearly a very important part of the make-up of the library service, the volunteer also plays a considerable part? As a result of reading the transcript of the debate, I would not want volunteers to feel undervalued because, at the end of the day, there are 17,000 people across the library service who give their free time and spend 500,000 million hours every year working in the service. Without them, some of the smaller rural libraries in particular would not survive. In Ipplepen in my part of the world, the old library has been closed and, without those volunteers, we would not be considering moving back to a new library resource in the local village hall.
Alison McGovern
Of course, volunteers are important. In fact, last Friday in my constituency, I met a volunteer archivist from Bromborough who does an amazing job. However, if she were here, she would say that, without a library service underpinning that work, it is impossible for volunteers to get the platform on which they need to stand to do the job they want to do. It is chutzpah to imagine that we can substitute volunteers for professionals rather than seeing them as an addition, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has said. That is what most volunteers themselves think that they ought to be. For example, the charity Volunteer Reading Help makes great play of the fact that it provides additional services to schools.
I shall move on, so that I do not take up too much time. We need to trust the professional librarian. In such difficult times, local authorities ought to listen to librarians. In my experience, the librarians that service my constituency in the areas of Heswall, Bromborough, Eastham and Bebington have been incredibly creative in getting other services—for example, the university of the third age—to use their buildings. The poet laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, has not once but twice visited Bromborough to encourage a love of poetry and reading. We want to support that kind of creativity but, at the end of the day, that takes a budget. I have already made comments about that. We need to say to local authorities that where they are looking to provide a better service, they must trust the professional librarians they have and encourage them to support volunteers. They should maintain the vision of the public library that hon. Members here today hold so dear and enable those professional librarians to do the job that they are qualified to do.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I will be brief, because I am sure that you will want to start the winding-up speeches fairly soon, Mr Turner. This has been a valuable and interesting debate. We all feel passionately about the future of the library service in all its different guises. The situation that we are discussing is as much an opportunity as a threat. We could debate for hours why we are in the economic climate in which we find ourselves, but the reality is that we are where we are, and we need to find a way forward.
We need to recognise that how people use libraries has begun to change and consider what we can do to respond. A sensible way forward is to try to identify those buildings, including the library, that are used for a number of community purposes. Such an approach would mean that we are more likely to keep library facilities than lose them. If we simply looked at the status quo, libraries would close day in and day out.
However, another challenge that the Minister might like to consider is that of e-books, which have been briefly mentioned. The trend towards the use of e-books is increasing. Amazon says—admittedly, we are talking about buying rather than borrowing—that it sells twice as many e-books as hard copy books. What are the implications of that for the library service? What innovative ideas can it come up with that will enable people to access those sorts of books? If we think about the matter, it is a no-brainer. There are 1 million free books on Kindle, which we ought to try to make available to local people. Kindle has another 500,000 books available to buy. The cost of a Kindle book is usually 50% or two thirds less than the hard copy. The issue is a challenge that we must face head on.
I am pleased that Devon county council has been chosen as one of the pilot areas for the future libraries programme, and it is healthy to start looking at what we should be doing on that. We need to draw a distinction between what we do in our towns and what we do in our villages. In Newton Abbot, I am lucky that £2.8 million has been spent on a state-of-the-art library. However, it is not only a library, because it will also provide adult learning and an opportunity for adults who want to know how to spend their care budgets to talk to a professional about how they can do that. Such an approach will provide an opportunity for children to link together and for individuals to take what looking at books is about to an educational level rather than them simply having an informative role. That is where the opportunity is.
As I have said, I will not make a long contribution. First, we need to look at the better use of buildings, which I am pleased to see we are doing. In rural communities, having one or two buildings rather than five or six—if an area is lucky enough to have that number—is the right way forward. Secondly, we need to consider how to move libraries from being knowledge based, which was where they started, to being education and community based. Thirdly, we need to consider the challenge of technology and how libraries can address that.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing an important debate. In the time I have, I want to focus on a number of points relating to Hartlepool’s library provision. In our town, we are fortunate to have well used and much loved library provision. We have the central library in York road, Owton Manor, Foggy Furze, Seaton Carew, West View, Throston and the Headland, as well as mobile libraries serving communities that do not have ready access to fixed branch library provision. We also have a home library service that provides for people aged over 80 or with a disability to be regularly given books based upon their knowledge and preferences.
I want to focus on two things. First—this has been touched on already—libraries make an enormous contribution to instilling a love of learning among young people through working in partnership with nurseries, schools, Sure Start and children’s centres. Fifteen years ago, Hartlepool children were well below the national average in GCSE attainment, but they are now well above the national average. The high quality provision that we have in libraries, coupled with investment from the previous Government, has played an important part in that.
At the other end of the age spectrum, good quality library provision can save money with regard to social care and NHS services for the older population. For example, the home library service involves people going into homes and talking to people, which reduces an older person’s sense of isolation. Such a service can pre-empt problems and provide early intervention, so that more expensive and traumatic treatments from the NHS and social care are avoided.
I do not blame local politicians for the choices that will have to be made; I blame central Government. Hartlepool borough council faces cuts of 30% in its £90 million budget in the next four years. When people are dealing with social care budgets or child protection, it is easy to see library provision as a soft target. As I have said, I blame central Government, and I ask the Minister to think again. Foggy Furze library in my constituency is due to close next month, and the merging of Throston library with the community centre has also been proposed. We face big cuts to a high-quality and much-loved service. I ask the Minister to use his powers in government to ensure that libraries are helped as much as possible and that Hartlepool’s excellent service is both retained and enhanced.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this important and timely debate. Her fears for the future of the nation’s libraries are shared throughout the country by people of all parties and none, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) pointed out when talking about the protests in his constituency. Libraries are popular: my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) discussed the popularity of libraries in his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) talked about waiting lists for reading groups. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) also said that library usage was up in her constituency.
I shall start my winding-up speech by focusing on the social progress and advancement for working people that libraries provide. That was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). People have spoken passionately in favour of libraries because they facilitate social mobility. The Victorian pioneers who began the public library service were not a bunch of crazed public spenders. Many were hard-nosed men of industry who realised just how vital it was for both the economic and the moral health of their communities that ordinary men and women had the opportunity to learn from the great books and journals that were accessible for the first time to those without means. They gave that opportunity for self-improvement to so many.
That was a public value, which was given legal recognition by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. That declared, as plain as can be:
“It shall be the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof”.
Whose Government passed that legislation? None other than that of the 14th Earl of Home, better known as the Conservative Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home. That was the age of one-nation conservatism, when even the Tory party believed in something real called society.
Let us talk about the people whom libraries serve. They serve millions of mums, such as those in my constituency who tell me that their youngsters cannot get through the contents of the local library’s children’s section fast enough. These mums are desperate to give their kids a head start through good reading skills and an understanding of the world gained through books.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We have heard about libraries as a leisure activity for people in their later years and as places housing computers, but does my hon. Friend agree that there are still communities for whom libraries are a window for their young people on the world of books and learning? I was brought up in a household in which there was one book—the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”. When I had just turned five, my mother took me to the library. She did not read, but she understood the importance of reading. We need to preserve libraries for communities in our cities and rural areas, where libraries give children their first introduction to the world of books and learning.
Gloria De Piero
My hon. Friend makes a good point about social progress, social mobility and advancement. Some of the mums whom I speak to do not have much money, so without easy access to a local library, their kids simply would not have books at home. Some of the mums are better off, but even those on middle incomes tell me that they cannot afford to keep up with their kids’ appetite for new books. The Minister can no doubt pop on to Amazon with his gold card whenever he likes, but that option is not open to millions of our fellow citizens, especially at a time when the cuts and tax hikes of the Government of whom he is a member are hitting family budgets throughout the land.
It is not just mums who are served by libraries. They also serve people seeking work and those looking for a better job. Jobseekers have told me that many big employers now advertise online only. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has said, more than one in four households are not online, and the lowest earners are the least likely to have internet access at home. Without access to the internet at their local library, they would struggle to find out about vacancies.
Those seeking new skills rely on their libraries, too. The actor Chris Gascoyne, who is from my constituency of Ashfield and is now a leading light in “Coronation Street”, told me quite plainly that much of the reason why he has become a successful actor is that he fell in love with the library in Sutton in Ashfield. If people slash the library, they are slashing routes into the world of work. How much of a false economy is that?
I have not mentioned the battalions of school kids who rely on their local library to do homework, to study for exams and to help to guarantee their future success, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). No one is saying that the library service cannot modernise and that it should not continually look for ways of achieving more bang for its buck. However, I am sometimes confused when I read speeches given by the Minister, because whenever he is in front of an audience that cares about libraries, he says that he will
“do my best to be a champion for libraries as your minister.”
He says that he will
“keep emphasising the importance of libraries”.
He also says:
“Libraries offer opportunities and sustainable solutions—they are not a service that is simply an easy cut in tough times.”
I do not know whether those words will reassure the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) or whether he shares my fear that they are warm words, which, as always, are charmingly spoken but which mean absolutely nothing when they come up against the reality of the pernicious local government settlement that is threatening libraries up and down the country. News is coming in from all over the country of threats to libraries. According to media reports, more than 400 libraries and 50-plus mobile libraries are currently under threat or have recently closed, and those are only the figures from half the local authorities that have done their settlements. I apologise for not having exact figures, but despite my repeated pleas to the Minister in written questions, he has not given me an exact figure.
Where libraries are not closing, they are reducing the service. Where I live in Nottinghamshire, the Conservatives reign supreme on the county council. They propose to reduce the budget for buying new books from £1.6 million to just £400,000—a cut of 75%. The average age of a book in a Nottinghamshire library will go from 5.4 years to 21.5 years, so when people sit in Notting Hill discussing the Booker shortlist, it will be two decades before those titles reach Sutton in Ashfield. What is the reason for that? The Conservative leader of the county council has summed it up. It is
“to meet the challenges of the financial settlement for local government”.
That is echoed by councils throughout the country, which many hon. Members have referred to during the debate.
If any part of my constituency reminds the world of the power of literature, it is the town of Eastwood, where my home is and where the adolescent D. H. Lawrence would borrow books on Thursday evenings from the lending library at the Mechanics institute, yet even there, where there is positive proof of the power of social mobility, the Conservative council is proposing to cut library opening hours by 40%. I feel sorry for budding Lawrences among today’s residents of Eastwood.
The Minister often says, “Not me, guv.”—he might put it more elegantly than that. He has written to every local authority, reminding them of their statutory duty on libraries, but he knows that such a letter is not worth the paper that it is printed on when his ministerial colleagues are ensuring that local councils simply do not have the cash to maintain, never mind improve, their library service. He will not get away with it, because voters throughout Britain can see that this good-value service on which they rely is under threat directly because of the coalition’s policies, and when they look for the fingerprints on the murder weapon—as Agatha Christie, one of library users’ favourites, might have put it—they will see that the Lib Dems’ paws are all over it.
I hope that every local Lib Dem councillor realises that there is no point in rushing out a petition to save their local library when their MPs in Westminster are standing by as the service is slashed. As the Minister said on the radio on Wednesday, “You have to elect councillors who believe in libraries and you have to campaign in your local area to get councils to back their library service.” Exactly, but there is only one party whose record in government locally and nationally shows that it can be trusted to protect our libraries, and I am proud to say that it is my party.
There can be no better indictment of the present Government’s hypocrisy than their treatment of Britain’s libraries. They spill out warm words of support while starving libraries of the cash that they need to continue. They pretend that these huge savings can be made without taking books off the shelves or turning the lights out as libraries close, although the Minister and his colleagues know that that simply is not the case.
It is time for the Minister to come clean. Will he accept that he is not a champion for libraries and that he is responsible for a reduction in services? Will he tell us whether he warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the spending round that the cuts to local authorities would put them under pressure to reduce library provision? Will he tell us just how far he thinks library services can be cut while the law is fulfilled? Will he guarantee that the 1964 Act will remain in place for the lifetime of this Parliament? Finally, does he accept that librarians, such as the ones whose expertise we, as MPs, are lucky enough to draw on in the House of Commons, require special skills, or does he have plans for the House of Commons Library service to be staffed by volunteers? There are many questions for the Minister, and I hope that he will now provide some answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on calling this important debate.
I thank hon. Members for some extremely valuable contributions. I thank not only the hon. Member for Wigan, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who showed how a go-ahead and visionary local authority can adapt its library authority. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) gave an impassioned defence of her local library service and called for more Government spending as we tackle the deficit. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly said that her county council is making the decisions, some of which she disagrees with, and she is perfectly within her rights, as the local Member, to do so. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) gave an inspired review of what is happening in Lewisham and said the changes there are a great success in the making.
Mr Vaizey
I will just finish my review, if the right hon. Lady does not mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) reminded us that local authority library services are often debated and that the debate about the future of local libraries did not begin on 6 May 2010. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who has introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, reminded us again of her passion for libraries. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) mentioned e-books, which are very important indeed. There are complicated issues surrounding e-books, not least to do with the future of this country’s publishing, which is our most important and successful creative industry. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) ended the Back-Bench contributions by making an impassioned plea for me to intervene in the library service in his area.
The Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) made a wonderfully engaging speech, which ended with a series of questions for me, but let me also ask her a few questions. I would hate to think that her speech shared the same motivation as that by the hon. Member for Wigan, who revealed what was behind her speech in replying to an intervention when she said that “this is all politics”. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked whether I would guarantee the future of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Yes, unlike the previous Labour Government, who showed rank hypocrisy in publishing a document on the modernisation of the library service just as they were running out of time. Their Minister with responsibility for libraries published a document asking whether we still need a statutory library service. If Labour had been re-elected, it would have got rid of the statutory library service, but Opposition Members now shed tears for the library service. When I campaigned against the closures proposed by the Labour council in the Wirral, where were Opposition Members? Again, rank hypocrisy.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The hon. Lady has had a chance to speak. I have been sitting here, but I have not had a chance to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he is approaching the subject, but I tell him that Gloucestershire has received the worst local authority settlement in the country. Seven of the eight libraries in my area face the prospect of being cut to volunteer-only services. Will my hon. Friend’s officials work with Gloucestershire county council to make sure that it is given every possible support? Even a volunteer library requires seed corn to keep it going. Incidentally, this is not only about libraries being cut to volunteer services, because Gloucestershire’s mobile library service is being cut altogether.
Mr Vaizey
I will certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. I will explain exactly what the Government are doing in a minute. First, however, given that this is all politics, let me perhaps correct some of the impressions given by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Wigan opened by saying that libraries in her local authority had no future.
Alison McGovern
I feel driven to intervene because the Minister mentioned Wirral, which is where my constituency is situated. Will he tell us why, if Labour is not committed to the 1964 Act, a Labour Secretary of State used it to inquire into what was happening in Wirral?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady will have to ask him—first, because this is all politics and, secondly, because I asked him to do it; indeed, I had to push him, kicking and screaming, to do it.
Every local library is different, but there is a lot of good news on local libraries. For example, Wigan will potentially be part of the Greater Manchester future libraries pilot project, which has already identified 15% savings if the authorities involved work together. Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Wigan said that her libraries have no future, £1.5 million has been invested—
Mr Vaizey
No, I will not give way, because I have only five minutes left.
The number of visitors to libraries in Wigan has risen by 13%. Tower Hamlets closed libraries, but it did so with a strategic vision, re-engineering them and turning them into idea stores. Calling libraries idea stores upset some traditionalists, but visits to idea stores have gone through the roof. Despite reducing its budget, Hillingdon has kept all its libraries open and refurbished them under the inspired leadership of Councillor Henry Higgins. This week, I met representatives of Havering, which is pioneering signing up kids and babies to libraries. The London Libraries Consortium—12 authorities working across London—has already made enough savings to increase opening hours substantially. Swindon, which I visited in opposition—I invited a prominent library campaigner to visit Old Town library with me, but he told me he was too busy—has invested £10 million in a central library and has moved the Old Town library to an arts centre, where there have been more visits. Lancashire has pioneered the “Get it Loud in Libraries” scheme. What happens also depends on how people go about things. The local authority in Leeds is closing libraries, but it is doing so in a strategic way and bringing the local population with it.
I have not sat back. My first speech as a Minister was on libraries, when I communicated my passion and support for libraries. I said it was right—I think it is right—that local library users challenge a local authority that is planning to close libraries. My first executive action as a Minister was to set up the future libraries programme, because I felt passionately in opposition that much of the innovation in good library authorities was not being communicated to many authorities that were perhaps not so innovative and which did not have such a go-ahead approach. After the debate, I will meet some of the local authorities involved in the 10 pilot projects. I also made sure that the Local Government Association was involved in the project from the start, because libraries are a local authority service.
I recently wrote to every local authority in the country—there are 151 library authorities, and I have gone on record as saying that that is too many and that people should be thinking about cross-border working and mergers to reduce overhead costs—to remind them of the statutory duty, which still exists thanks to the election of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government and despite Labour’s plans to get rid of it.
At any one time, local authorities are considering their plans, and almost every library closure that has been mentioned today is a proposal—these things are being consulted on. In Oxfordshire, in my own backyard, the proposals will undergo a three-month consultation. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), let me say that the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council—I pay tribute to Roy Clare, who is a fantastic leader of that organisation—is working with authorities to show them ways of moving forward without necessarily closing all the proposed libraries.
No hon. Member can say with all honesty that no library should ever close in any local authority area. We need a strategic vision. The good thing that came out of the Wirral inquiry, apart from the fact that the Wirral’s libraries were saved, was that the Charteris report now provides local authorities with clear guidelines on how they should reorganise their library service, if that is what they want to do.
Some 75% of children and 40% of adults visit libraries. Unlike the hon. Member for Wigan, who introduced the debate, I think that libraries have a future. We talked about the potential closure of the Kensal Rise library, which was opened by Mark Twain, and despite the best efforts of Opposition Members, I have to say that the death of libraries has been greatly exaggerated. It is up to local communities, working with local councillors, to keep our libraries open, with volunteers supplementing and working with librarians, rather than replacing them. All of us who care about libraries must work passionately to save this service and make it as effective as possible, instead of spreading pointless scare stories.
Property Market
(13 years, 10 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
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I have an interest to declare, which is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have for many years been a director of a company involved in, among other things, the development of housing, although I have no active involvement in the company. I thank Mr Speaker for selecting my debate; it is much appreciated.
Housing is on the mind of most Members of Parliament, as much of our correspondence relates to it. I am pleased to see the Minister for Housing and Local Government here; I am sure that he will, as a Watford grammar school boy and former Watford resident—he has gone on to greater things and places—find some of the points I shall make very relevant to that place.
Housing has the attention of the media, and a recent article in The Guardian, following an interview with the Minister, was headed “Minister pledges an end to the housing price rollercoaster”, which I was pleased to read. However, for people who are struggling to get on the first rung of the ladder, things have never been more difficult. In my constituency in 1996, the average price of a house was more than £73,000. By last year, notwithstanding some reductions in prices, it had reached £234,000. It is easy to see how difficult the situation is for first-time buyers whose average age, calculated locally, has risen to 37 years old. I was delighted that it was announced in the comprehensive spending review that the Government will increase housing supply
“by reforming the planning system so it is more efficient, effective and supportive of economic development.”
I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problem and are committed to tackling it.
It is fashionable to place the blame for the current situation on the recession and the banks, but I believe that for many years, from before the recession, there has been a consistent structural problem—a fundamental demand for housing which greatly outstrips the supply. Only an increase in supply will meet demand, tackle the problem effectively and create greater opportunities for first-time buyers.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that while the blame does not rest totally with banks, they are making things increasingly difficult for first-time buyers and, indeed, for other people who want to move home?
Richard Harrington
That is correct, and a valid intervention, which I intend to discuss briefly.
The demand side of the equation is clear. Short-term economic factors may have reduced it, but the fundamentals are as bullish as ever. The south-east, according to all the research that I have seen, is expected to continue the population growth trend, and despite all the incentives that the Government may provide for a change in regional preferences I think that the trend is unstoppable. Without going into too much detail, the factors include migration, the social trend towards more households following divorces, the population getting older and the great predilection for living in small households. Above all, I do not think that anyone can say that the demand side will change much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) mentioned lending. At the moment, one of the biggest obstacles is the decline in lending. The figures show that the contraction in UK mortgage lending since 2007 has been the most severe on record. In 2008 and 2009, about 500,000 loans were granted for house purchase. That is a lower figure than for any year since 1974.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he as concerned as I am that the review being undertaken by the Financial Services Authority may not only stifle mainstream mortgage products but prevent the development of new products for intermediate housing, such as do-it-yourself, shared ownership and key worker schemes?
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend makes a valid point on a subject that I intended to mention later. The Financial Services Authority is reviewing the mortgage market and, from all the indications that we have received, it intends to bring in, with the intention of protecting the consumer, various restrictions, such as appraising customers and reducing the type of mortgage available, that will significantly reduce the supply. I know that Ministers are aware of that, and I hope that they will bring as much pressure to bear on the FSA as they can. It is fair to say that the lending side is definitely a short-term constraint, but for the purpose of this debate, I will put it to one side. However, I am not trying to reduce its validity.
The core of my argument concerns the supply side of housing—the availability of land with planning permission to build social and private houses. Although I fully support the Localism Bill and its core values of local people and their representatives being responsible for their own actions, I believe that in respect of planning, it could significantly adversely affect the supply of land for housing. If the incentives on offer do not outweigh the anti-development sentiments of residents and their elected representatives, we are in real trouble.
Indeed, the Localism Bill will liberate local communities from stifling Labour targets, especially the well-intentioned but misdirected regional spatial strategies, because it is clear that they have not worked. New homes are being built at the slowest rate since the war.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that since the Secretary of State’s letter went out saying that people could ignore the RSS and everything attached to it, planning applications, and therefore the build for housing, has actually gone off a cliff?
Richard Harrington
I agree to an extent with the hon. Lady, and I hope that my position will become clearer a little later.
Watford, like many constituencies in the south-east, is badly in need of housing supply; there is no dispute over that. Even during this recession, there has not been an overhang of unsold properties. If development does not come to such regions, a whole generation of people may find themselves priced out of the market for years to come.
The Localism Bill fails to address a serious issue with regard to policy and planning. A YouGov survey, commissioned by the New Homes Marketing Board, revealed that more than eight out of 10 people believe that Britain needs more housing for sale and rent, especially for first-time buyers. That is very much like a “hands up all those who are against sin” argument. The survey also showed that far fewer people—just about 50%—welcome the construction of more homes in their immediate neighbourhoods. Such a view is significantly understated, because when I send out surveys to my local residents, stopping nearby developments comes back as an important priority.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Like him, I believe that this is an extremely important subject, particularly in the south-west where affordable housing is a real issue. As I understand his argument, he is suggesting that incentives may not always work as a driver of development. Equally, however, does he accept that to go back to the regional spatial strategy scenario that we had under the previous Government, in which top-down diktat told local communities the amount of development that they could have and where it would be, would be a severely retrograde step?
Richard Harrington
I agree totally with the Minister with responsibility for planning that we should not return to Stalinist central diktat. My argument will hopefully show that that there are more tools in the box other than just the financial incentives that the Government have bravely introduced as a core of our policy. I am very much against central targets because they have not worked, not to mention the issue of morality or believing in local government, which I do.
[Mr Lee Scott in the Chair]
I agree that the Localism Bill has great potential to free local communities to decide for themselves the housing that they need. However, we must acknowledge the other side of that coin: the Bill will empower those people who are opposed to development in all its forms, so there are two sides to the measure.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Chamber the difference between a supplementary planning document and a neighbourhood development order?
Richard Harrington
Again, if the hon. Gentleman has a little patience that difference will emerge as I make progress.
We have to do as much as we can to ensure that new homes are built, but there will always be people who oppose development. Sometimes, what is needed to meet the needs of the larger community can be stifled by those who, understandably, have their own personal interests at heart. It is not simply a hypothetical question. The issue has arisen in several places around the country, following the letter from the Secretary of State. Although regional spatial strategies were clearly not successful, evidence of nimbyism has also appeared, with the recent departure of those strategies. I will give some examples that right hon. and hon. Members may find of interest. In Bath, for instance, the number of homes to be built around the area has been cut by nearly 50% under the city’s draft core strategy. Previous targets proposed by the South West Regional Assembly envisaged more than 21,000 homes being built during the next 20 years, but that figure will now be cut to 11,000. North Somerset is cutting its target for new homes from 26,000 to 13,000.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
My hon. Friend cites a number of targets, saying that one region wanted 21,000 new homes and another region wanted more. However, the reality is that those targets were fantasy targets. Those new homes were not built. We can set targets as high as we like for the building of property, but under the old regime—under the failed Labour policies—houses were not built and, more importantly, the local communities that had those targets forced on them were very upset about it.
Richard Harrington
I cannot dispute the validity of what my hon. Friend says, as I am very familiar with his constituency and with my own. The demand for housing in Watford is significantly greater than demand in Burton, but both constituencies offer an illustration of how the RSS and those targets do not work. I am giving examples. My hon. Friend may say that the targets were fanciful, but they were aspirations. Now no one will say that these new targets will be reached, because my hon. Friend’s argument is the same as my own—there is always a presumption against development locally. There are councillors who are elected, one after the other, on anti-development platforms. They come from all parties; I am not picking out one particular party in that respect. However, the fact is that targets have been reduced all over the place, in St Albans, in Wiltshire—I could go on, as I have a list of quite a few areas.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he has been very patient in allowing us all to intervene, which I appreciate. Does he agree that a measure that will help people to find homes is another change that the coalition Government are introducing, thereby moving to a default situation where it is easier for people in receipt of housing benefit to opt for it to be given directly to the landlord rather than having it go via the tenant?
[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]
I know that my hon. Friend is talking about property sales, but does he agree that that change is another example of the coalition Government being practical and pragmatic, making it easier for people to have their own houses, even if in this instance they are rented houses.
Richard Harrington
I agree with my hon. Friend, except to say that he says that I am talking particularly about private housing. That is true, but in fact it is really the overall supply of housing that I am interested in and for whatever purposes, whether it is housing for private tenants or for social tenants, shared ownership or outright freehold ownership. I think that the principle is the same; we are talking about supply. However, I totally support that measure on rent that the coalition has introduced.
The core of the Government’s strategy is the new homes bonus, which was introduced as an incentive for councils to build. It may well succeed—I hope that it does—but I have spoken to a number of people in the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister might say that they have vested interests as planning officers, house builders and so on, but whatever their other interests, they certainly have an interest in supply. Their concern is that the bonus will not be sufficient in itself to encourage councils to build.
If a development of new houses is opposed by local residents, local councillors elected on a non-development ticket are unlikely to take action on an issue that might work against them at election time. I do not believe that five or six years of council tax will be a convincing enough reward. I say that not to discount the scheme but to raise obvious concerns to Ministers that other weapons, tools and policies might be needed as well.
My right hon. Friend the Minister believes that residents and their representatives will change their views because of the benefits that their communities will receive from the new homes bonus. He regularly cites a large brownfield site in his constituency of Welwyn Hatfield where the new homes bonus—the money that the council will receive for a housing development on that site—will pay for a renewal of the whole town centre. I can see that—after he mentioned it to me at a meeting in Hatfield, I went to visit the site, and I accept that it is a compelling argument—but most developments are much more controversial than that. In Watford and, I suspect, many other constituencies, the available development land comprises many small sites for which the NHB money would not make a sufficient difference to the community coffers to provide any incentive, although I can certainly see how the big flagship schemes would do so.
I am not negative about the new homes bonus, and I hope that what I am saying will not be interpreted as such. I just do not believe that it will necessarily be enough. I have positive suggestions to make. Some simple considerations might do much to ensure what we want and what the Minister has declared many times that he wants: an increased supply of land with planning permission.
It is crucial that PPS 3, which is under consideration, preserves the obligation of local planning authorities to maintain a five-year housing land supply and to take a five-year view. Although the process is made cumbersome by a lack of nationally accepted guidance on how to calculate land supply—it is a matter beyond my intellectual capacity as a Member of Parliament—I am sure that there are many professional people on different sides of the argument who have views. The implementation of such a measure—not a target, but a measure—would at least ensure an impartial intermediary. I suggest that the Government convene an advisory committee drawn from leading planners, housing and economic experts, Government and local government to draw up a suggested standard methodology for calculating land supply figures. I repeat that it would not be a return to the over-centralised approach of the past, but it could be a sensible way to ensure that best practice is captured so that local councils make informed decisions.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in this important debate. I understand the thrust of his argument, having represented a new-build area as a councillor for 10 years while the number of houses rose from 1,800 to 8,000. However, does he agree that solutions to housing pressures must not come at the cost of appropriate development? The high-density housing typical under the last Government, lacking open space and parking provision, simply stores up problems for the future.
Richard Harrington
I agree that a balance is needed. We have all seen such developments in our constituencies —high-density blocks of flats with no greenery, no surrounding area and no provision for infrastructure. Yes, I agree absolutely.
Richard Harrington
May I make a little bit of progress first? I am not trying to ignore the hon. Gentleman; I am just trying to get my flow going.
I am against the centralised approach of the past. I am asking only for effect to be given to a measure proposed in the open source planning document as well as the Government’s Green Paper. We have to carefully monitor the incentives that we are introducing, such as the new homes bonus, to ensure that they in fact do what they are intended to do. If development targets continue to be halved by local authorities, surely we have to consider other ways to encourage the increase of supply that we all believe necessary. It would be much better if the powers were put in place now, rather than when the problem manifests itself, when it might be too late.
It is very clear to me that the Bill must contain a presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that if the local community has not drawn up its own plan for development, businesses can get involved. The economy is a very important reason for increasing the supply and taking the initiative, but obviously it would have to be proved that the proposals were sustainable. I am most impressed by the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It was one of the most far-sighted proposals in last year’s “Open Source Planning” Green Paper, and was reaffirmed with even more vigour in the local growth White Paper later in the year. It is really important that it is brought into effect as soon as possible.
Alison Seabeck
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his very thoughtful speech.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development is not in the Bill, and a number of witnesses have raised concerns about that in the Bill’s first public evidence session.
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I hope to sit in on some of the future public sessions of the Bill Committee.
In the Minister’s opinion, does the Bill remain in step with the White Paper statement about its three functions? The White Paper states that those functions are to allow people to shape their own communities—which I think it clearly does; to provide sufficient housing to meet demand; and to support economic development. I am not sure whether the new homes bonus is enough in respect of the second and third functions, and I think that the Government should create a back-up plan to ensure that development continues.
I should like to take this opportunity briefly to consider shared ownership schemes, which are a very important way of increasing home ownership, and of helping the demand and supply sides to meet. On 21 October, I submitted a written question to the Minister for Housing and Local Government about the Government’s plans to increase shared ownership and low-cost home ownership schemes, which, as I have seen in my constituency, are a very affordable and attractive prospect at the present time. The response was very positive:
“We announced in the spending review almost £4.5 billion investment…a new delivery model is expected to deliver up to 155,000 new affordable homes”.—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 671W.]
To the best of my knowledge, the details that we have been promised have not yet arrived, and I encourage the Minister to give us some information on that. I very much support what the Government are trying to do with shared ownership, and would like to see progress on that as soon as possible.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have been involved in property for about 20 years, and so this is an area that has concerned and perplexed me many times.
I understand the premise of my hon. Friend’s argument this morning, and have no issue with that; he is wholly correct. On the supply side, however, and particularly in terms of demand, in the UK we suffer from an exceptionally large number of people who aspire to own their own homes, compared with our continental neighbours in Germany and France, where there are much higher levels of renting. I have found that institutional investors often look for avenues through which they can get into the residential market, particularly from a letting perspective, and they have often approached Governments regarding the best way to do that. One area that is particularly talked about is the shared ownership vehicle. I do not know whether my hon. Friend, or the Minister later, will be able to comment on that, but I echo the sentiment of shared ownership as a way of solving the problem—not wholly, but certainly helping.
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend has made an important point about the vehicles that can be used, and I am sure that the Minister will comment on that. I very much supported the introduction of the real estate investment trusts scheme into this field, but my argument today is about the supply of land for housing development, some of which—a greater percentage, I hope—will be for shared ownership; some of it will be for private ownership and private tenants, and the different forms of social housing. I do not think that my hon. Friend’s point, valid though it is, is relevant to that argument.
I remind hon. Members that the lack of accessible housing for first-time buyers is not just a housing issue, or something to do with the idea that an Englishman’s home is his castle, and people’s desire for their own home. It has serious ramifications for the future of Watford, as for many other places. To use Watford as my example, as I should and must, it has for a long time been a popular place for young professionals, people working in and opening new businesses, and families seeking a first step on the property ladder. It is quite near London, and a lot cheaper, and it is a nice place to live. I say that in my capacity as honorary president of the Watford tourist board—but it is a nice place, and people enjoy going there. It is close to London without London prices. However, I have a significant fear that without housing supply at reasonable prices, which is a function of supply—we know that the demand will always be there, or I at least believe it will—the area will have difficulty in attracting young professionals, and attracting people to open or engage in businesses. That is the most significant aspect of what is a serious matter, with huge implications.
I support localism and I applaud the Government’s efforts to introduce it throughout the country, but my central argument, which I hope the Minister will accept, is that it must be part of a balanced package. We must avoid any trap; for the last Government it was their obsession with centralism—the Stalinism that I mentioned before—but that must not be replaced by a similar obsession with localism as the only way to obtain housing supply.
Graham Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for obtaining the debate; it is a great debate, which is primarily about the south, and under-supply of housing, and I am happy to engage in it. To return to the point about the Labour Government being a centralising Government, could the hon. Gentleman tell me the difference between a supplementary planning document and the new neighbourhood development orders? If Labour were centralising, what was an SPD?
Richard Harrington
I do not think that it makes much difference to the argument. In practice there is not much of a difference; I understand there is one, realistically. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and the contributions of colleagues. I feel I have made my point.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is very useful. I agree with the general thrust of his argument that we need more supply, but he has not touched on the matter of empty properties, how we could bring them back on to the market, and whether there should be incentives to do that, which would increase supply.
Richard Harrington
That is a valuable point. In Watford there are several hundred empty properties. I keep an eye on that. To give credit to the local council, it is also trying. However, there is more to the question of empty properties than meets the eye. Some of them are transiently empty, not empty over the long term. Some are not in the condition that they should be, and some are in areas of town where people do not want to live. I had this very discussion outside the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who mentioned that it was a particular problem in his constituency. I do not make it out as of no consequence—it is important—but it is peripheral to the main argument. We shall not merely need 100 or 200 extra homes in our constituencies—which might or might not be obtained by making progress with empty properties. The question is the fundamental supply of new housing land.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on an excellent, well informed and intelligent contribution to an important debate. However, I fear I may unfortunately disagree with him on a practical and philosophical level.
Under the Labour Government the fewest houses since 1923 were built. Indeed, that Government tested to destruction the idea that centralised, top-down targets could be the way to engender growth in the provision of private sector, intermediate and social rented housing. Another issue, which has been disastrous in relation to social cohesion, is that, even the social housing that they did produce served, in a period of benign economic growth, to embed welfare dependency, to the extent that the number of people in social housing who are in paid work has shrunk every single year over the past 40 years or so. A mono-tenure culture in social housing cannot be right for the community, the economy or for our nation in general.
Mr Jackson
I will not at the present time, but I might give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I fear that the problem for my hon. Friend the Member for Watford is that he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The integral issue is mortgage availability and the fact that mortgage providers have failed to adapt and make progress in the market in terms of providing funding and mortgages to people.
Richard Harrington
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly after I have spoken for 20 minutes. If the banks decided suddenly to lend twice as much money to people who want to purchase houses—we hope that it will happen, so let us pretend for a moment that it will—what effect does he think that would have on the supply of housing?
Mr Jackson
As a Christian, I hope that sinners will repent and that the retail banking sector will lend. I think, however, that the issues are much more integral and institutionalised, as my argument will make clear. I welcome the new homes bonus, although I am slightly concerned about its top-slicing element from year three, which could have an impact on the propensity of local authorities to develop its potential—remember that the scheme is about developing housing appropriate for a particular area.
The situation reminds me of the emperor’s new clothes—no one quite knows on what evidential basis we are to decide how many houses are needed. Is it the 2004 Barker report? Is it the misguided views of the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prescott sustainable communities plan of 2003? We need to step back and carry out a full analysis of the demographic and social change. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) has made the point—quite astutely, though in a roundabout way—that this should not just be about the south-east and the east of England and London, but that we should spread our country’s wealth through the housing market throughout the UK. In fairness, we are looking at mechanisms such as the regional growth fund, sustainable transport funding and, of course, high-speed rail, which seeks to bridge the gap between the overheating of the south-east and other parts of the country—the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside. We need to have a much more existential approach to why we think we need more houses.
It is also important to think in terms of the operational capacity of planning departments. One would struggle to find many people who would admit that their local authority’s planning department is completely fit for purpose. The huge bureaucracy and time lags drive local and bigger businesses and developers mad, because there is not a high degree of accountability in this often technical area for local councillors and residents and, in particular, for business. That causes an enormous and inordinate delay to the development of projects.
Graham Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the responsibility of local authorities to fund planning departments and that local councillors have decided that they are a low priority—ditto building control? Will he also accept that the previous Government introduced planning legislation that allowed local authorities to determine what they did and how they did it in their area, but that, because local authorities chose not to resource planning departments, it was left to top-down Government guidance and advice?
Mr Jackson
I do not agree with that comment at all. What happened under the previous Labour Government was that central Government decided that councillors were not qualified to decide how much residential development should take place in their area or to co-operate on infrastructure projects. That is something we have made changes to through the Localism Bill, which received its Second Reading last week. In many respects, the previous Government undermined the autonomy and authority of local councillors and planning departments, specifically by adopting a completely crazy top-down and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said earlier, Stalinist approach to the regional spatial strategy. Of course, that did not work. It would have been great if it had actually worked, but—
Mr Jackson
I will not at the present time, but he is always my hon. Friend, especially if he wishes to cross the Floor.
Other operational issues stray into the area of regeneration. It is very difficult to put together a residential and commercial package for brownfield sites because of some of the institutional issues at which the Government need to look. One issue is that of European Commission procurement laws. If there is one thing guaranteed to scare planners off, it is the idea that it will take months and months to put together a package and that they must put the work involved—consultancy and other issues—out to European Commission procurement rules. As I said, that can cause massive delay in bringing forward good projects—for example, shopping centres with associated housing.
The other issue, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), is that of empty properties. I remain to be convinced that empty dwelling management orders were the right way to go about dealing with the matter. We really need to tackle the issue of empty properties. If we are going to develop on marginal sites—green belt sites and others—we should be able to satisfy ourselves that we have exhausted every other possibility of developing on brownfield sites. We also need to consider the whole area of brownfield remediation. That is an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) made a very astute point about real estate investment trusts. That is a matter the Leader of the House was very keen to take forward when he was Housing Minister in 1996. Some pretty arcane legal and financial rules in the Treasury mean that it has not been possible to develop such a consumer friendly way of accessing private sector capital in the private rented sector. At the moment, such an approach is confined to the student market in university towns. However, we need to have a bigger philosophical debate on whether—I know it is heresy for any Conservative to say this—we have perhaps reached the limit of owner-occupation. If we consider comparative studies in Canada, Germany, Italy and France, people are happy to live in and pay rent for high-quality residential accommodation. We have not exhausted the possibilities of that here.
Richard Harrington
It is important that my hon. Friend accepts that although he might be right about housing penetration and such things, those matters are irrelevant to the core argument of the debate, which is that the supply of land is needed—whether it is for rental housing or any other form of housing.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend has a point. I should not mix my metaphors too much, but if the Government were taking the one-club golfer approach of only putting eggs in the basket of the new homes bonus—we will see from the regulations and secondary legislation how the details of that work out—I would accept the premise of his argument. However, the Government are also looking at community right to build and urban extensions to rural and semi-rural areas because people are very keen to save their post office, their bus service and their local shop. If we can envisage building 10, 15 or 20 houses, housing some key workers and some high-income people, which concurs with, for example, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007—that legislation was passed with cross-party support a few years ago—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government is absolutely right: people will want to do that. If we do that cumulatively across boroughs and districts, we will drive up housing numbers.
I am mindful of the time, so I will move to a conclusion. We desperately need Treasury buy-in in the housing market to support the new homes bonus and other initiatives such as asset-backed vehicles, in which private sector capital can be accessed for regeneration schemes, including housing; tax increment financing—not just in town centres for retail but for housing-related issues as well—and the important accelerated development zones.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s very sincere concern for those young people who want to get on the housing ladder in Watford, and I see the same in my own constituency. We must not ignore the disparity between the joint income of young couples and the amount that mortgages are proffered at by lenders. That gap is huge, and we need to work with the Treasury and the FSA on the matter. I know that our right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government is battling hard to make the FSA understand the practical ramifications of restricting the mortgage market, which will be disastrous for the housing market.
Although I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, the picture is technical and very complicated. What we do not want to see is the son of regional spatial strategy. Compulsion has failed, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will work in the future. We all hope that we can build more homes for constituents of all incomes. We all support do-it-yourself shared ownership and intermediate housing to get people on the housing ladder so that we can become a property-owning democracy again.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Turner, for inviting me to speak in this Westminster Hall debate and for giving me the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on successfully securing this very important debate. I need to declare an interest. Before I was elected to this House, I ran and was a director of a communications company, which specifically dealt with issues of public consultation. I no longer have an executive role in that company. I hope that over the course of the past 20 years, I have gained some understanding of the market.
The ability to deliver development hinges on the cost of land—how much it costs a developer to buy so that they can develop it. Last week, we debated the Localism Bill. I was delighted to be able to support it because it is exactly the right road for us to go down. I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak in that debate. Had I done so, I would have reminded the House that when it comes to reforming planning legislation, every Government have always thought that they could speed up the process. Unfortunately, that never seems to have happened, and the process has got progressively slower. If we monitor the whole process now and find that it is slower, will the Minister ensure that we can revisit it and try to reform it?
The key issue for developers is the land and the ability to put together land sites and attract political commitment for development so that regeneration and investment can come forward. The previous Labour Government started off on the right foot. They talked about how important it was to encourage both commercial and housing development. Unfortunately, during the course of their 13 years in power, the process got slower and slower to the point that we were literally looking at only one issue, which was making sure that housing development came forward. In any approach that the Government may take, it is important that they include not only housing but commercial development.
As has been said, we are now building fewer homes than we were in the 1920s and 1930s. The previous Government’s top-down approach has not been as successful as we would have liked it to have been. That is why I feel that the coalition Government’s proposals to introduce incentives so that local authorities can encourage development are incredibly important. I firmly support a carrot approach rather than the stick. It will encourage local authorities such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) to bring brownfield sites back into use and fulfil their full economic potential.
In Plymouth, 38% of the local employed population works in the public sector. Although they do a good job, we have failed to ensure that we rebalance the economy, and we must try to do so. The largest private-sector employer is Babcock, at the dockyard, but that is of course public-sector employment by proxy. I am therefore keen to encourage more private investment in Plymouth. Just yesterday, the deputy leader of my council reminded me that Plymouth is open for business and can deliver. That is good news, but to achieve it in our part of the south-west, we must not only ensure that we have good transport and infrastructure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) mentioned; we must ensure that we have a good skills base. If we are to attract inward investment, we need good infrastructure, a good skills base—people move where the jobs are—and the right general design for the area. Plymouth has a low-skills and low-wage economy. To rebalance it, we must ensure that we have the right conditions to attract inward investment.
Last Friday, Plymouth city council organised an event at which I spoke, as did the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View and, I am delighted to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry). We considered the whole business of how to attract investment and so on, and we discussed affordable housing. My hon. Friend did an excellent job and spoke incredibly well. All the reports that I heard said that he certainly hit the issue. It was an opportunity to consider the regeneration that has taken place in Devonport, which we all found interesting and worthwhile.
Alison Seabeck
Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that the development in Devonport, which has been fantastic in turning that community around, was the result of investment by the last Labour Government?
Oliver Colvile
Yes. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That investment has continued, and it is impressive how the scheme is progressing. It is developing mixed communities with not only housing but business and commercial opportunities.
Plymouth has about 12,000 people, mainly single, sitting on the city council’s housing waiting list. It has a significant population and a chronic shortage of affordable housing, and we must rebalance our public finances. Registered social landlords and housing associations will not necessarily have as much money available as they do at the moment, so we must consider other ways to develop an affordable housing market.
Many rural communities have decided to go down the route of creating community land trusts, and we should consider that for conurbations. I was elected on a campaign of saying to Ministers that Plymouth is not Portsmouth. We are not 20 minutes away from Bristol, and we should not be ignored. We have a good story to tell. We would welcome a visit by the Minister to Plymouth, which is a happening place, as they say.
Mel Stride
Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural settings—particularly villages, where it is important that younger people can afford to stay in their communities in order to keep them vibrant and sustainable—land trusts could perhaps allow covenants to ensure that those who occupy the properties come from the local area and can stay there in perpetuity?
Oliver Colvile
I will not pretend that I have a brilliant knowledge of rural development—after all, I represent the largest conurbation west of Bristol—but my hon. Friend is quite right.
We have to look at an imaginative way of doing things, and I have one suggestion, which the Minister might like to take on board. Where we have community land trusts—where the local authority or the local community can own the land, and putting the housing, the bricks and the mortar on it is the least expensive aspect—we might look at returning to an old leasehold arrangement, under which developers could sell the building but hold on to the ownership of the land itself, which would mean that it remained in community use during the course of the leasehold.
I have two final points. If we are to do a significant amount of development and encourage inward investment, can we also make sure that we have good design? One big problem, which we have had in various parts of the country, is that we have not produced the design. Secondly, can we make sure that the local community gets involved? When I did some work in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, I was struck by the fact that the local community was involved in the process of deciding what the master plan would look like. When the planning application was eventually submitted, it went through without touching the sides. My right hon. Friend the Minister has a civil servant in his Department who was very much involved in all that as the borough’s director of planning, and that approach worked in a very big way. In this way, we can begin to undertake decent, sustainable development that combines housing and commercial opportunities that deliver employment.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) for securing the debate, which gives me the opportunity to raise issues that I did not have the time to raise during the Second Reading of the Localism Bill last week.
I make these comments having worked as a chartered surveyor for 27 years before arriving in the House. I am no longer practising and I have no ongoing consultancies. I have also been a district councillor and a county councillor. I support the Bill, although as my hon. Friend highlighted, some parts require further scrutiny.
A steady supply of sites needs to be made available for development so that we can not only build much-needed homes, but enable the construction industry to play its full role in securing the economic recovery. We need to ensure that the Localism Bill is a catalyst for growth and not an obstacle to it. Change is needed because the current system is not working. We are not building enough houses. Patchy local plan coverage has helped to inflate residential land values, taking what were affordable homes out of the reach of so many. The country’s infrastructure is also crumbling.
The Bill is radical and bold, and the Minister and his colleagues are to be congratulated on thinking outside the box, proposing a fundamental change in the way the planning system works and a move from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. There is a need to accept that the man from the Ministry does not know best, and there must be a shift of power and responsibility to individuals and local communities. They are, after all, the people who know their areas best.
I support the move towards local decision making, but decisions need to be made in a broad framework to ensure that sufficient land is available for development and to avoid piecemeal, unco-ordinated planning. I would like this framework to incorporate several features. First, we need to ensure that local decisions and local developments have regard to surrounding areas and fit into a countywide and regional framework. The regional spatial strategy was too rigid a straitjacket, but is local authorities’ duty to co-operate, as proposed at present, sufficient to ensure an adequate strategic overview? This aspect of the Bill needs to be scrutinised further.
Secondly, to ensure that sufficient houses are built in a district, I propose that consideration be given to asking local planning authorities regularly to assess local housing need, which should be measured in the same way across the country. That will enable councils to monitor their success in providing for development land on which to build the new houses that are so badly needed. Thirdly, arrangements need to be put in place to speed up the whole planning process, including determining planning applications and preparing local plans. One of my complaints, in the past 10 to 15 years of working as a surveyor, is that the system has been getting slower and slower. I look forward to receiving details of how the Government intend to speed things up.
Finally, an issue that needs to be considered is whether the principle of sustainable development should be embedded in the Localism Bill, with the requirement for sustainable development explicitly stated. At present, it is proposed that the need to follow sustainable development principles will be implicit, because that will be included in the national planning framework. However, that has not yet been published, and for my part I believe that sustainability needs to be at the heart of the planning system.
I welcome the move towards neighbourhood planning, with communities being able to write their own neighbourhood development plans. That will give people a real say in how their neighbourhoods evolve, including what type of homes are built, and where they are built.
Graham Jones
For the third time I raise the point that under the previous Government, supplementary planning documents meant that, if local authorities wished, their planning departments could approach local communities to develop neighbourhood plans. That facility exists without neighbourhood development orders. I presume that the hon. Gentleman has served on a planning committee. Most of the powers in question exist and were delegated to local authorities. It is the failure of local authorities to develop supplementary planning documents that is the weakness.
Peter Aldous
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which I shall come on to, as I want to set out the issues that need to be addressed for neighbourhood planning orders to be successful. There is a need for capacity building in neighbourhoods, and for communities to have access to advice, training and funding. With that in mind, the ending of support to Planning Aid from March appears short-sighted and I should be grateful if consideration were given either to reviewing this decision or to putting new arrangements in place. It is also important to ensure that all communities participate, not just a few. I should welcome further information on how it is planned to promote neighbourhood planning in those deprived areas where it is most needed.
There is a concern, too, that that some developers might hijack the system. For example, a house builder might offer an enticing planning gain package in a particular neighbourhood, which might appeal to that particular community, but which could have a negative knock-on effect in surrounding areas. How is it intended to guard against such a scenario? Finally, to pick up the point that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) made, there is no doubt that local planning authorities will incur additional costs in overseeing and promoting neighbourhood planning, and I hope that their funding settlements will ensure that they are not out of pocket in doing so.
The history of levies such as the proposed community infrastructure levy is not a good one. The betterment levy and development land tax resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of land coming forward for development. That is something that the country cannot afford at the current time. I think, however, that the new levy could be different. First, the money will be spent locally and will not be siphoned off by the Treasury. Secondly, much of it will be spent on infrastructure, which most people recognise is badly in need of improvement. Thirdly, an independent examiner will ensure that levies are not set at too high a level. I should welcome clarification from the Minister of why he and his colleagues did not go a step further and abolish section 106 agreements. They have, after all, often been abused over the years. All infrastructure and affordable housing needs could instead be funded out of one easy-to-administer roof tax, which would provide house builders with much-needed certainty.
I am concerned about funding the provision of infrastructure through such a levy, as the dynamics of the development process are such that there may be plentiful funds available for infrastructure improvements in high-value areas, but not in less affluent places, where projects are less profitable and less money is generated for works that cost approximately the same wherever they are built. I would be grateful for clarification of how the Minister will address that concern. The regional growth fund has a role to play, but it is only part of the solution.
The Localism Bill covers a lot of ground, and its objectives are to be commended. It has the potential to change planning in Britain for ever and to re-engage with many who have come to feel disenfranchised. However, the devil is in the detail, and for the legislation to achieve its objectives there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in Committee.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing this debate. Although I recognise that the debate so far has been exclusively about housing, its title is “Property Market” and I hope to raise a point about commercial property, when my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will become relevant.
[Hywel Williams in the Chair]
My hon. Friend and other Members are quite right to draw attention to the failure to build new homes at a time when our country needs additional housing. I want to talk about the factors involved, particularly those that relate to the planning system, and to raise the issue of price. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the link between the planning system and the supply of land for development. We know from a report that came out earlier this month that less land is being approved for development than before. As elected representatives, we all know about the fundamental contradictions that exist within planning. We know that individuals are generally conservative with a small c. They like the environment they live in and they do not want to see change; indeed, they fear change, so we often find communities that are inherently anti-development and which oppose proposals for development at the first opportunity. At the same time, those very people are often looking for places for their children, so that their children can remain within their community, and they are often looking for smaller residential units, too, where they might retire, and which they know in turn will free up family homes for their children in future. Part of the planning system is about the challenge to reconcile those competing influences.
The abolition of the regional spatial strategy was one of the very first acts of the new Government and it is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Watford has concerns about whether enough land will be made available for development. However, I think that local authorities have thrown off those shackles as a completely natural reaction, as they were imposed on them by those at the top. If somebody demands or insists that a local authority do something and the local authority then does it with great reluctance, as soon as that demand ends there is an incentive for the local authority to say, “Well, we’re not going to have anything more to do with that, we are going to control our own destiny and take things forward in the way that suits us best”.
However, I believe that there are two measures in particular that will allay my hon. Friend’s anxieties. The first measure, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has referred, is the new homes bonus, whereby councils will retain the council tax for six years. It is not a simple concept. It has taken local authorities a great deal of time to work out how they will benefit financially from taking that action. I am delighted that my local authority in Rugby has made the calculations and recognised the benefits that will accrue to it from taking a progressive and positive attitude to the new homes bonus. I think that, as people look in detail at the proposals, more and more communities will say that this idea for dealing with development will mean that the community will benefit and the new homes bonus will start to make a great deal of sense.
The second measure is in the Localism Bill. Like many of my hon. Friends who are in Westminster Hall today, I would have loved to have discussed that Bill last week but I did not have the opportunity to do so. I want to discuss the effective consultation proposals in that Bill, which demand that developers undertake consultation with local communities before introducing development proposals. We know that good, sensible developers, who want to achieve what is best for the communities they want to work with, are doing that anyway. It is in their interests to do so; it is in the interests of a good developer to get the community working on the same side as them.
An example of a developer taking a proactive approach before the Localism Bill becomes law is the developer who is introducing proposals for 6,200 new homes in my constituency on the radio mast site in the west of my constituency. Many Members will be familiar with that site, because anybody travelling up and down the M1 will see the radio mast, with lights on it, which tells them that they are about an hour from London if they are driving south. The site is a sustainable urban extension, and the local authority continues to introduce plans that, in general, are supported locally. There is some immediate local opposition to the site, but I think that one reason why the ideas are making progress is the very effective consultation that the developers undertook in 2009. They held a detailed design inquiry lasting five days. Stakeholders were there for two days, but the weekend was allocated exclusively to the general public. People in the town and communities most likely to be affected by the development were able to talk to the developers about their vision for the site—what they wanted to see on the site and how they saw its future development.
A big part of the consultation was about learning lessons from recent developments in the town. One reason why people have a negative attitude towards development is that they can identify poor development that has taken place, which is often development that has been rushed through without effective consultation. Poorly designed road structures and poorly thought-out houses are built, leading to people being negative about development.
Another feature included in the design inquiry was respect for the site’s heritage. Signals were sent from the site to the British Navy in times of war, so its heritage is important and links into Rugby’s industrial heritage. That will be respected through the retention of existing buildings on the site. A significant issue for local people was the infrastructure and the ability of people in the add-on development, at the extremity of the urban centre, to find their way into the town centre. That was important if the development was to be seen in positive terms as contributing to the development of the town. Businesses will be attracted to our town because of the additional spend from people living in the new homes.
Local people have had their say. I might add that the time taken up in working on the proposals has been beneficial. In fact, the delay in bringing things forward caused partly by the state of the housing market means that we will get better planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) argued for speedier planning decisions. I think that we want better planning decisions, not necessarily faster planning decisions.
The price of land is a key factor in providing housing—in the rate at which housing is made available—because it is a very significant proportion of the eventual selling price of housing. An anxiety that may prevent land from being made available forward and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford may be concerned about is that, in many cases, developers have built up land banks at times when prices were rather higher than they are now. That acts as a disincentive to use the land for development now, because if prices are expected to rise in the future, the land value will be a smaller proportion of each house price than if development were undertaken now. It is a perfectly natural reaction for developers to hold on to their land bank in the hope that things will get better.
In respect of demand, reference was made to the uniquely or characteristically British view of home ownership. Homes are seen as an investment, as something to put one’s money into to add to one’s pension, rather than as somewhere to live. We have seen a massive growth in home ownership, to a peak of 71% of UK homes being privately owned by 2003.
Mr Stewart Jackson
Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with registered social landlords not developing more schemes for shared ownership is that the existing business model is one with a constant stream of housing benefit income—and that has been the case for a number of years—while the Government’s reform of housing benefit will use the market mechanism to develop more innovative ways of getting people into shared equity?
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. Shared equity offers a real opportunity. I like to see variable rates of shared equity, so that people may start with a 25% equity stake and increase that as their circumstances change. That is not happening as often as it should.
Points were made about the availability of finance. People’s ability to buy homes is very much driven by their ability to borrow, and there are real uncertainties in the market because of the current FSA proposals, which have been described as draconian. The harder we make it for people to get the level of finance they require, the less demand there will be for housing, and that will provide a disincentive for people to bid at a higher price, which in turn will lead to a further reduction in supply.
I wish to make a quick point on the supply of commercial property, because there is a specific measure that the Government could introduce to provide an additional supply of commercial property which, as we move out of recession, will be increasingly important, at it applies to the non-domestic rates for commercial property that have been in effect since April 2008. For decades before that date, Governments helped struggling businesses through the application of empty property rates relief as an incentive to bring empty commercial property into use; my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) raised the issue of bringing empty housing into use.
If there is insufficient activity in the economy, it does not matter what the rent is, because very often the commercial property will not have a use. That leads to two things: the demolition of commercial buildings, and the fact that there is no speculative building of new commercial premises, because if someone constructs a building they end up with an immediate liability for non-domestic rates on an empty building; they have an outflow before there is any inflow. As the economy recovers, it will be important to ensure that premises are available for our businesses to use. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Watford on introducing the debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I need to draw Members’ attention to the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests under the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), because he is my partner.
This issue is of real importance, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate, on developing a strong case for action, and on raising concerns that the Localism Bill will not do what it says on the tin. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s well-argued policy points.
House prices are falling and are projected to fall during this year in most regions. The Office for Budget Responsibility has significantly downgraded the prospects for house price growth throughout this Parliament. In December, there was a further fall in mortgage lending of 6% from the previous month, and money market rates are rising, which will have an impact on existing borrowers and create a potential for higher mortgage arrears and repossessions.
Some Government Members spoke with optimism, albeit muted, about the prospects for the housing market. Many raised concerns about the mix of the market, and asked genuine questions about the new homes bonus and the conflict between people not wanting new houses in their neighbourhoods but understanding that their children and grandchildren need housing. The hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) raised those issues. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) reinforced, with some expertise, the points that he made in the Second Reading debate on the Localism Bill, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) spoke with passion about the planning system, land assembly and, interestingly, the importance of design, a sentiment with which I concur. The importance of growth in sustaining the economy and the housing market was obviously mentioned, and Opposition Members will clearly be worried by the comments of the outgoing director general of the CBI, who said that the Government are not doing enough to encourage growth and that decisions are being taken for political reasons.
Politics in the housing market perhaps does not work well, and I suspect that previous Labour Governments learned that lesson too. Stability in house prices depends on a balance between supply and demand, complemented by a financing system that matches the aspirations of people who want to own their own homes and has the capacity to provide finance. We are not building enough homes to meet the demands of the population, and that goes for homes in the private market, homes for shared ownership and subsidised social rents. We are likely to see fewer additional affordable homes built than during the previous Parliament, when the housing industry was hit as hard as any sector of the economy from 2007-08 onwards, first by the credit crunch and then because of the recession. According to the Minister’s figures—they were confirmed in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) who, unusually, is not here as he is in Committee—in the previous Parliament, 199,800 additional affordable homes were built. In this Parliament, the Government are aspiring to build only up to 150,000, which is not particularly ambitious.
The Government tell us that development will be driven at a local level via the new homes bonus. The hon. Member for Watford raised concerns here. However, according to the analysis I have seen, if the new homes bonus will work anywhere, it will work in the south-east—not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) has on many occasions said, in the north. I share the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough that perhaps impact assessments should have been done prior to the policy being brought forward, so that we really understood where housing needs existed. That reinforces Labour Members’ arguments that the Government are moving too far too fast and that they are not looking at the evidence.
Only last week, the Conservative leaders of 21 councils in the south-east wrote an open letter to the Minister in which they declared their serious concerns. They said that they did not see how the new homes bonus scheme provided enough of an incentive to communities for them to welcome development. Again, those concerns were reinforced by Conservative Members. I am also a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, is not riding shotgun for the Minister today to ensure that he says all the right things and to protect his back from his own side. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution to his Government’s housing policy—the secret review.
The supply of social homes is also relevant to preventing a build up of pressure on an already squeezed private rented sector, tempering rents and allowing potential first-time buyers in the private sector to build up a deposit. The Minister has overseen a process whereby the budget for building new homes has been more than halved and he has placed his faith in the intermediate rent model, which will see social rents charged at up to 80% of the market rent in a given area. In the rest of the country, there is considerable unease that the 80% model will fail to deliver the necessary homes, because for housing associations to move to that model will require a change in their entire business model and therefore necessitate a restructuring of their borrowing with the banks. That will drive up costs and make that method of financing home building unpalatable at best and unworkable at worst. Housing associations are, of course, important contributors to the low-cost home ownership market and shared-ownership markets.
We have noticed, housing experts have noticed and local government leaders have noticed—we have therefore now been told that Downing street has noticed—that the shine is coming off the Minister’s policies. In addition to the developing crisis of supply, we have a similar situation with demand, which will also be affected. I disagree to an extent with the hon. Member for Watford. Unemployment is rising, wages across the public sector have been frozen, mortgage interest rates are already increasing and, with inflation pushing higher because of the hike in VAT, I doubt it will be long before the Bank of England considers that an increase in the base rate is on the cards.
The FSA’s review of the mortgage market, which many hon. Members have mentioned, has mortgage providers and house builders on tenterhooks. Although the Minister’s press team made sure that we were all aware that he would be meeting the FSA—I have also met the FSA—I have not heard very much from the Minister about the meeting’s outcome or what he would like to see out of that review. What did the Minister press Hector Sants to do? Did he ask him to tighten regulation, so that the market stagnates and prices remain low? Or did he argue that regulations should be loosened to encourage more people into the market to stimulate it? Which was it? A stable housing market is a noble aspiration, but it requires concerted action across the sector to deliver the homes we need. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate, to which there has been an absolutely terrific response. There has been a great deal of support, particularly from Conservative Members, for the subjects being discussed. As my hon. Friend mentioned, I did not just go to school in Watford; I was born and brought up there. As I said, it has been a good and intelligent debate. I will try to address as many of the points made as I can, but I put hon. Members on alert that because some of them went into quite a bit of detail, I will study the transcript of the debate and get back to hon. Members on some of the specifics raised if I run out of time. I am particularly thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who raised a series of detailed points that I do not think I will have time to cover.
Alison Seabeck
Will the Minister provide that correspondence to other hon. Members who are present?
Grant Shapps
Yes, by all means. I have no objection at all to making this a completely open exercise, and my officials will have noted my comments.
As to what we know about the old system, several Members mentioned that it had completely and utterly failed. We did not get to the lowest house building levels since 1923 under the new system, but under a top-down, almost Stalinist approach, which said that we would be able to build the top number of homes that we had set out in the 10-year plan. The pledge was to build 3 million homes by 2020, but the number built crashed through the floor.
The problem was not just the total number of homes being built, but the number of affordable homes, which was derisory, and I know that the Opposition housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), agrees. Concern was expressed about the amount of affordable housing that would be built under our plans, but despite the £17 billion pumped into affordable house building over 13 years by the previous Government, the impact was a net loss of 45,000 affordable homes. I can assure the hon. Lady that the coalition Government will do better than that every single year.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Minister not accept that one reason for the net loss in housing is the right to buy? Is he at all interested in the steps being taken by the Scottish Parliament to restrict the right to buy with a view to increasing supply?
Grant Shapps
I cannot answer for the 13 years of the Labour Government, but they had adequate time to make whatever changes they wanted on that front. However, the argument about the right to buy is very much yesterday’s argument; it is literally about the ’80s and ’90s. This year, no more than 2,000 people nationwide are likely to exercise their right to buy. The issue is not the right to buy, but the pathfinder schemes—the housing market renewal that destroyed homes and neighbourhoods. It was partly responsible for our ending up with fewer homes than we started with after 17 years.
I want now to make some progress and to answer the substantive points raised in the debate, which were really about whether the new homes bonus will be sufficient to ensure that we get out of the hole we were left in and back to a world where we can build a sufficient number of homes to look after our population. I accept the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford that the new homes bonus will not be enough. Before I address that, however, I want to point out how powerful an incentive it will be.
The new homes bonus represents nearly £1 billion, which is funded through the spending review programme. It will ensure that, wherever a home is built for the next six years, the same amount as is collected on the average council tax band there will be paid to the local authority. Where an affordable home is being built, an additional £350 is proposed in the consultation document, which is currently in front of me and which I am considering. The new homes bonus is therefore potentially an incredibly powerful incentive to get out there and build homes.
For the first time, there is some real benefit for the community of the individual authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned a potential development that I went to see a few years ago. That development could build homes, bring money and facilities in for local people and be a win-win. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who is not called Peterborough’s champion for nothing, rightly said that housing can have a dramatic and important influence in terms of improving an area if it is done in the right way and not imposed from the top, but not if it is driven by a regional spatial strategy that takes no account of local needs and requirements.
The new homes bonus will be a powerful incentive. As my hon. Friend said, the billion will run out at some point, so the answer is to go and build homes and use as much of the money as possible now. It will then be top-sliced from the formula grant. That, in itself, will be an important incentive to ensure that areas are not left behind as their neighbours develop.
Graham Jones
In my constituency, we have 2,500 empty properties. The new homes bonus will not benefit us when the top-slicing comes in. I did not really want to go down this road, because the debate is about under-supply, rather than over-supply, but the housing market renewal pathfinders, which the Minister has just described as disastrous, removed empty properties where few people were living in areas with an over-supply. Will the Minister briefly comment on that?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman and I have regular discussions on this subject in the Lobby. I can assure him that the new homes bonus will in no way disadvantage a community that finds it is having a net loss of population. In other words, it does not penalise it when its council tax base reduces from one year to the next, but it massively aids and helps when the base increases. Let us take, for example, a constituency in which a number of homes have been empty for a period of time. Sefton borough council, which I recently visited, has an area in which there are about 450 empty homes. When those homes are rebuilt and reoccupied, it will be able to claim the money from the new homes bonus. As that will be a guaranteed income stream for six years, it can borrow against that potential income and regenerate an area for which, I am afraid, the housing market renewal money has now dried up. It is possible, therefore, to use the new homes bonus in constituencies in the more heated parts of the country, which are perhaps not the most obvious locations.
In the remaining few minutes, let me return to the central theme of today’s debate, which is that the new homes bonus is not intended to be the be-all and end-all. There is a whole variety of other mechanisms by which we intend to ensure that the housing market and the housing supply are increased. Let me take a few moments to list them. First, and most critically—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View raised this herself—mortgage finance has been incredibly restrictive. If we look at the root of the problem of housing undersupply and oversupply, or rather of a heated-up market, we would find that between 1997 and 2007, there was no one calling time on the banks. They continued to lend even after they no longer had the balance sheets to sustain such activity. We can pin the blame on a number of factors. One factor in particular that has to be included is the moment at which the Bank of England was given control over interest rates while nobody was given control of regulating the banks. We need to ensure that the supply of credit from the banks is available. At the moment, it has gone completely the other way. The hon. Lady referred to my conversations with the FSA. I can tell her that I say exactly the same thing to the FSA that I say to this House and to the public, which is that there needs to be an adequate supply of lending, particularly to first-time buyers who are the motor that drives this whole issue and who are particularly relevant to housing supply. House builders are unable to build their product and sell it to anyone if there is no competition in the market place. Mortgage availability, therefore, is a very big issue.
Planning reform is another very large area. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned the importance of reforming it. Let me reassure the House that the Localism Bill intends to do precisely that. There will be sweeping reform of planning rules. We will no longer have a system in which we go backwards and forwards and in which local communities are overridden by a planning inspectorate. Instead, plans will be put in place by the local community. Let me give one example. The local development frameworks were only filed by 20% of councils because they were too complicated and they did not have local consent. Once local consent is built in to the heart of the system, there is every opportunity for planning decisions to be made much more quickly.
Let me refer to an intervention made by the hon. Lady with regard to whether this Government will be pro-development. The answer is that we will absolutely be pro sustainable development. We have never said that such an aim would be in the Bill; it would be the wrong place to put it. We have always said that it will be in the planning policy framework and that will make it absolutely clear that this Government are in favour of sustainable development. In fact, that is the default assumption.
The changes will create a new attitude towards planning. It will not be us against them—the developer against the local community. It will be people working together to try to improve their local communities through neighbourhood plans. We barely touched on the issue of community right to build, but local communities will be putting forward plans to develop their local areas. Ideas such as affordable rent and reform of the social housing market will help attract private sector finance for the first time. There is a whole range of options; I wish that we had more time to investigate them in greater detail. I will certainly write to all Members present with detailed answers to the points raised. I congratulate my hon. Friend once more on raising this important issue.
Chilcot Inquiry (Civil Service Code)
(13 years, 10 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 Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Williams, ably chairing this debate as always.
One of the vital prerequisites of a Government-initiated inquiry is that it should be utterly independent and devoid of any conflicts of interest that might undermine its credibility and the veracity of its conclusions and findings. I shall detail why I have grave misgivings about the independence of the Chilcot inquiry, and why I believe that the inquiry process may be flawed and even compromised from the beginning. I realise that those are grave allegations, but I do not make them lightly.
Before I detail the problems as I see them, I should mention that about three years ago, some documents were dispatched to my office from an unknown source, bearing a note saying that they were top secret. Some were British in origin; others may well have been from other intelligence sources. They showed that in 2001-02, active discussions were taking place on how to move in against Saddam Hussein using overwhelming military force. The term “regime change” appeared. The documents proved beyond doubt that the UK Government were on course for war even then.
The documents must have been copies of authentic documents, as two senior officers from the Metropolitan police visited me and questioned me and my colleague Adam Price about them. At the time of that visit, the documents were not physically in our possession. I decided to leave them where they were and not disclose them to anyone. I could not tell the police officers who had leaked them, as I simply did not know, and neither did Adam Price.
When the Chilcot inquiry was set up, I decided that I should surrender the documents to the inquiry. I took them to the inquiry’s office in Victoria street and handed them to Mrs Margaret Aldred, the secretary of the inquiry. I said that I had evidence that might be of assistance to the inquiry and asked Mrs Aldred if the inquiry would write to confirm whether I would be called to give evidence. I told her that I had no intention of politicking if I were called. The response was an icy stare and the words “I should jolly well hope not.”
Months went by. I wrote on two or three occasions asking for a response, but no response was forthcoming until last autumn, some nine months later. I concluded that either the secretariat was not very orderly and professional or my letters had not been passed on to the chair of the inquiry, who eventually responded. I had been discreet. As a Member of Parliament for 19 years, I thought that I should have had the courtesy of a reply one way or the other within weeks rather than months.
I began to think that something might be amiss in the secretariat, and I made various inquiries about the process of appointing the secretary. I knew that the appointment fell under the civil service code, whose key values are openness, honesty, integrity and accuracy. Recent legislation has placed those values on a statutory basis. I then tabled some parliamentary questions, and I shall refer to two of them.
On 1 December, I asked
“(1) what skills and experience were identified as being required for the role of Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry; how many candidates were identified as having such skills and experience; and on what basis the successful candidate was selected;
(2) what steps were taken in the process of appointment of the Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry (a) to identify potential conflicts of interest and (b) to ensure that any such conflicts did not affect the independence of the inquiry.”
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr. Hurd), responded:
“The Cabinet Secretary decided to nominate the Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry and agreed the appointment with the Chairman of the Inquiry. Both the Cabinet Secretary and the Chairman of the Inquiry agreed that the Secretary to the Inquiry should be a senior individual in the civil service ideally with previous involvement in Iraq issues.”
The Chairman of the Inquiry has told the Cabinet Secretary that, in agreeing to the appointment, he was aware of the candidate’s role in the Foreign and Defence Policy (formerly the Defence and Overseas Policy) Secretariat in the Cabinet Office from November 2004, and, given the professional standards of the senior civil service, saw no potential conflict of interest with her appointment as Secretary to the Inquiry that would, in his view, affect the independence of the Inquiry.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 882W.]
It was, therefore, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, who put Mrs Margaret Aldred’s name forward for appointment as the secretary to the inquiry, and it was accepted, nem. con., by its chair, Sir John Chilcot.
On 3 September 2009, Dr Chris Lamb, who has been very concerned about this issue, wrote a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office asking for the precise details of the manner of the appointment. On 2 September 2010—one whole year later—a letter, signed off by Sue Gray of the propriety and ethics team of the Cabinet Office, was sent in response. It stated:
“The Cabinet Secretary himself decided to nominate Margaret Aldred, and agreed the appointment with Sir John Chilcot, shortly after Sir John himself had accepted his role as Inquiry Chair. Both the Cabinet Secretary and the Inquiry Chair felt that the Secretary needed to be a senior individual with the right experience and skills for the task. Her previous involvement in Iraq issues was balanced against that criteria, and the view taken was that it would be possible to manage any potential conflicts of interest. Margaret Aldred was assured of that position by the Cabinet Secretary from the outset. She took up the appointment full time on 1 September last year.”
The appointment did not follow the procedures outlined in the civil service code—it appears that no other candidate was considered by Sir Gus O’Donnell, and the process could not be described in any way as open and transparent. I will repeat what I believe to be the letter’s key phrase:
“Her previous involvement in Iraq issues was balanced against other criteria, and the view was taken that it would be possible to manage any potential conflicts of interest.”
Unsurprisingly, Dr Lamb was totally unsatisfied with the answer. He made a complaint to the Information Commissioner, and it was dealt with by Jonathan Slee, a senior case officer, who concluded in a letter dated 26 October 2010 that there were two possible scenarios. The first was that the Cabinet Office had no recorded information
“concerning the discussions in question. That is to say, such discussions took place orally (as opposed to in writing) and no written record of them was ever created. If this was the case presumably the narrative description of these discussions/deliberations which is included in the internal review was based purely on individuals’ recollection of them.”
On the second scenario, he wrote:
“Alternatively, the Cabinet Office did hold recorded information evidencing the nature of these discussions. The most obvious format for such recorded information would presumably be letters/emails exchanged between the Cabinet Secretary and Inquiry Chairman regarding Margaret Aldred, although such recorded information could obviously extend to meeting notes/memos/records of telephone conversations.”
The letter goes on to discuss another individual before noting:
“If this is the case, I suggested to the Cabinet Office that such recorded information was presumably used as the basis to provide the narrative description of the discussions which was included in the internal review. However, for the reasons set out above I suggested that Cabinet Office would not have fulfilled your request simply by describing the content of these recorded discussions. Rather the request would only be fulfilled by provision of the recorded information about the discussions themselves.”
The pre-penultimate paragraph of the letter concludes:
“However, I appreciate that the manner in which the Cabinet Office has handled this request will no doubt have proved frustrating. I therefore intend to formally write to the Cabinet Office in order to highlight its errors in terms of handling this request, notably the failure to correctly determine whether it held information falling within the scope of the request when issuing its refusal notice; the very significant delay in conducting an internal review; and the fact that the content of the internal review was somewhat ambiguous in inferring that Cabinet Office did hold some recorded information.”
Despite the best efforts of a very experienced researcher using the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it appears that there is no paper trail relating to the appointment or that, if there is, the Cabinet Office resolutely refuses to disclose it, for whatever reason.
We are left with the appointment of the deputy head of the Cabinet Office’s foreign and defence policy secretariat, Margaret Aldred, as secretary to the inquiry that is inquiring into actions taken by her department during her tenure as its deputy head. So integral was she in policy development that she gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence in June 1994 about whether weaponised biological agents were present. She was part and parcel of all the planning for Gulf war one. She regularly chaired the Iraq senior officials group, which co-ordinated Iraq policy across the Government.
The appointment process was unusual and unacceptable, and the irony will not be lost on the public. The process resurrected one of the worst features of sofa government, which was so criticised by the Butler inquiry, of which Sir John Chilcot was, sadly, a member. The inquiry secretary, who has a key role, is a Cabinet Office insider and was appointed because of her extensive previous involvement in Iraq policy. There is therefore a glaring conflict of interest. Some might say her position is untenable because the inquiry is looking into the period when she was active in Iraq policy, as I said.
The very same Cabinet Office has most to answer for over Iraq. The Cabinet Office, and Mrs Aldred’s section in particular, drew up plans for regime change—an unlawful concept in international law. The Cabinet Office—the Joint Intelligence Committee and its staff—produced the discredited Iraq dossier, one of the least persuasive documents in recent political history, which is of dubious provenance and even more dubious veracity. Can the inquiry be independent, or is it a Cabinet Office subsidiary? Mrs Aldred’s involvement and that of her section makes it difficult to know where the Cabinet Office ends and the inquiry begins.
Sir John Chilcot is leading an inquiry that is tasked with examining allegations that the previous Government was duplicitous towards Parliament and the public. Surely, when Sir Gus O’Donnell suggested his close colleague, so enmeshed as she was in the whole Iraq debacle, Sir John should have seen the obvious conflict of interest? Has Mrs Aldred played a part in the protocol that has limited the inquiry’s scope? What steps have been taken to manage the conflict of interest? What steps could be taken to manage her glaring, obvious and painful conflict of interest?
During the period covered by the inquiry, the section of the Cabinet Office where Mrs Aldred worked was pivotal in the Government’s policy towards Iraq. Margaret Aldred was deputy head of that section for four and a half of those eight years. The inquiry has not published a single document originated by the Cabinet Office. In July 2002, a briefing paper by the same part of the Cabinet Office expressed the hope
“that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject”.
In September 2002, Mrs Aldred’s predecessor at the Cabinet Office wrote to Sir John Scarlett, then chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, suggesting that the Iraq dossier and qualifications in the original assessment were to be removed. That document was not disclosed to the Hutton inquiry and the Cabinet Office spent years trying to prevent its disclosure. In passing, I remind the House that it was Sir Gus O’Donnell who recently denied the Chilcot inquiry permission to publish the correspondence between President Bush and Mr Blair, despite the fact that both men were happy to refer to the correspondence in their respective autobiographies.
To conclude, Mrs Aldred routinely chaired the Iraq senior officials group; she met US officials in October 2008 to discuss Iraq; she was implicated in or knew of the rendition policy; she had the leaked document showing that she was copied in with respect to the rendition policy; and she flew to Washington for discussions with counterparts three weeks before the inquiry was announced. The following questions must in my view be answered. It may be difficult for the Minister to do so today, but clearly if he can write to me in due course that will suffice. I do not want to put him on the spot.
Is Mrs Margaret Aldred’s role at the inquiry as central as her role in Iraq policy at the Cabinet Office? Did Sir Gus O’Donnell detail Mrs Aldred’s involvement in Iraq policy precisely to Sir John Chilcot, and when she was appointed and the appointment was announced why was there no mention of her previous experience with Iraq policy? She is the gatekeeper to the inquiry. Does she advise on lines of inquiry? Does she liaise with the Government about evidence? We know that she liaises with the Government about the publication of information. Was she involved in the drawing up of the protocol that has stymied the process? It was published a month after she took up her role. Is she likely to draft the report?
Obviously, justice must be seen to be done. Transparency and openness are paramount. They are concepts that are signally absent from the inquiry process. I regret that one conclusion that can easily be drawn is that the inquiry process is flawed and compromised from the very beginning.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
Mr Williams, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I know that my being English will not count against me in what would otherwise be a Welsh affair.
It is also a pleasure to respond to an important debate. The recent Iraq conflict, as we saw last week, stirs powerful emotions. We should recognise that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has been one of the leaders of the debate on the legality of the war. He should be congratulated on his part in the democratic process. It is surely in the interest of all of us that the Chilcot inquiry should be conducted with impeccable impartiality and integrity. The hon. Gentleman obviously believes—and I listened to him carefully—that the process is, to use his words, flawed and compromised, principally by the process of appointing Margaret Aldred to the secretariat of the inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman was the first to admit, those are serious allegations, and should be responded to in like manner, not least for the sake of the reputation of the individual concerned, who cannot be here to defend herself.
I will simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman, not least because the chairman of the inquiry and his committee appear to be satisfied with their procedures, but I am happy to respond to the points that have been made. It might be helpful to provide some additional background context to the Iraq inquiry, in relation to the appointments that we are discussing.
The Iraq inquiry was launched, as the hon. Gentleman will know well, on 30 July 2009 with a remit to examine the United Kingdom’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned. The committee is made up of Privy Counsellors, is chaired by Sir John Chilcot and has four other members: Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar. I think that it is generally accepted—I certainly accept it, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman shares my view—that each committee member is independent, non-partisan and committed to undertaking a thorough, rigorous and fair inquiry.
Mr Hurd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for placing that on record and making it entirely clear. I am pleased that he has done so. Obviously, to some degree, their reputation and integrity are on the line, as the procedures for which they are responsible are being called into question. I am sure that they would take very seriously indeed any suggestion of mismanagement of a potential conflict of interest. As he says, it might undermine the integrity of the processes to which their names are attached. As I understand it, they have placed on record the fact that the committee and the secretariat work collectively. The committee is satisfied that its procedures are capable of dealing with any potential conflict of interest. The Privy Counsellors are supported by a secretariat staffed by civil servants who share their commitment and are governed by the values of the civil service code, which I will address at the end of my remarks.
Having provided the background and context, I will address the role of the secretariat and the process of appointing the secretary, which is the crux of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. The secretariat supports the chair of the inquiry and its members in carrying out their tasks. Its duties are varied and wide-ranging and include making logistical arrangements, requesting statements and papers and preparing papers for consideration by the committee.
The secretariat operates independently of the Department and is currently staffed by 16 civil servants drawn from seven Departments: the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government Communications Headquarters, the Department for International Development, the Northern Ireland Office and the Serious Fraud Office. There are also two suitably cleared temporary support staff members supplied by a recruitment agency. Those appointments to the Iraq secretariat were made in line with Cabinet Office human resources procedures, which are similar to those used by other Departments to provide staff for inquiries. I understand that they were used most recently in relation to the Gibson inquiry. It is regular practice.
I will explain more. When the Government decide to establish an independent inquiry, the timing is such that it must often be done as a matter of priority and with a degree of urgency. Decisions about the chair and members of an inquiry are matters for the Government. It is usual for an inquiry secretariat to be staffed by civil servants on loan or secondment from Departments. Decisions about the secretary to an inquiry will normally be for the chair, and the secretary will then recruit the supporting team in consultation with the chair.
When considering individuals’ suitability for secretariat roles, a number of factors are taken into account, ranging from availability to relevant skills and experience to the potential for any conflict of interest. I can confirm that that process was followed for the Iraq inquiry secretariat. The posts were not initially advertised, as they needed to be filled urgently. The secretary and the Cabinet Office human resources team worked with colleagues in other Departments to identify individuals considered suitable for the various roles, taking into account their availability, skills, knowledge, experience and any identified potential conflicts of interest. After the individuals had been agreed, the moves were made through the Cabinet Office human resources managed move policy.
Moving on from general recruitment, I will focus on the specific position in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, that of inquiry secretary. It is clearly a crucial role. The Cabinet Secretary discussed with Sir John Chilcot the experience, skills and background knowledge required and agreed that the secretary should be a senior individual in the civil service, ideally with previous knowledge and experience of defence and foreign affairs. The Cabinet Secretary proposed Margaret Aldred, who had been the deputy head of the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat—formerly the Defence and Overseas Policy Secretariat—in the Cabinet Office since November 2004. Sir John, after considering with others Mrs Aldred’s background and experience, agreed. He did not call for more choices or more alternatives. He agreed with the proposal from the Cabinet Secretary. Given the professional standards of the senior civil service, he and the Cabinet Secretary concluded that there would not be a potential conflict of interest with her appointment, and it would not affect the independence of the inquiry. We strongly support his view.
Regarding Mrs Aldred’s previous involvement in Iraq issues, which is the issue that concerns the hon. Gentleman, the inquiry has papers from the Cabinet Office covering the whole period of its terms of reference. Those include papers produced by the foreign and defence policy secretariat, in which Mrs Aldred was previously employed. In addition, it has heard evidence from the Prime Minister’s foreign and defence policy advisers for whom Mrs Aldred worked.
Sir John and other committee members are fully satisfied that the secretary is discharging her role efficiently and effectively and with the highest levels of professionalism. Mrs Aldred is a highly experienced member of the senior civil service, with a deep understanding and knowledge of defence and foreign policy issues. Her previous work on Iraq has been handled by the inquiry in a way that is fair and open and avoids conflicts of interests. Again, I stress that the committee is satisfied that that does not have any negative impacts on the inquiry and does not call into question the independence of its work. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise.
Let me conclude by talking briefly about the civil service code and its values, because the hon. Gentleman suggested that this process cut across the bow of that code. The code and its values are clearly important in gaining a full appreciation of how they apply in relation to the secretariat to the Iraq inquiry. Let me start by covering the values. As civil servants, the inquiry secretary and other members of the secretariat are required to carry out their duties and responsibilities in accordance with the requirements of the civil service code, including integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. They are also required to comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice. While working for the inquiry, the civil servants will be accountable to the inquiry for their work and actions.
To conclude, I have no doubt at all, if things are as the hon. Gentleman said, that some things should have been done better, not least in terms of the courtesy that should have been extended to him, and the length of time that it took to respond to the FOI request. I am sure that the people involved in that will think on it. But in terms of the core issue—the integrity and professionalism of the secretariat to the inquiry—I am pleased to have the opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the work done by the inquiry, which I am sure is shared by the House and the general public. I am also pleased to be able to put it on record that both I and the independent committee of Privy Counsellors who constitute the Iraq inquiry, and whose reputation and integrity are on the line in this process as well, are confident that the inquiry secretary and the other civil servants are providing impartial and objective advice to the inquiry in a way that upholds the impartiality of the civil service and preserves the independence of the inquiry.
Historic Homes
(13 years, 10 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
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
In a speech recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly observed that one of the generators of new jobs in the UK would be tourism. Tourists come to the UK for many reasons. I am glad to report that Bicester village in my constituency is now the most popular destination for Chinese tourists coming to the UK. However, the fact is that many tourists and visitors to the UK, while they are here, want to appreciate and experience our heritage, and of course heritage is also important for all of us, because historic heritage has helped to shape what each of us thinks and feels about where we live—our sense of place.
An important part of our heritage in England is our historic houses. Historic houses provide character and distinctiveness, and help to create pride in the places where people live. When people talk about heritage properties or historic houses, they understandably immediately think of the National Trust and English Heritage, which are in charitable and public ownership respectively. What many of us fail to realise fully is that, out of the historic houses open to the public, those that are privately owned, managed, and funded outnumber the total of those belonging to the National Trust and English Heritage put together.
My particular interest in initiating the debate is because, just outside Banbury, we have Broughton castle, which is a moated castle of considerable history that has been lived in by numerous successive generations of the Fiennes family. Something that most people—indeed, people from all corners of the world—know about my constituency is the traditional nursery rhyme:
“Ride a cock horse to Banbury Cross,
To see a fine lady on a white horse”.
It is generally believed locally that the “fine” lady was, indeed, a “Fiennes” lady and that the nursery rhyme relates to the Fiennes family at Broughton castle, otherwise known as the Saye and Seles.
Broughton castle has been a distinctive part of the history of north Oxfordshire throughout the centuries and was a parliamentarian stronghold during the civil war. Numerous Fiennes were, on different occasions, my predecessors as Members of Parliament for Banbury. The present Lord and Lady Saye and Sele have been exemplary over the years in their commitment to the community in which they live. Both have been very active deputy lord lieutenants and have always been incredibly generous in allowing the community to use the castle and grounds at Broughton for community events. There has been everything from traditional church fêtes to charity fund raising pop concerts. Broughton castle is a local jewel. The whole community benefits not simply from the public access that is afforded to Broughton, but from the numerous and various spin-off benefits the castle provides to my constituency more widely.
Nat and Mariette Saye and Sele have been extremely generous to the extent that they have allowed Broughton to be used in aid of many local charitable and community purposes. However, the stewardship of a building as large and as old as Broughton must be a struggle. I sometimes think that there must be a risk that owners of historic houses become something of a captive of the house in which they live. For a stretch of nearly 15 years, one part or another of Broughton castle has been shrouded in scaffolding as the Saye and Seles have methodically maintained and repaired the castle. Indeed, any such historic house requires constant maintenance that never ends. Although the Saye and Seles at Broughton are exemplary stewards of an historic house, they are clearly not alone in what they do. Across the country, many such privately owned houses play a pivotal role in contributing to the local economy and supporting the local community.
The economic and social benefits of historic houses are considerable and quantifiable. Recently, the Heritage Lottery Fund published a report entitled, “Investing in Success: Heritage and the UK Tourism Economy.” That report made clear the scale of the heritage tourism industry in the UK, estimating that its gross domestic product contributed some £20.6 billion to the UK economy. Indeed, the research established that the sector makes a bigger contribution to the UK GDP than, perhaps surprisingly, the advertising or film industries or even car manufacturing. Indeed, the heritage tourism sector directly supports an estimated 195,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Four in 10 incoming visitors or tourists to the UK cited heritage as the primary motivation for their trip to Britain, which was more than any other single factor. Of course, a considerable amount of spending on UK heritage comes from UK residents on holidays and day trips. It is not surprising that the most recent report of the Historic Houses Association shows that the possibilities provided by historic houses are endless and range from ghost hunts to sculpture gardens, from art exhibitions to music festivals and from bat walks to an international jesters’ competition.
So why have I initiated the debate? Simply because, as I have indicated, it is a continuous struggle to find the money to ensure that many historic houses are properly maintained and repaired. The owners of historic houses in no way wish to be rentiers on the state, but in consideration of the fact that they continue to provide public access to their homes, and of the broader community and national benefit of historic houses, we all have an interest in trying to get the balance right.
I emphasise that what I am talking about here are historic houses that are open to the public and are regularly open to the public. For example, Broughton castle is advertised as being open to the public 50 days a year. In addition, it has booked groups on a further 50-plus days. Moreover, schools and other groups can book by appointment on pretty much any day of the year. These are historic houses that are regularly and frequently open to the general public.
Over the years, successive Governments have made honest attempts to provide support for historic houses. Heritage maintenance funds have been developed, the thinking behind which is straightforward and sound. The proposition is that it is not sufficient to protect designated heritage property from capital taxation if the supporting assets that are essential to maintain that heritage property are themselves whittled away by successive bites of capital tax.
The Finance Act 1976 provided that assets dedicated to supporting a designated heritage property, both in terms of maintenance and of the provision of public access to it, could be ring-fenced and settled in a heritage maintenance fund, which would itself be conditionally exempt from inheritance tax.
Comparatively few—135 or so—heritage maintenance funds have been set up over the past 30 years. The problem is that very few of them provide income and capital proceeds to support the maintenance and repair of historic buildings and land designated by the Treasury as being of national importance and usually with a public access condition. Very few are actively being used, and very few new HMFs are being created.
That is because income generated within HMFs is taxed at the trust rate, which is now 50%; capital gains generated within HMFs are subject to capital gains tax and there is now no indexation; and, as an unintended result of drafting of tax legislation in 2006, the active use of HMFs is effectively frozen for six to seven years every time there is a resettlement of the HMF. For every HMF in which the historic house is taxed as a business under case 1, schedule D, a resettlement is needed each time there is a transfer of ownership. It is estimated that about a third of HMFs are currently caught in this trap and many more will be sooner or later.
HMFs are not working as they were intended to work. That matters because HMFs were designed to help owners of nationally important heritage to maintain that heritage in the public interest. It is estimated that the owners of historic houses as a whole are putting £139 million into the maintenance of their own houses every year. That is a considerable amount of money, but not enough to stop the build-up of a backlog of urgent repairs worth some £390 million. An additional £20 million of maintenance a year is necessary just to keep up. All that happens is that the backlog of urgent repairs continues to grow, which is unsustainable.
The Historic Houses Association estimates that with some fairly modest improvements in the tax treatment of HMFs, one could generate an additional £12 million in maintenance each year, thus making significant inroads into the annual maintenance shortfall. Such a scheme would cost the Exchequer only about £6 million a year. The suggestions are to reduce the tax on income generated in HMFs to the basic rate, currently 20%, recognising that HMFs can be used only in support of the maintenance of the designated historic property; to exempt disposals of assets within HMFs from CGT so long as the proceeds are used for maintenance of the historic property, or reinvested in assets within the HMF; and to correct the drafting of the tax legislation so that HMFs would not be frozen each time there was a resettlement.
The cost to the Exchequer of the first two would be no more than £6 million per year, and the third— the technical correction—would be cost free. No CGT is being collected from HMFs caught in the trap because no disposals are being made.
Put shortly, HMFs have been on the statute book for more than 30 years. They need to be made workable and to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended—to provide a reasonable mechanism to enable owners of historic houses to maintain their houses and keep them open to the public. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department, as the sponsor Department for heritage and tourism, will work with officials in the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that HMFs are made to work properly.
Will the Minister’s Department have an overall look at how it is possible to reduce the regulatory burden and red tape on historic houses? Indeed, shortly after coming to office the coalition Government pledged to review and reduce regulation. Five areas have been highlighted in which action would be relatively simple to take at little or no cost to the Exchequer, and which would bring worthwhile benefits not only to those promoting historic houses and tourism, but to the wider economy. The first is licensing and the implementation of the 2006 Elton review recommendations, which called for changes to the fee structures for larger events; permission for historic rural venues to host occasional events; and for a de minimis approach when the licence or activity is small in relation to the overall activity taking place.
The second area is tourism signage and the hope that it would be possible to develop a policy to encourage the use of brown signs not just to manage traffic, but to promote tourism. Even under the current policy, there are inconsistencies in Highways Agency and local authority interpretation, resulting in some historic houses not being allowed tourism signs, or even losing their signs.
Thirdly, on planning, we need to promote a more flexible approach to the way in which planning applications for temporary structures, such as marquees, are handled. Marquees house special events that can significantly enrich the experience of visitors to historic places without compromising the historic value of the site. Indeed, the Palace of Westminster has had temporary permanent marquees on the Terrace for as long as I can recall, but they are, by definition, temporary and reversible. For some reason, some local authorities treat marquees as though they are permanent developments.
The fourth area is the application of fire safety rules to listed bed and breakfast accommodation. While recognising that fire safety is, of course, paramount, one needs to ensure that the application of fire safety regulations recognises the peculiarities and realities of historic buildings. Finally, we need to rethink the application of health and safety regulations in circumstances involving natural hazards, because, at present, it is undermining voluntary efforts to open the countryside for public access.
Historic houses are not just stone and mortar. They should be living places. The soul of a historic house is the family who live there. Those families are the most committed, responsible and, dare I say, cheapest curators of these parts of our national heritage. May I therefore urge the Minister to note that modest changes to heritage maintenance funds can bring long-term benefits at a relatively tiny annual cost to the Exchequer? Moreover, will his Department please do what it can to tackle excessive regulation?
Historic houses are inspirational places. They brighten our lives, whether through a day out, an educational visit, attending a wedding or a concert, or even through enjoying the setting of “Downton Abbey”. Historic houses are there to be enjoyed, but they require constant maintenance and repair, which are heavy costs. It is only fair that there should be some sensible compact between the community as a whole and the curators of such houses for the provision that they make of them to the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Williams, for this important and timely debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on raising the issue. He clearly has a strong personal interest and, as he has made clear, a strong constituency interest in the issues that he has raised, which I will try to address point by point.
I am the Minister with responsibility for tourism and heritage, and I think that the Government accept that there is a very close and entirely appropriate link between those two elements of British life. I accept and agree with my hon. Friend’s central principle that heritage is a tremendously important part of British national life not only from a tourism perspective, but because, as he has rightly pointed out, heritage assets—be they houses, museums, prehistoric monuments or any of the things that we are lucky enough to have in this country—create a sense of place and convey the individual history and sense of character of a particular village or town. They are an essential part of what makes us us. We would be the poorer if we tried to pretend that that was not so, and it would be foolish to ignore what is one of our most central and important national assets.
My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that heritage is one of the most frequently cited reasons for tourists to visit Britain in the first place, and it would be perverse of us to ignore or downplay that. He is, therefore, absolutely right to put the issue front and centre, and I could not agree more with the central principle that he is enunciating.
My hon. Friend is also right to applaud the work of the Historic Houses Association, which represents about 1,500 owners of historic houses up and down the country. Those owners are incredibly careful and committed stewards of the properties for which they are responsible, looking after them for themselves and for future generations of not only their own family but the communities in which their houses are located and the wider public in general, because, as he has rightly pointed out, many of those houses are open to the public, either permanently or periodically, giving us all a chance to enjoy one of the things that makes Britain unique among countries.
The HHA does some tremendously good work and its members are tremendously important, particularly because—as my hon. Friend has pointed out—it is easy to assume that heritage is just something that the state or government do. I am pleased to say that nothing could be further from the truth. We are lucky in this country to have a variety of different types of ownership and stewardship of our national heritage in its various forms. First, there is public ownership of some essential assets. English Heritage’s properties, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, are a good example of such assets. Secondly, there is ownership by charitable or third sector—the voluntary and community sector—organisations. The National Trust is the biggest, most prominent and certainly the most famous of those organisations, but there are dozens—indeed, probably hundreds—of other charitable trusts and other such organisations that run other parts of our national heritage, and they all do extremely good work. Thirdly and finally, as we have already mentioned, there is of course private ownership. It is instructive—is it not?—to note that all three of these types of stewardship or ownership have extremely strong advocates and that all three perform tremendously good work in looking after our nation’s heritage.
So there is not a preconception that only one system of ownership will work. In the UK, we are lucky to have a mixed economy—if I can call it that—in this sector and long may that continue. It is an essential part of ensuring that we do not have all our eggs in one basket and that our heritage is properly looked after in a number of different ways.
My hon. Friend made a series of points, and I will try to address them one a time. He began by explaining the background to heritage maintenance funds and some of what I think is their noble purpose. He said that a central theme underlies them, which he believes is, “Sensible is good sense,” and I agree with him on that. However, he also pointed out that there is a fair degree of frustration, not only in the membership of the HHA but more broadly in the heritage world, about the limitations of HMFs and the fact that they are not necessarily working as many people would like them to.
I must say that, as the Minister with responsibility for tourism and heritage, nothing would give me greater pleasure than being able to turn around and promise my hon. Friend that all those issues concerning tax and the other details of HMFs can be dealt with by the wave of a magic wand or the stroke of a pen. Sadly, however, given the state of the national finances in particular, I cannot make that promise here today, although I suspect that my hon. Friend did not really expect me to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to note the concerns that he has rightly identified and outlined for us in the Chamber today.
It is also important to note some of the constraints on HMFs. It is worth while pointing out, as my hon. Friend did, that there are only 135 extant HMFs and that not all of them are active. Even if we were able to wave the magic wand that I have mentioned and remove some—or perhaps even all—of the constraints that he has pointed out, most estimates are that only another 40 or so HMFs would be established in the next five years. Given that the members of the HHA are responsible for 1,500 houses, we are talking about a comparatively small proportion of houses that would be affected, although some of them are tremendously important national assets—indeed, some are among our most famous and well recognised national assets. Nevertheless, the HMF scheme is quite a narrow one, as it currently stands. Therefore, there are many other assets—many other heritage properties—that are managing well without using that particular mechanism.
It is also true to say that the Treasury is rightly cautious about some of the proposals from the HHA. That is not because it dislikes the notion of heritage or trying to support it, but simply because it is concerned about the wider budget questions that this entire Parliament will be remembered for trying to grapple with and about the major issues that we face on the national deficit. It also needs to be clear that it cannot necessarily create a special deal for heritage charities, funds or trusts, because that might create the thin end of a rather larger wedge for other classes of asset.
The Treasury is interested, it is listening and it is concerned to address the issues that the Historic Houses Association has raised. I have spoken with the association, which has come to see me at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I understand that there are also ongoing discussions between the association and my opposite numbers at the Treasury. I want to make it clear that my Department and the Treasury are also discussing these issues. A great deal of conversation is therefore going on, but it is subject to some fairly severe financial constraints, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand. Although, we both, I suspect, wish that those constraints did not exist, they are real, and it would be remiss and wrong of us to pretend otherwise.
Some of the proposals that the association suggests would be at least fiscally neutral are probably slightly easier for the Treasury to view more favourably than others, but I need to leave that to the Treasury, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. I am afraid that I cannot commit the Treasury in this debate, and there would be fairly serious repercussions if I tried. None the less, discussions are ongoing, and I hope that the association understands that it is being carefully listened to and that its audience is, wherever possible, being receptive to its concerns.
My hon. Friend has mentioned two issues concerning the broader deregulation agenda. One is licensing, particularly of live music and entertainment events. He gave some good examples of the great breadth of entertainment that is frequently provided by owners of historic houses up and down the country. The creativity and range of those events is continuously growing, and we can all cite examples of the events being held at historic properties in almost every constituency around the country, which is all to the good. The fact that such events take place is superb, because it provides a sustainable reason for many of these properties to continue to exist. It will make sure that they are living and thriving and that they are not just museums or mausoleums, but have a current purpose, which is excellent.
The second issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned is heritage signs—brown signs, as they are frequently called—on our motorways and other roads. In both cases—licensing and heritage signs—policy ideas are being discussed in my Department. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical promise at this stage, because the discussions are ongoing, and there would have to be sign-off all around Whitehall in the usual Cabinet government collective responsibility fashion, as I am sure that he understands as a former Minister himself. However, I promise that both ideas are under active discussion.
In the case of the licensing regime, a great many people have concerns. Musicians’ unions, for example, are calling for deregulation. My hon. Friend will understand that if one chose to go down that route, it would be important to make sure that there were no unintended consequences. There are real risks associated with live entertainment of one kind or another, simply because it can involve a large number of people in a comparatively small space. There are therefore concerns about health and safety, the disturbance caused by people arriving at and leaving a venue, public order and so on. All those issues have to be dealt with, so the devil in deregulating, or reducing the amount of regulation involved in, the licensing of entertaining is very much in the detail.
I am, however, happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we are in the middle of discussions. I hope to have something to announce in due course, but that will rather depend on collective responsibility. My hon. Friend will understand that other Whitehall Departments are concerned to ensure that the right things are done on, for example, health and safety legislation or public order. The Department for Work and Pensions would be involved on health and safety, while the Home Office would be involved on public order. They have to sign off and approve these things, which have to be carefully and properly considered so that everybody is sure that we are not creating an unintended consequence.
My hon. Friend also mentioned his concerns about the red tape surrounding fire and health and safety regulations. He is absolutely right that due to dramatic changes in building styles over many centuries, historic buildings often create and deliver a unique set of complexities and difficulties for fire and health and safety inspectors. Because they are, by definition, unusual and rare, they present issues that are not necessarily common or frequently encountered in modern buildings. Therefore, a degree of sensitivity is required on the part of health and safety and fire inspectors. A fire regulation solution that might be normal, natural and fairly straightforward in a modern building might be deeply antithetical to a historic building and fundamentally undermine its essential historic character. An approved and appropriate set of solutions to many problems commonly encountered in historic buildings is increasingly widely available.
Of course, it is not sufficient to say, “Well, there’s one answer that suits historic buildings and one that suits modern buildings.” The sad and difficult point is that an answer to the problem of fire doors and so on in a 19th-century building could be completely inappropriate for an 18th or 17th-century building, and a timber-framed building would need a different set of solutions again. It requires an in-depth understanding of heritage issues and of the available solutions, but a widely understood range of solutions is increasingly being developed. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would not hurt for those solutions to be more widely known, simply because it is easy otherwise for an individual inspector to fall out with the owner or heritage guardian of a historic house, which is unhelpful for all concerned.
Increasingly, there is a trend toward a risk-based approach to fire and health and safety inspections. Five, 10 or 15 years ago, some parts of the country had a rotational system where everybody was inspected every year, two years, three years or whatever, whether the property in question was well or badly run. Nowadays, I am pleased to say that there is a move in many parts of the country—I am told that it is spreading steadily—towards a risk-based approach. For a property that is known to be well-run and can be checked as such, perhaps a longer time can pass, whereas a property that causes grave concerns should perhaps be inspected more frequently and regularly. Such a flexible approach, particularly toward many of our excellently run heritage properties, is entirely sensible and appropriate.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend and given him answers to some of the issues that he has raised. I repeat that he is absolutely correct that heritage is crucial to this country. It is one of the things that makes us what we are and distinguishes us from any other part of the world. I know that he and I are both committed to ensuring that our heritage assets are kept in good hands for future as well as current generations. I am sure that he will hold me to account for how we do so as ably as he has done in the past half-hour.
Neonicotinoid Pesticides
(13 years, 10 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
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
Over recent years, there has been an alarming worldwide reduction in bee numbers. In the UK, similar declines have occurred in wild pollinators such as bumblebees, moths, hoverflies and butterflies. The causes of those losses have been much debated.
When I wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month, Lord Henley replied to say that, in Britain at least, the combined factors included poor spring and summer weather, the varroa mite and other husbandry issues. My letter to the Department had been about the possibility that a group of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids, and similar products, were contributing to the demise of bees and other pollinating insects. In response, Lord Henley said:
“In the UK, neo-nicotinoid insecticides are used primarily in commercial agriculture and horticulture production. Only a very small proportion is used in home garden products so the potential risk to bees, if any, from this type of product is negligible”.
He also assured me that the UK pesticide approval regime was robust and adequate.
I sought the debate today to urge the Government to be prepared to take a step back from that position and to look again at what is happening to the small creatures that contribute so much to our environment and food production. In particular, I ask them to examine, first, the growing weight of science that shows how neonicotinoid use and invertebrate losses are likely to be linked and, secondly, the evidence that the pesticide assessment regimes in Europe and the United States, as applied to systemics and the potential for environmental damage, are inadequate in identifying what is really going on.
In 2009 the British charity Buglife—The Invertebrate Conservation Trust conducted a review of all the available scientific literature about the effects of neonicotinoids and the Bayer product Imidacloprid in particular on non-target insect species. The report referred to 100 scientific studies and papers, and highlighted some real concerns that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinating insects. It also identified a particular problem of insects ingesting tiny doses on repeated visits to treated plants. The testing methodology of the Imidacloprid draft assessment report under EU regulations was not sufficiently sensitive to detect that.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. He brings terrific expertise to the subject. Does he agree that, if there is any doubt about the adequacy of the regulatory regimes in Europe and the United States—and this is a classic instance—the precautionary principle should be applied? Given the crucial importance of bees and other insects in the ecosystem, it is a risk that we cannot afford to take.
Martin Caton
I go a long way with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that the precautionary principle should be applied regardless of the degree of doubt; I shall come on to that a little later. However, if there is substantial doubt and good scientific evidence to give rise to doubt, the precautionary principle certainly should kick in.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for obtaining the debate, because like him I believe that the issue of bees and pollination is extremely important, particularly in the west country where we have had problems with colony collapse. Does he agree that the evidence, circumstantial though it may be, to some degree, from France, Germany and Italy, where the substances have been banned, with a subsequent increase in the bee population, seems to point to a significant problem?
Martin Caton
I do agree. The evidence of increases is largely anecdotal, but I shall quote the president of the Italian Association of Beekeepers, because in the Po valley a ban was introduced. He said:
“On behalf of bee-farmers working in a countryside dominated by maize crops, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to confirm the great news, for once: thanks to the suspension of the bee-killing seed coating, the hives in the Po Valley are flourishing again.”
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in European countries the initial licensing for such controversial pesticides is done by way of a draft assessment report organised by the manufacturer? Shockingly, the DAR for the commonest neonicotinoid used in Europe was put together by Bayer, who, surprise, surprise, did not find a problem with it. Does he agree that there is a problem with metholodogy?
Martin Caton
The hon. Lady has taken me to a point in my speech where I was intending to say the same thing; I may not have to say it now, thanks to her.
On the basis of its findings, Buglife called on the Government to reconsider the position of neonicotinoids, and to suspend existing outdoor approvals for the products pending the findings of a review. It also called for the development of international methodologies for assessing the effects of systemic pesticides and sub-lethal impacts on invertebrates.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
There are a large number of beekeepers in my constituency, many of whom have contacted me about the issue, so I am pleased that the debate is happening, and grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing it. It is important that the chemicals regulation directorate is encouraged to think about these issues and, if necessary, to research the health of bees in general. I certainly encourage the Minister to respond to that.
Martin Caton
That is a fair point. It is useful that the president of the British Beekeepers’ Association issued a statement just a couple of days ago. Traditionally, that organisation has not been at the forefront of trying to get action taken, but it is now realising how serious the situation is and it is calling for an urgent review. We are all beginning to sing from the same hymn sheet.
The Government asked the chemicals regulation directorate to look at the Buglife report. In a letter to Buglife and the Soil Association, Lord Henley said that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides had conducted a further review. However, earlier this month, someone contacted the ACP to ask for a copy of the report and she was told that the ACP had not conducted a review of the Buglife report and that only the CRD had conducted the review. That same person then asked the CRD for a copy of the review and she was told that it was not quite finished, as the directorate still needed to look at some data.
Even though the review was clearly not completed, Lord Henley felt able to tell Buglife that its report had highlighted a need in the risk assessment process for data on the impact of these pesticides on over-wintering bees and that the matter was being addressed. That was clearly a welcome step. However, he did not respond to the main thrust of that report on environmental damage, nor did he answer the main recommendations that I have just outlined. Buglife and the Soil Association have asked the Minister to supply a copy of the full report from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, but that could be difficult because the report simply does not exist.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting case. Given that the problems of colony collapse and bee decline did not happen at the last general election and that the previous Government agreed welcome investment that went into research into the causes of colony collapse, has his research identified any evidence provided by DEFRA through the work that it has undertaken in examining the causes of colony collapse in the UK?
Martin Caton
Most of the research that I have looked at for this debate has been new research done by academic institutions that leads to further worries about the use of this particular group of systemics. I will come on to that in a moment.
Without a completed review of the report, DEFRA decided not to accept Buglife’s interpretation of the current science and continues to maintain that
“We have a robust system for assessing risks from pesticides in the UK”
that is based on evidence. DEFRA goes on to state:
“current evidence shows that…there is not an unacceptable risk to bee health”
from these products. That statement was made as recently as last month. But how robust is a risk assessment regime that takes 16 months to deal with a report? That worries me because things have moved on considerably since the production of the Buglife report. Further scientific evidence has been produced over the past 15 months that strengthens the case. Four significant pieces of published research have emerged during that time. The first is a paper in Ecotoxicology by Nils Dittbrenner. It demonstrates a damaging impact on earthworm growth and activity at field level use of Imidacloprid. Secondly, work by the toxicologist, Dr Henk Tennekes, shows that low-level exposure to neonicotinoids by arthropods over a long time is likely to be as damaging as high exposure over a short time and hence more harmful than had been thought. Thirdly, work done by James Cresswell of Exeter university published in Ecotoxicology makes the case, from various pieces of lab work done by others, that a 6% to 20% reduction in honey bee performance is associated with the use of neonicotinoids. However, none of the field studies used to assess the impact of systemic pesticides would be able to detect a change in performance at that level.
Fourthly, a paper by Cedric Alaux of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research published in Environmental Microbiology demonstrates a clear link between neonicotinoid exposure and increased susceptibility to fatal nosema infections that could threaten pollinators. In addition, there is unpublished work that adds to the picture. One piece of work from the Netherlands shows widespread contamination of water bodies in that country and raises concerns about the impacts on the health of freshwater invertebrate populations. The other, from the USA, was the subject of the lead story in The Independent last Thursday under the headline, “Poisoned Spring”.
In an exclusive, Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of The Independent, revealed work from the US Department of Agriculture’s bee research lab, showing that neonicotinoid pesticides make honey bees far more susceptible to disease—even at tiny doses. Therefore, they have to be in the frame when we consider the causes of the colony collapse disorder that is having a devastating effect on bees around the world.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Everyone in this Chamber, I think, agrees that bee health is a very important issue for the whole environment and for the environmental cycle. He has mentioned a number of factors that affect bee health and he has talked about pests and diseases. Does he not think that we should look at bee health as an overall issue and the impacts that are riding on that, rather than just focus on specific issues?
Martin Caton
That is exactly my case. The evidence against the neonicotinoids now is that they make bees and other pollinating insects more susceptible to diseases, so it is not just one factor. We cannot rule out the effect of these systemic pesticides. That is the mistake that has been made so far.
Dr Jeffrey Pettis and his team at the US Department found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticides were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it. Those findings are completely in line with some of the other research that I have already mentioned. That research evidence from the other side of the Atlantic follows hard on the heels of the “leaked memo” from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is about a newer neonicotinoid called Clothianidin. It is highly critical of the risk assessment process used in the US. It states:
“Information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoid insecticides, suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.”
Alarm bells should be ringing by now. Neonicotinoids are a group of relatively new compounds that mimic the insect-killing properties of nicotine. They are neurotoxins, attacking the central nervous system of the invertebrates. They are systemic, which means that they get taken into every part of the plant, including the pollen and nectar. In turn, that means that bees and other pollinating insects can absorb them and carry them back to their nests or hives.
In 2008, total neonicotinoid use in Britain involved more than 2.5 million acres—some quarter of the arable cropland in this country—and they are big earners for the chemical companies that produce them. According to the article in The Independent, the German company Bayer earned more than £500 million from the sale of its top-selling insecticide, Imidacloprid, in 2009, which fits in with the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As she said, there is no independent monitoring of the process of gathering and assessing results by the manufacturer. When that is the foundation of the approval system, is it any surprise that we find disparities between the findings of subsequent independent research on this systemic pesticide and the research in its own 2005 draft assessment report?
We need to look again at the approval mechanism for crop protection. In doing so, we should be employing the precautionary principle.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that DEFRA seems over-complacent about the issue of the ill health of bees? In 2005, I asked the European Commission to comment on cuts that were being made that would halve the number of seasonal bee inspectors. Given that it has been estimated that beekeeping contributes £165 million a year to the UK economy in direct costs and unquantifiable value to the health of our ecological systems, one would have thought that keeping a high number of seasonable bee inspectors would have been a good precautionary measure.
Martin Caton
I would not disagree with that. That leads me on to my next point. We are not just talking about honey bees. I am sure that all our hearts go out to beekeepers in these very difficult times, but only 8% of insect pollination is from honey bees; other pollinators contribute enormously to our food security and to the quality of our ecosystem.
As I have given way so many times, I will not be able quite to complete my speech, but I would like to make some points for the Minister to respond to. If he cannot do what I would really like him to do, which is to suspend the use of all new neonicotinoids from tomorrow, I request that he commit today, or in writing as soon as he can, to reviewing the new research that I have referred to, and to reconsidering the licences that have been granted. I request that he withdraw the licences that allow neonicotinoids to be used on plants that produce nectar and pollen until the evidence is clear that they have no impact on the environment, and that he establish a national monitoring system for pollinators and pollinating rates. I ask him to produce a formal response to the scientific papers to which I have just drawn attention, stating what concentrations of neonicotinoids are found in UK water bodies and whether the levels are routinely monitored. I also request that he ask the Environment Agency to work with other agencies to undertake a review of those levels, commissioning research that would be scientifically robust enough to clarify any link between the pesticides and UK populations of wild pollinators.
A Government who aim to be the greenest ever cannot ignore a hugely significant threat to arguably the most important tier of animal life on this planet. They need to act; now is the time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing the debate. I say that seriously, despite the fact that I am in the position of having to reply.
None of us, as MPs, is unaware of the widespread concern, which has existed for a number of years, about our bee population. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, colony collapse disorder is not something new. Soon after the Labour Government were elected in 1997, I took part, in my earlier incarnation as Opposition spokesman challenging the Government, in a debate about bee health, on the specific issue of varroa. Unfortunately, the Government took no notice at all, and the varroa mite is now widespread—some would argue endemic—with the real long-term impact unknown.
The issue to which the hon. Gentleman has specifically drawn our attention—neonicotinoids—has recently returned to the headlines, and he is absolutely right to raise it. I certainly do not want to portray any suggestion of complacency on the matter. I will not go over the points, which we all fully understand, about the importance of honey bees and other non-vertebrate pollinators to our agricultural crop and horticultural industries. We must not be complacent; we must take things very seriously.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was running short of time, but he concluded his speech by rushing off a long list of questions, which I am afraid I did not have time to write down. I will happily undertake to respond to them when I read them in Hansard, but forgive me if I do not reply to them all now. One thing that is probably blatantly obvious, but which underlines all this, is that all pesticides are toxic. Even the naturally occurring ones that are approved in organic farming are toxic at some level. The question is about the level of usage, the accumulation and the other factors that determine whether that toxicity is a threat. Of course we accept that neonicotinoids, as much as any other pesticide, are toxic at certain levels and in certain doses.
Martin Caton
The fundamental point is that we have very strong evidence that even in tiny doses those particular systemic pesticides contribute to the demise of invertebrate populations. That has to be of great concern, and it often cannot be picked up in field trials, on which, understandably, most of our assessment is based.
Mr Paice
I have taken the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. I understand it and will try to deal with it as best I can, because I certainly do not want in any way to imply that I am ignoring it or, to use his words, that the Government are being complacent about it. As he and others have said, the Government take pesticide regulation very seriously. All pesticides are rigorously assessed before they are approved for use, although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that much of that information comes from the industry that developed them. However, the matter is open to public scrutiny after that by the advisory committee and the regulators, so if there were any implication that somehow those trial results were distorted intentionally, it would quickly come to light.
The conditions of use of a pesticide are set so that pesticides do not pose an unacceptable risk to people or to the wildlife in the countryside, which, of course, includes bees and other pollinators. I emphasise that there is a statutory code of practice about guidance to people who use pesticides on minimising the exposure of bees, including notifying local beekeepers 48 hours before their use.
We continue to fund research on pesticides and pollinators and in relation to monitoring the real-world impact of pesticides on bees. It is being considered as part of the wildlife incident investigation scheme, and we are adding those neonicotinoids that are not already covered to the programme of residues monitoring for honey.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly and understandably referred to the 2009 Buglife report. As he has said, Buglife basically took all the information that was available and reviewed it before publishing the report. The then Government fully reviewed that report and took advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and all the key research references were scrutinised and the implications considered. That involved drawing on the regulatory data set and any other publicly available information. The conclusion drawn at that time was that the Buglife report did not raise new issues—it would have been surprising if it had, given that it was simply going over all the information already held—and that it did not require changes to pesticide approvals.
Martin Caton
Is the Minister not concerned that we have discovered this month that the chemicals regulation directorate of the Health and Safety Executive, which was given the job, on behalf of the Government, of assessing the Buglife report, has still not completed its report and has not even completed collating the data? If we are really serious about dealing with this problem urgently, that is an appalling record. I do not blame the current Government alone—it is a failure of government.
Mr Paice
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the detail. His assertion is news to me, and I shall have to take it away with me. As he obviously appreciates, this is not my normal portfolio; I am covering for my noble Friend Lord Henley, who normally deals with bees.
What the Buglife report did do—there is no question about this—was indicate a gap in our knowledge on the effects of neonicotinoids on over-wintering bees. The point about that was right. We have supported the addition of studies on that issue to the European data requirements for pesticide regulation.
We continue to work with other regulators and to consider all the new evidence that emerges. We have discussed with James Cresswell of Exeter university his work on sub-lethal pesticide doses and bees, especially in relation to over-wintering. That is of interest, but as he himself fully acknowledges, questions remain about the environmental relevance of predominantly laboratory-based results. That is particularly relevant to the work to which the hon. Gentleman has referred by Henk Tennekes.
We are also, of course, aware of the work by Jeff Pettis in the United States, which is the origin of the article in The Independent to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, we have to recognise that Dr Pettis himself has challenged The Independent publicly about some of the assertions that it made. He has published the points on a website on that newspaper’s own blog. Forgive me, Mr Williams, but I think that I need to read out some aspects of that. Dr Pettis has stated:
“I noticed in your article that there is an implication that my research findings are perhaps being suppressed by the chemical industry. As the author of this study, I can tell you that the truth is that the review process on the paper has simply been lengthy, as is often the case, due to various factors, but that no outside forces are attempting to suppress this scientific information. The findings of an interaction between low level pesticide exposure and an increase in the gut pathogen Nosema were not unexpected; many such interactions are likely within the complex life of a honey bee colony. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with a lab study and what might occur in the field. Lab studies can give us insights into what may be occurring with beehives but we have yet to make this link. Honey bee health is complex and our findings support this. They do not provide a direct link to CCD colony losses but these results do provide leads for further study.”
I say that not to reject what has been claimed, but to put it into proportion. Even the work’s author rejects some aspects of the article that has caused so much understandable public concern recently.
Mr Paice
I am afraid I cannot give way any more.
The author has repeatedly said that finding such an interaction does not tell us what might happen in the field. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Gower has rightly said, it causes us to think about what further work needs to be done.
The European Commission is developing proposals for bee health, including research, surveillance and measures to understand and tackle the decline of wild and managed bees. Only yesterday, we discussed the issue at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, where I publicly supported the need to develop such measures. In particular, I raised the issue of neonicotinoids, which must be researched on a European basis. As several hon. Members have said, the situation is not unique to this country and applies elsewhere in Europe. In that respect, I need to correct the assertion made by several hon. Members that those products have been banned by some of the countries that have been mentioned. Germany, France, Slovenia and Italy have introduced various restrictions, but none has totally banned the use of those products. We will work with Europe heavily on this issue.
The insect pollinators initiative will provide £10 million—that was decided by the previous Government—to look at the decline of pollinators. DEFRA is contributing £2.5 million to that work, which will include a project run by Dundee university to look at the effect of sub-lethal pesticide exposure on the brain and behaviour of bees during navigation and communication. DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly launched the healthy bees plan in 2009 to protect and improve the health of honey bees over the next 10 years. As part of that, DEFRA recently announced funding to train beekeepers to protect colonies against pests and diseases. The National Bee Unit, which is part of our Food and Environment Research Agency, has also announced scientific research in conjunction with Aberdeen university on varroa.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because it is important that we have had this opportunity to debate the issue. The fact that so many of my colleagues from all parts of the House have been present for a half-hour Adjournment debate underlines the fact that this is a matter of interest across the House. I will undertake to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised in his concluding remarks. I must stress that we are certainly not complacent, and I would be very angry if there were any implication that we were. From my perspective as the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, I fully recognise the importance of bees to food production in this country. The last thing that I want to do is to jeopardise the role of bees in any way.
I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and am grateful to him for raising this issue. I hope that I have been able to give him some comfort that we are taking the issue seriously and that a number of actions are in play. Clearly, however, we still need a lot more information.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Banking Act 2009 (Reporting)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Treasury has laid before the House of Commons a report required under section 231 of the Banking Act 2009 covering the period from 1 April 2010 to 30 September 2010. Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office.
Media Ownership
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
On 3 November 2010 News Corporation notified the European Commission of its intention to acquire the shares in BSkyB that it does not already own. On 4 November 2010 the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills issued a European intervention notice in relation to the proposed acquisition. He asked Ofcom to investigate and report back to him by 31 December 2010 providing advice and recommendations on the public interest consideration in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This public interest consideration concerns the sufficiency of plurality of persons with control of media enterprises.
On 21 December 2010 the European Commission cleared the proposed acquisition of BSkyB by News Corporation. The Commission concluded that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the European economic area or any substantial part of it. The Commission made it clear that its decision did not prejudice my jurisdiction in relation to the merger’s impact on the separate question of sufficiency of plurality in the media.
Following receipt of Ofcom’s report and in the interests of transparency I want to inform the House of the timeline and process that I have followed to date in my considerations of the relevant public interest.
As such I am today publishing the following documents, copies of which will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses:
Ofcom’s report on the public interest issues relating to News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB that was sent to me on 31 December 2010 (with redactions for confidentiality).
The OFT’s report on jurisdiction that was sent to me on 30 December.
My letters to News Corporation and BSkyB of 7 January 2011.
BSkyB’s response of 13 January 2011 with confidential information redacted.
News Corporation’s response of 14 January 2011 with confidential information redacted.
After careful consideration of the Ofcom report which recommends referral to the Competition Commission, and as provided by section 104 of the Enterprise Act 2002 that sets out my duty to consult adversely affected parties, I met with News Corporation on 6 January to set out the process that I would follow and briefly explain Ofcom’s conclusions. Having informed them of the process I then wrote to News Corporation and BSkyB on 7 January enclosing a copy of Ofcom’s report. In this letter I explained that I was minded to refer the case to the Competition Commission but that I would receive written, and if necessary oral, representations from them if they wanted to challenge my thinking.
On 10 January I met with Ofcom to seek clarification on a number of aspects of their report.
In response to my letter of 7 January BSkyB and News Corporation provided written representations challenging elements of Ofcom’s report on 13 and 14 January respectively.
These documents have today been published. After considering these responses and consistent with section 104 of the Enterprise Act I therefore met again with News Corporation on 20 January to hear representations on the issues they highlighted.
As a result of these meetings and my consideration of the Ofcom report and subsequent submissions from the parties involved I still intend to refer the merger to the Competition Commission. On the evidence available, I consider that it may be the case that the merger may operate against the public interest in media plurality.
However, before doing so it is right that I consider any undertakings in lieu offered by any merging party which have the potential to prevent or otherwise mitigate the potential threats to media plurality identified in the Ofcom report.
News Corporation says that it wishes me to consider undertakings in lieu which it contends could sufficiently alleviate the concerns I have such that I should accept the undertakings instead of making a reference. It is appropriate for me to consider such undertakings. In considering whether to accept undertakings in lieu, I will ask the OFT under section 93 of the Enterprise Act 2002 as an expert public body with experience in negotiating undertakings in lieu to be involved in the process from this stage. I will also ask Ofcom under section 106B for advice whether undertakings in lieu address the potential impact on media plurality.
If this process produces undertakings in lieu which I believe will prevent or otherwise mitigate the merger from having effects adverse to the public interest, and which I propose to accept, I will then publish the undertakings in lieu and (as required under the Act) begin a formal 15-day consultation period during which time all interested parties will be able to express their views.
It is in the nature of this process that I cannot give clear dates for each step as we move forward. My main concern is not to work to an arbitrary timetable but to ensure that I reach my decision in a fair and even-handed way which is transparent and ensures that all concerns are properly considered.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(13 years, 10 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)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for agriculture and food represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 24 January.
There were three items on the agenda relating to agriculture. Discussion took take place on the following:
Presidency work programme: a routine presentation from the new (Hungarian) presidency of its plans and objectives.
A presentation by the Commission of its analysis of the state of honey bee health and what can be done to improve it. This is an important issue for the UK and we are already undertaking our own programme.
CAP reform: this debate will focus on the issues around natural resource protection and climate change.
There were five items under any other business:
Cross-border infectious animal diseases—a paper from Latvia flagging its action to prevent cross-border transmission of African swine fever from Russia and calling for EU support.
Current dioxin situation in Germany—a report from Germany on their current problems with dioxins in feed and the actions taken. The UK was one of the few member states directly affected (receiving some contaminated eggs).
Situation on the pig meat market—Belgium asking for Commission action to help farmers in the current difficult situation in the pig meat market and the setting up of a pig high-level group.
Foresight project on the future of food and farming—a UK item.
International agricultural markets—an update from the Commission on the current state of global food commodity markets.
Incapacity Benefit
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The trial for the reassessment of incapacity benefit customers in Aberdeen and Burnley has been under way since October last year. Over 1,000 customers have now been informed of the outcome of their reassessment.
The trial has tested a new process providing a number of additional support measures for customers as they go through their reassessment journey. At key points, Jobcentre Plus staff telephone customers to inform them about what is happening and to ensure they have access to appropriate help and advice. Customers also have the opportunity to discuss the decision on their case with a decision maker, putting into practice one of the key findings in Professor Harrington’s recent review of the work capability assessment. These additional support measures have been welcomed by staff and customers.
We want to ensure that the experience gained in the trial is shared across all of the centres that will be dealing with the reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants before we move to the full, national roll-out in April. So we intend to have a limited, introductory phase in every centre carried out in the same controlled conditions as Burnley and Aberdeen. This will ensure the process remains robust and we continue to learn valuable lessons as more customers are involved in more areas across the country.
At the end of February, we will begin this introductory phase. Letters will be sent to 1,000 customers a week nationally, marking the commencement of their reassessment. So a total of around 300 people will be assessed in each reassessment centre over this period. In April, we will step up the implementation and increase the number of cases to around 7,000 a week. From May we will be processing the full case load of around 11,000 cases per week. This steady ramp up of activity will ensure that Jobcentre Plus and its partners are ready and can deal with the volume of cases as it builds. Customers’ reactions to the changes will be closely monitored and lessons applied.
Our plans are on track. Reassessment remains a key priority for this Government. We cannot allow people to be trapped on benefits, but we will ensure people get the benefits and support that they are entitled to.
Employment and Social Policy Ministers (Informal Meeting)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The Informal Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers took place on 17 to 18 January 2011 in Budapest, Hungary. I represented the United Kingdom on day one of the meeting and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), attended the second day.
The themes for this two-day informal meeting were tackling youth unemployment and creating an employment-friendly recovery, which were discussed in workshop sessions. In the first workshop, tackling youth unemployment, the presidency underlined the importance of increasing youth labour market participation. Possible solutions included: raising skills, better careers advice, incentives to employ young workers, strengthening entrepreneurship and use of European Union funds especially the European social fund. The Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner highlighted some of the ideas in its “Youth on the Move” flagship initiative, including open-ended contracts and a youth guarantee and encouraged member states to take up these proposals. For the UK, I intervened to state that the European Union should prioritise a broad-ranging growth and competitiveness agenda and remove unnecessary regulation. I stressed the vital importance of impact assessments for any new regulation and early action to tackle unemployment by increasing labour market participation and improving skills. I outlined key UK policies that supported this agenda and highlighted the potential for member states to learn from each other through the open method of co-ordination. I also stressed that it was not necessary to apply the same solution in each member state. We needed flexibility around common goals. Many delegations broadly welcomed the Youth on the Move initiative although some argued that European Union-level action should not specify solutions and respect the differences in member states’ industrial relations systems. Otherwise, there was a broad consensus on the need for education reform and improving skills levels.
In the second workshop, the presidency noted that while the economic outlook was brightening, employment rates were not improving and that meeting the Europe 2020 employment target would be a significant challenge. It emphasised the importance of promoting labour demand through labour-intensive investments focusing on those furthest from the labour market. The Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner argued for doubling of effort to avoid a jobless recovery. The “New Skills and Jobs” flagship initiative, the joint employment report and the annual growth survey were all recent Commission initiatives aimed at promoting growth. The Commission would adopt guiding principles to assist job creation later this year, focusing on addressing administrative and legal obstacles to hiring and firing; reducing non-wage labour costs; and measures to assist the move from informal and undeclared work into regular employment. Finally, the Commissioner argued the case for more and more visible ESF funding and better use of the EU microfinance. For the UK, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, agreed with the emphasis on skills and training and stressed the importance of apprenticeships and benefit reform to help vulnerable workers. He also highlighted UK plans to simplify employment law, thereby reducing regulatory burdens on business as well as retaining a fair deal for workers.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I regret to inform the House that there were inaccuracies in my written answer 15130 given on 4 October 2010, Official Report, columns 1346-48W. The response provided the number of winter fuel payments made in England, Dudley Borough and Dudley North constituency. The age breakdowns supplied for England were incorrect and figures were only provided up to 2008-09 instead of 2009-10. In addition there were some discrepancies in the figures for 2005-06. The correct information is below:
Area/age | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
England | 10,810,140 | 10,592,900 | 10,345,380 | 10,028,780 | 9,864,190 |
Under 60 | 14,220 | 10,090 | 9,930 | 9,750 | 9,520 |
60-64 | 2,852,580 | 2,802,640 | 2,690,280 | 2,478,860 | 2,338,040 |
65-69 | 2,265,860 | 2,183,790 | 2,133,960 | 2,110,630 | 2,133,240 |
70-79 | 3,498,400 | 3,457,650 | 3,412,500 | 3,372,870 | 3,356,210 |
80 and over | 2,179,080 | 2,138,730 | 2,098,700 | 2,056,680 | 2,027,190 |
Area/age | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dudley local authority | 70,450 | 69,270 | 67,950 | 66,170 | 65,250 |
Under 60 | 100 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 60 |
60-64 | 17,940 | 18,040 | 18,000 | 17,040 | 16,570 |
65-69 | 15,670 | 15,100 | 14,650 | 14,580 | 14,760 |
70-79 | 23,650 | 23,210 | 22,930 | 22,480 | 22,120 |
80 and over | 13,090 | 12,830 | 12,310 | 11,990 | 11,750 |
Area/age | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dudley North parliamentary constituency | 19,890 | 19,690 | 19,490 | 19,220 | 19,180 |
Under 60 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
60-64 | 4,620 | 4,610 | 4,660 | 4,500 | 4,500 |
65-69 | 4,290 | 4,320 | 4,290 | 4,400 | 4,570 |
70-79 | 7,320 | 7,180 | 7,100 | 6,990 | 6,860 |
80 and over | 3,620 | 3,550 | 3,410 | 3,310 | 3,230 |
Notes:
1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and therefore totals may not sum.
2. Constituencies used are for the Westminster Parliament of May 2005.
3. The “under 60” category contains cases where an income support/jobseeker’s allowance claimant receives a payment on behalf of their partner who is aged 60 or over.
4. Figures for 2005-2006 have been revised. I have arranged for the full revised table to be placed in the Library today.
Source:
DWP Information Directorate 100% data.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, now that the Minister has joined us, I must advise the Committee before she moves that the first order be considered that, in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the instrument in question. I should make it clear that the motions to approve the instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
I must also formally advise the Committee that, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B and D) Order 2011
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the order 2011 obviously relates to the codes of practice that are in operation under the 1984 Act. Under Section 66 of that Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has a duty to issue codes of practice to regulate the police in the exercise of their powers. The proposed revisions to Codes A, B and D will keep the codes of practice in line with legislative change and are, obviously, part of the Government’s programme to modernise the police and to reduce bureaucracy in policing. I will explain some of those changes.
On 20 September, under Section 67 of the 1984 Act, my right honourable friend prepared and published drafts of the three codes of practice for statutory consultation. Representations on the content were taken from a number of independent organisations, such as Liberty and StopWatch, as well as from professional bodies such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation.
I am aware that the Merits Committee has raised a question about the length of the consultation period, but I stress that the process extended well beyond the normal four weeks. Individual discussions were held with concerned parties following their responses so, although the formal process may have ended at that point, discussion continued on the responses. Indeed, individual forces are conducting their own consultations on how the changes will affect the communities that they serve and on how the changes should be implemented. In particular, the Metropolitan Police is beginning an engagement programme shortly on exactly that issue.
I shall deal with the PACE Code of Practice A first and with Code B and Code C subsequently, given that Code A is the most substantial and will, I suspect, be the code that we focus on. Many of the proposed changes to Code of Practice A follow from the need to reverse the increase in paperwork that hampers police operations and leads to encounters with the public that are unnecessarily prolonged and bureaucratic in character. For stop and account, draft Code A removes the national requirement to complete a form recording each encounter. That potentially frees up many hundreds of thousands of hours of police time, both on the street and in the back office, and will allow officers to increase the quality—and shorten the duration—of those encounters, which should be no more than brief.
It is understandable that some worries have been uttered about that change, particularly in light of the origin of the current national recording requirement. Your Lordships will recall that the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report of 1999 raised awareness of the impact that the police have on the people whom they encounter, particularly in black and minority-ethnic communities. However, since recording was implemented in 2005, we have seen little evidence of widespread disproportionate use of stop and account in relation to black and ethnic-minority communities and a vast increase in police bureaucracy. When examined at a local level, many forces show little evidence of any form of disproportionate use of stop and search as a tactic in dealing with BME communities and consultation with community groups has not really raised concern about the use of stop and account. That is why we propose to remove the national requirement for recording stop and account and leave the decision on whether to continue to record the ethnicity of the person stopped to be decided locally, according to perceptions of local need.
By that, we mean that there will be some communities in which the question of ethnicity is sensitive, so the local police force will judge whether, in the light of that, it is right to continue to record, but the force will not be obliged to do so. In communities where ethnicity is not particularly an issue, we see no need to continue that burden. As the House will know, we take the view that individual police forces know their own communities better than Whitehall and are best placed to analyse their own statistics and understand how they might use the tactic and what its impact on ethnic-minority groups might be.
On the other hand, given the intrusive nature of stop and search, we think it right to continue to have a national requirement governing the minimum level of recording of stop-and-search encounters. Therefore, we are making a distinction between stop and account and stop and search. The proposed changes to Code A do not diminish the importance of recording these encounters or the monitoring of the use of the powers. In accordance with Section 1 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, we are reducing the number of pieces of data to be completed on a stop-and-search record from 12 to seven. We are reducing the quantum of information, but we are not saying that no record needs to be made. We believe that leaving out some of the pieces of information currently demanded, and having others recorded automatically by the new technology, will save many hundreds of thousands of hours of police time.
Key information about each encounter, including the self-defined ethnicity of the person stopped, will still be recorded. Mobile technology is being encouraged and minor amendments have been made to the language of Code A to encourage its further use. The sorts of things that we envisage are airwave radios and BlackBerrys, which could enable the police to reduce the amount of effort and time that they put into each encounter. The outcome of a stop and search will be recorded as part of the custody record for those detained as a result of a stop and search. That means that we will not have, as at present, two sets of records, as everything will be incorporated in the custody record.
Code A also details the changes in the use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 stop-and-search powers, which I set out to the House on 8 July last year when I repeated a Statement made by the Home Secretary. The inappropriate use of this power has ceased in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Gillan and Quinton case. Clearly, more will be said about this in your Lordships' House tomorrow, when we look at Section 44 along with other elements in the counterterrorism review. I very much regret that, due to a hazard of timing, it will not be possible to have a more detailed discussion of those items today, but I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities to take up any issues that remain outstanding.
Comments have also been made concerning the draft guidance that was put in place on the Section 60 stop-and-search powers following the Gillan and Quinton judgment about Section 44. In the light of responses from those concerned, the Home Office amended the September draft of Code A—the draft that we put out for consultation—to make it clear that there is no ethnic profiling or unlawful discrimination in the use of this power. All authorisations under this power must be supported by clear intelligence. Recording of race or any other protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 may on occasion be relevant but that must never be the sole reason for stopping someone under Section 60. This is how we arrived at the outcome that we did in order to emphasise, among other things, that consultation does have effect in real life.
Others have suggested that Section 60 should be amended in line with the changes that we have made to Section 44 following the Gillan and Quinton judgment. We have not done this, as we consider that the Section 60 power can be distinguished readily from the provision in Section 44 that the ECHR declared incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. We do not think that the relevant section fell foul in the same way. Moreover, there is currently an application for judicial review of a Section 60 stop and search before the High Court, on which it would not be appropriate to try to predict the outcome or to take the debate on the issue further today.
However, Section 60 is used differently across England and Wales. Many police forces authorise the power for use on only one or two occasions a year, whereas others may never use it at all. As a national document, Code A should not restrict the use that forces make of the power based on how other forces operate but should simply cover national requirements and allow local practical application of the power to continue. As I say, this is an area where there is significant variation in use. We should not judge the use of a tool such as Section 60 purely on the basis of national statistics.
Here I want to make an important point. Figures are quoted in the press to the effect that black people are 26 times more likely to be stopped and searched under Section 60 than white people. We regard such statistics as potentially extremely misleading because of the distribution of the actual use of the power. Some 76 per cent of all the Section 60 stop and searches in 2008-09—before this Government came into office—were conducted by the Metropolitan Police in London. I suggest that that means that measuring the use of the power against the ethnic composition of the national population as a whole gives a false impression of what actually goes on. When we compare that 76 per cent with the cosmopolitan population of London—obviously, leaving the remaining 24 per cent for the rest of the country—the results are much less disproportionate.
I turn briefly to the other two codes. Code B governs the searching of premises and the seizure of property. The changes bring the code up to date with changes in legislation and the relevant judgments of the higher courts and are largely technical in nature. The proposed changes provide guidance on the powers to search the premises of individuals subject to control orders as well as on the police’s power under Section 18 of PACE to enter and search premises occupied or controlled by a person under arrest for an indictable offence.
The majority of the changes to Code D, on identification issues, reflect the amendments to the power of the police to take DNA and fingerprints for recordable offences that are made under Sections 2 to 7 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed early last year. The changes fill existing gaps in the ability of the police to take biometric material in connection with criminal investigations and ensure that the national DNA and fingerprint databases are populated primarily with the profiles of those who have been convicted of offences by the courts rather than with unconvicted people. The detail of how the Government will meet the commitment to adopt the protections of the Scottish model for DNA retention will be outlined in the freedom Bill that is to be introduced shortly. Clearly, that will require amendment to the code in due course, but what we have done is bring the code into line with the existing state of the law.
Code D also provides the police with necessary guidance on the use of mobile fingerprinting equipment, which is a fairly recent advance and is not intended to be used routinely or on a whim in investigations. The equipment must be used only when the police already suspect a person of committing a crime and only when they have a need to confirm a person’s identity, following the example set down in guidance designed to prevent abuse. If an officer is unable to confirm a person’s name or has reasonable grounds for doubting the name given, it would be right and proper to use the devices in those circumstances. An image of one or two fingerprints may be taken and checked against the existing fingerprint database. This reduces the need for arrests purely for the purpose of confirming identity, which will save valuable time and resources both for the police and those whose identity is in doubt. I want also to emphasise, because it really is important, that the fingerprints taken on those devices are automatically destroyed by the devices themselves, so there is no way in which, covertly or inadvertently, fingerprints taken under those circumstances, where they are not available for retention, could be retained. As soon as the search is concluded, the prints are explicitly excluded from the police’s wider powers to take and retain fingerprints on arrest.
Concerns have been raised about how we will ensure that these codes are interpreted and applied in a consistent manner across all forces in England and Wales. The codes need to balance the requirement for central guidance with the freedom for forces to operate specific processes and procedures in the way that meets local needs. We have been trying to strike such a balance, and the Home Office continues to work closely with a range of interest groups on these issues.
The revised codes of practice follow important principles, such as reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency as well as protecting the civil liberties of our population at large. I think that the House will agree that the landscape of policing is always evolving. It is important, therefore, that the codes of practice, which are a key source of guidance to the police, are kept up to date and that the public know the position. The changes are fully supported by the police and I hope that they will have a real impact on day to day policing. I commend the draft order and the attendant codes to the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Before the debate on the order commences, perhaps I may ask noble Lords please to be kind enough to turn off their phones. The rather curious noise is caused by having mobile phones still switched on.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order, which brings into force changes to codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in order that the codes in question reflect changes in legislation and policy, including in the light of court judgments. As the Minister has said, the changes relate to stop and search, entering and searching premises, and seizing property and identification. The changes under stop and search remove the requirement to record stop and account, and leave it to police forces following consultation to decide whether they continue monitoring such encounters.
These changes also implement a lower level of information to be recorded for stop-and-search incidents. They make changes in the use for the stop-and-search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 following a European Court of Human Rights judgment to require a greater degree of suspicion that the person stopped is a terrorist. They give further guidance on the use of the stop-and-search powers of persons and vehicles under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. As the Minister has said, the changes on entering and searching premises, and seizing property, have been made in the light of the judgment in the case of Khan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the power of the police to enter and search premises.
Finally, the changes on identification take account of amendments to the powers to take fingerprints and samples for recordable offences. They allow fingerprints to be taken on the street using mobile fingerprint technology and they make new distinctions between visual identification taken from images, such as CCTV, and that from eyewitness recognition.
Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the order refers to the outcome of a four-week consultation with statutory consultees. The Minister has indicated that in reality the consultation went on rather longer than that. But in addition to the statutory bodies, the Explanatory Memorandum states that while this was,
“not a public consultation … subject to 12 weeks’ duration … other relevant organisations, including groups (Liberty and Justice) who have a specific interest in human rights issues”,
were consulted.
Apparently, the main concerns from the consultation, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, were about stop and search and, in particular, whether the changes proposed,
“would allow officers to take into consideration a person’s ethnicity when stopping and searching under this power”,
which comes under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The department says that it considered the responses and decided to amend its proposals, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.
We understand that the Government believe that their proposed changes in relation to stop and search, and stop and account, will reduce bureaucracy and free up to 800,000 hours of police time. Over the past few years, there have been huge efforts to cut police bureaucracy, including changes to the stop-and-account form. Those efforts were extended further by the Crime and Security Act early last year, which included the provisions for reducing the length of the stop-and-search form we are considering in this order.
The issue of the police stop-and-search powers is controversial because the figures show that a minority-ethnic person is more likely to be stopped than someone who is white. African-Caribbean people are already at least six times more likely to be stopped than white people under powers where an officer has reasonable suspicion to carry out a search. Stop and search is a power that is exercised frequently. One figure suggests that in 2009 there were 2 million instances of stop and account by police, and the figure for stop and search was 1 million.
Under Section 60 of the Public Order Act, officers do not require the same reasonable suspicion to stop someone, meaning that the police have maximum discretion. I understand that Section 60 enables the police to stop and search an individual when there are no grounds for suspicion of the particular individual in a designated area for a period of 24 hours. In 2008-09 just under 150,000 incidences of stop and search under Section 60 were used. I come to an issue raised by the Minister on the figures for these stops and searches, which show that a young black man is 26 times more likely than his white counterpart to be targeted, which leads to allegations of discrimination. However, as the Minister has already said, three-quarters of Section 60 stop and searches in 2008-09 were carried out in London, so the disproportionate use of these powers is probably not quite as stark as the “26 times more likely” figure would indicate.
The case of Stephen Lawrence led to measures aimed at tackling alleged police discrimination. That included a specific requirement for recording stops and searches by officers, which meant data becoming available to show whether or not there was overtargeting of minority-ethnic people by police. There have also been press reports that a national community panel set up to reduce the overtargeting of minority-ethnic people was abolished last summer. Will the Minister say whether that is true, and if so whether any alternative provision has been used to achieve the same objective? If the requirement to record stop and account is to go, will the Government replace that important source of information on fairness? While it would be possible for a police force to reinstitute stop and account if local concerns were expressed, it is not clear how police forces would take such soundings. What would constitute a valid local concern and what would happen if a police force decided not to respond to local concerns?
There will also be a reduction in the amount of information recorded on the stop-and-search form in the light of the amendments to Section 3 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act made by the Crime and Security Act 2010. Among the information that will no longer be required is the name of the person who is being stopped and searched, whether anything was found as a result of the stop and search and whether any injury or damage arose as a result of the search. I assume that the Government have no issues with these provisions that arise from the Crime and Security Act 2010.
As the Minister commented, the Merits Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to this order on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. The Committee said that while changes had been made to the initial proposals, commentators remained dubious about how the rules would be applied in practice. Unlike the Minister, whose Explanatory Memorandum tells us little about the nature of the concerns expressed under the consultation process and the extent to which the Government’s changes to their proposals addressed the concerns raised, the Merits Committee contacted certain interest groups on individual rights for comments on the final versions of the codes. In response, Liberty, as set out in the Merits Committee report, expressed support for the changes that had been made by the Government to their proposals in the light of its representations, but went on to say that the Section 60 power was still too broad and open to abuse and that scrapping the stop-and-account form would make the monitoring of equal treatment in policing harder. Liberty went on to say:
“This will see a direct reversal of a recommendation of”,
the,
“Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence just over a decade ago”,
and,
“ignore recommendations of later inquiries, including Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s independent review of policing in 2008, that this record be maintained, even in the context of rolling back centralised bureaucracy”.
Justice commented that there should be a clearer reminder that there is no police power to compel a person to account for themselves or to detain them to ask them to do so. It went on to say:
“We are concerned that the absence of a recording requirement may mean that disproportionate use of ‘stop and account’ against particular groups … may go unmonitored and unaddressed”.
Stressing that Section 60 powers should not be used routinely but only at a time of particular risk of offences being committed, Justice argued that reducing the items of information recorded would do little to reduce overall bureaucracy and that a reduction in the number of such stops would be a more effective way of saving costs.
Lord Bradshaw
I am not going to speak for very long; I merely want to ask one question about local accountability. Does local accountability refer to the whole of a police force or does it mean that different things can happen in different places? For example, if the police superintendent in Slough decides that he needs to record things because there is a large—not just ethnic—population from other countries, and the police superintendent in Whitney, which is a long way away but still in the same police area, decides that there is no need to record them, does “local” mean that discretion goes down that far? If not, how far within a police force does it go?
As someone who was involved in one of the many attempts to reduce police bureaucracy, I have spent time speaking to an assistant chief constable about stop and search, and was quite horrified by what has to happen when someone is approached under stop and search or stop and account. There is a constant complaint about police bureaucracy. It actually happens and it eats up a huge amount of resources. I should like to see those resources expended on real police work rather than bureaucracy.
I read the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry very carefully, and it exposed irresponsible and very badly organised policing. I do not believe that it showed that stop and search or stop and account needed to be recorded in every case as thoroughly as it is now. Generally speaking, I support these changes, but I would like to know that discretion really is going to move down to the meaningful local level.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their helpful and thoughtful contributions. I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for expressing the willingness of the Opposition to support these orders. Let me take the points that have been made and allay any anxieties that there may be.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at the end of his speech about the need to ensure that there is no unnecessary bureaucracy but that valuable information is not lost is extremely pertinent and quite right. What we are trying to do in modifying—it is no more than that—some practices is to try to strike that balance. I shall spend a little more time on stop and account than on stop and search, but I should say on the latter that everyone agrees that stop and search is a much more intrusive activity on the part of the police, so it is really important that, when it takes place, it is fully and properly recorded. For that reason, we have no intention of changing practice on stop and search.
On stop and account, it is certainly the case that not all those who were consulted were as convinced as the Government are that change would be desirable. However, let me say straightaway that, if it is demonstrated that the changes are not helpful, it will be right and proper to think again, and consultation is still going on. One effect of instituting more local obligations on the part of the police will be to ensure that questions will be raised about whether such measures are accepted—which seems to me to be the criterion that we should look at—and whether they give the local population confidence that their security is being protected and that justice is being served. With the police and crime commissioners that we will have in due course, the vehicle for both the obligation and the means for local accountability will be much more clearly stated.
On the question whether discretion will extend to the local level, it is in the logic of giving the obligation to local police forces—in the first instance, to the police and crime commissioner working with the chief constable—to decide exactly how, given local circumstances and the distribution of the local population, recording should take place. The whole point of our proposal is that recording need not be uniform to be helpful in serving the interests of protecting the public and of justice and in gaining the confidence of the local population. That is why we take the view that uniformity and efficiency are not necessarily quite the same thing, given the need to ensure that the systems are not only efficient but acceptable and just.
I should also say that stop and account, unlike stop and search, should be a brief matter in which the policeman simply says, “Why are you here?”. It should not develop into an encounter that is remembered on both sides. That is partly why we think that stop and account should be restored to the normal relationship between an individual and a policeman. If, say, a crowd is building up, the policemen present will want to retain the confidence of the people on the ground. Reducing the bureaucracy associated with stop and account is justified both by the nature of the encounter and because it will help such encounters to be seen as less intrusive for individuals than they might otherwise be. As I said, if it is demonstrated that these changes are not helpful, I have absolutely no doubt that that will be thrown up in the consultation process and that it will be right to respond. Clearly, codes of practice are never the last word.
The arrangements with communities will deliver the necessary monitoring. I was asked whether we would do anything as regards the NPIA-run stop-and-search panel, which has been abolished because it was not inciting any great engagement—community members were not turning up and it did not seem to be very useful. The NPIA is looking at whether a replacement should be instituted. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we regard the local consultation as an important part of what would replace something that was run by the NPIA and certainly would contribute to it. That issue is still being looked at.
I hope that I have already explained that our approach to consistency is that it should relate to local conditions and not to numerical equivalents at a national level. Having said that, we take seriously the need to ensure that the outcome serves the public interest.
I am wondering whether I was asked about any points that I have not covered.
Lord Rosser
I asked the Minister whether she had any further comments to make, in addition to those in her opening speech, on the concerns that are expressed in the Merits Committee report both by the Merits Committee and on behalf of the organisations that it had contacted directly, which, while welcoming the changes that the Government have made to their original proposals, were clearly still unhappy with the situation.
Since consistency of application seems to be an issue, perhaps I may come back to the point that the Minister made about that. I appreciate that the Minister has said that there will not be national consistency across the board as forces will have to reflect what may be happening in different areas. Does she think that that is the cause of inconsistencies at the moment, as opposed to police forces taking different approaches and perhaps very different interpretations, which may not be based on what local communities think?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think that we all have learnt. I would not try to claim that there was never any disproportionality, for instance, in the way in which different ethnic groups have been stopped and searched. The way to regulate the proper use of these powers is with the involvement of the local community, which will be extremely aware of whether the local police are using their powers disproportionately or improperly. That is why we believe that that kind of consultation will have a much more direct and helpful effect on the police using their powers in a proportionate and proper way than waiting to collect a lot of national statistics and then deciding that it looks as if there is something wrong.
I suppose that we are offering a different and, I hope, more practical approach to ensuring that the use of powers is regulated in a proper manner, but I believe that our approach will be effective. Of course, clearly the forces will have to record what they are doing overall and we will get to know over time whether the variation represents satisfaction in local areas.
The Merits Committee was concerned about the relative shortness of the time allowed for consultation. I hope that I have explained that the reality was that the time was rather longer. The committee also remarked on the fact that not all the groups supported all the proposals that we have decided to make. Liberty feels that the powers under Section 60 remain too broad. As I said, a case before the courts at the moment is an element in the situation. Perhaps I should also remind noble Lords that the Section 60 power can be used for only very short periods; it is not in the Section 40 category.
Justice’s concerns were also mentioned. I think that Justice is worried about the absence of statistics—I am afraid that I cannot read the note—but, if there is a problem, we will need to look at that and make sure that absence of information does not lead to improper outcomes. We are clearly embarking down a slightly different road and I assure the House that, precisely because we are doing that, we will watch the outcome carefully. I hope that the House will feel sufficiently reassured that the changes that we are making are intended to have a favourable outcome and that we will monitor their use in a way that will ensure that that is the outcome.
Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2011
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, I formally welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to her new post. I look forward to working with her as I did with her predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, on issues such as today’s debate and more generally.
The order makes amendments to support new vetting arrangements in Scotland that were created under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, to which I will refer from now on as the 2007 Act. Scottish Ministers have recently announced that their new scheme will be launched on 28 February 2011. The order is required to help them with the successful operation of their new arrangements and to make sure that we have the sharing of information across borders. Specifically, the order will enable the Independent Safeguarding Authority to provide information to Scottish Ministers for the purposes of their functions under the 2007 Act, and makes a necessary amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998.
This instrument focuses on amendments to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and, as I said, the Data Protection Act 1998. The changes that the order would make to both pieces of legislation are of a technical nature and are being sought so that the scheme created under the 2007 Act can commence as intended, with effect from 28 February.
If I may, I will say a few words about the scheme created under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which would apply in England and Wales, which is commonly referred to as the vetting and barring scheme. Last May, the Government stated their intention to,
“review the criminal records and ‘vetting and barring’ regime and scale it back to common sense levels”.
On 15 June last year, the Home Secretary announced that the intended start to registration would be halted so that the scheme could be reviewed with the aim of making it more proportionate. On 22 October 2010, we announced the terms of reference for the review of the vetting and barring scheme, alongside those for the criminal records review. I am aware that many noble Lords will be keen to know the outcomes of these reviews and I can confirm that the Home Secretary will announce those outcomes very soon. This announcement will propose changes to both the vetting and barring scheme and criminal records regimes, but I am afraid that today I am not able to provide more details or pre-empt the Home Secretary’s announcement.
I would like to make clear that the changes this order makes do not affect the review of the vetting and barring scheme and should not be seen as an indication of any changes to vetting practices within England and Wales. We do not wish to interfere with the wishes of the Scottish Government to proceed with their scheme as planned and so we are making these changes to existing legislation solely to ensure that there are no barriers to the launch of their scheme on 28 February.
Turning to the detail of the order, noble Lords will note that it makes amendments to two Acts of the Westminster Parliament. The first deals with the provision of information by the Independent Safeguarding Authority, otherwise known as the ISA, to Scottish Ministers for the purpose of their functions under the 2007 Act. The second relates to an amendment to the Data Protection Act.
The ISA has, since 2009, been the central body responsible for the barring of unsuitable people from prescribed work with children or vulnerable adults across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The work of the ISA is focused on making decisions as to the suitability of certain prescribed individuals to work with vulnerable groups and barring those for whom there is a strong indication that they pose a risk to those groups. Its work involves a combination of considering referrals from bodies such as employers, local authorities and voluntary organisations, and looking at those individuals for whom there are grave concerns. It also holds the responsibility for the barring of individuals who have been either convicted or cautioned for a limited range of serious offences.
It is worth emphasising that the decision-making powers of the ISA extend only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A separate body, Disclosure Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Ministers, has responsibilities for barring decisions in Scotland. The legislation in each of the home territories recognises the bars imposed in the others. However, in order to ensure that the decision-maker in the relevant jurisdiction has all pertinent information available to it, it is vital that the ISA and Disclosure Scotland are each able to make relevant information available to the other where necessary.
This order therefore makes it possible for information relevant to the barring process, which the ISA has gathered, to be shared with Scottish Ministers. This sharing of information cross-border is necessary for the effective working of the Scottish scheme and, particularly in light of mutual recognition of bars, we believe that it is right for the ISA to provide Scottish Ministers with this information.
The second provision, the amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998, extends the current protection that Section 56 of this Act gives to individuals by covering records held under the 2007 Act. This will, for example, protect individuals who have obtained criminal records data under the 2007 Act from Scottish Ministers by use of a subject access request from being forced to reveal that data to an employer. As such, this is an important safeguard which is already in place in relation to the barring schemes in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland and we support the amendment which will give individuals in Scotland the same protection.
The order is drafted so that it would come into force on the day after the day on which it is made. If Parliament approves this order, we intend to have the order come into force in time for the launch date of the Scottish 2007 Act scheme. While the changes this order brings are of a technical nature, it is important that we do not stand in the way of the devolved Administrations exercising their right to govern in accordance with their stated wishes. It is in that spirit that I commend this order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for his kind wishes and look forward very much to working with him constructively in the future. I thank him, too, for his explanation of the technical nature of the order and the purpose behind it.
The order builds on the important legislation introduced by the previous Government across the UK in response to the Bichard inquiry, which followed the tragic murders in Soham in 2002. As we heard, the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 was Scotland’s response to the recommendation for a registration scheme for those working with children and vulnerable adults. We fully support this consequential order and the intentions behind it. Again, I understand that the Minister has underlined its technical nature and that some of the changes and information we request might be more pertinently directed to the Home Secretary when further announcements are made after the review.
In advance of that, I have two questions that the Minister may be able to answer today. First, given the enormous sensitivity of the information contained in the children’s and adults’ barred list, what steps are in place to guarantee the confidentiality of the information provided by the Independent Safeguarding Authority and Disclosure Scotland to Scottish Ministers? Secondly, how is it proposed to store the information? I am sure the Minister will be aware of the stories that blight all Governments about such sensitive information going astray. I would be grateful if he would confirm that proper protection is in place for the storage of that information.
Secondly, the regulatory impact assessment refers to the need for a post-implementation review to measure the time taken to process applications. As the Minister will know, this has been an ongoing source of frustration, particularly for those applying for jobs working with children. It is also potentially frustrating for volunteers who find that their attempts to help out with fairly simple tasks in schools and youth clubs are put on hold while their applications are processed. It may be that the Home Secretary can comment on this, but in advance of that, can the Minister say whether there is anything in the order that might lead to further delays in processing these applications?
The Duke of Montrose
Can I ask my noble friend a couple of points on these measures? First, he explained in some detail how the order will allow Disclosure Scotland to obtain information from the Independent Safeguarding Authority in England. Is mirror legislation already in place to allow the ISA to obtain information from Disclosure Scotland? He said that it would be, but I do not know whether it is already. Secondly, is there any way of distributing the costs of obtaining this information between the different devolved authorities? It is an advantage that each authority has access to the other’s material, but there is a danger that it could be interpreted that there should be a monthly update and they would swap the latest information. In that way, each would have an up-to-date database, but again there is the question of security, which has also been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining this order and add my welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to her new portfolio.
I have a few questions. In the past, there has been a problem with the transfer of information across borders, so it is welcome that this matter is being addressed. I wonder why the amendments made to the Data Protection Act 1998 by the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 were not made by the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, and have not been made until this Parliament. I wonder why the previous Government did not take that opportunity. Perhaps I should not be asking the Minister but addressing my question to the previous Government. I suppose that taking nine months to get round to this matter is not bad, given the major issues that require this Government’s attention. I wondered whether the provisions of this instrument were a matter for public consultation. However, I noticed that paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum mentions that there was no such consultation, despite the fact that there were two general consultations on the overall protecting vulnerable groups scheme.
Reflecting something that the noble Duke has just raised, how frequently will the Independent Safeguarding Authority be expected to report to Scottish Ministers and has any timetable for reports been established?
Finally, I refer again to something that interested me in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It says:
“The Scottish Government’s response (April 2010) to the second consultation listed changes made as a result of the consultation, which included dis-applying some barring offences around ‘host parents’ to provide more local discretion”.
I wonder whether the reference to “host parents” relates to sleepovers. Many children enjoy going to stay with their friends overnight, although in my day sleepovers were called pyjama parties. Is there any plan to follow the Scottish example in England? I know there is a feeling that it should be up to the child’s parents to appoint the child’s friend’s parents in loco parentis. It is felt that parents should take responsibility for ensuring that the friend’s parents are suitable people to have their child under their roof overnight. If that is the case, how will this provision apply to foster parents in Scotland? Does the Minister know whether foster parents will have the same discretion? Furthermore, is there any plan to follow that example in England? I know that there is a lot of concern among foster parents that they do not have the same discretions as parents have for their own children and that sometimes they have to go running to local authorities to obtain permission for things that they should perfectly well be able to decide for themselves.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, first, I am grateful for the welcome from all noble Lords for the thrust of this order and for their support for it. I fear that I shall need to take advice on some of the specific questions asked by my noble friend Lady Walmsley—particularly about the nature of the regime as it applies in Scotland—and come back to her, because I am afraid that I am not fully sighted on that. I should add that we have all had pyjama parties recently.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about mirrored arrangements and reciprocity. I understand that the arrangement by which information will be passed from Scotland to the other countries is already in place. However, I shall check that and, if I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend correcting myself.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, about the importance of data protection. In looking at these measures, I wanted to satisfy myself as much as I could that proper safeguards would be in place, because, as the noble Baroness said, we are all very conscious of stories about little sticks going missing. I am told that strict safeguards are in place and that Disclosure Scotland also adheres to information security protocols set by a body called the CESG and the Government’s National Technical Authority for Information Assurance. None of the information held by Disclosure Scotland can be stored or transmitted by CD, memory stick or any removable storage device, and no information can ever be transferred to or held on a laptop. I hope that that provides some security on that point.
There was a question about costs. The setting of fees is a matter for the Scottish Government, and fees for vetting in England and Wales would be part of the review announcement that will follow in due course from the Home Secretary. I will follow up the other points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As she said, they are more directly relevant to the Home Secretary, but if I need to come back to her with a more detailed response, I will do so.
Overall, I am grateful for the support expressed for this measure. It is technical in nature but marks an important move forward to help our colleagues in the Scottish Government, and therefore I have great pleasure in commending it.
Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, although this instrument marks an important step forward in helping to provide breaks for the carers of disabled children, I am very conscious that this Government are following in the footsteps of the previous Government and of those, many of them in this House—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whom I am pleased to see, and of course my noble friend Lady Walmsley—who I know have campaigned tirelessly for many years to advance the rights of disabled children. Therefore, it is only right that I should start by paying tribute to all those whose work has led us to this point and to what I hope will be agreement on the next practical step forward.
We know that many in our House speak with huge authority on this subject, as well as from personal experience. I have neither of those qualifications, but it is impossible to listen to them and to the experiences of others and not understand that for many families a short break is almost literally a lifeline. At the very least it provides the opportunity to do the kind of things that most of us are able to take for granted.
The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 amended the Children Act 1989 in order to ensure that short breaks were placed on a statutory footing for the first time. These regulations are being made in order to provide further detail to local authorities about how that duty must be performed. Not only do they set out clearly the range of short breaks that must be offered by local authorities but they also require local authorities to have regard to the needs of different types of carers and to make all that information available to parents and carers. This is, we think, an important step along the road towards better support for the families and carers of disabled children, and I believe it is for that reason that the proposed regulations have been warmly welcomed by the organisation Every Disabled Child Matters.
Short breaks do not, of course, just provide parents and carers with a chance to have some time to do something else; they can also provide an opportunity for disabled children to spend time with a different adult or with children of their own age, helping them to feel more independent or learn something new. That is why we have been clear in these regulations that short breaks should be offered to parents not just as an emergency intervention when things have got really bad but as a way of providing support more generally as part of a package of things to make life a little more tolerable.
However, what seems to have become clear over the years is that short breaks benefit families only if they genuinely provide respite. It is no good, for example, offering a child an hour at a specialist group every week if it is a three-hour round trip to get the child there in the first place and the parent has to sit in the car during the break because it is too far from home to drive back. It is no good either if the only break offered is during the week or if the child’s parent is fine during the week but struggles to cope during school holidays.
That is why it is so important that these regulations are clear that a range of breaks must be in place at different venues and at different times of the day, week and year. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the service would be meaningless without the flexibility for breaks to be matched to the needs of those families in the local authority’s area. I believe that in most areas parents are beginning to have more of a say about the kind of breaks which really make a difference for them and, crucially, their children, with the result that we are seeing the introduction of all sorts of new breaks.
In addition, Together for Disabled Children, which supports the delivery of short breaks in local areas, reports that there is a link between good engagement by parents in the design of the service and value for money. That is one reason why we have said that we want local authorities to provide information to parents about the services available and to consult them about those services. The short breaks services statement will mean that many more parents can see what is on offer and challenge their local authority where they do not think that the offer is good enough.
The Government are also clear that, in providing a short breaks services statement, local authorities will need to make an assessment of local needs and what local parents want. We know that the opportunities and offers will be different in different areas, and we want local authorities to continue reflecting this in what they offer to disabled children and their parents.
I know that noble Lords will be aware that in December the Department for Education announced that through the early intervention grant it would make more than £800 million available to local authorities over the spending review period for the provision of short breaks. That funding marks an increase from this year and will increase modestly in each year of the spending review. I know that there are questions, to which I am sure we will come, about the ring-fence, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that in a difficult economic climate this increase is an earnest of our intent and a sign that we are keen to build on the good progress made by the previous Government.
The Department for Education will also publish guidance to accompany these regulations. We are working with a group of local authorities to produce practice guidance, which will provide local authorities with more detail about these regulations, as well as provide good examples of where services have been well received. The guidance document will be published as soon as possible once these regulations have been made. I am sure there will be broad agreement on the importance of providing this detail to local authorities. We believe that these regulations will help to ensure that short breaks services are an important part of the support available to carers and parents of disabled children. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose behind the regulations. As he acknowledged, the issue of breaks for carers was taken extremely seriously by the previous Government, which set out the groundwork for these regulations in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 and set in train a major investment in support for disabled children through the aiming high for disabled children programme. Our main concern now is to ensure that the progress, the investment and the momentum created by the previous Government are maintained.
The whole issue has come to the fore in the very sad case reported in the press last week of Riven Vincent, who has asked her local authority to take her severely disabled child into care as she can no longer cope because of the lack of respite care. Although this single case has hit the headlines, we can be sure that many other parents are struggling with similar crises in their lives. It is therefore vital that we get the provisions right and relevant to meet the known needs of the estimated 700,000 disabled children in England.
The Government have changed the original intent of the legislation in a number of key ways, including: removing the ring-fencing of the funds, to which the noble Lord has already referred; the monitoring and assessment via the children and young people’s plan; and granting greater autonomy to local authorities to interpret their responsibilities in this area. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the priority for breaks for carers envisaged in the Act will be maintained.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, the department’s own impact assessment states:
“We consider that where LAs indentified and funded their own delivery support, only high performing LAs would continue to improve, leaving a mixed picture of services for families in need”.
Can the Minister reassure me that there will be a comprehensive breaks service across the country rather than the rather patchy service suggested by his department?
Secondly, there was considerable pressure on local authorities to prepare for the duty that would have come into force in April 2011, and a great deal of progress has been made. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government’s new emphasis on local autonomy will not let local authorities off the hook, so that they are forced to give this issue priority rather than responding to vocal local pressures from electors to fund other issues?
Thirdly, how will the Government monitor progress? What information will be collected centrally and how will the quality of local services for the carers of disabled children be assessed?
Finally, how will the Government ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable families are protected, given that disabled children are much more likely to live in poor housing and be in the lowest income groups? For example, children from BME families are the least likely to access the services currently available. Is there not a danger that services will be provided only to those who shout the loudest and not to those who are the most vulnerable and least able to stand up for themselves and argue for provision in their area?
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on these points.
Lord Rix
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of these draft regulations by the coalition Government. As your Lordships may be aware, in March 2008, along with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I tabled an amendment to the then Children and Young Persons Bill on this matter. The amendment created a new duty for local authorities to help parents caring for disabled children by providing them with breaks from their caring responsibilities. As the Minister has already kindly stated, my involvement in the campaign for short breaks for disabled children has lasted for many years. I think I introduced a Private Member’s Bill about short breaks as long ago as 1994. It went through the Lords but crashed in the House of Commons. I know that representatives from across the disability sector, including Mencap, of which I am president, and Every Disabled Child Matters, will welcome the introduction of these regulations.
The case for this new duty could not be stronger, and I welcome the £800 million identified by the Government over the next four years to help local authorities provide these short breaks. However, when faced with the competing demands of filling potholes, weekly rubbish collections and street cleaning, I fear that the temptation on local authorities to spend money for short breaks in other areas could be very seductive. That is why I would have preferred to have seen these funds ring-fenced for the specific purpose of short breaks, perhaps with a provision also to address the needs of all disabled people, including adults. It is important to remember that for many parents of disabled children, their responsibilities as carers will continue long after their sons and daughters have grown up. This is particularly the case for adults with profound and multiple learning disabilities, where the case for short breaks is arguably even stronger. However, I acknowledge that this is probably a debate for another day.
As we have been reminded, the pressure on funds for short breaks and respite services received much attention only last week, when we saw a great deal of coverage in the national media about Riven Vincent, a mother who asked for her six year-old daughter, Celyn, to be placed into care after she received a letter from Bristol social services informing her that no more respite care would be available. This extremely unhappy story highlights why it is so important for the parents of disabled children to have regular access to short breaks. Despite the pressure of cuts to services, we must ensure that the funds announced by the coalition Government reach their intended audience, together with the new duty on local authorities to provide short breaks. Can the Minister assure me that these funds will be used for those whose needs are addressed by these regulations?
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his explanation and welcome the regulations. I also have some questions. Will Regulation 3(b) have regard to the needs of carers whose break from caring may involve an extended leisure activity such as a holiday, rather than simply, as the regulation says, a “regular leisure activity”? I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about the importance of regular breaks from caring, if that is what carers choose, because I believe that regular breaks—a little bit of respite every now and then—can provide long-term stable care for disabled children, which is vital.
Is it sufficient for local authorities merely to publish their short-break services statements on their website? Surely they should do a little more than that. Should they not be proactive in contacting existing carers, rather than just publishing the information, especially in the light of the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that only a third of those eligible currently receive short breaks? We do not know whether that is simply because they are not aware of what is available and do not apply or whether it is because of shortage of money. Can the Minister say whether the practice guidance outlined in paragraph 8.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum will provide any guidelines on the criteria by which eligibility for the services outlined in Regulation 4 will be assessed?
I move on to a point about ensuring that this all works out in practice on the ground, which of course is very important. Is there any plan to require local authorities to publish a sufficiency assessment? The Minister talked about quality, but will local authorities also be obliged to publish an assessment of whether the quantity of short breaks that they supply is sufficient?
Can the Minister also say whether he expects a large number of applications for short-break services to result from the publication of these pieces of information by local authorities and whether any extra funding is likely to be allocated to local authorities if they report a large increase in the number of carers applying for short breaks? Does he agree that there may be a risk that, although these regulations may widen the number of people who apply for short breaks, the danger is that the funding per capita will go down to the point where the efficacy of the breaks will deteriorate? I do not think that any of us wish to see that.
Finally, can the Minister say when the Government expect to publish the initial practice guidance, to which he referred? How will this guidance be disseminated to relevant groups and how frequently do the Government intend to update it? Groups such as Every Disabled Child Matters will pay very careful attention to the guidance, but individual parents will also be interested in their local authority’s guidance so that they, as individual parents, can hold the local authority to account against the guidance.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful for the comments made and for the general welcome for the detail of the regulations. I am glad to have had the endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her typically probing and detailed questions, some of which I will have to come back to, if she will allow me. I will circulate the letter to those who have an interest in the matter as she raised important questions about monitoring.
There is broad agreement and I am happy to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who said that she wanted reassurance that we will build on the momentum that has started and the work that the previous Government have done. I accept fully the point that as arrangements bed down, we will want to ensure that they work well on the ground. The ring-fence has concerned many. There is a tension operating between wanting to give local authorities more freedom to provide services that they think are best, and which best match the needs of local people. We need to bear in mind that the needs of carers in a sparse rural area like Cornwall will be different from those for families in more dense urban areas. We are keen to have flexibility, and it flows from there that we want to give that discretion to local authorities.
I hope to provide some reassurance that there is a statutory duty on local authorities to provide those services. On the publication of the statements, I agree with my noble friend that a website is one way of disseminating information but not the only one. Generally, we will all in our different ways want to make sure that people are aware of their rights and the opportunities open to them. I hope that the provision of information and the shining of a spotlight will bring healthy pressure to bear on the providers of services and make sure that they are of high quality. I accept that we need to keep a careful eye on that. It is not enough just to construct a system, but not see how it operates in practice. We will all have a common interest in pursuing that.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley asked about guidance which will be published very soon. The department has been working on it with local authorities and, as part of the guidance, two local authorities have come up with a draft statement of the services that they provide, which we will disseminate widely. One of the arguments in having a non-statutory approach to the guidance is that one can keep it flexible and keep updating it to take account of circumstances on the ground. Services will develop and we can learn from best practice in different parts of the country. We want to keep things flexible to make sure that those lessons are learnt.
On the point about the obligation and duty on local authorities, Regulation 5 requires local authorities to have regard to the views of carers. The guidance will deal with questions of quality. Overall, I welcome the points made about the benefits of these regulations. Some of the broader concerns raised about how things will work out in practice I accept and understand, and we will work to address them.
I will follow up any specific points that I have not addressed and circulate the responses but I hope that, given the support that these regulations have received from voluntary groups and those concerned in this area generally, the Committee will approve them. I have great pleasure in commending them to the Committee.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Before the Minister sits down, I hope that I may gently press two points that I raised. He may wish to reply to them in writing but I would certainly like an answer at some point. First, if we are not careful, those who provide a good service at the moment will carry on providing a good service and those who do not will carry on providing not such a good service. I am not sure where the impetus is for the new scheme to raise standards across England. Where is the impetus to raise standards across the board? There is a danger that we will carry on having unfair distribution.
Secondly—I ask this question in innocence as much as anything because I do not know the answer—how will the £800,000 be monitored? Will there be a mechanism in place to see how a local authority spends it? Is there any mechanism in place to identify what proportion of the money actually goes into breaks for carers, or are the Government just relying on the good will of local authorities to follow up their statutory duty?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I accept the force of the noble Baroness’s first point about wanting to make sure that quality generally is raised and that we are able to learn from good practice and spread it more widely. I understand that we are looking at incentive payments for meeting those duties under the early intervention grant. There may be other more detailed ways in which we are following that up and if there are I will come back to her on those. As regards underperforming local authorities, I understand that we have advertised a contract to continue supporting local authorities to deliver better services working with the voluntary sector. That may also be part of the answer to the noble Baroness’s question.
As regards what one does about following the money, as it were, I come back to my point that there is a statutory duty on local authorities to provide these services, as the noble Baroness recognised. However, it is true that one of the consequences of removing ring fences and devolving responsibility for spending money to local authorities is that one does devolve that money and allows local authorities to make those judgments. However, I think that, collectively, a range of people will want to make sure that those statutory duties are fulfilled and that local authorities provide decent services to some of the most vulnerable people and their carers who do a heroic job and need all the support that they can get.
House of Lords
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Hussain
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Bakewell
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Heyhoe Flint
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Iraq: Camp Ashraf
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
I thank the Minister for that response. Can he tell me what representations the UK has made to Iraq about the round-the-clock use of about 180 loudspeakers constantly blaring out threats to kill Ashraf residents, amounting to psychological torture? Given Iraq’s breaches of its undertakings to secure the safety and security of these pro-democracy refugees, will the UK now ask the United Nations to station a monitoring force inside Camp Ashraf to prevent further abuse of residents by Iraqi thugs in uniform?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We have made, and indeed are making all the time, representations through our work with the United Nations and we are also planning another direct meeting with Iraqi government officials. I know the noble Lord appreciates that this is Iraqi government sovereign territory and therefore we have to make our approaches, apply our pressure and express our concerns, which he expresses so well, through the Iraqi Government. As to the United Nations, it has taken certain views about withdrawing the regular monitoring operation it had when the United States and the allied forces were there. Now that they have withdrawn it makes fairly systematic and regular visits but it is not at the moment ready to return to a monitoring system. That is the current position but I would be the first to agree with the noble Lord that it is far from satisfactory.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I have the feeling that since the Question was put by a Member on the opposition Benches, the mood of the House is that the Cross Benches should have an opportunity to speak, perhaps followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the House and to the noble Baroness. Has the Minister had the chance to study the decision of the Spanish authorities to bring before the Spanish courts on 8 March some of the officials of the Iraqi Government because of the violations of human rights which have occurred at Camp Ashraf, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale? Given that this is in breach of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention—it is on that basis that those officials are being brought before the Spanish courts—why are other members of the international community, other members of NATO and the European Union not taking the same position as the Spanish authorities?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I have not had the chance to study in detail the Spanish decisions. As to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, there is a difference of view on that. As I think he knows well, the advice we have been given is that the people at Camp Ashraf are not protected under the fourth Geneva convention and therefore cannot be put in that category. There is a difference of view there but I will certainly draw to the attention of my colleagues the procedures of the Spanish Government and see if we can learn something from them.
Baroness Turner of Camden
Is it not a fact that the unfortunate people in Camp Ashraf, who include women and children, have been subjected to a long campaign of persecution and harassment by the Iraqi authorities, with food and medical treatment being denied to them? This is really quite insufferable and something ought to be done about it.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree it is a miserable situation and I hope it does not turn into an even worse tragedy. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has rightly drawn our attention to it and to the organised disturbances apparently promoted by the Iraqi official authorities outside the camp in December and again in January. I myself had an opportunity—not of course to visit the area as it is very difficult to get to—to see the rather grim videos available on the internet, to any noble Lord who cares to watch them, about what was going on and the apparently deliberate provocation: the heaving of stones and the damaging of people in a most unpleasant way. The noble Baroness is also right that there are a lot of women and children in this camp. We have pressed the Iraqi authorities again and again and they undertake that medical, food and all other vital supplies continue to be delivered to Camp Ashraf. That is what they tell us and we will continue to hold them to that. However, in the longer term they have also made it clear that the camp cannot stay as it is and those involved may have to be moved. This is the prospect we will have to deal with.
Lord Elton
My Lords, in his original reply the Minister referred to disturbances, which gives the impression that this is something going on with the notice, but not the support, of the Iraqi Government. In fact it appears, from all the evidence which the noble Lord has cited, that this is being done with the cognisance of the Government; it is not just harassment, it is physical assault. It is the sort of thing that was the precursor to the most dreadful things under the Nazi regime. It is something of which the United Nations should be not merely cognisant but actively oppose.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend. Having people gathering and parking outside the entrance to Camp Ashraf, with the loudspeakers and the throwing of stones, is something more than a disturbance. It is a sort of provocation and it appears to be organised or permitted by the Iraqi Government. My noble friend is right—this is a pattern which could build up through intimidation to something much more serious. I repeat that, although this is Iraqi sovereign territory and the Iraqi Government must act, all the authorities outside, including ourselves and all those countries and institutions that uphold civilised values, must press for this to avoid becoming a tragedy which it otherwise threatens to become.
Viscount Tenby
Why are the detainees in Camp Ashraf not subject to the Geneva Convention? The Minister said in his original reply that they were not protected. Why are they not protected?
Lord Howell of Guildford
It is a legal matter. It has been ruled that the convention is not applicable as the residents of the camp are not prisoners of war. This is apparently the ruling that has been laid down by the United Nations. I could fill in more detail, but this seems to be the basic reason why they are not deemed to be covered by the fourth Geneva convention.
Museums and Galleries
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the funding of national museums and galleries.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the Government have no plans at present to review the funding of national museums and galleries, following the outcome of the spending review in October 2010.
Lord Sheldon
I am grateful for that response. Over the past 10 years, there has been a major improvement in our national museums and galleries. The increase in funding has been of great benefit, and the high standards are internationally recognised. What action is being undertaken to retain these high standards and the importance of the funding?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, many of your Lordships know and appreciate the valued contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts and Heritage, especially as president. I quite understand his preoccupation with the future of the museums and galleries. We have in this country not only the finest museums and galleries but, as he so rightly says, the finest directors. I assure him that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is in close contact with these directors and will make certain that they will not be put into difficulties or forced to lower their exceptionally high standards.
On the positive side, the Secretary of State has limited the reduction in resource funding for national museums and galleries to 15 per cent over four years, to protect their unique role and world-class status and to maintain free admission to the permanent collections. The Secretary of State has also secured more than £20 million of capital funding per annum to enable the national museums to maintain their buildings and to protect their collections. He has also focused £11 million on completing the British Museum’s development and transformation of Tate Modern.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Does the Minister recall that when a previous Question was asked on museums, the suggestion was made that the Treasury might look at the idea of accepting works of art in lieu of tax before people die? It is often done afterwards. Will she draw the Government’s attention to that idea so that the Chancellor can look at it in due course?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend has a good point. It has been brought up. We have an excellent scheme, the acceptance in lieu scheme, which recently marked its centenary during which it has helped to enhance public collections across the UK and ensure public access in perpetuity to many great buildings and works of art. I am aware that it has been suggested that this scheme should be extended to promote the donation of works of art during one’s lifetime rather than after death. Tax measures are of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, given the Government’s professed commitment to localism, is the Minister concerned that the education, access and outreach programmes are most likely to be immediately affected by the cuts, and that such cuts are already being made at the National Museums Liverpool, for instance? Will she be mindful of the depth of feeling in the Liverpool area about these issues as demonstrated by the 18,000-strong petition presented to the Government to maintain proper NML funding?
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has a good point, of which the Government are aware. The Secretary of State has announced his firm funding plans for the national museums and galleries over 2011-12 as part of the spending review, as I said. I hope that we will go further into the noble Earl’s point in the debate in his name next week.
Lord Myners
My Lords, what action have the Government taken to encourage philanthropy?
Baroness Rawlings
The Government are well aware of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, in philanthropy, and the Secretary of State is aware of its importance in running alongside what the Government are doing. We have several projects and some meetings set up. The noble Lord will see these projects over the next couple of months which I trust will be to his liking.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Museums Liverpool. Is the Minister aware of the assessment that the £20 million that the Government spent on museums in Liverpool generated £120 million in the local economy? Will Her Majesty’s Government take this into account in their spending plans?
Baroness Rawlings
The right reverend Prelate makes a good point. Of course we will.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, one thing that the Government have done to encourage philanthropy is to establish an £80 million match-funding fund. However good encouraging philanthropic giving to the arts might be, does my noble friend not agree that it is important for there to be both private and public funding of museums and galleries, and that this Government are committed to public funds for museums and galleries?
Baroness Rawlings
Yes. My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter makes an important point, of which the Secretary of State is fully aware. He will be doing as much as possible to encourage private giving, as I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Myners. We will be protecting regarding the cuts to museums so that we protect the fine quality we have in this country as expressed in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the crucial role of local councils in funding local and specialist museums and galleries? What steps will the department take to preserve these collections when the cuts in local council funding inevitably take their toll on those collections?
Baroness Rawlings
The Government are very much aware of these issues, which is why we have followed through with the Renaissance programme for arts, galleries and museums in the regions. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and some other bodies are being passed on to the Arts Council England to ensure that these galleries and museums are properly looked after.
Defence: Procurement
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the performance of defence procurement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, we are continuing to implement the initiatives that were detailed in the strategy for acquisition reform that was published last year, and we have already put in place new measures such as increasing controls over the equipment plan and improving key acquisition skills. We continue to examine how we can further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition system as part of the wider defence reform agenda.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, while we speak, contractors are poised to start scrapping the Nimrod fleet, a £4 billion investment that is equivalent to £60 for every man, woman and child in the country. The Permanent Secretary at the Treasury has now gone on record, stating that the MoD was out of control. While we obviously hope that the noble Lord, Lord Levene, and Bernard Gray in their work can manage to improve procurement at the MoD, do we politicians not have a responsibility, and is it not time that the major political parties came together and tried to agree a unified approach to defence spend to give the MoD a degree of certainty about funding and to enable proper long-term planning, thus avoiding the fiascos of the Harriers, the carriers and the Nimrods?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Defence is hugely important. The more cross-party consensus that we can achieve, the better for our Armed Forces, their families and the defence industry. My door is always open to any Member of the House who has any concerns or observations.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, has the Treasury agreed to 2 per cent year-on year growth in the defence budget post-2015, as the Prime Minister indicated in the other place, to allow Vision 2020 to be met? If not, how on earth can we have a coherent procurement strategy?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we will have another defence review in 2015. Of course, the Prime Minister has said that there will need to be real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond the current spending review to make Future Force 2020 affordable.
Lord Touhig
In a report published last month, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place concluded that the Ministry of Defence had failed to identify core spending priorities. This must have an adverse effect on procurement. When do the Government expect to develop and implement such a strategy?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my party was not in government for most of the time with which that report was involved, but I point out that we now have a Permanent Secretary who is proving to be a rigorous accounting officer. She has a very good working relationship with the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff and is determined to get on top of the MoD’s financial situation.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, will my noble friend explain to the House the Government’s planned naval amphibious capability?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, in future, we will be able to land and sustain a Royal Marine commando group of 1,500 to 1,800 personnel from a sea helicopter platform with protective vehicles, but we have reluctantly decided that one of the Bay class ships, the RFA “Largs Bay”, will have to be decommissioned.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the tragedy of all this is that we needed, and continue to need, the Harriers, the carriers and the Nimrods. Can the Minister assure the House that this country can continue to meet its maritime surveillance obligations and its international obligations for search and rescue at sea in the absence of the Nimrods?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, Ministers and service chiefs have made it very clear that the decision taken in the SDSR not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was very difficult, but it will not be reversed and the dismantling process will be under way very soon. The severe financial pressures and the urgent need to bring the defence programme into balance meant that we could not retain all existing programmes. We will continue joint maritime patrol activities with our allies and ensure the integrity of the UK waters by utilising a range of other military assets. For security reasons, I cannot go into great detail about what those are.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, in his report, Mr Bernard Gray talked about a 10-year run of figures from the Treasury against which the procurement processes could be planned. In view of what has been said about an increase in capabilities by 2020, those figures should indicate a rise in funding availability for those procurements. Do those figures yet exist?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, Bernard Gray was appointed CDM last week. This is a very important step for the department; it is a sign of our commitment to drive through further change. The previous Government published the Gray review of acquisition, which examined the way in which new equipment is purchased for the Armed Forces. In February this year, the MoD published a strategy for acquisition reform that outlined a number of measures to improve defence acquisition. Implementation is going well and is now part of the wider defence reform agenda. A key part of the work is to look at how acquisition is managed and structured. We are looking at various operating models to determine the most efficient and effective way of designing our acquisition system.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, a National Audit Office report of 15 October last year, and the year before, found that Bernard Gray’s department was ever improving. Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said that,
“central departmental decisions were taken to balance the defence budget which had the effect of driving very significant additional cost and delay”.
The same report stated:
“The Strategic Defence and Security Review should provide an opportunity for the Department to re-balance its policy intent and the available funding”.
Can the Minister assure us that funding balances the policy intent in the SDSR and does not leave the great gap that many of the heavyweight newspapers are predicting?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously referring to an article in the Daily Telegraph this morning. SDSR implementation work is ongoing and the MoD is also undertaking its annual planning round. This is used routinely to look forward over 10 years and ensure that the department’s commitments are in line with available resources. We keep under consideration at all times a range of options on future capabilities, but no final decisions have been made. Premature speculation is not helpful to that process, to our Armed Forces or to the defence industry.
Prisoners: Voting
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in their plans to give prisoners the right to vote.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, removing the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is not a choice but a legal obligation. The Government will bring forward legislation in a first-Session Bill for the current blanket ban to be replaced. Work is currently under way to deliver this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but does he not see the irony in the Government’s position? On the one hand, they are seeking to give votes to prisoners and, on the other hand, they are denying law-abiding citizens the right to make their case at local boundary inquiries—people are allowed only to send in a letter. Is that not a ridiculous position for the Government to be in?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am sure that we will have an opportunity to debate that question shortly—indeed, we seem to have been debating it for quite a number of days in the recent past. It is important to emphasise to noble Lords that this Government believe in fulfilling their legal obligations. Development of policy on this issue is being brought forward. We believe that it is important that we comply with the European Court of Human Rights.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, if convicted criminals are to get the vote, would there be any possibility of the reasonably law-abiding Members of this House having the same privilege? Do we not, too, have some human rights?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I note what my noble friend says, but when we came into this House the Reading Clerk very carefully stated that we had a seat, place and voice in this place. We are truly privileged, for we are indeed Members of Parliament in our own right and need no one to represent us.
Lord Clinton-Davis
What is the Government’s view on the clear and tested proposition that the public are likely to be endangered? Do they agree that suitable steps should be taken to protect the public in those circumstances?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I do not think that that necessarily affects the voting right of prisoners, which is a matter of a human right. How the Government facilitate that is a matter of debate. Indeed, there will be debates on this issue; one has been arranged for 10 February in another place. At the moment, the Government’s thinking is that this is not a blanket ban to be removed by a blanket enabling, but that there should be restrictions on which prisoners are entitled to vote. The view of the Government at the minute is that sentences of fours years or more should disqualify anyone from the right to vote.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the idea of giving prisoners the vote was described as ludicrous by the current Attorney-General when he was the shadow Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and has been described by the present Prime Minister as making him sick. Does the noble Lord agree with his right honourable friends?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Sometimes one’s legal obligations give everybody the opportunity of revisiting things that at first sight might strike one as being contrary to one’s instinctive reaction. I think that noble Lords in this House may well feel the same. There are clearly defined opinions on this matter, but there is an argument for saying that, by establishing prisoners’ voting rights, we enable their rehabilitation to be that much more effective. That must be something that the debate will bring out.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am glad to hear that the Government are bringing forward a Bill. Bearing in mind the furore that has accompanied the decision to determine whether prisoners should vote on the length of sentence, can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to the way in which this is done in France and Germany, where, instead of length of sentence, it is the crime that decides whether people should vote? When the judge sentences somebody in court, they decide whether the vote should be removed. We have the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is perfectly capable of drawing up such guidance as judges may require.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is a proposition that the Government have indeed considered.
Lord Tebbit
Will my noble friend answer a question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he was in government? When were the British people given the opportunity to express their view on this matter?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The British people express their view on these sorts of issues through Parliament and through parliamentary debate. We are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights—indeed, we were one of the founding signatory states—and generally I think that the British people believe in obeying the jurisdiction of conventions to which we sign up.
Remembrance Sunday (Closure of Shops) Bill [HL]
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I have the temerity to ask for the forbearance of the House to say that, on behalf of those on these Benches and, I think, of the whole House, I would like to send good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is unwell. We hold him in very high regard—indeed, we are very fond of him—and we hope that he returns soon.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks, and indeed for the way in which they were responded to throughout the House. I will ensure that they are passed on to my noble friend.
Clause 11 : Number and distribution of seats
Amendment 75
Lord Lipsey
“( ) Should the Boundary Commission conclude in the case of any individual constituency or constituencies that these considerations are of exceptional importance, and that they cannot be appropriately accommodated with the provisions of rules 1 to 4, it shall have the power to give priority to those considerations over the provisions in rules 1 to 4.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I assume that I will not be accused of filibustering if my first remarks are not as relevant to the amendment as my later ones will be. They are to enable those who have more pressing engagements to leave the Chamber. Such very modest success as I have achieved in my life has been due to one thing only, and that is people confusing me with the genuinely world-class economist, Richard Lipsey—Lipsey being a very rare name. That name got me into Oxford, it got me out of Oxford and it got me most of the jobs for which I have applied. I assure the House that we will come to some relevance in a minute.
Richard Lipsey is known to anyone who has studied economics at university as the author of An Introduction to Positive Economics, the standard textbook. However, among economists, his main reputation is founded on the paper that he wrote with Kelvin Lancaster in 1956 called The General Theory of Second Best; and, in pursuing the guru’s great career, the amendment that I put before noble Lords today concerns the practice of second best. It is a practical second-best solution to the problem that has been bugging the House throughout proceedings on this Bill.
This problem, which has emerged from so many debates that by now the penny must surely have dropped, is the extreme rigidity of the Government’s proposed 5 per cent variance in constituency size. There is complete consensus in the House that there should be greater equality in the size of constituencies—that is not in question—but there is no consensus that that should be within the 5 per cent limit, under which only 36 per cent of present constituencies would qualify.
I make no apology for saying again that the best solution to this issue would be to move, wholly or perhaps in part, to a 10 per cent variance, which would, at a stroke, remove nearly all the problems that we have with this Bill. No doubt it would also prolong the nights of sleep which some of us are enjoying at the moment, because it would then be a much better Bill. I say that yet again without hesitation. The second best solution is the one incorporated in this amendment. It is not a full substitute for 10 per cent. It might be a modest supplement to 10 per cent, and it is designed with that in mind. I understand from what the Leader of the House said yesterday—and very welcome it was—that discussions are taking place. I trust that that is happening and I hope that this amendment might provide some grist for that mill.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Can my noble friend clarify his thinking in two regards? His amendment provides that the Boundary Commission should be able to give priority to the very important factors set out in rule 4 over the requirements of rules 1, 2 and 3.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
Because the point that the noble Lord is making is quite complicated, it would be simpler if I put the question first and then we had contributions after that.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I apologise to the Lord Speaker and to the House. Will my noble friend clarify his thinking, so that we really understand what he is inviting the House to agree to? He is saying that the Boundary Commission should have the power to give priority to the very important considerations set out in rule 5 and give those priority over the requirements of rules 1 to 4. Rule 1 is the one that says:
“The number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600”.
It is my view that the Boundary Commission might frequently conclude that an exception should be made if it had discretion to exercise its judgment and to attach significant importance to various factors in rule 5 such as geography, local government, local ties and so forth, within existing constituencies’ boundaries. The consequence could be that the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom would rise significantly above 600. I would favour that for a whole variety of reasons, but would my noble friend draw out the implications of his amendment in that regard—or what he thinks the implications could be for the eventual number of constituencies in the United Kingdom?
Lord Lipsey
To fill the silence for a minute, my noble friend is of course right on his first point that this could lead to a small rise in the number of constituencies—I said half a dozen to a dozen. However, if the Government do not like that, since we are in Committee and these are exploratory proposals, they could remove rule 1 from my amendment and apply the other three rules as the exception. They would then need to change the formula, for reasons which will be evident, but they might have to change that anyway. On my noble friend’s second point, it is inconceivable in view of the guidance given to the Boundary Commission in the Bill on its general rules, that it would consider crossing a national boundary. What he describes is a perfectly fair theoretical possibility and if the Committee wished to nitpick, it could draw the Bill accordingly to prevent that in law. I do not think it would make any practical difference to his very good point.
Lord Soley
Briefly, I support my noble friend on this amendment. I agree entirely that it would be better if the Government chose to go for the 10 per cent rule option, which would take a lot of the sting out of this Bill and reduce the dangers of long-term gerrymandering. One of the things that constantly troubles me about the Bill is that, although we might not like the amount of time it is taking, it is allowing a situation where, after every Parliament, a Government come in and change the rules on boundaries and numbers in the House of Commons in a way that suits their party-political advantage. Down that road lies gerrymandering and I really do not recommend it. They really need to think again but, if they are not going to move on the 10 per cent rule, the proposal being put forward by my noble friend is a good one.
I have a couple of points on this amendment. First, last night I raised the issue of “may” in paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule in Clause 11 as opposed to “shall” which, as the Committee will know, has a much stronger legal meaning. It would therefore state that,
“the Boundary Commission shall take into account”,
instead of “may”. That was on an amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. Unfortunately, the Minister replying at that time was not able to respond because he was rather sadly taken ill, as we know. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, tried to deal with it in passing but if we were to have that in, along with my noble friend’s amendment today, it would give the Boundary Commission not only greater flexibility but the strength to say that there are certain geographical or other factors, as listed in paragraph 5, that would allow it to override the rules in the four points of the allocation method.
I do not want to spend too much time on it, but I draw attention to this; the Committee has heard quite a bit, over the past day or so, of the problem of large, rural areas and the drawing of their boundaries. I really do not want to go into the details of my previous constituency, or others, but at times—and this would have applied to my constituency and to many other inner-city ones too—the Boundary Commission is faced with particularly difficult situations on areas which have suffered as a result of a development there which has divided the community in some way. It might be a major road, a shopping site or whatever. The Boundary Commission needs to have the ability to take that into account. That is why I would prefer the stronger wording in paragraph 5 to allow the Boundary Commission to say, “We regard this as being of such importance that it must override the four points otherwise”.
There are many examples; the geographical ones are probably the best, inasmuch as they deal with both rural and urban areas where the geography changes significantly. For example, the building of the Westway in London divided communities very significantly, which had a big effect on my constituency. Obviously, in rural areas it would be mountains, rivers, estuaries or whatever. That geography example is very important. To put the Boundary Commission into a position where it is, in my noble friend’s words, tied in to such a degree that it cannot be flexible is a big mistake. The same applies to headings (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 5(1). All of those will come up from time to time and the Boundary Commission will be faced with that decision.
As I indicated yesterday, I would prefer a situation where we change the wording in the proposed new Schedule 2 to read “shall” not “may” and, at the same time, to accept my noble friend’s amendment. The better alternative is to accept the 10 per cent rule but the Government seem thoroughly dug in on that, for many wrong reasons. It is one of the things giving us so much trouble on this Bill, because of its long-term implications for the political structure of our Parliament. The Minister is always very thoughtful on these things. I appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could not answer the point about “shall” and “may” last night but perhaps the Minister could bear this in mind when he sums up: my noble friend’s amendment, combined with the use of “shall” instead of “may”, which therefore gives the Boundary Commission greater authority and strength in its decisions, would benefit the Bill. It would be a small step forward and I recommend it to the Government.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, this is a good moment in the Committee to look quite clearly at the contrast between the provisions in the 1986 Act, which currently apply, and those which the Government are trying to bring forward in this Bill and, against that contrasting background, to evaluate the amendment being put forward by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The 1986 Act is really pretty clear; it establishes the rule about not crossing county boundaries as an absolute rule. In paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, it first says that,
“no county or any part of a county shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a London borough”,
and under heading (ii) that,
“no London borough or any part of a London borough shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other London borough”.
That is absolute, subject only to the phrase:
“So far as is practicable”,
with regard to rules 1 to 3, which predominate. Those rules are that the number of constituencies should be 613, then that:
“Every constituency shall return a single Member”.
Then there is the rule about the City of London. We have already discussed the City of London and the issue of its single Member does not seem to be controversial in the modern world. In effect, the only real limiting provision on that rule in the 1986 Act is the requirement that the number of constituencies should particularly be 613.
What happened in the 1986 Act was that the recognition of the importance of county boundaries was stated as an absolute rule and the Boundary Commission has to look at it as such. Then at paragraph 6 of that schedule to the 1986 Act, the commission is told that it is given a let-out from an absolute rule. The rule is stated as absolute, subject to the conditions that I mentioned. Then there is this let-out:
“A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of rules 4 and 5 if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable”.
Our predecessors in 1986 thought that there was an absolute importance in having county boundaries respected and an absolute importance in having a particular number of constituencies, but the county boundary rule could be broken if there was an unreasonable outcome in terms of the size of constituencies. The Government have changed this completely in the Bill, in which the absolute criterion is not a total number—a different number, as it happens—of constituencies, but the 5 per cent rule; that the electoral quota must be observed, or must not vary by more than 5 per cent. That is stated as an absolute rule. Then, in paragraph 5 —we dealt with this yesterday—the Bill says:
“A Boundary Commission may take into account”—
there is no encouragement, let alone compulsion to take into account—
“special geographical considerations … local government boundaries … local ties … inconvenience”.
That is in paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2 on page 10 of the text before us. That has been the shift that has occurred between 1986 and now, and the real importance is that the Government now think that the criterion of uniformity of number, or near uniformity of number of constituencies, is the only important thing. In fact, the phrase,
“A Boundary Commission may take into account”
is almost dismissive. There is hardly any suggestion that the Boundary Commission needs bother too much about that particular consideration.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey has brought forward a third model, which is that, while the uniformity of numbers point, the 5 per cent rule, remains enormously important, the Boundary Commission may waive that on one condition; that it states that these other considerations are of exceptional importance. That requires a very explicit decision by the Boundary Commission and would be something which the Boundary Commission would have to defend. Presumably it would have to be defended at judicial review—there is not going to be any parliamentary debate on the subject nor, if the Government have their way, any public inquiries.
Nevertheless, if there was some bar before which the boundary commissioners had to defend themselves, they would have to state very clearly how they came to conclude that these consideration were of exceptional importance. It is a very high threshold and any public body would be very cautious of stating that something was of exceptional importance—it is a very major judgment to make and one which potentially exposes them to a great deal of criticism, so they would be quite reluctant to make it. However, if they really felt persuaded that these other considerations were so important that a real scandal and injustice would be created, or real damage done to the fabric of our electoral system if, let us say, some local government or county boundary was not respected, they would, at least, have that let-out.
So it is a very small concession that the Government would be making if they were moved to accept my noble friend’s amendment. In most cases, it must be very much less than likely that the Boundary Commission would want to use this provision. By definition, they cannot say that everything is exceptional; they cannot say that most things are exceptional—if they stated that, they would be contradicting themselves. In practice, therefore, it is only on very rare occasions that they would be able to use this provision.
Lord Bach
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 75 alters the extent to which the Boundary Commission is able to take account of possible factors extraneous to the size of parliamentary constituencies when conducting boundary reviews. It alters the weight that it can place on these additional factors. It would permit the Boundary Commission to give priority to special geographical considerations, including the shape and accessibility of a constituency, to local government boundaries, and any local ties when defining the new boundaries. It would subordinate the size of a constituency, its fit within the electoral quota, to these other factors if, but only if, the relevant boundary commission were to deem the other factors to be of exceptional importance.
The various boundary commissions are acknowledged experts in this field. They have been doing their job for a long time. It is their job to come to an informed and reasoned definition of a constituency boundary. I judge that it is they who are in the most suitable position to make an assessment on whether geographical or local factors are of exceptional importance to a particular constituency.
My noble friend’s amendment strikes us as reasonable, but I put it to the Committee that, if the Government had been amenable to accepting the Front Bench’s Amendment 75A that we debated last night, during the long debate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, answered in the wee small hours, the amendment before us would not be necessary. As the rules currently stand, without this Bill being passed—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for reminding the Committee of the 1986 rules, which stand today—boundary commissions are permitted to use their judgment in cases where geographical or local factors may need to override the size of constituencies. We think that this should remain the case. A concerted effort to achieve more equally sized constituencies can be consistent with allowing the Boundary Commission this discretion.
Lord Howarth of Newport
How does my noble friend consider that the Boundary Commission could be in a position to make a well informed judgment as to whether factors in rule 5 should be considered to be of exceptional importance if it is not to have the opportunity to hear representations from members of the public in the process of inquiries?
Lord Bach
Obviously, I do not believe that it can. That is why I think that public inquiries, which we will come to later, are of such fundamental importance to the position.
Of course, the Boundary Commission draws up conclusions at present and then, in many cases, particularly where there is controversy, there will be public inquiries in order to see whether the original suggestion by the Boundary Commission should stand or be altered. Of course, arguments as to whether these are exceptional cases or not would be argued out both early on, I suspect among the commissioners themselves, and then also at the boundary review—that is, the public inquiry. That has proved to be incredibly successful over the past number of years and I think that the boundary commissioners, if they were standing here, would agree that this has prevented some Boundary Commission suggestions that were not very sensible coming into effect. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend’s point.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey emphasised in his amendment that he is thinking about exceptional factors. He is not advocating—nor are we, for that matter—that the factors mentioned in rule 5 should dominate in all cases, just that they should be given their due weight and that, in some areas, this weight is pretty significant. Existing rule 6, by which I mean rule 6 in the 1986 rules, says:
“A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of rules 4 and 5 if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable”.
That does not make the present rule 6 more important than size but makes it equally important. Both are considerations that the independent Boundary Commission can take into account. The difference with the way in which the Bill is drafted, of course, relates to the size of the constituency; unless the constituency is within 5 per cent, none of the considerations in the Bill’s rule 5 will come into effect.
I remind the Committee that if the flexibility in the variance in the size of constituencies were increased from the 5 per cent stated in the Bill as it stands, the problems that my noble friend set out when moving his amendment, and which his amendment seeks to avoid, would be far less likely to occur.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I start by indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that in the days when I had to attend economics lectures from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I also had to read Richard Lipsey’s Positive Economics. I hope he will take it in the spirit that it is intended when I say that I find the noble Lord’s contributions much more engaging than what I recall of his textbook.
The amendment would allow the Boundary Commission to decide, in particular instances, that the factors in rule 5 are so important that it should override the preceding rules. It has been evident from the debates that we have had so far that the core principle of this part of the Bill is to ensure that votes cast across the country have an equal weight. The best way to achieve this is to ensure that there is broad equality in the number of registered voters in each constituency. The principle of parity must be paramount.
In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord said that there was consensus in the Committee on the principle of equity, although he indicated that there was no consensus on the 5 per cent or 10 per cent variation from the electoral quota figure. I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s ingenuity for coming forward with this amendment. He claims that it is a very narrow exemption but, while ostensibly reasonable, the amendment would undermine the principle of parity that we have said ought to be paramount by allowing other factors to take precedence over the equal weighting of votes. This could, and almost certainly would, perpetuate a situation in which constituencies can be of very different sizes, and votes cast in one part of the country can have a very different weight from those cast in another.
The amendment would override rule 2(1), so it would not just be a question of a debate about a 5 per cent or 10 per cent variation. Indeed, by that rule being overridden, the variation could be sizeable indeed. Existing differences in constituency size matter. There is a 41 per cent difference between Manchester Central, with 85,522 electors in 2009, and Glasgow North, with 50,588 electors in 2009. That means that 10 voters in Glasgow North have the same weight as 17 voters in Manchester Central. Frankly, that simply cannot be right.
Lord Howarth of Newport
One of the reasons why we are still here in this Committee on the 13th day is that the Government persist in the illusion that if they equalise the number of electors in every constituency, desirable of course though that is in principle, that will produce votes of equal value. The reality is that differential turnout and differential marginality mean that votes in different constituencies will continue to have different values. If the coalition really wanted to achieve votes of equal value, it would have put an alternative option on the referendum for people to vote for proportional representation. Why did the Government not do that?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Obviously the noble Lord is right to the extent that differential turnout has an effect on the value of votes, but the Bill at least gets everyone to the same starting point. The argument that seems to be coming from the noble Lord is that somehow or other you can have an equal starting point that would then be compounded by differential turnout, making the situation even worse. That is what I find unacceptable.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Why is it not right in terms of constituency sizes but right in terms of London elections—in Westminster in particular? The Minister was here last night when I read those statistics out for Westminster that showed a huge differential between wards in central London. Why is it all right for one and not for the other?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I was here last night and I heard those interminable statistics. The point is that this is not what we are debating at the moment; we are debating parliamentary constituencies. I have enunciated a principle that the Government consider important for this part of the Bill, and one that we believe would be seriously undermined by the proposal that is implicit in the amendment.
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, acknowledged in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, this also overrules rule 1, and the Committee has debated at considerable length the question of the size of the House of Commons and the fact that the Government’s position is that there should be a House of 600.
The current situation is that there is no hierarchy of rules and there is a flexibility to move away from the aspiration, which is there in the current rules, that the Boundary Commission should go as close to the quota as possible. It was clear from the exchanges that took place in the debate that in fact there is that flexibility to move away that has led to the kind of wide variation that I have just illustrated with the difference between Manchester Central and Glasgow North, and indeed has led to a steady increment over many years, almost invariably in an upward direction, in the number of seats.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I have followed the noble and learned Lord’s course, and I am going to try to be helpful. He is worried that the amendment put forward by my noble friend would conflict with rule 2 on parity; he has made that point and I understand it. Not for the first time, I shall put to him a possible compromise. Would he be prepared to have a provision under which there was a 10 per cent divergence from the electoral quota that was an absolute ceiling and could not under any circumstances be exceeded or broken through, but the Boundary Commission would have the right to breach the 5 per cent ceiling up to 10 per cent in the event that it gave the assurance—the text of which is in my noble friend’s amendment—that it had considered that there were matters of “exceptional importance” that justified that move outside the 5 per cent band?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is not far away from the amendment that we debated almost exactly a week ago. Indeed, I have already had discussions with at least one of the noble Lords over this, and I believe that other discussions have flowed on from that between Mr Harper and representatives of the Opposition.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I think there is a misunderstanding. What is new about what I have just said, as against the proposal that we discussed before, would be the incorporation of the phrase “exceptional importance”, drawn from my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hear what the noble Lord says, but the point that I was on at the moment is not just that there is no limit on the 10 per cent—I shall come on to the question about exceptional circumstances in a moment—but that the number of 600 could be reached. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Eccles yesterday who raised the question of 630, which is the target aspirational number. Even that varies, though. With the one exception of when the Scottish seats were redistributed following devolution, the number has gone up after every Boundary Commission review.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about “shall” and “may”. The fact that it is at the Boundary Commission’s discretion whether and to what extent at present it should take into account the factors in rule 5 does not mean that it is able to decide simply to ignore a relevant factor on a whim. The commission cannot just dismiss it. I shall give two reasons why “may” is preferable to “shall”. First, and this reflects back to what I was just saying, the 1986 Act currently has conflicting rules. The British Academy said that,
“the rules set out in the Bill are a very substantial improvement”,
because they are clear and not contradictory. Our fear is that changing “may” could reintroduce conflict between the rules. Secondly, it is important that the independent Boundary Commission has the freedom to use its discretion. Many of the noble Lords moving amendments similar to this have talked about the importance of giving the commission flexibility. I fear that by using “shall” rather than “may”, one takes away with one hand what is perhaps sought to be given with the other.
Lord Davies of Stamford
There is still confusion here. On that matter, there is a great difference between individual political parties arguing that their cases are of exceptional importance—the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right: they will all say that—and the Boundary Commission sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity and allowing itself to be seduced into accepting that something is exceptional in a majority of cases. That could never happen; the Boundary Commission would not do that. It would be too jealous of its own credibility and integrity to allow a procedure that could be justified only in exceptional circumstances being used in anything more than a very small number of circumstances. There is a great difference there between the impact of this word on the Boundary Commission and the likely arguments—about which I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord—that individual litigants and representatives will make to the Boundary Commission.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, even if one puts aside for a moment the question of public hearings, there is still opportunity under the Bill for representations to be made. The minute you import words such as “exceptional importance”, however the case may be presented, you can bet your life that organised groups such as political parties would find some means of suggesting exceptional importance in almost every constituency. Some have argued that the constituency boundaries should be drawn on the basis of population. We have heard that argument; it was suggested earlier that it would be one way of dealing with the situation, but I hope we have dealt with that in times past.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that this is a modest amendment. However, some of the key principles that the Government have enunciated about what is important in the Bill—for example, that there should be no increase in the size of the House of Commons beyond 600—could be undermined by this amendment. Even if we set aside the question of whether there is a 5 per cent or 10 per cent variation, the amendment would allow for a variation that goes beyond even 10 per cent. That would override the parity of one vote, one value and would almost certainly inhibit the Boundary Commission’s ability to report that it had ensured that the new boundaries were in place for the May 2015 election. It is against the background of these different points being undermined by this modest amendment, as the noble Lord called it, that the Government cannot accept it and I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Lipsey
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief but informative debate—my noble friends Lord Howarth, Lord Soley, Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Bach. They have all made substantial contributions to moving the argument forward. I thank the Minister for a comprehensive reply but I cannot apply the phrase “moved the argument forward” to his remarks. I know there is a feeling in many quarters of the House that this debate has gone on too long; I share it. However, one reason for that is that scrutiny is not just about making changes to the Bill; it is about listening to each other’s arguments and hearing what we are saying—not merely repeating one’s starting position. I was saddened to hear the Minister repeat what we debated last night when the noble Lord, Lord McNally—I join in wishing him a very quick recovery—repeated this stuff and nonsense about the equal weight of votes. Indeed, he did not seem fully to have wrestled with the concept because he thought we were talking about something to do with differential turnout.
Differential turnout has nothing to do with it. In a majoritarian system only some votes affect the result of a general election. Those are votes cast in marginal seats. Everybody else’s vote has no weight whatever, except in so far as it is used to claim that the system is biased in some way after the election. Sadly, under our system most people might as well not bother going to the polls for all the chance they have of affecting the result. To talk of some cast principle of equal weight for equal votes when our system embodies a quite contrary principle seems wrong. Moreover, it is sad that it is still being repeated after 13 days of argument
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend has been very generous and tolerant. Does he share my puzzlement that the Government are so obsessed by this question of exact numerical equality across electorates in different constituencies, given that the existing distribution of electors across constituencies in this country is not out of line with what is found in other countries, such as Canada, France, Australia and the USA? The Minister expressed his great concern that there was a 41 per cent difference between the size of the electorate in one constituency and another. However, is it not the case that in the United States of America, where it is generally held that the distribution of districts for the US Congress is pretty equal, there is an 88 per cent difference between the electorate of a single seat in Montana and the electorates of two seats in Rhode Island? There is nothing particularly out of line in our existing arrangements by international standards. Unless we are prepared to tolerate some numerical inequality, we will get the absurdity that all sorts of other valid and important factors will be too much discounted.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I come to another point that the Minister appeared not to have absorbed fully in our earlier discussions. He again said that there was constant upward movement in the number of seats in the House of Commons. This is simply incorrect. In 1918 there were 707 seats in the House of Commons— 57 more than there are today. In 1983 there was precisely the same number of seats in the House of Commons as there is today. The figure varies, and I agree that there is a flaw in the rules at the moment. It is like the Schleswig-Holstein question; I have forgotten exactly how it works but it has something to do with the use of the harmonic mean. There is a flaw in the rules that can tend, if not otherwise compensated for, to raise the number of seats. You just deal with the flaw; you do not need a Bill of this kind to deal with that. It simply is not true to say that the number of seats has increased.
Lord Grocott
My noble friend is absolutely right, although the number of seats has tended to increase in recent years because of the tendency to round up, rather than down, at the end of a redistribution in individual areas. I mention this point simply to remind my noble friend that at some unearthly hour on Monday I spoke to an amendment that was intended to do precisely this in an attempt to meet some of the Government’s concerns. That would have provided that in each of the five-yearly boundary changes—of which I am not in favour, but we have to give and take in this kind of situation—there would be rounding down and not rounding up. I need hardly remind my noble friend that that persuasive amendment was not listened to by many noble Lords because it was spoken to at an unearthly hour. However, that is the kind of thing that we need to do if we are to reach a settlement on the Bill.
Lord Lipsey
Indeed, and the point about the escalation in the number of seats could quickly be dealt with if the admirable Professor Iain McLean were to be summoned by the Bill team to explain the changes in the rules, which I have heard him explain at innumerable academic conferences, to my great edification. That is how I know that the harmonic mean comes into it, even if its precise meaning escapes me for the moment.
I want to conclude where the Minister ended, when he said that the task of the Boundary Commission in producing a reasonable electoral map would be far harder if my amendment were to be passed. I agree that it is hard work being a boundary commissioner. However, although far harder work might be produced by my amendment, his Bill makes that work not harder, but impossible. We cannot produce an electoral map of Great Britain that makes sense with this Bill as it stands. I hope that in discussions on either the Floor or discussions that I devoutly hope are taking place elsewhere, there will turn out to be more flexibility in the Government’s position than the Minister, with all his courtesy, has indicated this afternoon, and that we can therefore move beyond this sterile position whereby arguments are repeated without evolving. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
“( ) In Newcastle and Gateshead, a Boundary Commission shall ensure that no constituency shall cross the river Tyne.”
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
My Lords, I wish to introduce the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady McDonagh and to speak to the amendment tabled in my name, which has a similar theme. It was after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, speaking last week about the Isle of Wight that I was minded to table my amendment. The noble Lord and many others in this House have, over many hours, talked graphically about the importance of geography and community, but the noble Lord also talked powerfully about the effect of water in that context and its psychological importance.
I know that levels of weariness are increasing and I will speak briefly. In doing so, I am attempting to highlight the difficulties of an inflexible approach by the Boundary Commission in relation to a defined geographical feature and its cultural effects. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded me of the significance of the River Mersey in designating and affecting communities around Merseyside and the marked differences in the history, culture and community on each side of the river. When I was growing up and at school in Liverpool, no one ever talked about Birkenhead or the Wirral; it was always “across the water”. Frankly, that could have meant the Atlantic, such was the feeling of otherness. My only contact as a child was on ferry trips during school holidays to the beaches at Hoylake or New Brighton.
Of course, before the creation of Merseyside, which is still not accepted by many, Liverpool was part of Lancashire, while the Wirral was part of Cheshire. Liverpool was a city with a strong, confident personality, built around the port and then reinvigorated by the Industrial Revolution. It remained dominated by the docks, with all the labour implications and challenges of that beyond the 1960s. The container port, still on the Liverpool side, is now closer to the mouth of the river, and the old port area has been successfully regenerated in the past 15 years. It is a thriving, busy area, with a lot of tourism.
In contrast, Birkenhead retained its agricultural status until the advent of the steam ferry service in 1820, which opened up the town. In later years, Birkenhead developed a successful shipbuilding industry based on a very different employment base from that in Liverpool. It was employment for skilled workers. The Wirral today, beyond Birkenhead, remains a markedly different place from the concentrated urban community of Liverpool. The Wirral still contains villages, large areas of land owned by the National Trust, country parks and beaches. It looks more to Chester than across the river. It is wedged between Liverpool and Wales, with the Mersey on one side and the Dee on the other.
When one looks at that feature of modern culture, football, Liverpool has two strong and competitive Premier League clubs—Liverpool and Everton—while people on the Wirral look to Tranmere Rovers. Liverpool has a tight, strong and famous arts scene, renowned for a distinctive identity in its poetry, art, theatre, comedy and, as we heard today, art galleries and museums. Liverpool’s strong cultural identity is tightly focused within the city—around the pier head, between the cathedrals, around Hope Street and around the universities.
So-called Manchester bands, which are compared with Liverpool bands, are in fact from a much wider region. People talk about bands such as Joy Division, who were actually from Macclesfield, not Manchester, or the Verve, who were from Wigan. By contrast, Liverpool bands are from a very small area within Liverpool. I have here a long list of Liverpool bands, courtesy of one of my sons, but, frankly, given that I do not recognise most of them, I suspect that most noble Lords will not either. However, noble Lords will have heard of the Beatles, and possibly the La’s and Ladytron, who are more recent. If anyone wants to see the longer list, I can provide it afterwards.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I speak in favour of Amendment 75ZB, which is about boundaries not crossing the Thames. It is possible that in the far west of the Thames, near its source, this may not be an issue, but I will leave that to one side and address just what we know as this great river on which this great city of ours developed.
When one talks about some of these areas, it is always important to mention where one has lived. I should say that I once lived in Chelsea with the poshest address that I will ever have—Cheyne Walk. Unfortunately, I was on a house-boat there; nevertheless, my address was Cheyne Walk. I moved from there to Battersea. Going to the other side of the river was seen as an enormous move.
The difference between Chelsea and Battersea is not simply what we all know. They have different schools, catchment areas and transport links—akin to the situation in Merseyside. As far as my research has been able to discover, they have always had different health authorities. During the time that I lived there, we had the North West Thames, North East Thames, South West Thames and South East Thames Regional Heath Authorities. Despite all the reorganisation that has happened since, there remain great differences within London—including our phone numbers, which are slightly less important to this issue.
Us Londoners joke about having to take a passport or a visa to visit friends on the other side of the river, but there are reasons for that joke, because south London is definitely south London. It would be difficult for an elected Member to do justice to representing very different communities on both sides of the river. However, as I have said previously, I am less concerned about the difficulties faced by a Member of the other place representing people from those two communities than about the difficulty for citizens of those communities in addressing their Member of Parliament. There are different patient groups, parent groups, rotaries and charities. Their organisations differ on both sides of the river. The parishes and even the Girl Guides are divided in their organisations between north and south, partly because the divisions are of long standing.
However, London has developed in that way. That makes it hard for people to reach their Member of Parliament. It is not simply a question of transport. As I have said before to the Committee, constituents often want to group together on an issue—for example, as parents or users of the health service—to address policy concerns. The idea that they would have to address two different MPs or find a similar charity or group on the other side of the river in order to take a common approach is difficult. From the point of view of residents of London, this much loved city of ours, we should respect the border that the Thames provides and make sure that no constituency covers both sides.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady McDonagh and Lord Kennedy. I will make the same case for the River Tyne as has been made for the Thames and the Mersey. They should not be crossed in order to make up the numbers. I appreciate that the Minister or anyone else can say, “Well, there are no proposals to do that”. Of course there are not, but this is a warning shot across the bows. If the public are going to be deprived of their say at a public inquiry, we have an additional responsibility to air their views here.
I was born on Tyneside, in a place called Scotswood Road, which runs parallel to the River Tyne. It was years before I crossed the river into Gateshead. Now, of course, people talk about Newcastle and Gateshead because of the great work that has been done by One North East, which is due for the chop. That is a disgrace, because it was very successful.
There was never any enmity or animosity, just indifference. Of course we on Tyneside and in Newcastle knew that Gateshead was there. It had a football team in the Third Division; Newcastle United was in the First Division. We were the Magpies and the other team had its own name. The Minister would be wise to give an assurance that this is not intended. The sad fact is that that is what we are relying on, rather than a public inquiry.
I am delighted to see in the Chamber my good and noble friend Lord Dixon—Don Dixon. When he spoke on an earlier amendment, he injected a level of passion and emotion that we have seen rarely in this House. Whenever I see someone emotionally involved in an issue, I say to myself, “He’s doing a Don Dixon”. The noble Lord was able to convey to this House—and, I hope, to the local press and to those whom he represented so well in Jarrow—that this is the place where, if it has to be said, it will be said, and with passion.
When I wrote my book, I called it From Tyne to Thames Via the Usual Channels. The title wrapped up three aspects of my life. I chose it because all my memories are of Newcastle and not Gateshead. There is nothing wrong with Gateshead, Jarrow, Hebburn, North Shields, South Shields or any of the other shipbuilding towns along the Tyne such as Wallsend. However, one is proud of one’s roots and I am proud to come from Newcastle. I once had a trial for Newcastle boys. I was 13 and played in goal. I never wondered afterwards why I was not selected, because we were beaten 5-0. I was not very good. However, there is nothing wrong in pride. There is nothing nasty in not wishing to be associated with somebody else.
There has been a renaissance in Newcastle and Gateshead over the past 20 or 30 years. It had a shaky start. My noble friend from Jarrow will have memories of the Jarrow march in the 1930s. He and I worked together in 1986, when the march from Jarrow to London of 1936 was replicated in commemoration. I am sure that I do not have to press the Minister too hard for him to recognise that people feel very strongly about protecting the memories of their youth. This is not idle talk. I am not standing up merely to take up five or 10 minutes of the House’s time. We have an opportunity here. I have resented very much the way in which colleagues have had to use the opportunities over the past few days to say what they want, because I fear that this is the only place that we have at the moment, given the possibility that the Boundary Commission will act in the absence of a public inquiry. I have attended public inquiries and so have most noble Lords here. We pleaded, won and lost cases, but at least we were able to say what the people whom we represented wanted us to say.
Good luck to Gateshead and to all the developments. People there should be as pleased as I am that the Tyne Bridge was built in 1924. Very few people comment on the fact that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was modelled on the Tyne Bridge. It is a feat of engineering. Whenever I talk about the things that I am proud of in Newcastle, I mention the bridge. I also mention the Tees industrial estate in Gateshead. When I was a boy, before the war started in 1939, I began to learn about Gateshead. There is a place called Jackson Street in Gateshead, which was the headquarters of the Gateshead Co-operative Society. Eventually it became the headquarters of the North Eastern Co-operative Society. Gradually, over the years, sporting, industrial and cultural opportunities have brought together people on both sides of the Tyne.
The Minister would be well advised to say that the amendments are well understood. He might say that they are not necessary—he has his own speech to make. However, I support the argument that on either side of the River Tyne, good as it is—better as it is, with fish coming out of the Tyne that have not come out for years because of the clean-up of the pollution—Newcastle and Gateshead should remain distinct and separate. They both have good Members of Parliament: men and women who speak up, and speak positively and strongly, for their areas. But leave us divided.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for intervening in a debate on a Bill in which I have hitherto played no part. I have listened to noble Lords opposite talking about rivers being boundaries. It was part of my early education to be taught about mountain ranges. These were discussed in the early hours of this morning, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, who talked about people making boundaries having looked at flat maps, although he put it rather more strongly. In Cumbria, we had county divisions made from flat maps, which presented problems. However, whereas each noble Lord who spoke about their own area may well have had a point about their communities, it is not because of rivers that communities are different. Water unites and mountains divide. That is a historical rule that the Committee might take note of.
Lord Dixon
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Graham for his kind words, which I have not earned. I will talk about the amendments dealing with the River Tyne. I spent 32 years working as a shipwright on both sides of the River Tyne. I do not think that the Boundary Commission or the Minister realise the rivalry that exists between the north and south.
I served my time on the south side of the river in Palmers. I remember working in Wallsend, which is on the north side of the river. One of the shipwrights in North Tyneside said to me, “You people from the south side—from the other side of the river—are taking our jobs”. I had to remind him that, if it was not for the river, there would be nobody in a job, because there would be nowhere to launch the ships. So there is a rivalry.
I think that it was in 1979 when the River Tyne was breached for a parliamentary boundary for the election of MEPs. The first MEP elected for our area was my noble friend Lady Quin. In 1983, we had the nonsense of the Boundary Commission creating the Tyne Bridge constituency, which was half in Newcastle and half in Gateshead. The first Member for the Tyne Bridge constituency was my late great comrade Harry Cowans. He had represented Newcastle Central, which he took over when Ted Short was elevated to this House. Despite representing that north part of Newcastle, he had also been a councillor in Gateshead for many years, so he did not have the problem that some people would have had going to the other side of the river. He did an exceptionally good job because he had that knowledge of Gateshead and of Newcastle.
In the 1983 boundary changes, we had quite a lot of constituency changes. At that time, most of the Labour MPs had already been selected. What we had then was called a resettlement, where, if someone took part of a constituency, the other MP could claim that constituency, and vice versa. In the northern region at that time, we all agreed on who should go and who should not for various constituencies. For example, my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere was MP for South Shields; I was MP for Jarrow. If part of Jarrow went to South Shields or part of South Shields came to Jarrow, we could both go for that constituency, but only us two could go for it.
That worked well all around the northern region, with the exception of North West Durham, where Consett was eliminated as a constituency. The two MPs at the time were the late Ernie Armstrong and David Watkins. Ernie Armstrong was the father of my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. They fought for that constituency; Ernie won and David Watkins lost. The new constituency of Sedgefield was created during that reorganisation. David Watkins did not have a claim on Sedgefield because none of his constituency went into it, so the result of the 1983 boundary changes was that we lost an MP and gained a Prime Minister, because Tony Blair got the Sedgefield constituency. So constituencies and constituency boundaries are important, especially across the river. My exiled Geordie friend, Ted Graham, talked about Newcastle and Gateshead. I can remember the Callender brothers playing halfback for Gateshead—do you remember that, Ted?
Lord Dixon
There is a rivalry. There are the makems and the takems. I am a Sunderland supporter. Those on the north side of the river are Newcastle supporters.
I hope that the Government do not take the amendment lightly. They should accept this simple, important amendment that constituency boundaries should not cross the River Tyne.
Lord Swinfen
In the first part of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, pointed out that the River Tyne brought work to both sides of the river. That is exactly the same with the Thames. The river is therefore a unifying force within the constituency and is not divisive at all.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, I find what the noble Lord says interesting. My experience all through my life has been that sometimes the river is unifying and sometimes it is divisive. I was born and brought up on the Wear, which is the river further down from the Tyne. We never wanted to have anything to do with the Tyne. The Wear cuts through Sunderland—that is where it gets its name, the land is cut asunder by the river.
However, there are other things that the amendment is really about. It is about saying that democracy is a precious thing and that, yes, voting is the essence of democracy, but people's culture, identity and sense of belonging and pride in their area are also very important parts of a democratic system. When we are voting, we are voting not just for an anonymous object, we are voting about a relationship that we will have with someone who will represent us, whoever are the Government. For me, that means that if you say that community and identity do not matter, you break the opportunity for that relationship.
I have listened very carefully to the Minister's words. He keeps saying that I was wrong, in essence, last week when I said that I thought that it was part of the coalition’s ambition to break that link. I want to hear more from him to show that I was wrong and that he is right—that the Government see the link between the elector and the representative as very important. The problem is that once you admit that, you need flexibility.
I remember well the occasion that my noble friend Lord Dixon was talking about when the boundaries were changed in County Durham. My father was a very loyal member of the country but also of the Labour Party. He would always do what the Labour Party asked. This was the first occasion when he did not. They wanted him to go for the Sedgefield seat, so he is sort of to blame for Tony Blair. He had only one ward going from North West Durham into the Sedgefield seat, and he felt strongly that, if he represented anywhere, he wanted to represent the area he was born in and that he had played football in. As we have heard, football is very important in the north-east. I have to say that my noble friend Lord Dixon and I both disagree with my noble friend Lord Graham about loyalties and the success of Newcastle in the 1960s and 1970s, but there we go.
My dad played amateur football and was also a referee. He knew intimately the folk around him. I remember someone from the Consett side saying to me, “Why is he not doing it?”. I said, “You’ve just got to listen to him”. They came to me later and said, “We absolutely understand it. Your dad has a passion for Little Stanley”—as it was called. We all called it the Hill Top, which is why I took that title. It is not the name you find on the map, but that is what we knew it as. Dad had a passion for that area because it made him who he was. It gave him his values and his sense of real passion for community and opportunity. I think that they are important elements of democracy for both the elected and those who are electing. My fear about the Bill is that it drives a dagger at that whole concept that drives us and gives us a passion for democracy. Democracy is often not the easiest or most straightforward method of government. Sometimes it drives us all dotty, but we have not come up with anything better. We also know that it is fragile.
This amendment simply reminds the Government that whether it is the Tyne, the Mersey or the Thames, there are identities and cultures that add to our democracy and enable us to feel strength in representation. The Government destroy them not just at their peril but at all of our perils. I understand the Government wanting to say that they want every vote to count the same, but we have heard arguments about how none of us can legislate to make that happen everywhere because it will still depend on people out there using their vote. It will still depend on people feeling that it is worth while and that people will listen to them. Breaking the links that mean that people feel that someone they know and can get hold of represents them and their community is a very important part of our democracy. I know it works differently in other places, but I have a feeling that that is at the heart of how people in this country react to the democratic process. That is where the difference lies, and that is why we are simply asking the Government to give a little more flexibility whether through this amendment, other amendments or an amendment that they bring forward so that those key things that I am talking about are not lost in our country.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, we owe my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton a debt of gratitude for introducing this group of amendments which are extremely important in the context of this Bill. First, they raise the issue of geography, and we have already had some debate on that on the amendment that was passed in respect of the Isle of Wight. Secondly, they raise the question of the way in which communities are divided. This group of amendments is about division by rivers. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about rivers uniting and driving communities, but the reality is that rivers do divide communities, and communities on one side or other of a river feel very differently from those on the other side. My noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top has just articulated it supremely well. If we believe in the principle of representation whereby individuals are elected to the other place on the basis of a community of feeling and are able to represent that community of feeling, that should be taken into account as part of these discussions.
I know that the Government are committed to the concept of fairness. There are other ways of achieving fairness. For example, I fail to understand why it is a given that when Members of the House of Commons go through the Division Lobby and are ticked off in the way that we are familiar with in this House, they each count for one vote. If you really want to have equality of representation, have them have a statistic associated with them so that one gets 1.1 votes and one gets 0.9 votes and, at a stroke, you have solved the problem that the Government claim they are trying to deal with. I am not suggesting that that is a solution that we should follow, but it is a much easier way than the many hours that this House has debated this issue.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the noble Lord recollect the myth that when the Habeas Corpus Act was passed, it did not achieve a majority but fat men were counted as two? Some of us would have served the cause of liberty magnificently.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am particularly grateful for that intervention because I can see the value of such an analysis, though I must admit that I was not previously aware of that historical fact.
What is it that creates a community? Do we value community in terms of representation? I should have thought that for the quality of our democracy we want to value the quality of representation and the way in which there is a link between the community that elects a representative and that representative. It is interesting that if you look at constituencies and the history of where there has been division by a river, you see this problem. For example, my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton talked about the Mersey. I have a report from a Boundary Commission inquiry into that issue. The Boundary Commission clearly wished to cross the Mersey on that occasion but was overwhelmed by the nature of the representations. It stated that,
“local opposition is a factor to be weighed, but it cannot of itself be decisive”.
It went on to say that,
“the unusual factor in this case, is this: opposition to the proposed cross-Mersey constituency is voiced by all political interests as well as a number of individuals without any party political affiliation. The Commission will know whether such practically universal opposition to an aspect of their Provisional Recommendations is unique. However, if not unique, I suspect it is something which is rarely found”.
Another inquiry report looked at crossing the Clyde. The inspector concluded,
“that strong feeling exists on this issue on both sides of the Clyde and that none of it is supportive of the Boundary Commission’s proposal for a river-spanning constituency … It is I think significant that their opposition does not appear to have a connection with any party political advantage that might be derived from having or not having a cross-river constituency but it is based purely on a conviction from their local understanding that an attempt to span the Clyde is quite simply wrong for the area”.
The report went on to talk about the differences between the communities.
That is why we should recognise those considerations regarding the Bill. I particularly want to speak, but shall not speak at length, about Amendment 75ZB, which deals with constituencies not crossing the Thames. I appreciate that those who are not part of London may not realise that there are such strong feelings between the north and south of the city. I speak as someone who, although an unabashed north Londoner, has had the privilege of representing the whole of the city when I chaired the Association of London Government, now London Councils. I was very well aware of the strong feelings between the north and the south. It goes into every aspect of community life. A study published just a few weeks ago demonstrates—I think this is fascinating—that 54 per cent of Londoners living north of the River Thames never, not occasionally, but never, venture south for work or cultural pursuits. It is interesting that south Londoners are more likely to go north. I make no comments about the quality of life in south London or about whether anyone would wish to travel south. I have travelled south of the river on many occasions for cultural pursuits. However, it is interesting that more than half of north Londoners have never done so. If that does not indicate that there is a difference in terms of community feeling, then nothing does.
The same survey demonstrates some quite interesting findings about the different interests of north Londoners and south Londoners. I am a north Londoner, and 55 per cent of north Londoners rated eating out as one of their top three interests, followed by the visual arts and popular music. While eating out and visual arts also ranked highly for south Londoners, they were more likely to enjoy the capital’s performing arts, heritage, classical music and markets. Again, I make no judgment about that. The indication is that on these issues alone there is a distinction in the approach of north Londoners and south Londoners.
Where does this come from? In the 1850s, London was already the world’s wealthiest city, but that success had come at the expense of many of the people of London. Population growth and overcrowding had created a divided city, with Londoners living in separate worlds of rich and poor. Up to half of those born in the capital’s slums did not survive their first year. However, not only the poor died young; tuberculosis, smallpox, cholera and typhoid also killed the rich. The significant point was that London had failed to provide clean water, basic sanitation and housing for its growing population. In its analysis, the People’s City, the Museum of London stated:
“The deadly River Thames flowed like an open sewer through the heart of the city”.
That open sewer feeling is the reason why the divide is so deep and cultural between the different parts of the city.
Even more modern literature reflects this. Wise Children, the novel by Angela Carter, centres on a particular family and focuses on the distinctions between members of the family as represented by the physical divide of the River Thames. A very deep-seated difference exists between north Londoners and south Londoners.
If we are to have any concern whatever about the importance of geography and community to representation in Parliament, we have to take these issues into account. If the Government say that that would wreck the central purpose of the Bill of fair representation, I would ask two questions: first, will they consider an alternative which changes the value of the votes of Members at the other end of the Corridor; and, secondly, what is the value of fairer representation if you destroy the basis on which it rests in the communities that elect Members of Parliament?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, over the centuries, rivers have been essential to the characters and fortunes of the cities of this country. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has given an account of the significance of the Thames in the life of London. In Our Mutual Friend, Dickens compellingly describes the myriad human lives on the Thames; the power of the river is a symbol of the power of the city.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, suggested, as a general proposition, that rivers unite while mountains divide. However, some of the speeches in this debate have demonstrated that that is too simple an antithesis. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton has described convincingly the divide that the Mersey creates. Equally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris that the character of London south of the river feels and is profoundly different to the character of London north of the river. On the other hand, Newport, which I had the honour to represent in the House of Commons, is a city united by its river. Notwithstanding that the River Usk has one of the largest tidal rises and falls of any river, the history of Newport as a port astride the River Usk—and its subsequent history when the port was less important to its economy—has produced a state of affairs in which the Usk unites Newport West and Newport East very satisfyingly. In Norfolk, where I now live, the fortunes of the city of Norwich grew with the commerce and traffic on the River Yare, while the fortunes of King’s Lynn depended on the traffic on the Great Ouse. The tragedy of King’s Lynn was that the Great Ouse silted up and the town’s greatness waned from that point onwards.
Whether rivers unite or divide—or whether, indeed, there is no river, in which case it is not an issue—almost all our major cities and towns have grown up astride a river and, I would say, have been unified by a river. Birmingham is an oddity; it is perhaps the one great city in this country that does not have a river. I broadly accept the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness—with the important exceptions that have already been discussed—but the point is that this matters and people have strong feelings about it. It is foolish of the Government to design legislation that will, in practice, make it difficult for the boundary commissioners to take adequate account of this extremely important factor.
The Government will certainly say that, under rule 5 in Clause 11, the Boundary Commission has a measure of discretion to take account of important geographical factors. However, as we have argued almost to the point of wearying ourselves and others, because of the other constraints in the Bill it is not possible for the boundary commissioners to give proper attention to this. Given the exceptions outlined in rule 5 to take account of geographical considerations, the alignment of local authorities—presumably one of the problems about the creation of the constituency of Tyne Bridge was that the Member of Parliament representing Tyne Bridge would have to relate to different local authorities on either side of the Tyne—local ties and inconveniencies, on all the grounds set out in the rule it must be right for the boundary commissioners to be able to take account of the significance of rivers.
The consideration of the significance of rivers has underlined the point that we have been making again and again. We need two things: a wider tolerance than 5 per cent either side of the numerical norm; and a continuation of the rights of people to give evidence to the boundary commissioners in public inquiries. If they were able to do so, my noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton, Lord Dixon, from Jarrow, and Lady Armstrong of Hill Top—all of whom have spoken eloquently and with strong feeling about the significance of rivers in the parts of England that they understand intimately in political terms and about which they care deeply—would give evidence to those public inquiries and press on the boundary commissioners the fact that, while appearing to be, perhaps, an accident of geography and history, this is a factor of emotional, almost visceral, importance to the people whose lives are made on these riversides.
Lord Grocott
On this point, I should say to my noble friends of many years, Lord Graham and Lord Dixon, that the idea of a member of the Boundary Commission sitting in London reading their written submissions on the feelings that they have about the communities in which they were born and brought up is evidence of the unacceptable way in which the Government have decided how boundaries will be determined in the future. In no way can the feeling behind the words that we have heard today—which will not be allowed under the legislation—be conveyed by means of a written submission.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend is right. Communities and territories will be divided up, presumably on a computerised calculation, in a way that entirely ignores the feelings that, rightly and powerfully, animate people in their political views.
The Boundary Commission in its wisdom—or in its unwisdom—made a judgment some time ago that the constituency of Tyne Bridge should be created and no doubt vigorous representations were made then. However, the fact that it got it wrong on that occasion—if it did get it wrong, and I am persuaded by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that it did—does not mean that it should not have to take account of the expressions of public opinion that would come to it through public inquiries.
Building into the Bill one exception after another to take account of specific circumstances is not the right way in which to legislate on this matter. It would be much better if the Bill were constructed on general principles that enabled the boundary commissioners to make sensible judgments and decisions.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I have no wish to delay proceedings and I shall be extremely brief. I was born in a place called Rowlands Gill on the River Derwent, a tributary of the Tyne, and I went to school in a place called Spennymoor, which later became part of the Sedgefield constituency. When I moved as a student and later spent my professional life in Newcastle, it was made very clear to me that the south began at the Tyne Bridge.
There was a story about the man from the south of England who came to Newcastle. He was walking up and down Northumberland Street and said to Geordie, “Can you show me the way to Gateshead?”. Geordie said, “Well man, it’s quite simple. Ye gan doon yon street and ye gan ower yon bridge. On t’other side ye’ll come to a whole lotta hooses and ye’ll say to yersel, ‘This canna be Gateshead’, but it certainly is”.
I make these points to stress the sense of community, which was stressed so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. Newcastle and Gateshead are speaking together and collaborating very well indeed, but it is important to recognise that people in the north-east regard the Tyne as an important barrier.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the amendments that we are considering this afternoon go to the very heart of the widespread anxiety about what this Bill is doing to our democracy. Anyone who has felt the spirit of democracy, let alone studied our constitution, knows that the fundamental principle on which we operate in the two Houses at Westminster is that we are a representative democracy. We are not delegates; we are representatives. There is no way logically that any Member of Parliament can speak with authority for each individual member of his constituency. That is a physical, intellectual and mental impossibility. However, the way in which that representation can be meaningfully conducted is by speaking for the community of which those who voted—and even those who did not vote—for a particular Member of Parliament are a part. The first thing that fundamentally worries those of us who are exercised about what this Bill will do to our democracy is that it strikes at that principle of how people are effectively represented.
I will spell that out a little further. As I understand it, the Government have a deep commitment to the individual. They believe in enhancing the role of the individual in society. They have a great commitment to localism and making sure that as much government as possible is conducted away from the centre, in the community where it really matters. How on earth will that happen without communities in which people can find their place, discuss and formulate their ideas and bring pressure to bear on those in authority? The danger is that, deliberately or just by unforgivable accident, the Bill will undermine the very purposes that the Government express on other occasions in other proposed legislation.
There is another consideration. I was very glad indeed that in the brief but telling intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, he referred to the fact that, while rivers were significant in some people’s minds, they were not the only consideration. For example, in the county in which we both live, there is a strong sense of community. In a rural area, it is important that people can find identity in a community, because they can become very isolated and disempowered in their isolation. Communities are very important. In a great county such as Cumbria, there is history and tradition. We have had quite a job—in fact, some people feel that it has never really happened sociologically—in making the county of Cumbria, because we have Westmorland and Cumberland and people’s loyalties are for one or the other.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
We also have Yorkshire and north Lancashire and much else besides. While I am on my feet, I will say that a beck runs though my village and I remember that, when I was a boy, there was a seat on either side of it. There were men sitting on those seats who in their entire lives never crossed the beck. Today, because of local leadership and the fact that we participate and have mobility, those people talk to one another and I think that the communities are probably better for it.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord took the opportunity to expand a little more on his strength of feeling, much of which I share, about our county. I think that the noble Lord will agree that the arguments that we have heard about London and Tyne and Wear strengthen the concern. They are a geographical reality, which emphasises the point that we are both making.
There is one other issue that needs serious consideration. We live in an insecure age and one of instability. It is important to have communities as the basis for security and stability. London is a huge multicultural gathering of people. It is possible in that situation for people to feel that they have no particular identity whatever. Surely in London of all places, with its great mass of people coming together, it is important that people can develop a sense of community and belonging, a sense of being able to discuss their anxieties with others and bring their representations to bear. For all those reasons, the issue of the constituency community base is fundamental. I simply cannot envisage how we can continue to have a representative democracy if we diminish the significance of the constituency.
My noble friend Lady Armstrong made a particularly powerful speech. I was a friend of her father and knew him well. She made a strong point about her father breaking his loyalty with his party because he felt so strongly about these matters. I would have only one argument with her. The other day, she talked about the link being broken. I ask her to consider that it is not a link but the fundamental cornerstone of a meaningful representative democracy. If we tamper with that, what road are we beginning to go down?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the merits of the Bill and I want to be brief. I have two points to make. It is important that there is a degree of flexibility for certain communities. The community that I want to speak about is Newcastle. As a complete outsider to Newcastle, I sat there as a judge on numerous occasions and was the family division liaison judge for the area. There is absolutely no doubt that Newcastle is, among other parts of the country, one of the most obviously tightly knit communities. The river undoubtedly divides Newcastle from Gateshead. I could have replicated the lovely story told by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, although without his accent, because I actually asked where Gateshead was and people were very unkeen to tell me.
Lord Soley
I support Amendment 75ZB on the River Thames. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because she has put her finger on the problem again, just as she did in the debate on the Isle of Wight. If the Government are really concerned to do the equal voting bit, they need to face up to the fact that the way to do that is to go down the road of PR and get rid of the constituency link. I personally would strongly oppose that, but that is the way in which you equalise votes. In doing that, you destroy the constituency link, which has always been the centrepiece of British parliamentary democracy.
I remember being followed around by a Dutch television team in two general elections. Each time they expressed amazement that an MP had to stand on corners and go out into the constituency to campaign for votes in the local area. Their own MPs, because they were on a list system, could talk about general issues and not relate them to constituencies in the same way. It is a major difference. Now that the Government have accepted—although they might reverse it in the House of Commons—the Isle of Wight example, we should recognise that we need, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, some flexibility in these other areas.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Would my noble friend accept that AV+ is not as strong as a constituency link?
Lord Soley
Absolutely. I am no great expert on voting systems, but my understanding is that certain PR systems inevitably destroy the constituency link. I think that the list system is one of those. It is true that AV+ and one or two others allow for the constituency link to be kept, so it need not be ruled out. However, if you are going down the way of full equalisation of votes—that is, a full PR system—it is hard to maintain the constituency link. The acceptance of the Isle of Wight as an exception is a recognition of the importance of community.
All that my noble friend Lord Harris said about London is true. I have spent an awful lot of my life in London—I spent some time in the Mersey area when, for reasons that were beyond me at age five, I was taken from the bombings in London and moved to Liverpool, where I thought that they were trying to get me the second time round because they had missed the first time—and I agree that the Thames presents an interesting issue. I do not wish to dwell on the issue, but my noble friend Lady Hayter made the important point about the powerful impact of such factors on people’s lives. The south and north of the river are very different.
However, I do not entirely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, when he says that rivers can unite. I do not know whether this was just an experiment, but there was an interesting attempt in the early 1980s—by, I think, a group of companies connected with the river, including, if I remember rightly, Thames Water—to form a group of riparian MPs comprising those of us whose constituencies fronted on to the water. It was felt that the river’s importance was not truly recognised. I was enthusiastic about that, but I have to tell the noble Lord and others that the attempt failed. That was a great pity. In my case—I was representing Hammersmith at the time—the group ended up dealing with all the house-boat people. I distinctly remember having meetings on house-boats near Cheyne Walk. I do not know whether my noble friend was there at the time, but this would have been in the early 1980s so I guess probably not.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Would my noble friend accept that we were no trouble at all?
Lord Soley
That is a relief to hear, but I remember that someone else there caused some trouble.
The point is that the river is important, but it divides. You would have had great difficulty organising community activity across the river. If you ran a campaign because someone had led off with an issue—not necessarily on school closures but perhaps on other wider issues—it was really difficult to unite people across the river. Transport was another example. For reasons that I understand are to do with the geography and soil of the south, it is difficult to provide underground systems south of the river. Getting a campaign going on underground links was difficult or almost impossible because—with the exception of one or two links, such as the Victoria line, that cross the river—everyone south of the river wanted to talk about buses either on their side or on the northern side. Where there are real issues about community, the river is an important factor. Given that the Government have moved, or I hope have moved, on the Isle of Wight under pressure from the House, we need to recognise that there are other divisive factors. The further you go down the River Thames towards the mouth of the Thames, the more impossible the issues become, although constituencies quite commonly cross the Thames at the Oxford end.
The community bit is important. We need to give the Boundary Commission much more flexibility—as we have said a thousand times—so if the Government were prepared to move towards 10 per cent, if they were prepared to make any movement at all, that could help significantly. While the Government are not prepared to talk or move, that makes it difficult to ignore individual cases, whether those relate to the Thames, the Tyne, the Mersey or whatever. We then have to address these issues, which seems a rather painful way of making these points.
As I mentioned before, another factor that came out of the research that was done on my constituency casework was that the majority of an MP’s cases—this seems to apply particularly in inner city areas—come from the wards immediately round the centre. The further that you try to go out, the more difficult it is to reach out unless you go to those areas. I know that that happens all the time in rural areas—you have to do it, and I know that you can get round it to some extent with modern technology—but the reality is that that brings home the importance of the community.
Indeed, when I represented Hammersmith for many years, my constituency was virtually the smallest in the UK. I had grand plans to persuade the Boundary Commission to let me link up with the north-west coast of Scotland, so that I could do that in the summer and Hammersmith in the winter, but the Boundary Commission did not buy that. The important thing for me was that, when the size of the constituency was increased and I took over the Ealing-Acton part, there was a significant difference between the outer London borough and the inner London one. The groups in the inner London borough had a different psychology.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I do not want to ruffle these apparently cathartic and calming waters, but the speeches that I have heard from noble Lords opposite would, each in turn, make ideal personal representations to the Boundary Commission when the Boundary Commission is sitting, when it is appropriate for noble Lords to make such representations. Even though they are unelected and unrepresentative, under existing law the noble Lords would still have a right to give their views to the Boundary Commission. In my experience of at least four Boundary Commission reviews in my constituency, everybody was widely consulted, everybody was able to put forward their views and often those views were listened to. Noble Lords opposite have also made the point that there is something undemocratic about imposing this legislation on the Boundary Commission. I remind them, briefly, that 10,726,614 people voted Conservative at the last election for this legislation, some 6,836,824 voted Liberal and less than half that amount—if we put those two figures together—voted for something that is not in the Bill. Therefore, as far as I am concerned—no, I will not give way—the case is made.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the noble Baroness believe that noble Lords should be allowed to give oral evidence to these inquiries? That seems to be the thrust of what she is saying. Does she believe that they should be allowed to give that evidence in oral form?
Lord Kinnock
On the subject of reading and remembering, and since the issue of manifestos has been brought up and how many millions of people voted for them, I refer to two manifestos on the subject of parliamentary reorganisation. One manifesto said that the number of seats in the House of Commons should be reduced to 500 with proportional representation and devolution in England. The other manifesto said that the number of seats in the House of Commons should be reduced by 10 per cent to 585. The figure in the Bill is neither 500 with PR and devolution, nor is it 585. The figure is 600—no more, no less, no movement, no negotiation, no pause, no hindrance and no let. At the same time, the Boundary Commission, uniquely in history, is to be constrained by a 5 per cent movement either way and with further constraints related to geographical size. In those circumstances, nobody voted for this legislation.
Lord Trimble
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could suggest to him that he look again at the Cunningham report on the conventions of this House. The Cunningham report made the point very strongly that the Salisbury convention, which was originally formulated in terms of manifesto commitments, now operates and has for some time operated on the basis of applying to the major Bills of the Government of the day. The point—
Lord Trimble
Whoever said no should also go and read the Cunningham report. That report, which was from a cross-party group, was unanimous and was accepted by this House. The points made about manifestos by the party opposite are wholly and totally irrelevant.
Lord Kinnock
My Lords, I am glad that I gave way, even though I did not give way. The point about manifestos will be in the clear recall of the noble Lord. It was explicitly and forcefully made by the noble Baroness opposite. I was responding for the sake of accuracy and in the interests of this House on that very point. I am well aware of the Cunningham report and of the conventions of the House. I do not think that any convention or any established custom is superior to the truth.
Baroness Nye
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 75ZB and move back on to the amendments, which I think some on that side of the House were slightly straying from.
I was born in Brixton—hence my title Baroness Nye, of Lambeth—but I strayed north of the river at one point, where I had a very nice time as I got married and had three rather lovely children. So there are advantages to both sides.
When I looked at Amendment 75ZB, I wondered why the Boundary Commission would ever want to split constituencies on either side of the River Thames. Let me read one section of the British Academy report, which I think proves that the inflexibility of the Bill is such that we could end up in the situation where constituencies could cross the river. The report states:
“Greater London is the part of the UK where borough boundary-crossing has been most common at recent reviews, and where it is likely to be widely necessary under the new rules. With an electoral quota of 76,000 only three of the 32 boroughs would have an entitlement of as many as three constituencies (Bromley, Croydon, and Ealing). No more than eight of the boroughs have an entitlement which means they could be treated separately in the allocation of constituencies, but because of the non-integer entitlements of their neighbours it could well be that virtually all of the boundaries have to be crossed”.
In that case, it is feasible that we could get a situation where constituencies are cross-river.
I know that that point slightly exasperates some people. For example, in regard to the Devon and Cornwall situation, the Prime Minister has said:
“It’s the Tamar, not the Amazon, for heaven’s sake”.
I know that you could just as easily say “It’s the Thames not the Amazon”. However, as has been demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Howarth and others, with a smidgen of flexibility we would not be in a position where constituencies were not within geographical boundaries and communities would have to be split. If the Minister could be a little more flexible, we would not get into a situation where rivers would have to be crossed.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, the constituency that I used to represent in the other place has been mentioned so many times during the course of this debate—
Baroness Quin
My constituency was Gateshead, as my noble friend knows only too well. Perhaps in just making a very short contribution I can confess to something of a split personality, because I was proud to represent Gateshead for many years in the other place and would like to pay tribute to the huge economic development achievements that it has realised in recent years. Indeed, it has brought a great deal of jobs and prosperity to Tyneside and the whole of the region as a result. Although I am fiercely proud of having been a Member of Parliament for Gateshead for that time, I also happen to be in my spare time a tourist guide for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. Perhaps any of your noble Lordships who have visited that city would care to come on one of my tours this coming August and learn about the history and development of that great city. Therefore, I believe that, on occasions, rivers can unite as well as divide, but the point that has been made so powerfully during this debate—that the sense of community has to be recognised—is the one that is really important. Occasionally, as my noble friend Lord Dixon reminded us when he spoke of the tremendous parliamentary record of Harry Cowans, it is possible for a Member of Parliament to be a perfect representative for two constituencies across the river, but at the same time we know in the course of this debate that people’s geographical identities are extremely important, and it would be very unwise for the Government to ignore these in the way in which they are approaching this legislation.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I was born in the borough of Hackney. I lived in Hackney. I was a member of the council there and I represented Hackney in the House of Commons for nearly 13 years. People who came from Hackney came from all different parts of the world. There were Turks, people from the West Indies, Indians, Pakistanis and many, many Jews. The important thing was that they had a common bond, as my noble friend Lord Graham would acknowledge, and the important thing from their point of view was that they were quite different from people in adjoining boroughs such as Islington and Tower Hamlets. They had some shared preoccupations, undoubtedly, but in the main they were different and they recognised that difference. It was very important to them as far as their lives were concerned. I do not think that that ought to be underestimated. We are talking about the River Thames but we are also talking about tributaries of that river, such as the River Lea. In my time, it was absolutely inconceivable to consider that people in Hackney could be divorced from the River Lea. They were part of it, they recognised it, and when we think of the possibilities of change it would be very remiss of us to consider that the people who live in Hackney should be part of another borough. That is inconceivable.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton for introducing this group of amendments, which have led to an engaging and important discussion about both rivers and communities. My only regret was that she did not reveal the list of bands that her son gave her to see whether noble Lords knew about Liverpool or not. I have to say I have longed for many a year to use the expression that the unfortunate High Court judge used many years ago, “Who are the Beatles?”, but I am sure all noble Lords these days know very well who the Beatles are and many of the other bands that she kept from us. I am very grateful to her for moving this amendment.
We have heard from noble Lords on all sides of the Committee today. It is interesting to consider that the following place names have arisen from their speaking: Huyton, Kentish Town, Edmonton, Furness, Jarrow, Newport, Detchant, Hill Top, Harringey, Portsea, Marsh Green, Lambeth, Tankerness—he hopes very shortly, I am sure—Hammersmith and, last but not least at all, Gateshead. For unelected noble Lords, place names are important. Lutterworth is important to me, and I am sure that Tankerness is important to the noble and learned Lord. That shows that a sense of community runs not just in the House of Commons, where it would run a great deal for those fortunate enough to represent people of a particular community, but in this House.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, for introducing the debate, which focuses on three rivers: the Mersey, the Tyne and the Thames. Although there have been a number of contributions about the Tyne and the Thames, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that she is not alone in her concerns about the issues of the Mersey.
I indicate at the outset that it has never been considered, even in the 1986 Act, which sets out the current rules for the Boundary Commissions, that rivers are geographical features that are so exceptional as to be unable to be crossed by a constituency boundary. Perhaps that is not surprising. As my noble friends Lord Cavendish and Lord Swinfen indicated, in many cases rivers can actually link communities. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, indicated that in Newport the river was by no means a barrier but was a link between communities. In many places, the transport arrangements are such that there is no particular issue.
An important issue has been raised in the debate on the importance of community. It was mentioned specifically by the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Dixon, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Quin and Lady Armstrong, mostly in the context of the Tyne. It is recognised that there are a number of rivers where north and south have a certain resonance.
In his introductory remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, reeled off a lot of the territorial names of noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will no doubt speak later. Strathclyde is a much bigger place than Tankerness or, for that matter, Gateshead or Detchant. The important point is that Tankerness is not even a whole parish in Orkney, whereas Gateshead is a constituency and Strathclyde was a territorial name even before it was a Scottish region. There are many different levels of community. It would be a rare Member of Parliament indeed who represented only one community; most Members of Parliament represent a number of different communities. I fully understand the strong sense of belonging that Members who have represented constituencies for many years have, but no Member of Parliament has a right to represent them. If there are boundary changes or there is a fluctuation in the swing of the pendulum, a Member of Parliament may find that he or she is no longer there, and a new Member of Parliament must start building relationships with the constituents whom they represent.
The important point is the relationship between the constituent and the Member; the constituent feels that they can go to their Member or the Member can go to them. That was the point that struck me during the early contributions to this debate on the idea that somehow or other the constituents would face problems having to cross a river to see their Member of Parliament. I thought, “Why can’t the Member of Parliament cross the river to see their constituents?”. When some of us have to travel hundreds of miles to visit different islands, it is not too much to ask a Member of Parliament to cross a river to see a constituent. That is not to deny the sense of belonging in communities that rivers often define. Nor is it to say that the Boundary Commission for England would necessarily recommend a constituency that crosses the rivers named in the amendments, although such constituencies have existed under the present rules—I think Tyne Bridge was mentioned. No constituencies in Newcastle, Gateshead, London or Merseyside sit on two sides of the areas’ respective rivers.
However, the Boundary Commission is independent. The Government’s difficulty is that they cannot say definitely that the Boundary Commission would not make such a proposal, and it would be wrong to do so. Equally, in a number of debates in which noble Lords have sought and pleaded for more flexibility, it would not have been right to pass amendments that would tie the hands of the Boundary Commission. If recommendations were made in the future that resulted in constituencies spanning any of the rivers concerned, anyone who felt that that was undesirable would be able to make representations to the Boundary Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a great point, which I have no doubt we will come back to, about public hearings and tribunals. My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes indicated that people are perfectly able to make written representations to the Boundary Commission if they feel strongly.
Lord Kinnock
I assure the Minister that there is no ambition on this side of the Committee to tie the hands of the Boundary Commission; the opposite is the case. The whole reason why we have spent many hours making the case for flexibility is to seek to ensure that the current power of independent discretion possessed by Boundary Commissions is retained. It is radically diminished by the formula in the Bill that allows for a margin of flexibility of merely 5 per cent. Conscious of that, this side of the Committee has offered an amendment which would allow a variation of more than 5 per cent but provide an absolute prohibition on one of more than 10 per cent. If there was an inclination to accept such an attitude, this side of the Committee and Cross-Benchers would not have to expend any more time and energy on trying to find a way to provide the Boundary Commission with effective discretion relating to the reality of boundaries and communities, because it would be able to exercise it within a realistic margin. I would be very much obliged if the noble Lord recognised the absence of an ambition to tie Boundary Commissions’ hands; indeed, our motivation is the opposite.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the terms of the amendments are quite deliberate, stating that “a Boundary Commission shall”. If we go back to the original principle of parity and one vote, one value, the Government are not saying, “Get what the electoral quota should be and that must be it, with no flexibility whatever”. There is flexibility, and there is a genuine debate as to its degree, but this and earlier amendments use “shall”, which takes away some of that discretion.
If people feel strongly about a proposal when it comes forward, it will be possible for them to make representations to the Boundary Commission. Local ties and geographical considerations are among the factors to which it may have regard if, and to the extent that, it sees fit. As I indicated in response to the previous debate, the Boundary Commission cannot set aside those considerations at a whim when it makes its initial recommendations. Where “shall” does come into effect is in Clause 12. Subsection (1), which allows for a period for making representations that is three times as long as under existing legislation, states that,
“the Commission shall take into consideration any such representations duly made”.
The suggestion made in the debate that such representations can simply be swept aside and not given proper consideration is just not right. It gives the impression that the public will somehow be excluded from the process. In many respects, the public may have more opportunities, and certainly longer opportunities, to make representations; it may just be that the parties will not be represented by Queen’s Counsel when a public hearing takes place.
Lord Wills
The Minister is making a strong case, but does he not accept that representations on the grounds of community are subject to the very inflexible electoral quota and the desire for equalisation of constituencies?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I make two points in response. Yes, there is a quota, but, first, in making recommendations, the Boundary Commission may have regard to local ties. As I indicated yesterday, the Government are minded to look again before Report at the question of wards, which, perhaps more than any other electoral area, best reflect local ties.
Secondly, as I indicated in my opening remarks, there are a number of different communities within one given constituency. Members of Parliaments of all parties seek to represent as best as they can different interests in different communities within their constituencies.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the Minister have a view on whether when taking decisions the commission should have in mind the marginality of constituencies?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If the noble Lord is saying that the Boundary Commission should have regard to the political makeup of a particular constituency, I can tell him that I am aware of no statutory basis for doing that. I would be very surprised if that was a function. Indeed, the way in which political parties presently dress up political considerations in all sorts of different guises when they give evidence to inquiries suggests very strongly that the Boundary Commission would not do that.
Our reservations about the amendment are nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of past and future representation in the areas concerned, but this is not the right place to deal with such specific exceptions. Where the situations described arise, they can be dealt with under the provisions presently in the Bill. If local circumstances argued strongly for a avoiding a cross-river constituency, the Boundary Commission’s detailed consideration of specific elements of the case would produce the most effective result, where local specifics of geography and the importance of community structure in each riverside area would be balanced with the need for electors in all parts of this United Kingdom to have equal-value votes. That is the best way of achieving balance between equality of constituency size and having proper regard for community in design of our future constituencies. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
My Lords, there are times, particularly perhaps in the early hours of the many mornings that we have been here, when this Bill sounds like it is about practical maths and equations. We have seen in the past hour and a half or so that it is about people, relationships and the health of our democracy. These are illustrative amendments, but they show the practical and emotional implications of the Bill. I am grateful for that reason to the many noble Lords who have spoken. They have spoken from the heart, which has been very important in demonstrating why the Bill really matters. The debate has shown also why it is important that people still come to make representations in person to the Boundary Commission, which is so much more powerful than a lot of paper.
I hope that the Government have listened and that we will start to have practical and serious conversations about how we can move forward. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“( ) The Boundary Commission for Scotland may take into account the boundaries of constituencies of the Scottish Parliament.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, we now return to Scotland. We have heard a few mentions of the Clyde—the River Clyde in particular—from my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Bach. Of course, the arguments that we had in relation to the Tyne, the Thames and the Mersey rivers apply equally to the Clyde and to the River Forth. I think it is inconceivable that we would have a constituency in Scotland that would straddle the River Forth. It would create so many problems, and it has never been considered by the Boundary Commission for Scotland. This brings me to my second preliminary point. During the previous debate—and I have no quarrel with it because we were talking about rivers in England—there was constant reference to the Boundary Commission, singular; but, of course, there is more than one Boundary Commission. There are a number of Boundary Commissions; and, of course, my particular concern is the Boundary Commission for Scotland. This amendment would insert in the Bill, on page 10, at the end of line 21, the following sentence:
“The Boundary Commission for Scotland may”—
and I use the same word, “may”, as is used in the Bill for other factors—
“take into account the boundaries of constituencies of the Scottish Parliament”.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be the Minister who will reply to the debate, and I welcome him back to our discussions. As I said on a previous occasion, he is an old friend and he used to be a constituent of mine. We have worked together—not always on the same side—for a long time. He knows Scotland well, and I think that he will understand some of the arguments that I am going to make.
In starting to think about how the Scottish constituencies would be allocated and distributed by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, I came up against a particular problem. It is one of these things that keep coming back to hit one as one sits through more and more of these debates—namely, that in this Bill there are many more problems, difficulties, traps and obstacles than seems to be the case initially when one reads it and thinks about it. The particular obstacle that I came across in thinking about the allocation of constituencies for Scotland is how many constituencies there will be for Scotland in the new arrangement if this Bill is enacted. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will give us some indication of that when he first replies, as it would be useful.
I looked at page 11, line 12 onwards, relating to the allocation method. I have tried very hard to work out from this how many constituencies there will be. If we have 600 for the whole of the United Kingdom, if we have the two preserved constituencies, how many will there be for Scotland? The allocation method—which we will discuss in greater detail later on amendments laid down to change it—is referred to in rule 8(2) as follows:
“The first constituency shall be allocated to the part of the United Kingdom with the greatest electorate”.
I am not sure whether this means that England—because England has the greatest electorate—or the constituencies that have the greatest electorate would be the first to be agreed. If the latter, I assume that if the Isle of Wight remained one constituency it would be the Isle of Wight, and if it does not, it would be Daventry on the present arrangement.
Lord Trimble
If the noble Lord will give way, I think I can help him. Rule 3 at page 9 refers to the four parts of the United Kingdom, which are named there. In that case, “part” in the rule must refer to one of those four parts.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am really grateful to the noble Lord opposite—I never thought that I would be saying that. That is really helpful. That was my initial understanding, that the part of the United Kingdom would be England. Therefore the first constituency is allocated in England. The rule goes on to say:
“The second and subsequent constituencies shall be allocated in the same way, except that the electorate of a part of the United Kingdom to which one or more constituencies have already been allocated is to be divided by … 2C+1 … where C is the number of constituencies already allocated to that part”.
By the way, when they say,
“the part of the United Kingdom”,
I do not understand why they do not say England, because it is so manifestly obvious that England has the greatest electorate, greater than any other part of the UK if we are talking about countries. Nevertheless, I accept that the noble Lord’s interpretation is right. It goes on to say:
“This rule does not apply to the constituencies mentioned in rule 6, and accordingly the electorate of Scotland shall be treated for the purposes of this rule as reduced by the electorate of those constituencies”.
We can understand that. Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles are not included, so it is mainland Scotland. I have tried to work out how many constituencies this would give Scotland, and I have not been able to do so. The Minister has many more resources than I have. He has behind him all the departments—principally the Cabinet Office, as well as the Ministry of Justice. It would certainly help our discussions today and subsequently if we could get some indication of how many that would leave for mainland Scotland if the Bill were enacted as it stands and there were 600 constituencies for the United Kingdom, with the two preserved constituencies.
Then we come to a dilemma. As I said in an earlier debate—I do not blame the present coalition for all of this—in Scotland we have a plethora of constituencies and of voting systems. These include council wards and council areas which have been changed on a number of occasions. We have election by single transferable vote. We have the Scottish Parliament constituencies, the Westminster constituencies and the whole of Scotland—which is one constituency for Europe. We also have the eight European constituencies, which are used for the regional elections to the Scottish Parliament, which makes it particularly difficult. As a result, we have ended up with 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies, elected by first past the post, 70 of them on mainland Scotland; we have the Western Isles as a separate constituency, Orkney as a separate constituency and Shetland as a separate constituency. Therefore, we have 70 mainland constituencies electing Members to the Scottish Parliament by first past the post.
Furthermore, we have 59 Westminster constituencies electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons by first past the post. However, because of the way that the Boundary Commission decisions have been made in the past, of course there is no correlation, there is no contiguity, there is no exact coterminosity between the Scottish Parliament constituencies and the UK Parliament constituencies. There could not be—59 and 70 are different numbers. As I said earlier, it was originally planned that, when the number of UK constituencies was reduced to 59, the number of Scottish Parliament first past the post constituencies would also be reduced to 59 on the same boundaries. However, this was not done by agreement across the parties of the Scottish Parliament and, I think, against the wishes of this Parliament. Nevertheless, the power had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, we end up with constituencies for the Scottish Parliament which are totally different from the constituencies for the UK Parliament. Very often, the overlap is not just that each Member of the UK Parliament has two MSPs to deal with. Sometimes it is three MSPs, sometimes four, because the overlap is so great and the system is so complicated.
When the Boundary Commission for Scotland looks at the new constituencies for the UK Parliament, it should take account of the Scottish constituencies and try to get a greater degree of contiguity. It will not achieve 100 per cent, of course—it cannot—but it might achieve some greater degree of coterminosity. I have thought about whether it would be worth suggesting that each Westminster constituency should consist of two Holyrood constituencies, but in fact the arithmetic does not work out because there will be more Westminster constituencies than half of the 72—there will be more than 36. I do not know what the number will be, but I certainly know that it will be more than 36.
It is still possible for the Boundary Commission to draw up boundaries for the UK Parliament that cover no more than two Scottish Parliament constituencies. To take a random example, there must be a new Rutherglen parliamentary constituency, outside Glasgow, for Westminster. It would include the Rutherglen constituency in the Scottish Parliament and part of just one other constituency. In this case it would be Hamilton. That would make things a lot easier and understandable, and I think that it could be achieved. It is a very simple suggestion. It would be helpful for the public and the Members of Parliament and it would produce a much simpler and more coherent system for the Scottish constituencies. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on behalf of the Government, if he cannot accept the proposal in the form that I have put it, will say that it should be given sympathetic consideration.
Lord Tyler
I wonder whether I might offer a word of advice to the noble Lord. At 1.30 this morning, in one minute flat, I proposed a very simple and very straightforward amendment to the Bill, which was passed by the Committee. Rather than hearing from everybody who has ever had any constituency experience in Scotland—a repetition of the argument that the noble Lord gave us in 12 minutes of fascinating discussion—I wonder whether very simply we could now proceed to some conclusion.
I support in general what he says. I have two points to make. I think that his amendment may be in the wrong place. It should probably have come in under rule 5(1), where it says:
“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit”.
That is a very important qualification, and all four of the Boundary Commissions are advised by that.
In addition, this amendment may be too broad in its present terms. The intention is right and it may well be that my noble friend is prepared to accept it, but if the noble Lord would keep quiet now it would be more likely to be accepted.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I accept the second two parts of the noble Lord’s three-part advice. As for the first part, I think he wants us to believe in fairy stories if he thinks that it was his eloquence that caused the Minister to accept his amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
I rise to support the amendment and, pace the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I have never had anything to do in a representational capacity in a constituency in Scotland, since I am not an ex-Member of another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will I know be very well aware of the crucial role that the Scottish Constitutional Convention played in the preparations for everything to do with the Scottish Parliament, although other noble Lords in this House are possibly much less aware of the convention and its very important role. The convention worked for some 10 years. It began in March 1989 and wound up very happily in a very celebratory meeting in 1999, when it wound itself up before the opening of the Scottish Parliament.
The convention hammered out a blueprint for the Scottish Parliament that was almost wholly incorporated into the White Paper and the Scotland Bill. The convention consisted of the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish Labour Party, as well as nearly all local authorities, trade unions and churches in Scotland—in fact, almost the whole of civil society in Scotland except the Scottish Conservative Party, unfortunately, and the Scottish National Party. I declare an interest here, of which I am very proud. I shared with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, the honour to be one of the final two co-chairs of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. In 1995, the convention launched a document entitled, Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right, in which it laid out its blueprint for how a Scottish Parliament should be set up and should from then on proceed once the legislation passed through the Westminster Parliament.
On the electoral system—and this is where it is very relevant to this amendment—the convention said that there should be a new method of electing Members of the Parliament. It said that the Scottish Parliament should have 129 Members, 73 elected by the first past the post system in the existing Westminster boundary areas and 56 additional Members elected from a larger geographical area through lists prepared by political parties and other organisations. The additional Members would be elected to reflect a degree of proportional representation depending on the votes cast for each list. Those additional 56 Members were to include seven Members for each of the eight European regional constituencies.
I hope that, in paying attention to what that establishes as the system for choosing the Scottish MSPs and allying it to what my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock said about the complexity of the whole system in Scotland, noble Lords will agree that because of this system—which is unique in the United Kingdom—it is crucially important that the Boundary Commission for Scotland may take into account the constituency boundaries of the Scottish Parliament. In a way, it makes the situation quite different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I support the amendment.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I suspect that not for the last time in the debates this evening I take a different point of view from my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. The relevance of that is to do with her comments on the record of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. She says that it is relevant to what we are discussing now because it has been quoted as an example or a way of working or because the information that came from it is relevant. I do not wear quite the same rose-tinted glasses in relation to that organisation. I did not intend to speak, but as usual I failed to resist my annoyance—no, that is too strong a word and I would not say it, or not in your Lordships' House—or my reaction to the jibe from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the time that noble Lords are taking to revise and review the legislation. I hope that nobody on any side of the House is intimidated by these continual jibes. We are here to revise and, I hope, to improve the legislation.
I bring myself to the relevance of the Scottish convention’s record, to which my noble friend referred. Once again we had a situation where the great and the good got together and where everybody was all caught up in an atmosphere of being nice to each other and trying to work together for Scotland. I do not criticise that, as it was with the best of intentions, but in doing so they allowed the Liberals to sucker them because the Liberals gained more out of that system than anybody else. They gained an infamous list system—infamous is the right word—of electing MSPs in Scotland. It is not even just about electing them. These list MSPs, especially the Liberals, wander all over the Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, plucking the cases that suit them for political purposes and ignoring the rest. Also, instead of concentrating on the regions which they supposedly represent, lo and behold, guess where they seem to spend most of their time? Again, this is especially the Liberals. It is in the constituency where they stood as a first past the post candidate. We should not let anyone get carried away, in my opinion, by the eloquent words of my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale because it is just not right.
I also tell my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock that I am still not quite sure about the primacy that his amendment would seek to give the Boundary Commission—advice or guidance on taking more account—because the Westminster constituencies are the true measures of how the commission should go about its work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, made a relevant point. There are indeed many communities, or more communities than one, in a Westminster constituency. The one that I know best, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, has about five or six with the three core ones being, as I have said before, Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway. I have to tell my noble friend that I am not convinced that the Scottish parliamentary constituencies are the real thing to take account of here. I remain to be convinced. I may come back in again once I hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, with the benefit of his experience, and my own Front Bench but at this stage I certainly reserve my position regarding my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this amendment, put down by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, proposes that:
“The Boundary Commission for Scotland may take into account the boundaries of constituencies of the Scottish Parliament”.
Three specific points emerge from this amendment. First, it is worth while to look at the experience of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in dealing with the drawing of the boundaries for the Scottish Parliament. The experience of those involved in public inquiries was that the rules were “too rigid”. The rules, although much more rigid than previously, are less rigid than the current rules.
Sheriff Principal Kerr, who conducted a public inquiry into the West of Scotland constituencies, said that the Act,
“introduced a rigidity which had not previously existed”,
and, in the foreword to his report, said:
“Too little attention has been paid in my view to local authority boundaries, to geographical considerations, to inconveniences resulting from proposed constituency changes and to the sundering of local ties; and too much emphasis has been laid on the requirement (although qualified by the other rules)”—
which is not the position here—
“of Rule 2 that numerical proximity to the electoral quota be achieved. This consequence”,
the Sheriff Principal said,
“came out very clearly in the present inquiry and it is I think necessary to remedy it so far as reasonable, at least for the West of Scotland, in order to avoid the continuance of a sense of grievance which appears to be widely or even universally felt in some quarters”.
Point number one: the effect of too rigid rules is, in the view of Sheriff Principal Kerr, to create a sense of grievance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
There are 70 in relation to the Scottish Parliament, so while they cannot be coterminous it must be sensible, as far as possible, not to try rigidly to make them coterminous but to have regard to them. I hope that the prescient words of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who said, “Shut up and listen and you might make some progress”, might mean that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will say that he will accept this amendment, because it seems sensible to me. Then we will regret not having followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because it may be that talking too much has cost us the warm opinion and the change of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, that was interesting and, by the standards of this Committee, a relatively short debate, so I will try to be as accommodating to the noble and learned Lord as the Government were to my noble friend Lord Tyler. I thought that the point which my noble friend was making, which was very sensible, was that we did not necessarily need to listen to everybody who had once represented a Scottish constituency to get the point being put forward—although it was useful to hear from other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was right. He was indeed the MP for my part of the world for some years. We worked together but it was, on the whole, on opposite sides. He was rather more successful at it than I was, unfortunately.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked a specific question about how the formula will work and how many seats there will be in each nation. It obviously depends on the estimates that will take place in each nation but if the calculation were to be run on the basis of the register as of 1 December 2009, Scotland would have 52 MPs, England would have 503, Wales would have 30, and Northern Ireland 15. However, I want to emphasise that these allocations may change, depending on the electorates in each nation. That is clearly understood.
What the noble Lord is after here is to add a fifth factor into the existing four in the Bill that the Boundary Commission may take into account. The Boundary Commission has indicated already that it takes into account issues which are brought to its attention as part of the public consultation process, if it believes them to be significant—that is the key. For example, the Boundary Commission for England said in its fifth general review, published in 2007, that, where practicable, it took into account district boundaries. The report noted:
“The Commission have previously recommended constituencies which recognise both metropolitan and non-metropolitan district boundaries, where it is practicable to do so, but often it is necessary to cross district boundaries in order to avoid excessive disparities. It is expected that this will be the situation during this general review but, of course, each review area will be treated on its merits”.
That was the Boundary Commission for England in 2007.
What this means, if I may translate, is that anyone could make a representation to the Scottish Boundary Commission arguing that an element of Scottish parliamentary constituency boundaries constituted a significant factor to take into account when settling Westminster constituency boundaries. There would be nothing to prevent the Scottish Boundary Commission taking that into account. In this sense—I am trying to be helpful to the noble Lord—the intention that underlies his amendment would be achieved by the way in which the Boundary Commission has always worked, without the need to amend the Bill. The significant change which the Bill makes, as the Committee now knows, is the requirement to prioritise the “5 per cent above or below electoral parity” rule over other factors. There is nothing in the Bill that we think would cause the Boundary Commission to change the way in which it considers any factors brought to its attention in representations from local authorities or members of the public, including precisely the kind of things raised in the noble Lord’s amendment.
I expect that I have disappointed the noble Lord in not accepting his amendment, but I hope that I have said enough for him to feel satisfied that it would not make very much difference if we did not accept it. I hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, that was a very full reply. I am learning that, if I speak briefly, listen to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and do not listen to my noble friend Lord McAvoy, I make progress. In light of that, I will not say any more, but, if I bring the amendment back again, I will bring it back in the form suggested most helpfully by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his contribution.
Lord McAvoy
Is this more intimidation? Will my noble friend take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to act as his diary secretary?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to my noble friend, but on the basis of previous advice, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Whole numbers of constituencies(1) The following shall be allocated whole numbers of constituencies by whichever Boundary Commission is responsible for them—
(a) Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands council areas;(b) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar council area;(c) Argyll and Bute council area;(d) the Isle of Anglesey county area;(e) the Isle of Wight county area; (f) the County of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly council areas;(g) the Highland council area.(2) The number of seats to be allocated to each area shall be determined by dividing the electorate of the area or areas concerned by the United Kingdom electoral quota and rounding to the nearest whole number, and each area must be allocated at least one whole seat.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise for arriving late. The Government have consistently argued that the core principle underpinning their proposed new rule for drawing parliamentary constituencies is equality. The Bill is designed within a very narrow tolerance to create equal-sized seats. We agree with the principle of creating more equally sized seats but, as we have consistently pointed out, the Bill sets about that objective in a way that we regard as in many respects clumsy and unfair. As we have heard—and, I think, we will continue to hear—the Bill’s aim to equalise seats will be done on the basis of an unequal electoral register and in a way that will override all other factors, such as geography, community and history, that ought to be taken into consideration when designing patterns of representation.
A curiosity about the Bill, however, is that, while the principle of numerical equalisation is deemed to be the trump card in almost all cases, there are some circumstances where the iron law of uniform statistics has been disregarded. For example, a new rule on the maximum territorial extent of a constituency has been set out in the Bill, accompanied by a clause to free at least one Scottish highland seat from the requirement to adhere to the electoral quota.
Alongside that, in the proposed new rule 6 in Clause 11, is a further exemption from the electoral quota. Two Scottish island seats, Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, are to be preserved in perpetuity. Despite having substantially fewer electors than the proposed new quota of 75,800—in the case of Orkney and Shetland, the electorate is around 37,000 and in the Western Isles just 21,000—these constituencies are deemed to warrant a special status in the Bill.
Some of your Lordships and Members of the other place have taken the view that this carve-out is unacceptable. We have already heard the view of Mr Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who is often described as the brains behind the boundary review policy. He did not favour any exemptions when he produced his pamphlet on redrawing constituencies in 2004. In Pruning the Politicians, he wrote that,
“‘special geographical considerations’ ... should be abolished … The principle of equal representation is too important to be compromised by get-outs”.
I disagree with Mr Tyrie. I agree that we should create more equally sized seats, but we should do so in a way that continues to allow factors other than pure statistics to influence the shape of constituencies. There are occasions when the goal of equal numbers ought to be compromised in order to take into account other considerations such as geography, history and community. The two Scottish island seats that are specific exceptions in the rules are a case in point; I accept them as sensible exceptions. The question for this House is whether they should be the only case.
The Government do not think so. They have also made special allowances in the Bill for the Scottish highlands to escape the principle of equal numbers through the size exceptions. Your Lordships’ House does not think so either, as it demonstrated last week in the vote on the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, regarding the Isle of Wight. In addition, the Government have exempted the whole of Northern Ireland from the principle of equal representation. Rule 7(b) explicitly states that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland may disapply the electoral quota rule if it considers that the rule would “unreasonably impair” its ability to take into account factors including geographical concerns, local ties and so on, listed in rule 5(1) of the new proposals.
That said, Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles are the only specific constituencies named in the Bill, as it originally came to this House, as having a preservation order. Mr Mark Harper, the Minister for Constitutional Affairs in the other place, said that they have been afforded that special status because they have “unique geography”. That seems to be a difficult and unsatisfactory basis for their inclusion in the Bill and for others’ exclusion. Many constituencies would argue that they, too, had “unique geography”.
Mr Harper was presumably referring to the fact that these constituencies are island seats. As such, they are separated from the mainland by the sea and have natural borders that arguably help to create and, over time, reinforce a particular sense of community. That certainly makes them unusual—I repeat that I accept their entitlement to special status—but it does not make them unique. For example, they are not the only island seats in the United Kingdom. What about Argyll and Bute? That constituency is comprised of 13 islands. What about Anglesey? It is not in exactly the same position as Orkney and Shetland or the Western Isles, but then Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles are not in exactly the same position as each other. They are all islands; they are island communities; they have very obvious natural borders, which give rise to issues of accessibility; and they have powerful local ties and traditions. While the two Scottish island seats are to be preserved by this Bill, however, apart from the change made by your Lordships’ House, the other islands are not.
This House has rightly judged that the way in which the Bill would have split the Isle of Wight was not suitable. Tagging 40,000 Isle of Wight voters on to a part of Hampshire would have had a significant ripple effect throughout that county, as constituency boundaries were forced to be redrawn all over the place as a consequence of the influx of new voters. If a special case can be made for the two Scottish island seats, it can also be made for several other hard cases.
Lord Liddle
“( ) the county of Cumbria”
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I have never before moved an amendment to an amendment in any other democratic body that I have been in. It is quite against Citrine’s rules of procedure, from what I remember from my political education in the Labour Party. None the less, I hope that the House will recognise that this is a natural amendment to an amendment, which the House can agree to. The only reason why Cumbria was not in the original draft of the amendment that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer submitted is that I failed to get to him in time. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept this as evidence of the chaos and lack of co-ordination on this side of the House, rather than the planned filibustering that they claim is going on.
This is a serious amendment and there are serious local concerns. Why do I think that Cumbria qualifies for special treatment? I give several reasons. First, it is a very remote part of England. I am pretty sure of my facts but I might have got them slightly wrong. In the north-west region, Cumbria accounts for half the geographical area but something like only 6 per cent of the population. It is a geographically large and scattered area. It is also a naturally bounded area in its geography. To the north is the Scottish border. I am glad that at least the Bill allows for Cumbrians not to have to take any Scots into their electoral areas. That is a boundary that, under this Bill, cannot be crossed. It is a natural boundary as well as a national boundary, with the magnificent Solway Firth and the forests of the Borders dividing the two nations. To the east of the county lie the Pennines—again, a natural barrier that divides the communities of the east from those of the west. To the south is Morecambe Bay, which divides the south of Cumbria from Lancashire. There is a natural boundary to this county.
There is also a very strong sense of community in Cumbria. I am not saying that it is a community spirit that embraces the whole county in exactly the same way, but there is a community spirit in the many different parts of the county. It is a county that is divided naturally, not just by the geographical features that surround it, but by the Lake District mountains, which lie in the middle of it.
Cumbria is also divided by the economics that founded its communities. I was born in Carlisle; there is a very good story about why Carlisle became such an important railway town. One of the reasons was that it was physically impossible for a fireman on a steam train to manage to fire the train over the Beattock summit into Scotland from Carlisle and over the Shap summit south of Carlisle. It was a physically impossible task for a single chap, so all the crews changed at Carlisle. That demonstrates the natural boundaries of the area.
Then there is west Cumbria, which is a distinct old industrial community and is now the home of Britain’s nuclear industry. West Cumbria’s prosperity was made on iron and coal, exported through the ports of Whitehaven, Workington and Maryport. That is a distinct community. In the south, there is Barrow-in-Furness, where there was a marsh in the mid-19th century. It became one of the most successful steel-making, iron-making and shipbuilding towns in Britain and has played a key role in the history of the Royal Navy since that time. It is an isolated and distinct community.
I have talked about the industrial communities of Cumbria, but the rural communities are also distinct, because the Lake District divides the county into different rural communities—east, north, south and west of the Lake District hills. There are also distinct rural areas, such as the Solway plain and the Eden valley. This is an area that an expert in geography, demography, geology, economic history and all the rest would think was distinct. It is distinct geographically to the extent that it is difficult to see how you could hive off bits into other parts of England without creating the most unnatural parliamentary constituencies.
That is a case for adding Cumbria to the list in Amendment 79A and I hope that the House will accept it. It goes along with the argument that I have made at other times. For the sake of completeness, not because I want to bore the Committee unduly, I wish to say that the Boundary Commission has, on successive occasions, recognised the distinctness of the county. The commission decided in its previous two reviews that, despite the fact that the application of the quota did not strictly justify Cumbria’s six parliamentary seats, when community considerations were taken into account—before the issue was put to a local inquiry—the six seats should be retained.
This makes a very strong case for adding Cumbria to the list of places where there should be special exemption. Ideally, this is not the way in which I would like this matter to go. I would prefer that we did not have a rigid cap on the number of Members of Parliament and that we had a Boundary Commission that was able to exercise proper discretion, as it saw fit, to deal with these kinds of circumstances. However, the Government have so far refused to show any flexibility on the cap on the number of MPs and on the rigid corset within which the Boundary Commission will have to do its work. As long as the Government are rigid about this issue, those of us who care about community considerations and parliamentary representation have no alternative but to move these amendments. That is what I now do. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I speak for the first time on this Bill—on Committee day 13. I have obviously been remiss on the previous 12 days, but it is a pleasure for me to speak on an issue that is fundamental and important. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I agree with the two principles of the Bill. The first is that, on the whole, constituencies should be of roughly equal size, whereby at least we have a starting point for equality of value of votes. I also agree that the people of this country should be given the opportunity to choose the electoral system by which they elect Members of Parliament.
However, no system is perfect—particularly in politics. There will always be exceptions to the way things work. That is because, in politics and communities, things are not even or homogenous. History and many other things shape society, which means that sometimes there should be different solutions for different situations and areas. I am not, on the whole, a traditionalist, but it is important that this Parliament and the Bill recognise that there is a history in particular communities, cultures and geographical parts of our islands that should be recognised within the way that democracy functions. That is why I have put my name to the amendment, because it is essential in terms of people and communities believing in the democracy in which they participate and allowing them more to participate in it.
However, one of the big problems when drawing up a list is deciding whether there should be any special cases and which they should be. We know that we could all make that list as long as the list of 600 constituencies which are supposed to be created when the Bill is passed. If we are to be realistic, there must be a limited list. It may be difficult to get to that. I have not spoken in Committee on the Bill before, but I have sat in on a number of debates. A number of areas that are listed in the amendment have been mentioned on many occasions, because they deserve to be treated in a different way. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the Bill and the Government have already recognised that some exceptions should be made to the principle of equal constituency size on the grounds of geography—for example, Orkney and Shetland. I welcome that deviation from the model. Last week, this House considered the Isle of Wight, which is listed in this amendment, and accepted that it should be treated separately. It is instructive to see that, particularly in the case of the Isle of Wight, the issue is not one of trying to get as much parliamentary representation as possible, but of the wholeness of that island and other areas. It is not a grab for more seats, but a desire to have wholeness and a natural community within a parliamentary constituency.
I will not extol the virtues of all the regions and areas that are listed in the amendment. I am sure that other noble Lords are far more expert on those regions than I am. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not use the official Gaelic name of the Western Isles; I look forward to another noble Lord doing that later. Ynys Môn—Anglesey—in Wales, the Highland council area, Orkney and Shetland, and Argyll and Bute were mentioned a number of times earlier. I will concentrate on the south-west of the United Kingdom, on the county—indeed, the Duchy—of Cornwall. I will also refer to the separate unitary council of the Isles of Scilly. Although I could be tempted to add the Isles of Scilly to the list—I was privileged to represent it in the European Parliament—it has only 2,000 electors, so I might be pushing my luck too far. Cornwall naturally comes together with the Isles of Scilly, although they have separate councils. That is why they are together here.
Something that I remember from the 1970s, when I listened to the news and was interested in politics— I think I was even a member of the Labour Party for a year in 1973, but I will leave my revelations at that—was a very important report on the constitution produced by the Kilbrandon royal commission. I am sure that many noble Lords remember the name and have referred to the report. The report states that what the people of Cornwall,
“want is a recognition of the fact that Cornwall has a separate identity and that its traditional boundaries shall be respected ... Just as the people of Scotland and Wales tend to resent the description of their countries as regions of the United Kingdom”—
I am sure that noble Lords would agree with that—
“so the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county”.
The report recommends that the designation “Duchy of Cornwall” be used on all appropriate occasions to emphasise the,
“special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall”.
Cornwall sees itself as the fourth Celtic nation of the United Kingdom. It has a strong and separate historical tradition. It has a definite boundary: the River Tamar. It does not in any way deny that the rest of the United Kingdom, or England, exists beyond that river, but it is very proud of its separate identity, its history and its community. I have been privileged to be a resident of Cornwall and to represent it in Brussels. Until recently it was a region, Celtic nation, county, Duchy—however one wants to look at it—that looked backwards in many ways. However, over the past decade it has become resurgent. It looks forward, it is successful and it enjoys being a progressive contributor to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why there has been such resistance in Cornwall to the risk of a constituency crossing the Tamar between it and Devon.
We should make no mistake: this is not antagonistic towards Devon. Both are great areas. However, the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall form a special area. It is a Celtic nation with its own language and an exciting future. It wants to live as an important contributing part of the United Kingdom, but it wants to retain its identity. One of the main ways in which it should be allowed to do this is through its voting, its democracy, and the way that it is represented in Westminster. The amendment is important because I am sure that other listed regions feel exactly the same way. The list is limited and does not undermine in any way the general principles of the Bill, which I would not want to see undermined. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to consider this amendment and those regions favourably in his reply.
Lord Crickhowell
I have not been entirely helpful to the Government on the Bill until this point. I am a member of the Constitution Committee, whose rather critical report has been perhaps too often repeated during these debates. I supported the amendment moved from the opposition Front Bench increasing from 5 per cent to 10 per cent the variation of constituencies. I still strongly feel that that would be a sensible amendment for a variety of reasons on which I shall not elaborate today, and I shall continue to press my colleagues to consider that amendment very carefully. I also supported my noble friend Lord Fowler in his vote on the Isle of Wight.
However, turning to the case of the island of Anglesey, I support the Government’s position. I start with the numbers. They are relevant in the light of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about his general belief in the equalisation of constituencies. The honourable Member for Ynys Môn, Mr Owen, was elected with 11,490 votes on a turnout of 34,444 and an electorate of 42,998. The constituency of Arfon, across the Menai Straits, is the smallest mainland constituency in the United Kingdom measured by electorate. It is larger only than the two Scottish island constituencies. The honourable Member for Arfon, Mr Williams, was elected with 9,383 votes on a turnout of 26,078 out of an electorate of 42,998. If we are talking about equalisation of constituencies, there is obviously something a little wrong there. Across the Menai Straits, in the Arfon constituency, are the towns of Bangor and Caernarfon, Bangor with a population of just under 14,000 if you do not include the resident university members and Caernarfon, again with about 14,000 voters and with natural links with Dwyfor Meirionnydd, which has an electorate of 48,823. Those are the numbers.
The comparison with the Isle of Wight is slightly absurd. The Isle of Wight is separated from the mainland by sea. The Menai Straits are rather narrower than the Cleddau, which used to separate the two halves of my former constituency of Pembroke. When I became the Member of Parliament, there was no bridge across the Cleddau. You could either drive a long way round by road or you crossed by ferry. Indeed, on the very last day of my first election campaign, when I had to cross from an election meeting in Pembroke Dock to Milford Haven in the launch, my seven month-old pregnant wife and I were seen drifting fast out to sea on the ebb-tide in growing darkness when the engine failed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not think that the noble Lord's wife could have been seven months old at the time.
Lord Crickhowell
However, those who had organised it had foreseen that possibility and, luckily, there was someone watching with binoculars and we were brought ashore. In the case of Ynys Môn and the mainland, there is a short suspension bridge that you can walk across in a couple of minutes which, incidentally, bears an inscription that tells us that the grandfather of the present Chairman of Committees removed the tolls when he was Secretary of State for Transport. The other bridge, the great Brunel railway bridge, which was severely damaged by fire and, when it was reconstructed, had a road built on top of it, is again a perfectly comfortable walk across. I walked across it during its reopening ceremony.
The truth is that a great many people in Anglesey do their shopping not on the island but in Bangor. If they are going to hospital, they certainly go to Bangor, because that is where the district hospital is. When I used to travel up frequently as a director of Anglesey Mining, I usually got off the train at Bangor rather than Llangefni. The university obviously provides a hub of activity in Bangor, and great services are held in Bangor Cathedral. When my dear friend Kyffin Williams, the great Welsh artist, died, his service of commemoration was in the cathedral at Bangor, not on the island.
People say, “Ah, but history”. If you go back into the depths of history, the links between the mainland and the island had been very close. When Edward I launched his first assault on Llewelyn the Great, Llewelyn-ap-Gruffydd, the Prince of Wales, he sent the ships of the Cinque Ports to capture Anglesey. Immediately, they destroyed the grain harvest and Llewelyn capitulated. Since then, Anglesey has not been the granary of Gwynedd, but it has been the place to which the farmers of Snowdonia sent their sheep to fatten. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy will recall, after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, it became a central part of the agricultural activity of the area that lambs had to be sent down to the island for fattening. Indeed, I believe that some of them still are.
The links between both sides are extremely close. The natural constituency is therefore Anglesey linked to Bangor. Dividing the Arfon constituency so that Caernarfon is linked with the neighbouring constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd fulfils pretty closely the general objectives of the Government, and I cannot see that in the case of Anglesey a strong case can be made out for special treatment. Therefore, on this occasion—I think for the first time during my activities on the Bill—I find myself supporting the Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what was said yesterday, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, about the procedure being adopted in this House, and I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I think he is being slightly modest about the strength of views expressed by the Constitution Committee on the content and processes envisaged for the boundary review in this legislation. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I think she advocated that an all-party committee ought to look at the constitutional implications of what is happening in this House. That has already been done by an all-party committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was a very distinguished member. I have been in your Lordships' House only since 1994. With one exception, which I will refer to, I have never seen more damning condemnation of government legislation than your Lordships' Constitution Committee’s condemnation of this Bill and the Public Bodies Bill.
To those who are going to get irritated by me if I speak about Lancashire or Cornwall, or by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, speaking about Ynys Môn—and I do not think he would have been speaking for my late friend Lord Cledwyn about Ynys Môn—I say that the irritation should be directed at those who brought forward legislation that seeks to do something that we all agree should be done—to establish much more numerically equal representation—but does it the wrong way, against all the practice of your Lordships' House and of Governments since 1832. I am assured by those who look back at 1832 that the then Government got that legislation through only by packing the House with new Members, a thing that could never happen these days.
I speak to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and support him on his point about Cornwall. At a very early age, I was taught about the importance of Cornwall by my grandfather who lived in Wales. He taught me about the importance of Wales, but his grandfather was a tin miner who had left Cornwall to work in Wales. I support everything that the noble Lord says about identity and the sense of belonging. I am saddened that he does not feel able to extend that sense of identity to other parts of the country. I say to him that every time a noble Lord in this House talks about, and is supported on, the principle of local community mattering—and I support local communities mattering, for example, in Northern Ireland—and every time an exception is made, it leads to a bigger question about why this Government have, for the first time since 1832, decided in advance what the number of constituencies will be at the end. That is what is so wrong.
If an exception is made for Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight or Cornwall, it has numerical implications. If you have determined in advance the final number of constituencies, it is bound to come back and affect the rest of the country. That is my concern.
Where exceptions can be made—for example, for Cumbria, or, if your Lordships wish, for Ynys Mon, and, as your Lordships have determined, for the Isle of Wight—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Government will be honest enough to say that that will have implications for where we end up, otherwise the rest of the country could be penalised.
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, thinks that this is amusing. It may be amusing in his part of the world, but I can assure him that memories die hard in the north-west of England. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours will tell him that people still resent being taken out of Lancashire in the last boundary review, and that is a long time ago.
I do not want to have to do this in the House tonight. I want to know that the people of Lancashire, Cornwall, Wales and Scotland can make their own case through a tried and tested procedure. The Government are wrong to smash that procedure.
I said earlier that there had been damning reports of two major government Bills. I was on duty as the government Whip when it was deemed in No. 10 that the Lord Chancellor could go forthwith, but the Government of the day had to accept that they did not have the power to do that. I do not know whether the Government have the power to do what they suggest in this legislation but, even if they have that power, they ought not to exercise it by trampling on tradition. I can understand that the Liberal Democrats may wish to interfere with tradition, but the Conservatives?
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I listened with concern to what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her speech. I think I made it clear yesterday that many Cross-Benchers—and I can speak only for the Cross-Benchers—are deeply concerned about the Bill and feel strongly that many elements in it undoubtedly could and should be improved. The point I was trying to make was that the conventions of the House suggest that these concerns should be brought to a head by means of an amendment, which is then called and divided on. Many Cross-Benchers would undoubtedly support such an amendment. The concern for a long time has been that no amendments have been brought forward and that the talk has gone on for far longer than is necessary to convince the Cross-Benchers that an amendment should be supported.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, when I came into this House I was told that it was not a tradition to divide the House too often in Committee and the general view was that we should concentrate our efforts for divisions on Report. I hope that noble Lords on the Cross Benches who have told us privately that they feel sensitive about areas of the Bill will join us in the Lobbies when amendments are moved in the next few weeks or months.
I wish to speak to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Liddle as an amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
I would dearly love six parliamentary constituencies in the county of Cumbria but I recognise that there are problems. I want to go into this in some detail because, although we have each personalised areas in the debate, there are principles involved when dealing with boundaries in Cumbria that apply more widely.
Over the years, Cumbria has made a great contribution to British politics. We have provided a large number of Secretaries of State—Edward Short, now the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara; the noble Lords, Lord Cunningham, Lord Jopling and Lord Hutton; Lord Peart, my predecessor; and Lord Whitelaw—all of whom have been members of the Cabinet. We have provided many junior Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Inglewood, Lord Brett, Lord Judd, Lord Dubs and Lord Cavendish, who intervened in the debate today, and a number of other Peers have strong connections with the county.
My noble friend Lord Liddle took us on a quiet canter around the county and explained the interesting characteristics of many of the communities which it comprises. He stressed the very strong local loyalties and community identities that are often incomprehensible to people coming from outside the county. Noble Lords should remember that we are talking primarily about the Lake District and the communities that surround it. These are historic places with a long history of community involvement and identity.
I talk this evening about what I can describe only as a sensitive issue because I was MP for Workington for 21 years. I often say to people who write to me or even stop me in the street when I am in the constituency that I have had my time and I try not to interfere, as do many of us former MPs. We do not interfere in our former constituencies. Therefore, it is with great sensitivity that I venture into the numbers. We are now in the numbers game because this Bill is about numbers not communities. I will take the county as a whole and explain the problem and the possible solution, and how the Bill may well offend lots of people within the county.
At the moment, there are six parliamentary constituencies. Broadly, without going into the actual detail, Barrow has 68,000 electors, Carlisle 65,000, Copeland 63,000, Penrith and the Border 64,000, Westmorland and Lonsdale 67,000, and Workington 59,000, within a few hundred. That makes a total of approximately 390,000 electors across six constituencies in the county. That is an average of approximately 65,000 per seat.
Those who know the detail in the Bill will know exactly where I am going. It means that every seat in the county falls under the requirement in the Bill for 76,000. The actual figure is 64,972 people per constituency. Subject to the 5 per cent leeway or 76,000, we are 14 per cent under the 76,000 target in every seat, so unless there are major changes in the way in which this legislation is implemented, there will be major changes within the county of Cumbria. We will lose a seat.
How do we proceed? On the basis of the 76,000, we can cross boundaries and to some extent destroy the identity that Cumbria has tried to build up over the past decades of being a county with our various district authorities and MPs who do not cross the boundary. That is one way of proceeding. We can cross county boundaries and compromise that principle, or we can settle on five seats, which I will come back to later.
On the basis of the 76,000 target, if we crossed county boundaries and kept strictly to the target, a part of the county—that is to say, 11,000 votes—would have to go into a neighbouring county, which in itself may create difficulties. On the basis of 72,000, which is the 5 per cent leeway deducted from the 76,000 target, crossing county boundaries would mean that 35,000 voters in Cumbria would have to go into another county, which brings us to the amendment that was moved last night when I referred to the problems that might arise in Kendal or possibly in Penrith.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
I hope I may be able to say something as a native of the isle of Anglesey, which features in this amendment. The view from my home, which is of Snowdonia across the straits, is permanently engraved in my mind. Belonging, as I do by birth, to the southern part of the island, it is quite natural that I should look, as do others living in that part of the island, towards the Snowdonia end and the mainland. Of course, bridges have been built. We have virtually three: the Telford Bridge, since 1825; the Stevenson railway bridge; and now a road deck over that railway bridge.
Not only was I born in Anglesey, so I know something about the place, but I represented Conwy for 27 years in the other place. Conwy, in my day, included the city of Bangor, which, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, is the shopping centre for Anglesey and contains a lot of people who had come from Anglesey, as I found among my constituents. It really looked as though Telford’s bridge of 1825 had proved to be a floodgate for people from Anglesey to come over to the mainland site. Anglesey is small, with a total electorate of some 42,000. If we are to equalise and abide by that principle, the Ynys Môn electorate could be amplified to include the Bangor area. Indeed, this has been anticipated by the inquiry conducted by the Welsh select committee of the other place. It quoted in evidence Lewis Baston of Democratic Audit, who suggested this very combination, which would result in a constituency of some 73,400 people and meet the criteria required by the Government.
Of course, there might be some objections from the Holyhead end of the island, which has tended to dominate the island politically ever since the days of the much loved late Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. On the whole, if we are going to move towards equalising electorates and constituencies, this would not be an impossible move. Indeed, it might very well be welcomed. It would give additional strength—the combination of Bangor on the mainland and Anglesey—to whoever represents that constituency. I simply plant that thought, which means, of course, that I am against this amendment.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I support Amendment 79A, specifically from the perspective of its reference to the county of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. I will speak briefly now because in a later group of amendments, when the House will be considering amendments proposed by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we will be looking at amendments specifically focused on Cornwall.
I do not come as well prepared for this as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I do not have a list of the size of the constituencies, nor can I immediately recollect great Secretaries of State who have represented Cornish constituencies in the other place. From the past 30 years, I can think of only one: John Nott, who represented St Ives and the Isles of Scilly. From recollection, I think that we had one junior Minister who represented a Cornish constituency, but I remember the local press observing that his most frequent contact with the constituency was when he flew over it in Concorde rather than from his attention to the needs of his constituents. The honourable Member of the other House now sits in this House as a noble Lord, so I will leave it to him to say whether that description fits his own recollections of his service.
One reason why Cornwall has had very few Ministers is because of the nature of the area and its geographical distance from London. At an earlier point in the Committee’s proceedings, I listened with great interest to the persuasive arguments about the Scottish constituencies and I thought to myself that many of those arguments also apply to Cornwall. Cornwall is geographically distant from London; our constituencies are wide and diverse. The challenge of representing them is very significant. That would tend to support the argument that ours should be smaller constituencies than those that are derived from a formulaic proposal as put forward by the Government in this Bill.
I developed my political knowledge and interest in Cornwall. I remember as a teenager following the general election campaign of the Labour candidate, Ron Blindell, who was the chairman of Plymouth Argyle Football Club. He had a Rolls-Royce—we very rarely saw Rolls-Royces in Cornwall—and he went from village to village speaking. It would be advertised in the West Briton that Mr Blindell would speak at 7.45 pm at St Agnes, at 8 pm at Perranporth and at 8.15 pm at St Merryn, and the same people who listened to him at 7.45 would then jump in their cars—or, in the case of Labour supporters, on to our bikes and pedal madly—to get to the next constituency in order to carry on our engagement with the candidate, either in support or in opposition to whatever he said.
We also had some great MPs in Cornwall. I think of one in particular from the Liberal Party—Mr David Penhaligon, with whom I went to school and who represented Truro. David was taken from us in a tragic accident while visiting the postal workers immediately before Christmas in the very early hours of the morning in an accident on a very icy road. David was a fine representative of the people of Truro and St Austell and would have been a figure of considerable national significance if he had not been taken from us in that cruel and tragic way.
There are currently no Labour Members of Parliament in the six constituencies for Cornwall. However, three of the seats are held by Liberal Democrats. I would like to believe that they are of the progressive wing of that party, who understand the needs of those who are most vulnerable in the community and speak up from time to time in the other place in support of the arguments that my colleagues there bring forward when pointing out the tragic consequences of the economic policies that the Government are currently pursuing. We have of course seen those policies reflected today in negative GDP growth figures, which do not come as a complete surprise to me.
As I said, Cornwall is geographically isolated. The constituencies are dispersed. Cornwall also has a distinct culture. We have heard this referred to in respect of other constituencies as well. Cornwall has its own language, which is growing in its usage. More people are showing an interest in understanding the history, culture and pastimes of the Cornish people. Indeed, we have a nationalist movement, which stood in all the constituencies in the last general election.
Cornwall also suffers from acute economic pressure. Our core industries of the past—tin mining, the kaolin, or china clay, industry, and fishing—are all under enormous pressure. Tourism has had to readjust its offering, which it has done extremely well, but the industry of the past has now had to target a completely new segment of visitors. This is an economy some distance from London that is suffering from an acute set of issues similar to that of a microclimate.
I am disappointed that, in the other House, the six Members of Parliament for Cornwall played very little part in the debate on this Bill. They did not speak passionately in favour of keeping Cornwall’s current representation. This was in part because the governing party guillotined procedures in the other place. No doubt, if those Members had had the opportunity, they would have spoken, but it falls to us in this House to speak up when the process followed in the other place does not allow good and clear expression of the deep-rooted anxieties that are being created in communities such as Cornwall by this legislation.
I also believe that one of the reasons that so few of the Members representing Cornish constituencies in the other place played an active part in the debate on the Bill is because most of them are new to the House. They are new to understanding the challenges of representing a constituency. I suggest—without the benefit of having sat and represented a constituency in the other House, unlike many Members such as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who spoke before me—that it is difficult for somebody contesting a constituency and then winning a seat to have a clear grasp of how much work is involved in representing constituents. One reason why Cornwall’s MPs were not more evident in the debate in the other place is that they are still coming to terms with the difficulties of doing so, particularly given the geographical distance.
Lord Teverson
It is important to say that all six MPs are of the same opinion on the issue, although there was certainly some limitation on what they could say in the other place. The point about the political movement within Cornwall is that it has been across all political parties, from Mebyon Kernow to Labour, to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—and even the Stannary Parliament, which would usurp your Lordships’ own role if it had the chance.
Lord Myners
I welcome that intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which correctly informs our debate on this amendment. A general sense is being allowed to develop in Cornwall that the equalisation of the size of constituencies is not a matter of great consequence because they might be adjusted later through the work of the Boundary Commission. That is a misunderstanding of the fact that this is the point at which we have to make our stand, to ensure that the constituencies of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly remain whole.
At a later stage in Committee, I shall argue the case for Cornwall retaining its current six constituencies. For the time being, I think that it is important that we recognise that the culture and history of Cornwall, which has not had a parliamentary constituency cross the River Tamar into the county of Devon for 700 years, should be respected. The people of Cornwall however close they might live to Devon—be it in a small hamlet, a farm or a village abutting Devon—nevertheless look to Truro for leadership and regard themselves as Cornish. Parliament would be ill advised to disregard the strength of such feelings by adopting an approach that is entirely arithmetic, with regard neither for local culture, history and sensitivities nor for people who proudly believe that they are part of a geographical inheritance and who wish to be listened to.
I urge noble Lords to support these amendments. Later on, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friend Lord Berkeley and I will speak again—at some greater length, I anticipate—to issues relating to Cornwall.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and my noble friend Lord Bach. It is important in bringing together those parts of the country that believe that they are exceptional and should be added to the two exceptions that were already in the Bill and the Isle of Wight, which has subsequently been added by your Lordships. At the root of that is the argument, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Myners, that some parts of the country have a particular character and are fiercely proud of it, and that they think that that should be recognised in their parliamentary boundaries.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, I have listened avidly to the discussion about Cornwall. As somebody who came to this country about 46 years ago, I have always thought that it is wonderful to have local involvement in politics, but that has been on the basis of local people getting involved in local or parish councils. Representatives from those local areas have had a wider vision of the contribution that their area could make to the national situation. That is how we came to vote for our MPs. It is wonderful to visit every part of this United Kingdom and to walk around looking at local cathedrals et cetera.
Baroness O'Cathain
However, I fear that if you bring everything local to representation in the national, economic, political and social government of this country, you might lose sight of the big picture. It is wonderful to have representatives from these areas, but they should concentrate just on Westminster and not on local issues which can be dealt with locally. I do not think that that point has been made. I have come in, looked at this matter and thought that. It is a strength, not a weakness.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I think that I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making; that is, that regardless of which part of our country you come from or represent in the other place, you are making decisions here in Westminster largely on national issues, unless it is in relation to a Private Bill.
However, the Bill already acknowledges that there are certain boundaries that you should not cross, such as the boundaries between Scotland and England and between England and Wales; and Northern Ireland should remain discrete. Those are the beginnings of acknowledgement that it is not just about the UK issues or the GB issues; it is about something slightly more fine-grained now. In turn, the Bill already acknowledges, by making the exception for the Orkney and Shetland constituency and for the Western Isles, which are much smaller in population than would normally be allowed according to the formula in the Bill, that there is something so particular about those communities—as communities—that they should be separated out in the Bill. What I am seeking to argue in my relatively brief contribution, I hope, to this debate is that there are other particular communities. This has already been decided by your Lordships’ House in respect of the Isle of Wight, and the electorate in that community should feel that it has a voice.
My understanding of Cornwall, as an example, is that the Cornish people to whom I spoke when I was the Regional Minister for the South West of England up until the last election already feel an alienation from London and that Westminster does not really understand Cornwall. It is an awful job to get politicians from Westminster to go all the way to Cornwall, which is quite a journey. You have to set aside probably a couple of days to do it—certainly if you want to go to the Isles of Scilly—and we do not really understand that. If they in turn feel that we in London have, through a formula, imposed a solution which means that they will have to start to share Members of Parliament with Devon—that boundary across the Tamar River is a profound one psychologically for many in Cornwall—I think they will feel more alienated from politics and from what goes on here. I do not think that we should cross that boundary easily. I am happy to give way.
Lord Trimble
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have a question. My figures may not be accurate but, if you were faced with a choice of having six constituencies, one of which crossed the Tamar, or of having only five, all of which were in Cornwall, which would you prefer?
Lord Teverson
From the MPs, and from what we have gathered from the people in Cornwall, it appears that they are happier to have five than to share. In fact, I was speaking to my honourable friend Dan Rogerson, MP for North Cornwall, earlier, and he made that point to me. It may seem strange, but that seems to be the answer. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, has raised the question.
Lord Myners
I add my voice in agreement with the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The soundings that I have taken indicate that the people of Cornwall do not wish to share a constituency with Devon; they would rather have five representatives in the other place than a sixth if it involved going across the Tamar.
Baroness O'Cathain
I make one observation again. There are the examples of Liverpool and Everton and of Celtic and Rangers. It is a situation where we are actually having tensions within an area, where we are all supposed to be part of—dare I say it?—a big society, and where we help one another irrespective of boundaries.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am delighted and slightly stunned to have stimulated such debate on day 13 of this Committee that I managed to get four interventions on the trot without being able to respond to them—and here comes another.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The reason why my noble friend is getting interventions is that this is precisely an issue that would arise at any public inquiry on boundaries: the dilemma of whether you export votes to another county or confine your constituencies within your county boundaries. What has just happened is very interesting. Everyone suddenly is alight; and it is only because this is the central issue in our inquiries today.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My noble friend hit the nail on the head. We will have separate debates around the need for the opportunity for a public inquiry, but I am absolutely convinced that the electors of Cornwall, the area in this list that I know best, would want the opportunity to make their voice heard and to protest, should the Boundary Commission suggest that the county boundaries crossed into Devon. Indeed, it must be an indication that all of us, certainly those who received correspondence by e-mail, have received considerable and assiduous representations from Cornwall about this Bill. People are watching. I have not spoken many times during the 13 days of this Committee; this may be only the fourth or fifth time that I have spoken. But I know from responses that I have had that people from Cornwall are watching us on the Parliament channel as we speak because they really care about this. They will know that we are debating their issue and that we will look forward to debating probably one or two more amendments as well. They will be paying careful attention to what we say.
I like to holiday in the Argyll and Bute area—and I know that there is a strong case to make and that the Member of Parliament in the other place believes that it should be an exception. I intend to go there on holiday again this year, because the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who is not in his place, assures me that the midges will have been wiped out by the cold weather this winter, and that it is a good year to go. But my case is really around Cornwall. What I like about the amendment is the flexibility that it offers. It is not saying that there should be five Members of Parliament for Cornwall, or six Members of Parliament; it just says that there should be a whole number for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and that it should be discrete on that basis. That is exactly the sort of steer that the Boundary Commission should expect from Parliament and your Lordships, which gives it the flexibility and then allows it to get on with its job.
I did not want to delay the House unduly with a long speech, but I am delighted that somehow I have managed to stimulate some debate across the Chamber on this. I urge your Lordships to support this fine amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Knight reminds us that this is day 13 of the Bill. During the dinner break, one of my colleagues told me that the Second Reading of the 1832 Reform Bill took five days alone, so perhaps we are making some progress. I was deeply impressed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who made a powerful argument about Cornwall. He made the point also that Cornwall, like Wales, is a Celtic nation with Celtic people. Indeed, at some time in the past, Cornwall was considered to be in west Wales. Indeed, the region of Strathclyde was occupied by the Welsh as well and was considered to be north Wales. We have no such ambitions at present, I assure the noble Lord.
I rise to support the amendment and am therefore at the opposite end of the argument to my Welsh colleagues sitting on the other Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of Conwy. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made some very important points about the links between Ynys Môn and mainland north Wales. In my previous incarnation as Wales Minister, we had this novel idea called prelegislative scrutiny. I regularly came to your Lordships' House to talk to your Lordships about proposals that we had for Bills effecting Wales. The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts, who bring extensive experience from their time as Ministers in the Wales Office, contributed to those discussions. I believe that at the end of the day we made better law as a result of prelegislative scrutiny than we are seeing at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly makes the point that Ynys Môn is separated from north Wales by the Menai Strait—not by a sea, as is the Isle of Wight, although I am sure that like me he would not really fancy trying to swim the Menai Strait, which is quite a turbulent channel. Ynys Môn—Mam Cymru, or the mother of Wales—has been a parliamentary constituency since 1535 and it is the largest Welsh island, at 720 square kilometres. It is the fifth largest island in offshore Britain and the largest island in the Irish Sea. Its economy depends very much upon agriculture, as the noble Lord mentioned, and upon tourism. Indeed, when I was Wales Minister I went there to promote tourism as I understand that about 2 million people from the Republic of Ireland pass through Ynys Môn every year on holidays. The trouble was getting them to stop and spend some money. To my mind, the only way that we are going to get the Irish to do that in north Wales is to have a good golf course and some good saints. I am not sure whether the tourist board took up that suggestion, but I did make it generally.
The people of Ynys Môn have seen themselves as separated from the mainland not just by the Menai Strait but by having a fiercely protective local culture. Sixty per cent of the people of Ynys Môn are Welsh speakers. Our decision on the Isle of Wight means that it is the only island constituency in the United Kingdom which is not protected. That is wrong. As I say, the constituency has existed since 1535 and is coterminous with the local government area—the county council area of Ynys Môn. It enjoys the unique distinction of being, I think, the only seat to have had MPs from four parties in the past 50 years. It was once a Liberal stronghold; the Conservatives captured Ynys Môn from Labour in 1979, following the retirement of the late Lord Cledwyn; they lost it eight years later, when Keith Best stood down and Plaid Cymru then emerged as the successful party to represent the constituency in Westminster. When its leader stepped down, it was regained by Labour’s Albert Owen.
I want to emphasise that the Bill has not been the subject of a Green Paper, a White Paper, any consultation or any pre-legislative scrutiny. If it had been, then I have no doubt that my points and those of other noble Lords—indeed, the very valid points made by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts—would have figured in that kind of pre-legislative scrutiny. The only answer, in order to make sure we get the best result for the people of Ynys Môn and the people right across the country, is for the Government to agree that there should be local public inquiries. The points made by my fellow countrymen—the quite valid points from the opposite Benches and those made on these Benches—would be properly considered by an independent body, which would then make a decision in the best interests of the community concerned.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I suppose that, as one of the Peers from Scotland, I am duty bound to speak up for the Argyll and Bute council area. However, there was quite an extensive outline of the very justified case for Argyll and Bute in a previous debate and it would be wrong to repeat that. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his speech and I have certainly been impressed tonight by the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts, who were outstanding in displaying their local knowledge. However, I make the point that when Labour or, I think, Cross-Bench Peers were making speeches of that nature we were getting accused of having a filibuster. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was keeping an eye on the Door in case the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, came in and moved for closure but, fortunately, he did not appear. That emphasises that we are now getting a bit of balance in the Committee in that it seems that, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, people are now being allowed to make the case for their local area without being accused of filibustering. It is a legitimate thing to do.
The breadth of knowledge coming from all sides of the House is deeply impressive, although I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, shuddered a wee bit at being part called part of a Celtic nation, with a hard “C”. He should really think himself quite lucky that he was not called part of a Celtic nation, with a soft “C”. Then he would really have had something to get upset about.
I welcome the change in attitude in the Committee. The display was terrific. I support this amendment with, at this stage, a small caveat over Orkney and Shetland, because I want to reserve my position regarding the amendment that will be moved at some point this evening. However, coming from Scotland, I think that the case for Argyll and Bute has certainly been made.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, what a fascinating debate we have had on these amendments—rather more interesting than I was expecting. It went around the House and people spoke from their different experience and knowledge. I was particularly pleased to get the support of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which is always welcome.
Lord Strathclyde
It is not that rare, but very occasionally—about once every 10 years—my noble friend is vociferous in his opposition. It is very nice to see him being so supportive today. I was also pleased to have the support of my noble friends Lord Roberts and Lady O’Cathain.
To me, this debate demonstrated the width and depth of the gulf that exists between what the Government are trying to achieve and the position of noble Lords opposite. At the heart of what we want is equality across the country of the number of constituencies. To me, that is entirely logical: 600 seats—we do not need to debate again why 600—divided by the number of the electorate to get a figure, plus or minus 5 per cent. That is what we are trying to do.
Lord Myners
Surely the noble Lord is aware that this is not about equality of the number of constituencies; it is about equality of the size of constituencies. Is the noble Lord not familiar with his own legislation?
Lord Strathclyde
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Myners. That is precisely what I mean.
Noble Lords opposite say that equality of the size of constituencies is not important; they say that something else is important. The Bill, of course, provides for some of the other things that are important. They talked about community links and they talked about counties, as if counties were the same thing as constituencies. I totally dispute that. I live in Ayrshire. Ayrshire is, in fact, not a county. Everybody recognises it as a county, but it is not, as it has been divided in two. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, used to represent part of it. However, I do not say, and nobody says, “I come from Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley”, or whatever the constituency is called. I say, “I come from Ayrshire”. I have no emotional link with the constituency at all.
Lord Strathclyde
I want the noble Lord to respond to this—I am looking forward to it. Not only do I live in a Westminster constituency, but I live in a Scottish parliamentary constituency, which is called something else that I cannot remember. It simply does not matter what constituency I live in. It is of no interest to me at all.
Lord Strathclyde
I will give way to the noble Lord in a moment. I know that some noble Lords opposite have represented part of the country for years and feel a strong emotional bond to that area. I understand that. What I do not understand is the belief that most of the people of this country identify the area that they live in by the constituencies in which they live. They do not.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
May I gently correct the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? There are in fact three parts of Ayrshire—East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire and North Ayrshire—but there was a vigorous campaign to keep Ayrshire whole, as one county. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will remember it well, because it was his Government, bringing in local government reform, who insisted that Ayrshire should be divided in three, against all the wishes of local people. They were gerrymandering Ayrshire to keep South Ayrshire as one unit, because they thought that the Tories would take control of South Ayrshire. That was the purpose behind it and that is the kind of gerrymandering that, unfortunately, we are seeing again in the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde
That exactly proves my point. The people of Ayrshire did not really care very much which constituency they were living in. To them, it is Ayrshire, whether or not there are different boundaries for different parts of it.
Noble Lords opposite will remember that in 2008 there was a by-election in a place called Crewe and Nantwich. I spent quite a lot of time in Crewe—the Conservative Party thought that I would be better in Crewe than in Nantwich, although I never quite understood why. They were two very different parts of the constituency. The Member of Parliament had no trouble representing both parts, even though they were very different. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wants to jump up again.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I thank the noble Lord. I have been sitting quietly through the whole debate. At the most recent reorganisation of Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, there was an initial suggestion, supported by my noble friend Lord Reid when he was a Lanarkshire MP, to put part of Ayrshire into a constituency with Lanarkshire. All the Ayrshire constituencies, including the Ayrshire Conservatives, fought to keep Ayrshire with five constituencies. We won. Where did we win? At the hearing that was held to hear the views of local people from Ayrshire, including the Ayrshire Conservatives, of which the noble Lord is one.
Lord Strathclyde
Again, this rather proves my point. It is politicians who want to fix all these constituencies in a particular way, not people. They do not mind. That is my fundamental point: people do not identify themselves by the constituencies in which they live.
I was born in the constituency of Hillhead in Glasgow, which was represented by my father. People from Hillhead do not say that they come from Hillhead; they say that they come from Glasgow. That makes sense, as there is no such identity. People do not say that they come from Westminster North; they say that they come from London, or from central London. That is the point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I have a simple question for the noble Lord the Leader of the House: has he ever attended a public boundary inquiry? He is making the assertion that local people do not get involved. That is not my experience or that of many other noble Lords.
Lord Strathclyde
I can deal with that very quickly, my Lords: no. We will come to discussing the appeals process later on in the Bill. Philosophically—
Lord Teverson
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is important to say that nowhere in the amendment are we delineating an actual constituency. That is the point. It specifically does not delineate an individual constituency. I agree with my noble friend that constituencies change around, as they have in Cornwall, from Truro and St Austell to Truro and Falmouth. That is not an issue; the issue is the wider, broader community that people actually identify with, but that is not the constituency. I wanted to make that clear and I apologise again for interrupting.
Lord Strathclyde
I am happy to be interrupted on that. I understand my noble friend’s point plainly. The point that he and others have made is that an MP cannot represent well a constituency that crosses county boundaries, but my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Scotland Office represents a seat in the south of Scotland that crosses, I think, three local authority boundaries, and he does it rather well. The fact that the seat crosses several such boundaries makes no difference to his ability to represent it, so I do not accept the argument that my noble friend makes. I do not take away from him and other noble Lords the passion with which they make their argument. I just think, and this is the Government’s point, that it is a better and safer principle to stick to an equality of numbers of electors in constituencies across the country than to try to make these arguments.
Lord Liddle
I think that the noble Lord is slightly misrepresenting the point that we are trying to make. There is no attachment here to lines on maps that mark county boundaries that cannot be crossed. We are talking about the fact that these lines on maps represent real communities, which in some cases are very geographically isolated communities, and it is impossible to draw constituency boundaries that would maintain that essential sense of community. We are asking for the flexibility to take that sense of community into account, not local government boundaries.
Lord Strathclyde
That is exactly what noble Lords opposite are saying. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that crossing county boundaries destroys local identity built up in Cumbria. He said a couple of times that it would export voters into other constituencies. I just do not understand what that means or why it should be important.
Lord Strathclyde
I have heard the noble Lord. The parliamentary constituencies do not create or destroy historic identities; it is simply wrong to suggest that they do. I know the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is trying to trick me by moving from that place to another but I spotted that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I certainly would not want to trick the noble Lord the Leader of the House. When I represented a seat in the other place, my constituency crossed four local authority boundaries. I am not for a second suggesting that Members of Parliament would not do their best if they represented across significant community boundaries. However, I put this scenario briefly to the Minister. When the previous Labour Government came to office, one of the things that they did for Cornwall was to ensure that the European Union considered Cornwall as a region in its own right, so that it became eligible for Objective 1 status. If a Member of Parliament had represented a seat that straddled Cornwall and Devon—the European Union previously looked at Devon and Cornwall together—he would have been in a very difficult position. The Cornish people would have been passionate about the need for him to represent Cornwall, and the Devon people on the other side of his patch might have had a very different view. We should not put Members of the other place through that difficulty.
Lord Strathclyde
I am sure Members of Parliament are able to deal with such clashes. I know the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will get up again. Am I right in thinking that the North Ayrshire constituency includes the Isle of Arran? It is part of the Highlands and Islands development area, which has Objective 1 status. However, North Ayrshire certainly does not have Objective 1 status.
Lord Maxton
I know the Isle of Arran quite well. I look across to Argyll from my house on the Isle of Arran. It would be easy, given the hard logic that the Minister wishes to follow, to look at the map and say that the Isle of Arran ought to be part of the Argyll and Bute constituency. There are 3,500 electors on the island. It would be easy to say, “If you look at the map, there is a shorter sea journey between Argyll and Arran than between the mainland and Arran”. You would say, “Why not?”. However, there is no direct, regular sea connection between Arran and Argyll and Bute. Let us be clear: if you apply the noble Lord’s hard logic, Arran might well become part of Argyll and Bute, but it would have nothing to do with the constituency itself.
Lord Strathclyde
My example answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, raises a perfectly valid point but it is not for us to decide where the constituency will be drawn. It will be the Boundary Commission that takes into account all the criteria that it has.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This comes back to the Boundary Commission, which some of us do not trust to take the right decisions. Tony Cunningham, my successor in my former constituency, asked the Boundary Commission why it had put Keswick into the Copeland constituency—the nuclear industry-based constituency. He was told that it was because Keswick and Whitehaven are strongly linked. That was a myth. I have lived in Keswick for most of my life. There is no connection whatever to Whitehaven, yet the Boundary Commission took that decision. How can we trust people to understand what real links exist unless we have those local inquiries that we are all arguing for?
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord’s words spoke for themselves when he said, “I don’t trust the Boundary Commission to come up with the right answer”. Most of us do trust, and want to trust, the Boundary Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said in his main speech that we must beware of destroying political balance in Cumbria, but the Boundary Commission is deliberately blind to such questions. That should continue to be the case. It is not the Boundary Commission’s responsibility to create marginality or safe seats. It has to look at the criteria laid out in the legislation and come to its own conclusions. It is for all those reasons that we fundamentally disagree with the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned Cumbria. There are geographical circumstances in Cumbria that the Boundary Commission would want to take into account. However, the whole of Cumbria would fit into Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, let alone the largest existing constituency. Although the noble Lord put the case for Cumbria eloquently, it does not compare. What about Workington, which has an electorate of 59,000? The Bill allows geography to be considered within the 10 per cent range allowed between the smallest and largest constituencies. Is it really fair—this is the point that Bill is trying to deal with—that three electors in Workington have the same say as four in, for instance, East Ham? I do not think so. That is what the Bill is trying to correct.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, there could be complete agreement around the House if the noble Lord were to concede that the people who live in these areas may have much stronger views than his about his home and allegiance. After all, the noble Lord does not have a vote in a parliamentary constituency. Therefore, he is perhaps less interested. However, the problem does not relate to whether or not we are making a case that can convince the noble Lord. Has he investigated how often the original proposals put forward by the Boundary Commission have been changed as a result of public inquiries during the process? Therein lies the rub. The fact is that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, are taking unto themselves decisions which we believe should be put back to the local people. The Boundary Commission listens. The noble Lord is not listening.
Lord Strathclyde
That is not what we are trying to do. We are saying that there should be a certain number of constituencies, there is a variance of 10 per cent between the smallest and the largest, there is a Boundary Commission, and there will be an appeals process. I know it is not an appeals process that the noble Baroness likes, but people’s views will be heard and taken into account.
I always like to be positive when replying to noble Lords, but it is hard to find a way to be positive on all this. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy made a point about Ynys Môn extremely well. I would have said the same thing about the bridges. It is a different kind of island from those in Orkney and the Western Isles. I hope that noble Lords opposite feel that I have tried to do justice on this Bill. Of all parts of the country, I think there is a genuine feeling in Cornwall. There is a unified view from the four MPs. However, we reject the argument made in Cornwall because we want clarity and similarity to stretch right across the country. Cornwall has many links and communities of interest which stretch across the Cornish border. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Myners, will agree that a large number of Cornish residents work in Plymouth in Devon. Therefore, there is a transfer of people on a daily basis which crosses local authority and county borders, and I do not see why that should not work in Westminster representation.
Baroness Corston
Is the Leader of the House aware that if one wants to upset someone in Cornwall, one should suggest that they have an affinity with Plymouth, or with Devon in general?
Lord Strathclyde
I assure the noble Baroness that I am not trying to upset anyone, either in Cornwall or in Devon. I am trying to make the case for a fairer system of distributing the number of electors across the country. That is what the Bill provides.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I keep going on about the question of marginality, although I do not see it in a political context, as the noble Lord does. Does he think that the review that will be carried out under the new law if the Bill goes through will be successful if its effect is to create far more safe seats nationally? Would he regard that as a successful conclusion after the next general election?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that that would be the likely result. The review might result in more marginal constituencies: I have not the faintest idea. The people who decide whether a seat is safe or marginal are the electors in that constituency, not the Boundary Commission.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I will reply and then the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will reply. That was a debate from a golden age in the House of Lords. It had three particular characteristics. We focused on the issue, we heard brilliant speeches from all sides of the House and we had a fabulously attractive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in which he pretended that the argument was about one thing and answered that.
I will speak first about individual places. The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts, made powerful speeches about why Anglesey should not be treated separately because of its relationship with Bangor. My noble friend Lord Touhig made an equally powerful speech about why it should be treated separately. It is inevitable in the light of the way that the Bill was drafted that this is what must be done. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, stated that we say that there should be other factors and Government say that the issue is numbers. I am afraid that that is not what the debate on this amendment is about. The Government have accepted that there should be exceptions. We accept the principle of equality. There should be a small number of exceptions: the question is what they should be. Because there is no independent process to decide this, it must be done in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, managed with the Isle of Wight, and in the way that has been done tonight. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and in admiration for the attractive way in which he can distract us from the real point, the question is: what should the exceptions be?
The powerful speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Crickhowell, show that we need to think about whether Anglesey should be an exception. In relation to Cornwall, I hope that I will not make the same mistake as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by saying, “This is what I think the people of Cornwall want”. We must listen to what they have to say. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, rightly placed her finger on the point; we are seeking to determine the way in which we elect people to a national forum. However, that does not answer the question about how we select the units within which they will select those national representatives. I am very conscious of that, having spoken to people from Cornwall and having heard what they said to me. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was good enough to acknowledge, Cornwall appears united on the issue. If I was allowed to refer to the Public Gallery, which I am not—I am conscious of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not here—I would imagine that any elected representatives there would have nodded vigorously when I said that the people of Cornwall were united in this respect. I am conscious of the fact that there is strong feeling on this issue.
The amendment has given us the opportunity to consider a range of possible exceptions. There is agreement in this House on three of the exceptions: the two Scottish island constituencies and the Isle of Wight. There is a division of view about the Isle of Anglesey. There has been broad support for Argyll and Bute, but we have not had a detailed debate on it, nor in relation to the Highland Council. The striking thing about this debate has been the position of Cornwall, which everyone has acknowledged. We cannot vote on this compendious amendment because it covers too many constituencies and there are different views in relation to it. However, it is perfectly obvious that we will have to revisit the issue of Cornwall.
On the question of Cumbria, I do not necessarily agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle that it was not included in our amendment simply because he did not get to me in time, although, having heard what he and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, one can see that there is a case for Cumbria. I say with respect and tentatively that it does not appear to have the same universal support as Cornwall.
We note very carefully what has been said in the course of what has been a very good debate, and we will obviously come back at Report with what may be a more honed amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for least going through the arguments. I must admit that I find them difficult to follow on this amendment. These small exceptions—exceptions have already been made—do not make a fundamental difference to the Bill, nor to the way that the solution for constituencies and democracy in this country would work. I find that response disappointing. I accept that not every area in that list may be correct, and that it is perhaps therefore not right to vote on the amendment this evening, but I strongly believe that community matters. Although what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, was absolutely right—this is a national forum—we sometimes forget in this House a thing called casework, which comes to Members of the other place. That is hugely community-based.
I have to make one last admission. When I was an MEP, I was MEP for the Isles of Scilly, for Cornwall and for West Plymouth, and the constituency covered the River Tamar. It was not a good solution and did not necessarily work well for the city of Plymouth—although I felt that I did a fantastic job. The difference between those communities was huge, and the practical outcome was that that was not the right solution. I hope that the Government—whom I support in every other way—will reconsider this important area for the future. We live to fight another day for Cornwall in another argument. That is important.
Lord Liddle
I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope that when we get to Report—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It is not that we do not wish to hear from him; it is just that we have procedures.
Lord Liddle
To tell you the truth, I was not sure what I was supposed to do. I just wanted to say that I hope that we do not have to raise this issue again at Report, because I hope that the Government will bring forward more flexibility in the way that the Boundary Commission operates so that the needs of communities in places such as Cumbria can be taken more fully into account. If the Government do that and allow much more local flexibility in the rules than at present, which does not breach the principle by which we have operated in Britain since the Second World War of equal constituencies, there will be no need to press this issue again.
Lord McAvoy
Lord McAvoy
This amendment deletes the constituency of Orkney and Shetland from the preserved list. I hope a Liberal Democrat Minister will reply. The amendment contradicts the previous amendment moved by my Front Bench to keep Orkney and Shetland on the preserved list, and I shall explain the thinking behind what I am doing. First, I state that I support the aim of equalisation. The disparity between electorates in different seats has long been an anomaly, and I have always thought that some effort should be made to tackle it because the principle is right. The aim is right, but the methodology in this Bill to achieve that aim is too prescriptive and too tightly drawn. It does not take any real cognisance of communities, which is where I am coming from and how I approach this Bill.
My party supported the principle of having a referendum on AV, as did I. I think it is right that the people should speak. To my recollection we did not specify a date, and that is causing problems, but they are not insurmountable. I think it is important that I state that as part of the background to this amendment because a myth has built up that I and others are determined to stop this Bill, and I have never stated that that is the case. I hope that by stating my position vis-à-vis equalisation and support for an AV referendum, we can stop the spinners from the various newspapers saying otherwise.
The idea is surely to revise and improve, and that is what we are looking for in the Bill. In moving this amendment, I am trying to help the Liberal Democrats. Believe it or not, my name is Tommy and I am here to help. I can say that to our Liberal colleagues. The twists and turns that are going on to try and arrange the geographical condition and the natural state of the highland seats for Charles Kennedy, who is a first-class Member of Parliament, Danny Alexander and other northern Liberal MPs are quite unedifying. The position being taken on Orkney and Shetland is all right for us, but the rest of you will need to bend to this, and the contortions that are going on in the highlands do no good to the reputation of the Liberal Democrats. I say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues—or Peers, if they object to me calling them colleagues—that they are bringing an air of chicanery to their party, especially in Scotland, because every time boundaries or voting systems are discussed, the Liberals use their position as part of any set-up to argue for PR, list MSPs or not reducing MSP seats when the Scotland Act called for it—the so-called settled will of the Scottish people, except when it came to reducing MSP seats.
I am here to help the Liberals. By moving the amendment I am giving them the opportunity to justify on the Floor of the House why Orkney and Shetlands should still continue to exist, in contrast with Argyll and Bute, which has the best case in Scotland, even when compared with the highlands. As I said, Charles Kennedy is admired by nearly all of us on this side of the House—he is a first-class MP—but, of course, he comes from social democratic rather than Liberal roots, which makes a difference.
I am not demeaning anything that the Liberals are doing or how they are behaving, but their case lacks justification compared with the highland seats. Charles once told me that it takes him five hours to drive from one end of his constituency and back again, so he has made that case, but what is happening with the seat of Argyll and Bute is nonsense. I am not arguing a political interest in this matter because we have never won the seat. However, going back to my schooldays and early teens, John Maclay—who ended up here as a very distinguished Peer—stood for Parliament and was elected as a National Liberal, if I remember correctly. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming that. There is perhaps a lesson here for the Liberals—and maybe a threat—because we know that history shows that members of parties who enter into a coalition with the Conservative Party end up, in effect, as Conservative Members of Parliament.
I am not arguing from a party political point of view. If there is a case for Orkney and Shetlands and a case for the highlands, the case for Argyll and Bute at least equals those. If Orkney and Shetlands is to be preserved, so should Argyll and Bute.
The Leader of the House mentioned fair votes and made calculations.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
I remind my noble friend that the Argyll and Bute constituency is a political construct from the previous Conservative Government. I well remember in 1994 pleading with the then Minister of State, Allan Stewart, “Do not take Helensburgh and put it into Argyll and Bute”. The people of Helensburgh had a difference with their representatives at the time, the Labour councillors, and rightly so, but they had a short-term interest in doing that. I represented the Helensburgh seat. Now, less than 10 years later, the Helensburgh people are saying, “It was wrong for us to go into Argyll and Bute”. The lesson is that if you carry out exercises in this House with politicians and do not include the Boundary Commission and the local element, you will get artificial constructs. That is the history of Argyll and Bute.
Lord McAvoy
I am grateful to my noble friend for sharing that local knowledge, because it is surely relevant when discussing amendments on Bills such as this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, calculated how much one vote was worth when compared with another. How does the calculation compare Orkney and Shetland, which has an electorate of just over 32,000, with, say, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which has an electorate of 77,000? I am not having a go at the people in Orkney and Shetland; I am making the point—I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is no longer in his place—that a party and its supporters are taking the benefits of the toleration and support of people who quite rightly see the case for Orkney and Shetland, but those same people and the areas that benefit from that tolerance and consideration do not give an inch to other areas. The case of Argyll and Bute gets to me in particular. It is a case of “I’m all right Jack”, or “I’m all right Jim, but the rest of you have to suffer”.
The thing about this Bill and the various amendments is that a bit of a legend is being put about that I am the leader of the gang that is out to destroy this Bill. That is absolutely wrong. It is about time. I hope that the Cross-Benchers listen to what we are saying.
Lord McAvoy
I know. I was not being sarcastic. I hope that other Members listen as well because I have been speaking to Peers on all sides of the House over the past week or so. People have not been unfriendly. They have gone out of their way to speak to me and take me to tea. That was great, especially as they were paying, but the legend is that somehow I/we were being completely obstructive by trying to stop, damage and finish the Bill rather than get some concessions.
No concessions have come from the Government at all. The justified case for the Isle of Wight had to be pressed by a coalition of various Peers who tried to get common sense on that, but nothing has been gained. The noble Lord can disabuse me of that later if he can persuade me, but the Government are in a straitjacket. The straitjacket is the agreement that they reached behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms with the Liberals. They extracted their price and the Government are quite willing to extract theirs, which does not seem to allow any room for reasonable compromise to come from the Government towards the Opposition.
Some points of view are held by many Peers in the House. For instance, the amendment that has the most support from noble Lords around the House is the extension of the variation from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. That would not destroy the Bill—it would be pointless to do that—but it would make a difference. I am told by a number of more experienced Peers than me that it would tackle a lot of the anomalies and many of the injustices in the Bill. It would not be a cure-all, but it would be a gesture towards recognising that there is a problem.
We would like local inquiries as per what has happened in the past and what is normal. If there were a gesture to indicate that there should be some form of restricted local inquiries, which could be the subject of discussion between the usual channels, a whole host of recommendations might go through on the nod. Folk would see the point and logic of them. A limited number of restricted local inquiries—a comparatively small number compared with the 600-odd—perhaps to clear a huddle before a local inquiry to allow local people and organisations to have a say, is the sort of compromise and concession that could come from the Government without destroying the Bill.
A number was plucked out of the air for seats. I will not go on about that, but is it so set in stone that it cannot be eased just a little for the sake of getting some kind of agreement in this House? A better attitude could ease the crisis that seems to have developed towards the conventions of the House. There are two sides to every story, but some concession from the Government along the lines that I mentioned would help.
Another item that I and others would like to see—
Lord Rennard
Before the noble Lord sits down—I assume that he must be reaching a conclusion after 14 minutes—perhaps he would explain something to help us. If he is so strongly opposed, as he is in this amendment, to the preservation of a separate constituency for Orkney and Shetland, why did he support in the other place the Labour Government’s Scotland Act 1998, which provided for separate constituencies for the Orkney and Shetland in the Scottish Parliament and in particular preserved the specific identity for Orkney and Shetland constituency in the Westminster Parliament? Also, does he have any fears after 15 minutes that an impartial observer of his previous contribution might fear that this is another frivolous filibuster in this debate?
Lord McAvoy
The noble Lord has given me half a minute to answer about four questions. If the mood of the House is that I should sit down, I will. If the mood is that I briefly answer the noble Lord, I will. I will try to answer. That seems to be okay, but if someone objects I will sit down—do not worry about that. The noble Lord objects?
Lord Rennard
I think, speaking for most Lords present, that we would be happy if we dealt seriously with the debate under business.
Lord McAvoy
That is fine. I will answer the question. Let me make it clear that I have no intention of putting this to the vote. It is a probing amendment to find out why Orkney and Shetland is given this preferential treatment and Argyll and Bute is not. I will mention the Scottish convention briefly, because I am sure it will come up. The whole attitude at the time of the Scottish convention was to get consensus. In that mood of consensus, there was recognition of the need to get everyone on board with Orkney and Shetland getting two seats. Internally, I disagreed, but I am a democrat. I played my part within my own party to alter that and did not win. Overwhelmingly, folk were in favour of it. I know the noble Lord was not listening to that answer, but that is the answer, and I can justify it at any time. I am a democrat and will play my part within my own party. I am not one of life’s natural rebels, so I am not inclined to rebel. I would rather not encourage the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
I must tell my noble friend Lord McAvoy, for whom I usually have a great respect and affection, that on this occasion I cannot support his amendment. I mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention earlier this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows well, the convention considered the issue of Orkney and Shetland for a long time. It was considered for separate parliamentary representation in well debated and well considered discussions. The decision was to accord separate parliamentary representation in the Scottish Parliament for both Orkney and Shetland.
I do not pretend to know Orkney and Shetland well. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows—although he is not in his place—that I have had the enormous pleasure of visiting both Orkney and Shetland with my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane and his family, and with the late First Minister of Scotland the right honourable Donald Dewar, when the noble and learned Lord and his wife accompanied us on an enjoyable, informative and educational political working holiday. To visit both these areas is to appreciate at once how different they are from one another and from mainland Scotland geographically, topographically, in flora and fauna, in history and socially. They are in effect two different countries, and neither of them is like Scotland as we know it. Indeed, without going too much into the historical detail, most noble Lords are aware that Norway was the mother country in the past.
That is why, allied to the physical difficulties in connections between these two, the convention was persuaded that they should have two separate seats in the Scottish Parliament. As I explained to the House earlier this afternoon, the convention worked for 10 years on hammering out a blueprint for the Scottish Parliament—one that was almost wholly incorporated into the government White Paper and then into the Scotland Act.
The question of Orkney and Shetland was considered very carefully. Everyone in the convention was aware that there were important implications for other parts of Scotland by allowing special status for Orkney and Shetland. Such a major departure from what had been the Westminster practice of treating them as one constituency was serious but, in the end, that was agreed. In fact, when it came to the White Paper and then the drafting of the Scotland Bill, all the arguments had been so well rehearsed that there were no problems in agreeing to it. Surely that has to be an important lesson for this Government. Instead of the careful, painstaking, wide consultation that the convention provided, the Government are trying to rush this Bill through with no pretence at consulting the people of Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord may point, but I have not been speaking for 20 minutes. That is the length of the debate.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. When she said that the Bill had been rushed through, I was just pointing out we are on our 13th day in Committee.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
The noble Lord anticipates my next point. The Benches opposite have the temerity to complain when we try to examine the detail in this Bill. That shows an arrogance that none of the participants in the convention, including the party of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my own, showed on this kind of issue.
That brings me to a second lesson for the Government, if I may give it to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The first was about wider consultation. The second is about objecting to how the Bill is scrutinised. The Scotland Bill, which was a well defined, self-contained and constitutionally important Bill, came from a White Paper arising from almost 10 years of the widest possible consideration by the convention. It was dealt with in this House by two days on Second Reading, which is very unusual, 10 days in Committee and four days on Report. All 10 days in Committee went on after 10.30 pm, five of them until after midnight. The four days on Report all went on after 10.30 pm.
I was one of the three government Ministers who took the Scotland Bill through the House and I remember this very well. On the Conservative opposition Bench were the very much missed Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, known affectionately some of the time as the Mackay twins. What a difference there was in the way in which we negotiated and behaved towards one another from what we see now. As the Government, we did not accuse or complain about the many amendments and the long hours that the Opposition originated or about the mantra—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
Just let me finish the sentence. The mantra that we kept hearing repeated, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will remember, was that, although the Conservative Party had campaigned for a no vote in the referendum on a Scottish Parliament, it accepted the decision of the Scottish people and all the many amendments were, as it said, only “to make it a better Bill”.
Lord Strathclyde
Will the noble Baroness remind us how many clauses were in the Bill when it came to the House?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
There were many clauses, but it was one Bill—one self-contained, sharply focused Bill on the Scottish Parliament, quite different from the hybrid Bill that we have in front of us.
I am not claiming that there was some kind of golden age in 1998 when we were in government and the Scotland Bill was being debated. Of course we got tired and we got angry with one another sometimes. However, we kept our cool and even accommodated in the timetabling of the Bill the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish’s love of salmon fishing by allowing dates when he could do that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I suggest to the noble Baroness that one of the differences between the Opposition’s approach then and the approach of the Opposition today is that then their objectives were absolutely clear. It was also absolutely clear who was in charge of the Opposition.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
I think that both those things are clear about the Opposition today. Then, the Opposition were not supposed to be delaying the Bill, but my goodness they certainly took a very long time and went to very late hours in moving their amendments, which were all supposed to improve the Bill—changed days indeed, judging from the behaviour of the present Government. I suggest that it would do all noble Lords opposite a great deal of good to reflect on that. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I will be brief. I agree very much with a great deal that was said by my noble friend in moving his amendment. The trouble is that we cannot support the amendment, although we think that he talked a great deal of sense about matters of important principle that have been raised before in Committee, which I am sure the Government have taken on board.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ramsay for her contribution. The Leader of the House asked how many clauses were in the Scotland Bill. Perhaps he could remind us how many printed pages were in the Bill. I remind him that this Bill is now 301 pages long, many of them having been added during the last knockings in another place, and there will no doubt be a few more government amendments in this place, too.
On the amendment and why we on the Front Bench cannot support it, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in the last debate that we supported the fact that Orkney and Shetland was to be a preserved constituency. The effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be to instruct the Boundary Commission in Scotland to treat Orkney and Shetland in exactly the same way as the rest of the country. The electoral quota would be applied to Orkney and Shetland. With an electorate of 37,000, Orkney and Shetland would have to be joined up with the mainland to form a constituency to meet the size of the electoral quota.
We have argued that there are cases in which special geographical and local features of an area require the Boundary Commission to think differently about how it will redraw constituencies. Island communities including the Isle of Wight, on which there was a strong view on all sides of the Committee, Anglesey, which has already been debated tonight, and Argyll and Bute, about which there is strong feeling across the House that it is not being fairly dealt with, merit such an approach. We on the Front Bench believe that Orkney and Shetland should obviously fall into this category. After all, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 first preserved the status of that seat. I am afraid that we cannot support my noble friend in his amendment.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, nobody has risen to support the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, but I would not think of suggesting a degree of mischief in his moving the amendment. I said to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness that he was far too expert on the subject of this great constituency to respond to this and that I would gladly do it for him.
To reply to one small part of my exchange with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, there are only 18 clauses in the Bill. It is so long because the schedules are included in it, which would otherwise form part of secondary legislation. There is no need to remake that point; it explains the thickness of the Bill.
I think that noble Lords now understand what the amendment would do. It would remove the exemption from Orkney. We have in this Bill provided two named exemptions to the parity rule, for Orkney and Shetland and for the Western Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar—that is said in an Ayrshire accent, to help Hansard.
We believe that it is very important for electors that their vote has the same weight wherever they are in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has been urging us through the debate to break down the parity. In the amendment, he is saying that we should be even more vigorous on the parity, but we have created the two exceptions named in the Bill because they are dispersed island groups that are not already included in a constituency that covers part of the mainland.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I urge my noble friend to tread gingerly on this issue for two reasons. First, he will remember that North Sea oil is British because of the Shetland Islands, which form the median line between Norway and Britain. As he will remember, the Shetland Islands, along with the Orkney Islands, are only on loan to this country—as a result of the wedding of the Maid of Norway to, I think, James IV of Scotland—so they could be repaid at any time. Will he please bear that in mind? Secondly, when it comes to distance, will he remember that, if any constituency has a case it must be Shetland, because the nearest railway station is not Aberdeen but Bergen?
Lord Strathclyde
It says so much about the House of Lords that I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness was the only Orkney and Shetland expert here, but there speaks my noble friend Lord Lamont, who has real personal knowledge of Orkney and has very helpfully contributed that information. I agree with what he said.
If my noble and learned friend had been here, he would have reminded us of the practicalities involved in getting between Orkney and London. The Government are not thinking here about the travel convenience of Members of Parliament; rather, we believe that it would not be practicable for constituents to have a Member of Parliament whose base is a 12-hour ferry ride away, as would be the case if Shetland was required to be combined with the mainland.
I am pretty convinced that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, knows and understands these arguments. I hope that he feels that he has had a fair hearing and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I do not know about a fair hearing, because some mean-spirited attitudes have been shown on the Liberal Benches—not from the noble Lord. I of course accept the practical difficulties of Orkney and Shetland. I have made it plain that the amendment was a device—I make no apology for that because it was a quite proper device—to enable me to hear from a Liberal why a Liberal area should get preferential treatment over the Isle of Bute. I was robbed of that pleasure and had to listen to the noble Lord.
I laid out a number of issues where I thought that movement could be made without anything being sacrificed and I made a genuine attempt to inject into the debate an atmosphere of agreement. I was near enough mugged by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who said that I was mischief-making. That does not augur well for future negotiations and attempts to get this Bill through with some improvements. This Bill can be improved. I hope that, as people go away from here and take off their political party war helmets, they will perhaps realise that there are the bones of something in the amendment. I hope that Cross-Benchers and other Members who do not have closed minds will find the suggestions that I have put forward worthy of consideration. This is not all about obstruction and defeating this Bill; it is about trying to improve it. I have put forward some ideas which I hope will take seed somewhere. On the basis that I certainly accept that Orkney and Shetland should be a separate constituency, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McAvoy
“( ) 3 constituencies in the South Lanarkshire council area”
Lord McAvoy
I will speak very briefly on this amendment because I have spoken quite a few times about the Rutherglen area. There are two amendments in this group. One proposes that the three present constituencies contained within South Lanarkshire should be the three constituencies there. There would be a small addition in the sense that the southernmost part of South Lanarkshire council area is in another constituency. The three constituencies—East Kilbride, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, and Lanark and Hamilton East—all have around 76,000 to 77,000 electors. That is near enough the quota that we are talking about. I was prepared to make a number of points, but I have already made the point about that.
I will speak only for two or three minutes on this issue and say why we fear this boundary redistribution. If the boundary redistribution starts at the border with England, according to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there will be seven fewer seats in Scotland. That is a worry for us. However, a bigger worry for those in the Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway area is that if the boundary redistribution starts at the border with England and moves north, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, clearly said, they are heading for a situation where local communities do not matter. They will simply be blocks on a map. A few people have done an exercise for me—I have done it myself—by just moving blocks of 75,000 on a map, coming from the south of Scotland. It can go east or west. However, the danger for us in my local area is that a block of 75,000 stops at Cambuslang and Halfway. As for the next 75,000, the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen will almost certainly get put into a Glasgow parliamentary seat.
We have been a royal burgh since the year 1126 when King David I gave us a royal charter, renewed by Robert the Bruce; and we have the Robert the Bruce renewal charter in which he refers to his great-grandfather, King David I. We have had that tradition since 1126. I have already made reference to this, so I will mention it briefly. In 1973-74, the Heath Government put the towns of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway into Glasgow District. In 1994-95, we achieved success in getting back out of Glasgow and back into Lanarkshire. That is not hostility to Glasgow or to the people of Glasgow; there is no big barrier of the River Tyne or the River Tees. However, we believe in a smaller community and we believe that we have something special in Rutherglen. We have recovered and renewed our community roots since the advent of South Lanarkshire council and the formation of a parliamentary constituency that is entirely within Lanarkshire and nothing to do with Glasgow. This is a dagger in our heart, moving us back into a Glasgow parliamentary constituency, with ramifications, at a later stage, for any local government reformation, redistribution and formation of new boundaries. The push would then be for the town of Rutherglen to stay within the Glasgow local authority. That is a big, big issue in our local community.
There are the local Liberal Democrats. I know that I must seem obsessed about the Liberals, and I probably am, but too many Focus leaflets are pushed through the door, although they have dried up recently. We have a local Liberal Democrat party and a local Liberal Democrat personality that campaign with the slogan “Rutherglen for Rutherglonians”. Now we have a Liberal Democrat coalition with the Conservatives, which is a danger to Rutherglen. I am trying to expose the danger to my community of that redistribution. I hope that the Liberal influence there, that is supposed to support a separate Rutherglen, will end up supporting us in that fight. It is a very limited amendment. I do not see us spending much time on it, and I have cut it down a lot because I have spoken about it previously. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, Amendment 83 would guarantee that there will always be three constituencies in the South Lanarkshire council area, irrespective of whether they respect the 5 per cent above or below the electoral parity rule. Amendment 84A requires a specific number of named areas to be included, including a constituency called Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which is the name of the constituency that the noble Lord had the privilege to represent over a number of years. These named areas are already contained in the South Lanarkshire council area and, if read together, Amendment 84A appears to be a more detailed requirement to specify that at least one of the constituencies of the three referred to in Amendment 83 should be called Rutherglen and Hamilton West, preserving that constituency as it currently stands—or one very similar to it.
I heard the noble Lord speak about this and have heard him speak about it on other occasions. I know Rutherglen and I know the pride that exists in it. There has always been that tension over whether it was part of Glasgow or not. But as the Committee is aware, the principle of the Bill is one of fairness, so that a vote across one part of the United Kingdom has one value. For something as important as one’s right to choose the Government of the day, I believe that equality and fairness are key principles. The two named exceptions to the principle in the Bill are there for a very clear and tightly defined set of reasons. Both have small populations and a very dispersed geography. Even with the wildest imagination, one could not say that South Lanarkshire fits into the pattern of being very remote and having a much dispersed geography. That is why distinctions are made there and not in the case of South Lanarkshire.
I have heard on more than one occasion in this Committee the noble Lord regret the fact, to put it mildly, that Hamilton, which itself has a long history, has been a divided place with regard to Boundary Commissions. At the moment it is divided east and west, but I recall an earlier boundary change that made Hamilton North and Bellshill and Hamilton South. It has been divided in other ways, too. Who knows—it is not for this House to be prescriptive of the Boundary Commission—it may even be that Hamilton comes together again as a result of these proposals. I am sure that would be greatly to the noble Lord’s satisfaction.
We are confident that in South Lanarkshire it will be possible for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to draw new boundaries, which will allow equality of votes among the constituencies within 5 per cent either side of the electoral quota and, at the same time, fit together logically and meaningfully for the electors in that area. This amendment would tie the commission’s hands unreasonably and, perhaps—almost inevitably—force it to produce a less coherent set of boundaries than otherwise would be the case. While I understand the motivation behind it, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McAvoy
I have heard what the Minister said. It is not just about remoteness. I understand totally that remoteness is a criterion that can apply to other areas, but I have not mentioned remoteness because it does not apply here. It is community that I am arguing for in respect of my former constituency, because the community is such that after the damage done 30 years ago we have only begun to get it together again in the past five, 10 or 15 years. We are getting it back to the old Rutherglen, and we would be damaged if we got put in with Glasgow again. It was not on remoteness that I was arguing the case; it is about community. The Minister refers to the straitjacket into which the Boundary Commission would be put. There is no guarantee about any Boundary Commission, but it lessens our chances, because the whole essence of the Bill seems to be about blocks of 75,000 or 76,000, and that is a danger to us. It would have been remiss of me not to make the case for Rutherglen in this situation, and I had no hesitation in doing that. However, above all else I am a realist. I shall not push this to a vote and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Myners
“( ) There shall remain the current number of constituencies in Cornwall, and these constituencies shall be entirely within the county of Cornwall.”
Lord Myners
My Lords, I am surprised if there was any suggestion that this amendment would be not moved because it is one of great importance to the people of Cornwall. It is one which is being watched closely in Cornwall this evening, listened to on the radio and watched on the parliamentary channel. I speak, proudly, as a Cornishman; my designated title is Lord Myners of Truro. I was raised in Cornwall and schooled there at the local Methodist school. I am deeply proud of being Cornish. The noble Lord the Leader of the House referred earlier to how people identify themselves. Our mode of self identity is terribly important and, to me, being Cornish is a matter of great pride.
I was encouraged by the surprising degree of unanimity expressed earlier in Committee on the subject of Cornwall. The Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, acknowledged the strength of opinion that was being expressed from Cornwall—from all aspects of the community and from all political parties, the national and the local nationalist organisations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, also acknowledged that Cornwall appeared to have a particularly strong case, one which was deeply held by people who are concerned on this point. I missed the earlier contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but other Members of the House have spoken highly of the words that he expressed on Cornwall.
Having acknowledged that, I took some encouragement from the words of the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I have to say that he showed considerable insensitivity when suggesting that there really was not much difference between Cornwall and Devon and that, actually people in Cornwall worked in Devon. I have to say that a significant number of them work in the dockyards in Devon—the dockyards which this Government are now committed to closing down. The fact is that even those who live in Torpoint, Saltash or other towns which border Devon do not regard themselves in any way as being linked to Devon. They regard themselves as Cornish, and ferociously so in their expressed support.
Cornwall is an isolated peninsula. It is bounded by the full force of the Atlantic Ocean on one side, the English Channel on another and the River Tamar on the third. It is some distance from London. As my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth observed, it really takes a considerable time to get to the far end of Cornwall, let alone to the Isles of Scilly. It is not easy to get national politicians to come to Cornwall. Jonathan Powell, in his recent book, describes the great difficulty he had in persuading the right honourable Tony Blair to visit Cornwall and the even greater difficulty in getting him to stay for more than a few hours. It is pleasing to see that the current Prime Minister adopts an altogether different attitude. Indeed, he even arranged to have his daughter born at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Treliske.
The fact is that the people of Cornwall, as my noble friend Lord Knight observed earlier, feel themselves to be denied and ignored by London—and detached from that which goes on in London. They have a particularly strong affinity with their local Members of Parliament. They have a relationship with them regardless of which party they represent, which is distinct and different from that which one would see in many parts of the country. The Cornish economy is facing considerable adversity. We have seen a decline in the fishing industry. Mining for tin is almost now non-existent and quarrying for kaolin, or china clay, is in considerable decline.
The people of Cornwall have had to be innovative. They have been very successful in developing new industries, harnessing technology and promoting businesses around digital communication and biotechnology. Of course, Cornwall continues to have an extraordinarily attractive offering when it comes to tourism, be it the wild beaches and cliffs of north Cornwall or the sheltered and wooded valleys of the south. These are augmented by a number of significant new developments; the wonderful Eden Project, just outside St Austell; the National Maritime Museum’s extension in Falmouth and Tate St Ives, which was the first of the major national initiatives to give heart to Cornwall and begin to help the Cornish economy to turn the corner. Of course, tourism in Cornwall continues to benefit from the fact that Cornwall is one of the sunniest places in the country.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Am I not right in thinking that the Duchy of Cornwall is based upon the fact that in times long past Cornwall was almost a kingdom of its own? Does it not have a language and is it not the only Celtic part of England? Are these not further strings to his already overladen bow?
Lord Myners
I was about to bring my address to a close, but I now feel that I have been given an opportunity to expand on the virtues of Cornwall. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is correct. More than 300 people now speak the Cornish language. It is taught in 12 primary schools and an increasing number of secondary schools. There is a deep and long history in Cornwall that sees Cornwall as a separate nation, based, indeed, upon the Duchy. I tread with some caution because earlier the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who represented a Cornish constituency with great aplomb and skill for many years, rose to speak when I pointed out that at one stage Cornwall had 44 Members of Parliament, compared to the current six. I suggested that this was due to the tin mining industry and its prosperity and importance. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggested that it was due to other factors. I have since checked AL Rowse’s Tudor Cornwall and I find that my original observation that it was largely a reflection of the prosperity of the Cornish tin industry is the same conclusion that AL Rowse reached.
Of course, the tin mining industry explains the flag of St Piran, the national flag of Cornwall. We do not talk about it as the county flag, but as the national flag, because we regard Cornwall in many respects as a nation. That is reflected in the views of many people in Cornwall who deny the status of Cornwall as a part of England, who deny that Cornwall is a county and continue to believe that the Duchy of Cornwall affords special constitutional privileges which are not presently recognised by this Parliament.
I spoke about challenges, but there is hope in Cornwall. There are a number of extraordinary people who are turning Cornwall around; an inspiring leader in the chief executive of Cornwall County Council, the new unitary authority for Cornwall, Mr Kevin Lavery; Alan Livingston of the Combined Universities; Lady Mary Holborow, the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall; and Sir Richard Carew Pole, who has done so much for the arts and culture in Cornwall. Those, together with the young people who are now coming to Cornwall to study at the Combined Universities, are turning the corner in Cornwall, enthusing people with their identity and passion for the county of Cornwall.
At the last election, Cornwall was allocated an additional seat by the Boundary Commission. Cornwall had previously had five seats. Noble Lords will remember that that number compared with the 44 or so MPs that Cornwall had from the mid 16th century until 1832, but the number of seats in Cornwall was raised from five to six by the Boundary Commission. How did the Boundary Commission come to the conclusion that Cornwall needed an additional Member of Parliament? By sensitively listening to representations from the people of Cornwall on the nature of local communities, how people defined themselves and how local organisations worked—clear and distinct communities. Even within that, of course, in creating an additional constituency there needs to be movement. So, for instance, Truro, having previously been part of St Austell, has now become part of the Falmouth constituency.
There was recognition, however, that there were key focal points of community living and cultural identity in Cornwall that should be recognised in parliamentary constituencies. That is the Boundary Commission doing its work in a proper and sensitive way, having regard to local opinions, customs and practice. Instead, in the Bill we are being told to support an arithmetic division of the country into 600 constituencies of equal size, with a modest flexibility of 5 per cent either side of the—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, I must put the Question before the debate proceeds. Is the noble Lord, Lord Myners, moving his amendment?
Lord Myners
I would have been more than happy to have given way to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who was my local Member of Parliament for many years. I look forward with great interest to his later contribution to the discussion on this amendment.
I was bringing my remarks to a close. I am sure that Members of the House realise that I can talk about Cornwall for some considerable time, but I will not delay the House further than to say that an approach that is based upon arithmetic simply will not be acceptable to the people of Cornwall. In an earlier debate the question was asked: “Would the people of Cornwall prefer to have five constituencies, none of which went across the boundary into Devon, or six representatives in the other place, one or more of whom had seats that went into Devon?”. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, answered correctly, I believe, that the people of Cornwall would much prefer to have five committed Members of Parliament who stood for Cornish seats rather than someone who stretched across into a part of the world that the Cornish people regard as a different country. They look at Devon as part of a different country and they would not be able to understand why a constituency strayed across the Tamar into a country with totally different economic and social circumstances.
The obvious place where that would happen would be into Plymouth, yet the European Union, through the granting of Objective 1 and follow-on status, has recognised the acute poverty of Cornwall, which is very different from Plymouth. Indeed, one of the reasons why Cornwall was slow in getting support from Europe for its manifest poverty was that it was originally co-joined with Plymouth and Torbay, which had the effect of giving an illusion that Cornwall was more prosperous than is the reality. That is why my Amendment 88 proposes that Cornwall should retain six parliamentary constituencies and that they should remain within what is now the county of Cornwall.
Lord Tyler
I yield to no one in my pride at my Cornish ancestry. I am a direct descendant of Bishop Jonathan Trelawny, on whose behalf 20,000 Cornishmen threatened to march on London. Of course London gave way, so they did not have to march.
I have great affection for the noble Lord, Lord Myners. It is great to have him here fighting for Cornwall. I wish he had been more effective in doing so when he was a member of the previous Administration. However, I have to correct several of his misapprehensions. First, the reason why there were so many seats in Cornwall had nothing to do with good representation, unfortunately. It was simply that they were rotten seats, rotten boroughs, effectively owned by the Crown through the Duchy of Cornwall—it was a way of bolstering their majority in the other place. In my own north North Cornwall constituency, for instance, Bossiney had a notable Member representing it: Francis Drake. I am not aware that he ever went there, and there were only about three electors if he did.
Secondly, and much more seriously, if the noble Lord thinks that it was somehow through the advocacy of we who represented Cornwall that we managed to increase the number of seats from five to six, that is simply untrue. It was arithmetic—just as now, quite rightly, we are looking at the arithmetic. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor and I can guarantee that because of the increase in population in Cornwall, the Boundary Commission had to give us another seat.
I will also take the noble Lord up on his history. I know, for example, that when miners went over the border into Devon—it having been found that, as a result of the running down of the mining industry in Cornwall, there were more jobs in west Devon, as it now is—they allocated to themselves the description of working in greater Cornwall. That enabled them to say proudly that they were still Cornish miners. They could then emigrate to New South Wales, for example, knowing that they would not have to mix with Welsh, Scottish or Yorkshire miners. There would be only the real thing—Cornish miners.
I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment—a great deal more, I am sorry to say, than with the selection we considered earlier. The big difference is that many of the other exceptions claim to be able to have overrepresentation. Their reasons are understandable; I do not deny the special claims that have been made. The Isle of Wight and Cornwall are, as far as I can see, the only areas of the country that may be prepared to accept underrepresentation. The case for six seats in Cornwall is not very strong. It makes a real difference if the people of Cornwall are prepared to accept underrepresentation with five seats, as was the case when my noble friend and I were Members in the other House and had very large electorates. The difficulty is of how to test that. Even if a referendum in Cornwall showed that people were prepared to accept a level of underrepresentation at the moment—which would be very persuasive to me, as a good democrat—what about the future? What about a year or two hence, when people say, “Why should we have less effective representation than other parts of the country?”? It is a real dilemma.
I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to press his amendment to a vote—perhaps he does—but we must give very careful consideration to that issue. In the mean time, it is much better that we treat Cornwall as a special case and examine it as such, as in the case of the Isle of Wight. It would have been wrong to put it into a longer list of exceptions, as I said at some unearthly hour last week.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
In following my noble friend and the noble Lord’s comments, I will briefly reflect on a couple of points. First, the noble Lord suggested that the Boundary Commission, in its wisdom, had decided at the last review that Cornwall should get six seats, rather than five. That was certainly not the case. It was a process of mathematics. Indeed, in the previous review we nearly crossed the threshold of five and a half seat entitlement to just above that to get six seats, but we fell just below it and got five. Any arguments in this place that representation has been based on a sense of entitlement or natural community are wrong. It has been a mathematical process, but one defined by one boundary—the county or borough boundary, which should not be crossed.
As somebody who represented two districts for a long time, I find some of the arguments about crossing local government boundaries rather untenable. It is perfectly possible to do that. What I profoundly believe—and always have—is that representation based on natural community is important. I have written about this and I do not like the Bill in its present form in that respect. I understand the belief that reviews should take place quickly and frequently to make sure that no party is disadvantaged by the slowness of the review process. The boundary review process has been too slow. There has been in place a genuine imbalance in the system for the past decade or two. It was clearly the case at the 2010 election that if the Labour Party had received a similar number of votes to those for the Conservative Party, the Labour Party would have been hugely advantaged by the distribution of seats. It is perfectly proper that Parliament is seeking to address that issue.
However, I agree with my noble friend that where communities are willing and able to be a little underrepresented to maintain a natural community of interest in their representation, there should be flexibility to allow for that. I should like this Bill to encompass that flexibility. If the noble Lord, Lord Myners, chose to press the amendment, I would vote in that way. I have written about this issue in that way. However, we should not in any sense present this issue as some special cause of Cornwall. It is about the representation of genuine community. We should not suggest in any way that what went before was right, because it was clearly not right. It was a different mathematical process which did not properly ensure a democratic outcome in elections, although I do not think that it ever affected the outcome of an election. I have consistently believed that the proposals before us, in that respect, should have a greater element of flexibility.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I shall speak briefly, but with strong conviction, in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Myners. I have never been resident in Cornwall, nor have I had the privilege to represent a Cornish constituency in the other place. However, I have frequently visited Cornwall, it has been an important part of my life, and it has been a source of deep pleasure to me.
I had the opportunity to gain some insight into the distinctive culture of the people of Cornwall when I was a Minister responsible for heritage. I spent two days in Cornwall at a time when we were reconsidering the listed status of nonconformist chapels in the county of Cornwall. That is a remarkable heritage. They are beautiful buildings whose main fabric and furniture were constructed with extraordinary craftsmanship that derived from the boat-building skills of local people. Those skills are something of which Cornish people are very proud indeed, and are emblematic of a distinctive vigorous culture that ought to be respected.
It is not that the people of Cornwall have been introverted. It is not that they are seeking to retreat into some kind of bunker by demanding that their parliamentary representation should be contained in whole constituencies in the county of Cornwall. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, spoke of incursions by Cornishmen into Devon. I believe that it was Cornish miners who brought football to Mexico. The influence of Cornwall throughout the world has been powerful and beneficent. I simply make the point again in this context, as I have in many others.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Before my noble friend leaves his personal reminiscences of Cornwall, will he tell the House—we are all full of suspense—what ministerial decision he ultimately took on the heritage status of the nonconformist chapels of Cornwall?
Lord Howarth of Newport
It was a rather complex set of decisions, simply because there is a significant number of these chapels. They had been listed rather unsystematically over some years, and English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport thought that it was time to take a more systematic look at them. In many cases, we raised the listed status of these chapels. However, I do not wish to detain the House further on that point. I simply use it to illustrate something important, which I regret to say is that this Government are apt to ignore and underestimate its value.
It is insensitive and foolish of the Government to legislate to bring about a system whereby parliamentary constituency boundaries are to be drawn through slavish adherence to rigid mathematical formulae, with a minimal tolerance of 5 per cent on either side of a quota of 76,000 electors. That does not leave adequate scope for the boundary commissioners to take account of very important considerations of community, history, tradition, identity and local ties. In this debate on Cornwall—as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, suggested —we are talking not simply about a particular set of circumstances there, although those considerations are very important, but about the unwisdom of a policy that discounts and effectively disparages a passionately held sense of identity on the part of people living in particular communities. That is not a wise thing to do in politics. It is the course that the Government appear determined to persist in. It is foolish and I hope that they will agree to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Myners, not only in deference and respectful response to views that are unanimously and vigorously presented across the political parties and across the communities of Cornwall, but in recognition that throughout the country people believe and insist that their local identity should be respected and expressed in the patterns of their parliamentary representation.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Myners. Thirty-five years ago I was the regional organiser of the Labour Party in the south-west of England. I spent a lot of time in Cornwall. What struck me was that whenever I went there, I would be asked one question: what is the weather like in England? People would talk about driving through Devon to get to God's own country. When I was in Devon, they would say that you have to drive through God's own country to get to Cornwall. That illustrates the tension between the two counties.
During the boundary reviews of the 1970s and 1980s, I assisted on behalf of the Labour Party. One thing that was always said was: “We don't even care if we are underrepresented so long as we keep the county of Cornwall”. I noted that the two noble Lords who spoke in this debate who have represented Cornwall in the other place—as I represented Bristol—addressed themselves to whether there should be five or six constituencies, but did not acknowledge the truth of what they must know: that their county would not wish its border to be crossed. That was my experience then. On subsequent visits to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, I have seen no evidence that there has been any change of view. Given the antagonism between Devon and Cornwall, it would be profoundly misguided to have any constituency crossing that boundary.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I visited Cornwall for many years. More recently, I became a resident there. Unsurprisingly, I get involved quite a lot in transport issues there. I agree with all noble Lords who said how important it is to keep Cornwall separate. I look on Cornwall as an island. Only six miles of land separate Devon and Cornwall on the north side. The river Tamar is the frontier. Crossing the Tamar on a bridge has always been difficult. There are not many road bridges, and many were fearsome in the past. There is one railway bridge. The roads are so bad that about the only railway in the area apart from the main line that was preserved by Dr Beeching was the interesting line that goes up to Gunnislake—which involved reversing in the middle of nowhere—because the local residents rightly argued that that was the only way in which they could get out in the winter when it was snowy. The line is still running very well.
I therefore compare Cornwall, as a semi-island, with some of the Scottish islands, which, as we have heard, have already been granted what you might call their own constituency status. I see how the Scottish ferries operate extremely effectively and efficiently, subsidised and supported by the Scottish Government, and I compare that with what happens in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. We have two very good ports in Cornwall in the shape of Foy and Falmouth. I am pleased to be a harbour commissioner in the port of Foy.
Penzance, at the end of the railway, is where the ferry goes to the Scillies. As we have heard, about 2,000 people live on the Scillies who maintain a very nice existence—I go there often—but it is very dependent on tourism. The dear old “Scillonian”, which is a passenger and freight ferry, is about 40 years old. It has basically been condemned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The service has been given a stay of execution for another year or two, provided that a new ferry is procured. It operates daily in the season with passengers and freight. It needs upgrading because the facilities in the quays are not good. The fear is that one of these days there will be an accident and a piece of cargo will hit a passenger. That could happen at either end, so rightly it has been insisted that the service be improved.
The partnership that is trying, with the aid of European, county council and Department for Transport money, to develop and finance extensions to the quays at both ends—at St Mary's and Penzance—and a new passenger and freight combined ferry, has had the most appalling trouble getting a project together. Alternatives have been produced and everyone is agreed on the best alternative. It has had planning problems because it had to extend the quay slightly at Penzance. Someone objected at the public inquiry that the quay could not be extended because it would go on to sacred ground. When the inspector asked where was the evidence was that the ground was sacred, he wastold, “Come and look at the footprints of Jesus at low tide”.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I hope the noble Lord will not be upset by my question, but I have completely lost the drift of his argument vis-à-vis Cornwall as a separate entity.
Lord Berkeley
I was illustrating the difficulty for a small community of 2,000 people of getting a new ferry link out of this Government and the previous Government. It is still not resolved; I gather that the final decision has been delayed, which will be extremely bad for those people next summer. I compare that with what happens in Scotland. There, with the support of the Scottish Government, these things seem to happen much more easily and quickly, because the Government there recognise the importance of the island life. I do not think that the English, or British, Government, recognise that in the same way.
My point is that it is important to have the strongest lobby in Cornwall to support such things. I have no particular view on whether it should be five or six Members of Parliament, but it must be a group of Cornish MPs.
Lord Tyler
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, for whom I have a lot of affection and with whom I have worked together on Cornish issues, for giving way. Can he confirm that his amendment, which I am sorry he has been unable to move, leaves open the issue of whether the number of Members of Parliament should be five or six? My remarks and those of my noble friend were directed at the possibility that Cornwall might be prepared to accept underrepresentation with five Members if it retained the integrity of the county. By contrast, the problem with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Myners, is that it is prescriptive. It would have to be six. That is an important difference. Perhaps the noble Lord would develop a step further his point about the difference between five or six Members for the county.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am no great expert on sizes of constituencies. Under the number of 600, 650 or somewhere in between that is decided on in the end for the rest of the country, there could be increases or decreases in population in Cornwall—and, for that matter, on the Isle of Wight—which would affect that. I am happy to accept six and equally happy to accept five, but from my discussions with the people of Cornwall, the key thing is that they have a number, be it five or six, that is peculiar to Cornwall and does not go across the Tamar. Members of Parliament lobby for Cornwall in a very good way, and that would be lost.
I live in Polruan, which is in the South East Cornwall constituency. I know the Member of Parliament there, Sheryll Murray, who has written to me in support of the campaign for keeping Cornwall separate. She would be very unhappy to have a bit of Plymouth in her constituency. I agree with her, and all the people I have talked to would be equally unhappy. My main point is that Cornwall must be kept separate. I do not have a strong view on whether there should be five or six constituencies, and I am sure we can come back to that later if my noble friend does not press his amendment tonight.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we have had a tour around Britain right around the House since supper. Every place we have stopped at has been absolutely fantastic on the basis of the speeches that have been made, but Cornwall should be very proud of my noble friend Lord Myners, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is not in his place for reasons I cannot understand, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is also not in his place. They make not just a strong case for Cornwall, but a case that obviously catches the mood of the House.
There is an issue about precisely how the problem is to be dealt with. The first amendment that we are either debating or not debating at the moment states:
“Parliamentary constituencies shall not cross the county border of Cornwall”.
That amendment was not moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. My noble friend Lord Berkeley did not move his amendment, but it states that:
“No constituency shall include parts of both the counties of Devon and Cornwall”.
My noble friend Lord Myners has moved his amendment which states:
“There shall remain the current number of constituencies in Cornwall, and these constituencies shall be entirely within the county of Cornwall”.
The amendment that has least favour technically is the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Myners. The one that plainly has universal support is the amendment that states that no constituency should cross the boundary between Cornwall and Devon.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who made an effective and forceful speech, made the point that was made in our earlier tour of Britain, which I know the noble Lord is sorry he missed. It is that communities are what matter in relation to this. There are two ways to give effect to “Thou shalt not cross the boundary between Devon and Cornwall”: either by a 10 per cent margin, which studies suggest would mean that the Devon/Cornwall boundary would not be crossed, or by making Cornwall an exception to the rule about county boundaries. I sense that the House wants to do something about Cornwall, and we need to consider between now and Report what is the best way to deal with that problem.
I specifically pay tribute to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord McAvoy in these debates. He has spoken with just as much elegance and eloquence as everybody else in relation to his community. He has made a substantial contribution to this debate and will make very substantial contributions to debates to come.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am conscious that some hours ago I replied to a debate in which the issue was not crossing the rivers Tyne, Thames and Mersey, but I rather suspect that the Tamar is slightly wider in symbolic terms than those rivers. When I entered another place in 1983, my knowledge of things Cornish was not extensive. An acquaintanceship, I like to think also a friendship, with the late David Penhaligon soon put an end to that. He made very clear what the essence of being a Cornishman was. On numerous subsequent occasions I was able to visit Cornwall and I certainly recognise the passion with which noble Lords have expressed their affinity with Cornwall and the arguments they have presented today.
It is obvious—the case has been made for some time—that this part of the Bill seeks to address the significant differences in size between many parliamentary constituencies. Those differences make the effect of votes in some parts of the country more effective than others depending on where people live. We seek to address that with a parity rule which requires constituencies to be within 5 per cent of the United Kingdom electoral quota. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that the matter under discussion on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, could be addressed by a 10 per cent flexibility. While that would be a better bet, there is no guarantee that it would not result in one constituency crossing the Tamar.
The issue of what the exceptions should be has been well debated, both in previous sessions of the Committee and today, and the Government have made it clear that extreme geographical circumstances can make it necessary to do so, specifically with regard to Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles—remote islands and communities which are not readily accessible for inclusion with a mainland constituency—and the House voted last week on the Isle of Wight. Aside from these specific exceptions, the Government do not feel that other features should detract from the fundamental principle of equality between constituencies and votes.
As I have indicated, I am well aware of the depth of feeling on the subject of the Cornish boundary. I have received numerous e-mails and letters on the subject and representations from my honourable friends, Andrew George, Stephen Gilbert and Dan Rogerson. I am under no illusions as to the strength of feeling and I recognise that Cornwall has a proud and unique history.
It was significant that my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor said that they may be prepared to accept underrepresentation, but the two amendments which might have provided for that were not moved. We have before the House today an amendment which does the opposite and would lead to overrepresentation. That would be a much more difficult position from which to make exceptions and it does not carry the same kind of moral force as the point argued by my noble friends.
The Government do not agree that an MP would not be capable of representing people effectively in both Cornwall and Devon at the same time. It was not fair to say, as was said in an earlier debate, that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had been dismissive of Cornwall’s opinion because he made the factual statement that some people living in Cornwall work in Plymouth. That point was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Myners, when he moved the amendment. It is of course the case—although it may not be instinctively what people think—that there is some community of interest between people living in one county and working in the other. I do not believe that a Member of Parliament could not represent a constituency effectively, wherever his constituents lived within Devon or Cornwall.
Several constituencies have widely varying cultural factors. I recognise the strength of the arguments but, given the parity that the Government seek and that exceptions should be limited to where there are extreme geographical considerations, it is not possible to accept the amendment. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Myners, to withdraw it.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I have now recovered my composure after the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, criticised my service as a Minister. I have done so with the support of some informed comments from my noble friends Lady Corston and Lord Howarth of Newport. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, although he has reminded me of the “Scillonian”, on which my wife, family and I used regularly to travel to the Isles of Scilly on holiday. My wife will no longer go on the “Scillonian”. It is a boat with a very shallow draft, which makes for a wobbly crossing, to put it mildly. She now insists on us flying, although my son and I would prefer to go by boat. I do not know whether we will be going next year because this year when we were on holiday in Tresco she was attacked by a lady in an electric golf cart—on an island that should not have any motorised transport at all other than that owned by the ruling family of Tresco.
The people of Cornwall will be listening carefully to this debate. They will have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, speaking on behalf of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to his own colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place to list them by name, although I noticed that he had to look at his notes to remember the names of the three Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament for Cornwall. The people of Cornwall will have heard him say, “I’ve listened to your representations but I’m ignoring them. They simply don’t carry weight. Our rigid adherence to an arithmetic formula will disregard any issues around local community, local culture and local identity”. I found that to be a matter of deep regret.
It is also a matter of deep regret that there was not a single contribution from the Conservative Benches, even though three of the seats in Cornwall are held by Conservative Members of Parliament. When this issue was debated in the other place, Cornish MPs were somnolent. They barely participated and did not vote against the proposal that Cornwall should not be treated separately and given appropriate recognition for its culture.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, made an interesting observation. I do not stand here to make the case for my amendment and to listen only to my own voice; I listen to the contributions of other noble Lords on this amendment and others. A recurrent feature is the 5 per cent tolerance figure in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, got his maths wrong. It is not 10 per cent on 95 per cent; in fact, it is about 11 per cent on 95 per cent. However, as he got his numbers wrong on other matters, we can put that to one side. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, is a welcome addition to the House and he made an interesting point about the mathematics.
That leads one to say that Cornwall at the moment appears to be eligible for five and a half seats in the other place. We have heard arguments about whether Cornwall should have five or six seats. Perhaps my amendment is deficient in specifying six, because I readily acknowledge that many of the people in Cornwall who express an opinion on this—I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked how we would test this and prove it to a high degree of competence—say that they would rather have seats that fell within the boundaries of Cornwall even if that meant having fewer seats.
The tolerance level at 5 per cent narrows the opportunity for qualitative judgment on this matter. I would be inclined to continue to support the view that Cornwall should have six seats. I do that because of its great geographical isolation and the enormous distances that our Members of Parliament have to travel to return to their constituencies. It is possible that I am alone in seeing this, but it seems that the closer you are to Parliament, the less your constituents want to see you on a regular basis. If you are a Member of Parliament for Cornwall, your constituents expect to see you every weekend. They expect to see you all the time that Parliament is not sitting. That is a factor that we should take into account. It has been argued in respect of Scottish constituencies and the argument applies similarly to Cornwall.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
If the noble Lord was under any illusion about that, let me say that I am unequivocally in favour. That was the thrust of my comments. I am not convinced that we should be overrepresented, but I would not want my comments to be understood in any other way.
Lord Tyler
Ditto to that. Would the noble Lord like to conclude by putting his amendment and testing the opinion of the House? Then he could stop talking.
Lord Myners
I find the discourtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which seems to be present at any time that I speak in this House, quite extraordinary and contrary to what I understood to be the custom and practice of this House. That is reprehensible. Fortunately—and I am closing my remarks now—it will not be long before the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, will be able to speak on matters relating to Cornwall. The noble Lord is a recent and most welcome addition to our House. He has previously contested seats in Cornwall and I know that he has a great affection for Cornwall. I also know him as a man of considerable courtesy and look forward to his interventions rather more than I can look forward to those from one or two others who sit with him.
In closing, and before inviting the House to take a position on the amendment, I take considerable encouragement from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that Cornwall is worthy of special consideration and from the endorsement given to that view from my own Front Bench by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I hope, notwithstanding the somewhat dismissive approach to the case for Cornwall from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that careful consideration will be given to the issue of Cornwall and that the Government will bring forward their own amendments at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fowler
“Isle of Wight6A (1) All parts of the Isle of Wight must be included in a constituency which is wholly in the Isle of Wight.
(2) Rule 2 does not apply to any such constituency.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Allocation of constituencies
(1) The adjusted UK electoral quota shall then be calculated as the total electorate of the United Kingdom less the areas listed in rule 4(1) divided by 650 minus the total number of seats allocated to the areas listed in rule 4(1).(2) Each part of the United Kingdom shall then be allocated a whole number of seats as follows.(3) The first seat shall be allocated to the part of the United Kingdom with the largest electorate.(4) The second and subsequent constituencies shall be allocated in the same way, except that the electorate of a part of the United Kingdom to which one or more constituencies have already been allocated is to be divided by—2C+1where C is the number of constituencies already allocated to that part.(5) An electoral quota shall then be calculated for each of the four parts of the United Kingdom by dividing the electorate of each part of the United Kingdom by the number of seats allocated as described in rules 5(3) and 5(4).(6) The total number of seats to be allocated to any part of the United Kingdom shall not be more than 10% above or below the current number of constituencies, and if the number of seats allocated by the process described in rules 5(3) and 5(4) exceeds that limit, then additional or fewer seats shall be allocated as appropriate sufficient to bring the allocation within 10% of the current number of seats in the part of the United Kingdom concerned.(7) This adjusted number of seats shall be the allocation for that part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of rule 5(5).”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, disappointingly for Members of the House, this is not part of our tour of Great Britain. This is about the maths of the proposals made in the Bill. The practical purpose of this particular amendment is to create an adjusted electoral quota for each of the four parts of the United Kingdom, having first discounted the whole constituencies that we suggest should be allocated to certain parts of the country including Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. It also prevents any part of the UK having an increase or decrease in representation of more than 10 per cent of its seats at any one boundary review.
As noble Lords who have studied this amendment will appreciate, and I imagine that there are many of you who have, it is a rather technical revision which is easier to understand and easier to explain in the context of the other amendments we have tabled to Clause 11 of the Bill. This is because these amendments, when added together, would comprise an alternative set of rules for drawing parliamentary constituency boundaries. However, because we have tried to follow the chronology of the Bill when tabling our amendments, we have been forced to split our alternative scheme into individual elements. To use a motoring analogy: if our full set of amendments adds up to a car, Amendment 89A on its own only represents the spark plugs. However, because it would be difficult to describe a car if one was only allowed to refer to the spark plugs, I hope the House will allow me to explain the reasoning behind this specific amendment with reference to the others that we have tabled to the same clause.
Our amendments to Clause 11 would, if taken together, establish a new basis for drawing boundaries that would anchor the House of Commons at around 650 seats. They would create more equal-sized seats—reducing the disparities between electorates that the Government are anxious to tackle—while providing the Boundary Commissions with adequate room for manoeuvre to take account of wider factors including geography, community and history. Our rules would also ensure that in a limited number of cases, certain parts of the UK would be guaranteed an allocation of whole constituencies, to preserve the particular geographic or historic integrity that marks them out.
As your Lordships are no doubt tired of hearing, the proposed new rules for drawing constituencies put forward in the Bill are, we say, overly rigid and inflexible. They start from the premise that the Commons should be fixed forever at 600 seats. Two Scottish island constituencies are then discounted and a United Kingdom-wide electoral quota is calculated by dividing the rest of the UK electorate by 598. The Bill then employs the Sainte-Lague method for allocating seats to the four parts of the UK. Once those calculations are made, the Boundary Commissions are tasked with constructing the electoral map according to a strict electoral parity rule. Every seat must fit within 5 per cent either side of an estimated electoral quota of approximately 75,800.
In separate amendments, we have sought to inject greater flexibility into that parity rule, so that proper consideration can be given to concerns about geography, community ties and so forth. We have also tabled amendments to replace the Government’s rule for a 600-seat House of Commons with a “fixed divisor” that would anchor the House at around 650 seats but allow a small margin of leeway which would be of practical use to Boundary Commissions. Amendment 89A, the central focus of this debate, follows on from those amendments.
Under our scheme, an initial UK electoral quota would be calculated by dividing the total electorate of the UK by 650. That quota would then be used to calculate the number of whole constituencies that would be allocated to the areas listed in our Amendment 79A —which in our scheme would be the rule 4(1) referenced in Amendment 89A. Once that had been done, an adjusted UK electoral quota would be produced by the method outlined in Amendment 89A, which would become rule 5 in our scheme, reading:
“The total electorate of the United Kingdom less the areas listed in rule 4(1)”—
that is our Amendment 79A—
“divided by 650 minus the total number of seats allocated to the areas listed in rule 4(1)”.
So I imagine that that is very clear.
Once that calculation had been made, we would employ the Sainte-Lague method to work out the allocation of seats for the four parts of the United Kingdom. It would then be down to the Boundary Commissions to draw the constituency maps within those areas, guided by an electoral parity rule which states that constituencies would contain broadly the same number of electors. In our scheme, the level of tolerance in respect of the electoral quota would be 5 per cent in most cases but with a maximum level of disparity of 10 per cent where Boundary Commissions deemed it necessary to take account of significant other factors.
The Bill states that the electoral quota, which forms the basis of the parity law, should be universal across the UK. In other words, there should be a single UK electoral quota. However, our scheme would allow—once the initial calculations about whole constituencies had been made and discounted, and the Sainte-Lague formula used to allocate numbers of seats to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—for a slight variation in the electoral quota between the four parts of the UK. That would be done by dividing the electorate of each part of the United Kingdom by the number of seats allocated to each part through the Sainte-Lague method. This would be only a very slight variation and would not cause any significant distortion. It would simply be a practical measure to give boundary commissions a little flexibility to cope with any awkward roundings up or down they might otherwise encounter when trying to impose a uniform UK electoral quota everywhere.
That could be a genuine problem in Northern Ireland and Wales which, given their smaller size, may struggle to construct an electoral map on which every seat is able to meet the narrow tolerances that the Bill sets around the proposed uniform electoral quota. Indeed the Bill already recognises this potential problem in the case of Northern Ireland, which is why rule 7 enables the Boundary Commission in that part of the UK to disapply the electoral parity rule when it feels that is necessary. We believe that our overall scheme provides a more sensible way of tackling these problems. As I made clear at the beginning, it would deliver more equal-sized seats but would inject more common sense and practicality into the process.
Finally, Amendment 89A would ensure that the total number of seats to be allocated to any country shall not be more than 10 per cent above or below the current number of constituencies, and if the number of seats allocated by the process I have outlined exceeds that limit, additional or fewer seats would need to be allocated as appropriate to bring the allocation into line with this rule. That is particularly pertinent in the case of Wales, which under the Bill would see a reduction of 25 per cent in its parliamentary representation, from 40 to 30 seats. That is too great a reduction in one review. I remind noble Lords of the speech of my noble friend Lord Touhig about what the effect of such a sharp reduction might be on the union. It would cause massive disruption to long-established patterns of representation, producing one seat that would be almost half the landmass of Wales, and others that would divide valleys irrespective of community ties and problems of accessibility.
Perhaps even more significantly, that sudden reduction, which would cut the number of Welsh parliamentary seats below the current legal minimum of 35, could alter the way in which the UK Parliament is viewed in Wales. I think the Government need to think quite carefully about introducing major political and administrative changes that could undermine the union. The Conservative Party historically adopted a sensitive approach to issues concerning the union, but in this Bill that is less evident than previously. That is an important point.
Overall, this is a quite technical amendment which, as I explained at the beginning, cannot be viewed in isolation. However, when seen in the round I hope that it illustrates that there is an alternative to the scheme set out in the Bill which would nonetheless deliver more equal seats, which is the Government's central objective. I hope that it is symbolic of the fact that we have thought very carefully and deeply about this matter and have endeavoured to propose a scheme that would improve the Bill. Our alternative goes with the grain of the Bill’s main aim, which is to create more equal seats, but it does so more practically and sensitively than the plan which the Government have put forward. I ask the noble and learned Lord, a man of great practicality and sensitivity, to explain why his scheme is better than ours. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am tempted to say that perhaps the prime reason why the Government’s scheme is better is one of simplicity. With the two exceptions given in the Bill, we would divide the United Kingdom electorate by 598 to give us the electoral quota with a 5 per cent variation either way. However, I recognise that considerable work has gone into producing the noble and learned Lord’s alternative method of allocating constituencies to the nations of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps one of the most fundamental differences, and it is at the heart of the amendment, is that, whereas the Government’s proposal is for a Parliament of 600 Members in the House of Commons, the alternative scheme would seek to retain the present size of the House of Commons, since 650 would be used as a baseline for future reviews. I do not intend to open up all the arguments that we had at some hours of the morning last week on 650 versus 600.
The Government’s clear view is that there is a case for making a reduction in size. We have articulated it and had debates about it. Our proposal is simply to end the upward pressure on the number of Members of Parliament, which has seen an increase in every successive boundary review since 1950, with the exception of that which came immediately after Scottish devolution. However, in making that proposal, we have been mindful to reflect an existing range of experience. Six hundred gives a quota of around 76,000, which, if my memory serves me correctly from earlier debates, is within the 5 per cent-either-way range of a third of the constituencies in the other place. It also seeks to ensure that the reduction in number of seats is not wholly disruptive.
The amendment would limit any change in the number of seats in each nation to 10 per cent of the existing number. If the intention is therefore to allow a phased reduction—I think that that was the point which the noble and learned Lord was making, not least in respect of Wales—I ask the Committee to bear in mind that the secretary to the Boundary Commission for Scotland made it clear in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that there would be no advantage in doing that. He said that it would be better instead to reduce the number of seats in one go so that disruption was reduced in the longer run, rather than have successive disruptive boundary reviews. The Government agree with that.
Has the noble and learned Lord done any modelling on the 650-seat base, given the absence of a size limit on the House in his amendment and given that the Sainte-Lague formula could continue allocating seats? His amendment says 10 per cent more or 10 per cent less, so it could work in a way that the number of seats reached the absolute limit of 10 per cent above each nation’s current allocation and we could end up with a House of 715, which would be 10 per cent more than 650. I fully understand what the noble and learned Lord said about a phasing-down, but his amendment would allow also for the total to go up by 10 per cent. I suspect that that is not the intention of his amendment, but is he able to reassure us that that would not be the effect? I think that there is enough doubt and complexity in the amendment for me to invite him to withdraw it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Naturally I am disappointed by the response to my scheme. I am not sure what the answer is to the question of whether it can go up to 715, but that is only because of my mathematical inadequacy, not because the scheme is necessarily flawed in any way. However, I will consult my advisers closely on whether that very unlikely possibility could occur.
If I may, I will deal with the bit that is easier to deal with: phasing. With no disrespect to the boundary commissioners, it is perhaps not surprising that the people tasked with drawing the boundaries would say that it is much easier to get there in one go than in a series of phased goes. You would not expect the boundary commissioners to judge, or attempt to judge, the effect on the constitutional glue that holds our country together, because their job in effect is to apply particular rules that are obviously easier to apply if there is no phasing. Without in any way disrespecting the view that they express about the technical process, it is surely for Parliament to judge the effect of reducing the representation of one part of the United Kingdom by 25 per cent over a period of four years on the national glue that holds the country together.
Ultimately, I suspect that it is our view, not just the view that will prevail, which is constitutionally the position, that it is better to listen to than the Boundary Commission’s. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about my maths, which may well be well judged. However, on the other more significant constitutional issue, I am not persuaded by a quote from the secretary of the Boundary Commission that that is the most authoritative voice on whether phasing is sensible. We will certainly come back to that second part on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) Where the figure given by sub-paragraph (3) above is the same for two or more parts of the United Kingdom, the part to which a constituency is to be allocated shall be the one with the smaller or smallest actual electorate.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, Amendment 89BZA deals with the unlikely, but nevertheless mathematically possible, scenario in which the Sainte-Lague formula results in a tie in entitlement between two or more nations as to the final seat. In the Bill as drafted, there is no way of resolving such a tie, so it would be unclear as to which of the four nations of the United Kingdom would have the final seat. The amendment proposes, in these circumstances, that the final seat be allocated to the nation with the smaller or smallest electorate. Although both nations would have equal mathematical entitlement to the seat, I hope noble Lords will agree that, in these perhaps highly unlikely circumstances—nevertheless, we have to take account of all possibilities—it would be fairer for the nation with the smallest electorate to have it, given that the nation with the larger electorate will almost certainly have a larger number of constituencies across which the extra electors could be spread. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I have just three questions. First, why will it apply only in the final seat? Why would it not be possible for there to be a tie on the way there? Secondly, when it says,
“smaller or smallest actual electorate”,
what is the difference between “smaller” or “smallest” actual electorate? Thirdly, does “smaller or smallest actual electorate” refer to the total electorate in that part of the United Kingdom, or to the electorate that is left? I am more than happy to repeat my questions if any of them are not clear. However, they are not alternative; they all have to be answered.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hope I can answer them. My understanding of the amendment is that the tie would happen at the end with the last seat.
The noble and learned Lord asks me why it is the, “smaller or smallest … electorate”. It is a grammatical issue. My understanding is that it would be the actual electorate for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and not the balance. I think that that must be right—and I think it is because of the possibility of a tie. For the sake of argument, if it was between Scotland and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland would have a smaller electorate than Scotland. If it was between Scotland and Wales, Wales would have the smaller electorate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is very helpful. So you could have a situation in which England, Scotland and Northern Ireland all tie for smallest electorate. and you would give the last and therefore additional seat to Northern Ireland because it has the smallest of the populations or registered electorates of those three countries. What is the logic of giving it to the smallest?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The logic of giving it to the smallest is that there is a sense of fairness in that. Also, the larger country has more seats over which to spread the extra number of voters that would result from that; it would be much more difficult to spread them over the country with the smaller electorate.