House of Commons
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
1. What recent steps he has taken to promote business growth and inward investment in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
Before I answer the question, may I pay tribute to Mr Phil Gallie, whose passing has sadly been announced this week? He served this House and his party well while he was here, and he went on to serve his party and his constituents with distinction in the Scottish Parliament. He did that rare but important thing—while a feisty defender of his party’s positions on all sorts of things, he became popular across party lines. Our condolences go to his family.
Economic growth is at the centre of the Government’s agenda for this Parliament, and I promote that agenda in my regular engagements with the business community in Scotland and the UK and with international partners.
Mark Menzies
May I join the Secretary of State in his condolences to the family of Phil Gallie, a fellow Ayrshireman and someone I knew well?
The Secretary of State mentioned the efforts to promote jobs. Will he update the House on what he has done to follow up on the visit of the vice-premier of China, in particular on the trade links between Scotland and China?
Michael Moore
A very significant part of the vice-premier’s visit, which of course we welcomed enthusiastically here in the United Kingdom, was that he started it in Scotland. I had the great privilege of welcoming him to the UK on behalf of the Government. In the course of that visit, we in Scotland and the rest of the UK were able to see very clearly the opportunities for us to develop our plan to be partners for growth, whether in renewable energy or in many other spheres.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
May I add my condolences to those expressed to the family of Phil Gallie? He and I came into this place on the same day, and I have to say that he was more working-class than most Labour MPs are today, and a feisty fighter as well.
Does the Secretary of State think that inward investment to Scotland would be helped if Glasgow Prestwick airport were renamed Robert Burns airport?
Michael Moore
From one great defender of Ayrshire to another. The family will be pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s tributes to Phil Gallie. As far as the hon. Gentleman’s idea for the renaming of the airport is concerned, I am sure that those who make such decisions will have heard him.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
As the Secretary of State will know, the north-east of Scotland and Aberdeen is a powerhouse of the UK economy, providing much-needed tax revenues and inward investment. Crucial to the future of attracting inward investment is good communications technology. Will he meet me to discuss the barriers that mean that we have not yet seen the next generation of broadband reach Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland?
Michael Moore
First, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of Aberdeen and the regional economy not just for Scotland but for the UK as a whole. He is right to emphasise that. I met senior business leaders in Aberdeen only a few weeks ago, and we discussed how they could develop growth. Broadband is an important part of that, and he will be aware of our plans to speed up the introduction of superfast broadband. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences in relation to Phil Gallie’s death.
Does the Secretary of State understand that thousands of individuals and businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are suffering because of rocketing fuel prices?
Michael Moore
I recognise that the increase in fuel prices is a real challenge for individuals and businesses, which is why the Government are looking carefully at ways in which we can tackle that issue, including proposals for a fuel duty stabiliser.
Angus Robertson
Two years ago the Liberal Democrats promised a rural fuel duty derogation. What specific action have the UK Government taken with the European authorities to secure that? Specifically, has a formal request been made to the European Commission to make it possible?
Michael Moore
Referring to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, it is important for Scotland and the whole UK to get a fuel duty regime that reflects the challenges that exist, particularly in rural parts of the country. On the derogation specifically, he will be aware that the Government are working very hard to ensure that we can get the right processes in place in Europe, so that we get the pilot up and running as quickly as possible.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s moves towards a lower rate of fuel duty for the islands, but under the plans that they inherited from the Labour Government, fuel duty is due to go up by more than 4p a litre in the Budget. The rural economy could not stand such an increase, so I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Chancellor not to go ahead with Labour’s 4p increase.
Michael Moore
I know the particular challenges in my hon. Friend’s area, where some of the highest fuel prices in the whole country can be found. His representations to me and to the Chancellor are carefully noted, and of course the decision on the future of fuel duty will come in the Budget.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Good transport links to other parts of the UK are vital for the Scottish economy. As the Secretary of State is aware, I wrote to him and to the Secretary of State for Transport on Monday last week to express my concerns about reports that bmi is about to axe its Glasgow-Heathrow service, which will put more than 100 jobs at risk. To date, I have had no reply from either him or his colleague. Will he inform the House today what steps he and his Government are taking to persuade both bmi and BAA to save that vital transport connection?
Michael Moore
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns, which are shared by people not just in Glasgow, but across Scotland. I have spoken to senior managers both at bmi and BAA, and it is clear that they have some very difficult contractual arrangements as a result of the review of landing charges at Heathrow. I am keen that they recognise—I impressed this upon them—the importance of those links to Glasgow and to Scotland.
Ann McKechin
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response, but given that there is increasing evidence that domestic air links between Scotland’s major airports and the UK’s largest airport might be substantially diminished, and the inevitable worries that increased fares will result if there is only one remaining carrier, will he undertake today to make contact with the EU, which is responsible for regulation, and ask it to consider possible changes better to protect strategically important domestic air links, and to ensure better competitive practices to protect Scotland’s economy and our customers?
Michael Moore
If I may be forgiven, I am not sure that I remember the previous Labour Government doing that. I do not want us to lose sight of the fact that Glasgow, Edinburgh and other major Scottish cities have a range of links to different London airports—substantial links that we want to be enhanced and to grow. The issue that the hon. Lady raises is obviously one of concern, and the Government will continue to discuss it with the parties involved.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
2. What progress the Government have made on implementation of recommendations of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution; and if he will make a statement.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
6. What progress the Government have made on implementation of recommendations of the Calman Commission on Scottish devolution; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
The coalition agreement contained a commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution, which is also known as the Calman commission. The Government introduced the Scotland Bill on 30 November—St Andrew’s day—2010. The Bill will have its Second Reading in this House tomorrow and I look forward to hon. Members taking part in the debate.
Iain Stewart
I very much welcome the provisions in the Scotland Bill to make the Scottish Parliament more fiscally accountable, but can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the business community on both sides of the border will be fully consulted about the implementation of the tax powers, so that it does not suffer an undue administrative burden?
Michael Moore
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments—I know that he has more than a passing interest in those particular powers. I can give him absolutely the assurance that he wants. Through the high-level implementation group, which brings together experts from a range of bodies, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs technical groups, we are consulting very carefully and taking on board all the comments being made.
David Mowat
Calman acknowledged that the Barnett formula no longer reflected need. As a consequence, constituencies such as mine—Warrington South—receive many millions of pounds per year less than equivalent constituencies in Scotland. Does the Minister have any plans to amend the Scotland Bill to put the allocation on to a basis of need?
Mr Speaker
All I will say to the Secretary of State is that that question is very wide of the considerations of the Calman commission, and I feel sure that he will be dextrous enough to provide an orderly reply.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The problem is that the recommendations of the Calman commission are not being implemented—they are not in the Scotland Bill. The proposal on the aggregates levy, the proposals for the devolution of the marine environment and the proposal on air passenger duty have all been abandoned. Is that a lack of imagination on the part of this Government, or merely a lack of ambition for Scotland?
Michael Moore
We certainly do not lack ambition for Scotland. We have a set of proposals that are being thoroughly scrutinised in the Scottish Parliament, and from tomorrow, they will be scrutinised in the House as well. As far as the specifics are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in respect of the aggregates levy, we have said that given the current court case, it is inappropriate to devolve that just now, but we will do so in future. I recommend that he goes back to the Command Paper and studies it carefully.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect in Scotland of the increase in the basic rate of value added tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on Phil Gallie? Phil was a true, great Conservative in Scotland.
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues. The VAT rise is a tough but necessary step towards Britain’s economic recovery. Income tax and national insurance increases would have had a more damaging impact on poorer people in our society.
Gordon Banks
Almost half the respondents to a recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses said that they would increase prices because of the VAT rise, and 45% of those respondents said that the rise would decrease turnover and have an obvious impact in hindering job creation and growth. How can the Secretary of State and the Minister continue to sell out the people of Scotland and support this abysmal tax rise?
David Mundell
How can the hon. Gentleman continue to fail to take responsibility for his Government’s record, which took our country to the brink of bankruptcy and required the VAT rise to fill the black hole? If anyone is responsible for the issues that Scottish business currently faces, it is his Government.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of recent trends in business confidence in Scotland.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of recent trends in business confidence in Scotland.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of trends in business confidence in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
Returning the UK to sustainable economic growth is the Government’s overriding priority. The Government are doing everything they can to create the conditions that enable all businesses to be successful and create more jobs.
Fiona Bruce
Business organisations have welcomed the Government’s plans to reduce the headline rate of corporation tax and simplify the tax system. Does the Secretary of State agree that cuts are vital for boosting enterprise?
Michael Moore
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a moment ago. The priority for economic growth in this country is to cut the deficit of £155,000 million that we inherited from Labour. Cuts in corporation tax, reducing the national insurance burden and keeping interest rates low are important parts of the package.
John Stevenson
Given the over-reliance on the public sector in Scotland, does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government should be following the policies of the national Government by encouraging private sector investment and ensuring a balanced economy?
Michael Moore
We certainly believe that the private sector has a central role to play in returning us to sustainable growth in this country, whether in Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament debates the Scottish Government’s budget this afternoon and no doubt some of these points will be made in that debate.
Mike Freer
Is the Secretary of State worried that the Scottish Government’s plans to introduce a business surcharge will damage business confidence?
Michael Moore
The Scottish Government have received serious representations on their proposals, and I am confident that those will be debated extensively this afternoon.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
A double dip in the housing market in Scotland would be a disaster for the country. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish banks about more flexible lending?
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman will be more familiar than most with the situation that we inherited, in which bank lending—to businesses or to householders—was not in a good state. We are determined to increase the amount of lending and I have regular discussions with the banks on a range of issues. This issue is a central part of those discussions.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State accept that business confidence will have been extremely dented by yesterday’s appalling growth figure announcements? Does he now accept that the Government’s cuts go too far, too fast, and will the Government now pull back from this reckless course?
Michael Moore
I recognise that yesterday’s growth figures were very disappointing. We have said for months that the recovery would be choppy. There are special circumstances about the weather in yesterday’s announcement, which she will be aware of, but if we do not tackle the deficit, introduce measures to help businesses to grow or invest in infrastructure and science funding, we will not get the recovery from the situation that we inherited from the Opposition.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Secretary of State’s last answer, he referred to investment in infrastructure. He will know, from the Scottish business organisations that are in London today to appear before the Select Committee, that an important part of increasing confidence is having the right transport links and access to markets. Given that, and the future of the Secretary of State for Wales notwithstanding, will the Secretary of State clear up the confusion on his position on High Speed 2 and its extension to Scotland? I know from the discussions a couple of weeks ago that people from Glasgow and Edinburgh are slightly confused about where he stands. Can he clear this up and put on the record his support for High Speed 2 being extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow for the future of the economy of the whole UK?
Michael Moore
I would not accuse the hon. Gentleman of wilfully misinterpreting the outcome of that particular meeting. I was pleased to arrange the meeting between the leaders of Glasgow and Edinburgh councils and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is sitting on the Front Bench. I am a passionate supporter of high-speed rail coming to Scotland, as is my right hon. Friend and the rest of the Cabinet.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
5. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on universities in Scotland of the increase in the maximum fees chargeable by universities in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Education is devolved, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish Government are currently consulting on the future of higher education in Scotland. The UK Government are developing a White Paper on higher education in England that will fully consider the effect of their proposals on higher education in the devolved Administrations.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, although it was not quite an answer to my question. He will know, as I do, that the tripling of university fees in England will bring nothing but pain and misery to Scottish universities and Scottish students, whether in funding or support for students, or through the intolerable pressure on the Scottish Government to respond. What does he have to say to the university students who will suffer so much because of the appalling decision made by his party and the Scottish Liberals?
David Mundell
Higher education in Scotland is devolved. The UK Government are taking account of the impact of their policies in Scotland, but I tend to agree with Sir Andrew Cubie when he said that the Scottish Government were behind the curve in responding to the Browne report and bringing forward their own proposals. They are followers, not leaders. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a constant hubbub in the Chamber. People outside must think that it is extremely discourteous.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
The Minister should be aware that what is not devolved are decisions on research funding—decisions that are arrived at here in Westminster and which will have an impact, not least for those Russell group universities in Scotland. Will he give us an undertaking that he will ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland stays closely in touch with Mike Russell’s all-party working group at Holyrood, so that whatever the political composition after May, we get an outcome for Scottish universities that does not replicate the errors of policy judgment that have sadly been arrived at here?
David Mundell
I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an undertaking about the Scotland Office liaising with the relevant Scottish Parliament committee, and also to assure him that the Scotland Office works closely with Universities Scotland on all issues affecting universities in Scotland.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
8. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employee bonuses to be paid by banks based in Scotland.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
12. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employee bonuses to be paid by banks based in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 8 and 12 together. I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues. As the predominant shareholder in RBS, the Government expect the bank to be a back-marker and not a market leader on bonuses. People across the country are having to make adjustments as we come out of recession and repair our public finances. Everyone expects bankers to be part of this process.
Anas Sarwar
Given that the Financial Services Authority report found that 1.1 million customer complaints were made against RBS in one year and that more than 50% were shown to have been dealt with inappropriately, does the Minister think it appropriate for RBS executives to receive lavish bonuses this year, and if not, what is he going to do about it?
Michael Moore
As we have made clear, we have inherited an arrangement with RBS that was put in place by the last Government—the hon. Gentleman’s Government, not this one—to pay bonuses at market rates this year. We want to see bonuses lower this year than last year. That is absolutely clear-cut. As far as customer service is concerned, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I am sure that RBS managers will have heard it.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
With the collapse of the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the Minister agree that an independent Scotland would be as successful as Ireland and Iceland at the moment?
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Driving Standards Agency on its operations in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have had no such discussions with the agency. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the Westminster Hall debate that he secured on the proposed closure of Arbroath and Forfar driving test centres that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has agreed to look further into the arrangements surrounding driving test centre closures.
Mr Weir
The Minister is obviously aware that local driving test centres in rural areas such as Angus are being closed without any consultation whatever, with services moved to multi-purpose test centres. Does he accept that this is an unacceptable way for a Government agency to act? Will he press the Secretary of State for Transport, who I notice is sitting two along from him on the Front Bench, to impose a moratorium on closures until, at the very least, there is adequate consultation with local communities before the removal of such important services?
David Mundell
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in pursuing this issue, as he also did in his Westminster Hall debate. He knows that the Transport Minister took away the issues that he raised in that debate and agreed to look into them.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
11. What assessment he has made of the effects of the outcomes of the recent state visit to Edinburgh and London of the vice-premier of the People’s Republic of China on the renewable and low-carbon energy industries in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
China and the United Kingdom are key partners for growth in the future. This visit was another positive step in strengthening relationships, and it confirms Scotland’s reputation as a world leader in the continuing development and application of the new technology that helps to deliver clean green energy globally.
Mike Crockart
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree that investment worth £6 million in Scottish companies by the largest energy consumer in the world will provide a perfect showcase for the benefits of green technology? Does not the fact that Edinburgh seems set to see the creation of a renewable energy cluster in Leith docks further the case for the city to be the location for the new green investment bank? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. That is unfair on the hon. Member asking the question, and on the Minister answering it. It also sends out a very bad signal to those listening to our proceedings.
Michael Moore
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
On my hon. Friend’s first point, may I just emphasise what I said earlier, which was that the vice-premier was very impressed by what he saw of Scotland’s renewable energy sector when he visited Edinburgh, and not only by the presentations that he saw about the country’s potential but specifically by seeing the Pelamis factory in Leith? My hon. Friend also makes a strong and compelling case for the green investment bank, and we will announce details of that shortly. We look forward to making an announcement about its location at an appropriate moment.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the support that the Secretary of State has given to the establishment of the green investment bank headquarters in Edinburgh. Given that leading economists have said this morning that Scotland faces an even greater danger than the rest of the UK of a double-dip recession, does he accept that the decision on the location of the bank should be taken sooner rather than later? We want it to be set up so that we can have the advantage of the jobs that it will bring now, not in three or four years’ time.
Michael Moore
Unlike the previous Government, we have actually made a firm commitment to the green investment bank, and we intend to deliver on that. We will be making further announcements on the detail as soon as possible.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
13. What recent representations he has received on the boundaries between devolved and reserved policy matters; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The Commission on Scottish Devolution was established to look into this issue, and we are taking forward recommendations of the commission in the Scotland Bill.
Miss McIntosh
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to revisit the boundaries between reserved and devolved areas in farming matters? Does he believe that we in England could benefit from the way in which the common agricultural policy has been applied in Scotland?
David Mundell
The Calman commission looked at these issues across the full spectrum and determined that there was no need to make any changes in respect of agriculture, other than in certain aspects of animal health funding. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear Mr Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
14. What recent representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The most recent such representations related specifically to the financial provisions of the Scotland Bill, received around the time of its introduction on 30 November 2010. Since May last year, Scotland Office Ministers have not received any representations from Scottish Ministers describing the detail or the estimated economic impact of any alternative proposals to deliver financial accountability to the Scottish Parliament.
Robert Halfon
On average, the Government spend about £7,000 a year per person in England, but they spend about £8,500 per person in Scotland. What comfort can the Minister give to my hard-pressed taxpayers in Harlow that their money is being spent wisely?
David Mundell
The Government understand that concerns have been expressed about the Barnett formula, but their priority is the stabilisation of the public finances. That is our priority for this Parliament.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
While the VAT rise was swift, we are still waiting for the rural fuel derogation in the islands. In my constituency, fuel costs £1.45 a litre, but I have information that, in the tiny Faroe Islands, the price is 94p a litre for diesel and £1.10 for petrol. The islands control their own fuel taxation. Should not Scotland, with 5 million people, have at least the powers of an island group of 48,000?
David Mundell
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that we finally have a Government who are taking forward the issue of fuel prices in remote and rural areas and who are looking to hold a pilot in constituencies such as his to establish how exactly it would operate in practice.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
15. What the outcome was of the recent visit to Scotland of the vice-premier of the People’s Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
I had a very constructive meeting with Vice-Premier Li Keqiang, which builds on the existing relationship between our countries. As I said in response to an earlier question, China and the UK are key partners in growth for the future.
Mel Stride
While I welcome the commercial success of the Chinese deputy premier’s visit to Scotland and recognise the importance of China having good relations with Scotland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important for the Government to continue to press the Chinese Government on the issue of human rights and also to call for the prompt release of the Nobel peace laureate, Liu Xiaobo?
Michael Moore
I can reassure my hon. Friend that in the course of the extensive visit by the vice-premier, we not only focused on our important commercial ties and developing our partnership for growth, but took the opportunity to have an ongoing dialogue about human rights and other issues. We will continue to do that—and I believe we will be successful.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest condolences to all those affected by the appalling terrorist attack in Moscow on Monday. Our thoughts should be with the families of all those killed and injured, but especially with the family of Gordon Cousland of the United Kingdom. I spoke to President Medvedev on Monday evening and offered him our complete support in ensuring that the terrorists should never be allowed to win.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Campbell
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to join in the tribute that the Prime Minister has paid. We would also wish to send our best wishes to a soldier from Northern Ireland who was injured in Afghanistan last week.
Every week, £600 million in fuel duty flows into the Treasury from hard-pressed motorists right across the United Kingdom. That is £600 million each week since the Prime Minister said that a fuel duty stabiliser was
“a sensible, balanced policy that protects families from big increases in the oil price.”
He has talked about a fuel duty stabiliser; he has promised it; he has answered questions on it—so when is he going to introduce it?
The Prime Minister
I do not believe in making tax changes outside a Budget, which is the proper way we do things in this country. There is a strong case for looking at this area, because I want to see a situation where, when oil prices rise, we try to help motorists and share the burden with them. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly reminded me of something I said, so perhaps I can remind him of something he said, as he stood on a manifesto that emphasised the need to “reign back public spending” and stated:
“A key priority of the next Government must be reducing debt”.
I agree with that.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I am delighted that the Government’s new enterprise allowance will be announced and will begin in my home area of Merseyside on Monday. Will not initiatives like that that spark enterprise and start businesses in some of the most deprived parts of the country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. I hope that Labour Members will encourage people to start up businesses and get enterprise going, as it is a private sector-led recovery that this country needs. We should also give special help to areas such as hers, which I visited recently, to try to ensure that we do everything to help growth in Merseyside and improve the prospects of the Atlantic gateway—a very exciting prospect for her area and for everyone who lives and works on Merseyside.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in sending deepest condolences to the families of those killed in the bombing at Moscow airport. Our thoughts are particularly with the fiancée, family and friends of Gordon Cousland.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what, in his view, is the cause of yesterday’s disappointing growth figures?
The Prime Minister
First, they are disappointing growth figures—and they are disappointing even excluding what the Office for National Statistics says about the extreme weather. The point I would make is that this country has a very difficult economic situation for two main reasons. First, we have the biggest budget deficit in Europe, and we have to get to grips with it, which is difficult. Secondly, we had the biggest banking boom and the biggest banking bust anywhere in Europe, and we have to deal with that. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and I have all said, it is inevitable that, as we recover from those things, it will be choppy and it will be difficult. The worst thing to do would be to ditch our plans on the basis of one quarter’s figures.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister has been going around for months saying that our economy is out of the danger zone. Only a month ago, he told the House:
“It is because Britain’s economy is out of the danger zone and recovering.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 901.]
May I ask him to confirm that? He said that if we set aside the bad weather, the figures were not good. In fact, if we set aside the bad weather, growth was completely flat. There was no growth in the last quarter of 2010: no growth at all.
The Prime Minister
That is exactly what the figures show, yes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the danger zone. The point that I would make is this. Britain is no longer linked with countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Everyone was clear about the position before the last election. The Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the Governor of the Bank of England all said that there was no credible plan to deal with the deficit.
If you do not deal with your debts, you will never have growth. That is the truth, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister does not get it. If you do not have growth, you will never cut the deficit. That is what we saw in the last quarter of 2010.
As millions of families and businesses are worried about their livelihoods and see unemployment rising, inflation rising and growth stalled, what the country wants to know from the Prime Minister is whether he is going to change his strategy in any way in order to get the economy moving.
The Prime Minister
What we need to do in our country is get the deficit down, and at the same time do everything that we can to encourage growth. Let me read to the right hon. Gentleman what the head of the OECD said about the British economy, because I think that it is absolutely vital. He said:
“the UK was exceptional in terms of its needs of fiscal consolidation because the deficit had gone completely out of control.”
He also said:
“I think dealing with the deficit is the best way to prepare the ground for growth in the future. In fact, if you don't deal with the deficit you can be assured that there will not be growth because confidence will not recover.”
This man, who is entirely independent and in charge of the OECD, is giving us good advice, and I advise the right hon. Gentleman—as he has a new shadow Chancellor and can make a new start—to follow it.
Edward Miliband
The difference is that when we left office the economy was growing. Now the Prime Minister is in office, and it is not.
I have a very specific question to ask the Prime Minister. He has already made clear his decision on VAT, but he still has a choice to make about whether to go ahead with the decision to take another £20 billion out of the economy this year when the recovery is fragile. Is he telling the House and the country that he is determined to go ahead, irrespective of the figures and irrespective of what people up and down the country are feeling?
The Prime Minister
We have now heard what I think we are going to hear a lot more of: the theory that there was a golden inheritance from the Labour party. That is one of the most laughable propositions that I have ever heard put in the House of Commons.
We will not forget that we had the biggest budget deficit in the whole of Europe, and that we were spending £120 million every day just on the interest on that deficit. We inherited a situation in which, because of the regulation carried out by the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor when they were in the Treasury, we had the biggest boom and the biggest bust in our banking system. We had a growth model that was based on uncontrollable boom in housing, uncontrollable boom in financial services, uncontrolled public spending, and uncontrolled immigration. We inherited a completely bust system from the two people who worked in the Treasury throughout the last Labour Government.
Edward Miliband
I suppose we can take it from that answer that the Prime Minister is not going to change course. He is not going to do anything to bring about growth in the economy. This is how out of touch he is. What people up and down the country are saying is that he is going too far and too fast with deficit reduction, and that that is what is inhibiting growth in this country.
The evidence shows that while cuts are being made in the public sector and while jobs are being lost in the public sector, jobs are not being created in the private sector. Why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, put his arrogance aside, and admit that he knows how to cut jobs but has absolutely no idea how he is going to create them?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has got to stop writing his questions before he comes to the Chamber and actually listens to the answer. He asks about changing course, and I have to say to him that he seems to have replaced a shadow Chancellor who did not understand Labour’s programme with one who does not agree with it. He asks specifically about cuts next year. Let me just remind him that it is Labour’s own plan for significant cuts in spending to start in April this year. He shakes his head, but that is his plan, which he is meant to be committed to. If he is now saying that that has all gone and Labour is just going to spend more and borrow more, he ought to tell us. As far as I can hear, his only plan is to borrow money we have not got, to spend money on things we cannot afford, and not to do the work we need to do to sort this economy out.
Edward Miliband
I am surprised that the Prime Minister is raising personnel issues this week of all weeks, because who has made the right judgment, me, who appointed the shadow Chancellor, or him, who clung on to Andy Coulson for months?
When people listen to the Prime Minister they know what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) meant when he said that the Prime Minister and Chancellor
“don’t have a sense of what a large part of the country”
feels. They are out of touch with people’s lives, they are taking a reckless gamble, and what these figures show is that for millions of people up and down the country it is hurting but it is not working.
The Prime Minister
If it was such a good decision to have the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) as shadow Chancellor, why did the right hon. Gentleman not appoint him in the first place?
Let me just make the point that the absolute key for this country and our economy is two things: we have to deal with our deficit; and we have to help deliver growth from our private sector. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Governor of the Bank of England said last night in his speech. [Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members will want to listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said:
“The UK economy is well-placed to return to sustained, balanced growth over the next few years”.
He said that this was partly as a result of the
“credible…path of fiscal consolidation”.
He continued:
“the right course has been set, and it is important we maintain it.”
I prefer the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England to that of the man sitting opposite.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Is not the lesson from the noble Baroness Thatcher that, when you have set an economic course, you should stick to it—“there is no alternative”?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has a huge following in all parts of the House. The point he makes is important: it is that whatever your plans to encourage growth in the economy—we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, we have abolished Labour’s jobs tax, and we are investing in science and skills, all of which are necessary—without a plan to deal with the deficit, they are nothing.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Q2. I think the Prime Minister would accept that he has had better weeks. He has lost the support of the CBI because he does not have a growth strategy; the economy has taken a highly predictable downturn; he has lost his Essex man; and I understand that there were forecasts of snow for the end of the week. Is there anyone remaining in the Government who still understands or is in touch with the concerns of ordinary people, whose jobs are under threat because of his policies?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make is that the CBI says very clearly that it is absolutely essential that we get to grips with the deficit. What it said at the time of Labour’s last Budget was that there was not a credible plan; it believes that there now is a credible plan. This is not going to be easy. The Labour party is committed to cuts from April this year. This will not be easy, but it has to be done.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
Q3. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that has been running Reading borough council since last May has uncovered the fact that over the past 12 years the previous Labour administration spent £1.4 million of taxpayers’ money funding the salaries of three full-time union officials. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money and that full-time union officials should be paid for by union subscriptions?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It seems that in local government the Labour politicians pay the unions, whereas in national politics the unions pay for the Labour politicians. It is nice work if you can get it.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Q4. The Government have switched the indexation of benefits and public sector pensions from the retail prices index to the lower consumer prices index, but when it comes to hiking up petrol, they continue to use the higher retail prices index. In the interests of fairness, how can the Prime Minister justify using the higher indexation for petrol? Should the Government not at the very least use one or the other?
The Prime Minister
I can give the hon. Gentleman one tip. Before writing the question, it is always good to work out one’s own party’s policy. The Opposition are now committed to increasing benefits by CPI rather than RPI. His party is backing our policy and is far from opposing it.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Q5. Recent work by the Nuffield Foundation has shown that Britain has the lowest proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds studying mathematics of any of our competitor countries in the OECD. Just as bad, we have a chronic shortage of maths teachers in our schools. What action are the Government going to take on this issue?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Nuffield Foundation has produced an extremely worthwhile report on how badly we are doing with maths teaching and in terms of the number of people studying maths. We will be taking a series of steps to sort this out, which will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. One is to expand Teach First, which is an excellent scheme to get graduates from our best universities into schools, and which, for the first time, will include primary schools. Many of them will be maths teachers. We also want to raise the bar for teachers as regards the qualifications they need to teach maths. That is vital in our country and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Q6. Last Friday, I visited my constituent Vera Gaskin at her Livingston home. Mrs Gaskin has hepatitis C, having contracted it in 1985 through a transfusion of contaminated blood. She had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease at the time. Of course, her situation is not dissimilar to that of the several thousands of people who also suffered due to the tainted blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. Sadly, many have passed away since. Obviously, I am aware of previous debates in the House on the matter and the statement by the Health Secretary on 10 January, but this does not bring closure to many victims and their families. Will the Prime Minister personally prioritise this matter, work with the devolved Administrations and introduce a proper compensation scheme, thus finally bringing justice to the innocent victims of this terrible tragedy?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He has had constituents come to him about this extremely difficult issue and I have had exactly the same experience in my constituency. Although previous Governments had put arrangements in place, there was a basic unfairness, particularly towards those who caught hepatitis C, because the evidence about what happens to people with AIDS and hepatitis C has changed over the years. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary made the statement last week that we would increase what was being given to those suffering from hepatitis C. I am not sure that there is ever a level of payment that will bring closure for such an appalling accident, but I believe that the conditions in this country were different from those in other countries that campaigners often compare it with, such as the Republic of Ireland. I think we have the right answer.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Q7. The mobility component of disability living allowance for people in care homes is being reviewed. Whatever improvements are made, will the Prime Minister assure me that disabled people in care homes will still have access to individually tailored mobility support, and that that will be, as the coalition agreement implies, at no extra cost to them or their families?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. The intention here is very clear: we want to ensure that the treatment of people in hospital is the same as the treatment of people in residential care homes in terms of the mobility component of DLA. That was behind the announcement we made, and that is what we want to make sure happens.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Prime Minister may be aware that one of the Members elected to this House has decided to emigrate, and he may want to chalk that up as one of his achievements. The hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) seems to be extremely embarrassed about applying for an office for profit under the Crown although he has shown no such embarrassment in profiting from his office in this House for many years at taxpayers’ expense. When will the Prime Minister deliver on his pre-election pledge to hard-pressed taxpayers that he will abolish parliamentary money for parliamentary purposes going to those who do not fulfil their parliamentary duties?
The Prime Minister
First of all, just in case everyone has not caught up with the news, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the hon. Member for Belfast West has accepted an office of profit under the Crown, which is of course the only way to retire from this House. I am not sure that Gerry Adams will be delighted to be a Baron of the Manor of Northstead, but none the less, I am pleased that tradition has been maintained. On the very serious point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about allowances, in my view we should be aiming for all Members who are elected to take their seats in this House. That is what should happen and if some Members have a problem with what that entails, they ought to look at a remedy for that and should come and talk about it. That is the most important thing we could achieve.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Q8. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Vaynor first school in Redditch, where I am chairman of the governors, on having recently received a good Ofsted report despite the continual lack of fairer funding from the Labour party? Will he also welcome the extra funding that will be heading to Worcestershire schools, due to the pupil premium, totalling more than £3 million?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that everyone in the House will be able to welcome the fact, first, that the amount of spending per pupil will continue, even though we have a very tough and difficult situation in our country. Over and above that, there will be a pupil premium payment—something that the Labour party did not do in 13 years of being in power. This money will go to those from deprived backgrounds in schools all over our country, and not just in inner-city areas; as she says, her constituency will benefit. I think the whole House should celebrate that.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
The former investigating officer is now on the payroll of News International and three senior editors have been identified in relation to phone hacking—is it not time that another police force took over the inquiry? You have the status to make it happen, Prime Minister. What are you afraid of?
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear: phone hacking is wrong and illegal, and it is quite right that the Director of Public Prosecutions is reviewing all the evidence, which should be followed wherever it leads. I do not think it is necessarily fair to say that the police have not been active—after all, there have been prosecutions, convictions, and indeed imprisonments—but the law is quite clear and the prosecuting authorities should follow it wherever it leads.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Q9. Tomorrow is Holocaust memorial day—the anniversary of the day on which Auschwitz was liberated. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Holocaust Education Trust and its work to ensure that the lessons of the holocaust are not forgotten?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he raises the brilliant work that the Holocaust Education Trust does. I think this is a good time to pay tribute to the, sadly very few, holocaust survivors left. I had the huge privilege of meeting one, Trude Levi, yesterday in No. 10 Downing street. To hear the story of what those people went through, what they escaped, and in many cases what they had to go through even after they escaped, is truly humbling. We must never forget—not just because of what happened in Europe in the holocaust, but because too often there is genocide in our world today; we need to be permanently reminded of that fact.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q10. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the majority of the Cabinet grew up in secure worlds of economic wealth and privilege. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s young people face economic uncertainty and high youth unemployment? Is youth unemployment a price worth paying?
The Prime Minister
It never is—but youth unemployment has been a structural problem in our country for years. Under the previous Government, when the economy grew for many years, youth unemployment was worse at the end of that growth than it was at the beginning. Then, of course, it rocketed during the recession. We need a serious examination of how we can reduce the number of people who are not in education, not in employment and not in training. Rather than trading slogans across the House, it would be better to work out why the number has gone up in good times and in bad.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
Q11. Unlike the NHS or my local council, a Sue Ryder hospice in my constituency, Manorlands, is not able to reclaim the VAT that it has paid. May I ask the Prime Minister to examine the issue and try to create a level playing field for health care charities?
The Prime Minister
I know this is an issue that many hon. Members care about deeply. We should all pay tribute to the hospice movement and what it does, working with our health service. It is important that we do everything we can to cut red tape and allow charities to thrive. Charities can and do reclaim some of their VAT, but in considering a bigger exemption such as my hon. Friend speaks about, we have to look at the consequences both for the state sector and the private sector, and their relationship with the voluntary sector, before we can take such a step.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the visit of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom and to Parliament? Apparently, a few years ago, when she came to Prime Minister’s questions, she was so impressed that she decided to institute it in Bangladesh. I am not sure whether she has changed her mind since. Can he give the House an assurance that he will continue to build on the strong bilateral links between Britain and Bangladesh?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The Prime Minister is very welcome to Britain and also welcome to be watching our deliberations today. As the right hon. Gentleman says, whether she will go away feeling proud and excited by what the mother of Parliaments does on Wednesday at 12 o’clock is another question. She has already had a very good meeting with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Relations between Britain and Bangladesh are good, and we need to expand them still further.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Q12. My constituents, Ben Oldroyd and Matthew Carr, are autistic and have Asperger’s syndrome. They have asked for my help because they want to visit schools in the Selby district to speak to pupils and staff and give them their experience of living with autism and the challenges that they face with that condition. They have already received praise from the head of Brayton high school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an initiative could be extremely good news for schools and the teaching profession?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which raises an important point. We made good steps during the last Parliament, with the Autism Bill promoted by the now Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), but there is a huge amount that can be done by people themselves to get a greater understanding of autism and Asperger’s, not least because there is such a huge spectrum and such a big difference between the children suffering from those conditions. I am sure the work to which my hon. Friend refers is extremely worth while.
Dr Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week the Prime Minister said something that I agree with: he said that we needed to do something about loan-sharking, so will he join me next week in supporting the motion to cut the cost of credit and support the poorest consumers in Britain with protection from those companies?
The Prime Minister
At the risk of building on what is clearly a blossoming friendship already, I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady says. On the issue of controlling loan sharks, one part should be encouraging credit unions. There is all-party support for that. Sometimes we have to be careful as we regulate that we do not drive out responsible operators and bring in loan sharks, so we must get the balance right. I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady is saying and perhaps get back to her.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Q13. Last week the Public Accounts Committee found that the previous Labour Government had pushed through private finance initiative deals without offering any alternative, and often regardless of expense or value for money. The result has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds too much. Does the Prime Minister share my view that there should now be a full investigation of why and how that happened?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Public Accounts Committee can do a lot of that work by unveiling some of the appalling decisions that were made, which were just about off-balance-sheet accounting, rather than good value for money. I see the shadow Chancellor nodding, but he was in the Treasury when all that happened. As in so many cases, what we will find is that the mistakes that we now have to pay for are the responsibility of Gordon Brown’s two henchmen sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q14. The Prime Minister used to talk rather a lot about fairness, but he has not done so well on performance, so here is a test for him. The banks have walked away from the talks on bankers’ bonuses. What will he do about it?
The Prime Minister
The talks are ongoing, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I want. I want the banks to pay more in tax, and they will pay more in tax, up from £18 billion last year to £20 billion next year. He says they have walked away; they have not. These talks are ongoing, and I want to see the taxes go up, the bonuses come down, but vitally, the lending increase. I am confident that we will achieve all those three goals.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister regards Blackpool as a special place, as indeed he should. Does he agree that it is about time that Blackpool’s unique status as the first working-class seaside resort should be recognised with UNESCO world heritage status?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for his constituency. I have a warm feeling whenever I think of Blackpool, because of the many conferences that I have attended there and the time that I have spent there. I understand, as I know he does, the pressures that it faces because of changing patterns of tourism and development, and the Government are committed to helping Blackpool to map out a strong future. It is also wonderful to see Blackpool in the premier league where they belong.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Q15. With the economy shrinking by 5% and inflation rising, having followed Ireland on the path of cutting too fast and too deep, are we not now in danger of following Ireland further down that slippery slope?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that the 5% reduction was under her Government, not this Government. If the former shadow Chancellor’s primer has gone missing, perhaps she could get hold of a copy. When we came to office in May, the idea that there was some acceptable plan to reduce the deficit is a complete fiction. Let me just give her this one figure. If we went ahead with the plan of halving the deficit in four years, in four years’ time our deficit would be bigger than Portugal’s is now. Does anybody think that that is a credible path back to growth and confidence? It is not.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
One of the most important strands in the Government’s growth strategy has been the creation of 75,000 additional apprenticeships. Does the Prime Minister agree that the forthcoming national apprenticeship week and the Gloucestershire apprenticeship fair represent a great opportunity to get young constituents to earn while they learn, especially in the manufacturing sectors, which are growing faster now than at any time under the previous Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the spending review, we had to take difficult decisions, particularly on welfare and pay, but as a result we are able to expand the number of apprenticeships to a record level, an extra 75,000. Yes, the growth figures are disappointing, but manufacturing and exports are up, and we are starting to rebalance the economy away from the unsustainable booms that we had under the Labour Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) asks his urgent question, I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that those who are interested in the next business can attend properly to it. A quiet and speedy exit is required.
BBC World Service
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on BBC World Service cuts.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The House will agree that the BBC World Service performs an invaluable role, reflecting British democratic values overseas and supporting British influence in the world, and that the services it provides are a beacon to many in some of the poorest and most insecure countries in the world. We announced in October that from 2014 responsibility for the BBC World Service will be transferred to the BBC itself and funded from the licence fee, a move that has been welcomed by the World Service and the BBC Trust as providing new opportunities for the World Service to develop in the future. In the meantime, the World Service, like any other taxpayer-funded body, must ensure that it is working on the right priorities and as efficiently as possible. I announced in October that its expenditure limits would be reduced by 16% in real terms over the next three years.
As I set out in a written statement earlier today, we are providing £13 million per annum to help with the deficit in BBC pension funds and £10 million per annum for new services in markets that we and the World Service have identified as priorities. Those include TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided to local partners. We have also guaranteed the capital for the move of the World Service to its new offices in W1. That is proper provision for the future of the World Service and will make up for inherited deficits.
The other services provided by the World Service cannot stand still, and those that have become less well used because of the rise of local broadcasters or falling shortwave audiences sometimes have to close. It is the World Service’s responsibility to be as efficient as possible while maintaining as many services as possible, something the previous Government recognised when in 2006 they closed 10 separate language services of the World Service. The World Service initially suggested to the Foreign Office the closure of up to 13 language services, but I refused to give permission for that. I have agreed to the closure of five language services, accounting for 3.5 million listeners out of the total audience of 180 million. Withdrawal from shortwave and other services will have a bigger effect, but they will rightly allow for concentration on online and mobile services for the future.
The BBC World Service has a viable and promising future, but it is not immune from public spending constraints or the reassessment of its priorities. While any closures might be regretted, they would not be necessary at all were it not for the inherited BBC pension deficit and the vast public deficit inherited from the previous Government.
Mr MacShane
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is Her Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not a pensions actuary at KPMG? In every year of the previous Labour Government, the grant in aid to the foreign service went up, but under him it has gone down. He is doing in part what no dictator has ever achieved: silencing the voice of the BBC, the voice of Britain, the voice of democracy, and the voice of balanced journalism at a time when it is needed more than ever.
I have an interest to declare. It was the World Service that broadcast my arrest and imprisonment 30 years ago in communist Poland, thus helping to secure my fairly swift release. This week there is turmoil in the Balkans, where people were killed and injured in Tirana last Friday and where Serbia and Macedonia remain without a European future. There is turmoil in Russia, where no one trusts the Putin-controlled media. There is turmoil in Africa, from Egypt and Tunisia down to Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe. What are the Government doing? They are axing the voice of the BBC—the voice of Britain and our values—in Albanian, Serbian and Macedonian. They are cutting services to Angola, Mozambique, Russia and China. They are taking the BBC off the air as other non or semi-democracies replace BBC truth with their propaganda.
The Foreign Secretary secured a flat cash settlement for his own Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomats, but he has made the World Service the main victim of his cuts with a 20% real-terms reduction. That will cost the jobs of hundreds of journalists who come from every corner of the world to offer their linguistic and political expertise to our nation.
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary accept that just 0.5% of the UK’s total spend on international work goes to the World Service? I urge him to look across the range of UK overseas spending, including some sacred cows, and reverse the World Service cuts before irreparable damage is done to our country. If he cannot do that, he should let us have a Foreign Secretary who will allow Britain to maintain its voice in the world.
Mr Hague
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about Poland, one would never imagine that the World Service’s Polish service was closed by the Government of whom he was a member. When he talks about the Balkans, one would never imagine that the Bulgarian, Croatian and Slovene services were also closed by the Government of whom he was a member. It was apparently fine under the previous Government sometimes to have to change priorities, but it is not fine now.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Russian services. In Russia, online audiences have increased by 120% in the past 12 months, while radio audiences have declined by 85% since 2001. That is why it is absolutely right for the World Service to move more of its services to online and mobile services; that is the way the world is going, even though he might not have noticed it.
Of course the World Service has to move with the future, and of course occasionally some services have to close. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that when he was a Minister. It is a pity he does not recognise it now.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The World Service together with the British Council are hugely valued services and probably the most effective way of advancing Britain’s perceptions of the world. What we have here is an inevitable consequence of restoring stability to the economy. As my right hon. Friend says, funding for the World Service will transfer to the BBC from 2014. Will he confirm that, with the savings that the transfer will make and the move to Broadcasting house that is going on at the moment, it is open to the BBC to increase funding after 2014?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, there is some degree of excitement in the BBC Trust about that—about the potential in being able to bring together more easily the resources of the BBC and the experience of the BBC World Service. For instance, it might be able to develop BBC World television more successfully, so there is a positive side to look forward to, and that is what the House should concentrate on.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I should be interested if the Foreign Secretary could, for the sake of the House, adduce the evidence whereby the BBC Trust is excited at the prospect of the cuts that have been announced today. The director-general of the BBC has made it clear that the cuts are a direct consequence of last autumn’s spending review. Of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should not be exempt from the need to reduce the deficit, but in making cuts in the FCO, especially to a relatively small budget that has a global impact, there is surely a need for particular care and concern.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what proportion of the cuts to the FCO under the spending review settlement will be absorbed by the core FCO budget as distinct from the World Service and, indeed, the British Council? Will he set out his explanation of why the BBC World Service will absorb 16% to 20% real-terms cuts as against 10% real-terms cuts for the FCO? Will he explain how his often-stated ambition to strengthen bilateral relations with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—is advanced by the end of radio programming in Mandarin Chinese? The reach and respect of the BBC World Service is a huge asset for Britain, and the Government should not put that at risk.
Mr Hague
May I first of all welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? I look forward to working with him and to many exchanges with him, although we will always remember that he was Minister for Europe when £7 billion of our rebate was given away, which would of course have paid for the World Service 30 times over. We may have to remind him of that on future occasions as well.
I did not say that the BBC was excited about the reductions in the budget, but, considering the meeting that I had with the corporation about the issue in October, I can say that it is certainly excited about the potential in bringing together the work of the BBC and the World Service, so my evidence is the meeting that I had with Sir Michael Lyons and his colleagues.
It is true that in this spending round the real-terms cut in the Foreign Office budget is 10% and in the World Service budget 16%, but it is true also that in the previous three years the cut in the core Foreign Office budget was much greater. On the effect of all that, by 2013-14 the proportion of the Foreign Office budget accounted for by the World Service will be pretty much exactly the same as it was when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Foreign Office, five years ago. We ask the World Service only to bear its fair share of the public expenditure reductions, which are obviously necessary in this country. That is the right and fair thing to do, and now we have to work with the World Service and support it in making the best possible job of that.
The Chinese service reaches a very small number of people compared with the size of the Chinese population, and it needs refocusing. The new, enriched online service will aim to reach not only people in China, but 67 million Chinese people who live outside China, and it is designed to be more appealing to younger audiences. Again, there is a rationale for many of the changes that the World Service proposes, albeit within financial constraints.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given the huge influence of Islamist television channels such as Hezbollah and al-Jazeera, will my right hon. Friend confirm that resources will continue to be spent on BBC World Service TV and radio services in the middle east, and on the Arabic service?
Mr Hague
Absolutely. That is, of course, a major area of the World Service’s broadcasting. None of the language service closures that are envisaged or agreed to will affect the middle east. Those closures are of services in Albanian, Macedonian, Serbian, Portuguese for Africa and English for the Caribbean. The work of the BBC World Service in the middle east will continue at its current strength.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
These cuts are a direct result of the Foreign Secretary’s decision to allow the funding of the World Service to pass from his Department to the licence fee payer. Many of us warned that that would happen at the time. The countries where language services have been closed that he listed in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) were all European democracies within the European Union; that is not the case with the language services the Foreign Secretary is closing. Why should the BBC spend any more money on language services that the licence fee payer has no interest in and, in many cases, cannot listen to?
Mr Hague
In case there is any confusion, there is no connection between these reductions and the transfer of the BBC World Service to licence fee funding, which will take place in four years’ time. For the next three years, the BBC World Service will continue to be funded directly out of public expenditure. Just to make it clear for the right hon. Gentleman, the reductions are therefore not the direct consequence of that decision. The services that closed under the previous Government were not just European democracies in the European Union; they also closed the Kazakh and Thai services. The closures were much more widespread. As I said, the previous Government recognised that closures sometimes had to take place. Labour Members must recognise that unless they oppose all reductions in Government expenditure, sometimes these things have to happen.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Cuts in the jewel in the crown of this country are clearly disappointing. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the World Service makes a huge contribution to our international development agenda? Is he willing at least to discuss with the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department, which currently makes no contribution, could make a small contribution? For example, £3 million a year would save the Russian and Mandarin Chinese services.
Mr Hague
I point out to my right hon. Friend that there are merits in the changes to the Russian and Chinese services, for the reasons that I have given about changing patterns of usage. It is not clear that if the BBC World Service had a few million pounds extra, keeping those services exactly as they are would be the best use of that money. However, that would be for the World Service to decide. I am looking at whether additional funding can be provided in this financial year to help with the restructuring costs. It is not impossible that we will find some additional money for the World Service. A good part of the public money that is spent on the World Service is ODA-able—official development assistance—expenditure, so it falls within that category. I think that my colleagues in the Department for International Development and all other Departments would agree with my assessment that public spending discipline has to apply to all parts of the public sector, including the BBC World Service.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that the BBC World Service is the most trusted voice in the world—more trusted than any Government, and more trusted than any other broadcaster in English or any other language? Therefore, to undermine the BBC World Service is to undermine truth. Is it not essential for the right hon. Gentleman to accept that it is about time that this Government dedicated themselves to truth and trust, and not to spin?
Mr Hague
These are the straightforward facts of the matter. The fact that the previous Government closed 10 services in 2006 is nothing to do with spin; it is the sheer truth of the matter. One point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that one of the advantages—although not a decisive advantage on its own—of transferring the BBC World Service into the BBC is that it will no longer be possible to make the argument, which is sometimes made around the world, that the BBC World Service is an arm of the British Government and is funded directly from the Foreign Office, and that therefore some suspicion should be cast on it. By showing the world that the BBC World Service, which is known for its impartiality and independence, will be part of the BBC, rather than funded by the Foreign Office, we are underlining, rather than undermining, its independence.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Given the inevitable reordering of the finances of the World Service, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is none the less essential, in a world in which the media move at an extraordinarily fast pace and the world itself is changing so rapidly, that it has the capacity to change if it needs to do so, and that its capabilities should not be set in stone?
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was why I emphasised the changing nature of the demand for World Service broadcasting and the rapidly increasing online demand, particularly for its Russian services. Such things do not stand still, which of course means that the skills and personnel required sometimes change. There should be wider recognition of that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary has referred several times to what happened under the previous Government. Will he confirm that the World Service established television in Arabic and Persian and new online services, and that the previous Government did not preside over a cut of 650 staff or make it face 16% cuts, which it now faces when the Foreign Office is suffering only 10% cuts? Is that not a direct consequence of his agreement to the budget cuts and his choices?
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that World Service funding was ODA-able in some cases. Does he envisage having discussions with DFID, given the increased commitment to operating in fragile and post-conflict states and the consequences of withdrawing the Portuguese for Africa, Nepali, Swahili and great lakes services? There could be scope for an agreement between the two Departments to reinstate or maintain those services.
Mr Hague
As I said, a good deal of the expenditure is already ODA-able. I do not know what scope that leaves for additional ODA-able funding, but DFID is already in the process of setting its own priorities, which do not normally include supporting the operations of the BBC World Service. Overall, these changes are necessary. I said that I am considering whether additional money can be provided to help the World Service through the restructuring—I am talking about only up to a few million pounds, but it may be of assistance. I cannot promise a large part of the DFID budget for this cause.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I used to be accused of having a typical foreigner’s emotional attachment to the World Service, and I plead guilty to that. The Foreign Secretary has a sense of history and knows that the World Service’s reputation is based on not just its independence but its exceptional quality. The latest round of more than 600 redundancies will cut into its core and undermine it, because it will not have enough journalists. As a historian, he cannot be proud to be the Foreign Secretary who will oversee the final death of the World Service.
Mr Hague
None of us who are conscious of history can preside over a Government heading towards the bankruptcy of this country, and that is why we have to have spending restraint across the public sector. I stress that, as I said in my initial answer to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), there is a viable and strong future for the BBC World Service. The right place for it is with the BBC itself, which has taken it on with enthusiasm. It is wrong to pretend that there should never be any changes or reductions, and of course we have to ensure that we live within our means in this country. These changes are part of doing that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the BBC World Service, along with the British Council, has a huge world reputation in exchanging views and knowledge from the western world? Does he accept also that it is not just the number of people who receive a service that counts? It is precisely the minorities in difficult parts of the world who need truth and independent advice.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was one reason why I was anxious to avoid a larger scale of language service closures than those to which I have agreed. We have limited them to five language services, along with other changes to the BBC World Service, partly because of the reason he gives.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to all the staff of the BBC World Service working both in this country and abroad? Is he giving any consideration to helping the BBC with the redundancies that will occur as a result of his decision, many of them affecting people in specialist positions?
Mr Hague
I have paid tribute on many occasions to the staff involved and to the BBC for the service that it provides around the world, and I do so again. I said that we might be able to find some additional help with the restructuring costs, and I mentioned in my initial answer the money that we have included in the settlement to underwrite the World Service’s move to new headquarters and to ensure that some new services can be developed. There is a strong commitment to the future of the World Service.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
In his correspondence with Sir Michael Lyons, which has been placed in the Library today, the Foreign Secretary states that he will
“seek to find ways to make some additional funding available this year, providing those funds can be used to generate savings in future years.”
What conversations has he had with the BBC Trust about that, and can he confirm whether he has met Sir Michael Lyons in person during his negotiations?
Mr Hague
Yes, I have met Sir Michael in person a couple of times. On the subject of what discussions are taking place, I am awaiting further details from the World Service of how it would use any additional money this year to help make the savings and rationalisations that we have discussed.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
The BBC World Service provides a vital link to the outside world for oppressed countries and isolated countries such as Burma. The Foreign Secretary will remember the important role that the Burmese service played during the demonstrations back in 2007. Will he assure the House that those considerations will be taken into account in the future, to ensure that we do not pull such important services away from those countries?
Mr Hague
Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I certainly would not agree to the closure of services for Burma, even if it were proposed. The considerations that she underlines, such as the help that the World Service provides to people in oppressed countries, must always be important in the decisions that we make about its services.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
There is very deep concern in the House about this decision, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will reconsider it with Cabinet colleagues. In particular, I hope that he will take a look at the overseas aid budget, which is increasing by 37% in real terms at a time when he intends to implement 16% cuts to the World Service. I hope that he will hear the message from the House that if there is a choice between the two, we want to put the World Service first.
Mr Hague
I stress to my hon. Friend that a good deal of the World Service’s budget already counts as ODA-able expenditure, so he should not think that turning to DFID for the money is an easy answer. I reiterate my view that all parts of the public sector must join in in becoming more efficient, and the BBC World Service will be part of the public sector for the next three years.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given the scale of the Foreign Secretary’s announcement, what guarantee can he give that the BBC’s non-partisanship and impartiality in reporting, which has always been a hallmark of its broadcasting capabilities, will be maintained in future?
Mr Hague
I do not anticipate that anything that we are announcing today will have any impact on that important part of the character of the BBC. As other hon. Members have underlined, that is part of the reason for the respect for the World Service, and it is committed to continuing that character.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The BBC Monitoring service is recognised globally as being of the highest quality, and it is essential to a number of our allies. Given the inevitable cost savings that have to be found, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he is not looking to cut back the monitoring service?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary will know that there used to be a consensus throughout the House for supporting the BBC World Service—we saw off the Thatcher Government together when they attacked it. Should he not hang his head in shame today? These are cuts of a scale beyond anything that went on under previous Governments, to a service that is cherished by the British people, who will punish him. They are part of his overall plan to please Rupert Murdoch and denigrate the BBC.
Mr Hague
There is a sort of ridiculous air to that question, if I may say so. Clearly, my announcement was nothing to do with the last matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is necessary to make savings in Government expenditure because of the performance of the Government whom he supported.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
What analysis has the Foreign Secretary made of the benefits to Britain’s foreign, development and even domestic policy objectives of spending on the World Service versus spending on Trident?
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
This is a black day for more than 650 people who will lose their jobs. Among those will be foreign journalists who came to this country on work visas at great risk to themselves. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that those people are not sent back to danger in their original countries?
Mr Hague
There should be no question of that happening. We have well established procedures, over which the Home Secretary presides, to ensure that people do not go back to danger in their home countries. That is a separate issue, but if it comes up at all, and if there is any danger of those things happening, Ministers will want to make sure that they do not.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
To follow up on that point, the BBC is very concerned about the plight of the foreign-born journalists who work in this country who will now be made unemployed. Can the Foreign Secretary promise to work with the BBC and look sympathetically on those journalists who might have to return to countries on which they have reported critically?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
At the moment, the audience for the BBC World Service is more than 240 million people around the world. After these cuts, will the BBC still be the pre-eminent world broadcaster, putting forward our democratic values in a way that other international broadcasters fail to do?
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has often spoken of the importance of soft power in diplomacy, particularly with reference to the BBC World Service. Although I regret the loss of services in the western Balkans, can he explain how we can better deploy our soft power resources in that very vulnerable region to try to secure its peace in future?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend’s question raises a wider discussion about the western Balkans. We give a great deal of diplomatic and ministerial attention to that region. We have been highly active in ensuring that dialogue rather than confrontation has taken place between Serbia and Kosovo over recent months, and we are now doing a great deal of work on the future of Bosnia. That is done by British diplomats, supported by the work of British non-governmental organisations, and British Ministers, working cohesively.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am absolutely certain that the World Service cannot be preserved in aspic, and that if Labour had been in power, there would have been cuts in its budget. However, every single foreign politician whom I have met in my time in this House told me that one of Britain’s greatest assets is the BBC World Service. For many of them, it was the symbol of freedom. My big anxiety is that cuts in the World Service are so much heavier than cuts in other parts of the Foreign Office that they will leave a very depleted organisation, and that uniting the World Service with the rest of the BBC will hit rather than improve its impartiality. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore reconsider?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman’s question is a good deal more realistic than some that I have been asked in the past half an hour, because he recognises that whatever Government were in power, there would have to be reductions in the World Service. He can gather from what I outlined earlier that we have sought to limit the impact on the number of countries involved. That is why only five separate language services are being closed. We have taken all the factors he outlined into consideration, limited those closures and provided for the future development of the World Service, so that it continues to be the respected service of which he rightly speaks.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary seems not to understand that his decisions will topple the BBC from its position as the No. 1 in the world, or that the loss of critical mass is significant. Surely he will accept that we cannot simply restart a service in a particular country or part of the world when problems emerge, yet the World Service is so important in such countries, and to their diaspora in this country, at such times, as I have seen in respect of Somalis in the UK. Will he reconsider the damage that he is doing with those decisions?
Mr Hague
I pointed out how the growth of some services is taking place—I mentioned earlier how the use of the online service in Russia has grown by 121% in the last 12 months. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was saying a moment ago, the services of the BBC World Service cannot be preserved in aspic—they must change—and Opposition Members must understand that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given that two of the greatest strengths of the World Service were to speak truth to the powerful and to broadcast hope to the poor and downtrodden, does the Foreign Secretary not see even the slightest irony in the fact that in the week when he introduces swingeing cuts to the World Service, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who is sitting next to him, has given a second chance to Rupert Murdoch?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Everyone in the House recognises very clearly the uniqueness and importance of the BBC World Service. The Foreign Secretary mentioned in his presentation today that one reason for the cuts is that the numbers of those who listen to radio are down, but what consideration has he given to countries where the only media method is radio? Has consideration been given to what the uniquely British World Service gives to the democratic process in countries such as China, and will he ensure that people in such countries have an opportunity to continue to listen?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course the Government considered that, as did the BBC World Service in drawing up the list of what it thinks it is necessary to do. The predominant availability of the service only on radio is one of the factors that the BBC has borne in mind. Burma, which was mentioned earlier, is a case in point. That has been one of the factors in drawing up the list. Of course, in those areas where the service is to close, countries are generally provided with a vast range of different media outlets, including a much more thriving local media than was the case only a decade ago.
Counter-terrorism Review
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the review of counter-terrorism and security powers.
The review has taken place in the context of a threat from terrorism that is as serious as we have faced at any time. In dealing with that threat, it has been the consistent aim of this Government to protect not only the security of our citizens, but the freedoms of us all.
We reviewed counter-terrorism legislation because too much of it was excessive and unnecessary. At times, it gave the impression of criminalising entire communities. Some measures, such as the extraordinary attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 90 days, were rightly defeated in Parliament. Others, such as the most draconian aspects of control orders, were defeated in the courts. Those measures undermined public confidence, so I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will support me in preventing the excessive use of state power.
I make no apology for the time that this review has taken. It has rightly been deliberate and thorough to ensure that we safeguard both our security and our freedoms. The review has taken account of all sides of the argument. It has received evidence from academic experts and civil society groups, from communities across the country, and from the law enforcement and security agencies. I have, of course, consulted regularly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has provided independent oversight of the process. He has had access to all relevant papers and has played an invaluable role in ensuring that all the evidence was given proper consideration. I thank him for his contribution in ensuring that the recommendations of this review are not only fair but seen to be fair. I am laying the review, a summary of the public consultation, and Lord Macdonald’s report, in the House.
On pre-charge detention, the Government announced to the House last week that we would not renew the current legislation on extended pre-charge detention. This means that the sunset clause inserted by the last Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The review sets out the detailed considerations leading to this conclusion.
The police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days. However, we recognise that, in exceptional circumstances only, that might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. We will therefore draw up draft primary legislation to be introduced for parliamentary consideration only in such circumstances. We will publish a draft Bill and propose that it be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I should make it clear to the House that until it is repealed by the freedom Bill, section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will remain on the statute book allowing the Government to increase the maximum period to 28 days in an emergency, subject to Parliament’s agreement. There has therefore been no gap in our ability to seek Parliament’s consent to increase the period of pre-charge detention should the need arise.
On the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers, I have concluded that the current provisions, which were found unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, represented an unacceptable intrusion on an individual’s human rights and must be repealed. However the evidence, particularly in Northern Ireland, has demonstrated that where there is a credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack, the absence of such powers might create a gap in the ability of the police to protect the public. We therefore propose to repeal section 44 and to replace it with a tightly defined power that would allow a senior police officer to make an authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers to prevent a terrorist attack where there is a specific threat. This targeted measure will also prevent the misuse of these powers against photographers, which I know was a significant concern with the previous regime.
On the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, we will implement our commitment to prevent the use of these powers by local authorities unless for the purpose of preventing serious crime and unless authorised by a magistrate. In this context, surveillance—the most controversial power—will be authorised for offences that carry a custodial sentence of at least six months.
On the wider question of communications data—that is the who, when and where of a communication, but not the content—the Government intend to ensure that as far as possible, they are accessed only through the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. We will bring forward specific legislation to this effect in a future communications data Bill.
The Government are committed to tackling the promotion of division, hatred and violence in our society. We must expose and confront the bigoted ideology of the extremists and prosecute and punish those who step outside the law. The review considered whether counter-terrorism legislation should be amended to tackle groups who are not currently caught by the law, but who still aim to spread their divisive and abhorrent messages. After careful consideration, we have concluded that it would be disproportionate to widen counter-terrorism legislation to deal with these groups, however distasteful we find their views. To do so would have serious consequences for the basic principles of freedom of expression. We therefore propose to use existing legislation, as well as tackling such groups through our wider work to counter extremism and promote integration and participation in society.
On the deportation of foreign nationals suspected or known to have been involved in terrorist activity, the review found no evidence that this policy was inconsistent with the UK’s human rights obligations and found that it was legitimate and necessary to seek to extend the arrangements to more countries which would include independent verification. As Lord Macdonald says, the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues is likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.
Finally, on control orders the Government have concluded that, for the foreseeable future, there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported. I want to be clear that prosecution, conviction and imprisonment will always be our priority—the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell—but where successful prosecution or deportation is not immediately possible, no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.
We are also clear that the current control order regime is imperfect and has not been as effective as it should be. We therefore propose to repeal control orders. Instead, we will introduce a new package of measures that is better focused and has more targeted restrictions, supported by significantly increased resources for surveillance and other investigative tools. Restrictions that have an impact on an individual’s ability to lead a normal life should be the minimum necessary, should be proportionate and should be clearly justified. The legislation that we will bring forward will make clearer what restrictions can and cannot be imposed. These will be similar to some of the existing powers used in the civil justice system, for example to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence.
These “terrorism prevention and investigation measures” will have a two-year maximum time limit, which will clearly demonstrate that these are targeted, temporary measures and not to be used simply as a means of parking difficult cases indefinitely. The measures will have to meet the evidential test of “reasonable belief” that a person is or has been engaged in terrorism. This is higher than the test of “reasonable suspicion” under the current regime.
Curfews will be replaced by an overnight residence requirement—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Whatever Members think, on either side of the argument, the statement by the Home Secretary on this matter must be heard with courtesy and in silence.
Mrs May
Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas, such as particular buildings or streets, but not entire boroughs. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate. They will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions necessary to protect the public. We will add the crucial power to prevent foreign travel. These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person’s conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and they will be required to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.
I have asked the incoming independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to pay particular attention to these issues in his first report on the new regime and to make recommendations that he considers appropriate to ensure the new regime is working as intended.
I am also today laying a written ministerial statement outlining the next steps in the work to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in court. We will repeal the current provisions which permit control orders with restrictions so severe that they would require the United Kingdom to derogate from the European convention on human rights. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Government would seek to introduce such draconian measures.
So the review I am announcing today will create a more focused and flexible regime. However, in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary. We want to prepare for this possibility while ensuring that such powers are used only when absolutely necessary. So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement. These measures will require an even higher standard of proof to be met and would be introduced if in exceptional circumstances they were required to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms. These powers would be enacted only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.
All of these measures will be accompanied by a significant increase in resources for the police and security and intelligence agencies to improve their surveillance and investigative capabilities. This will underpin the effectiveness of the regime and support the gathering of evidence admissible in court which could lead to a successful prosecution.
We will bring forward legislation to introduce the new regime in the coming weeks. We want to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise our proposals properly. I am sure the whole House would agree that in the past, too many laws in this area were rushed through without the opportunity for adequate debate and consideration. So while Parliament considers that legislation, we will renew the current regime to the end of the year. Many of the other measures I have outlined will be brought forward in the forthcoming protection of freedom Bill.
I wish to finish by thanking the police and the security services for the tremendous work they do to keep our country safe. The measures I have outlined today will help them continue to ensure our safety and security at the same time as we restore our civil liberties. They are in keeping with British values and our commitment to freedom, fairness and the rule of law. They will restore public confidence in counter-terrorism legislation and it is my hope that they will form the basis of an enduring political consensus. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of the review. The horrific attack at Moscow airport brings home to us all the terrible damage, loss of life, carnage and fear that terrorist attacks can cause. The threats that we face from organised groups with international connections and lone individuals radicalised at home mean that our police and our security services face an incredible task in protecting this country. They match that threat with incredible effort. We pay tribute to the work that they do today.
The challenge for democratic Governments in the face of terrorist threats must be to protect both our national security and our historic freedoms. It is right to update powers and policies in response to ever-changing threats, so we welcome the fact that the review is being held. However, it would have been better to do this alongside a full assessment of the risks and challenges, through the updating of the Government’s wider counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, which was due in January, but which I understand has now been delayed until the summer.
It is our responsibility as the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s proposals in detail and, wherever we can, to support the Government on national security matters on the basis of the evidence. We will support some of the measures that the Government have announced today. We support their approach to deportations with assurances to countries with which we can reach agreement, which continues the work that we did in government. We note that the Government have decided to continue with the existing regime for proscribing groups that are engaged in terrorism. That seems to be a sensible approach. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether that means that the Prime Minister has abandoned his commitment in the Conservative manifesto to
“ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir”?
We also agree that the use by local authorities of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should be restricted. Some of the uses that we have seen in practice go far beyond the intention of the original legislation. However, we will of course scrutinise the detail, as we agree that councils still need to be able to take action on issues such as the sale of alcohol or tobacco to those who are under-age. We also support sensible changes to stop-and-search powers to prevent their being misused, but it would be helpful if the Home Secretary could confirm that the legislative changes that she is proposing largely reflect the practical changes that the police have already introduced. I am still concerned about the implications for Northern Ireland, where, as she will know, stop-and-search powers have played an important role in preventing terrorist attacks. Is she confident, and is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confident, that the police will have all the powers that they need in Northern Ireland under the new arrangements?
Let me turn to pre-charge detention. In the last three years, no case has invoked pre-charge detention for more than 14 days, as the review makes clear. We have made it clear that if the best police and security evidence shows that we can reduce the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days with sufficient safeguards, then we should do so. However, the Home Secretary’s review concludes that there could be future circumstances in which detention for longer than 14 days will be required, saying that
“there may be rare cases where a longer period of detention may be required and those cases may have significant repercussions for national security.”
The review recommends an emergency option to return to 28 days if necessary. However, the emergency legislation to do that is still not available in the Library. Indeed, it is still not ready, despite the commitment made by the Immigration Minister last Thursday. On Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she could extend detention through an order under section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006, yet her own review concludes that
“it would be very difficult to extend 28 days”
in that way
“in response to or during a specific investigation,”
owing to the length of time that it would take to go through the House.
The Home Secretary is putting the House in a very difficult position. The old powers lapsed on Monday; her review says that she may need to restore them swiftly to deal with a difficult case; according to her review, the order-making power will take too long; and the emergency legislation is not ready. Why did she not make the emergency legislation available sooner, and why did she not wait until the emergency legislation was ready before she let the old powers lapse? As we have seen from the events in Moscow, we can never predict what is round the corner. What are the police and the Crown Prosecution Service supposed to do if a difficult and dangerous case emerges right now? And what on earth is the Home Office doing telling the House on Thursday that the legislation would be ready, on Monday that section 25 of the 2006 Act would be sufficient, and, in its review today, that neither of those things is right?
We know already that the Home Secretary’s policies in this area have been a complete shambles, but they are also irresponsible. She has identified that emergency provisions are needed, but she has left the police and the public in a difficult position by failing to put those provisions in place. Indeed, we also have concerns about another aspect of the Home Secretary’s approach. She is relying on being able to rush emergency legislation through in a hurry to deal with an individual and difficult case. Is that really a sensible way to proceed, with the possibility of Parliament being recalled in a recess in order to discuss the risks in an individual case, yet without prejudicing that case? I would urge her to think carefully about that approach, and about whether it would be better to develop more restricted bail conditions to apply beyond 14 days, so that emergency legislation is less likely to be needed.
Let me turn to control orders. We all know that this is a difficult area. I think that everybody recognises that no one wants to use control orders, but we accept the conclusion of the review, which is that there is a continuing need to control the activities of terrorists who can be neither successfully prosecuted nor deported. We have said that we are ready to look at alternatives to control orders if the evidence supports that. However, the proposals that the Home Secretary has set out today are not an alternative approach to control orders; they are simply amendments to control orders. Many of the same elements remain: restrictions on movement and communications; and a review by the court at the instigation of the Home Secretary, with special arrangements in place. I would ask her to explain to the House the difference between an eight-hour curfew and an overnight residence requirement. Is not the truth of it that what the Government are doing is a political fudge? The Deputy Prime Minister told the BBC that he had abolished control orders. Is not the truth that he has simply abolished the name?
We need to ask some detailed questions about the proposed amendments. We would like to be able to support sensible changes to control orders, but we need answers to some important questions. First, the Government are introducing a two-year limit, with a requirement for new evidence before a control order can be renewed. Lord Carlile’s last annual review of control orders said:
“There is significant and credible intelligence that”
three of the controlees
“continue to present actual or potential, and significant danger to national security and public safety. I agree with the assessment that the control order on each has substantially reduced the present danger that exceptionally they still present despite their having been subject to a control order for a significant period of time.”
Those three individuals have been on control orders for more than two years, so will they now have their orders revoked, and what measures will be put in place to keep the public safe from the threat that Lord Carlile and the police clearly believe they pose?
Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us whether the changes will mean a reduction in the restriction that the Government are currently imposing on the remainder of the eight people who are currently on control orders? Thirdly, the Home Secretary has made it clear that she intends to rely more heavily on surveillance and less on the measures under control orders. We would support the greater use of surveillance, especially if it were to increase the chance of prosecution, but I am concerned about whether there will be sufficient resources for an increase in surveillance. The Home Secretary has talked about increases in surveillance, but we have not had clear figures about what exactly that will mean. The Daily Telegraph appears to have been told that there would be a £20 million increase for the police and security services, but we have not been told exactly what that means. Can she confirm that the £20 million for surveillance operations, or whatever the figure is, will not be ring-fenced, and that it follows a £150 million cut in the counter-terrorism budget and billions of pounds of cuts for the police? Can she assure the House that she is confident that the police and the security forces will have the resources that they need to keep Britain safe from terror?
This has been a chaotic review, delayed, confused, riven by leaks and political horse-trading, and culminating in a political fudge. It is a review with serious gaps, which raise serious questions about security and resources, and the public and the people who work to keep us safe deserve better. The rhetoric of opposition has now come up against the reality of government. The review has been muddled in its formation and chaotic in its announcement; the Home Secretary must ensure that it is neither of those when she implements it in practice.
Mrs May
May I start by welcoming the more measured approach that the shadow Home Secretary took in the early stages of her response to my statement, and her stated commitment to ensuring that we work together in the interests of national security? I sincerely hope that we shall have cross-party dialogue and agreement on matters that are indeed of national interest in ensuring our national security. Sadly, however, in the time that I have been Home Secretary, such a response has not been noticeable from the Opposition Benches up to now, but I live in hope that that prospect will change.
The right hon. Lady also supported our proposals on deportation with assurances, and our continuing work on that with other countries is important. On proscription, I can assure her that we are actively looking at the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we do not resile from our commitment to ensure that action can be taken on the sort of groups that we have described. She supported what we are doing on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and on local authorities in that regard. I am pleased to hear that, although it might have been nice to hear an apology from her for the use of RIPA by local authorities under her Government. I believe that that is one of the things that has damaged people’s confidence in counter-terrorism legislation.
The right hon. Lady also referred to section 44, and asked about the changes, which she said were introduced by the police last summer. Those changes were not introduced by the police; I changed the guidance to the police following the European Court of Human Rights judgment. It was entirely right that we did that, when a judgment had been made against us. The police have been operating under the new guidelines. Having looked at the judgment, we believe that it will be possible to introduce legislation, whose use will be very tightly circumscribed, to cover any potential gap in the powers available to the police as a result of the ECHR judgment.
The right hon. Lady referred to Northern Ireland. I specifically made reference to Northern Ireland in my statement, and I have been discussing these matters with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has been in touch with the Chief Constable and with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that the measures that we introduce will indeed provide the capabilities that the PSNI needs for the difficult work that it does. I should like to pay particular tribute to the PSNI, because we have seen a significant increase in the number of potential attacks, as well as in the number of terrorist-related arrests and charges, in Northern Ireland over the past year. The PSNI is doing valuable work in keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe.
The right hon. Lady talked about pre-charge detention, and that was when her more measured, conciliatory and consensual approach started to disappear. She made an awful lot of the issue about whether draft legislation had been laid before the House. The Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) did not promise that it would be laid before the House last Thursday. He said that we would be laying draft legislation before the House. It is my intention to discuss this draft legislation with the Opposition. As I said in my statement, we intend it to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, so that, if and when it is necessary to introduce the emergency legislation, the House will already have had an opportunity to scrutinise it.
The right hon. Lady also tried to make quite a lot of the gap in the emergency provision that would be available, and about the length of time that it would take to get emergency legislation through the House. It is perfectly possible to get emergency legislation through Parliament in a day; it has been done by previous Governments. I might also remind her that this is exactly the same procedure that was adopted by her Government in relation to their proposals for 42 days’ pre-charge detention.
On control orders, the measures that we are going to introduce will be significantly different from the control order regime that the right hon. Lady’s Government introduced. She talked about a curfew, but under the current regime, a curfew of 16 hours is possible, with little or no flexibility. Our proposals for the requirement for an overnight residency or stay represent a significant reduction on that, and offer increased flexibility for the individuals involved. We are changing the regime so that there will be a two-year limit on the operation of a control order on any one individual. The right hon. Lady asked about people who are currently on control orders. As I made clear in my statement, the current control order regime will be extended until the end of the year.
The right hon. Lady said that she supported the greater use of surveillance, which is part of the package that I have announced. I welcome her support. I am sure that we are all of one mind in wanting to ensure that we can prosecute people and bring them to justice. Obviously, we will make every effort to ensure that people on the new measures are constantly looked at in regard to bringing prosecutions. She also asked about resources. There will be new money available to the Security Service and the police over the comprehensive spending review period, but it is a well-known practice that we do not identify individual sums of money allocated for Security Service purposes.
Finally, the right hon. Lady made quite a lot of the fact that she thought there was a problem with the process that had been undertaken. I have to say to her that she was a member of a Government who tried to introduce first 90 days’ pre-charge detention, then 60 days, then 42 days before finally settling on 28 days, so I will take no lessons from her on process.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is an extremely important matter and a great many right hon. and hon. Members understandably wish to question the Home Secretary about it. However, there is also important business to follow, and therefore considerable pressure on time. Brevity in questions and answers alike is therefore imperative, a fine example of which can now be provided by Sir Menzies Campbell.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
May I remind the Home Secretary that it was a Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, who put through emergency legislation in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland in the course of one parliamentary day, demonstrating that, if there is consensus, a way can be found to legislate? May I also say to her that, in this finely balanced package—particularly in relation to control orders—she provides a welcome alternative to, and relief from, what often seemed to be the unbridled authoritarianism of the previous Government? Does she further understand that she strikes a particularly welcome note in continuing to pursue the possibility of intercept evidence, and in her emphasis on surveillance, investigation and prosecution?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his contribution. I am particularly grateful to him for pointing out, from his experience, that it is perfectly possible to pass legislation in one parliamentary day, as did a Labour Home Secretary. Of course, the crucial factor then was consensus across the House, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve that again, should it be necessary to bring forward the emergency legislation to which I referred in my statement.
My right hon. and learned Friend also reminds us that is has been important for the coalition Government to ensure that we rebalance the needs of our national security with our civil liberties. I was disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary made no attempt to apologise for the way in which the previous Labour Government infringed people’s civil liberties.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
May I sympathise with the Home Secretary in having to balance the protection of the British people with the political embarrassment of the Deputy Prime Minister? As she has already said, we all agree that prosecution and conviction would be preferred in cases where conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, or the preparation of such acts, are the issue. Will she therefore consider one more attempt to approach the senior judiciary and the legal profession to get agreement to change the rules on disclosure and admissibility of evidence, so that we can use due process through the courts in difficult circumstances such as those of the man known as AM who is being held on a control order? He has declared that he wishes to take his own life, and thereby the life of the British people. The consequence of that would be that we could not prosecute or convict him, because he would be dead.
Mrs May
I note the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the issue of the admissibility of evidence in court, the Government will produce a Green Paper later this year—some time in the summer—that will deal with the whole question of the use of closed evidence in legal proceedings. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look forward to that with great interest. On his first point, I merely say that both parties in the coalition Government went into the election absolutely committed to the need to rebalance our national security and our civil liberties. The package I have announced today does just that.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I welcome unreservedly the Home Secretary’s comments on the reduction of detention without charge, the curbing of the misuse of section 44 stop-and-search powers and, indeed, the reduction in local authority surveillance. On the contentious issue of control orders, she knows as well as I do that these have acted as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. Indeed, as Lord Macdonald said in his report:
“The evidence obtained by the Review has plainly demonstrated that the… control order regime acts as an impediment to prosecution.”
Can she therefore tell the House why she did not accept the proposal put to her of using police bail, which would have given her all the control she currently has—but within the judicial system rather than in denial of it?
Mrs May
I think that my right hon. Friend is aware that there are certain aspects of this on which he and I take a different view. I welcome his support for a number of the measures we have introduced today. On the issue of the impact of control orders, the aspects of the counter-terrorism legislation that led to most concern among communities were the 28 days’ pre-charge detention and the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers. In fact, it was the stop-and-search powers that many people in communities up and down country were most concerned about; and they were also concerned about the use of counter-terrorism legislation by local authorities in respect of matters that clearly had nothing to do with counter-terrorism, such as dog fouling and whether or not children had the right to go to a particular school in a particular catchment area. The package produced today and the measures introduced to replace control orders will, I believe, provide the necessary structure and powers to ensure that we are able to prevent and disrupt terrorist activity while at the same time ensuring that we put every effort into prosecuting individuals. As I said, prosecution must be the preferred option.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Will the £20 million of new money, to which the Home Secretary refers, come from within her existing comprehensive spending review allocation or from the reserve?
Mrs May
I have named no figure on the funding to be made available. I was very clear in my response to the shadow Secretary of State that I was not going to name a figure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Home Secretary, will understand why we are not doing so in respect of the work of the security services. I can say that the Security Service and the police will both receive new money.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
I certainly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement about the increase in surveillance, but she will be as aware as the rest of the House that in the last few weeks we have seen a heightened threat level from Irish dissident activity on the mainland as well as a series of scares about a very serious armed incident inside this country. If surveillance of known terrorists increases, how will she balance that against the increased threat from unknown terrorists?
Mrs May
We are, of course, very conscious of the severity of the threat that this country faces. That is why the threat level is currently set at severe, which means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. We are constantly undertaking with the security services, the intelligence agencies and the police painstaking day-by-day work, which is necessary to ensure that we not only prevent activity by those already known as terrorists, but that we identify others who might be in the process of trying to undertake terrorist activity. I pay tribute to the police and the security services, particularly to West Midlands police, for the operation undertaken before Christmas, which led to the arrest of 12 individuals and the charging of nine of them for terrorist-related offences.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the reduction in the detention period and the changes to control orders, although we will need more detail on exactly what they mean. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s attempt to try to develop consensus across the House. I certainly think it right that she should meet the shadow Home Secretary—following the robust relationship that seems to be developing, I, for one, would like to buy a ticket to that meeting. I ask the right hon. Lady not to forget Parliament or the need to engage with the Select Committee on these issues. Will she give us an assurance that her Prevent strategy will remain robust, that she will protect the counter-terrorism budget and that she will ensure that reviews of this kind—I know that she has more of them planned—will in future be more orderly than the one we have just had?
Mrs May
We could never forget the work of the Select Committee under the right hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship—on these and other home affairs matters. It is this Government’s intention to do all that is necessary to maintain our national security and to protect the public. That involves looking at the budgets that we make available for counter-terrorism work and the powers available for that work, as I have set out today. I dispute the right hon. Gentleman’s comment about the way in which this review has been conducted. We are conducting a number of other reviews, but what I think is important for all of them, given the severity of the threat we face and the importance of the decisions we take, is that we look at all opportunities, discuss the issues and reach decisions that are right for the people of this country.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and I welcome the long overdue rebalancing between security and civil liberties that it signalled. Looking ahead, can she explain how the Government’s work on communications data will impact on the agencies’ ability to access it and to intercept communications where necessary?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. This is just one part of our ongoing work to ensure that the Government provide for the security and intelligence agencies and the police the necessary powers and tools that they need to keep us safe. We made it absolutely clear in the strategic defence and security review that we will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communications data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework. That work is ongoing; we are ensuring that that capability is retained.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I welcome the reduction of the period of detention from 28 to 14 days—although I wish it were without the reserve powers announced last week and again today—but is the Home Secretary aware that her statement on control orders will be very disappointing to many of us? It would be far better if the due process of law—ordinary law—were used in the fight against terrorism. No one in this House underestimates for one moment the terrorist danger, but we should be very careful about making intrusions into civil liberties—hence the disappointment on control orders.
Mrs May
It has been clear from the responses to my statement that there are differing views across the House. We all want to see terrorists investigated, prosecuted and brought to judgment. As I said, the best place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. We want to make every effort to ensure that the processes of investigation and prosecution can be successful, but in a small number of cases prosecution has not been possible and deportation is not possible, so the Government need to act in order to protect the public.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
There is no freedom without security, so would the Home Secretary consider changing the proposed Bill’s title from the protection of freedom Bill to the security and freedom Bill? The Lord Chief Justice and many others have highlighted the problem that the principles of habeas corpus, due process and fair trial have been significantly hijacked by human rights legislation and judicial interpretation, which have taken us significantly in the wrong direction.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
While, in cosy comfort and at times with chuckles, we in the House deal with the theory of terrorism, Belfast this morning unfortunately experienced the practice of terrorism when a massive explosive device was found. As a result, the whole of north Belfast was sealed off from commerce, schooling and everything else, which is the equivalent of sealing off the whole of the east end of London.
With that in mind, will the Home Secretary—whose statement I welcome—tell us whether the repeal of section 44 and its replacement with a more tightly defined power for police officers will be flexible enough to allow the police to deal with specific threats that have an impact on a border with a 200-mile radius? We do not want them to be confined to dealing with such tightly specific threats that they are prevented from policing Northern Ireland properly, and protecting it from a more generalised dissident republican threat.
With regard to the new money—
Mr Speaker
Order. I very much want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I think that one question is enough. On days such as this, a great many Members wish to contribute.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the latest attempted terrorist attack in Northern Ireland. As he says, it involved a significant explosive device, and the action that had to be taken disrupted a significant number of people in Belfast. I am sure that all of us, on both sides of the House, are absolutely determined that people who perpetrate such acts should not be allowed to succeed.
Once again, I pay tribute to the work of the PSNI. We have been engaged in close discussions with the Northern Ireland Office—which, as I have said, has itself been engaged in discussions with the PSNI and the Justice Minister—about the operation of the section 44 replacement, if I may so describe the new power that will be available. I am confident that that new power will give the PSNI the capabilities that it requires, and I understand that later this week the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI will discuss the protocols that will apply.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee who has been involved in the saga of scrutinising the proposals for 14 days, 28 days, 60 days and 90 days as periods of pre-trial detention, I commend the approach taken by my right hon. Friend. May I urge her to be vigorous in her engagement with foreign Governments in order to facilitate the deportation of terrorist suspects in appropriate cases, thus reducing both the burden on the security services and the threat to citizens of this country?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. The Government will indeed be rigorous in their efforts to increase the number of countries with which we have agreements about the deportation of terrorists, so that we are able to deport them rather than their remaining in the United Kingdom.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
As the Minister responsible, with the then Home Secretary, for taking the control orders legislation through the House, may I say that I deeply resent the implication by some Government Members that we welcomed the opportunity to incarcerate people without trial? Control orders were always an imperfect solution to an unprecedented terror threat.
Recently, in the High Court, Mr Justice Wilkie said of the subject of a control order that he had renewed:
“He was and remains prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives. He remains highly trained, security conscious and committed.”
Does the Home Secretary feel personally confident that the measures that she is introducing will protect the British people from people like that?
Mrs May
I have announced these measures precisely because we recognise the need to take action against a small number of people of the sort described by the right hon. Lady whom it has not been possible to prosecute or deport. I am confident that our measures will do the job that is necessary, preventing and disrupting terrorist activity and ensuring that we can keep people safe.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
There is much to welcome in the statement, which goes a long way towards reversing the worst infringements of civil liberties by the last Government, but when it comes to control orders, the details do matter. I am pleased to note the increased focus on prosecution, the justice system and the police, but can the Home Secretary confirm that when the legislation is published, we shall see a continued move away from a murky, spooky world and towards a legal and just world?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is obviously particularly concerned about the civil liberties aspects of the proposals. I believe that the package that I have announced contains a series of measures that will enable us to protect the public and maintain our national security, while at the same time reducing our civil liberties—[Interruption.]. I mean that the measures will enable us to increase our civil liberties and reduce infringement of them. I am sorry: I was thinking about my hon. Friend’s reference to a “murky, spooky world”.
Let me simply say to my hon. Friend that it is necessary for our security services to be able to operate. The security services and the intelligence agencies do a valuable job for us in this country, and, by definition, what a security service does must remain secret.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
In the context of civil liberties, which does the Home Secretary consider to be more draconian, a control order or 24-hour round-the-clock surveillance?
Mrs May
There is a significant difference between telling people that they cannot do something and watching people while they are doing certain things, while enabling them to lead as normal a life as possible commensurate with the protection of the public. That, I believe, is the balance that we have achieved in these new measures.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. No longer will local authorities be able to spy on law-abiding residents who may commit heinous crimes such as putting out their dustbins or taking their children to school.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary entirely comfortable with the notion that individuals are held in British prisons without due process before being deported to countries that have not signed international conventions such as the United Nations convention against torture, where they may face an abuse of their human rights? Will she guarantee that in future no one will be deported to a country that has not signed the convention against torture?
Mrs May
The whole point of the discussions that we have with countries in order to be able to deport people is to ensure that those people will not suffer from abuses of their human rights when they are returned to those countries. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my noble Friend Lord Macdonald said in his report on the review. As I said in my statement, he said that the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues was likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
I can inform the House—at the risk of provoking my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—that I led the delegation from the European Parliament that first briefed the United States Congress on British and European involvement in extraordinary rendition, at a time when Labour Members were maintaining in the House the fiction that our Government were not involved. Against that background, my right hon. Friend’s statement is very important in rebalancing civil rights in this country. Will she comment on the suggestions that we should consider introducing much more post-charge questioning and the use of intercept evidence?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he did in the European Parliament. I know that he has taken an interest in human rights matters there, and that he continues to take an interest in them in the House.
Today I laid before the House a written statement indicating that further work would be undertaken to investigate the possibility of the use of intercept evidence. I am pleased to say that we have been able to continue the valuable work of the Privy Council group of which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—together with a number of Members of the House of Lords—is a distinguished member.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that those of us who signed section 44 orders and control orders did so for the purpose of preventing terrorism? Does she envisage any alterations in the regime governing the—I believe—eight individuals who are currently subject to control orders pending the changes that she is to introduce, and how does she expect to deal with the proposed extension of the pre-charge detention period from 14 to 28 days when Parliament is not sitting?
Mrs May
First, I recognise that individual Ministers have to take difficult decisions on the use of these powers. I am sure that all Ministers take those decisions with the right intentions, including that of maintaining the safety of the public. The current regime will continue until the end of the year, as I have made clear, and the measures necessary to continue that regime will be brought before both Houses of Parliament before 10 March, the date on which the legislation on that falls. The package that we have put together not only does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do and what I want to do, which is to protect the public, but very importantly it ensures that we are maintaining our civil liberties and rolling back some of the infringements of them.
Mrs May
I think that the Whip, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), has told the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do with the recess. If Parliament is in recess, it is perfectly possible that it can be recalled to bring in emergency measures. The right hon. Gentleman knew the answer to that question before he asked it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Home Secretary’s statement will be welcomed by all those who value fundamental British rights and the defence of our national security. Can she confirm that emergency powers will not be used as a back-door ruse to reinstate some of Labour’s human rights-busting counter-terrorism legislation? This Government believe in the judicial process and will seek to prosecute alleged terrorists, not to detain them indefinitely and arbitrarily.
Mrs May
On the indefinite detention of people, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will be introducing a two-year limit in the new measures. It will then be possible to put a new measure in place if it has been clear that somebody has been undertaking further terrorist activity, but that two-year limit is an important power that we will be ensuring is on the statute book.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), may I press the Home Secretary further on section 44? Whatever the problems in Great Britain, there is no question in my mind but that section 44 has saved lives in Northern Ireland. The power has been used proportionately by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in tandem with the powers under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, to uncover and disrupt activity by terrorists. I will want to look, as others will, at the detailed proposals that she introduces, but she has described them as very tightly circumscribed. Is she not concerned that she may tie the hands of the PSNI?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman’s description of the PSNI’s use of section 44 is accurate, because the PSNI used it very carefully—more carefully than police forces on the mainland. He rightly says that, as a result, terrorist attacks were disrupted and prevented. We have been very careful in discussions, and it has been of particular concern to ensure that the power that we are proposing will be usable by the PSNI and will enable it to continue to do what it needs to prevent terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary on the important steps that she has taken towards reversing the draconian drift under the previous Government. I am disappointed that the coalition has not scrapped control orders altogether, but even more important is the need to reverse the collapse in counter-terrorism convictions of 90% in the past four years. May I just ask about the written statement on intercept evidence? Are the Government now committed to lifting the ban? Has the question now changed from “if” to “when and how”?
Mrs May
The Government have always had a commitment, including in the coalition agreement, to examine the possibility of using intercept material as evidence. It is on that basis that we have asked that further work be done to examine a number of issues associated with practicality, affordability and how an intercept-as-evidence regime could operate. It is a mistake for anybody in this House to think that using intercept as evidence is somehow the silver bullet that will take away all our other issues and requirements. Work has been done to examine existing cases and ask whether a prosecution would have been made possible had intercept as evidence been available. I believe that I am right in saying that in all cases—although I hesitate in saying “all” because I cannot remember the exact numbers—such evidence would not have made that possible. That is certainly true of most cases.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the direction taken by the Home Secretary. It is an indictment of the previous Government that it has taken a Tory-led Government to restore at least some of our civil liberties, albeit in a very halting way. I want to take her back to her decision not to use this opportunity to bring back control orders within the normal judicial process as a form of police bail. Does the failure to do that not simply mean that we still have control orders, albeit by another name?
Mrs May
No, we do not. We are repealing control orders and introducing a new set of measures that have more tightly targeted restrictions on individuals and that, in some areas, significantly increase the flexibility for those individuals to work and study and give them some access to communications. May I correct the hon. Lady on one point? It is the coalition Government who have brought this package of proposals before the House today and both parties in the coalition were clear in the run-up to the election and following it that action needed to be taken to rebalance national security and civil liberties.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
There is much to welcome in my right hon. Friend’s statement, but thousands of people around the world are subject to arbitrary internment by Executive fiat and they should look to Britain as a beacon of freedom. What consideration has she made of the impact on this nation’s voice for liberty and justice arising from this lost opportunity to place control orders where they should be: fully within the criminal justice system?
Mrs May
I think that people will look at what the Government have done today and see a responsible Government who have recognised the need to ensure that the protection of the public and national security is our priority while retaining and strengthening those freedoms and civil liberties that we have valued over the centuries.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The debate at the heart of government on these issues has been based on the wrong premise that it is the laws put in place by the previous Government to protect the public against terrorism that pose a threat to our liberties. The threat to our liberties comes from those who want to kill innocent people. Today’s announcement waters down the control that we have over terrorist suspects, increases the risk that we would lose control over those suspects, and increases costs and pressures on our hard-pressed security services. Does the Home Secretary accept that, if one of the people currently subject to those restrictions is found to be engaged in a terrorist act, the public will rightly look back on this announcement as both dangerous and complacent?
Mrs May
I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation and of the balance between national security and civil liberties. Of course it is the terrorists who pose a threat to our civil liberties and to life and limb, and it is right that the Government do everything they can to ensure that they protect the public against that terrorist threat, but if legislation infringes people’s civil liberties and by its very operation reduces the public’s confidence in counter-terrorism legislation, that also has an impact. It is right that this Government should examine the measures that the previous Government introduced—which before the election both coalition parties felt had gone too far in a number of areas and, on control orders, the courts had found were too draconian—and deal with them as we are today, which will continue to protect the public.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I remind the House that I had a former profession as a barrister for the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary has said that the curfew element of the control order will be replaced by—
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Surely the hon. Gentleman does not need to read his question if he is a barrister.
Guy Opperman
Thank you; any time you want to get it going, you can.
The Home Secretary has said that this will be replaced by an overnight residence provision. Could she tell us more about that? Will there be significant differences between the past and present situations?
Mrs May
Yes, there are significant differences between the past and present situations. The curfews under the control order regime allow 16 hours of detention in the home. The overnight residence requirement will replace the curfews and there will be a requirement for people to stay normally in their nominated home overnight. Most people would consider a normal overnight residence to be eight to 10 hours, but we are not suggesting that we should put a figure in the legislation. That would be a matter for the courts to decide. There is a significant difference between the proposal we are making and the regime that the previous Government introduced.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Just like the “Grand Old Duchess of York”, the right hon. Lady marched the Liberal Democrats up a hill last May and has brought them back down again this week. On the specific issue of what she now calls the overnight residence requirement, does she not accept that if something acts like a curfew, looks like a curfew and sounds like a curfew, it is a curfew?
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the decision to allow Lord Macdonald to oversee and approve the process for the review? The Labour party has complained about the process. Does my right hon. Friend recall the previous Government making provision for such a review to have independent oversight?
Mrs May
No, I do not recall the previous Government ever doing something like that—[Hon. Members: “Lord Carlile!”] Opposition Members mention Lord Carlile, but he did not undertake a review of this sort. He was the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation and he continued in that role. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that he has done for a number of years in that role? He will be replaced in it by David Anderson, QC next month. The previous Government did not produce such a review or enable Parliament to have a discussion or debate such as that we will have on the counter-terrorism legislation. I am pleased to say that my noble Friend Lord Macdonald has said that he found the process of the review to be “sound” and
“The evidence base for the Review’s conclusions”
to be “extensive”.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The truth is that the vast majority of British people will be very concerned that the control orders regime is being watered down as a result of party political considerations and not as a result of national security considerations. If any of the people involved are caught using the new freedoms that the Home Secretary is going to give them and using the mobile phones and computers that she is going to allow them to have to plot terrorist activities, to encourage other people to engage in terrorist activities, to radicalise people or to promote extremism, will she be prepared to resign?
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on establishing a wholly new and more balanced counter-terrorist regime that restores civil liberties lost under the previous Labour Government but that still gives police the power they need to keep us safe in this country?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend. I think that the vast majority of the public will see that the Government have done exactly what we said we would do when we came into power, which is to restore the balance between national security and civil liberties. That will be welcomed.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
What will happen if, after two years of the Home Secretary’s new form of control order, an individual has not committed any terrorist actions and cannot be deported or prosecuted but we know that they still represent a threat? What will happen then?
Mrs May
As I have made clear, there is a two-year limit on the new measures. It will be possible, if further evidence of terrorist activity is found, to impose a further measure. The idea that, as the previous Government thought, the Government can under some measure have people parked indefinitely was a problem identified with the previous control order regime, and one of the issues that we have addressed.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Although I appreciate that the Home Secretary might be a little constrained in what she can say, will she nevertheless give an indication of the reactions she has had from the police and security services to the content of her statement today?
Mrs May
I am certainly happy to inform the House that I have had a positive reaction to the statement, in that the director general of the Security Service has told me that he considers that the changes provide an acceptable balance between the needs of security and of civil liberties and that the overall package mitigates risks. As we said in the review:
“an approach that scrapped control orders and introduced more precisely focused and targeted restrictions, supported by increased covert investigative resources, would mitigate risk while increasing civil liberties. Such a scheme could better balance the priorities of prosecution and public protection.”
All parties will see that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has said that she will publish two separate pieces of draft primary legislation. They will sit around and we will be able to chat about them, but she will not introduce them until there is suddenly some specific reason—such as a court case—for her to do so. We will then suddenly have to pass the legislation in one day. Surely it would make far more sense to go through the legislative process so that we can table amendments and consider the legislation properly without the burden of the emergency affecting the debate. Would that not avoid the danger that the courts might decide that there was no proper opportunity for a free and fair trial given that Parliament had already effectively decided that the people involved were guilty?
Mrs May
We have proposed that the emergency legislation on 28 days’ pre-charge detention should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny so that there is an opportunity for it to be considered, as I have made clear. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the process that we propose, why did he support it when his Government introduced it for the 42 days’ pre-charge detention?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It was all going so well. There we were, happily dismantling Labour’s anti-civil libertarian agenda, when along came this review. With respect to the right hon. Lady, she has simply done “a Labour” on control orders. Her proposals seem and feel just like the Labour control orders. At what point did she abandon her plans to get rid of control orders entirely and come up with control orders No. 2?
Point of Order
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Secretary did not answer the question about the level of resources that will be given to the security services and the police, although that information is in The Daily Telegraph today. We recognise that some information will need to be kept secret, but this information is directly relevant to the effectiveness of the new regime proposed by the Home Secretary. Will you use your offices to look further into why the House is not being given information that seems to be being given to the newspapers?
Mr Speaker
It is important that we should not continue the debate subsequent to the statement. I have let the statement run relatively long because it is an extremely important matter and the Front-Bench contributions were, understandably, a bit longer than normal. On this occasion, all that I want to say is that information about the policy of the Government should without exception be communicated first to the House. If for some reason that is not the case—the right hon. Lady has registered her concern that that might be so—that concern will have been heard. That was a point of order and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond to it if she wants, but she is under no obligation to do so as she has made a full statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
indicated dissent.
Mr Speaker
The Home Secretary does not wish to do so. So be it.
Bill Presented
Education Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Sarah Teather, Mr Nick Gibb, Mr David Willetts and Mr John Hayes, presented a Bill to make provision about education, childcare, apprenticeships and training; to make provision about schools and the school workforce, institutions within the further education sector and Academies; to abolish the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency for England; to make provision about the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and the Chief Executive of Skills Funding; to make provision about student loans and fees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 137) with explanatory notes (Bill 137-EN).
Carers and Employment
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for carers’ rights to flexible working; and for connected purposes.
Carers play a vital role in our society. Not only do they care for friends, family and others and provide support that would otherwise be provided by the state, but many—3 million—also work either full or part-time. A further 1.3 million carers of working age are not in paid employment—some out of choice. Many of those carers want to work but recognise that they would have to juggle work with their caring responsibilities. Financial concerns are by no means the only problem that carers face, but balancing care and work is clearly a significant challenge. A survey of 3,000 Parkinson’s carers showed that a quarter of them were worse off financially since taking on a caring role, with 14% having had to leave work and 8% having reduced their work since starting caring.
The Work and Families Act 2006 gave carers significant rights to request flexible working, but my Bill would simplify the definition and make legislation easier for carers and employers to apply. In bringing forward the Bill, I do not criticise that legislation, which was in many ways groundbreaking and was a significant step forward; rather, I hope to build on and improve it. The coalition agreement between my party and the Conservatives states that the Government will
“extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting with business on how best to do so.”
I warmly welcome that commitment and I shall set out some of the areas it would be helpful for the Government to consider in relation to carers. Flexible working is a goal we should be achieving for all workers, but my Bill focuses on the particular circumstances of carers.
Currently, the definition of carers provides a long list of those eligible to request flexible working, including those caring for a spouse, for a partner with whom they live, for a civil partner or for a relative. Relatives include parents, parents-in-law, adult children, adopted adult children, siblings, including siblings-in-law, uncles, aunts, grandparents and step-relatives. Also eligible are those caring for and living at the same address as the adult in need of care. Despite that extensive definition, certain groups of carers are still excluded, such as those caring for people to whom they are not closely related or who do not live in the same accommodation, which could amount to as many as 75,000 carers nationwide. We often talk about numbers, but let me put that figure into context. Carers UK has told me about a man who cares for his ex-wife and is not covered by the definition and about a single man who has fallen out with his family and is cared for by a friend who does not live at the same property and, again, is not covered by the definition. Those are real people who have experienced difficulties in making requests and fulfilling their work and care responsibilities because of the definition, which, although broad and significant, excludes many people.
During the consultation on the regulations in 2006, some groups said that the burden would be too onerous and argued for a more prescriptive definition, but many employers said that the definition was overly complex and that they wanted something simpler, even if that meant a broader definition or, indeed, no definition at all. A 2006 survey of four major employers found that they operated lighter-touch policies than required under the regulations and that none of them asked for any information about the relationship of the carer to the person being cared for. The most important thing for any employer is the impact that the policy has on their work, whereas the definition of who is being provided with care is of little concern to them.
Answers to parliamentary questions in September 2008 on the acceptance of requests for flexible working did not include figures for carers, but they showed that employers are increasingly responsive to the needs of those who wish to work flexibly, with 78% of requests being accepted. Not all employers will be able to accommodate requests, but those who do often recognise the importance of supporting their employees. It is key that when a request is made, an employer should reject it only where there is a clear business reason to do so, that they must explain their reason to the employee and that there should be an appeals process. Many employers have found that rather than being a burden, flexible working can help them to extend working hours and spread out work.
In 2009, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published a report, “Working Better”, which recommended changes to the regulations on flexible working. Its research found that awareness of those rights was low and that they were still widely perceived as being the preserve of mothers with young children. For those who care, there are additional barriers to flexible working, as is borne out by the figures in the 2005 report “Ordinary lives: Disabled children and their families”, which found that only 16% of the mothers of disabled children are able to work compared with more than 60% of mothers generally.
I hope that the Bill will also address the issue that many carers face of their commitments changing, sometimes quite rapidly, in relation to the kind of care they deliver. I recently spoke to a man whose wife had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. His experience with his employers was very positive: when she first became ill, he was able to fit his hours around hospital visits, but he then had to reduce his hours to a nine-hour week for three months before asking for a care break of 12 months which was later extended to 15 months as his wife’s condition deteriorated. Not long after, she died. His company told him that although they could not guarantee to hold his job open, he could return at the same grade and not lose out. It is worth quoting what he told me:
“This removed so much strain for me, as I knew I had a future to look forward to after my wife had died and I would not suddenly have to start job hunting the day after.”
He has now devoted himself to the work of the Motor Neurone Disease Association and chairs a local branch of MND. He reports that, regrettably, many people in similar positions are not so fortunate as he was. There is a real need to ensure that employers recognise the importance of this policy and that examples of good practice can be extended.
Much of the responsibility for carers’ issues in Wales is rightly devolved to the National Assembly Government, but the issue of flexible working remains with the Government in Westminster. In Wales, more than 150,000 people are in paid employment and have unpaid caring responsibilities. Some 60% of male carers and 32% of female carers in Wales combine caring with full-time employment, and 6% of male carers and 27% of female carers combine caring with part-time employment. There are examples of good practice, however: Carers Wales has highlighted the carers’ policies produced by Cardiff council and the Velindre NHS trust. Carers Wales has also worked with other local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government on developing policies in support of caring.
The final point that my Bill would address is the fact that employees currently have to wait six months until they can request flexible working, although many employers provide these rights from day one. People with significant caring responsibilities need to work flexibly from when they start and the regulations might make it difficult for them to find a job that accommodates their caring responsibilities. The Employers for Carers leadership group has suggested that the Government should consider that as part of their consultation on flexible working. Many employers would welcome that being settled when an employee first starts working for them. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the issue of day-one rights. As was stated in the EHRC report, the current regulations do nothing
“to reach people who are unemployed, moving in and out of insecure employment, or returning to work after a career break.”
The Bill is about cutting the red tape associated with requests for flexible working and simplifying the process. It is about identifying the many examples of good practice in large and small workplaces across the UK and about ensuring that this good practice is supported and emulated by all employers. One million carers give up work to care, and there is a real need to encourage good practice on flexible working to ensure that carers can stay in work. My hope and aim in bringing forward this Bill, with the help of Carers UK and Carers Wales, is that the Government will consider these matters very carefully as part of their consultation and that they will introduce rules that will ensure comprehensive rights to flexible working for carers in the many different situations in which carers find themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Mark Williams, Dr Hywel Francis, Jonathan Edwards, Lorely Burt, Annette Brooke, Jessica Morden, Roger Williams, Tony Baldry, Laura Sandys, Malcolm Wicks and Albert Owen present the Bill.
Mark Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill 36).
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that at lunchtime the Prime Minister indicated that the hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) had accepted an office of the Crown. However, it is our understanding from press reports coming out of Belfast that Sinn Fein is denying this. Clearly, this is a matter that will continue to trouble the House for some time. Has the Speaker’s Office received notification from the Government that Mr Adams has indeed accepted a paid office of the Crown?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have no knowledge of the matter. If and when the Speaker receives notification from the Treasury, he will cause it to be included in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. That is as much as I can do to help the hon. Gentleman on his point of order.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that a Member must apply for an office of profit. If there is any departure from that procedure, may we have a statement to the House? Will the Speaker inform the House of any departure from the accepted conventions, traditions and procedures of the House so that we are clear about the circumstances in which such a bizarre resignation is happening?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in the matter and that other Members may well have the same interest, it is not a point of order for me or for Mr. Speaker. If notification is received, the Speaker would place it in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. That is as much as I can help the hon. Gentleman with the matter.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European union document
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Bill
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 26 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 24, page 6, line 7, at end insert—
‘(e) a decision under Article 218(8) of TFEU for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in accordance with Article 6(2) of TEU.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
‘(da) a decision implemented through the solidarity clause under Article 222 that obliges the United Kingdom to provide assistance to another Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster.’.
Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 8, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
Chris Heaton-Harris
It is a pleasure to come back for a third day of excitement this week, talking about Europe. I thought that when I left the European Parliament, I might be able to ditch that part of my life and move on to something interesting. It seems to wear one down, like a terrible weight around one’s neck.
I want to see whether I can tidy up a few parts of the Bill which, I believe, could be helped. Currently the European Union is not party to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the ECHR. The Lisbon treaty, however, introduced what is now article 6(2) of the treaty on the European Union, which provides that the EU will accede to the ECHR. This accession agreement—in effect a treaty between the EU and the states party to the ECHR—is being negotiated.
Article 218(8) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides that once negotiated, the accession agreement must be concluded, for the EU’s part, by unanimity in the Council. The same article states that after adoption by the Council, the EU decision concluding the agreement must also be
“approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”
before it can come into force.
Under current UK law, this approval may require an Act of Parliament. Clause 10, however, where this matter currently resides, requires only a resolution of approval in each House. Indeed, the definition of parliamentary approval in clause 10(3) does not seem well suited to the approval of a decision adopted by the Council under article 218(8), because the resolution of approval specified concerns approval of a draft decision.
Until the article 218(8) TFEU conclusion has come into force, the EU cannot accede to the ECHR. This is a complicated treaty between the EU and the ECHR and warrants a great deal of scrutiny. It will have a number of indirect effects on the United Kingdom.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I, too, wish we could be free of the European Union, but that is a debate for another day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given where we are on prisoners’ voting rights, as well as the growth of rights under the ECHR and the controversy surrounding that, we need to ensure maximum parliamentary scrutiny of decisions such as the one that he is describing?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Indeed. I know that there is to be a Backbench Business Committee debate on the matter in the not-too-distant future, in which I hope that Members across the House can voice their concerns about that ruling.
I return to the proposal to move one part of the Bill from clause 10 to clause 7. I was speaking about the indirect effects on the United Kingdom that the accession of the EU to the EHCR might have. When the accession takes place, the EU will be able to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which will undoubtedly lead to more cases, more cost and impact and, most importantly, more jurisprudence on EU law.
I am seeking not to upgrade the requirement for scrutiny, but to maintain the present level. Furthermore, I am concerned that in clauses 6 and 7, a few article 48(7) ratchet decisions are not caught by the Bill. Such decisions would be those applying to the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure where the EU treaties currently require a special legislative procedure, and the existing special legislative procedure does not require unanimity in the Council. In other words, while a switch in EU legislative procedure would be taking place, it would not involve abolition of a veto because a veto did not exist in the first place. However, the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure entails the European Parliament having co-decision rights with the Council. It can table amendments to a proposed law and veto the Council’s desired law. In general, a switch to the ordinary legislative procedure would take EU decision making further out of the hands of national Governments and give greater power to a supranational institution.
The article 48(7) ratchet clauses not covered by the Bill would confer new co-decision rights on the European Parliament in a few areas of EU law that I shall list now, and many more. Article 23 provides that every EU citizen has the right to diplomatic protection. We had a debate on what that might mean to the individual. I am speaking now about our power to scrutinise such decisions. Article 182(4) allows the Council to adopt, through qualified majority voting, but only after consultation of the European Parliament, specific EU research and development programmes. These must accord with the multi-year EU framework programme for research and development that is decided through the ordinary legislative procedure, but the decision on specific programmes sets their duration, the precise financial contribution by the EU—essentially by us—and the detailed rules for implementation. Furthermore, article 349 provides that the Council can adopt legislative measures on how EU treaties apply to areas known in wonderful EU parlance as the outermost regions. The way in which such specific decisions are dealt with in the Bill would be a retrograde step for democratic control, hence my amendment.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) in the arguments that he has adduced. Since the Maastricht treaty, I have been gravely concerned about the operation of co-decision, and that is the best part of 20 years ago. The bottom line is that the situation has become increasingly difficult and unacceptable. The European Parliament, which is not a real Parliament at all—I see the Minister sighing. He cannot understand that the difference in the manner in which the European Parliament is elected, the difference in its procedures, the extent to which it holds Ministers to account, the intrusion of the process of proportional representation and the manner in which that operates, and many other aspects of the institutional difficulties and the democratic deficit that exists in the EU, are all part and parcel of the necessity to retain control in the hands of the national Parliaments. Unfortunately, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend, for these specific matters there is an extension of this strange creature which used to be called co-decision, but which now, in typical Eurospeak, has become the ordinary legislative procedure. It is not ordinary at all, it is quite extraordinary, and it is not a legislative procedure in the sense in which we are legislating in this House.
The Temporary Chairman (Martin Caton)
Order. May I ask which amendment the hon. Gentleman is speaking to?
The Temporary Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that when we are dealing with amendments, we deal with the amendments, not with general principles. If he could come on to the amendments in the group, I would be grateful.
Mr Cash
I am dealing specifically with amendment 24, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, and supporting his arguments. My amendments are, in general terms, supportable in accordance with the arguments I have set out, and I have no further comments to make on them at the moment.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about needing an Act of Parliament as opposed to a resolution of both Houses, is not one of the advantages of such a course that it gives more time for scrutiny, and that an Act is amendable in a much greater way than a mere resolution? Given the importance of the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined, it is vital that measures to do not get passed into law here in the UK indirectly or by accident, or by unintended consequences, as so often happens.
Mr Cash
That is exactly the point. The combined effect of the amendments that we are discussing is directly related to what the hon. Gentleman says and to what my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said. It is about time that the Committee understood that the importance of these debates is not being reflected by the votes or by the Government’s attitude. So far, they are not accepting any of the amendments. The European Scrutiny Committee has produced a report, and most of the amendments arise from it, including the ones we are discussing. My hon. Friend is a member of that Committee, and other members of the Committee are here as well. The net result is that we are not discussing the amendments properly.
The Temporary Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about clause 9, but we are talking about two specific amendments to clause 7.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I would like to address my remarks to clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, rather than to the amendments.
The Temporary Chairman
The hon. Gentleman will be able to talk about clause 7 when we come on to clause stand part.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Amendments 24 and 25 would require that before the EU can accede to the European convention on human rights, Parliament would need to approve the EU’s accession by Act of Parliament. At present, the EU and its institutions cannot be held to account for the fulfilment of its existing international legal obligations by the ECHR in the same way as the EU member states all can. Accession by the EU to the convention would close this gap.
EU accession to the ECHR is, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) acknowledged, already expressly provided for in the EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. Article 6(2) of the treaty on the EU provides that
“the Union shall accede to the ECHR”.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I am sure that in his usual persuasive way my right hon. Friend will give us a very good account of the legal case for the EU acceding to the ECHR. I hope that as he does so he will dispel the suspicion that is forming in many people’s minds that the real reason, never mind the complicated legal rationale that he has given, is to put the EU on the same footing as the other signatories to the convention, which are all member states, and to give the EU the character of a member state. It is only member states that have acceded to the ECHR, and all the members of the EU have done so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give us a very thorough explanation, which will also serve to dispel that suspicion that is forming in many people’s minds.
Mr Lidington
Certainly I agree that it is important to keep in our minds the distinction between the member states and the EU as an entity. It is therefore important that the treaties set out plainly that accession to the convention would not affect the EU’s competences in any way, and that any extension or enlargement of EU competence would therefore have to be obtained by the normal process of treaty amendment, which is subject to the various checks that we are laying out in this legislation. Under protocol 8 to the treaties, it is also made clear that the Union’s accession to the ECHR will in no way affect the situation of the individual member states as parties to that convention. So the accession by the EU to the convention cannot give further powers or competences to the EU; nor will it affect member states’ own standing with respect to the ECHR.
In dealing with Council of Europe matters, the Government are always on the alert to avoid creating either the impression or the reality that EU member states, which are all individually parties to the ECHR, are acting as a bloc. The situation is unusual, because the Council of Europe is an institution in which EU member states have a majority over other state parties. Therefore, it is important that that distinction of principle to which my hon. Friend alluded is maintained.
Mr Clappison
May I say—I hope the Minister will appreciate this—that he has been extremely assiduous in attending to Council of Europe matters and exemplary in discharging his ministerial responsibility in respect of them? He made an extremely important point about the Council of Europe, which is that it includes many other nations that are not EU member states. It is a good thing for countries that are members of the Council of Europe to be dealt with individually, including those that also happen to be EU member states, so as not to create in any sense the impression that there is an EU bloc, because that has a bad impact on human rights in Europe, extending more widely than just the EU.
Mr Lidington
I agree. Quite apart from any constitutional or legal significance, it would be politically and diplomatically counter-productive to go down the route that my hon. Friend has rightly warned against. Whether the UK as state party should continue to have the relationship with the European convention on human rights that we currently have is a matter of intense in the debate in the House, and Members on both sides of the Committee have their views on that.
The point for the purposes of this afternoon’s considerations is that the accession of the EU to the ECHR would make no practical difference to the UK’s position. The Government see some advantages in EU accession, because the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could act as a direct check on how EU institutions exercise their powers, in exactly the same way it acts as a check on the actions of all other signatories to the convention. I know that some of my hon. Friends will say that they believe that the European Court of Human Rights should not have that type of authority over this country, but I say to them that it is my belief that the EU and its institutions should be held to the same standards on human rights as we expect of member states.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his patient responses to so many questions. I wonder whether it is necessary for the EU to sign up to the ECHR, because we have already debated the question of how EU law comes into effect in this country, which is by Act of Parliament. Therefore, any decision made by the EU can come into effect here only under our own laws, which are of course already justiciable under the European Court of Human Rights. This is not so much an added safeguard as a symbolic step towards creating the European Union as a state.
Mr Lidington
We certainly need to guard against that. The Government have accepted, as did the Conservative party before the general election, that the ratification of the Lisbon treaty is a political and legal reality and that we will work within that context. The treaty states that the EU shall accede to the ECHR, and it also provides that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights should be considered, once accession has taken place, as general principles of EU law. In those circumstances, one would expect that those in the Commission who are responsible for drafting European directives and other legislative initiatives would have regard to the judgments of the Court and would frame draft European legislation in order to meet the standards of that jurisprudence.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Will the Minister clarify Her Majesty’s Government’s view of the Lisbon treaty, because it seems to me that they are in quite a strong position to say that things that have not already been done, which are subject to unanimity before they can be implemented, need not be implemented by the Government?
Mr Lidington
There is a clear statement on the face of the treaty that the EU shall accede to the European convention on human rights, and the Government’s position is that we accepted that statement and that commitment as part of the Lisbon treaty. As I hope to explain shortly, the law and our procedures in this House provide a number of safeguards that, I believe, will enable the House of Commons and the other place to scrutinise in detail any proposal for accession when it comes forward.
Mr Lidington
I will give way, but a large group of amendments is listed on the Order Paper for consideration later today, and those amendments stand in the names of many hon. and right hon. Members. I want to try to limit my comments on the early group so that we have time for a thorough debate on those amendments on justice and home affairs, which I think the Committee would expect.
Mr Cash
I have already been helpful to the Minister in limiting my earlier remarks. Having said that, I would point out to him that this afternoon the European Scrutiny Committee has considered the document, “EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights”, and set out in full, for the purposes of ensuring that the House is properly informed about what all the arguments amount to, both the questions and answers that he has given to that Committee. In particular, we include his letter of 30 June, our letter of 8 September and his letter of 21 September, and the detailed matters that arose on that, which take up two pages. We include our letter of 27 October and the explanatory memorandum of 15 November. The idea that the Minister can slide past this—
The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)
The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention, not a speech.
Mr Lidington
I look forward with relish to studying the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusions.
There are already a number of ways for the Government and Parliament to exercise control over the precise terms of the EU’s accession agreement. Article 218(8) of the TFEU makes it clear that accession would be subject to unanimous agreement by the Council and that the Council’s decisions to conclude the agreement cannot enter into force until it has been approved by all member states individually and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, which are entirely a matter for each member state.
In addition, all EU member states are also parties to the European convention on human rights in their own right and will also be parties to the accession instrument. As with any other treaty to which the UK is party, the final accession agreement will be subject to the procedures under part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the codification of the Ponsonby procedures. That requires the agreement to be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days, during which time either House may resolve that it should not be ratified. On top of those two levels of control, clause 10 of the Bill will add an additional layer of accountability by requiring a positive vote in favour of the agreement in each House before the UK could approve the EU’s decision to conclude such an agreement.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I do not want at all to talk about the detail of the European convention on human rights, but I make the point that we will probably need an Act of Parliament, or a resolution as it stands. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I wanted to ensure that the Minister completely understood my reasons for tabling and for wanting appropriate scrutiny of the points that it raises.
Mr Lidington
I completely understand my hon. Friend’s motives, and if I may say so without bringing him into complete disrepute with a number of other hon. Members on the Back Benches, he has played an extremely active and constructive part in our debates in Committee and has adeptly and correctly spotted some loopholes in the Bill that have led the Government to bring forward amendments to respond to the them.
Given that a number of control mechanisms already exist, that the accession agreement does no more than spell out the detail of something already provided for in the treaties and, most importantly, that there is no practical effect of EU accession to the ECHR on the position of member states, there is no necessity for the additional requirement of an Act of Parliament. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)
That brings us to the debate on clause 7 stand part. If I am reading the feeling of the Committee correctly, I shall allow this to be a fairly wide debate, obviating the need for further stand part debates on the later clauses. If we all understand that, I shall show considerable laxity.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Cash
I shall discuss my earlier point about EU accession to the ECHR in the context of the broad view that you, Mr Caton, have taken about the necessity to get some of these issues out in the open. I shall also refer to the document that I cited in my intervention on the Minister, because we discussed it in the European Scrutiny Committee today. The document is a Council decision, the object of which is to authorise the European Commission to start negotiations with the Council of Europe on the EU’s accession to the European convention on human rights. Our Committee reached the stage of a first report.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I very much apologise for not being at the European Scrutiny Committee meeting, but I was getting ready for this session. Government Members are giving the Bill the appropriate amount of scrutiny, but, looking at the Opposition Benches, I wonder whether anybody on that side cares.
Mr Cash
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is right, and I am glad that the Minister also nods in agreement, because the accession is hugely important. I understand entirely that the Minister has a view about it. He has also heard the very good arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has made on the specific questions that arise. The Minister knows that it is a contentious issue, not least because we are also dealing with the interaction of the European convention on human rights, which came up in the statement on terrorism only an hour or so ago in this very House, and the crucial balance between security and freedom. We do not need to discuss control orders and counter-terrorism now, but I simply make the point that an enormous body of law could be affected by this.
The shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), is attentive, was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and is taking an interest in the debate. Of course, he has to be here, but I think that he would be here anyway. I find it strange that the Chamber is almost completely empty when we are considering these incredibly important issues, and it would be interesting to know whether there is any reason why. I am glad to welcome my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who also has great knowledge of these matters. I hope that he will contribute to the debate, because we have just discussed this point in the European Scrutiny Committee, so it is an opportune moment for us to look at the principles involved.
The Government support accession by the EU to the ECHR, as the Minister indicates. I am sorry that we got a little tetchy, but he gave me the impression that he wanted to move on from the subject fairly quickly, and I understand the necessity to move on to later amendments. Our entire proceedings, despite some considerable reservations on the one hand and downright hostility on the other, have been conducted in a civilised manner and in accordance with what I hope debates in this House should consist of, but we need to take a good look at what the provision implies, and this clause stand part debate gives us the opportunity to do so.
According to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, accession will close the gap in human rights protection as applicants will for the first time be able to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights directly against the European Union and its institutions for alleged violations of ECHR rights. It will enable the European Union to defend itself directly before the European Court of Human Rights in matters where EU law or actions of the EU have been impugned.
The Secretary of State also says that accession will reduce the risk of divergence and ensure consistency between human rights case law between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU’s Court of Justice in Luxembourg. That is very important. Furthermore, he says that the EU will be bound by European Court of Human Rights judgments in cases in which it is a respondent, and like other contracting parties to the ECHR the EU will need to have regard to the Strasbourg jurisprudence.
I have heard the Secretary of State for Justice express views, albeit in other circumstances, in which he has raised concerns about the extent to which the judiciary is impinging on the sovereignty of this House, and I take him at his word. If he believes that, he might also consider that the EU will have to have regard to Strasbourg jurisdiction. Sovereignty, which we have debated at some length in relation to clause 18, is directly involved in that issue.
I do not need to repeat any arguments that I set out in relation to clause 18, and I have no intention of doing so, but the principle is about the use of jurisprudence from Strasbourg or the European Union Court, the European Court of Justice, and its effect on the legislative process in this House. There is also a constitutional question for the United Kingdom about the manner in which our judiciary is using Strasbourg precedents and importing them to their judgments in our courts. The Lord Chief Justice recently criticised that, because he is worried about the impact of accession on the manner in which we make our decisions and the invasion of common law precedent.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I hesitate to intervene on such an erudite speech by my hon. Friend, but one problem that the Minister might want to consider in the context of the clause is that accession by the EU to the convention will create essentially co-ordinated jurisdiction over some areas between the European Court of Justice on the one hand and the Strasbourg Court on the other. Indirectly, therefore, it might affect the rights of this place, because more law and jurisprudence will come from both Courts, and that might interfere with the way in which we conduct business and are expected both to represent our constituents and to make our own laws consistent with accepted doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I have intervened now because I think my hon. Friend will agree with that point.
Mr Cash
Absolutely, and it could not have been better put. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who is Queen’s Counsel after all, as well as a distinguished member of the European Scrutiny Committee. He has been following the matter with great interest and makes the point very well.
There is a further point to make about the statement by the Secretary of State for Justice. He says that, additionally, European accession will mean that individuals who argue unsuccessfully in the European Court of Justice that the European Union has breached their fundamental rights—I stress “fundamental”—can, subject to the usual admissibility requirements, complain to the European Court of Human Rights that the EU has violated one or more of convention rights. The risk of confusion in that melee—that dual jurisdiction—is a serious potential problem. The Secretary of State for Justice went on to say that European Court of Human Rights judgments will be binding on the European Union as a respondent to the proceedings.
The Government, apparently, do not expect the European Union’s accession to the ECHR to have any direct impact on UK law. As article 6(3) of the treaty on European Union confirms, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the ECHR already
“constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”
However, importantly, the Secretary of State for Justice concedes that an adverse judgment against the EU by the European Court of Human Rights may require the EU to amend its legislation to protect individuals’ fundamental rights in a way that will have consequential implications for UK law. That is why I not only have sympathy for what my hon. and learned Friend said, but refer back to the Minister’s assertion that it will not have implications for EU law.
As I said, we have had a number of exchanges with the Secretary of State for Justice. It is best if I pick out one or two of his points from the correspondence, all of which will be set out for the benefit of Members. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has come to swell the ranks of Labour Back Benchers, whose presence would otherwise be non-existent. Unfortunately for the Minister, it is just possible that she will agree with what we are saying, but we will wait and see.
In the letter of 30 June, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, the Secretary of State for Justice wrote to the European Scrutiny Committee, advising that the EU had adopted this mandate. He went on to explain that the Government support EU accession and made the remarks that I summarised earlier. We replied to him on 8 September stating that the EU’s accession struck the Committee as potentially a significant development in its internal legal order—despite treaty provisions to the contrary—and that it would amount to submitting the acts of EU institutions to independent external control by the ECHR. We also said it was a potentially significant development in the way in which EU citizens’ human rights are protected. We used the word “potentially” deliberately because it was difficult on the information before us to know how much the EU’s accession to the ECHR would be a symbolic gesture and how much it would lead to practical changes for United Kingdom citizens.
At this point, it is worth saying that these changes are not just generalisations, but that serious fundamental changes are being brought about by the manner in which the accession proposal is being put through. It is Government policy and it has significant implications for the daily lives of people. It is difficult in a debate such as this to give specific illustrations because the nature of the debate more or less precludes one from doing so. We are supposed to be talking about the generality of the constitutional change. However, I simply want to put on record that it will have a significant impact on the practical lives of the people whom we represent. That is the key reason for raising these issues.
We went on to note that the Cabinet Office guidance recommended that Departments should provide the scrutiny Committees with
“details of negotiating mandates as soon as they have been approved”.
We were grateful for the explanation of the Secretary of State for Justice on how the Government view these matters. We asked him to explain further how the current gap in human rights protection will be closed by accession, and what he meant by the word “directly” when he said:
“applicants will, for the first time, be able to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights”—
that is the Strasbourg Court—
“directly against the EU and its institutions for alleged violations of Convention rights”.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
This may be one of the rare occasions when those on my Front Bench do not object to my intervention. I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is going on about. I have tried to read clause 7 again. Let us go back. The fundamental charter of rights was introduced because of the judgment against the European Union as an institution over Gibraltar. Rather than signing up to the ECHR, which would have been the logical and consistent thing to do once we had given it legal personality, we now have two systems. In the UK, we are signed up to the ECHR. I would have preferred it if the EU had signed up to the ECHR. The charter of fundamental rights gives additional rights. I singularly fail to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making because the situation is no different.
Mr Cash
I am expressing the view of academics who have studied this matter, perhaps more than the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I am not making any personal assertions. I am just saying that the evidence that we have is that the charter will lead to legal uncertainty over how human rights are applied in Europe by introducing the additional standard of fundamental rights. I am not criticising the hon. Lady, but simply replying to her question by expressing the view that is taken in academic circles.
Stephen Phillips
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem that is being expressed is that there will be two competing and overlapping systems, adjudicated upon by two different Courts, which is potentially a recipe for disaster? I think that is the point that he is seeking to make.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I accept that there is a potential conflict, but given that we are already a signatory to the ECHR and that the EU is already a signatory to the charter, none of this adds to the complexity—the complexity already exists.
Mr Cash
I accept that. That complexity does exist, and part of the difficulty with the whole issue of human rights, whether in relation to accession, the charter or the jurisdiction of the Courts, is shown in the comments of the Lord Chief Justice in his Judicial Studies Board lecture. He said to the entire judiciary, “Brothers and sisters”, referring to the other judges—[Interruption.] Well, that is their language. He said, “Brother and sister judges, will you please take note that our first obligation is to have regard to the manner in which we come to our decisions in the light of common law precedent?” He warned them against adopting Strasbourg’s precedents as a means of arriving at decisions in our own courts. He actually used the words, “We must beware”. I therefore entirely agree with the hon. Lady and with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and with the views expressed in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report that has come out only this afternoon.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
There is indeed a conflict of courts, which has been a matter of considerable concern for a number of years. It is the oldest question of all—who is the master? Where there is a conflict between a constitutional court—the European Court—and a human rights court, who prevails? That is the lack of clarity that exists and the worrying aspect for many people. It has been much talked about in the European Parliament in recent years.
Mr Cash
Indeed, and I add that my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has been manfully seeking to contain the tsunami of opinions expressed in that Committee about the continuing onward movement towards accession of the type that we are discussing here and about the human rights culture and all that goes with it.
Mr Shepherd
I am not a lawyer, as is evident, but the great difficulty is that we have a common-law tradition, and the European tradition is civil law. Those are totally different ways of looking the world. It is the case law that I am worried about.
Mr Cash
Indeed, and that is because the abstract principles contained in the charter, the ECHR convention and so on have developed a completely different type of law from ours. In a way, this debate illustrates the difficulty that exists. I say to the Minister that as ever, the Government are acquiescing in greater movement towards the human rights culture.
I may say that if anyone knows of my record in relation to matters such as this, they will know that nobody is more likely to want to defend the rights of individuals. All Members are devoted to trying to ensure that there is proper protection. The trouble is how to get to that point. I believe, for example in relation to terrorism, that if we legislate in Westminster according to the principles of habeas corpus, due process and fair trial, and according to our established procedures, we can be sure that no suspect will be ill-treated in our prison cells, however much potential circumstantial evidence there is against them.
Habeas corpus is the first duty of the judge. Ask any senior judge and he will say, “My first obligation is to apply habeas corpus.” He would go straight down from his chambers to the prison to make absolutely certain that a person was not being ill-treated. If a writ of habeas corpus is issued, that is that. It is one of our most fundamental protections of liberty for the citizen. A great deal of human rights legislation, and all that goes with it, is moving us away from that. There are also political judges in other countries. There are different systems of law, yet we are acquiescing in a process of change away from our established system.
It is difficult to grasp the broad sense of what is happening, but it has a direct impact. However, the Government are acquiescing in it on a significant scale. That was why, when I was shadow Attorney-General, I proposed the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. That was our policy up to the time of the coalition agreement, and the Prime Minister himself repeatedly said that he thoroughly endorsed it. It was Conservative party policy, but under the coalition it has been abandoned, which seems a big jump. In addition, during the debates on the Bill we have seen further acquiescence in the process of moving towards the abstract principle, instead of the concept of the common-law precedent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) mentioned.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
My issue with my hon. Friend’s eloquent speech is that I do not understand the word “process” that he has been using. We are already under the convention regime. Whether we are in or out of that is a boundary question. He might want to get out, but that is a different debate. Nothing he can do to amend the Bill will fundamentally alter the fact that we are already signed up to the “process”.
Mr Cash
With great respect to my hon. Friend, he came into the Chamber somewhat after my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) explained why he wanted to amend the Bill to ensure that we retain greater sovereignty in relation to certain matters arising under the European convention. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for coming in a bit late, but we have already discussed that matter—we are now on clause stand part and the general question of the principles on which the convention operates. Does my hon. Friend want to intervene again?
Mr Cash
Certainly. My hon. Friend says, “We are where we are.” In this debate and in the debate on the individual amendments, the Committee is dealing with some very important principles, including the principal question of the shift of accession. Therefore, it is important for us to explain and illustrate, by reference to documents, which I am not going through in detail, and by general principles, that with regard to the charter, the European Court of Justice, the European convention on human rights and the Strasbourg Court, there are important questions that will affect the constituents whom we serve.
For example, the Minister has told us that the only way that individuals can argue in the Strasbourg Court that the EU has breached their human rights is to bring proceedings against one or more member states. His answer to the question, “What do you mean by ‘directly’?” was that once the EU has acceded to the convention, it will be possible for the EU itself to be the respondent and to defend claims in its own name. When we asked how accession will reduce the risk of divergence and ensure consistency between human rights case law, Strasbourg and Luxembourg when article 52(3) of the charter specifically allows human rights law to provide “more extensive protection” than the ECHR—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred to that—we were told that the EU must have regard to Strasbourg jurisprudence.
Our problem over and over again is that the answers that we get are a further extension of the principles that move us away from common law and precedent, and that instead absorb us into a system of law, judgments and courts that operate on abstract principles. It is as simple as that. That is the key question. When there is a divergence between the two Courts, those problems will become more conflated and confused.
Another question was how the EU autonomous legal order will be preserved in light of European Court of Justice opinions in certain cases, which I will not go into in detail. In a nutshell, we are grateful for the Minister’s replies, which are included in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report so that anybody who wants to read them can do so. I quite understand that those who have come into the Chamber very recently did not hear the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and the specific issues that he raised.
Kwasi Kwarteng
If the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) were so fundamental, why did he not press his amendments to a Division?
Mr Cash
The short answer is that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry did not do so because he had dealt with the questions that needed to be dealt with in relation to those amendments. I am concerned with the broader issue of the relationship between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That is the principal question in a clause stand part debate, which is why I am dealing with it now. That ought to be of great concern to the House, which is why the ESC has produced a special report and why I have gone into the detail in this debate rather than in a debate on specific amendments.
Mr David
I thank the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for providing an indication of what his Committee’s recent report says. We have heard over the last few days how important his reports have been in the consideration of this Bill. I also thank him for providing a useful context to the developing relationship between British law and European law.
During the last couple of days, we have heard a great deal from the Government about so-called direct democracy—enabling the people to make decisions themselves. However, it is worth remembering that the Conservative party has never been the party of devolution in Britain and it has always had a very limited definition of the European concept of subsidiarity. During the last few days, we have also discussed the exemption clause and the significance test—ways in which the Govt are substantially qualifying their apparent commitment to referendums. This afternoon, we go on to discuss the Government’s proposals for those issues that they deem, to quote the Minister for Europe, are “not of sufficient significance” to require a referendum.
Clause 7 sets out where primary legislation is required in such areas. It is interesting that the Government see Parliament playing a key role, but only on what it considers to be second tier issues—issues that do not require, to quote the Minister again, a “full-blown referendum”. Leaving aside the difference between a full-blown and a half-blown referendum, this differentiation between what is deemed appropriate for direct democratic decision making and for parliamentary decision-making well illustrates the incoherence and contradictions at the heart of this Bill.
For example, yesterday we heard from the Minister how under schedule 1 to the Bill any change to the appointment procedure of the advocates-general of the ECJ would attract a referendum. However, according to the letter that the Minister sent to his Back Benchers in November, a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting for decisions concerning the number of advocates-general would not attract a referendum, but would be covered by clause 7. Perhaps he will be kind enough to explain to the Committee why there are to be different procedures on those two related issues. It would be difficult in the extreme for any Government to explain why a referendum would be held on the one issue, but not the other.
It should be stressed that clause 7 is not about stopping changes at either the Council of Ministers or the European Council, because any member state can block a change to an internal passerelle clause. Clause 7 is only about providing parliamentary approval if the Government have already agreed to use one of the decisions set out in the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out yesterday, it would be extremely difficult for a Council decision to abolish unanimity in respect of the adoption of any future acts. Indeed, Sir John Grant, the former United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Union put the matter extremely well in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee when he said that
“everybody’s got to agree that some of them are going to be outvoted.”
It is extremely unlikely that such a scenario would arise, so in reality the impact of clause 7 will be very small indeed.
After clause 7 we have clause 8, which would give Parliament a greater role over the so-called flexibility clause in the Lisbon treaty, and after that there is clause 9, which deals with justice and home affairs issues. Yesterday we discussed how some justice and home affairs issues would be covered by a referendum; today we discuss some justice and home affairs issues that will not. In particular, I want to refer to opt-ins to measures
“under the area of freedom, security and justice”.
Interestingly, the Bill does not really deal with one extremely important area. Britain has a temporary opt-out in the Lisbon treaty with regard to certain justice and home affairs measures. Under that protocol there are transitional provisions that provide for the United Kingdom to participate—or not—in certain European Union justice and home affairs measures. For example, the Government decided not to opt in to the draft EU directive on human trafficking. They decided not to opt in to that directive at the start of the legislative process, making the same decision during that process and at its conclusion, although I understand that they are to review the position when it comes to the adoption of the directive.
We believe that this is an important issue—an issue that clearly has to be addressed on an international and a European basis. I understand that the Government have decided to opt in to the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography directive—and quite right too—but what about the issue of international human trafficking? Our view is clear: it is an important issue that Britain should be tackling in co-operation with our European partners. However, the issue before us today is whether it is sensible, according to the Government’s own logic, to agree to their proposal that such opt-in provisions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but not a referendum. We fully believe that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we agreed to an enhanced role for national Parliaments in the Lisbon treaty. However, given that the Government have been arguing for referendums on important issues, why are they not proposing a referendum on such an important issue?
According to the protocol to the Lisbon treaty, the United Kingdom has an opt-in provision that will last for four and a half years. After that, Britain will be fully part of the justice and home affairs decision-making process. Last night we heard that the Government had absolutely no intention whatever of allowing referendums to take place before 2015 at the earliest. The question that I ask is: why? According to the Government’s own logic, if there are to be referendums on important changes that affect the United Kingdom, there should surely be a referendum on this justice and home affairs opt-in during the course of this Parliament. Nothing better shows the inconsistency and incoherence of the Bill than this. It is a muddled clause in a very muddled Bill.
So much for clause 9. Next is clause 10. If what we have been discussing does not make things complicated enough, clause 10 sets out a further six decisions that require parliamentary approval. It is as though the Government have gone out of their way to create a piece of legislation that is deliberately confusing, obsessively complex and designed to confound every constitutional expert in the land.
Let me be clear: we strongly support greater parliamentary involvement and greater parliamentary scrutiny. That is why Baroness Ashton, when she was Leader of the House of Lords under the previous Government, made a statement setting out commitments by the then Government for more parliamentary scrutiny on actions arising from the justice and home affairs protocols. Last week, this Government made a statement that reaffirmed those commitments, and I welcome that. However, we are genuinely concerned about the lack of clarity. This is an obtuse and even eccentric way of addressing serious constitutional issues. They are issues that affect the people of this country on a day-to-day basis, and the country and the House deserve better than the Bill before us today.
Mr Lidington
May I first respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)? He spoke with his characteristic dignity, courtesy and thoroughness about the issue of EU accession. I am sure that he will understand that I want to look carefully at the report from his Committee, rather than responding on the hoof this afternoon. As he would expect, a subject of this significance needs to be discussed by Ministers collectively in order for the Government to come up with the thorough and considered response that every member of his Committee deserves.
Clause 7 fulfils the pledge made in the coalition programme for government that
“the use of any passerelle”—
or ratchet clause—
“would require primary legislation.”
It sets out that the Government may not agree to the use of a number of passerelles, or ratchet clauses, in the EU treaties unless the approval from this House is specified in an Act of Parliament.
As the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear in the past, there is no straightforward legal or treaty definition of a ratchet clause. The European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 listed 10 such clauses and limited the definition to use of the simplified revision procedure and to nine articles that allow for the giving up of the British veto in specific areas. When we considered that commitment in the coalition programme, we decided that that definition was insufficient. So for a start, we have put a referendum lock on many of the passerelles listed in the 2008 Act. We debated those matters earlier in our Committee proceedings. Others we have subjected to a primary legislation lock under clause 7. So the use of article 48(7) to give up the UK veto in an area that we did not include in schedule 1 to the Bill would, none the less, still require full parliamentary approval in an Act of Parliament. The same principle applies to any proposal to move to qualified majority voting in an area of enhanced co-operation in which the UK is a participant.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I apologise if I have missed something that the Minister has already said, but are the lists setting out what requires a referendum and what requires other procedures indicative or exhaustive?
Mr Lidington
What is clear in the Bill is that anything under article 48(7) relating to the giving up of a UK veto or a move to qualified majority voting would require primary legislation here. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry questioned me on those areas of policy, defined in various parts of the treaty, where article 48(7) could be applied to move from the special to the ordinary legislative procedure, but where QMV still applies now and would apply in the new circumstances. If it would help the hon. Lady, I will happily copy the letter I write to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry to her as well.
We took the opportunity in working on this Bill to take a fresh look at this issue. We concluded that a general principle could be applied—that articles already in the treaties that provided a “one-way” option should also be considered to be passerelle clauses. These one-way options add to or reduce what could be done within existing areas of EU competence, but without changes to either voting rules or legislative procedures. We felt that they should be subject to primary legislation.
We also looked hard at articles that modify the composition or rules of procedure of existing EU institutions and bodies. We will come on to most of those when we debate clause 10. However, we felt that the article allowing for the amendment of the number of Commissioners was a highly significant article as it could be used to negotiate a reduction in the current requirement that every member state should nominate one Commissioner. We therefore proposed, because of the importance of that matter, that any such decision should require approval by primary legislation.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is it not ludicrous that there are so many Commissioners? There are far too many of them to give them all proper jobs. Half of them do not have a proper job now. We have ended up with a system under which each country gets one Commissioner, but they are not meant to be there as “the British Commissioner”. They should work together as a commission. When it comes to state aid, it is particularly important that they act independently, not as a national representative.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman, my predecessor in office, puts a strongly held view with characteristic cogency. Whatever the merits of his argument, it seems to me that departing from the principle that each country should be entitled to nominate a Commissioner would be a change of major significance to the way in which the European Union is organised and run. As such, it would seem appropriate, whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal, that this should be subject to primary legislation rather than any less demanding form of parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr Lidington
I am conscious of the pressure on time and I am going to try to make some progress.
Let me respond to the challenge from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) about the numbers of advocates-general. There are not 27 advocates-general, so we are not in the position of having one for every member state, but it is important that we retain the veto on this, and we have no intention of giving it up.
It is important for the United Kingdom to be able to approve the appointments of judges and advocates-general, and we felt that it was sufficiently important to be included in schedule 1.
Mr Lidington
There will be other opportunities for us to debate the number of advocates-general, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to identify them. He and his hon. Friends have managed to weave the issue into every speech they have made so far at every stage of the Bill’s progress.
Mr Lidington
I am afraid that I am going to deny myself the pleasure of hearing a further explanation from the hon. Gentleman.
The other articles listed in clause 7—covering decisions on provisions for elections to the European Parliament, on the system of own resources of the EU, and on the adoption of provisions to replace the excessive deficit procedure—already require primary legislation before this country can agree to them, and clause 7 replicates those earlier requirements. Decisions under the articles listed in clause 7(2) would require approval in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state before the member state confirmed its approval of a decision. The four articles that I mentioned are also subject to enhanced parliamentary control in Germany following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on the Lisbon treaty.
For the other decisions listed in subsection (4), primary legislation will be needed before this country votes in the Council of Ministers or the European Council. In other words, the Act will be needed before the United Kingdom can cast its vote. We intend that to happen before the final political decision to use the ratchet clause is made at European Union level but after official-level negotiations have been completed, so that it is clear to Parliament that that is the final text and it can make a decision on what is proposed without the risk of further changes.
Unlike the 2008 Act, the Bill does not contain a disapplication provision giving Ministers discretion to approve a decision that has been amended since being approved by Parliament. That is deliberate. We want Parliament to approve the final version, although it will of course be examining the proposals from an early stage under the existing arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation.
I should emphasise that these provisions will apply only when the Government intend to agree to a measure. If the Government of the day did not support the exercise of any of the ratchet clauses, they would simply block their adoption. However, the pledge in the coalition agreement and the commitment in the Bill provide that when the Government would be in favour of such a decision, Parliament must approve it first.
Chris Bryant
I did not intend to speak, but as the Minister refused to give way—it was the first time I had ever seen a Minister do that in Committee—I wanted to make one very brief point. [Interruption.] I see that the Whip is fulminating. He can go and fulminate on his own.
The problem with the Bill, and with clause 7 in particular, is that it will make it more difficult for us to negotiate with other countries to achieve the outcomes that we want for the British people. Let us suppose, for example, that France introduced a law similar to this and we tried to negotiate a proposal that is in the coalition agreement, namely that we should end the ludicrous caravanserai between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is laid down in the treaties that the European Parliament shall have two places in which to sit, which is ludicrous given the vast amount of money that is spent on the two buildings, the vast inconvenience caused to people, and the creation of a monopoly air service which is also ludicrously expensive. Moreover, I do not think that all that has resulted in a better policy and decision-making process. However, if the French Government had a law such as this, they would simply block every treaty change that might be in our interests.
Stephen Phillips
As always, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but has he not just made the case for why the Bill is so important? In the example that he has given, it would be possible for the French Government to say to other European Governments, “This is in the interests of my country, and I will therefore not be able to get it through.” Is that not the great merit of the Bill, and is it not the sort of Bill that we would never have seen from the Government of whom he was a member?
Chris Bryant
May I just clear something up? I am not right honourable, although many hon. Members have recently referred to me as such. Many would doubt whether I am even honourable.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am not calling a Division on this one!
Chris Bryant
I do not think you are able to call one, Mr Evans.
The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) seems to be arguing that we should adopt a French style of intransigence, permanently trying solely to defend the British interest. In the end, such an approach cuts off our nose to spite our face. I do not think that anybody here thinks that the double-sitting arrangement is sensible, and most French politicians would agree in private. If this country starts setting up barriers to try to make it more difficult to change anything in the European Union, other countries will do the same and we will end up keeping some of the anomalies and ludicrous elements of the European Union. That is why I oppose the clause. I would have dealt with all that in a short intervention on the Minister.
Mr Shepherd
I do not understand this. The hon. Gentleman says, “It is in the treaty” but this Bill has nothing to do with changing the treaty and is about circumstances that may arise in the future. So what point is he making? If the treaty provides for movement between the two centres on a rotating basis, it is mandatory, is it not? How does this relate to the Bill?
Chris Bryant
The Bill does make reference to treaty change, and understandably so. I thought that the whole argument that the hon. Gentleman and many others have made over the past three or four years during discussion of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessor was that because a treaty change was involved, there should be a referendum. All I am saying is that if that had been the proposition in France, we would never see an end to that element of treaty change. I would, however, be amazed if the Government make any progress on trying to change the Strasbourg provisions, although perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions that the dual site of the European Parliament is provided for in the treaties. Surely the key issue is that the coalition agreement says that we are going to deal with this situation. The opportunity to do so is coming up, because the eurozone needs our agreement to a new treaty. In return for our agreement, surely we could demand that the European Parliament move to a single site, thus fulfilling what is in the coalition agreement.
Chris Bryant
That little speech was the definition of “denial”, because there is no prospect of the French volunteering a treaty change on the Strasbourg sittings unless an enormous contribution is to be made from our side, which the Government would be able to deliver only if they were holding a referendum. By forcing referendums here, which means that the Government cannot give anything away, the Bill is making it impossible to win the argument on closing down Strasbourg—I mean the sittings there, not the city.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in his example is clear. He suggests that the French would be reluctant to give away the right to have the two sites. That just illustrates the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made about the French sticking up for their interests, and it touches on the whole point of this Bill. It seems extraordinary for a Member of Parliament to say, “We don’t like the Bill because sticking up for our interests might in some way damage the whole European project.” That is not what we are trying to do.
Chris Bryant
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am sure that that is my fault, because I cannot have expressed this at sufficient length or ably enough. The point I am trying to make is that our insistence that there will be no treaty change without a referendum makes it more difficult for us to achieve changes in the treaty that we want to pursue, because other countries will simply say, “We know that you are determined not to have any treaty change whatsoever, which is why you have created this referendum lock and all the rest of it.” That is why, I think, Government Members who are delighted that the coalition is committed to trying to change the situation in relation to the dual sittings and Strasbourg are profoundly deluded.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statements about our having a referendum, when lots of negotiations have gone on while many countries have had referendums?
Chris Bryant
Referendums in different countries operate in different ways. I think that I have heard the Minister say on a couple of occasions both here and elsewhere that there was never a referendum that supported the Lisbon treaty. That is completely untrue, as the Spaniards were the first to hold a referendum and it had an 83% or 84% yes vote, so he is wrong about that.
I think I have made my argument on Strasbourg.
Mr David
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. He has used the example of Strasbourg, but he is making a wider point. The process of change in the European Union, as anybody who knows anything at all about it will be aware, is based on negotiations. The point of the Bill is that it makes it impossible for future Governments in this country to negotiate in Britain’s national interest.
Chris Bryant
Absolutely. There are many different things in the European Union—many determined in treaty—that I want to change as a pro-European and as somebody who wants always to defend the British interest. I do not see those two things running counter to each other. My argument in essence is that the Government must have enough freedom to proceed in negotiations, so that they can gain concessions from the other side. If a country has already locked itself down, it is impossible to gain concessions from the other side.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, then to my hon. Friend, and then please release me.
Mark Reckless
I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not entirely seen my point. A referendum is only one lever that the UK can use to extract concessions. Our agreement is needed on the new treaty for the eurozone, which is desperately needed to try to put in place a permanent bail-out mechanism. My suggestion and, as I understand it, the commitment in the coalition agreement is that as a coalition we will ensure that the Parliaments move to one site and work to limit the application of the working time directive in the UK. Surely that new treaty gives us an opportunity to do so.
Chris Bryant
No, because one requires treaty change and the other does not. If we have already locked ourselves down by saying that any element of change would have to be submitted to a referendum, when we effectively know that most referendums on many of these issues would be lost in the UK—that is the whole tenor of the argument made by the hon. Gentleman and others on the Government Benches—it will be impossible for us to negotiate with a free hand. In the end, that will be bad for the British interest.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I want to make an offer to Members of running classes on how the EU works. Anybody who has ever worked in the EU would turn in their grave if we were to rerun the past 10 minutes—except those who are not there yet. The comments have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding of how the EU works and how treaty changes work. What is most amazing about the Bill is that I find myself for the first time in years agreeing with those on my Front Bench—that shows how wrong the Government are. Negotiations are different; none of this has anything to do with clause 7 and hon. Members are utterly wrong. I am happy to run a workshop on that afterwards.
Chris Bryant
It is a delight to agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that she and I have ever agreed on anything before. That is perhaps a slight exaggeration; I think we agreed that a Labour Government were better than a Conservative one.
Many thanks for calling me to speak, Mr Evans. I think I have made my one point eight times now, and that will probably suffice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Decisions under Article 352 of TFEU
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and add—
‘(5) This subsection is complied with if—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support a specified draft decision and is of the opinion that the decision relates only to one or more of the following purposes—
(i) to make provision equivalent to that made by a measure previously adopted under Article 352 of TFEU, where that previous measure was adopted following the commencement of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 and the draft decision relating to that measure was approved by Act of Parliament;
(ii) to repeal existing measures adopted under Article 352 of TFEU;
(iii) to consolidate existing measures adopted under Article 352 of TFEU without any change of substance, where those existing measures were adopted following the commencement of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 and the draft decisions relating to those measures were approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.’.
Amendment 43, page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
Clause stand part.
Mr Cash
The amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and myself, as well as several other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley), and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) of the Democratic Unionist party.
We are dealing with a very broad provision in the treaty known as article 352, which is generally described as a flexibility clause but which has an ancient and controversial history. Even back in the 1970s, before I came to the House, when I was practising law, I was discussing a very controversial provision known as article 308, and I shall tell hon. Members why. When, in our legal processes and legislative procedures we pass laws, we do so on the basis of what is stated in an Act of Parliament and we consider the words. Some of the remarks I made in the previous debate on clause 7 about abstract principles are related to this issue. Ordinary statutes, particularly in the field of administrative law, frequently make certain provisions after a whole series of propositions in different sections. Right at the end, there is often an expression such as, “And all such measures as may be regarded as reasonably necessary to carry out these functions,” but they are very carefully constrained by the administrative court, and the tests are quite significant. If there is a catch-all provision that has the effect of enlarging the existing treaty arrangements, it is incredibly important to make sure that what is included can be justified and has proper authority.
In the context of legislation that comes to the House and thereafter affects the daily lives of the electorate, we already know, for reasons that I do not need to enlarge on, that the manner in which legislation is implemented could, in a nutshell, be one or two lines or a paragraph in a treaty that are equivalent to an entire Act of Parliament. With that comes a whole process of interpretation that is different from our own, because it is not necessarily precise and because it looks at purposes—it has a purposive quality. Then there are provisions relating to subsidiarity that generally are not adhered to.
When we are dealing with a specific treaty and considering its wording and range, we should ask, when it becomes part of UK legislation through section 2 of the European Communities Act, as enforced by the courts and their system of interpretation, how far and to what extent it was anticipated that the legislation being spelt out, even in a treaty, would result in certain consequences in terms of the precise policies that will emerge from the process. It is incumbent on us to implement the law, under section 2, but at the same time there is a great degree of collateral within which the actual provisions in a treaty are brought into effect, and there is also their effect on the people to consider. In many instances, people could not reasonably have been expected to know exactly how that provision would turn out in policy.
I happen to be a bit of a traditionalist and I think that when we pass legislation it should be consistent with policy making, but sometimes I think that my hon. Friends—I say this with great respect to them—are not necessarily quite as conscious when considering such issues about the direct impact of it all on the electorate, or about the degree of discretion that we are giving both to the European Union and to Ministers in implementing these sorts of provisions.
What is the effect of article 352? I shall explain my concerns about the Bill in relation to that wide-ranging provision, and I shall quote from article 352. It is important to set that out, as it is the framework for my general concern. Article 352 states:
“If action by the Union should prove necessary”—
that is a big question; who says?—
“within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties”—
which have an enormously wide ambit, including what they involve, their purpose, nature and interpretation—
“to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously”—
that is important—
“on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”
The article continues:
“Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”—
not Ministers, though they have the right to determine whether or not they will apply the unanimity rule.
There is then a provision stating that where subsidiarity arises,
“the Commission shall draw national Parliaments’ attention to proposals based on this Article.”
The article goes on to say that such measures shall not entail the harmonisation of member states’ laws or regulations where the treaties say that there should not be such harmonisation. Finally, it states—this is important—that the article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives relating to foreign and security policy, and it imposes certain restrictions consistent with limits set out in article 40 of the Treaty on European Union.
That is what article 352 states. It is a very wide provision. It is certainly subject to unanimity by the Council. I therefore assume that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the veto would be used, were the existing treaties—wide and deep as they are and effective as they are on our constituents—to be amplified by the use of that extremely wide power. I should mention that a few years ago the European Scrutiny Committee went over to see the Commission and its legal advisers. We had a full report on the provision in question, which at that time was described as article 308.
My amendments would knock out the provisions that would enlarge the Government’s capacity to bypass—I use this language carefully—the principles on which I assume Parliament would want to insist. Because of the ambit of the measure, we should ensure that it is used as tightly as possible.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will be brief, Mr Evans. I had quite a decent speech written on these amendments, but I want to move on to the meat of the justice and home affairs matters that we will discuss shortly. With regard to clause 8, the Bill is a definite improvement on the current situation, and I am pleased that the presumption is that an Act is required. My concern is about the get-out clause, in clause 8, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just mentioned, according to which the Minister can table a statement that certain matters are exempt.
Amendment 26 is not a blanket amendment that would require everything to have an Act, as would my hon. Friend’s amendment, because I understand that some things might need a lesser level of scrutiny in this place, but I am concerned about proposals that would prolong the existing flexibility clause or extend it to another country. Those are the two areas that should be approved by an Act. I am happy to see other areas approved by resolution in each House. The example that my hon. Friend might have been searching for is that relating to balance of payments loaned to non-eurozone member states in 2002 that came through such a flexibility clause, similar to the article 122 measures that we have just seen. That is the explanation for my amendment, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for the courteous and logical way in which they have set out their views and spoken to the amendments.
Clause 8 provides for the prior parliamentary approval of a decision by the Government to support future uses of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union through an Act of Parliament, subject to certain defined exceptions. Article 352 can be used to adopt measures in order to attain one of the EU’s objectives where the existing treaties have not provided the specific legal base on which to do so.
The measures concerned are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone acknowledged fairly, subject to the British veto, require unanimity among all member states and must remain within the confines of the EU’s objectives. Nevertheless, because of its enabling nature, the use of article 352 of TFEU has led in the past—quite understandably, I happily concede—to concerns that it can be used to facilitate competence creep. It is an article in whose use the scrutiny Committees in both Houses have taken a great interest, and I am sure that that interest will continue.
In responding to my hon. Friends, I will start by saying that the use of article 352 is now subject to much greater constraints than it was prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. In particular, it must be read in conjunction with declarations 41 and 42, annexed to that treaty. They set out four criteria that govern the application of the article. First, article 352
“cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of Union powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the Treaties as a whole and, in particular, by those that define the tasks and activities of the Union”.
It is also important to make the point that a fair number of those policy areas that in the past involved the use of article 352 have now, in the Lisbon treaty, specific treaty bases of their own. That means that in future it will not be possible to bring forward measures on the basis of article 352, because an alternative, defined and specific legal base will exist.
Let me illustrate that point to the Committee. Sanctions have been the subject of article 352 measures in the past, but we now have article 215(2) of the Lisbon treaty, which deals with measures to apply sanctions against natural or legal persons and groups of non-state entities. Similarly, articles 212 and 213 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union make provision for measures of macro-economic assistance to third countries—again a policy area for which, before Lisbon, article 352 was used as the legal base.
Secondly, article 352 cannot be used as a basis for the adoption of provisions whose effect would in substance be to amend the treaties without following the procedure that they provide for that purpose. Thirdly, the article cannot be used to harmonise natural laws in cases where the treaties exclude such harmonisation. Fourthly, the article cannot be used to obtain objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy.
Mr Cash
I understand exactly what the Minister says, but I am sure he will concede that that is all without prejudice to the fact that the measure is an expansion of what is a very wide provision in itself. For example, on the point that he has just made, there is a self-amendment provision in the treaty. It is difficult in such debates to get right down to the nuts and bolts, but basically this is a problem of an expanding treaty provision that was widely construed and widely drafted in the first place.
Mr Lidington
Given the history of the article’s use, I do not blame my hon. Friend for being properly sceptical and inquiring about how it might be used in future, but the Lisbon treaty now sets out explicit and specific treaty bases to govern policy areas and legislative measures that were previously the subject of article 352 authority, so it rules out the article’s future use to authorise measures in those categories.
Despite the greater restrictions on the use of article 352, and although it is not a ratchet clause under the definition that the Government have tried to apply consistently, given its significance we have decided that its use should be subject to greater parliamentary control. At the moment, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, its use is subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as any other proposal for EU legislation, and the Bill makes it clear that this Government do not believe that that is sufficient, hence the inclusion of clause 9. The provisions will apply to proposals for which article 352 forms one part of the legal base and to proposals based on article 352 exclusively.
The article has been used in the past to authorise a range of important measures: to set up EU agencies such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; to set up things such as a community civil protection mechanism; and to enable member states to work together to mitigate damage from natural or man-made disasters. They were important decisions, and they exemplify exactly the sort of legislation that will require an Act of Parliament under this Bill before the United Kingdom is able to sign up to it.
I turn, however, to the exemptions. Where legislation based on article 352 is equivalent to a previous measure, prolongs or renews an existing measure or extends a previous measure in terms of its geographical scope, we do not think it right to require an Act of Parliament in order to agree to it—if the substance of the measure is identical to a previously agreed measure. If it is not identical, the measure should none the less be subjected to parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament. Similarly, we do not judge that an Act of Parliament is an appropriate requirement if the legislation simply repeals existing measures or consolidates, without adding to, existing measures made under that article. Any proposal for legislation based on that article, even if the Government consider that it is covered by one of the exemptions, would of course remain subject to the normal arrangements for the scrutiny of EU legislation and the powers of the two scrutiny Committees.
Mr Cash
I am happy to seek to withdraw the amendment in the circumstances, without prejudice to my concerns about the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Approval required in connection with Title V of Part 3 of TFEU
Mr Clappison
I beg to move amendment 14, page 7, line 33, leave out from first ‘of’ to end of line 44 and insert
‘any existing or proposed measure under Title V of Part 3 of TFEU.’.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 27, page 7, line 33, leave out from ‘measure’ to end of line 44 and insert
‘presented to the Council pursuant to Title V of Part 3 of TFEU, apart from a notification in relation to a measure that, at the time of the notification, would if adopted extend the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations.’.
Amendment 99, page 7, leave out lines 34 to 36.
Amendment 98, page 7, leave out lines 37 to 44.
Amendment 47, page 7, line 44, at end insert—
‘(d) the provision of Article 83(2) of TFEU (harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions) that permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.’.
Amendment 28, page 8, line 1, at end insert—
‘(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol that would cause the United Kingdom to participate in further provisions of the Schengen acquis, unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the draft decision.
(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply to a decision that falls under section 6(4)(k).
(3C) In subsection (3A), “the Schengen Protocol” has the same meaning as that given in section 6(5).’.
Amendment 29, page 8, line 1, at end insert—
‘(3D) A Minister of the Crown may not permit the United Kingdom’s participation in the final adoption of a measure building upon the Schengen acquis unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention that the United Kingdom will participate in final adoption of the measure.’.
Amendment 30, page 8, line 3, leave out from ‘under’ to end of line 5 and insert
‘any of the following unless the draft decision has been approved by Act of Parliament—
(a) the provision of Article 77(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document;
(b) the provision of Article 81(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of measures concerning family law with cross-border implications through a special legislative procedure;
(c) the provision of Article 87(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of measures concerning operational co-operation between the authorities referred to in Article 87 of TFEU;
(d) the provision of Article 89 of TFEU on the operation of certain competent authorities of a member State in the territory of another member State.’.
Amendment 31, page 8, line 7, leave out from ‘measure’ to end of line 16 and insert
‘unless the notification in respect of the measure has been approved by Act of Parliament; but this provision shall not apply to a notification in relation to—
(a) a measure extending the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations;
(b) a measure adopted under Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that determines those aspects of family law with cross-border implications that may be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;
(c) a measure adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that identifies a further specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;
(d) a measure adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU (particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension) that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.
Amendment 34, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of a measure, or to accept a measure, to which this subsection applies unless—
(a) the notification is approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) the referendum condition is met.
(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a notification.
(9) Subsection (7) applies to a measure that includes, at the time of notification by a Minister of the Crown under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol, the extension of the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations.’.
Amendment 35, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to accept a measure to which this subsection applies unless—
(a) the notification is approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) the referendum condition is met.
(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a notification.
(9) Subsection (7) applies to the following—
(a) a measure adopted under Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that determines those aspects of family law with cross-border implications that may be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;
(b) a measure adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that identifies a futher specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate; and
(c) a measure adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU (particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension) that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.
Amendment 39, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) In addition to the approval required in accordance with subsection (1) or (4), as the case may be, a Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of a measure, or to accept a measure, to which this subsection applies unless—
(a) the previous decision by virtue of which that measure is proposed or was established has been approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) the referendum condition in relation to that previous decision has been met.
(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a previous decision.
(9) Subsection (7) applies to a measure proposed or established under Article 82(2) or 83(1) of TFEU by virtue of either—
(a) a previous decision, in which the United Kingdom does not participate, adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU that identifies a further specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;
(b) a previous decision, in which the United Kingdom does not participate, adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.
New clause 5—Approval required in connection with Title V—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification to which this subsection applies unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with subsection (3).
(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a notification under Article 3 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 (the “AFSJ Protocol”) and Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of any measure proposed under Title V.
(3) Parliamentary approval is given if—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to give notification in respect of a specified measure, and
(b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.
(4) Despite any Parliamentary approval given for the purposes of subsection (1), a Minister may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under a provision falling within Title V unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to accept a measure unless the notification in respect of the measure has been approved by Act of Parliament.’.
Mr Clappison
We come to a new subject area, that of freedom, security and justice, which used to be known as the judicial and home affairs pillar of the EU. As the clause stands, it would require parliamentary approval for a UK decision to opt in to certain provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice. At the moment, as I am sure the Committee knows, the UK enjoys an opt-out in that area. Were a decision to be taken to opt in to one of the matters specified in clause 9, parliamentary approval would therefore be needed.
Three such matters are specified in clause 9(2). Generally, they seem to cover further developments in the field that are not specifically set out in the freedom, security and justice chapter, which is chapter 5 of the treaty of Lisbon. I should say that that is a lengthy chapter containing many matters. I think I can see the Government’s thinking, which is to cover further developments in European law and new ideas in the field of family law, criminal procedure and serious crime. I agree with that thinking, as far as it goes, because it means that opt-ins on those matters will require parliamentary approval.
It should be said straight away that that is an improvement on the current situation, in which there is no requirement for approval of any of the important matters specified in the clause. There will therefore be additional protection, if one wants to look at it that way, and there will certainly be an additional role for the House, which will be required to give its approval before the UK can opt in.
My amendment 14 would take matters further in a logical way, by making any chapter 5 opt-in subject to the same parliamentary approval that is required for the three matters specified in the Bill.
Mr Clappison
I certainly give way to the hon. Lady, who I know has an interest in these matters.
Ms Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for tabling the amendment. Does he share my sadness that since May 2010, the Government have opted in to eight such provisions, including on such matters as the European investigation order, a new IT agency and a new crime and immigration database that will cost €113 million to set up, without the House having had any say in the decision?
Mr Clappison
The hon. Lady has updated my information, which goes only as far as 30 November, by which point there had been six opt-ins. There have therefore been another two since, and they are coming along all the time. We heard evidence in the European Scrutiny Committee that 30 or 40 such opt-ins were due to take place. The EU has an ambitious programme in that regard—that is not an expression of opinion; it has admitted it. I shall deal with that later.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that some of the opt-ins are on important points, and I shall come to one or two of them that I experienced under the previous procedure. I should like to ask the Minister how many of the provisions that we have opted in to since the present Government came to power would have been covered by the procedures in clause 9. I fully accept that those procedures are an improvement on the current situation, but I should like to know how well they cover the ground.
As the hon. Lady said, some of the opt-ins have been significant. I wish to mention two in particular—they were debated a little yesterday, so I will not take the Committee over the same ground. They are the European investigation order, which received practically no scrutiny in the House and on which we had no opportunity for a vote, and the draft directive on the right to information, which was also very important. We had a little more scrutiny of it, but no real opportunity for a vote unless one was prepared to trigger a deferred Division.
Under successive Governments, the UK has been very careful and vigilant about permitting the EU to deal with the so-called area of freedom, security and justice, which is dealt with in clause 9. That goes back to pre-Maastricht days, when such matters were dealt with on the basis first of informal co-operation, and then of slightly more formal co-operation, between Home Affairs Ministers. They were not dealt with as part of the treaties or Community institutions—Home Affairs Ministers simply met to co-operate as such.
The Maastricht treaty put that on a more formal basis with what was described as the justice and home affairs pillar, which was the third pillar of the treaty. The first pillar was the old matters within the treaty—the single market, fisheries and agricultural policy, and all the rest of it—and the second was common foreign security policy.
One or two hon. Members who are in the Chamber now were in the House at the time of that treaty, and there was much debate on the justice and home affairs pillar. We were assured—I remember being given a solemn assurance by an authoritative figure in the Government of the time—that the treaty settled the problem as far as justice and home affairs were concerned, that we need not worry about home affairs coming within the purview of the Community method and Community institutions, and that they were being kept separate. The same applied to the common foreign security policy. The implication was that the pillars in the treaty would stand for ever, and that they were all the protection and assurance we needed. I am reluctant to say this but I have heard similar claims in respect of many other so-called safeguards since then, including in the course of this debate.
Mr Clappison
I am afraid that I was credulous. We were perhaps willing to believe and wanted to believe what we were told. We knew that it was right for the UK not to come within such matters in the EU so that we did not gradually integrate into a superstate or a federal united states of Europe. Many are still worried about that and we wanted to avoid it, and we thought the pillars were the answer.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
One additional safeguard that was introduced in the Lisbon treaty is emergency brake clauses, which can be initiated within six months. They need not even be initiated by the Executive; a national Parliament can do so. What is to prevent the European Scrutiny Committee from doing what it says on the can, scrutinising those things, and initiating a debate and the process that might engage the emergency brake clauses? They are a fundamental check and balance.
Mr Clappison
My humble amendment 14 proposes only that the House should have a vote on such matters. The hon. Gentleman implied yesterday that he agreed with that. I will turn in more detail to my amendment in a moment, but to dispose of his point, I have been told so many times in the House when we have made a concession to the EU, or agreed to further integration, the granting of competence or additional powers, or changes in its institutional arrangements, “Don’t worry. We are putting safeguards in place.” At the time of Maastricht, that meant the pillar structure. We were then told about subsidiarity, and we now have orange and yellow cards and emergency brakes, but no one has come anywhere near using those devices. We have had subsidiarity for 18 years, and the only time that it was used that I have been told about is in respect of the zoo directive.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I remember being told in the early 1990s that enlargement would have a decentralising effect on the EU, and that the increase in the number of net payers to the EU budget would create downward pressure on it. The history of our relationship with the EU is littered with complacent and wishful ministerial assertions on what will happen as a result of Government actions and agreements in the EU. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Mr Clappison
Notwithstanding all the assurances, such as the ones that we just heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), about the safeguards that are in place and despite all that we have been told over the years, under the treaty of Lisbon judicial and home affairs were planted fairly and squarely in the Community institutions and method, under what was the old first pillar, and subject to the ECJ and all the other EU institutions.
Mr Cash
The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the European Scrutiny Committee, so may I say that the investigative order is still subject to scrutiny? He may be assured that we will follow every step, but we have no confidence in that part of the coalition that voted for all these arrangements under the Lisbon treaty—by that, I do not mean the Scrutiny Committee because I am talking about myself.
Mr Clappison
To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, he has an honourable and consistent approach to these matters which has a lot of appeal in the country. He is in favour of a more integrated Europe and of expanding the competences of the EU in co-operation with Europe. That is an honourable point of view to take. I take a slightly different view, but I respect him for his views. However, I would point out to him that of all the safeguards that have been mentioned, the one that seems to have been most satisfactory—it is possibly the only one—is the opt-out. When one surveys the history of this country’s participation in the EU, the areas in which people take most satisfaction are those from which we opted out, foremost among which is the single European currency. Some people say that that was one of the greatest achievements of our European policy. All the things that we have gone along with are the subject of great dissatisfaction.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I agree with what he says about opt-outs. Would it not be to the advantage of the British people if we could also opt out of, for example, the common fisheries policy?
Mr Clappison
My constituency does not have a fishing port, but my understanding is that there are no demonstrations in favour of the CFP in fishing ports.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I confirm that people in Edgbaston also do not talk much about fishing policy.
The reason why the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is so important is that it goes to the heart of the contradiction. We are told that the EU is a political construct in which the Union has only those powers that member states have decided to give it, but when we raise questions we are told that there are safeguards, which actually shows that that is not quite how it works. Proportionality and subsidiarity have not worked—only the opt-out contains the powers, and that is why it is so important.
Mr Clappison
That is why the opt-out is so very important, and that point brings me to the subject of this amendment.
Mr David
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) made an indirect reference to the opt-in by the Government on the European investigation order. The Government provided the reason—some might that think that it was an excuse—but it could not be scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee here or in the other place because of the general election. If the political will had been there, would it not have been possible to have at least informal consultation with leading members of the outgoing Committee, so that the Government had an indication of informed Back-Bench opinion on the issue?
Mr Clappison
During the period that the hon. Gentleman’s party was in office, we tried informal consultations, formal consultations and many other forms of consultation, and we did not get very far. To be fair to Ministers, this clause is a step forward and improves on the position that they inherited. I am trying to go just a little further than that, because this is such an important issue. I seem to remember that we were told that the opt-out on justice, freedom and security was one of the differences between the defunct constitutional treaty and the treaty of Lisbon—that the UK had an opt-out. That was given as one reason why we did not require a referendum.
I also seem to recollect—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that justice and home affairs were described as one of the then Government’s “red lines” when they were negotiating the treaty of Lisbon. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that he was not prepared to cross those red lines. The opt-out was one of those red lines, so if the present Government opt in to those areas, we will have crossed those red lines. That illustrates how important the issue is. However, I give credit to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because they are taking it very seriously indeed. They have made a lot of progress, but we are not talking about something over which, like it or not, the European Union has competence, because it does not. That is the important point.
We have opted out. We can sit back. We do not need to do anything as far as those matters are concerned. We are not in a position, which we would be in if we had not opted out—that is, if we had ordinary membership and were involved in ordinary participation—where we could be outvoted on qualified majority voting; nor, if something was subject to unanimity, would we face being in the possibly invidious position of being the only ones objecting to it, thereby holding up all the other members and preventing them from doing something that they wanted to do. Those considerations do not arise. We have opted out of those matters, and there is no pressure on us to opt in to them. Opting in would be a voluntary decision on our part, and would mean choosing to submit ourselves to the institutions of the European Union—the Community method and the jurisdiction of the European Court—and to abnegate self-government for this country on those matters.
Mr Clappison
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make a bit of progress.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. He is extolling the virtue of opt-outs, as opposed to using emergency brake clauses, which are designed to provide a safeguard against the opt-in procedure. However, to put the boot on the other foot, has he or any of his hon. Friends ever attempted to initiate any of the brake clauses, which, as I have said, is in the hands of national Parliaments, not Governments? If not, what is his real complaint?
Mr Clappison
Why should we want to opt in to something and then apply the emergency brake? I do not understand the thinking on that. If we opted in, that would presumably be because we saw some virtue in doing so and would not want immediately to put our foot on the brake. However, the hon. Gentleman has an honourable position on this issue. I have a completely different view: I want our criminal and civil law to be made in this country, I want the people of this country to exercise self-government over themselves, and I want them to be able to change Governments by exercising their votes. They would not be able to do any of that if we had opted in, because then we would be submitting ourselves voluntarily to European government, as opposed to democratic self-government in this country. There is therefore a fundamental difference between us.
It is significant if we decide to opt in because once we have done so, we could become subject to amendments on the same matters. Although we would have an opt-in on those as well, we would none the less be under a great deal of pressure, facing the prospect of financial penalties, were we not to opt in to any proposals that came along. We took a lot of evidence in the European Scrutiny Committee on that issue from the former Foreign Secretary, particularly about the unsatisfactory arrangements that were made for new opt-ins, as well as the existing opt-ins to the former judicial and home affairs pillar, where we face financial penalties. One cannot be said to be exercising a free choice if one faces a financial penalty for not going along with something.
More importantly, we are also submitting ourselves to the European Court of Justice. In debates on previous groups of amendments we heard some good examples of what can happen with competence creep under the old article 308. However, competence creep can also come about, as it has done, through the European Court of Justice exercising its jurisdiction. We are voluntarily submitting ourselves to that jurisdiction, and that does not apply only to cross-border matters, which is the pretence. Rather, we are submitting to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in every element of criminal law and civil law, and in all our courts across the country, if we opt in to matters that govern those elements.
We sometimes complain about the lack of transparency in EU decision making, but to be fair to the European Union there is no lack of transparency about its ambitions. I believe that one of its ambitions is to build an area of freedom, security and justice; I disagree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham on that. In President Barroso’s state of the Union address last autumn—he has one as well as President Obama now—he said that it was the European Union’s third top priority to build such an area. That is also in the treaty of Lisbon. We can expect to see many proposals on European contract law and many other issues in the coming year or so, and we shall have to decide whether to opt in to them or not. The proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others have put in place would be of great assistance when those matters come before the House for consideration.
I commend the interest and commitment of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on this issue. They have recognised that it is a problem, and set out to deal with it in a much better way than it has ever been dealt with before. We now have clause 9. In addition, a written ministerial statement was made last week. It did not go quite as far as I would have wished, but I have a lot of wishes in that regard. It represented a significant improvement, however, and we have been promised a substantive vote when there is interest in these substantial matters in the House, to enable hon. Members to express their approval. There is still a question of who decides which matters are of great interest, but this is at least a step forward.
I hope that time will be found and that we will have those votes, because it is very much in the interest of the Government and the House that they take place. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to exercise the legislative override but to permit a full debate on these matters on a substantive motion, preferably on the Floor of the House, with a vote at the end of it. They have promised to discuss these matters with the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—I know that he stands ready to help in those discussions—and to facilitate debates and votes taking place in the House.
I am sure that constructive discussions will take place on how this can be arranged, and on how we can improve our scrutiny of these matters. I know that Ministers take their responsibilities very seriously, and I hope that they will take from this the message that, while we regard all scrutiny as important, it is particularly important in regard to the opt-ins that would bring us within the purview of European Union institutions for the first time. It is especially important that we should have debates and votes on them, and that Ministers should listen to the messages that they receive. They should consult members of the European Scrutiny Committee and listen to what they are told, and we should proceed on that basis.
I would prefer us not to opt in to any of these things. I would prefer us to exercise the opt-out, but we are where we are. If we are going to have the possibility of opt-ins, it is preferable that we have a proper debate and a proper vote on the Floor of the House of Commons, rather than some of the procedures that we have gone through in the past which, despite the diligence and hard work of the European Scrutiny Committee, did not really amount to what our constituents would regard as proper scrutiny, because of the restrictions involved.
I am relying on my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to make good their words, as I am sure that they will wish to do, about further improvements to the parliamentary scrutiny of these matters. I shall not press my amendment to a vote, but I look forward to discussions taking place so that we can build on the improved system that is being put in place to create a much better system of parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr David
I would like to say a few additional words about clause 9, which follows on directly from what has been said. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but I hope that the Minister will respond to the points I raised earlier about the clause. Unfortunately, he simply dismissed my earlier question about the advocates-general. We are in Committee and we have every right to expect proper and considered responses from the Minister.
As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, this is an important issue. It has in the past been a red line in the negotiations, and the opt-ins that are possible in the not-too-distant future should at the very least be subject to proper debate and parliamentary scrutiny. That is absolutely correct. What I am concerned about, to return to a point I made earlier, is the apparent illogicality of the Bill. If, by common agreement, this is an important area, surely there should be careful consideration of whether or not there should be a referendum on this subject.
I am not arguing the case for having referendums generally—as I said in the debate a couple of days ago, there are profound conceptual problems in having a multiplicity of referendums—but I believe this is an important issue. If the Government claim to be producing a piece of legislation that is logical, coherent and systematic, I would like to know their argument for not having a referendum on these opt-ins.
Stemming from that, the Minister has made it abundantly clear—he made it very clear last night—that the Government will not contemplate holding a referendum until 2015 at the earliest, but the issue of these JHA—justice and home affairs—opt-ins will come to the fore in the next few years. It is therefore important to have a proper response from the Government, so the Minister should at the very least attempt to justify his position.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the Committee that there will be no separate clause 9 stand part debate. If anyone wishes to make any comments relevant to that, now is the time to do so.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I shall speak mainly to the amendments I have tabled, talk about the general opt-ins and ask a couple of questions about the written ministerial statement that was issued last Thursday, particularly on how aspects of it might work in the future. I always have questions about the who and when of decision taking.
My amendment 27 deals with something that is missing from the Bill—the body known as Eurojust. Eurojust is not the European public prosecutor, but it represents a massive step towards a European public prosecutor. Under article 85 of TFEU, its remit falls under ordinary legislative procedure, so a proposal comes from the Commission, qualified majority voting applies in the Council and co-decision applies within the European Parliament. It already has a huge amount of power—or it will have, when it is set up.
In April 2010, the European Commission published a document delivering
“an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens”,
which was an action plan implementing the Stockholm programme. The Stockholm programme is the five-year European Union plan for justice and home affairs measures, which was adopted by the European Council in December 2009. On page 18 of the document, the European Commission states that in 2012, it will make a proposal for an EU regulation
“giving Eurojust powers to directly initiate investigations.”
Even if the current Government do not opt into the proposal, there is nothing in the Bill to require them to seek Parliament’s or the people’s approval to opt in once the regulation is adopted, allowing Eurojust to initiate investigations in the UK, for example. This is a massive step towards the European public prosecutor. I hope the Minister will reassure me that he will address that point at some stage, if not today.
It may be useful if I provide some examples of significant justice and home affairs matters that the last Government opted into. I could have picked any issue in that category, but I chose the issue of asylum because I know that it always gets the blood flowing.
Among other things, directive 2004/83-EC
“on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted”
sets out the rights enjoyed by those who have been granted refugee status. Some of them go beyond the rights approved for the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, such as those relating to access to the employment market and social security.
Directive 2003/9/EC,
“laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers”,
includes provisions on the rights of asylum seekers to access the jobs market in certain circumstances, and on the accommodation that must be offered to them. Directive 2005/85/EC
“on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for the granting and withdrawing of refugee status”
lays down various restrictions and requirements regarding the procedures that member states can follow in processing asylum claims and withdrawing refugee status. They include specific requirements for the possibility of legal challenge by asylum seekers to various decisions taken as part of the process.
Those pieces of legislation were part of the first wave of the construction of the common European asylum system that was first called for in the Tampere European Council of October 1999. The Commission has been pressing on with further legislation to build that common system since then, and over the past two years it has presented three proposals for directives to replace those that I have cited. The general thrust of the proposals is a desire to further “harmonise” asylum policy and processes across the EU and, as a consequence, to limit national discretion yet further. As it happens, the last Government decided not to opt into those later proposals; but what would happen if this Government, or a future Government, chose to opt into them? It is realistic to assume that, under the Bill, Parliament would have no legal control.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that the Bill constitutes a step forward in one respect, and I congratulate the Minister on advancing so far. The written ministerial statement on justice and home affairs scrutiny laid before the House last Thursday contains a great deal of common sense, but I think that there is a need for further discussion of the consequences that will flow from it with the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested parliamentarians. Let me quote the key passage. It states that
“in circumstances where there is particularly strong parliamentary interest in the Government's decision on whether or not to opt in to such a measure, the Government express their willingness to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on the basis of a motion on the Government's recommended approach on the opt-in. The precise details of these arrangements to allow such debates and the circumstances in which Government time would be set aside will be the subject of further consultation with the European Scrutiny Committees, business managers”
—otherwise known as the wonderful Whips who are so kind and gentle to us all in this place—
“and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees. These discussions will also need to determine how arrangements would operate during periods of parliamentary recess and dissolution of Parliament.”
That is all pretty good.
“However, the Government believe that as a general rule, it would be appropriate to do so in circumstances where they propose to opt in to a measure which would have a substantial impact on the United Kingdom's criminal or civil law, our national security, civil liberties or immigration policy. The Government will also put in place analogous arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of decisions to opt-out of measures under the Schengen protocol.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]
The written ministerial statement raises a number of questions. I shall talk about a couple of them now, but I would like to think that discussions can be ongoing and we can flesh out the detail. What would constitute “particularly strong parliamentary interest”? How, therefore, is a debate in Government time triggered? Would it be triggered by a referral by the European Scrutiny Committee? That could be complemented by an additional right whereby a certain number of MPs could trigger such a debate. Does the commitment to a debate and vote cover the opt-in to a justice and home affairs law already adopted by the other member states? The written ministerial statement seemed to indicate otherwise. Similarly, does the commitment cover the opt-in to new aspects of the existing Schengen acquis, such as common visa rules, where this opt-in is not covered by clause 6 of the Bill? Would it cover the opt-in to a pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice law that has ceased to apply to the UK because it exercised the bloc opt-out before June 2014? If it does cover that, how would Parliament be made aware that such an opt-in was being considered by the Government, given that this could happen at any time?
Ms Gisela Stuart
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me if I say something that is incorrect, because I have not had sight of that written ministerial statement. We know that whenever we negotiate an opt-out in Brussels we spend political capital so, by definition, anything that we negotiate to opt out of is significant and an opt-in is a significant step. So any opt-in ought to be debated in Parliament and subject to a substantive vote because it must have been so important that we expended political capital securing it.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I tend to agree with the hon. Lady. When she reads the written ministerial statement, she will see that it represents a huge step forward in our scrutiny of these things in this place and she may see what measures the Government might want to opt into. I wished to raise this question of the opt-in now, because I think that the Bill is a step forward, as is this clause.
Martin Horwood
I was interested by the intervention made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She has great knowledge of European matters, but she may be wrong about this. Not everything that we are talking about opting into based on these passerelles has been positively opted out of before. We are talking about new ways of working within the competences already set out in those passerelles.
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is possibly the case. I do not wish to give a definite answer, because I am not the expert on this matter and I was just raising it for the Committee in general debate. I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman describes is the case, but I would hate to say that he is wrong because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, although we might have different views, the factual statements that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has made have invariably been correct.
Mr Clappison
The opt-in arrangements are found in the “Protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice”. This is in the Lisbon treaty itself and as far as those matters are concerned we have to opt in.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am looking forward to the Minister clarifying that for us all. I was discussing the questions about the written ministerial statement where we need things fleshed out. This Government commitment does not require the Government to come before Parliament to get approval for each of their decisions to opt in, which is what the amendments would entail. Although the current Government might give this commitment, it may not apply in the future, whereas a requirement in statute, rather than something in a written ministerial statement, would be expected to withstand the passage of time much better. There are a number of omissions from the written ministerial statement. It does not deal with the timing of the process and whether new proposals are acted on in a different way, and the arrangements for opting into things that have already been adopted by our EU partners causes me concern, because I am not sure whether this process catches that.
Those are all matters of conjecture and question, and they are ways in which we can altogether improve the scrutiny of justice and home affairs opt-ins in the future. I see the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) nodding his head in agreement and I believe there is massive cross-party and cross-Parliament interest in getting this process right for the future. I do not see the issue as politically contentious.
I note the massive steps forward that have been made with this Bill and in the written ministerial statement, so I shall not press my amendments to a vote either. I thank the Minister for coming so far so fast and look forward to working with him on this matter in the future.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Evans, for calling me to speak in this debate on clause 9, which is one of the Bill’s key provisions. The treatment of justice and home affairs merits close scrutiny in the Bill. The EU is increasingly seeking to broaden and deepen its authority in this important area. We need only to consider the inception of the Stockholm programme, to which the previous Government signed up, on policing, justice, asylum and borders. It is also illustrated—if further illustration were needed—by the 13% budget increase for this policy area in this year’s EU budget, which is higher than that for any other area. That is a sign of the ambition in Brussels to move bit by bit towards a pan-European legal system, at odds with our distinct history and tradition of justice reflected in the common law, our safeguards for personal freedom and our adversarial court system.
Nick de Bois
My hon. Friend has touched on a matter of great importance. I welcome the safeguards. It seems to me that justice in other countries is very different from justice in ours, principally on the basis of mutual recognition that many things are the same. It concerns me that we must keep as divorced as possible from the system in France, for example. Even a former French Justice Minister said, “The assumption here is that one is innocent until one is proven guilty, but in reality, with our magistrates courts, it is the other way around.” That will be difficult to reconcile and we must have very strong safeguards.
Mr Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree entirely with him. We can already see an example of that in the European arrest warrant. We have jumped in and we are now reviewing its domestic implementation and the potential for the international instrument. The presumption of innocence is just one area, as my hon. Friend has suggested, where we have a fundamental difference of legal cultures. I do not think that either party should show that any disrespect.
Brussels certainly has ambitions in that area and with those ambitions in mind I want to point out that there are disappointingly few decisions on JHA policy in the Bill for which, although there is no referendum requirement, parliamentary approval is required before the Government take a decision to opt in. For example, as I understand it the decision to opt into the European investigation order would not have required Parliament’s approval under the Bill despite its ramifications for operational policing and the lack of safeguards for innocent British citizens. Immigration and asylum policy is also left out despite the fact that the EU is currently proposing far-reaching changes in that very important area.
I would be the first to accept that the British people cannot have a referendum on every item of JHA policy, but why cannot their elected representatives have a say on every opt-in to ensure proper democratic scrutiny? I am very encouraged by the Minister’s written statement, which I have looked at closely and which effectively endorsed the principle of a parliamentary vote on JHA opt-ins. That is an important step forward and, as other Members have made clear, it is extremely welcome. As the statement made clear, such a provision would depend first on the discretion of the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chair to call a debate and table a motion. That is fine with the current Committee and Chair, but—if we can possibly imagine this—if it were one day to have a less meticulous Chair or more integrationist members, that check might be diluted. Secondly, the provision would depend on the discretion of Ministers about whether to make Government time available.
It would strengthen the Bill considerably if the arrangements to which the Minister agrees in principle could be spelt out in practice in legislation. I know many Members would welcome such a step.
There is an even more important issue to consider than the individual opt-ins. Britain has to decide by June 2014 whether to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction over police and justice measures that predate the Lisbon treaty or, alternatively, to opt out altogether. After that date, the full body of pre-Lisbon legislation will come under the control of the Luxembourg Court, so this decision has enormous constitutional implications for our criminal justice system. It represents a unique opportunity for this country either to regain control of our justice agenda or, if we so decide—let us not rule out this option—fully to embrace a pan-European model. I am clear in my own mind that we should preserve our distinct justice system which is famous the world over. It guarantees our personal freedoms and defines the British sense of fair play.
Beyond the technical niceties of the Bill, something bigger is at stake—from habeas corpus to the presumption of innocence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned, or to free speech, which is poorly protected in France and seems to be disappearing in Hungary but is still cherished in Britain. These abstract legal concepts define our citizenship, our identity, our culture and ultimately our way of life. I respect the fact that others may disagree on this; some may wish to argue the merits of the Napoleonic legacy or the pros and cons of the continental civil law tradition, while others may claim that a pan-European amalgam might just get the best of both worlds. That is fair enough, and those are perfectly respectable positions, but what is not acceptable is for that kind of decision on a matter of that kind of magnitude to be quietly nodded through without the formal debate and approval of the House. I welcome the policy commitment in last week’s written ministerial statement, but we need a commitment that the decision to opt in en bloc will be subject to parliamentary approval and not just a debate, and it would be relatively easy to do that in the Bill.
To conclude, I support the aims of the Bill and much of its content. It has the potential, at least, to transform the country’s relationship with Europe and to restore some transparency and legitimacy to the much-shrouded decision making in Brussels.
Mr Jenkin
In the next group of amendments we will discuss this same topic in relation to a possible Act of Parliament or referendum. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it would be inconceivable that a Government could implement such a dramatic change to our legal system and our legal culture without a substantial Act, or several Acts, of Parliament? Is a resolution of the House enough to govern this Executive act—this stroke of the pen—by a Minister at a meeting of the Council of Ministers?
Mr Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; his point is well made. Obviously, if we decided to opt in, legislation would be inevitable, but the question is whether or not we should opt in. That principle should be subject not only to legislative scrutiny but to a debate and a vote.
Kelvin Hopkins
Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I want to support very strongly what he has been saying. An important factor of the British legal system is the fact that it has been imitated throughout the Commonwealth. Many Commonwealth countries have legal systems based on ours, and if we abandoned our legal system in favour of a completely different system—a continental European system—that would break an important link with the Commonwealth that we should preserve.
Mr Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree. Indeed, senior members of the judiciary have said the same thing. The Lord Chief Justice recently gave a very informative speech saying that Britain no longer seems to be the champion of the common law. The ever-increasing move towards European integration in this area undermines that. Any proposed opt-in to justice and home affairs legislation, which goes to the very heart of our laws, liberties and way of life, must first be subject to proper oversight by and the approval of the House.
Mr Cash
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on their speeches.
After 26 years of scrutinising treaties of one kind or another, sometimes tabling as many as 120 or 140 amendments, debating them in detail and listening to the arguments put forward by Government spokesmen, who say, first, for example, that we have reached the high water mark, and then that the measure is not what some people fear, perhaps it is inevitable that I have developed a certain resistance to the assumption that what we hear from the Front Bench will necessarily occur—I hope that is a nice way of putting it—and that I have become if not cynical, which would be an unfair word, at least uncertain about the consequences that subsequent events may produce.
In other words, we do not get what it says on the tin, or necessarily what we are told we are likely to get. I am very sceptical, not just Eurosceptic. I question not the honesty of individuals, but the accuracy of their predictions. I therefore believe that this set of measures, as has been amply described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and others in this debate, is hugely important, although not more important than any of the other provisions that are part of a continual stream of acquiescence in European integration.
Where the provisions speak of not allowing measures to go through by way of opt-in, by imposing the requirement for some kind of parliamentary approval, I am well aware that we table amendments, we argue the case, we have a European scrutiny process, we go through it in detail, it has been universally applauded by Ministers and people throughout the land—
Mr Cash
Except the BBC, as my hon. Friend says, because it has not given any attention to the legislation.
The process has received a great deal of enthusiastic support, except when it comes to the votes. For all the flattering remarks made periodically about the members of the Committee and dedication and determination that they have applied, nothing happens. We do not get any of our amendments through and the Chamber is virtually empty. There is one assiduous Member on the Opposition Back Benches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She has the seat which, I think, used to be Birmingham, Central in the 1880s. She was not around at the time, but she is carrying forward a fine tradition of ensuring proper scrutiny. Her predecessors in that seat were assiduous in ensuring that the interests of the people of Birmingham were well looked after. I pay tribute to her not only for the fact that she is here today on her own on the Opposition Back Benches, but that she is taking an active part.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I have no idea who held the seat in the 19th century, but I am encouraged, on matters European, that someone born near Munich now has Neville Chamberlain’s old seat.
Mr Cash
That is an interesting insight. However, I shall not follow the hon. Lady down that route as it would take me into area in which I have a great deal of interest. The hon. Lady tempts me, but she will not succeed on this occasion.
I return to my concerns. I do not mean this as personal criticism of the Whips. They have a job to do. They are told what to do. It is part of a policy, and the question is whether we want this set of provisions on family law, criminal procedure, serious crime with cross-border dimensions and so on to be implemented at all. The problem we have relates to a decision whether to opt in. We should not be contemplating it. That is the problem. With great respect to my hon. Friends, I am not criticising; I am simply making a point.
Mr Cash
Yes, and civil. Let us not get carried away by a few bits of paper and a few words in a Bill. They say that there will be restraint by way of approvals given by the House, but we know the realities. In relation to the opt-in on the investigative order—I think it was on 15 June, shortly after the general election—it can fairly be said that the Minister believed that she had to make that decision because, I think I am right in saying, there was a three-month period within which the decision had to be made. Perhaps there was some justification for the fact that she had to make the decision, but why did she make the decision to opt in? Why did she not make the decision not to opt in? That is my concern.
I plead with hon. Members not to be taken in by the effusions of reservation that emerge in letters, statements and the Bill. Right at the heart of this is the real question of whether we will end up with more Europeanisation of these matters, and the answer, emphatically, is yes.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the findings of the German federal constitutional court, which protects these matters for that country. In one judgment it said:
“Securing legal peace by the administration of criminal law has always been a central duty of state authority…To what extent and in what areas a polity uses exactly the means of criminal law as an instrument of social control is a fundamental decision. By criminal law, a legal community gives itself a code of conduct that is anchored in its values, whose violation is, according to the shared convictions on law, regarded as so grievous and unacceptable for social existence in the community that it requires punishment.”
It is desperately trying to protects its laws as well.
Mr Cash
I am so glad to hear that. I was not precisely aware of that part of the judgment, but my hon. Friend has made an important and helpful comment. The argument is right, and it is by dint of the most awful experience in Germany that it has come to these conclusions over an extended period since 1945. It is vigilant about these matters because it does not want ever again to find itself in circumstances, by virtue of a lack of democracy, when Hitler ran Germany. I have an absolute belief in the democratic instincts and principles of the British people, which have been born out of fighting not only that very Germany, but previous wars, right the way back to at least the 17th century. We have built up a democratic system in which we decide what the legislation should be, and we give it careful consideration. We need some parliamentary reform. We are being given the impression that in relation to these matters we will be able to retain our criminal system, but unfortunately, because of the Whip system and the whole direction of Europeanisation, that will be removed by what will happen in practice. As helpful as all these procedures are in indicating the direction in which they might like to go in certain circumstances, I fear that we will have many opt-ins and that, in practice, the proposed procedures will be applied and the Whips will ensure that the measures go through.
I will give the European investigation order as an example. It is still subject to European scrutiny and there will be a debate on it—I cannot remember when—despite the fact that it was decided on 15 June last year. That is because the European Scrutiny Committee had not been set up by that time, but the rules still applied to that order. There will be a debate on that matter, but when it is debated, which in effect is the same kind of thing that the Minister refers to about parliamentary approval, up to a point, there will no doubt be a take-note motion—I cannot remember the precise motion— before the European Committee. The reality is that not once in the 26 years I have watched these matters has a decision of a European Committee not to take note, following a vote that went against a Minister, not been reversed on the Floor of the House by the use of the Whips. Why should I be confident that—
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend has made some powerful points that are entirely borne out by my much lesser experience of the European scrutiny system. In the case of the European right to information order, which is another opt-in, the most we can do is vote against it in the relevant European Committee so that it comes back for a vote on the Floor of the House, but that is merely a deferred Division on whether to take note of the document. We do not have the opportunity to say no to the opt-in. Is that his experience? We must have that option in the future if the Minister is to make good the promise, made in the statement of 20 January, that we will have the opportunity in a vote on the Floor of the House to say no to an opt-in.
Mr Cash
That is such a good example. In fact, I was in that debate with my hon. Friend—I was unable to vote in the Committee but took part in the proceedings. The reality is that that is how the system works in practice. This debate is about criminal law, but it is the same for everything else in the Bill. All the treaties, including all the laws, the entire encyclopaedia, all the work that is done in all the Departments and cross-departmental work—the whole country—are being run by a process of continuous European integration. The question is whether it is good for us or not. It is as simple as that, and that is a matter for us to judge.
However, because of the way policy is made, and with the help of the coalition, we are told that the Government think it is good for us. I do not agree, and I think that there are many other Members, and certainly many more people outside, who agree with what I have just said. Although the debates have been conducted with great courtesy and a great deal of substance on both sides of the argument, the real question is about what has happened. The short answer is that the Bill will go through and that we will put up a fight again in another motion under the arrangements proposed in clause 9, but in practice the process I have described will continue to happen.
Ms Stuart
At the risk of being accused of encouraging the hon. Gentleman, I must say that when Ministers are terribly courteous it is usually an indication that we are not getting anywhere. The first rule of politics is that until they are rude, we are not getting anywhere. The real problem is that the UK Permanent Representative to the EU is politically unaccountable. My ultimate plea is to have the UKRep stand here once a week, as the Deputy Prime Minister does, and be politically accountable for the negotiations and deals that are done at Brussels. Until we have that, all this is—
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Lady’s comments are going much wider than the amendments currently before us. I believe that there is sufficient meat in the amendments.
Mr Cash
I am grateful for that, Mr Evans, because otherwise the hon. Lady might have tempted me yet again. She knows my soft point, and she knows very well that it would not take me long to get going on that issue, either. But, she is right.
I have tabled a number of amendments, but I do not intend to press them to a vote, because we have had a thoroughly good debate, and I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, think that further consultation between the Minister, his officials, the European Scrutiny Committee and our Clerks might help to ensure that we get the maximum out of the provisions, even if they do not really measure up.
In any case, we know what happens in our votes; we have watched them now for about a week. On one occasion, we reached 45 genuine—as I call them— abstentions. By the way, Mr Evans, your name appeared on one list, but I said, “No, he’s Chairman of Ways and Means; this is not somebody you can count in.” Anyway, on parliamentary sovereignty we had between 45 and 50 such abstentions, which is quite a lot, but it is not anything like as many as the number of Members who rather agree with us in the broadest sense. I shall not go down that route, but what happens in votes is not very edifying. We do not win votes, because people are being told to vote in a way that is inconsistent with what they think, and that is another democratic problem.
Amendments 99 and 98 are mischievous, simply because they were tabled only to demonstrate my concern, which I have just raised, that opt-ins should not be allowed under any circumstances. On amendment 47, however, regarding the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, for Hertsmere and for Daventry are right. I am reluctant to adopt a default position, but for the purposes of debate I want to get out into the open something that concerns me, because the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, on which I dare say books could be written, ought to be as restricted as possible.
Article 83(2) of TFEU, as I state in amendment 47,
“permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.”
In a nutshell, I should like that to be one of those measures—from the written statement to which the Minister has referred—that ought to be discussed properly.
Let us think about what the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions affects and what its consequences are for the people whom we are elected to represent. If I cannot win the vote on my desire to throw out the whole measure, my minimum default position, however cynical and unhappy I am about opt-ins anyway, is to attempt to include it in the arrangements that the Government have provided.
Those are my thoughts on this group of amendments and on my amendments. If I sound a little concerned about them, I hope that Members will understand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, I see the provision under discussion as an enormous step. I am not sure that it is beneficial, because it assumes that there will be opt-ins. There are 30 or 40 of them, and there have already been eight in the past few months. The trend exists, and I do not see anything holding back the tsunami. Indeed, I see the tsunami being built up, and that is not in the interests of the democratic principles by which this House is elected.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is much concerned about Members from all parts of the House being under the control of the Whips. For my part, I would like to say how much I agree with—
Charlie Elphicke
With the Prime Minister. In particular, I agree with his speech on 4 November 2009, in which he said:
“We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”
I would like to put on the record how much I agree with that position, and how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Why are we discussing further opt-ins in this Committee, when we should be considering how to recapture a sense of control and our national way of life in relation to the criminal justice system?
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and in particular to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) for their explanations of the contents of and the motives behind the amendments, and for their offer not to press them to the vote.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that I will hold back my innate wish to be aggressive to the point of rudeness towards her, and that I am happy to find an occasion to discuss with her and interested Opposition Members the content of last Thursday’s written ministerial statement and how we can take matters forward. It will be better for the reputation of the House, of governance in this country and of how we as a Government and a Parliament handle justice and home affairs coming from the EU if there is the maximum possible agreement across the political parties on a structure that we hope will then endure.
Before I move on to the amendments, I should like to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made that are more appropriate to a stand part debate. I turn first to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). I will not go on at him incessantly about this, but I found it strange that in a debate on so many amendments, covering such a wide range of justice and home affairs issues, he focused almost entirely on the contents of the next group of amendments that we are due to debate and on the parliamentary lock that would be imposed on the number of advocates-general. I shall try to satisfy him on that point.
We have included in schedule 1 any move to change the basis of decision making under article 19(2) of the treaty on European union from unanimity to qualified majority voting, so that it would be caught by the referendum lock. That article guarantees that there will be one judge from each member state in both the general court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is important that we ensure that we continue to have a veto, so that we can insist that there is a UK judge there.
That is important not just for the national interest but for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and others this evening. Four EU member states have common-law jurisdictions, although our Scottish colleagues in the House might argue that the UK is by no means entirely a common-law jurisdiction. Those states are ourselves, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. For that reason, it is important to have a suitable arrangement for taking decisions about the number of judges, and a requirement for each member state to nominate a judge, so that we can effectively protect the representation of those four jurisdictions in the highest judicial councils of the EU.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly will also find in article 19(2) a requirement for both judges and advocates-general to be
“persons whose independence is beyond doubt”.
Again, that requirement deserves to be protected. I have no reason to believe that the other member states would vote to dilute it, but the importance of the article justifies the referendum lock.
In contrast, article 252 of the TFEU requires there to be eight advocates-general to advise the court. There is not the same idea that there should be one from each member state. The article states that unanimity is needed in order to increase the number of advocates-general beyond eight, and a change to that article would be required for a switch to qualified majority voting. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the people whom we represent would find it slightly odd if we invited them to participate in a national referendum on whether to raise the number of advocates-general or on whether to change the method by which that decision is taken. That is the reason for the distinction that we draw in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry asked about moves towards a common EU asylum system. The British Government strongly believe in the importance of practical co-operation on asylum policy within the EU. Equally, we do not judge that a common EU asylum policy is right for Britain. We believe that on many issues, EU member states have much to gain by working together, but we have made it clear that the emphasis of the EU’s agenda on asylum should not always be on legislation, but on helping member states to improve the quality of their individual asylum systems. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the UK has not opted into the reception conditions directive, the qualifications directive or the asylum procedures directive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) asked about the European investigation order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out very plainly on more than one occasion her reasons for recommending that the Government opt in to that measure.
Charlie Elphicke
May I just say how much I welcome the strong policy on asylum? Asylum has been a substantial problem in my constituency of Dover, with masses of would-be asylum seekers and economic migrants at Calais wanting to break into the country. Will the Minister tell the Committee more about how we will ensure our strength and independence on border security?
Mr Lidington
I do not want to be distracted from the subject matter of the debate—clause 9 and the amendments—so the best thing is for me to tell my hon. Friend that I will either write to him or ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to do so in response to the point that he raises.
May I summarise the Government’s case in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone? There have been many criticisms of the current criminal mutual legal assistance system; it is said that it is fragmented, confusing and subject to delays. In some cases, it takes many months to obtain vital evidence, and when the UK has been the requesting state, that has had a detrimental effect on UK investigations and trials. The EIO seeks to address those problems by simplifying the MLA system among EU member states and introducing strict deadlines for the execution of requests.
It is true that had we not opted into the EIO, we would still have been able to operate MLA with other EU countries, but we would have been in a tiny minority of EU countries not using the EIO. Owing to that, and because deadlines would not apply to UK MLA requests, it is likely that those requests would be given a lower priority than those of other states, and that our prosecutors would have experienced longer delays. Given that 75% of the UK’s MLA traffic is with other EU countries, the practical impact on UK cases would have been significant.
If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the matter further, I suggest that he first looks at the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on 3 August 2010, and which she has deposited in the Library. The letter details a number of specific cases in which the current arrangements were proven to be inadequate. In one case, evidence that was not returned prior to the conclusion of the trial may have led to the suspect being exonerated. Her judgment and the Government’s judgment is that had we not opted in, it is likely that there would be more such cases.
Nick de Bois
My right hon. Friend is well aware of my long-term interest in matters pertaining to the European arrest warrant and the EIO. By that explanation, he has demonstrated the importance of, and the need for, the EAW and the EIO. I hope he will reassure us that the Bill gives the House the chance to debate and pass judgment such things, and to facilitate decisions on opting in or out.
Mr Lidington
My answer to that is on two fronts. The EAW is, of course, a pre-Lisbon, pillar three arrangement. It was not subject to post-Lisbon scrutiny, let alone to the detailed scrutiny and discussions with Committees and other representatives of Parliament that the Government are proposing. On the European investigation order, I can give comfort to my hon. Friend. It is the Government’s view that the decision to opt in to the order is one of the matters that would not only have attracted significant parliamentary interest, but which would also have raised questions of political and legal importance that would fully justify a full debate in Government time. With that debate would obviously come the opportunity of a parliamentary vote.
Mr David
I have some sympathy in policy terms with the Government on the issue of the European investigation order, but would it not have been possible to have had informal consultation with, let us say, the outgoing Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, rather than having no consultation with Parliament at all?
Mr Lidington
I cannot recall without advice whether the Committee had just been appointed but had not met, or whether it had not yet been constituted, but the lesson that I draw from that episode—and the Government were far from happy with the fact that we had to take a decision at the end of the three-month period without a formal scrutiny process—is that we have, in the forthcoming discussions, to find a way to address the real difficulty that arises during a Dissolution of Parliament and the period after that before the scrutiny Committees are fully reconstituted. What the new Government found on coming into office was that the EU’s legislative timetable on justice and home affairs had not stopped and there was an accumulation of measures, each with a non-extendable three-month timetable, at the end of which we had to decide whether to make the initial opt-in. A large chunk of that time had already been devoured by the period of Dissolution, and there were no scrutiny Committees in place to do the job that we would want and expect Parliament to do.
Mr Clappison
Can I take it from what my right hon. Friend has just said about the European investigation order that although it may be an issue that he would consider as of particular interest and therefore deserving a debate under the scrutiny process, it would not have been caught by clause 9 as it stands? He is therefore conceding that this is an extra stage of scrutiny that has been brought about by the diligent and commendable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who has done a service to the House in ensuring additional scrutiny.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right. I signed off a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) earlier today responding to these points, which he put to me in writing, although I expect that he has not yet received it. We draw a distinction between the justice and home affairs matters on which it is already within the competence of the EU to act, but where the UK has an opt-in, and matters that are without the existing competence of the European Union. We have tried to maintain that distinction in each aspect of the Bill, and that is a point that has informed the Government’s collective view on this legislation.
Mr Clappison
My right hon. Friend said “where the UK has an opt-in,” but if I may correct him, I think that he meant where we have the right to opt in. There is a substantial body of such matters and, of course, in each case they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, should we decide to opt in.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right to make that correction. He is also right when he refers to the importance of the jurisdiction of the ECJ as a relevant new feature of any justice and home affairs measure that is brought forward subsequent to the Lisbon treaty. That is the thing that makes such a profound difference between third-pillar arrangements and the current treaty arrangements. That is why when Ministers—usually the Justice Secretary or Home Secretary—come to the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet with a proposed decision on a justice and home affairs measure, they are required, as a standard part of Government policy, to produce an analysis of the likely impact of ECJ jurisdiction on our law if the United Kingdom participated in the measure, and also to assess the risks that this would lead to competence creep. My hon. Friend is right that that is an important consideration that we need to take into account when judging the balance of national interests that determines whether we choose to opt in to, or stay out of, a particular decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), along with a number of other hon. Members, asked why we needed to opt in at all, because if we have not gone through the whole scrutiny process, we should just leave it and opt out. The treaty gives us a three-month period within which we have to decide whether we want to make an initial opt-in. We can, if we choose, opt out at that stage, let the negotiations take place on the final version of the measure, and then opt in to the final text, as agreed by the others taking part. The problem with what he suggested is that it is not a reliable method of ensuring that our national interests are properly represented, for a number of reasons.
First, if we wait until the final stage, we have to ask the Commission if we may participate. The Council is then able to specify conditions under which United Kingdom can do so. If we judge that the balance of advantage points towards our opting in, there is a further advantage in getting in first. Secondly, if we participate on the first occasion on which we can opt in, we will then be at the table with a vote, helping to shape the final status of the text. We will not be in anything like as influential a position if we make a decision first to stay out. Thirdly, if we are not taking part, we have no vote on the final text. There are sometimes occasions—perhaps on a counter-terrorism measure—where we might decide that, on balance, it will be in our national interest to opt in, but where we dislike one particular element of the draft text. Perhaps we also know that two or three other key member states have similar reservations. In those circumstances, it is possible that the Government’s decision would be to opt in by the end of the three-month period, with the aim of putting together an alliance with those other member states so as to secure through negotiation a final text that meets our interests and means that we are completely content with the outcome.
Mr Clappison
My right hon. Friend is being most courteous in giving way. On the question of where the national interest lies, I understand and accept the reasons why the Government, as a coalition, are having to go through the complicated process that he has described. However, in the Conservative manifesto it was conceived as being in the national interest that we should not opt in to any such matters, because we were clear that there should be no further extension of the EU’s power over the UK and we promised to work to return key powers over legal rights, criminal justice, and social and employment legislation to the UK. However, we cannot have envisaged seeking to return those powers while at the same time handing over completely new powers to the European Union, by choosing to opt in. That was the national interest as we saw it, and it remains the national interest.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend puts his point trenchantly. I am not going to make any secret of the fact that the handling of European policy, and in particular on justice and home affairs, has been one of the most delicate issues for the coalition. There have had to be compromises on both sides to get the package of measures that we are including in the Bill and to shape the general policy that we are pursuing in respect of the European Union.
Mr Lidington
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to answer one hon. Friend before I give way to another one.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere looks back to the debates on the Lisbon treaty, he will remember that he and I walked through the same Lobby, day after day, in opposition to that treaty. My recollection is that we had at least one day when we talked entirely about justice and home affairs matters. He knows the view that I took as a Front Bencher in a Conservative Opposition. I would much rather be either a member of or supporting a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition than spend another Parliament sitting fruitlessly in opposition, seeing measures being taken through the House to which I was vehemently opposed but which I was powerless to stop.
Mr Cash
My right hon. Friend is getting on to a very sensitive point, and I quite understand the sensitivities involved. When I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 May last year about the coalition agreement, I specifically stated that, if there were to be a coalition—I had made it clear that I would have preferred a minority Government—it was essential that the Liberal Democrats should at least be required to abstain on matters relating to the European Union, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has just given. That is the problem, and we are now finding ourselves in an impossible dilemma. In fact, I would say that the situation is untenable.
Mr Lidington
I disagree with my hon. Friend’s statement either that we face an impossible dilemma or that the situation is untenable. We have a situation in which two political parties with differences of perspective and tradition on a number of issues are finding a way in which to work together in the interests of the nation as a whole. I think that the coalition is providing stable government. It is new in recent British political experience, but I find that it is hugely welcomed by many people of all political persuasions and no strong political persuasion.
Mr David
When the Minister says “people of all political persuasions”, he certainly should not include those on the Opposition Benches. I found his recent comment very interesting indeed. We understand how keen and enthusiastic he was to become a Minister, and this is the first time that he has revealed why he really, really wanted to be one. Also, this is the first time that he—or any other Minister—has acknowledged that the Bill is basically a compromise. It is the result of negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is important that that point is now firmly on record. This is the first time in this whole debate that it has been said. In the interests of transparency and openness, will he elaborate, so that we can find out the exact nature of the negotiating process that led to this rag-bag of a Bill?
Mr Lidington
It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to intervene in that fashion. He and I know that, in regard to policy on Europe or on any other matter, Governments of a single party in recent history—Conservative and Labour—have had to compromise a great deal, given the different points of view in the broad churches that those parties represent.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady says that the Labour Government never sought to compromise. That might explain their result at the last general election.
The answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly is that there is a collective discussion, and it is a matter of public record that every decision about European policy is routed through the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet. The membership of that Cabinet Committee is published: it comprises two thirds Conservative Ministers and one third Liberal Democrat Ministers. That is the balance of all the Cabinet Committees. There are discussions and exchanges of points of view, and there is an outcome to which everyone collectively is willing to sign up and support. That seems to be a sensible, constructive way in which to do the business of government.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I thank the Minister for giving way once more. Would he be kind enough to clarify this point about the coalition? Can we take it that the Conservatives do not wish to opt in wherever an opt-in is available, so that whenever we do so, it is because we have been bullied into it by the Lib Dems?
Mr Lidington
No, I do not think that my hon. Friend should jump to that conclusion. In yesterday’s debate, I cited some counter-terrorist measures such as the European initiatives on passenger name records or on the tracking of terrorist finance, and it is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom for us to take part in them. The US Government, who have a strong interest in these areas of policy, very much want a transatlantic agreement on such counter-measures and look to us to try to persuade other European Union member states to support a vigorous counter-terrorist policy and effective measures that will satisfy Washington as well as London.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend not consider including that in the Bill?
Mr Lidington
We are due to debate the measures later.
The Government will have three options. They can decide to opt in to all the measures en bloc, or they can decide to opt out of them en bloc. The judgment that Ministers will have to make—I emphasise that no decision has yet been made, and that we are nowhere near making one or making a recommendation—is that these are measures in which the United Kingdom freely decided that it wanted to participate, because it served our national interest to do so, during the “third pillar” process that existed before the Lisbon treaty.
The Government of the time—Labour or Conservative—decided that each measure was right and that it was in the British national interest to participate; but, of course, that decision was made on the basis that those were intergovernmental matters which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is a material difference. If we opt in to all these measures in 2014, we must accept that we are opting in to matters all of which will, from that point, be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.
Mr Lidington
Yes, the default position is that we stay opted in. We have to take a decision one way or the other, and the Government are not going to hide in the corner and hope that nobody notices a decision to opt in. We are going to make a public announcement at the due time and have the debate in Parliament.
The third option for the Government would be to opt out of the measures en bloc and then seek to opt back in where we continue to believe that the balance of advantage to our national interest lies in participation. A complicated analysis is involved and we are talking about 90 such measures coming up for determination in or before 2014. As this is, again, a matter within existing competence, it is best dealt with through the enhanced scrutiny arrangements that I am proposing and it should certainly require a vote in the House. The Government have explicitly committed themselves to that and it will, of course, happen before the end of this Parliament in 2015.
The two amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and others tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry propose to subject all opt-in decisions to a requirement for an approval motion in both Houses, not simply those on which there is a significant level of parliamentary interest. Because of the practicalities of such a move on all opt-in decisions, that requirement would risk preventing the Government from being able to secure Parliament’s approval in time to opt in to any new JHA proposal within the three-month time limit set down in article 3 of protocol 21 in order to enable us to participate in negotiations at EU level. That would have a knock-on effect on our ability to help shape the proposal effectively in negotiation, and sometimes that is of great importance. Our votes made it possible to clinch an agreement on the EU-US terrorist finance tracking measure that suited our national interest and ensured that the Americans were content too. That deal became available during a parliamentary recess, when it would not have been possible to go through the formal procedures that the amendments seek to apply to each and every opt-in. That is one reason why in the discussions about enhancing scrutiny we have to find a way to handle the real difficulties that can sometimes arise, both during recesses and in periods of and following parliamentary Dissolution.
May I say in passing to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that, although the detail will be the subject of discussions with the relevant Committees and business managers, the possibility of a parliamentary vote would apply to any opt-in decision under the proposals that I made in my written statement. Included in that would be measures following the adoption of a measure by other member states and decisions not to opt out of Schengen measures where there is strong parliamentary interest in the measure or where the measure is of the importance that I have indicated in my written statement. The process proposed in the amendments does not lend itself to timely decision making when a rapid decision needs to be taken. I have outlined the practical reasons why this approach would not be proportionate and I hope that my hon. Friends will therefore be prepared not to press their amendments to a Division.
Amendment 47 would require parliamentary approval before we could opt in to a measure brought forward under article 83(2) of TFEU, which allows for the establishment of minimum rules regarding the definition of criminal offences and sanctions if such approximation of member state criminal laws and regulations is judged to be essential to ensure effective implementation of policy areas in which the EU has already harmonised standards. For example, if the EU set rules about environmental protection and a criminal sanction proved essential to make those rules effective, the EU could consequently set a minimum standard for a criminal offence in that area.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, but I do not believe that article 83(2) is a ratchet clause in the way that articles 81(3), 82(2)(d) or 81(1) are so considered. Article 83(2) makes provision for Europe to be able to act under its existing competence without the need to be able to expand EU action in the same way, for example, as article 83(1) provides for the ability to expand the list of areas of serious cross-border crime in which the EU can act. I do not therefore think that it should be subject to the enhanced level of parliamentary control set out in the Bill to which the ratchet clauses are to be subject, given the relative differences in effect.
Mr Clappison
As I said earlier, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I want to make progress and for that reason, and the other reasons I have mentioned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 33, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 10(5) of Protocol (No. 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in an act that has ceased to apply to it pursuant to Article 10(4) of that Protocol, where the AFSJ Protocol would apply to the procedure for dealing with the notification, unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to give the notification.’.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 82, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(6A) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless—
(a) the decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and
(b) the referendum condition is met.
(6B) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2).’.
Amendment 83, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(6C) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless the decision is approved by Act of Parliament.’.
Amendment 84, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(6D) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 10(5) of Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in an Act that has ceased to apply to it pursuant to Article 10(4) of that Protocol, unless the notification in respect of the Act has been approved by Act of Parliament.’.
Mr Jenkin
Amendments 82, 83 and 84 concern what the Minister set out in a statement last week, in which he described the arrangements for the Government to give formal notification of whether they wished the UK to opt out of certain justice and home affairs matters by 31 July 2014. He made it clear in the statement—I think this is welcome—that the Government intend to allow the House of Commons and the other place to table a formal resolution to approve or disapprove of the action the Government take in these matters.
While we are listening to this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the magnitude of what we are talking about: a complete rearrangement of the civil and criminal legal system of our country that will move the whole civil and criminal system on to an entirely new basis. I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the number of advocates-general and about maintaining four judges in the European Court of Justice who represent common law jurisdictions, but that is a completely meaningless reassurance in the face of all the other judges and the history of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which simply is not interested in the common law basis of the jurisdictions of its member states.
Having fought against the Lisbon treaty in principle and most particularly on the basis of its potential to interfere in the criminal and civil law of this country, it is astonishing that the Government, since the election, have, for example, approved the directive establishing the European investigation order. Let us be clear: that allows another member state to oblige the United Kingdom to carry out almost any investigative action in the UK, including searching a house, intercepting telephone calls and obtaining DNA for the purpose of criminal proceedings in the requesting member state. The UK has supported the directive on the right to interpretation and translation of criminal proceedings, ceding jurisdiction in that area to the European Court of Justice. This all happened before the European Scrutiny Committee was sitting, so it was all unscrutinised by this House. Any weasel words from the Government about strengthening the scrutiny of the House of Commons should carry a health warning.
The Government have decided to opt in to the Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, which makes binding on the UK as a matter of European Community law an international agreement between the EU and Georgia and means that the UK cannot conclude its own readmission agreement with Georgia, should it wish to do so. I just point out that had any of those decisions been in an international treaty outside the European Union’s jurisdiction, they would have required an Act of Parliament, but these things are done by the stroke of a Minister’s pen under the powers in the European Communities Act 1972.
Mr Cash
I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall what the Minister said about the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet, and the fact that we have two thirds Conservatives and one third Liberal Democrats. For practical purposes, there cannot be a vote; otherwise, if we were to comply with our manifesto commitments, we would win the vote every time. It must be, therefore, that the Government are willing to agree with the Liberal Democrats’ proposals, which makes it even worse.
Mr Jenkin
I thought the exchanges between the two Front Benchers about the real nature of the coalition agreement were very revealing. We have all known about this from the minute that the coalition agreement was first mooted. That is why I was one of the newly elected Members who went to see the then Leader of the Opposition, just after the election, and said, “Do not do this; let us have another election in short order so that we can deliver our mandate and our promises to the British people.” We knew that we were being bound into an arrangement that would mean having to swap our obligations to our electors—let us face it, handing criminal jurisdiction over to the European Union is not exactly a popular thing to do—for a mess of pottage: a compromise with the Liberal Democrats. The Deputy Prime Minister took great interest in these matters, particularly justice and home affairs, when he worked for the European Commission and I understand that he is personally extremely committed to the creation of a federalist criminal justice legal order as part of the state building of the European Union. We are now actively participating in that.
Martin Horwood
In the spirit of coalition, which the hon. Gentleman so obviously and positively espouses, does he accept that the Liberal Democrats have moved quite a long way in accepting this Bill at all and that many of the strictures it puts on the progress of proper government at European level are things that do not come particularly naturally to Liberal Democrat Members?
Mr Jenkin
I am perfectly prepared to accept that some Liberal Democrats have compromised considerably on the Bill.
What does the Bill add up to? The problem is that it does not change anything. It does not change the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom one comma or dot. It is about the arrangements between the British Government and the British Parliament. We all know that it is designed to give the impression that this and future Governments will somehow be locked down by the referendum lock and will be obliged to have referendums as never before. It is certainly useful to create that expectation because the disappointment when no referendum occurs will then be much deeper, but what does the Bill actually mean?
Clauses 2 to 7 make a lot of legal arrangements to ensure that decisions taken by the Government are approved by referendum or Act of Parliament. There are certain exclusions that we have already argued about, such as whether the treaty on fiscal union will somehow be exempted from referendum even though it is probably one of the most significant European treaties we will see in our lifetimes. That is the state of the Bill, which has some remarkable tripwires—so many that the Opposition spokesman has been saying, “This is getting too particular and detailed; we will have to have Acts of Parliament and referendums on all kinds of things that are patently ridiculous.” That is why I think that future Governments will wriggle out of the obligations without much difficulty.
My amendments concern the opting-out proposals. In order to make the Lisbon treaty, which establishes the European Union’s authority over criminal and civil law, more palatable, there was an arrangement that the United Kingdom could opt out at a later date. One would have thought that a party and a Government who were elected on a platform to repatriate powers from the EU, and who fought against the Lisbon treaty on the principle that the European Union should not have jurisdiction over our criminal law, would be keen to ensure that any coalition agreement reflected that policy, particularly as they have talked about a sovereignty clause, a referendum lock and so on.
We know that there will probably never be a new treaty amendment that meets the test that triggers a referendum. Indeed, the Minister made it clear that he has no intention of letting a Bill through the House that would trigger such a referendum during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Lisbon treaty has made the EU self-amending. The Liberal Democrat MEP, Andrew Duff, who is chair of the Federal Trust, said on the BBC World Service: “The treaty of Lisbon is in force and it won’t be unpicked by the British. It can’t be. It is the statute which will probably govern the Union for some time.” As I said in the debate on Monday,
“The problem is that this is not the ‘thus far and no further’ Bill; it is the ‘locking the stable door after the horse has bolted’ Bill.—[Official Report, 24 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 116.]
We do not know whether the next five years will see any changes to the EU treaties—I suspect they will—but there is one area in which the Government will have to make a very significant decision: whether to give more powers to Brussels or to bring them back to Britain. I remind the Committee that were the measure outside the jurisdiction of the European Communities Act, there would be no question but that there would be hundreds of pages of Acts of Parliament to implement this stuff, instead of its automatic inclusion in our law and implementation. It is fundamentally undemocratic to reorganise our constitution by the stroke of a Minister’s pen in this way.
In crime and policing, EU measures which were passed under the pre-Lisbon third pillar arrangements are in this transitional period. Under the Lisbon treaty, there is a period in which we can opt out en bloc, as the Minister said. These measures include the European arrest warrant and the recognition of the trial of UK citizens in EU countries held in absentia. I have in my passport something about the protection of UK citizens, and here we are, handing over the possibility that UK citizens can be tried in other European jurisdictions without even being there. That is something that we do not do in our own jurisdiction.
The creation of the European public prosecutor will happen under the arrangement. The Government will have a straight choice between expanding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the British justice system, or opting out of the measure. It is a rare opportunity that we have in the treaty to repatriate power. One would have thought that we would want to do it, but the Bill as it stands does not include any control whatever over that decision. All we have is a personal assurance from the Minister that he will bring it to the House for a decision. That is welcome, but it not the kind of democratic control that is needed.
The Government have just announced the revision of control orders, which will require legislation. That is subject to democratic control. Imagine if the control orders decision was announced by the Government and required no legislation. That is what we are being offered in the Bill.
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman is making a logical, coherent argument. The Government’s position on the Bill, as I was led to believe, was that if there were a significant move towards powers being transferred from the UK to the European Union, there should be a referendum. We have referred to a number of cases when there would be small changes, on which there might be a referendum, but he is talking about a very significant change. Does he not think there should be a referendum on that?
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill is completely inconsistent. Relatively tiny matters covered by the Bill and caught by its provisions will have to come to Parliament and may even have to be the subject of a referendum. But this incredibly significant change to our legal system that is taking place now is exempted from the Bill. It is totally illogical. If there is anything that makes a complete nonsense of the Bill, it is this total exclusion of the 2014 decision.
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some telling points. Does he agree that the EU is being honest about what it wants to do? It wants, en bloc, to create an area of freedom, security and justice, and to have EU authority over that whole bloc. It is not a question of our Government looking judiciously at the odd measure here or there and whether things will be made better or not. We are confronted with an attempt by the EU to carve out jurisdiction across the piece in the area of freedom, security and justice. That is its stated ambition.
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are going into this with our eyes wide open, except that this Bill has its eyes wide shut. The Bill pretends that there is no decision to be made between now and 2014 about this momentous change to our criminal justice system and the way the law is conducted in this country—to the protection that Parliament can currently afford to UK citizens but is now already being eroded.
So I have tabled a series of amendments. There are some choices for the Minister, and I would be interested to know which he prefers. Amendment 82 would mean that the Government have to gain the approval of a referendum before they decide that the UK should not opt out of these laws. Amendment 83 would require the approval of at least an Act of Parliament for the Government to do so. Amendment 84 is quite modest; it would require an Act of Parliament before the Government could opt back in to any of the laws that had ceased to apply following the 2014 opt-out decision.
This is a question of more or less power being transferred to the EU, which would fundamentally alter our criminal justice system, but it is being left entirely up to Ministers.
Mr Cash
In the light of my hon. Friend’s intelligent observations, does he also agree that the process of Europeanisation, not merely by default, but by activism, despite our manifesto and despite the common sense and the wishes of the people at large, who vote for us by the way, will mean that we increasingly hand ourselves over to an entity, a European Union, not Europe, which is manifestly failing on all fronts, with protest, riots, the whole place imploding—Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland? The whole situation is moving entirely in the wrong direction. That is the big landscape, and that is where the Bill fails.
Mr Jenkin
I fully agree with my hon. Friend, but I will try to avoid being drawn into that. The great skill in Committee debates is to avoid making the same speech over and over again. However, I will be guilty of repeating something that I have said before, which is that the EU is made up of democracies, but it is not itself a democracy. It is anything but a democracy; it is a bureaucracy. It has some institutions that purport to be democratic, but they have only the most tenuous link with the real aspirations of the peoples they seek to serve. The unaccountability of the most powerful institutions of the EU, namely the Commission and the European Court of Justice, is legendary. They spend money like water and they have yet to have their accounts formally approved by the Court of Auditors for the last 14 years. That is how unaccountable the institutions are to which we are handing over the jurisdiction of our criminal law.
That is why I am mystified by the Government’s complacency, except, as the Minister has now admitted, for that fact that we traded away our principles for power. Moreover, we did that not just in the national interest for a short period, but for five years. I am pretty certain that before five years have passed this country will be crying out for a general election. When a country finishes up with a Government who have no mandate, except an agreement that was invented between two political parties, we are in a dangerous situation. It was not for nothing that Benjamin Disraeli said that England does not love coalitions; if a party is an organised hypocrisy, I dread to think what the correct term for a coalition should be, except as an expedient in an emergency.
Ms Gisela Stuart
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful speech and his amendments are sensible. If his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench do not accept any of them, will it be his view that that will have been entirely due to power brokering with the Lib Dems, or might it just be a frolic of their own?
Mr Jenkin
I am not sure how to answer that question. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will continue my remarks, because I intend to sit down shortly so that other Members can take part. All I will say is that those decisions should be reserved not only for Parliament, but for an Act of Parliament. They are of such significance that I would prefer the Government to accept amendment 82 so that a decision on those matters is made by referendum.
I remind the Minister that we originally stood on a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats, with whom we sit in coalition, wanted a referendum on the EU as well. Given that common ground, I cannot for the life of me understand why we should not have a referendum on at least this aspect of the Lisbon treaty. If the Liberal Democrats want to call it an “in or out” referendum, they may do so, but the question on the ballot paper should simply be: “Do you want the criminal justice system of this country to be controlled by the European Union?” I know what the answer would be. If the Government were to hold that referendum, I think that they would be very popular. In fact, it might even make the coalition popular. I recommend it to the Minister.
A few moments ago I checked to see whether there is a copy of the document that I am holding on the Table. There are all sorts of things on the Table, including “Vacher’s”, the Standing Orders, “Erskine May” and documents relating to the proceedings of the House. There is the guide to standards of conduct in public life and all sorts of things that direct the behaviour and conduct of Members and what we do in the House. However, this document is not there. It, of course, is “Consolidated Texts of the EU Treaties as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon”, as published by the Government. I have to say that the index is a little thin, which makes it difficult to find one’s way through it. This is the document that now governs this country. Unless we change our relationship with the EU, this will be the constitution of the United Kingdom, as we have no written constitution of our own. These are the laws by which we are governed, but it is not even on the Table. That underlines how this House, 20 years after we signed the Maastricht treaty, which began to establish European governance, is still sleepwalking into a European federation.
There are those who wishfully believe that the argument has somehow been won by the Eurosceptics. It is an argument that they do not want to have. They want to avoid it because in order to resolve the democratic government of this country, we will have to confront the EU. There will have to be a disagreement with our European partners, because there is so much pride invested in the document, and other member states have so much pride in having drawn the United Kingdom into those arrangements. They will have to be confronted with the humiliation that they were wrong. As the euro collapses around our ears and the peoples of Europe rise up in the streets of their capitals, there could be no better time to do that; and there could be no better time to do it than when the EU itself is asking for new powers and asking us to agree to things for which they need our consent. That is the time we should be asking for our powers and our governance back on a mutually agreed basis. It is lamentable that the Government have not even the willpower to ask for those things.
Mr Lidington
The decision on whether to exercise the bloc opt-out is important and sensitive for the United Kingdom. On that point at least, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Its implications for the whole range of complex, technical and often interrelated measures will need to be carefully considered, and they ought to be carefully considered by Government and Parliament. I agree completely that Parliament should give its view on a decision of such national importance. That is why the Government have committed publicly to having a vote in both Houses before making a formal decision on whether we wish to opt in or out.
As outlined in my written statement on 20 January, we will
“conduct further consultations on the arrangements for this vote, in particular with the European Scrutiny Committees, and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 51WS.]
The 2014 decision, however, concerns measures that the UK agreed pre-Lisbon, and in most cases they have already been transposed into United Kingdom law and implemented.
I shall respond briefly to a couple of points that my hon. Friend has raised. Civil justice measures are already subject to European Court of Justice jurisdiction—and were so prior to the Lisbon treaty. The measures falling within the scope of the 2014 decision on criminal justice were not subject to section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 before the Lisbon treaty; the majority of those items of legislation, which are in force in this country, required their own separate Acts of Parliament in order to be implemented, including the Extradition Act 2003, which implemented the European arrest warrant, and about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have many concerns.
If the UK were to decide to remain in the pillar three measures, no new transfer of power or competence would therefore be associated with that decision: it would be neither a treaty change nor a ratchet clause. The decision for 2014 is therefore different in kind from the decisions that we propose, in the Bill, to subject to either a referendum or a primary legislative lock.
Until the Government have decided what to propose on the bloc opt-out, it is difficult to reach any decisions about what to do on subsequent opt-ins, but such decisions seem to have similarities with the decisions on post-adoption opt-ins to new pieces of JHA legislation, with the important difference that this country will already have participated in the measures in question.
The Government will pay all proper attention to the need for parliamentary scrutiny of any such opt-in decision, should that prove to be necessary and should the Government wish to opt back into selected measures; but, just as the arrangements for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of current JHA opt-ins are a matter to be agreed outside the confines of the Bill, so too are decisions on the parliamentary scrutiny of those other decisions.
In light of the Government’s commitments to more powerful and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, and because of the nature of the decisions that we will face by 2014, we do not think that the matters in question should be covered by the Bill. I therefore urge my hon. Friends not to press their amendments to the vote.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 82, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(6A) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless—
(a) the decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and
(b) the referendum condition is met.
(6B) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2).’.—(Mr Jenkin.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at lunchtime the Prime Minister informed the House that the Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) had resigned his seat. After checking my copy of “Erskine May”, I have discovered that it states on page 57 that
“a Member…cannot relinquish his seat”
and must therefore accept
“office under the Crown, which legally vacates his seat and obliges the House to order a new writ.”
It continues:
“These offices are…purely nominal and are ordinarily given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any Member who applies for them.”
It is my understanding from press releases by Mr Adams that he neither applied for nor has accepted either of those two offices of the Crown. Can you confirm therefore that no such resignation is in order and that the Prime Minister has—inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order.
I can inform the House that I have received formal notification from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Gerard Adams has been appointed to be steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. Under the terms of section 4 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the vacation of the seat of a Member of the House of Commons who becomes disqualified by that Act from membership of that House, the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty’s three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or of the Manor of Northstead, shall be treated as included among the offices described in part III of schedule 1 to the Act.
The hon. Member for Belfast West is therefore disqualified from membership of the House by virtue of section 1 of that Act. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, in referring to pages 57 and 58 of “Erskine May”, causes me to comment on the matter to which he referred. “Erskine May” describes the course of events in cases in the past, but as I have ruled, the law is clear. Appointment to one of the two offices to which I have referred, under section 4 of the Act, results in disqualification. With reference to the observation that the hon. Gentleman made about the comments of the Prime Minister, I am sure that the Prime Minister would never intentionally mislead the House, but the point has been heard on the Treasury Bench and perhaps the Leader of the House will wish to reply.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
May I reiterate what you have just said, Mr Speaker? Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would never intentionally mislead the House. The House will be aware that the only way to enact a resignation is to appoint the person to one of the relevant positions. The Prime Minister was aware of the process to appoint Gerry Adams to be steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. It might have been better for my right hon. Friend to have said “is being appointed” instead of “has accepted”, and I am happy to make that clarification for the record.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. No doubt the fact that Gerry Adams has now departed this place will be greatly welcomed, given that he will no longer be able to claim the large amounts of money that the Government said he would not be allowed to claim, but that he nevertheless went on claiming as a result of being in office here.
A Treasury statement today says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the public statement by Gerry Adams that he is resigning from Parliament as a request to be appointed as steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead and granted him that office. As a result, there arises a question about in what circumstances the Chancellor may take a statement or other indication of resignation as an excuse or reason to make such an appointment—[Interruption.] These are serious matters, because the normal procedures have not been followed, in that Mr Adams did not apply in the normal way and did not accept in the normal way. Can you, Mr Speaker, investigate the role of the Northern Ireland Office and other agencies in this matter?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has exercised his responsibilities, and I do not think that it is either necessary or seemly to dilate upon how he has done so. He has done so in an entirely orderly way. I would simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think that the House will want to rest content with the thrust of what has been said to it. It is not necessary to get ahead of ourselves and engage in hypothetical scenarios. We do not need to do that. However, I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with the care and respect with which I always listen to him.
Thomas Docherty
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On the specific issue of whether Mr Adams has accepted an office of the Crown, can you confirm that this is the case? As of late this afternoon, Mr Adams was still claiming that he had not accepted the office, which was so graciously offered to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr Speaker
I have ruled on the matter. The appointment has been made; the disqualification is a fact. Beyond that, I do not think that I can realistically or reasonably be expected to elaborate.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is quite an important issue here about the nature of an application, because if, for the sake of argument, a Member were to express the view that they might feel like resigning from the House, the Chancellor might then appoint them and they would find themselves disqualified. Surely there must be a clear procedure for making it transparent that the Member in question has applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. The question that is being asked—a question to which the House would like an answer—is: was an application made in this case specifically for the Chiltern Hundreds which then led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the appointment, and was it accepted?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, but the matter to which he has just referred—whether an application for the Chiltern Hundreds has been made—is, I am afraid, not a matter for me. The matter has been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the execution of his responsibilities, and this is one of those occasions on which it is right for me to communicate the facts of the situation, but not to wallow in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, if I can put it that way.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. “Erskine May” makes it quite clear that someone should apply for an office under the Crown. Should I, as the Member for East Antrim, in a fit of despair when I see who will replace Gerry Adams, express publicly the view that I wished that I was not a Member of a House that contained such a person, would the Chancellor take that as an indication that I should no longer be a Member of this House and therefore appoint me to an office of the Crown? That seems to be the implication of the ruling that you have made.
Mr Speaker
Once again—I fear that I am being repetitive, but it is necessary for me to be so—let me say that I have made the factual and legal position clear. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, and it seems to me that the matter that he has raised—a matter relating to what could or could not now ensue—is essentially a hypothetical matter upon which it is neither necessary nor possible for a ruling to be made this evening. I believe that the position is clear: the disqualification has happened. If there are Members who are dissatisfied with the procedure—a very senior Member and others have indicated some level of dissatisfaction—it is perfectly open to them further to pursue the matter through other quarters, on other occasions, but I do not think that there is profit in dwelling further on them this evening.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Much has been said in the past 12 months and more about modernising the House of Commons. You made great reference to this yourself in your campaign speech. I hope that this will not seem too revolutionary, but would it not be appropriate for the Procedure Committee to look into these matters? Why should it be necessary, in the 21st century, to apply for an office of profit under the Crown? Why should not it be possible for an hon. Member to resign his seat? I suggest that there is a case for this matter to be looked at. People watching this might consider it rather farcical.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that he will understand that I respect what he has said, but that it is not for me to speculate from the Chair on what the future position might be. It is absolutely open to the hon. Gentleman and to any other hon. Member to request that the Procedure Committee study this issue and make recommendations. I am not in any sense dying in the ditch as a matter of principle in favour of the status quo; nor am I arguing for a change to it. I am exercising my rather limited responsibility to report to the House what has happened and the facts of the situation. I hope that that is helpful.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is indicating that he wishes further to pursue the matter; I respect that.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said from a sedentary position.
Sammy Wilson
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely correct to say that, whatever the future might be, things could be different. Can you confirm to the House now, given the shabby way in which this has been handled in order to avoid the embarrassment of Sinn Fein, that it is now no longer necessary for a Member to apply for an office under the Crown if they wish to resign?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no, I am not confirming that at all. What I have done, and what I am doing again, is reporting the facts of the situation and the appointment that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I was, perfectly courteously, notified.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It appears that a major constitutional change is taking place, and I feel sure that the House would welcome a statement tomorrow from a Minister, so that we can question them about this matter.
Mr Speaker
I note the point of order. It will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and it is a matter for any Minister to make a statement if he or she so wishes.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have heard with respect everything that you have said, and will have been interested to hear your view that you are neither defending the status quo nor advocating a change from it. I know that people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), will say that a constitutional change has occurred to the point at which people will roll their eyes and smile, but this is a very serious matter. The eminent father of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), used to say that people thought procedure was boring but that it is not; it is our safeguard. If what appears to have happened today is confirmed as an acceptable way forward, that would mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could decide whether someone should be a Member of Parliament or not, without their say-so. That is not acceptable.
Mr Speaker
I do not think that I should make any further comment beyond what I have said about the appointment that has been made, the communication of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me, and my communication of the reality of the matters to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman is as articulate a spokesman for his point of view as can be found, and he has given further evidence of that this evening. We are grateful to him for that, and he might even wish to join in making representations to the Procedure Committee. That is a matter for him. I really do feel that these matters have been exhausted this evening—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that sedentary assent to that proposition.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I beg to move,
That the following appointments be made to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in pursuance of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended—
(1) Hilary Benn in place of Ms Rosie Winterton, until the end of the present Parliament, in accordance with paragraph 1(d) of the Schedule; and
(2) as lay members of the Committee, in accordance with paragraph 1(e) of the Schedule—
(a) Dame Janet Gaymer DBE QC (Hon.), for a period of five years;
(b) Elizabeth McMeikan, for a period of four years; and
(c) Sir Anthony Holland, for a period of three years.
I hope that we can now move into calmer waters, Mr Speaker, though as the motion affects the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that might be a forlorn hope. It seeks the appointment of members to the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. I move this motion to facilitate the decision of the House.
The Speaker’s Committee for IPSA is a statutory Committee, set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and its role and membership are determined by that statute. It has two key responsibilities: to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following fair and open competition for the posts of Chair and members of IPSA, and to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources.
The current membership of the Speaker’s Committee includes Mr Speaker, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee and myself—by virtue of our offices. It currently has five other members who were appointed by the House in June 2010. To this membership, we must now add three lay members. I will deal substantively with the issue of the addition of lay members in a moment, but let me first briefly outline paragraph (1) of the motion. This was added, at the request of the Opposition, to remove the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) and add the shadow Leader of the House in her place. This is a matter for the Labour party, and I am happy to facilitate it.
As a member of SCIPSA, I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central for her work on the Committee, helping us through some challenging meetings at the beginning, and I look forward to welcoming the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), should the House agree this motion. I know that he, too, will add great value to our proceedings.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended the addition of lay members to the Speaker’s Committee in its report of November 2009, and this was enshrined in statute through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. As a former Chairman of the Members Estimate Audit Committee, I can speak first hand on how useful I have found it to have external members on Committees that focus on the workings of the House. The House will also remember that it has only recently approved the addition of lay members to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life set out its reasoning behind the addition of lay members, specifically reflecting the growing practice in self-regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council and the General Council of the Bar, which have accepted lay membership as a way not only of mitigating charges of being “parti pris”, but of widening their horizon, increasing their experience base and strengthening their legitimacy with the public. There is no reason why similar principles should not apply to the Speaker’s Committee.
These appointments are made by resolution of the House. The statute requires that the motion is tabled with the agreement of the Speaker; I can confirm that Mr Speaker has signified his consent.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
My question is no reflection on the three distinguished people involved. Fortunately, after many years, we have managed to reach a position where hon. Members have to declare all their outside interests—something for which I have fought for many years. Once appointed, will members of the Speaker’s Committee also have to declare their outside interests—or, rather, their total income? Again, I emphasise that this is no reflection on the people involved.
Sir George Young
I think the answer is yes and no—yes to the outside interests, but no to the declaration of income.
As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, these lay members will have full voting rights on the Committee. The competition required by the statute was conducted at the Speaker’s request by a board chaired by the Clerk Assistant, Robert Rogers. Following a tender exercise in July last year, a specialist recruitment agency with experience in the successful management of high-level public appointments, Saxton Bampfylde, was employed to support the process.
Members will wish to know that there was a very high level of interest in these posts. A total of 166 applications were received; a longlist of well-qualified candidates was considered by the board. Seventeen candidates who were selected by the board from the longlist received a preliminary interview by Saxton Bampfylde. Following report of these conversations, eight candidates were selected for interview by the board. After these final interviews, the Speaker met four candidates recommended by the board, from whom he selected the three individuals whose names appear on the Order Paper.
Dame Janet Gaymer has recently retired from service as the Commissioner for Public Appointments in England and Wales, and as a civil service commissioner. She was previously senior partner at the law firm, Simmons & Simmons. Elizabeth McMeikan has also served as a civil service commissioner, and is a member of the State Honours Committee. Before taking on these roles, she was the human resources and change management director on the stores board of Tesco Stores plc. Finally, Sir Anthony Holland, a former chairman of the Law Society has held a number of public appointments, including as chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission and chair of the Standards Board for England. He currently holds an appointment in the office of the complaints commissioner of the Financial Services Authority.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has described the people who are being proposed for lay membership. They are clearly eminent and successful, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment whether they are representative. I think that many Members of Parliament are becoming increasingly tired of hearing people whose incomes are clearly way above those of Members opine on what is appropriate in relation to Members’ standards of living. I wonder whether any trade unionists were considered for these posts.
Sir George Young
The members of SCIPSA’s board do not undertake the function to which the hon. Lady has referred. They do not decide the remuneration of Members of Parliament or, indeed, their allowances. However, the hon. Lady has raised a serious issue about how a diversity of applications was secured. During the tender exercise, applicant companies were asked to prove a commitment to diversity as one of the criteria that would be considered in the assessment of their suitability for appointment. It may also reassure the hon. Lady to know that lay members will make a determined effort to gain an insight into the work of Members of Parliament and the challenges that confront us by observing the way in which Members work in their constituencies and, indeed, in the House.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but there is a little bit of concern about the nature of the people who have been recruited. Do any of them, as far as he is aware, have any knowledge or experience of the workings of Parliament?
Sir George Young
SCIPSA contains a large number of Members of Parliament, including myself and, if the House approves the motion, the shadow Leader of the House and four or five other colleagues. Input from Members of Parliament already exists on the board, and we would not expect it to come from the lay members.
Although the Act provides for a maximum appointment length of five years, the motion provides for each lay member to be appointed for a different duration, reflecting the placing of the candidates in the final report of the board to the Speaker. Thus Dame Janet Gaymer will be appointed for five years, Elizabeth McMeikan for four years, and Sir Anthony Holland for three years. All three of those excellent candidates could quite reasonably be appointed for the maximum period, but if we did that, the Committee would probably lose the expertise and experience of all three simultaneously.
Mr Winnick
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. May I expand on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and, to a certain extent, by me in an earlier intervention? Is it not important for us to have some knowledge of the incomes of people who make judgments about the incomes of Members of Parliament, and their remunerations as a whole? It is not a question of trying to interfere in their lives. They have volunteered to be part of the IPSA establishment and to be in the public domain, and I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any secrecy about their own total incomes.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce a wholly new principle to people’s appointments to bodies that have some involvement with the House of Commons, or indeed some outside bodies. It was not one of the terms and conditions of these people’s appointments that they should declare their outside interests, and I think it would be quite wrong to require them to do that. It would be an unnecessary intrusion on their privacy.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again. I understand that to accept the suggestion advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) would be to adopt a new principle, but I nevertheless feel that we should know what remuneration the lay members will receive specifically for their work on the Committee.
Sir George Young
I can satisfy the hon. Lady in that regard. The Act entitles lay members to remuneration and allowances to be determined by the Speaker and paid by IPSA. The daily rate of pay has been set at £300, which is comparable to the rate paid to those fulfilling similar roles elsewhere in the public sector.
I am happy to assure the House that the competition was fair and open, as the statute requires, and I am sure that Members will agree that the three candidates who have emerged from the process have a wealth of relevant public and private sector experience to support them.
I think it worth reminding the House that the scope of the Speaker’s Committee is limited, and that it is not intended to serve as a forum or liaison for dealing with hon. Members’ issues with the organisation. That is why you, Mr Speaker, announced last week the creation of a separate liaison group, which I know the House will welcome.
I commend the motion to the House.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House said, this motion has two parts, the first of which deals simply with the appointment of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House to the Committee to replace the former shadow Leader of the House, who is now the Labour Chief Whip. I am sure that we can rely on him to speak up for Members’ interests in that Committee, as we can on its other members.
The second part of the motion appoints the lay members of the Committee, in line with the House’s decision when it passed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That being the case, Labour Members do not intend to oppose the motion, but I wish to raise a few concerns, which I believe are shared by other hon. Members. The first, while being no reflection on the probity of the members appointed to the Committee, relates to how the public appointments process in general, which is simply reflected in this motion, seems always to appoint people from the same charmed circle to various public appointments. We do not have an appointments process that encourages people from all walks of life to apply. The House will need to consider this matter if this Committee stays in being, because we need a more balanced set of appointments as we do in many other walks of public life.
As the Leader of the House has mentioned remuneration, I should like to put my second concern on the record. The House is getting very concerned at the level of remuneration afforded to those who help scrutinise the work of this House compared with that afforded to Members of Parliament. That is a concern. I do not know how that level of remuneration was arrived at, and perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us when he sums up. It seems to me that the daily rate considered appropriate for Members of this House should also be considered appropriate for lay members of the House’s Committees. I hope that in due course the House will turn its attention to that, because we tend to forget it. Many Members do not necessarily wish to stand up and say that, but this is a concern for Members from all parts of the House.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
May I suggest that any reasonable claim for travelling expenses related to the work should be submitted through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority process, thus giving the members of the Speaker’s Committee a full appreciation of how that process works or malfunctions?
Helen Jones
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down a route that is far away from this motion. However, I have said, as have others, that many of the problems with Members’ remuneration and expenses would be solved if other people in the public sector were tied to the same rates as Members of Parliament. I doubt very much that that will happen.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Is it a requirement for appointment that one has to be computer literate so as to be able to fill in forms and so on online? Is that part of the qualification for appointment?
Helen Jones
I am not aware that that is the case, but I am not sure that even those of us who are reasonably computer literate can cope with a system that seems designed perversely to put as many obstacles in the way as possible. That being said, it is important that we continue with the process that the House has agreed. Labour Members will support the motion.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). I think, however, that she misunderstood the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), because if anybody on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority had to apply for their own expenses in the way that Members of Parliament are required, they would have a greater understanding of either the problems that IPSA had in setting up a scheme under time pressure or the mistakes that were made when it was set up.
At the risk of boring you, Mr Speaker, I just want to mention the first fact, which is relevant to SCIPSA. When we do our own expenses, we have to get a barcode on a screen. It takes more than the number of fingers on my hand to get it printed out, but everyone has to have it printed out. What most people do not know is that when that gets posted with the receipts to IPSA, the first thing IPSA does is generate another barcode to stick on the bits of paper that we put a barcode on in the first place. I suspect that SCIPSA should be interested in following a claim from a Member’s PA through the Member to IPSA and in asking the IPSA members whether they tried the scheme before they imposed it on people in the House of Commons.
The second point on which I want to disagree with the hon. Lady is that I do not think that those who appoint the members of IPSA should necessarily be paid the same as us. It is quite clear—I say this just to make friends—that there cannot be a serious pay increase for Members of Parliament during this Parliament, but we ought to have a system to ensure that people who are elected after the next general election get a level of pay whereby being a general practitioner in politics is equivalent to being a general practitioner in medicine. If a Member of Parliament is not worth it, we should change the Member of Parliament, not lower the rate of pay.
I believe it is wrong to say that the lay members of SCIPSA should be people who represent a range of jobs throughout the economy. It is far better that they should have had the experience of being the human resources and personnel director of a major company. It is important that they have had some experience, as a civil service commissioner would have had, of seeing what appointments are like. The fact of making appointments matters most and my personal belief is that if the hon. Lady, I or any of the other right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber had been in charge of appointing members of IPSA, they would have the same kinds of talent as the present members but would not have made the same decisions. IPSA had a virtually impossible job to do to begin with and it did not do it brilliantly. I hope that SCIPSA will say to IPSA, “What do you think you’ve done wrong and how can we ensure that the wrongs get righted and that further wrongs are not created in the future?” The present system, frankly, would be better put in a wastepaper basket and I hope that the members of SCIPSA help to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Accounts Commission
Ordered,
That Dr Stella Creasy, Mr Edward Leigh, Mrs Anne McGuire and John Pugh be appointed, and that Dr William McCrea be discharged as members of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983.—(Mr Heath.)
Business without Debate
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Burton’s Foods (Moreton)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in this year’s Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Burton’s food factory in Moreton is the largest private sector employer in my constituency and has been a mainstay of employment in the communities of Moreton and Leasowe for well over half a century. The site currently employs 342 people on permanent contracts, but biscuit making is a seasonal activity so there is the potential for an extra 200 seasonal workers during busy production times. It is not unusual for seasonal workers to work for up to 10 months of the year. During the production peak last year, for example, 566 employees were working in the factory.
Last year the company announced a supply chain review, but only days into the new year it announced the shocking news that it intends to close down the entire site by the end of 2011 with the loss of all jobs. It wishes to outsource chocolate refining for Cadbury, a specialism long performed to a very exacting standard in Moreton, to an unspecified supplier. It plans to invest £7 million in two other sites, Llantarnam in Wales and Edinburgh, as well as consolidating its distribution operations, again to an unspecified place.
We are at the beginning of the statutory 90 days of consultation that must by law precede redundancies. The work force, their representatives and I are determined to use that period in the most constructive way that we can to try to persuade Burton’s Foods to change its mind about this disastrous decision. My first priority is to work with all interested parties to win the battle to save these jobs, which why I am so pleased that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), is here to answer the debate tonight. I have given him advance notice of the questions with which I hope he can help me, so that we can give the work force the best chance of saving their jobs and avoiding the devastating effects that closure would have on the communities I represent. I shall return to those considerations, but first I want to deal with the developing situation in more detail.
I am grateful to Burton’s Foods for agreeing to make available the information on which it is basing its decision, but unfortunately it has not yet delivered on that commitment. The so-called data room that will house the information was due to be opened by Monday of this week, but the most recent information I have is that it will not be open until Thursday. That means that two weeks of the 90-day consultation period have already been wasted in waiting for the promised information to be provided. There are also serious worries that the quality, accessibility and level of detail of the data will not be good enough to facilitate a testing analysis of the company’s approach to the closure decision. I make this plea to the company: for speed and transparency, please co-operate with us and make available all the information in an easily accessible way. We aim to generate different proposals that offer a viable alternative to the decisions that the company has made in its supply chain review.
Sadly, we have been in this position before with Burton’s Foods. In 2007, the company earmarked the factory for total closure, but that was just months after the expiry of legal obligations it had agreed to in 2001 to access £4 million-worth of regional selective assistance from the regional development agency and rates rebates from the local authority. After that closure announcement, the work force were escorted off the site by security guards who had been hired specifically for the purpose. After that rather difficult beginning, we, together with the work force and their representatives, and after a successful campaign in the local community and this House, persuaded the company to change its mind. On 15 August 2007, a memorandum of understanding between the management and the Unite union, on behalf of the employees, was signed, saving manufacturing at the site and safeguarding a total of 437 jobs. In exchange for an undertaking that there would be no major restructuring on the site before May 2012, the work force accepted the proposed changes, some of which were painful, including new working practices. More painfully, there were 500 job losses despite evidence that the company’s productivity had been increasing consistently year on year.
The Moreton work force have more than delivered on their side of the deal in the MOU. They have increased their productivity still further, despite having had pay freezes in four of the past 10 years and very modest increases in the other years. They have delivered £12.7 million-worth of cost reduction to the business and have agreed major changes in working practices to achieve that transformation. Let me give two examples that illustrate the nature of their commitment.
The Moreton factory produces the Christmas selections at the high-value end of any biscuit manufacture, and have been responsible for increasing the sales of seasonal products by 16%. That is four times greater than for Burton’s main competitor and is an astonishing achievement in a tough and competitive environment. Likewise, the new Duels product, which was introduced relatively recently, was first made in Moreton and is now manufactured at the factory. The plan was for that new product to break even in 18 months, but due to the hard work and commitment of the managers and the marketing team, as well as the undoubted skills of the work force at Moreton, it has grown from nothing to a £20 million turnover business in just 12 months. None of the work force could have done any better—and what is their reward? The sack.
There are serious issues about whether the memorandum of understanding has been honoured by the company. No one is saying that conditions are anything other than tough in the £2.2 billion biscuit sector. Commodity prices have risen substantially and the retail environment makes it difficult for manufacturers to pass on extra costs to their customers. The company has changed hands in the year following a restructuring that converted into new equity £137.7 million of borrowing that had been loaded on to the company by a string of private equity owners. That has reduced the group’s interest burden to a manageable level. The previous private equity owners, Duke Street Capital, passed ownership on to a number of parties, none of which now individually has a controlling interest, but I understand that they include the Canadian Imperial Bank and Apollo Asset Management.
Although the company is clearly experiencing difficulties in the market, the 2010 annual report shows positive figures over the past year. Its turnover was up 4%. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation were up slightly, as was its gross profit margin. Although that was a modest performance, I note in passing that the directors’ remuneration increased by a staggering 97.5%, with a 119.9% increase for the highest paid director. That makes a startling contrast to the years of wage freezes inflicted on the work force at Moreton.
So there are tough conditions to contend with in the market. We all know that this requires an imaginative response, but I do not believe that the supply chain review is the right one. There are good grounds for believing that the production costs at the Moreton site have been overestimated, whereas the closure costs have been underestimated. There is much in the company’s figures to contest.
Since the factory opened in 1953, it has been a dominant employer in the Leasowe and Moreton area. It is not uncommon for entire families to work at the factory, sometimes with more than one generation on the production line at the same time. If the closure were to go ahead, it would be devastating for many of my constituents. It would decimate the local economy at a time when it is already fragile. The human cost cannot be overestimated.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I applaud my hon. Friend for initiating this debate and for her concentration on the impact on Wallasey, but despite the divisions between our two areas, people move over the borders from Birkenhead to work. My plea to the Minister is that he does not address only the points that my hon. Friend is making. The Government have a welfare reform programme and want people on long-term benefit to move into work. It is difficult anyway to achieve that. It is doubly difficult if the job market disappears for those wishing to make the transition.
Ms Eagle
My right hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that.
There are many local families who would lose more than one breadwinner and face serious hardship if the closure goes ahead. A closure would cause the local economy great difficulty. As an article in the Wirral Globe recently pointed out, many local small businesses benefit from the custom of so many employees on the site, and others, such as Abbey Supplies, deal directly with Burton’s.
My first priority is to do all I can to save those jobs. That is why I am glad that the Minister is here, listening to the debate. It is important that in parallel I work to safeguard the interests of those whom I represent, which is why I have written to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) seeking a meeting with him to discuss the implications for our local employment market, should the closure go ahead. However, I would prefer the Minister to work with me to stop that happening.
Any potential closure of the site would have ramifications beyond the workers and their families who work at Burton’s Foods. Two other companies, Manor Bakeries and Typhoo Tea, share the site with Burton’s. These factories between them employ 620 more people. Executives at Typhoo Tea have highlighted how any potential closure of the Burton’s factory could cause them at least £1.5 million in extra costs as they have shared agreements on electricity, gas, drainage and stock rooms. It is crucial to avoid a domino effect on the site, and I wish to know what the Government could offer in the way of support to prevent that from happening in the event of a closure going ahead.
The week before Burton’s Foods dropped the jobs bombshell on Moreton, the Prime Minister and Michael Heseltine had been visiting the docks in Wallasey. Indeed, the Prime Minister referred to that at Prime Minister’s questions today. The visit was part of their growth tour. Although the Wirral Waters development is potentially very exciting, it is a plan which by its nature cannot make progress quickly. The Government’s contention has been that the private sector will grow to fill the gap caused by the decision to cut public spending so quickly and deeply, but I am sad to report to the House that we are already experiencing public sector job cuts announced locally. Wirral borough council has decided to cut 1,100 of its employees this year—one sixth of the total—but the private sector has not filled the gap. By its announcement, Burton’s Foods has piled on the agony.
Even prior to these announcements, Wallasey was suffering high unemployment. In December, Government figures showed that 2,173 people were claiming jobseeker’s allowance. For every job vacancy, there are now 17 applicants, and that is before the job losses announced by Burton’s and the local authority have taken effect. That is why it is so important to fight to save these jobs. I implore the company to think again and work with the employees to develop an alternative proposal that can allow it to remain competitive in the market while securing jobs at the site.
I would be grateful if the Minister could lend his support by dealing with the following questions tonight. Work is going on to formulate alternative proposals that will meet the company’s requirements without closing the Moreton factory. Similar exercises have succeeded in the past, but only with active Government support. What support can the Government offer if we are able to put together a package that will convince the company to rethink its decision? What grants has the company applied for from the Scottish and Welsh Governments to support its proposals to move jobs from Moreton, and can the Minister promise to match any grant offered to secure those jobs in England? The company accounts for last year show a credit of £418,000 for
“the release of Government grants”.
Can the Minister explain what these outstanding grants are? Can he also explain what leeway, if any, the outstanding moneys may give in encouraging the company to think again?
As I have already mentioned, two other businesses remain on site, Typhoo Tea and Manor Bakeries, which employ 620 people between them. They have indicated the extra costs that they face if the Burton’s factory were to close. What support can the Minister pledge in order to prevent a domino effect, putting those jobs at risk too, if the closure were to go ahead?
The Moreton site is the only land in the area suitable for industrial development and zoned for that use. If there were a closure we would need significant public investment to ensure that it could be developed to create the potential for future jobs growth and enhance local job prospects. What support could the Department offer in those circumstances?
My constituents who work at the plant will fight for their jobs. They will not roll over, but they need the support and help of the Government to ensure that there is a level playing field in grant support in all areas of this country. We heard the Prime Minister today promise to support private sector businesses throughout the country, but particularly in Merseyside, and workers at Moreton are looking to the Government to keep the promise that the Prime Minister made earlier today and support private sector jobs and promote growth.
At a time when families in Moreton and Leasowe are desperately worried about rising unemployment, I ask the Minister to work with me to help save the Moreton site and to secure the jobs of one of Britain’s most established, dedicated and successful work forces.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on securing the debate. She has raised a number of important questions, which I will seek to answer. I know from looking at the history of the site that this has been a vexed site and plant, so these are not necessarily new problems with this particular business or location; she rightly alluded to that.
I was sorry to hear of the decision, which I first learned about from the media, and then heard about from the hon. Lady when she raised the matter in the Chamber last week. Clearly, the concern that she has rightly shown for the 342 employees will be shared in the House. It is very unwelcome news and it is inevitably a worrying time for both the employees and the families, let alone the community. Having been through that experience myself, I understand how people often take this as very much a personal issue.
Since the company announced the factory closure earlier this month, Jobcentre Plus has been in contact to offer the support of its rapid response service. The company has accepted that offer of help and the details of the tailored support package that will be offered to the work force are currently being worked out. That support will focus on helping Burton’s employees find alternative employment as quickly as possible and will take a number of forms. In addition to offering advice on writing CVs and doing job searches, depending on what is required, the support package might include matching the employees made redundant to known job vacancies and helping individuals to identify their transferable skills and training needs to help them find work in the local labour market.
Ms Eagle
I understand that, but I hope that the Minister has listened with some sympathy to the fact that 17 people are currently chasing every vacancy in Wallasey. It is not a question of writing CVs; it is a question of demand and the existence and supply of jobs. What he describes would be important if the plant were to close, but I hope that he will help us to keep it open.
Mr Prisk
Certainly, and my purpose in elaborating on this is for people to understand the broad packages available. I will then move on to the questions the hon. Lady has raised.
In addition, the support package will set up an action fund to help workers take up a new job, for example by giving help with travel-to-work expenses, which relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As I said, redundancy can be a personal tragedy for every individual and their families, so the Government are committed to helping people find alternative employment as soon as possible.
The hon. Lady cited the disappointing GDP figures in support of a claim that the Government are somehow pursuing the wrong economic strategy. In fact, the Office for National Statistics has made it perfectly clear that the fall in GDP was largely driven by the weather late last year, when we experienced the coldest December since records began. In looking at the figures, it is noticeable that the manufacturing sector, which we are talking about today, was in fact performing well.
Ms Eagle
I understand that and thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In the spirit of trying to work together to find a positive solution, I did not play politics with the issue and did not mention the GDP figures. I am trying to see whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be able to offer positive help to save the jobs. We all know what has to happen, and I would wish to discuss that with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is responsible for employment, if the worst happens and the factory closes. However, I wanted this Minister to be here so that we could try to save the jobs, and I deliberately did not mention yesterday’s GDP figures because I did not want to get into a party political argument about economics. I am trying to help my constituents to get by and to save local jobs, and I am a little disappointed that he has claimed that I mentioned the figures.
Mr Prisk
I am trying to set out the context of where we are, because it is important for understanding why some factories are closed and others are prospering. It is important to remember that we are seeing record output levels in manufacturing as a whole, although clearly there will be individual factories, to which the hon. Lady has rightly alluded, where there are specific circumstances, such as the way own-brand goods are damaging the food and drink industry’s manufacturing side, that might lead them to close. We need to understand the reasons behind individual factory closures and why some parts of the manufacturing sector are prospering in the north-west and others are not. That is the context that I am trying to set out.
We feel at this stage that the crucial thing that industry needs more than anything is certainty and clarity on the overall picture. That is why we are cutting the corporation tax rate from 28p to 24p, which will result in the UK having the lowest corporation tax rate of the G7 nations. That matters for an important reason: by 2016 it will unlock £13 billion of investment that industry and business can reinvest. When we look at the past problems of the Moreton plant, which has received £3 million in direct grant assistance from the public sector, we must recognise that if the business itself says that it cannot make the plant viable, there is a challenge as to what the Government can then do to change that.
On the broader picture, I must say that we are focused on investing in programmes such as the manufacturing advisory service, which is expressly designed to help strengthen and improve manufacturers. We are also putting £200 million into an enterprise capital fund, which is good for growth businesses. The hon. Lady referred to Burton’s existing account balance, and that might be relevant, but we would also point to the importance of the enterprise finance guarantee, which seeks to generate up to £2 billion of additional lending—again, an important issue in that sector.
On the broader issue of adult apprenticeships, the additional investment of £250 million is very important, because, as the north-west economy restructures and we see good success—for example, in the aerospace and automotive sector—the need for more adult apprenticeships will be crucial. That is why we are seeking to expand their number, so that the opportunity for the hon. Lady’s constituents and those in neighbouring areas is significant, enabling them to retrain where other businesses cannot prosper.
Mr Field
One key point that my hon. Friend made was that, in the situation under discussion, we have a very specific group of employers who are very clever at managing public sector support for their industry; and one question that she asked was whether the Minister knows whether the Welsh Assembly Government or the Scottish Government are issuing support to entice the firm away from Moreton, because it enjoys taxpayer support. If they are, can the Government—the English Government—match what the Welsh and Scottish Governments are offering?
Mr Prisk
I am going to address the specifics of the hon. Lady’s questions, but I wanted to ensure, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out, that we looked at the context, because there are good manufacturing stories to be told in the north-west, and it is important to stress that.
The hon. Lady referred, first, to the alternative proposals, in which I know she is actively engaged, and she asked what might happen if they were successful. We have a problem, because Burton’s has decided to wind down its business and to reinvest elsewhere. I shall turn to the Scottish numbers in a moment, because we have made specific inquiries. It is therefore very difficult, at this moment, for the Government to try in any way to override a decision if the company wishes to move from that location to elsewhere—however frustrating I am sure that will be for the hon. Lady. If the company does not wish to remain on that site, it is very difficult for the Government to change the fundamentals of that particular business.
On the Scottish Government grants that have been allegedly applied for, we have made specific inquiries to try to help the hon. Lady, and at the moment we understand that no detailed discussions have taken place between the company and the authorities. There has been an initial discussion, but no business plan, details or finance plan have been discussed. The location in question in Scotland would not qualify for regional selective assistance, however, so we wait to find out what the discussions may or may not be about between Burton’s and the Scottish authorities. I have asked my officials to monitor the situation closely, and if we receive that information we will of course share it with the hon. Lady, so that she is able, in her local discussions, to deal with it. She will appreciate, however, that at this moment and at this Dispatch Box it is very difficult and, indeed, probably inappropriate for me to second guess what may or may not be offered.
On the question of the company’s accounts for last year, which show a credit of £418,000 for, as the hon. Lady put it,
“the release of Government grants”,
we have spoken to the Northwest Regional Development Agency, and I am disappointed to tell her that, as of an hour ago, it has not been able to provide us with that information. I have pressed upon the RDA the need for it, and the moment I receive a reply I shall of course share it with the hon. Lady, so that she can understand the background to the situation and what
“the release of Government grants”
actually means.
The hon. Lady referred to two other businesses, Typhoo Tea and Manor Bakeries. She asked whether there is a danger of a domino effect because the security and amenities on the site are shared. I am concerned that the closure of the plant should not have unreasonable adverse effects on the neighbouring businesses. I am not familiar with the exact site and with what those effects might be, and I am not sure whether it would be £1.5 million, £2 million or £3 million. However, we are in direct contact with the RDA to establish the specific facts and itemised numbers on that. She said that the data centre that the company offered is not yet operational. If we get that information from the other companies through the RDA, we will bring it to her. It is difficult for me, in the circumstances, to make a commitment at this moment, but I am happy to come back to her in due course when we have more information on that issue.
The hon. Lady said that the Moreton site was effectively the only land in the area that is suitable for industrial development and zoned for that use. She asked what the situation would be if there was a closure, because it could be serious. A number of avenues are open, and I urge her to work with business and civic leaders in this area, as I know she already is. She mentioned the regional growth fund, the first round of which closed today.
Mr Prisk
We are in the last minute of the debate, so I will not give way.
The £1.4 billion regional growth fund has been set up. The first round has closed, but the second has not. The hon. Lady might want to consider that. In addition, there is the £1.5 billion business growth fund that the banks have established to deliver investment. As I said, if things do not work out, Jobcentre Plus help is available.
I appreciate the difficulties in the hon. Lady’s area, and it is important that we remain in conversation and contact on this matter. It is early days, but I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. At this moment, it would be unwise of me to make a carte blanche offer of help in monetary terms, because we are not fully conversant with the facts. When we are, I will be happy to have further conversations with her, or her neighbouring colleagues if that is appropriate. On that note, I will draw my remarks to a—
Ministerial Corrections
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Criminal Proceedings (Information Rights)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
On Scotland, it costs the Scots about £500,000. They do not have a letter of rights at the moment—they will devise their own. It will be in accordance with Scottish law, not English and Welsh law, but they are happy to comply, because their standards are the same as ours. They will wish to give the same justice to people who appear in Scottish courts.
[Official Report, 2 December 2010, European Committee B, c. 13.]
Letter of correction from Mr Kenneth Clarke:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) about the costs of implementing the directive in Scotland.
The figure given should have been approximately £50,000—which includes written translation of a new letter of rights but does not include associated costs for training and putting in place the necessary legislation.
Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Julian Sturdy
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment his Department has made of the likely effect of the reduction of the empty property rates threshold on the business sector.
[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 503W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on 17 January.
The notice of question received by my Department referred to “business centre sector” but this was later changed by the Table Office to “business sector”. Due to an administrative error, the notification of change to the text of the question was not correctly dealt with resulting in an answer being given on the basis of the original text i.e. “business centre sector”.
The full answer given was as follows:
Robert Neill
This Government recognises the problems caused by the previous Government’s reforms of empty property rates.
Our ability to take action on this needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the targeted support that we have already provided on business rates and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit.
We therefore have no immediate plans to reverse the reforms, and taking the above matters into consideration, the empty property rate threshold will revert to £2,600 from 1 April 2011. We will, however, certainly keep this matter under review.
No assessment has been made of the effect of the reduction of the empty property rates threshold on the business centre sector.
As I outlined in my written statement of 13 December 2010, Official Report, columns 61-62WS, it would cost £400 million to continue with the temporary empty rates measure, which unfortunately is not fiscally sustainable given the public finances that the new Government have inherited from the last administration.
The correct answer should have been:
Robert Neill
This Government recognises the problems caused by the previous Government's reforms of empty property rates.
Our ability to take action on this needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the targeted support that we have already provided on business rates and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit.
We therefore have no immediate plans to reverse the reforms, and taking the above matters into consideration, the empty property rate threshold will revert to £2,600 from 1 April 2011. We will, however, certainly keep this matter under review.
As I outlined in my written statement of 13 December 2010, Official Report, columns 61-62WS, it would cost £400 million to continue with the temporary empty rates measure, which unfortunately is not fiscally sustainable given the public finances that the new Government has inherited from the last administration.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 9 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
The Army and RAF Lyneham
(13 years, 9 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 James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to have this debate, and to sit under your able chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am sure that the debate will be orderly and sensible with you looking after it.
I am here to talk about an extraordinarily important event for the people of North Wiltshire. The influence of RAF Lyneham in the community is extremely great, and the proposed closure of the RAF element of the base would, if nothing else were to be done about it, have a devastating effect. I thank my hon. Friends who have attended, particularly those from the county of Wiltshire—my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames). I also offer apologies from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Devizes (Claire Perry), both of whom would have been here but unfortunately had to be elsewhere. We have, I think, unanimous support from Wiltshire Members, but I also see other hon. Friends with an interest in Wiltshire and am glad that they have taken the trouble to be here this morning.
I shall start by doing something one should never do, which is to disobey the Prime Minister. This time last week, Councillor Mary Champion, the mayor of Wootton Bassett, her deputy, Councillor Heaphy and Johnathan Bourne, the town clerk, had the great honour of being invited to No. 10 Downing street to see the Prime Minister, so that the Prime Minister could thank them and the people of Wootton Bassett for the efforts that they make in paying tribute to our fallen heroes as they come back down through Wootton Bassett high street. One of the things that the Prime Minister said to the mayor at that very pleasant meeting was, “Whatever you do, please don’t let James start banging on about Lyneham. He’s always banging on about Lyneham.” I am sorry to have to say to the Prime Minister that I intend to continue to bang on about Lyneham as long as I possibly can, to the boredom of all who will listen, until we find a satisfactory solution, to avoid the potential catastrophe that would occur for my constituency if Lyneham were to be closed and nothing else were to be done. The issue is a huge one and I have taken a keen interest in it, and campaigned long and hard on it, over five or six years. It is about 12 months ago that we had a debate in this Chamber to discuss whether it was right that the RAF should leave the base. I am afraid I intend to keep up that effort until we come up with the right solution.
Before I move on to the substance of the matter, it is perhaps right, as we face the beginning of the end of repatriation ceremonies through Wootton Bassett, to pay tribute to the people of Wootton Bassett and surrounding areas. The Royal British Legion in Malmesbury, Chippenham, Calne and other parts come into the town, often once or twice in a week, in all weathers without fail, to bow their heads for two seconds in tribute to the coffins of the fallen that come back through the town. I think, looking back to the first of those occasions, that I was the only person there. It was after the tragic downing of flight XV179, the Hercules that was brought down in Iraq. I and the TV crews saw the 10 coffins coming through the high street. I said to the crews, “Turn off your cameras and we will go and pay our respects on the pavement.” Ever since then, the people of Wootton Bassett have turned out in great numbers week by week. They do not want any thanks for it. They do it just because that is their civic duty and because they support the armed services, but none the less they stand proxy for the grief of the nation and it is right that we, here, should pay tribute to them. As we see the beginning of the end of those ceremonies, I hope that whichever place takes over the sad repatriation duties, whether that will be RAF Brize Norton or somewhere else, it will find some similar way of marking the occasion when the bodies are brought back to the nation.
This week there was a photograph in The Daily Telegraph of one of the last “Fat Albert” C-130s being carried by road past the iconic pillared town hall of Wootton Bassett. Seeing the end of RAF Lyneham coming down through the high street brought home a message to us all.
We in Wiltshire will say a sad farewell to the RAF. The nearby Yatesbury base still has the first world war officers’ mess and hangars of the RAF, which was founded there roughly 100 years ago. Ever since then the RAF has had a home in Wiltshire. Sadly, when it leaves Lyneham later this year a long and distinguished link with the RAF will end.
Many people in the area are retired from the RAF. We thank the RAF for what it has done and say goodbye with great sadness. We have fought long and hard against the suggestion that the Hercules fleet should be moved to Brize Norton. I continue to believe that that is the wrong decision, but sadly it was taken too long ago to be reversed and we have now come to accept the reality that the RAF will leave. The last flights will be in August and September, and the base will be finally vacated by December 2012. We regret that and think that it is a wrong decision but have come to accept it as a fait accompli; there is nothing else we can do about it. So we say a sad farewell to the RAF and look forward to what will happen in the future.
I am concerned about the possibility that nothing will happen in the future, which is something that we have seen elsewhere; my own Government foolishly closed RAF Wroughton nearby and left it vacant for many years. Vandals moved in and the value declined, and the economy was damaged as a result. The same happened only 15 or 20 years ago when the Army left Corsham. Again, it was left vacant for a long time, the economy went down and the result was catastrophic.
Whatever happens to RAF Lyneham when the RAF leaves, we must re-use the site swiftly and cleanly. We must not allow Defence Estates to sit on it, or the vandals to move in. We must find a quick and speedy solution. After all, the local economy depends to a significant degree on the base. Something like 3,400 jobs are directly or indirectly dependent on it, according to a recent survey by Wiltshire council. About £90 million within the local economy comes from Lyneham. If the site were to be left vacant and nothing were to happen there it would be a disaster for the local economy. I am glad to say that two or three commercial interests are taking a keen interest in the site. I am working closely with them and will be keen to encourage them in every possible way and try to find other uses for the site. There are difficulties with that, but there are some commercial possibilities for the site, and I welcome that.
By far the strongest sense of what one might call local unanimity is on the point that when the RAF leaves later this year we would like the Army to return to the site. We were therefore much encouraged by what the Prime Minister had to say during his statement on the strategic defence and security review. He told the House that there would be
“changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used, but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany. We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 798.]
Well, there is no community, up and down the land, that has supported our armed forces more than that of Lyneham, Wootton Bassett, Calne and the surrounding area. I hope that the vacated RAF Lyneham base will be one of the most attractive for the Army returning from Germany.
We believe that Lyneham, unlike one or two of the other bases around Britain that are similarly making bids for the Army, has some unique selling propositions. First, we have an immensely strong military connection. Half the British Army is in Wiltshire. Wiltshire is a military place. It is an agricultural place. It is a place of market towns and villages, a place of high-tech industries —we must not forget that—but it is predominantly, overwhelmingly, agricultural and military. The whole ethos of the place is military. Many of the people are ex-military and the people in the area support the military. I suspect that things would be quite different in some other bases where local people would, frankly, breathe a sigh of relief as they said goodbye to the military presence in their constituency. The people of North Wiltshire would very much welcome the Army.
The dossier that I presented to the Minister this morning included letters from Wiltshire council, Lyneham parish council, Wootton Bassett parish council, the chamber of commerce and a number of other people, all of whom are saying that they would like the Army to come to Lyneham. As nothing in this world is unanimous, I will no doubt be hearing from some people who do not agree with me. None the less, the overwhelming feeling in North Wiltshire is that we would like the Army to come to Lyneham. There is also a strong benefit of such a move for the Ministry of Defence itself.
Our first unique selling proposition is that we strongly support the military. As to who we would like to see coming in, I have a number of possible answers. The Prime Minister has announced that some 15,000 soldiers are returning from Germany, the details of which I will come back to in a second or two. We believe that a flexible brigade could fit into Lyneham. The base may be slightly too small, but there could be room for a multi-role brigade. Failing that, there are a number of smaller units located around the area. One thinks of Colerne in which the Signal Regiment is based. Nearby Hullavington houses one of the two Royal Logistics Corps Regiments in the area, the other one being in South Cerney. There are a number of other similar small units dotted around the area that could usefully be co-located at Lyneham, thereby saving a lot of money.
It has also been said that the university air squadrons, which are dotted around the place, could reuse the hardstanding at Lyneham. The base, therefore, could either house a multi-role brigade or be used for co-location. Someone else mentioned the Anglo-French rapid reaction corps. I know that the people of North Wiltshire would very much welcome French service personnel if indeed they were to form part of the rapid reaction corps. The fact that we have the RAF infrastructure on the base means that we can deploy people rapidly. There are thousands of square feet of hardstanding, hangars and an air traffic control building, which would be useful assets in the rapid deployment of forces, whether they be the Anglo-French rapid reaction corps, special forces or others.
Lyneham has a number of significant assets that could be offered to the Army. Without delaying the House too much, let me quickly run through them. Lyneham is a 1,359 acre site, which is much bigger than any other RAF or Army base. It is fully equipped and will be vacant by 2012 at the latest. The last flights are scheduled for August or September this year. However, if the Army wanted to move into the base sooner, I dare say that the RAF could hasten its exit.
Lyneham’s main asset is its location. It is 20 miles at most from Salisbury plain—just a few minutes’ flying time. It is close to all sorts of other training assets and to the M4, so Wales is not far away. There is a large number of training bases across the county, and the site is close to London, Berkshire and elsewhere. Therefore, it is ideally located for training.
Some other parts of the RAF are being located elsewhere. It would be wrong of me to mention any bases in particular. However, I must say that last night, I attended the Adjournment debate secured by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). I support what he had to say, and he said it very well. None the less, Leuchars would be quite different in terms of training areas, as would Lossiemouth. Lyneham, on the other hand, is at the heart of the military and offers real training space.
Although I am not privy to the MOD’s sometimes arcane accounting procedures—one chap understood them, but he died some years ago—we all know, I think, that when the Army comes back in very large numbers from Germany, the MOD will not have vast sums of money to spend on it. Among other things, the Army will need substantial accommodation and training facilities for its military personnel.
At its peak, Lyneham housed 3,500 RAF personnel and their families. There is a married quarters estate of 610 houses for other ranks and 155 houses for officers, which will largely be vacated by 2014 at the latest, although I understand that a number are already occupied by soldiers from the 9 Supply Regiment Royal Logistics Corps.
There are 20 barrack blocks with 892 good-quality rooms. One block has multi-occupancy-rooms—two-man bedrooms—and four blocks have en-suite rooms, which is quite unusual. The sergeants’ mess has 210 rooms and the officers’ mess 135. Taking all the accommodation together, there are more than 2,000 bed spaces available, and they are available today, or as soon as the RAF leaves. The Army could literally march in as the RAF flies out.
The other ranks’ dining room has capacity for 1,000 people. There is a large Navy, Army and Air Force Institute building, a Spar shop and every kind of sports facility—fitness suites, sports hall, tennis courts, squash courts, trim trail, four rugby and football pitches, a cricket square and a bowling alley. There is just about everything that one could possibly want by way of sporting facilities. Moreover, there is ample space for building a new barrack block or other facilities if they were needed.
The whole site is secure. The fence has recently been redone. There is some 14 km of fence around the site. Inside the wire, there are training facilities that include a lecture theatre and conference room, a training centre with three classrooms, various small classrooms, a 25-metre rifle range, a respirator testing chamber and a four-lane dismounted combat trainer, all of which would be useful for an incoming Army unit. The camp has several headquarters buildings, an unlimited supply of office space—the RAF seems to need a large number of offices, but the Army needs rather fewer. The site has a total of 12 hangars, with 52,000 square metres of internal storage space. It has about 50 hectares of runways and parking areas, which could presumably be used as hardstanding for all sorts of things. For example, there could be helicopter or fixed-wing rapid deployments from the base. The extensive runways would also be useful.
The site has vast military transport facilities. I am told that it has an 81,000 litre diesel and 27,000 litre petrol kerbside facility, an air traffic control building, fire services, explosives stores and so on. There are also first-class, recently rebuilt medical and dental centres. The infrastructure is all there. Although some parts of it may be a little tired, the MOD has, none the less, recently spent £5 million on upgrading the base. As I understand it, the standards required by the Army are slightly lower than those required by the RAF. Although the RAF may think some of the facilities are a little tired, I suspect that the Army would say, “This is significantly better than some of the places that we have found elsewhere.”
I appreciate that the standard of accommodation in Germany is very high, as it should be, so if we are bringing soldiers back, we will have to offer them equivalent accommodation. In short, after a bit of rebuilding and tidying up, the site could be a most worthwhile base at a minimum cost to the MOD. If the MOD were to take over a less well supplied base, the cost would be considerable. There are, of course, many examples of RAF bases being reused by the Army across England. In my own constituency, RAF Hullavington is now home to the 9 Supply Regiment Royal Logistics Corps and Bassingbourn and Abingdon are both good examples of reusing RAF sites for the Army.
In addition to the military infrastructure that is readily available to the Army, there is good local infrastructure. Although Lyneham is predominantly a military village, the schools, roads, and shops are all in place. The Army could move in tomorrow and it would find that the civilian infrastructure was available. I was recently at a meeting with the head of the local primary school, who was very concerned that the RAF was leaving the area. The school is first class and was recently reopened by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. It could be available for use by the Army tomorrow. Very few places in the area could offer that kind of facility.
It seems that we in Lyneham are offering just what the Army needs. There is an additional, if not slightly negative, reason why the MOD should consider Lyneham’s facilities. There could be problems with regard to the base if the Army were not to use it. It appears that there is a Crichel Down problem. I think that some 60 owners are laying some claim to the base and it could take some time—potentially, although not necessarily—for the Crichel Down thing to go through. However, that issue certainly needs further examination. Furthermore, if the base were to be handed over to civilian use there would doubtless have to be a significant level of decontamination, which would obviously have to be done to remove explosives, oil and other materials from the site. If that were to happen and the site were left vacant for a time, there would be all the costs of maintaining the site during the period that it was vacant, so there would be a significant cost to the Treasury of not doing something with the site swiftly.
So, from the point of the view of the Army, RAF Lyneham is highly attractive and from the point of view of the MOD, RAF Lyneham is a useful solution to a problem that it has. The MOD has been instructed to bring 15,000 soldiers in total back from Germany and it is currently considering what to do with them. The use of the site is also a useful solution from the point of view of the local area, which will face economic catastrophe if the Army does not use the site or if there is no alternative commercial use for it. Actually, marching the Army in as the RAF flies out some time later this year—I suppose that now it would have to happen next year—seems to be an extremely neat solution to a variety of problems. We have what the Army needs; the Army needs us; the Treasury needs Lyneham, and the local area needs the Army and would welcome the Army, as local people have made very clear. Also, I think that the nation owes a little bit to RAF Lyneham and Wootton Bassett for all that they have done in recent years.
So I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the debate this morning. I am glad that we have such a large number of people here supporting our efforts. I do not imagine that the Minister will do anything other than listen carefully and nod wisely. I am not asking him to answer my requests straight away. However, I hope that he will listen carefully to what I have said; that he and his officials will read the dossier that I have given them; and that we have at least been able to add some knowledge to the consideration that I know is currently going on among large numbers of people at the MOD. I believe that Lyneham would be ideal for the Army and I also believe that the Army needs Lyneham.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing this excellent debate and on the way in which he has made his case so eloquently. He and I have attended a number of debates in the past few months, which were secured by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and, as he has mentioned, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).
What is very clear is the deeply held affection that communities up and down the United Kingdom have for their military bases, which has been demonstrated by their Members of Parliament. I am sure that we all pay tribute to the community around RAF Lyneham for the way in which it, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has said, has conducted itself and supported our gallant and fallen service personnel on their return from overseas.
I simply wish to make a few observations to the Minister to tease out some answers, as the hon. Gentleman has already tried to do. The Minister will obviously be aware that a large number of troops are due to return from overseas in the next few years. Obviously, he will also be aware that when the Chief of the Defence Staff appeared before the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, he introduced a note of caution about the timetabling for the return of the troops from Germany.
It will probably not surprise you, Mr Betts, or indeed the Chamber, that two issues in particular concerned the CDS, and it is fair to say that those concerns were shared by the Defence Committee—I say that as I look at the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is also a member of that Committee. The first was the issue of the troops’ families. As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has already said, it is not simply a case of bringing home 15,000 servicemen and women, because their families will obviously need to be accommodated. I remind the Minister that, according to his own Department’s figures, accommodation for some 25,000 personnel within the defence estate of the United Kingdom is considered to be not of the highest standard, and my understanding is that there are currently no plans to upgrade that accommodation.
The second issue that concerned the CDS, as he pointed out when he appeared before the Defence Committee, is how we will educate the children of the returning service personnel. I do not wish to repeat the argument that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I had during consideration of the Armed Forces Bill about how to educate those children, but there is a very real issue about the schooling that we need to provide for all the children of returning personnel.
Mr Gray
It is worth paying tribute to the first-class Wootton Bassett comprehensive school, which is two or three miles down the road from Lyneham. At the moment, of course, its pupils are 30% to 40% RAF, so we would have primary and secondary school places immediately available in the surrounding area, if necessary.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I hope that the Minister will be able to go slightly further and give a guarantee that, as part of the assessment that I am sure he is making, there will be a proper assessment of the current capacity for education of returning service personnel’s children and, if necessary, a guarantee that additional funds will be provided to any of the military bases—or rather, the local authorities in whose areas the military bases are located—that are chosen to house returning personnel, to ensure that we do not have a surplus of demand over capacity and so that no local authority is left with challenges as a result. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the schools in his local area already have that capacity, but I nevertheless hope that the Minister will carry out a proper assessment of this issue.
Regarding the accommodation of service personnel and their families, I would be grateful if the Minister were to tell the Chamber whether the MOD is confident that all accommodation at RAF Lyneham is of the highest standard. If it is not, can he say what the timetable is for bringing it up to a suitable standard?
As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will recall, we touched on the final issue that I want to raise with the Minister today in last night’s Adjournment debate. I have a long-standing concern that the MOD has perhaps not always carried out its decision making in a duly transparent way and has not sought to ensure that the communities affected by its decisions are the first to know about them. I hope that the Minister can give a guarantee today that not only will the process for any decision making on the return of troops and their stationing within the UK be conducted in a clear manner and that he will share the details of that process with the House and the Defence Committee, but that he will do everything within his power to ensure that the communities affected by those decisions are the first to know about them, then the House and lastly the media, rather than what has unfortunately happened in the past, where the media have found out about decisions before the communities affected by them.
I want to end by again congratulating the hon. Member for North Wiltshire on securing this debate and on his powerful words.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) for securing this debate. As someone who grew up in north Wiltshire and who is aware of the footprint that RAF Lyneham has in the local area and in the county more widely, I also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done during the past seven years in campaigning to keep the RAF at Lyneham and to the work that he is now doing, as he reflects the reality of the decisions that have been made, looks to the future and seeks a constructive way forward.
I speak as both a Wiltshire MP and as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. It seems to me that there are three significant reasons why this case for having the Army come to RAF Lyneham needs to be carefully examined.
The first reason is that it is quite clear that there is huge symbolic significance to RAF Lyneham and its relationship with Wootton Bassett. It is impossible for the Government to pay great tribute, with one voice, to the people of Wootton Bassett, which is just a few miles down the road from RAF Lyneham, for all that they have done to recognise the huge contribution of all those who have fallen in battle, and at the same time, with another voice as it were, not to go out of their way to recognise the impact that this decision, if it does not go the right way, would have on the local community. Effectively, RAF Lyneham is the gateway between the UK and Afghanistan, and over many years the people of the surrounding area have made a massive contribution to the well-being of service personnel’s families.
The motto of RAF Lyneham is “Support, Save and Supply”. As my hon. Friend has set out fully this morning, the opportunities for RAF Lyneham to continue to serve the armed forces—in this case, the Army—are significant. The infrastructure is in place, and I do not need to point to the long history over the past 50 years of the people of Lyneham and Wootton Basset’s service to the nation, but the decision has clearly been made to move the RAF to Brize Norton. We have to acknowledge, however, that we cannot make such decisions wholly without emotion and without respect for the wider issues at play in the vicinity.
The second reason is the economic value of RAF Lyneham. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) knows that the Defence Committee, of which I, too, am a member, looks at the strategic issues, but the economic arguments are massive. There are about 2,500 civilian and military personnel at Lyneham, and several thousand acres of land are connected with the base. The impact on the local economy has been estimated at about £90 million a year, so if Lyneham were to no longer have a significant military footprint, a considerable gap would be left which, as the chairman of Wootton Bassett chamber of commerce has pointed out, would be unsustainable. If the decision does not go the right way, there will be a direct adverse impact on the economy of Wootton Bassett.
Thirdly and finally, the strategic defence and security review has reached some uncomfortable conclusions, and it has made some difficult assessments of what needs to happen over the next 10 years, driven by the acknowledged financial mess that the Government have inherited. With 10,000 to 15,000 troops returning to the UK, we need to find the right situation for them to locate to, and it is absolutely clear that in Wiltshire the Army has a very welcoming home. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), there are so many strategic reasons why it would make sense for the Army to locate to Lyneham. It has been suggested that the Royal Logistics Corps could move from South Cerney and Hullavington to the Lyneham base, but a number of other options are available.
I ask the Minister for a timely decision, because considerable ongoing debate would leave the local economy open to lots of uncertainty. If that is not possible, we must ensure that we put in place a clear plan for the economic regeneration of the area, and allow the options to be fully explored and quickly executed. If there is a problem with the transfer of assets from the RAF to the Army, it needs to be worked out and dealt with quickly and sensibly, rather than allowing internal wrangling in the Ministry of Defence to stop progress.
The case seems very clear: Lyneham is a symbolic home of the armed forces and should continue to be so, whether for the RAF or the Army. There is an absolutely sound economic case for that, and it also presents an effective, practical solution to a problem that will need to be dealt with over the next 10 years. An Army base at Lyneham makes sense, but we must ensure that it happens quickly, so that the people there can have some reassurance after their massive contribution over the past 10 years.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), on securing the debate and, in particular, on the dexterity and skill that went into securing a 90-minute one, which affords many more of us the opportunity to participate. I rise primarily to demonstrate the shared interests of my constituents and his.
Despite Wiltshire being a rural county, it has great affection for Lyneham and the RAF there. As we have heard, ordinary Wiltshire people, far beyond the confines of Wootton Bassett, share in the honourable act of respect for our fallen, and I have on occasion bumped into Chippenham residents after a repatriation there. Even before I was elected to Parliament, I was privileged to have the opportunity to visit RAF Lyneham as part of the excellent Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers programme—SaBRE—where we saw a well maintained, busy base, which clearly had a number of people who lived further afield than the base participating in the effort. That is an important consideration in our approach to the future for Lyneham.
My honourable neighbour has made a comprehensive case for the military benefits of the Army coming to Lyneham, and I recognise that that must be the primary basis for any decisions, but it is important that I take the opportunity to set out some more of the economic consequences of the current situation. We have heard that the estimated contribution to the economy of the MOD’s involvement at RAF Lyneham is some £90 million a year, and my constituents voluntarily raise the topic of that economic impact with me. The impact is felt over a wide area, and is reflected in the wide array of partners that have come together under his chairmanship of the Lyneham taskforce, as it has sought to put together a vision for Lyneham. Members of the taskforce include the South West regional development agency, Wiltshire council, Westlea—our local social landlord—and, importantly I would argue, the Wessex association of chambers of commerce, which, among representatives of business groups has a very acute understanding of the concerns of businesses in the area, and is an association of which I was a member until May last year.
I am pleased to report a conversation with the chairman of Chippenham chamber of commerce, who is very keen for the Army to come to Lyneham. The chamber is very concerned about the widespread and, from the point of view of ordinary members, hard to quantify consequences of leaving Lyneham empty. I suppose that we must consider that we might be unsuccessful in our calls today, for it will not be easy for either Wiltshire or the Ministry of Defence, to achieve alternative futures for Lyneham, which the taskforce has carefully considered. Nevertheless, it is important that the Minister is aware that there is an easy alternative.
With level heads, the members of the taskforce have considered the future aviation use of the airfield and have concluded that a commercial airport development at RAF Lyneham would be wholly inappropriate. I echo the views expressed earlier in the debate of the importance of a timely decision. Too many communities in other parts of the country have seen areas blighted because unused defence assets have been hung on to, which ultimately leads to a very expensive regeneration effort. It is certainly the view of people in Wiltshire that we need a clear future for Lyneham before very long.
Without wishing to stray too far from the subject, there are lengthy debates about housing development in Wiltshire, and it is important to recognise that there are no easy get-outs to be had from taking such advantage of the land in Lyneham. Surely it is essential that any future development in Wiltshire involves sustainable communities. It would be a travesty if we built housing developments that did not provide jobs for the people living in our communities. Considering the large population expansions that even Wiltshire council still seems to desire in places such as Chippenham, we cannot afford to remove many jobs, which would create a great imbalance in the local economy.
Importantly, although the site is large, not all of it is suitable for development. We must consider the potential agricultural returns on the site, if it were not successfully reused by the Ministry of Defence. I urge the Department not to see the land as an asset to be sweated or a cash cow presenting financial benefit, or to use that as a reason not to support the exceptionally well-developed case made by all the partners under the leadership of my neighbour the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I invite the Minister to consider in particular our anxiety for a swift decision about the future of Lyneham and the community’s immense appetite for its continued association with the Ministry of Defence. It is an opportunity for us, as a community, to show our hospitality to the Army.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who has campaigned assiduously for Lyneham and for investment in his constituency. I was born in Chippenham and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I grew up in north Wiltshire. I therefore feel that I should make a brief contribution to support my hon. Friend and say that the key factor about RAF Lyneham is how much support it has had from local communities.
Lyneham, with its Hercules fleet, generates a lot of noise but precious few complaints. I lived in the area during the Falklands war, when lots of Chinook helicopters were ferrying supplies at all times of the day. Local people show great support for the RAF, and the RAF has been a good neighbour. Indeed, some of the biggest arguments that I have seen at local parish councils concern whose turn it is to go to the open day at Lyneham and perhaps get a trip in an aircraft. People value the connection with Lyneham, which is an important point for the future.
Mr Gray
I thank my hon. Friend for being here to speak in support of this debate. He is absolutely right. In my 14 years as a Member of Parliament for Lyneham, I do not remember a single letter of complaint from any constituent. There was one exception when a clay pigeon shoot was being held too near the wire—we had it moved—but with regard to military activity, I cannot remember a single complaint.
Mr Syms
That certainly reinforces my point that north Wiltshire and the military have had a close relationship. As my hon. Friend has said, Lyneham is a tremendous asset, given its sporting facilities and existing housing. I do not know what condition it is in—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made a good point about the state of the defence estate; we must ensure that our armed service personnel have good-quality homes—but it is a material factor.
Lyneham is not only a good base for deploying units from Germany on military grounds, because we should pay attention to what is good for armed service personnel’s families. There are homes near the base, but there are also a wide range of homes in the community for those who wish to buy. It is an RAF tradition for people to live in all the communities around the base including not only Swindon, but Chippenham, Calne, Wootton Bassett and Malmesbury—a lot of personnel have become part of local communities. North Wiltshire is an incredibly good place to live. It is conveniently located for the training grounds on Salisbury plain and in south Wales. I consider it a no-brainer to use Lyneham for a good military purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) made the good point that, with the RAF going, a swift decision is sensible, so that we can make use of this tremendous asset and locate the military somewhere that they can train and base their families, with good-quality schools and education and a supportive community. That would be a good decision for the MOD, serving personnel and their families and the people of north Wiltshire, who have done a lot to support the military and will continue to do so.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing this important debate and on his work to support and champion the armed services generally as chairman and founder of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. He hosts troops returning from Afghanistan here in the House of Commons, and I know that he served with the Honourable Artillery Company, so he has a personal understanding of the armed services. He has also been a champion and advocate for RAF Lyneham and his constituents for many years. I commend him on his tenacity in ensuring that the future of the base remains on the political agenda, despite the sad news that the RAF will be leaving Lyneham, with final vacant possession by December 2012.
It is right to pay tribute to the local community for its support of the armed services. We have all seen the poignant tributes on television in which local people and others from far afield pay homage to the fallen servicemen and women repatriated from Afghanistan who land at RAF Lyneham and then proceed through Wootton Bassett High street. It stands out in all our minds. Those residents express the gratitude that our nation feels to those who sacrifice their lives to protect our freedoms and way of life. That symbol of local support never fails to move me. It is one of the reasons why, to my mind, RAF Lyneham is well placed to become a new home for the Army. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, people in the area have unwillingly accepted that Lyneham will cease to be an RAF base by 2012. That is not to say that acceptance has been easy, but he has been resolute in championing Lyneham and making the case against its closure.
It is with a heavy heart that the people of North Wiltshire must say a sad farewell to the harmonious bond that they have had with the RAF for 80 years. However, the new Government have given at least some encouraging news. We were all heartened to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement that as part of the strategic defence and security review, which other hon. Members have mentioned, our service personnel will return from Germany and some of them will be rehoused on a redundant RAF base. I take this opportunity to echo some of my hon. Friend’s sensible arguments why Lyneham has much to offer as a home to some of our returning troops, but first, giving examples from my own experience, I will explain why maintaining an armed forces presence in Lyneham is of undeniable benefit.
As a Territorial Army recruit, I did most of my basic training at the Prince of Wales barracks in Grantham, which used to be an RAF base. I was posted to the Royal Citadel in Plymouth for six months before being deployed on Operation Herrick. Both camps are integral to their local communities, have a large beneficial effect on them and help project a positive image of the Army, with all the obvious benefits that that brings. Local areas clearly benefit socially and economically from the presence of a military base.
In Lyneham’s case, the withdrawal of service personnel from the local community would have an immense impact. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the study commissioned by Wiltshire council in 2009 demonstrated that the gross added value to the local community would be reduced by up to £90 million. Furthermore, 3,400 jobs in local services, retail and other sectors were likely to become redundant, and real household disposable income would decline by about £86 million. That is an obvious impact on local people. He was also right to mention the devastating economic consequences that the local area could face if the base closed permanently.
Besides the economic effects, one thing is abundantly clear: the people of Lyneham and the local area would welcome the Army, which must be one of our biggest considerations. Given Wiltshire’s strong military connections and Lyneham’s proximity to Salisbury plain, I see it as a natural choice for rehousing troops returning from Germany or further afield. Local people not only accept Lyneham as a military site—service personnel are already well integrated into Lyneham and the surrounding areas—but, given that 21,000 military personnel and their dependants reside in the county as a whole, the local area would need to change little if Lyneham, as we hope, becomes an Army base. As my hon. Friend has informed us, letters of support from the local community and the chamber of commerce are a clear indication that that is desired across the board.
In conclusion, I agree that rehousing returning troops at Lyneham would provide the Army with a large, convenient and well-resourced base close to major training areas and other military sites and offering readily accessible family accommodation. It is overwhelmingly clear that local people would welcome it, which is far from guaranteed elsewhere. There are prevailing reasons why serious and urgent consideration should be given to moving the Army to the site as soon as possible.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful, Mr Betts, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. May I join the tributes to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)? For many years, he has done his level best to maintain the presence of the Royal Air Force at Lyneham. Indeed, prior to the election, I had several conversations with him about his work, and I was struck in particular by the report that he and others prepared before the election. It outlined the very basis on which he secured today’s debate, and it argued that civilian use of the Lyneham airfields was not appropriate, that the clean-up costs for the area would be considerable and that logic therefore dictated that military use of some kind—that is, the Army—was appropriate. I support that wholeheartedly.
Mr Gray
I am sorry for interrupting my hon. Friend’s fine speech, but I want to correct him on one small point. I am absolutely committed to keeping the RAF at Lyneham and, after that, totally committed to getting the Army on to the site, but if there is to be no military use for it, I believe that we could use it for other civilian, commercial and industrial uses. I would certainly work with industry to try to make that possible and would not rule out commercial use.
Mr Buckland
Forgive me, but I was talking about the site’s lack of suitability for use as a civilian airport. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) also made that point. It would be incorrect to say that Lyneham has an unlimited range of options, and it is important that we reinforce that point. I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, however, in saying that, if we cannot retain military use for the area, we clearly need an action plan for commercial use, so that we can generate much-needed jobs.
The communities of North Wiltshire and of Wiltshire in general have always supported the presence of the Royal Air Force in their county. Moreover, it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the residents of Swindon, who play such an important part not only in supporting the work of RAF Lyneham, but in playing host to many personnel—both current and former—who work at the base but who live in my constituency or that of North Swindon. Some of the former personnel serve on Swindon council and are great friends of mine. They have years of experience in the RAF and feel strongly that, if Lyneham cannot be retained for use by the Royal Air Force, it should be retained in some military capacity.
I pay tribute to the community of Wootton Bassett for playing host to the repatriation ceremonies. Anybody who has been to a ceremony will know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. It is a unique atmosphere in which the residents of the town, without too much fuss, take a few minutes from their busy lives to give time and space to pay homage to those returning from Afghanistan, whose families are given time to mourn their loss. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I had the pleasure and the honour of attending the Royal British Legion’s field of remembrance in November, which was hosted by His Royal Highness Prince Harry. The event took place at Lydiard park in my constituency, but it was designed to acknowledge the contribution of Wootton Bassett and of the communities of North Wiltshire and Swindon to the repatriation ceremonies. At the end of those ceremonies, many motor vehicles containing my constituents returned to Swindon having played their part in supporting the town of Wootton Bassett.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has referred to RAF Wroughton. It was an air base in my constituency, but it is now home to a large collection of Science museum artefacts that cannot be stored in London. The fact that they are now stored in the hangars of RAF Wroughton is an innovative use of the site. My hon. Friend is right to say, however, that far too much time was lost after the closure of the base to determine what would happen. Time brings deterioration and uncertainty, and it causes many problems in relation to sites as large as Wroughton—Lyneham is, of course, a very large site indeed.
It is right to pay tribute in passing to the former Princess Alexandra hospital, which served not only the RAF, but all military personnel so well until its sad, unfortunate and, I would say, wrong closure in 1996. Perhaps those who took that decision did not foresee the huge demands now placed upon the medical service by those who return from the theatre of war who are scarred not only physically, but psychologically by their experiences. As the MP and the candidate for South Swindon, it has been wonderful over the past few years to meet so many people who have shared their experiences of the theatre of war with me. They have educated me in some of the difficult issues faced by former and current service personnel.
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend is speaking extremely well on the subject. He is quite right about RAF Wroughton. As someone who was a special adviser to the Conservative Government who closed RAF Wroughton, we should put our hands up and say, “That was wrong—we shouldn’t have done it.” It was a first-class place and a very useful facility, and I wish that we had it today. I fear that the decision in relation to RAF Lyneham may be rather similar and that, if we let it go and do not put the Army there, we will look back in 10 years and say, “What a damned silly decision that was.”
Mr Buckland
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I share his views entirely. Some important points have been made, particularly by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), about accommodation. It would be wrong to say that RAF Lyneham, although it is in a semi-rural setting, is not near large centres of population. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) has said, many service personnel who work in Lyneham live in Swindon, which as you will know, Mr Betts, is a large town with a large population. We have for many years happily paid host to service personnel and their families. Having met many of them over the years, I know that they are happy and content to live in a community that welcomes them and that readily acknowledges the contribution of the armed services in the local area.
I do not, therefore, think that accommodation is at all the problem. In fact, I cannot identify a problem that would be an obstacle to the Army locating to Lyneham. As many other colleagues have said, Lyneham’s proximity to the M4 and its generally central location in southern England make it an ideal location for large numbers of Army personnel. Frankly, I cannot think of a better place to relocate returning personnel from Germany. I do not think that there are any obstacles to bringing our personnel back to Lyneham.
I also point out that leisure facilities in Swindon are enjoyed by service personnel. We have all sorts of facilities—cinemas, sports venues, an ice rink, swimming pools, leisure centres—and plenty for the families of service personnel to enjoy. Indeed, the facilities are currently being enjoyed by service personnel, who, as I have said, are a very important part of our community.
I have mentioned the need for urgency and for decisions to be made quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has said that a timely decision is needed, and I cannot put it better myself. If the Army cannot be located to Lyneham, will the Government help the local council, local businesses and the local chambers of commerce to come together to draw up an economic plan for the use of the site?
Schools have been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has referred to Wootton Bassett comprehensive school. Again, plenty of primary and secondary schools in Swindon are already being used by service personnel, who I am sure would warmly welcome the children of Army personnel who relocate to Lyneham. In my view, it would be a seamless transfer if the Army came to Lyneham. It would not be the imposition of a wholly new culture on a community that was unfamiliar with it and that did not understand or appreciate the contribution of the armed services.
I urge the Minister and the Government to take up the suggestions made today and in other places to acknowledge the contribution of the local community to the life of our armed services, and to conclude that Lyneham is a no-brainer when it comes to relocating Army personnel from Germany.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to his hon. Friends for attending the debate and showing support for the case that he has made. I appreciate from their contributions that they have given support over significant time and that they recognise the difficulties that lie ahead.
I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about the future of the base, its potential use and the undoubted socio-economic consequences of the closure of RAF Lyneham in just under two years’ time. As has been said a couple of times this morning, he was present in the main Chamber yesterday evening, when the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) initiated an Adjournment debate— albeit a significantly less time consuming one—on his local RAF base at Leuchars. He made a strong defence of the need to retain Leuchars on the grounds of its militarily strategic location, and he sought to raise the important matter of the socio-economic impact of such a closure.
I recognise that a number of local chambers of commerce from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, including Wootton Bassett, have joined together to make the case for replacement employment at Lyneham. I want to put on the record my ongoing support for the people of Wootton Bassett. They have shown strength and fortitude over many months and, at the repatriation ceremonies that have regrettably taken place far too often, they have provided support for the families of those servicemen who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country.
Unlike the uncertainty that surrounds RAF Leuchars, Lossiemouth or Marham, after a base review that took two years to conclude, it was determined in July 2003 that Lyneham would cease to operate in its current form. However, I recognise that that does not make it any easier for the people who are either on the base or living within the surrounding communities. Hon. Members have made the case that they want to see early decisions—the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) has said that swift decision making is important—but it is important that the right decisions are made. We need to take appropriate time to think through the consequences of any decision. I wholeheartedly agree that when that site is vacated, swift action should be taken to put something else in place. If nothing happens when not only military bases but major employers in all parts of the country vacate large sites, those sites can rapidly turn into wastelands. Considering the beauty of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the surrounding area, we do not need a wasteland to develop at that location.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that the site is ideally located for training and that there is a standard of available accommodation. From what he said at the beginning of his contribution, I know that he appears to have the Prime Minister’s support. Irrespective of which party we are in, many of us would consider that having the Prime Minister’s support would mean we were making the right noises.
Mr Gray
Although I might seem to be arguing against my own case, I should perhaps make it clear that the Prime Minister has not said that he necessarily supports the Army going to RAF Lyneham. He knows that RAF Lyneham is one of a number of sites that the MOD is considering, and he has encouraged me to make the argument very strongly, but it would be quite wrong to claim that the Prime Minister has spoken in support of my argument, as he simply has not.
Mr Brown
The hon. Gentleman was just a little bit sharp on his feet, because I was about to make the point that he has the support of the Prime Minister in at least making the case. From what I have read in the Western Daily Press, the case needs to be made to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Minister. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might be somewhat anxious that back on 31 August it was being said that the Secretary of State
“has played down the chances of the West’s biggest RAF base being occupied by thousands of soldiers”.
If the manner in which the press have reported that is correct, the hon. Gentleman still has a battle to fight.
Mr Gray
I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice. The journalist who wrote that story, my good friend Tristan Cork, acknowledges that it is based on absolutely no facts whatsoever. The story was, of course, written before the strategic defence review was announced and before we knew that the soldiers were coming back from Germany. Dear old Tristan, who is a very good journalist and a close friend of mine, will acknowledge that he is not absolutely certain what that story was based on.
Mr Brown
I am astonished that journalists are not correct all the time, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been arguing the case for RAF Lyneham since the announcement was first made in 2003. It is clear from the debate that he is not giving up one iota in bringing forward proposals for the future of the base. He has given the Minister what appears to be a significant document that outlines exactly what he would like to see. From what we have all heard in debates over the past weeks and months, however, I am sure that he recognises that something of a pitched battle is going on, because more than 15,000 troops are coming back from Germany. People are staking their claims to have those troops return to a variety of different locations across the UK to fill the gap that will be left when bases close. It will be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State to look at all those cases carefully before the final decision is made.
I am aware that, during the intervening period since the announcement of the base closure, certain tentative proposals have been flagged up. I only want to mention one, namely the proposal for the base to become a possible location for a consolidated support helicopter base under Project Belvedere. Regrettably for the hon. Gentleman, those on the base and the wider community, it was concluded that the proposal did not represent best value for money. Specifically, it was decided that the efficiencies that could have been achieved from such a major rationalisation programme would not produce the necessary return, given the investment that would have been required. If we are to consider whether some of the bases that will become vacant should become Army accommodation, perhaps some locations are more appropriate than others. The Minister may confirm this a little later, but significant investment might be needed in some of these locations. Value for money should be the underlying principle when the Government consider what to do.
I shall briefly return to the issue of decision making, because the Minister said yesterday evening:
“we do not expect that work to be concluded for some time yet, but we hope it will be by the summer.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 270.]
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity this morning to say whether the decision on the future of RAF Lyneham will be taken at the same time as the decision on all the other bases currently under review. It would be inappropriate if the Department and Ministers were looking at one set of bases and not reaching a decision on the subject of this discussion, so I hope that they are all in the melting pot together. I also want the Minister to give an indication of what options the Department and the Government are considering, if he can give any indication at all.
The big issue, to my mind, is the socio-economic impact of what is happening or is likely to happen. The hon. Member for Chippenham has mentioned £90 million per annum flowing into the local economy, which is a significant sum. Such a gap cannot be plugged easily. I am not convinced, although I am no economist, that merely by moving in a couple of thousand Army personnel and their families, we would plug the gap if that £90 million were lost.
Mr Gray
May I correct the hon. Gentleman slightly? I do not mean to intervene on him too often and am most grateful to him for being so generous with his time. He is wrong, because if 2,000 or 3,000 soldiers and their families were to move into the area, it would exactly replicate the RAF personnel who are leaving and would indeed plug the economic gap that he has described. If we got a reasonable number of soldiers in there, it would be precisely what we want for the local economy.
Mr Brown
I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s probably better knowledge of what is happening in the locality. The main point that I am trying to make, to support the hon. Member for Chippenham, is that £90 million is a significant sum. That will need to be carefully considered.
In respect of finance, is the Minister prepared to say whether a specific and dedicated budget to assist with any transition arrangements for RAF Lyneham will be available? He will be determined to ensure that he keeps a tight check on the budget in the Department, but what additional support might be available to the local community if the MOD is not prepared to fulfil some of the wishes expressed this morning?
I fully recognise that it has been a traumatic time since the initial announcement in July 2003, and it is still a worrying time. Whatever the decision that Ministers and the Secretary of State make and whatever the outcome, if it is not good news, it will still be a devastating shock. I hope that, in the time that I am leaving available to the Minister this morning, he will be able to give a flavour of what is being considered by the Department, even though he cannot give details of any ultimate decision. We are all, perhaps a little tentatively, looking forward to the summer, when we will see the wider picture that he and his ministerial colleagues will be able to paint for the future of many of our bases.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
It is a pleasure to have you presiding over our deliberations, Mr Betts. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) for initiating this important debate on RAF Lyneham and the effects on the surrounding community. Its importance is reflected in the fact that so many of my hon. Friends from the Wiltshire area have turned up to support him. I also thank him for the dossier that he has given me from local community leaders. I assure him that we will give full consideration to what it contains as we move forward with our decision making.
Hon. Members will know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has been an assiduous and persistent advocate for RAF Lyneham. In fact, during the previous Parliament, he must have raised it with almost as great a regularity as the fondly remembered Tam Dalyell raised the sinking of the Belgrano. Nothing would provoke me to imagine that he will be dropping the subject any time soon. He has campaigned industriously against the closure of Lyneham on behalf of his constituents, and I recognise that a wide section of his constituency has a very great concern about the future of the base.
I join my hon. Friend and several other hon. Members in paying tribute to the people of Wootton Bassett, who have provided such a dignified and moving homecoming for the deceased. That has been appreciated by the whole nation. We shall shortly be moving the repatriations to Brize Norton, but this is a moment to pay tribute to the people of Wootton Bassett for what they have done.
I also pay tribute to all the personnel who have served at RAF Lyneham since it opened for active service in 1940. It is rather an important point that, as has been said, it was announced in July 2003—getting on for eight years ago—that the future air transport and air-to-air refuelling fleets would be co-located at RAF Brize Norton by 2012. It must be acknowledged that the savings from that co-location will be significant. It is not possible to reopen that debate—the co-location is going ahead—but that decision meant that Lyneham would no longer be required for its current purpose, with current units leaving the base by 2012.
The Department has examined several alternative uses for the site. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who speaks for the Opposition, has mentioned, it was considered as a consolidated support helicopter base under Project Belvedere, but for the reasons that he has outlined, that unfortunately did not work out.
Mr Gray
The Minister is, of course, right, and I would not seek to reopen that debate. We are none the less a little puzzled as to how it can be that we will save an enormous amount of money by co-locating the air transport fleet at RAF Brize Norton, but we would not save a similar amount by co-locating the helicopter fleet at Lyneham. There seems to be no logic in those two arguments: one co-location does not pay; the other does. However, that involved the previous Government, whom the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) supported, so perhaps we need not reopen that argument.
Nick Harvey
The key point is that when we are considering value for money, we have to balance the scale of the investment to build the facility against the savings that we will make from having everything at one location. I was not party to that decision, but clearly when those numbers were ground through the computers at the time, the judgment was arrived at that the Project Belvedere option did not represent value for money.
Since then, it has seemed unlikely that another defence use will be found for RAF Lyneham. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) talking about the need for an economic plan, and I could not agree with him more. I am just mildly mystified as to why, 14 months before the base closes, the local civil population is talking about the need for a plan when the announcement that the base would cease its current role came eight years ago. The point that I am making is simply this: if there is to be a civilian use for RAF Lyneham in the future, rather than a military one—I am not saying for one moment that that will be the case—it will be for the local civil community to decide what that future will be.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway asked about transitional assistance. There is no precedent for that coming from defence funds in the cases of other base closures. It would certainly be something that other Departments and local authorities, particularly under the new localism agenda, would need to pick up. My hon. Friends are absolutely right, and the tone that has been struck—
Nick Harvey
In a moment. The tone that has been struck by my hon. Friends thinking constructively and positively about what the alternative uses might be is exactly the right way forward from where we are now.
I have been asked about the timetable for a decision. I can only repeat that it is more important to get things right than to do them at breakneck speed. A detailed study is taking place of the entire defence estate and the ramifications of bringing nearly 20,000 personnel back from Germany. I reassure the Opposition spokesman that that is a comprehensive piece of work and that it will not be piecemeal. That work is going on at the moment, and it will take a few more months. In any event, we anticipate that decisions and announcements will be made before the summer recess, which is the approximate time frame for the decision. To that extent, my point about those in the local community knowing where they are will be resolved in the next few months, but it is wise for them to make contingency plans.
John Glen
The point that needs to be made is that local communities are being prevented from establishing a viable economic plan. They have done considerable work with Wiltshire council to establish an embryonic plan, but an MOD decision is required before that option can be fully explored. One cannot do the local plan before the MOD decision is known.
Nick Harvey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but, with respect, this bone of comfort—that the Army might come back from Germany—has been thrown only in the past couple of months, and I am still mystified why planning for a civilian future did not start long ago.
Mr Gray
The Minister must not be mystified. The explanation is that the Lyneham taskforce convened within weeks of the original announcement in 2003, and the civilian-military co-operation involving Wiltshire council has been constant since then. The local community has been fully engaged for the past seven years in looking for alternative uses, so the Minister is quite wrong to think that we have not been. As he has said, however, the Army is a useful bone to be thrown at this stage.
Nick Harvey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that. Clearly, I had drawn the wrong implication from some of the other contributions, which suggested that we needed to form an economic plan now. My hon. Friend, in whose constituency Lyneham is based, has said that such plans exist, and it is useful to have that recorded and clarified, so I am grateful to him.
Since the announcement in October, work has been under way to look at the basing requirements of not only the Army, but the RAF and the Navy. As I said in previous debates, including the one about Marham and the one about Leuchars last night, that is a big piece of work; we must get it right, and we will take our time to do that. I hope that we will be in a position to put all these local communities out of their agony as soon as possible, and I readily acknowledge that uncertainty is being caused in every community.
We have received many representations from hon. Members, local authorities, local groups and the devolved Administrations, and we will do what we can to take them all on board. Of course, there will be socio-economic impacts, but that will be true at any of those bases. We recognise those impacts, but they must be balanced against each other. Our overriding consideration, at the Ministry of Defence, is the military arguments. Bringing the Army back from Germany is something that we will do only once, and it is important that we get it right and put the Army in the right place for the next several decades. I must stress that we cannot really have a beauty contest between different parts of the country to secure the prize of a base in their locality.
Whatever the outcome of the review, it must be about what is best for the armed forces. Bringing back the Army units stationed in Germany is not an easy job. Once it has been decided which units we are bringing back to which locations, detailed work will have to take place to plan those moves. As the Opposition spokesman has said, investments will have to be put in place to prepare the bases that will receive those Army units. The work going on to bring the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps back to Innsworth, near Gloucester, has taken years. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, who painted a rosy picture of the Army marching in as the RAF marched out, but the likelihood of that happening is infinitesimally small. The programme to bring the Army back from Germany will happen over 10 years, and in almost no imaginable case will we see the Army march in as those vacating bases in the next year or two march out.
I implore Members to reflect on what was said in the strategic defence and security review about the Army’s intention to organise itself into multi-role brigades. Although we would not necessarily seek to accommodate an entire multi-role brigade on a single site, we will nevertheless want units to be located near enough to each other to use common training grounds and make formations as a brigade for training purposes. There is, therefore, a wide range of considerations. Is the new base big enough to accommodate the units? Does it have the right accommodation? How much would it cost to upgrade? How much new building will there have to be? What is access to training facilities like? Are the training facilities of the right type? How long will travelling distances to those facilities be? Where will the other units involved in training be? All those questions need addressing, and it will take time to balance them all and ensure that we get things right.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway asked about schools, and we will, of course, give every consideration to the education requirements of future military communities. He also asked about accommodation, and I acknowledge that there is a lot more work to be done on improving service family accommodation. However, I urge hon. Members to recognise our desire in the SDSR to build a new employment model for members of the Army. We want more super garrisons, so that people who progress through the Army will be able to spend more of their career in one place, which would be more like the Navy and the RAF, and therefore to put down roots and find houses among the local population. As we go forward into future years, more of the Government’s effort will focus on ensuring that members of the armed forces can buy their own homes and settle in communities. Although I do not rule out building further family accommodation, we view that as the second-best option. The desire will be to help people settle into communities.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the scrutiny process and how we will let communities know about decisions. It would be desirable to let some community leaders know before official announcements are made, but the only way to inform whole communities is through the media, so the hon. Gentleman’s argument becomes slightly circular.
On the economic impact being £90 million, I agree with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, who said that replacing like with like has a neutral effect on the economy. I saw that in my own constituency, where the Marines replaced the RAF at Chivenor. The economy recovered fairly quickly, as did local services, schools and so on.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case on why Lyneham would be a good base for the Army. Many of his arguments have a great deal of merit. He mentioned the proximity to other Army units in Wiltshire and to Salisbury plain, and those are good arguments, as well as reasons why Lyneham is in quite a strong position as we look at the different bases.
The Opposition spokesman asked for guidance on how the Government’s thinking is going. My point about multi-role brigades and the need for units that will make formations together to be within easy reach of each other is one of the factors, and the military’s footprint across the different parts of the UK will be the other. One point that I would make about Salisbury plain, however, is that we must be realistic about its capacity to absorb a huge increase in the amount of Army training that goes on there.
The House has had debates about various other RAF bases. Obviously, every community is inclined to look at the worst-case scenario, but I reassure hon. Members that no decisions have been made yet, and we will continue to look at the whole issue with an open mind. Today has been a useful opportunity for the Wiltshire community to make particular local points. It has been useful to hear from the neighbours of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire about the impact on the wider Wiltshire economy, which I am well aware of. One way or the other, I travel through Wiltshire twice a week. My wife’s family are from North Wiltshire and are still there, so I am familiar with the locality, and I can see the advantages of RAF Lyneham and the impact that it has on the community.
We must look beyond the local considerations, base by base, to the wider defence picture. We need to make the best use of our existing assets in the UK. I do not want to mislead Wiltshire Members into thinking that there is necessarily a future defence use for Lyneham at the moment—it is too soon to say that, because there is still a lot of work to do. In the mean time, we continue to make plans for the disposal of Lyneham. We shall, however, as I have said, try to put all the local communities out of their agony as soon as we can. We shall work with other Departments, devolved Administrations—where appropriate—and local authorities to ensure that our plans can be implemented with the least possible disruption for the communities affected.
As they were in the SDSR, our decisions must be objective, unsentimental and based on the military advice that we receive about what is best for the armed forces. We shall also have to look at what provides the best value for the taxpayer, and we shall, of course, consider the impact on communities and regional economies as we balance those factors. We must limit our resources to where they are most needed.
Chechnya
(13 years, 9 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
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring the current political situation in Chechnya to the attention of the House, following my visit there last year with Lord Judd, to examine the human rights situation. Sadly, since I secured the debate, the instability of the Caucasus has once again risen high on the news agenda, following Monday’s deadly suicide bomb attack at the airport in Moscow. Police sources say that the bomb bears the hallmarks of past attacks carried out by Chechens and other Islamic separatists from the Caucasus.
In 2009 Moscow declared that the situation in Chechnya had normalised, marking the end of its military operations in the republic. However, Chechnya and the north Caucasus region face a constant battle against terrorist insurgency, which, far too often, the world seems to ignore. From 2002 the parliamentary all-party group on human rights was keen to send a fact-finding mission to Chechnya. The eight-year delay is testament to the challenge of getting the permission of the Foreign Office and the Russian and Chechen authorities, all at the same time. I and Lord Judd want to thank Nicole Piché from the group, who organised the visit and accompanied us. Without her tenacity over eight years it would never have happened. We also thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials here and in Moscow for their assistance and advice—particularly Iain Frew and Elena Arganat, who came with us to Chechnya. Their knowledge, insight and translation of both language and culture were invaluable.
I should like to draw attention to several issues of concern about the political situation in Chechnya: the security situation, and in particular the danger of young people being driven to extremism out of desperation; the regular human rights abuses, such as the house burnings and disappearances, of which we sadly heard tales during our visit; and the sinister and oppressive Chechen regime, with no accountability or judicial process, and a culture of impunity. I fear that all those problems will only continue, and indeed will get worse, before the international community understands that Chechnya is a destabilising sore, which is infecting the whole region. I hope that the Government will recognise the danger of Chechnya’s situation and the importance of engagement with Russia, the EU and the wider international community to address it.
I want first to discuss the security situation. Last autumn’s siege of the Chechen Parliament, when Islamic militants killed two police guards and four rebels died, hit the headlines all over the world. The suicide bombing of the Moscow metro in March 2010 brought Chechnya’s “black widows” to international attention; the suspected perpetrators of the attacks were Chechen women who had lost husbands to the Russian military. However, such news attention on terrorist attacks for a few short days only plays into the hands of the militants, who relish the publicity. Instead a sustained and focused effort is needed to deal with the underlying problems of corruption and oppression.
Many in Moscow, and possibly beyond, may cling to the false notion that the security problems can be contained by President Ramzan Kadyrov’s authoritarian regime. Keeping the population in check through a climate of fear and repression and the brutal crushing of dissent is fuelling tension. State-sponsored murder creates martyrs. A combination of desperation and revenge is driving some, often young, Chechens to what they see as the only alternative—the extremist cause. Kadyrov’s Administration have justified some of their brutal acts on the grounds that they are fighting terrorists, who also use brutal means. However, the boundaries have become blurred between terrorists and dissidents. I do not think I am being cynical if I say it suits the regime for it to be so easy to silence any critics by denouncing them as terrorists.
The main focus of our trip was to investigate the human rights situation, in response to reports of appalling violations. On several occasions, we met the relatives of those who had been beaten, abducted and locked up in a far-flung prison on some trumped-up charge or who had disappeared. House burnings were another cruel tactic that was used. One woman placed three photographs in my palm. They were of her brother, her son and her daughter, all of whom had been killed or were missing. The fear was palpable. Speaking out about these abuses, even in a so-called private meeting, carries a real risk of reprisals that could see other family members being abducted, tortured or worse. I understand why so many people keep quiet in fear. I am in awe of the courage of those who speak out, through their grief, to try to secure justice, however slight the chance. In this context, the work of non-governmental organisations in protecting and promoting human rights is absolutely vital, although they operate in a very dangerous environment.
In July 2009, leading human rights activist Natalya Estemirova was abducted in Grozny, and found later near the border with Ingushetia with gunshot wounds to her head. The Estemirova murder sent shock waves through the NGO community in Chechnya, and her employer, Memorial, had to suspend its Chechen operations for several months on safety grounds. There is a wilful misunderstanding by the Chechen authorities of what the “N” in NGO stands for. The very concept of an organisation that is independent of Government—or non-governmental—openly challenging policies and practice seems anathema to them. Their preference is for NGOs to be subsumed into Government, thus removing any semblance of transparency.
President Kadyrov has suggested that Memorial should change its working methods. Instead of making cases public, he thinks it should tell him personally about the problems so that he can just solve them quietly. Forgive me for thinking that that is not a solution to the problems.
Human rights ombudsman Nurdi Nukhazhiyev, who is charged with championing human rights in Chechnya, has asserted that he is “independent of other authorities”, but in our meeting with him, he flatly refused to discuss any allegations that implicated the President, so, despite his protestations, he was clearly far from independent.
During our meeting I literally could not believe my ears—I even challenged the translator in case there had been a misunderstanding—when Nukhazhiyev told us that Oleg Orlov of Memorial had “benefited” from Natalya Estemirova’s murder. With the champion of human rights in Chechnya behaving in such a way, it is not surprising that people despair.
Memorial’s status as a truly independent NGO means that it has attracted the ire of the Chechen regime. In July, President Kadyrov went so far as to say it was an enemy of the people, the law and the state. That accusation is more appropriately levelled at President Kadyrov himself. The international community must assist NGOs and human rights defenders who are taking great risks to document and improve the situation in Chechnya. We must defend their right to do their vital work. When the lives of prominent human rights defenders or journalists are threatened, we should be open to applications for asylum. We do not wish to see more cases like that of Natalya Estemirova or Anna Politkovskaya.
I am pleased to say that in October, MEPs voted to endorse a resolution defending Memorial, and condemning the
“cynical and absurd attempts to implicate it in the crime of aiding terrorist organisations.”
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will continue to press our EU friends to recognise the significant human rights problems in Chechnya and use European institutions to bring pressure to bear on Moscow to act.
The human rights violations in Chechnya are compounded by the lack of transparency and accountability of the regime, and the absence of any meaningful justice process and rule of law. The personality cult around Kadyrov is unbelievable. Every public building in Grozny displays large photographs of the President, and the TV news would be funny if it was not actually real. Back at our hotel, we watched the evening bulletin and it was almost entirely composed of positive news stories about what the President had been up to that day, with no debate, opposition or criticism.
On the day the President was far too busy to meet with Lord Judd and me as scheduled, the TV news told us that he had been opening a furniture shop—urgent business indeed. We might complain about this country’s press and media, and as politicians we perhaps do so more often than others, but a free press is essential to a free democracy. Journalists in Chechnya continually walk the difficult line between trying to report the news in line with their journalistic principles and not angering the regime so as not to risk their lives.
Kadyrov and his Government face no parliamentary scrutiny: 37 of Chechnya’s 41 MPs belong to the same party, and the Parliament meets infrequently. The President is keen to promote a climate of fear, and in a recent broadcast said:
“I am looking for evildoers everywhere. If two people meet, the third among them will always be one of my men. I know everything. I hear everything.”
That is truly chilling, like something out of a George Orwell novel.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In relation to the very clear impact on human, political and democratic rights, there is the issue of religious freedom. A great many people have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs. Did the hon. Lady have an opportunity to speak to any such people, who perhaps out of fear did not make themselves known to her? I am aware of a great many Churches and groups of people who are experiencing religious persecution and discrimination. What should we do about that, and what could the Government do in representing those people?
Jo Swinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that valid point, but in a short debate it is impossible to cover every aspect of what we saw on our visit. It was a short visit, but we did see some evidence of a lack of religious freedom, particularly with the forced Islamisation. There were simple things, such as Chechen women being forced to wear headscarves in Government buildings. The Minister of Information told us that they chose to wear them, but it was very clear when we spoke to women elsewhere that it was a rule. I am sure that many religious minorities in Chechnya experience persecution, and I hope that our Ministers are pressing hard on that issue with the Russian authorities. Religious freedom, free access to justice and a free media are absolutely essential, and are part of the underpinning of a democratic society, but sadly they are far too lacking in this troubled state.
The judicial system faces similar problems. Cases are opened for show purposes, but proper investigations are not completed. In 2009, 39 cases involving the abduction of 43 individuals were opened, but no one knows how many resulted in convictions; when we met with the prosecutors they did not have that information—it was not collected. That sounds like one of the absolutely worst parliamentary answers that we get in this place, and which we do not stand for. It is not recorded how many of the cases involved the Chechen security services, or how many disappearances go unreported for fear of further persecution. Of course, most human rights violations do not get reported because of the safety concerns that put many people off the juridical route. Even providing a witness testimony could lead many to fear the consequences, and the witness protection scheme has a fatal flaw in that the security forces that are supposed to safeguard the witnesses are often the very people accused of the abuses.
Chechnya and the Caucases have for far too long been too low down the international community’s priority ladder. The UK has not only a responsibility for, but a long-term interest in preventing the contagion of militant insurgency from spreading. It cannot be overstated that when human rights are protected and are a key priority for the Government, opportunities for extremist recruiters are greatly diminished and terrorist threats recede. The choice is not between human rights and fighting terrorism; safeguarding human rights is essential in the fight against terrorism. The risk in Chechnya and its neighbouring states is very much that the oppressive regimes will provide a fertile breeding ground for the terrorists of tomorrow, and we must therefore assist both the Russian and the Chechen authorities, if they will let us, to improve the environment within the republic. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to assist and strengthen the work of human rights organisations and civil society in Chechnya. We clearly need to ensure that, through the European Court of Human Rights, individual Chechens have the ability to bring cases against the Russian authorities, and that they receive the due process of justice.
We must also press Russia to take its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe more seriously, particularly in relation to the judgments handed down against it by the European Court of Human Rights—it should not be allowed to get away with ignoring those. In general, we should encourage Russia and the Chechen authorities to allow increased access to Chechnya for foreign delegations, international organisations and independent media and NGO representatives. Most of all, Russia needs to recognise that the brutal oppression of the Chechen people is not a solution to the security threat that it undoubtedly faces.
Our Government should do all they can to assist Russia in dealing with this difficult internal problem, even if it is just encouragement to pursue a course of action that puts the people first and rejects the fallacy of security under the draconian Kadyrov regime. We must help to convince Russia that the need for genuine engagement with the international community and its Chechen citizens is in its own long-term interests. I hope that the Minister and his FCO colleagues will be working hard to that end.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
First, I join the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in extending my condolences and sympathy to those affected by the appalling attack at Moscow airport on Monday, in which a British citizen lost his life. The Prime Minister has offered his condolences and support directly to President Medvedev and the Foreign Secretary has written to Foreign Minister Lavrov. The British people stand with the Russian people at this tragic time. People around the world will have been shocked by the pictures that they saw on their televisions on Monday.
Let me also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on securing the debate, which is particularly timely given the circumstances, but would be important at any time. We do not yet know for certain who was responsible for the attack in Moscow and it would be wrong to leap to the assumption that the perpetrators came from the north Caucasus region. However, preliminary indications from the Russian authorities show that there might indeed be such a connection. As we know, Russia has experience of terrorism related to the north Caucasus region.
The House is well aware of my hon. Friend’s long-held interest in Chechnya. We all benefit from her comprehensive knowledge and active approach in addressing the very serious issues faced by the people living in the region, which she expanded upon forcefully this morning. It is right that we support the efforts of the Russian Government to tackle terrorism. We welcome President Medvedev’s initiatives to address the underlying socio-economic conditions in the north Caucasus. Those conditions can provide fertile ground for extremist ideology. As the report of my hon. Friend’s visit to Chechnya noted, the reconstruction of Grozny is a notable achievement, but reconstruction alone does not create stability. A long-term solution to the region’s problems can be built only on a foundation of respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The fact-finding visit that my hon. Friend went on with Lord Judd on behalf of the all-party group on human rights in February last year helped bring home to the House the situation in that troubled part of the world. The FCO was pleased to provide financial and administrative support for the visit. I appreciated the time that she and Lord Judd took to meet me in September to discuss their findings from that visit. Their report was an important contribution to the debate over the situation in Chechnya. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government share the concerns highlighted in the report, particularly the strong evidence of ongoing abductions, torture, punitive house burnings, and attacks on human rights defenders, in which the local Chechen security forces are often implicated.
The lack of effective investigations into human rights abuses perpetuates a climate of impunity. In particular, the Government are deeply concerned that, after a year and a half, the investigation into the murder of Natalya Estemirova in the north Caucasus in July 2009 has not produced any results. We also share the report’s other key observation that counter-terrorism strategies that do not observe human rights serve only to perpetuate the poor security situation. Human rights in Chechnya, and in the north Caucasus more widely, remain a serious concern to the UK.
Although Chechnya might be more stable today than in the recent past, that stability has come at a price. Today Chechnya is a place where too many people are unable to exercise their human rights; a place where freedom of expression and speech are curtailed; and a place where civil society is unable to contribute in the way in which it should to a functioning democratic system.
One of the reasons that Britain regularly engages with Russia on human rights issues is to address those concerns. During his visit to Moscow last October, the Foreign Secretary met representatives of civil society and made the case for human rights, rule of law and impunity issues with the Russian Government. The Foreign Secretary will do so again when he meets Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on his visit to the UK next month.
Discussing our concerns in an open way and seeking to find constructive ways to co-operate with the Russian authorities in addressing the problems that they face is an integral part of our bilateral relationship. Just last week, the UK held its human rights consultations with Russia in Moscow. During those negotiations, senior UK officials underlined specific concerns, including those about Chechnya and the north Caucasus. There were constructive discussions on socio-economic development in the north Caucasus; on pursuing counter-terrorism strategies while protecting civil liberties; on nationalism and ethnic violence, and strategies for combating such violence; on implementation of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in cases that refer to abuses in the north Caucasus; and on women’s rights in Chechnya, which my hon. Friend mentioned in her speech. We will look for ways to continue that dialogue and to offer further opportunities for the Russian authorities to share experience, if they would find it useful to do so.
More widely, the UK has also raised concerns about the conduct of the Khodorkovsky trial; the death in pre-trial detention of Sergei Magnitsky; the stalled investigations into the murders of two defenders of human rights, Anna Politkovskaya and Natalya Estemirova; the death penalty; freedom of assembly, which my hon. Friend mentioned in discussing the wider context of the oppression of people, as she described it, in Chechnya; and the protection of gay rights and the rights of other minorities in society. So there is a wide range of concerns that we raise directly in that forum of our human rights consultations with Russia.
Jim Shannon
The Minister outlined a number of concerns that the Government have. In relation to the religious persecution and discrimination that is taking place, has he made any representations to the Russian Government about that?
Mr Browne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was not present at those discussions in Moscow myself and I have not been supplied with information about that issue. However, I can assure him that we take very seriously concerns about religious persecution in all parts of the world and those concerns are expressed in ways that I am sure he would support; they are expressed forcefully and directly to Governments and other bodies in countries where we feel that religious freedom of expression is infringed. That religious freedom of expression includes the right to practise a religion, the right to change one’s religious affiliation and the right to hold no religious beliefs if that is what an individual wishes to do.
Therefore, if the Foreign Office feels that discussion of that issue is a necessary part of a dialogue with any country or any organisation within a country, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will include that component in talks. If he knows of specific cases or specific parts of the world where he feels we could increase our focus in that regard, I make the offer to him that he can let me, or another Minister in the Department, know and we will seek to act on his concerns.
The UK also actively works with the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe to bring our combined political weight to bear on pressing human rights issues. The Russian Government have so far declined the Council of Europe’s repeated offers of technical assistance with the exhumation of mass graves in connection with the two Chechen wars. However, should they change their view on that, the UK is ready to consider any request we receive for assistance.
In addition, we support a wide range of human rights organisations working in Chechnya and Russia as a whole. Therefore, the active role of the British Government is not merely—although I do not want to understate it—based on the relationship between our Ministers and officials and those of Russia. We are also keen to help more directly at the grass-roots level. We have funded projects aimed at preventing and resolving conflict in the north Caucasus; at encouraging free and fair elections; at supporting an independent media, which was a point that my hon. Friend made forcefully, based on her direct experience during her visit; and at improving policing and prison conditions.
The United Kingdom worked with the Russian NGO Committee against Torture to facilitate independent investigations into allegations of torture. The evidence that resulted from those investigations led to prosecutions in Chechnya and entrenched local courts’ knowledge and use of human rights law.
The UK has funded other Russian and international NGOs to assist applicants taking cases of human rights abuses through national courts and the European Court of Human Rights. In 2010, the European Court handed down judgments in favour of 17 applicants supported by organisations that we help to fund, and more than €1,720,000 in damages were awarded to them.
The UK supports the activities of local civil society organisations in building stability and cross-border co-operation in the region. For example, Nonviolence International used UK funds to develop a comprehensive model of co-operation between youth and law enforcement officers, helping to build trust and create the grass-root conditions for long-term stability. The UK continued to support the work of the independent media agency, Caucasian Knot, which provides balanced and objective online media reporting of news from across the Caucasus region, and offers local citizens a forum in which to report directly and express their views.
In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to discuss the issues on a formal basis. The issues continue to concern this Government and we continue to engage with them, both bilaterally with the Russians and with our colleagues in the United Nations, the European Union and other international organisation. I assure all hon. Members that this Government place the strongest emphasis on human rights. The Foreign Secretary has addressed the subject specifically, repeatedly and strongly during his time in office, and we will continue to place a strong emphasis on Britain taking a lead on projecting around the world, including Chechnya and Russia as a whole, the values upon which we in this House place great importance.
Community Cohesion
(13 years, 9 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
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I called this debate because I am deeply concerned about the communities in which I live and in which I grew up. At a time of public sector cuts, declining rates of growth are exacerbating the efforts of the north-east to help rebalance the economy. In County Durham, Sedgefield could suffer the same fate this decade that it did in the 1980s. There was hope, because the previous Government drew up a plan to halve the deficit, but that has now been replaced by a strategy to eradicate the deficit. As a consequence, unemployment is rising, economic confidence is damaged and growth is starting to stall.
When we left power, unemployment was falling and home repossessions and business bankruptcies were only half what they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The previous Government were acting in the spirit of the big society. In the 1980s, unemployment in Sedgefield stood at 5,500, 40% of whom were out of work for 12 months or more. Then the figures were massaged, so people were taken from the unemployment register and put on incapacity benefit and whole communities were closed down. If you met someone in the street, you never asked them if they were well; you asked them whether they had a job. Lessons are being learned. As the Government cut deep into public services with a fury, we do not want their mantra, “There is no such thing as society”, thrown back in our face. Some argue that the Government’s notion of the big society is a cover for the cuts, but it is, I believe, worse than that. I accept that the Government believe in a big society—after all they cannot be against fresh air. However, their deep cuts into the grants awarded to the third sector will inevitably prevent them from building such a society. Those who want to build a big society will not be able to do so, because they are denied the proper tools.
Charities have always had a role in society. People have always volunteered, but the need for charity and for volunteers becomes more acute when society fails its people. You only need to look at the coal mining traditions of County Durham in the late-19th and 20th centuries to prove the point. As A. J. P. Taylor said:
“Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state beyond the post office and policemen.”
Perhaps some would like to return to such an age, but let us look at what it meant to the mining communities of that time.
Colliery owners provided housing from which colliers could be evicted at any time. Thousands of miners died at their jobs—sometimes hundreds of them died in a single incident, because of the lack of mine safety. Education was provided by charities, the Church and sometimes by colliery owners. At the opening of his school in East Hedleyhope colliery towards the end of the 19th century, Sir Bernhard Samuelson said:
“If elementary schools were being built for the working population, colleges and secondary schools were also being erected for those who employed them.”
Life expectancy for miners was poor. In the 20th century, 27% of miners were disabled before they retired. Health care, which was provided at the county hospital in Durham city, was funded by miners’ subscriptions. It was a time of great volunteering, of banding together and of mutual help. It was driven not just by altruism, but by enlightened self-interest.
In the 1890s, some 52% of the adult population—the highest figure of any county—belonged to a co-operative and were known as co-operators. Some 130,000 miners in Durham joined together to form the Durham Aged Mineworkers’ Homes Association, which built homes for miners, so that they could live out their retirement in dignity. They were able to live in a “haven of rest” rather than go to the workhouse.
The miners also formed a trade union and, as we all know, the trade union movement itself helped to form the Labour party. Keir Hardie, one of our founding fathers, believed in “a communal consciousness”, which is what we today would call a big society. It is this belief in community that has always driven my politics. I am proud of what the miners did for themselves and I am proud of their heritage, but you could argue that they were practising the big society.
It is obvious that the miners did not live in a big society and that they did what they had to do. They risked their lives every day of the week, and there was no one there to help. As they left the pit, they had to run charities and raise funds to look after themselves. They put into practice the belief that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. To me that is what a society that is fair, big and good should be doing.
For the big society to work, there must be more than just volunteering and charity, because there must be a democratically elected Government who act on behalf of the people and the community. People will be able to live secure in the knowledge that society will work with them to provide the environment for health, work and education.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
With respect, the hon. Gentleman’s seat is very different from the one that I represent. None the less, I have some big problems in my own area, too. He makes the case for the history of Sedgefield and brings it up to the current day. Did he not agree with the Prime Minister when he said that there was such a thing as society, but it was not necessarily the same as the state? That is not to say that the state has no role, but that it should not have an exclusive role.
Phil Wilson
I do not think for one moment that anyone is saying that there is no place for charity or for volunteering, but both must work in hand with the state if we are to have a fair and just society. We cannot have one without the other. I use the miners as an example, because what they were practising is what we would see today as the big society. Self-interest made them behave in such a way, because there was no one there to help them and the state would not take part. As A. J. P. Taylor said, the state was nowhere. The only time you came across it was when you went to the post office or when you met a policeman in the street. A strong society is what we need, and it is something that the Labour party has helped to build over the years.
The big society cannot only be about you and what you do for yourself, because it is also about what you can do for others, which is something with which we can all agree. The greatest acts of volunteering and charity will come where there is the greatest need, such as in the coalfields of County Durham in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I do not want to return to those times. The Government thought not only that they did not have a role but that they should not have a role either. A lot of volunteering and charitable work goes on today, which the Government have acknowledged. Volunteering levels have remained stable since 2001 with 40% of people volunteering once a year and 27% of people volunteering once a month.
Citizen Survey, which has been quoted by the Government, also states that 83% of people perceive their community as cohesive and agree that their local area is a place in which people from different backgrounds got on well together, which is an increase on 2003.
When people are content, there is little likelihood of their feeling the need to volunteer. It is a testament to the efforts of the previous Government that they put so much into community cohesion.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome you, Mrs Main, to the Chair. I apologise that I cannot stay for the full debate, because I have to attend another meeting, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that in order to have proper community cohesion, there needs to an adequate amount of funding in working-class estates to provide the projects that are so badly needed? Although we understand that there is a difficulty with funding per se given the economics of the country, to withdraw it or reduce it dramatically knocks confidence. People are left feeling that they might as well have never received it in the first place, because if it is cut in mid-stream, they are left in limbo.
Phil Wilson
There is much truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said. He comes from an area which has pockets of deprivation and working-class communities that rely on this funding to ensure that they can go ahead with charitable work.
The previous Government more than doubled the amount of money in the third sector, which increased from some £5.5 billion to more than £12 billion. There are now about 62,000 social enterprises in the UK, contributing at least £24 billion to the economy. It has been estimated that social enterprises employ about 800,000 people. At the height of the recession, we used the hardship fund to give £17 million to local charities, for example those working in health and social care, housing support, and education and training.
What we and the Government must be careful of—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has corrected himself, but he has referred to me on several occasions, by saying “you”. I have let it go, but if he were to refrain from using the word “you”, I would be grateful.
Phil Wilson
I will not do it again. Thank you for pointing that out, Mrs Main.
I am worried that the Government are raising expectations about what the third sector should deliver, but they are about to embark on cuts that will damage the capacity of civil society to deliver. That brings me to the nub of my argument. How can the Government fulfil their big society agenda when they are cutting funding and dismantling the infrastructure within which a big society can flourish? Because the cuts force people into volunteering, as they have no other choice, what we have left is not a big society but a coercive society. That is the kind of society that the miners of Durham found themselves in because the community at large had abrogated its responsibilities, which is what this Government are doing.
I am not the only one saying that about the funding cuts; the charities are too. From what I understand, a recent press release from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations estimated that the voluntary sector
“will lose more than £1 billion in the 2011-12 financial year and more than £3 billion a year by 2014-15 as councils terminate grants or buy fewer services.”
As the Government try to push their big society programme, the ACEVO warns that:
“if the scale of the spending cuts to councils were passed on to charities the voluntary sector would be ‘decimated’. Charities are already facing pressure from VAT rises and the loss of Gift Aid relief.”
If the charities themselves are saying that, is it not time that the Government listened to what they have to say?
Before we on this side of the Chamber are lectured by the Government on the economy and their belief that they need to cut as deeply as they are cutting because of the deficit, I just want to say that I do not think that we can be lectured on those things any more, especially as the Chancellor gave a three-minute interview on the BBC yesterday in which he blamed the weather for the economy’s problems 24 times. If the Government want to build a big society, they need to re-examine how they are going to fund charities and the third sector.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. Surely, however, he will acknowledge that his own party, when it was in power, had identified that it would make £44 billion—I think that was the figure—of savings or cuts. Is he saying to hon. Members today that none of those cuts would have affected the voluntary sector in any way?
Phil Wilson
We would have done two things. First, we would have made sure that, as far as possible, we did not damage front-line services. Secondly, we would not have raised expectations, as I believe this Government are doing by saying that they will create a big society while at the same time undermining that big society by slashing and burning all the grants and facilities that provide for the third sector. We would not have done that.
We also need the Government to consider what they can do other than providing for charities and the third sector, because the big society involves more than doing just that. For example, one of the issues in my constituency is that some private landlords are neglecting the properties that they own. Those properties were owned by the National Coal Board many years ago. They were then sold off, and people bought them to get on to the property ladder, before selling them on. Private landlords came in and bought them. Now we have a problem, and I believe that, if we are not careful, whole centres of communities will be sucked out and the community spirit will be sucked out too by the behaviour of some of those landlords.
Labour introduced selective licensing schemes, which I am pleased to say the Government have allowed to continue. However, we were also going to introduce a national register for private landlords, which would have meant that you had to register in communities such as mine before you could go on to rent out properties. The Government are not introducing that register. I know that private landlords are not necessarily the Minister’s responsibility, but he has responsibility for the big society. He needs to discuss this issue of private landlords with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because it is ripping the soul out of some of our local communities and needs to be sorted out.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I totally endorse the point that my hon. Friend is making about the lack of registration of landlords and what I think is a lack of consideration by this Government of the need for communities to know who landlords are, so that if problems with rented properties emerge, they can be tackled at local level.
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend and I worked together a lot on this issue with Durham county council. Many of those private landlords are absentee landlords, and a lot of them live abroad, so what do they care about what is happening in the villages of Sedgefield or elsewhere in the country? It is an issue that needs to be tackled nationally and, if need be, internationally, too. I say that because if you are not careful what you will have in these areas is not a big society but a non-society, because the community spirit will be taken out of them.
If we really want a big society to flourish, and if we are “all in this together”, we must look internationally to secure a future for our communities that is protected from unstable international financial systems. We need a big society that is not underpinned by abolishing the future jobs fund or the education maintenance allowance, and by the Prime Minister basically reneging on his pledge to send back to the drawing board any Minister who came up with a proposal that affected the front line.
Finally, I want to leave you with this example of the kind of society—
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I came along because I was intrigued by the title of the debate, “Community Cohesion”. Obviously I have listened to what you have said. I believe that our Localism Bill very much embeds all the charities and all the volunteers within what we are trying to do, whether it is HealthWatch, the Work programme, community groups or community centres. The big society is everything that you are talking about, just seen from a different viewpoint, and I have people coming to me locally and saying, “Thank goodness we’ve been liberated to go forth and develop what we want, rather than having a top-down state approach.” So I hope that you welcome this way forward.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Both hon. Members have referred to me, by saying “you”. This is not my debate, and I respectfully remind them to try not to say “you”.
Phil Wilson
Okay. Thank you for that, Mrs Main.
The hon. Lady might have people coming up to her and saying, “Thank you for us being liberated.” I have people coming up to me and saying that they are scared stiff that their charity will not survive because of the cuts, or that they are scared stiff that they will not be able to work any more for the young people in their village or to look after the elderly, and so on, because of the cuts that they know are coming down the line. So this issue actually cuts both ways, but I am more concerned about those people who are frightened to death about what is going to hit them.
I want to end by relating a true story, which for me encapsulates the big society that is already here. A friend of mine had a couple over from America visiting him a few months ago. The Americans were out with my friend for a meal one evening and one of them was taken ill in the street. So my friend phoned 999 on his mobile and a few minutes later a paramedic turned up, administered to the lady who was ill, made her better, got back on his motorbike and drove away. The Americans were amazed by that. They were amazed that they did not have to pay on the spot and that instead this man just turned up on his motorbike, made sure that the person was made well and drove away, and they did not even know his name. My friend said to me, “If you want an example of a big society that is a big society, when that works.” That is down to the NHS, which I believe is a true testimony to the big society. The NHS makes the story of the good samaritan an everyday occurrence, but I believe that this Government want to dismantle it. The Government might believe in a big society but they will never get it to work, because they do not actually know what it means.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I read with some interest on the Order Paper that there was going to be a debate on “Community Cohesion”, because I wondered what that phrase meant. Usually, the topic that is going to be debated is clear from the Order Paper, and the policy issues that will be considered and the Department that is likely to respond to the debate are usually implied by that. The phrase “community cohesion” does not lend itself to any of that, so I thought, at first, that it might be shorthand for “the big society” and, as I have listened to the comments made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) in the debate today, that is, I think, what has so far been intended.
On this side of the Chamber, we have certainly made it clear that the size, scope and role of the Government has reached a point at which it is inhibiting rather than advancing the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality and increasing well-being. In short, we do not believe that Government with a capital G has all the answers, and the coalition has made it clear that its alternative to big government is the big society, a society in which we all recognise the responsibilities that we owe to ourselves, our families, the communities in which we find ourselves and the nation as a whole. It is a society with much higher levels of personal, professional, civic and corporate responsibility, where people come together to solve problems and to improve life for themselves and their communities, and where the driving dynamic or progress is social responsibility, not state control. I am sure, therefore, that the concept of the big society runs, and will run, consistently through the coalition Government’s programme, which is reflected by the fact that the Minister responding to this debate is responsible for the policy on the big society.
The Government’s plans to reform public services, mend society and rebuild trust in politics are part of the big society agenda. Such plans involve redistributing power from the state to society—from the centre to local communities—giving people the opportunity to take more control of their lives. That is why the Localism Bill is so important, as are similar initiatives. It was heartening to see that so many right hon. and hon. Members wished to speak last week on Second Reading. Some 76 Members put their names forward, which I suspect was a record and which reflects the considerable interest in the localism agenda. It has occurred to me that if the hon. Gentleman wanted to have a crack at the big society, he would have tabled something on that topic at that point, and we would have found on the Order Paper a debate entitled, “The Big Society”.
The phrase “Community Cohesion” should therefore mean something, and as I reflected on that I decided to look it up on Wikipedia, which was not a particularly reassuring experience. The Wikipedia reference to community cohesion starts by proclaiming that
“this article does not cite any references or sources”,
so if there is some great sociological debate going on here, it clearly has not hit Wikipedia. The website then gives a short definition:
“Community cohesion refers to the aspect of togetherness and bonding exhibited by members of a community, the ‘glue’ that holds a community together. This might include features such as a sense of common belonging or cultural similarity.”
I cannot work out why it is necessary for hon. Members to spend an hour and a half considering our sense of common belonging, because it is axiomatic that we have a sense of common belonging.
Phil Wilson
The phrase is included in some of the Conservative party documentation that I have read on the big society, and community surveys in recent years also talk about community cohesion. The phrase has not just come out of the blue, and the hon. Gentleman’s own party has used it to explain what the big society is all about. My point is not that anyone is against the big society, but that because of the cuts that you are going to bring about, you will ensure that there is no big society.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I am not cutting anything. I also ask for interventions to be brief.
Tony Baldry
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he chose the topic for this debate, and in the substantial briefing prepared by the Library—it runs to pages and pages—the phrase “community cohesion” is, interestingly, mentioned only once.
After giving the brief description that I cited before giving way, Wikipedia recommends that one should also look on the site for terms such as “gemeinschaft and gesellschaft”, “integration”, “multiculturalism”, “social cohesion”, “structural cohesion” and “social solidarity”. On the basis of those associated terms, it struck me that community cohesion is not a policy that would commend itself to many of my hon. Friends, because it is clearly shorthand for state intervention by stealth. If it is not, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has not candidly introduced a debate on the big society.
I then recalled, from the recesses of my mind, that there is one statutory reference to community cohesion—just one—which is that the previous Government placed in statute in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 a duty on schools to promote community cohesion, and an obligation on Ofsted to police whether schools were taking sufficient action to promote such cohesion. I do not know about other hon. Members, but in the time that I have been a Member in north Oxfordshire I have found that all the schools in my patch strive hard to play their part in the local community and do not require a tick-box exercise to determine whether they are full members of the community. Indeed, how can a school be isolated from what other parts of the community do? I suspect that every head teacher and governing body in my patch believes that community cohesion is a fundamental part of their ethos. They need neither Ministers to tell them what they should be doing nor Ofsted inspectors to check that they, as schools, are playing their full part in the community.
I assumed, therefore, that what we would be having today would be synthetic row about the perfectly sensible decision of Ministers at the Department for Education to remove from Ofsted inspectors the obligation to have regard to community cohesion when carrying out inspections, and about the decision that inspectors should, in future, concentrate on four principal areas, namely the quality of teaching, the effectiveness of leadership, pupils’ behaviour and safety, and pupils’ achievement. That seems an eminently sensible approach. Indeed, and perhaps understandably, head teachers and the teaching unions have long urged that there should be less control from the centre and that they should be trusted more to run their schools and to teach for the benefit of the pupils concerned and not for the benefit of bureaucrats. Those four principal areas of focus for inspection by Ofsted show whether a school is performing effectively, but I am conscious that the people who are opposed to Ministers removing an obligation on Ofsted to have regard to community cohesion, are also having a crack at the policy of free schools being introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and other ministerial colleagues at the Department. I find that hostility to free schools truly bizarre.
This year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Church of England entering the field of education and the formation of the National Society. At that time, the Church of England introduced Church schools into every parish for the purposes of educating local children. It was never intended that they should be faith schools; they were seen as part of the Church of England’s central mission to the local community, and in 1944 Rab Butler was able to introduce his Education Act only because the Church of England was prepared to integrate Church schools into the state system of education.
Then, as now, Roman Catholic and other schools provided diversity, and in recent years that diversity has been extended by the introduction and continuance of academies by the previous Government. Children in Banbury have a choice of going to Banbury school, which is a trust school, North Oxfordshire academy, which as its name suggests is an academy, or Blessed George Napier school, which is a Roman Catholic secondary school with a sixth form. Post 16, they can go to the Oxford and Cherwell Valley further education college. Parents welcome such choice, and head teachers, governing bodies and schools are all, in their different ways, rooted in the local community.
Indeed, the Education Act 1944 makes it clear that as far as is possible, children should be educated in accordance with their parents’ wishes, a concept endorsed fully by Jim Callaghan as Prime Minister in the mid-1970s during his notable speech at Ruskin college on education, in which he made it clear that whatever parents wanted for their children, the state should want for all our children. I thus find it entirely bizarre that the Labour party, which endorsed the academies programme while in government—not just in inner cities but in areas and constituencies such as mine—wants to pull up the drawbridge now that it is in opposition.
Who is it that the Opposition do not trust—head teachers, governing bodies or parents? Occasionally, they seek to show their opposition to free schools by having a crack at faith groups, but faith groups, such as the Church of England, have, as I have said, been running schools in this country very effectively for 200 years. I was fortunate enough to attend a faith school. A couple of months ago, I returned there to take part in a seminar commemorating the life and work of one of the school’s distinguished old boys, Michael Foot. I fail to understand why some in the Labour party wish to pull up the ladder that they and others climbed.
I am pleased that a new free school is proposed in my constituency that will take pupils from age eight through secondary level. RAF Upper Heyford was a United States air force base until the early 1990s. For some years, the base was in limbo while various national house builders who owned the site negotiated the planning process. Heyford Park now has planning permission for 1,000 homes, including the existing 300, and parents there made it clear in a survey that they would like a combined primary and secondary school built at Heyford Park. A Heyford Park parents’ group has grown up as a result of that effort to seek parents’ views, and it in turn has developed into Heyford Park parents’ planning group for a new free school.
I strongly support the initiative. It seems totally in accord with the Government’s policy on free schools and new academies. It also has the benefit of an existing community that will grow over time and from which such a school can be born in terms of parental support and a geographical area. In addition, there is no primary or secondary school in the area whose offering the creation of a Heyford Park academy would challenge, threaten or undermine, as all the existing primary schools nearby are effectively full, obliging many primary school children from the area to travel a considerable distance to Bicester. The creation of the school would allow children to go to school much nearer where they live.
The planning group includes Roy Blatchford, former head teacher of Bicester community college and one of Her Majesty’s inspectors. I am glad to report that the buildings for a school already exist and that there are plenty of grounds and playing space at Upper Heyford dating from when it was an air force base. The developers are willing to commit substantial amounts of money to the new free school.
That project chimes with what we are trying to do to give local people much greater control over their lives. If we are to debate the big society, let us have a debate, but I believe that the localism agenda, which gives people much greater control over their own lives—having regard to the obligations that we all have to ourselves, our families and the communities in which we find ourselves—is the right direction of travel. I am glad that it is this Government’s direction of travel.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), when I saw “Community Cohesion” on the Order Paper, I was confused about what this debate would address. I started preparing for a debate about community cohesion and stopping the radicalisation of young people. Then, fortunately, I received the Library briefing, which made it clear that we would be discussing community cohesion and the big society. I am pleased to discuss that as well—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about community cohesion. As the previous speaker felt free to explore the terminology, the hon. Gentleman is free to explore it however he sees fit.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mrs Main. For the purposes of this debate, a discussion of projects to reduce radicalisation among young people might take us off the agenda that other Members intended to debate. Also, the Minister does not have responsibility for that particular aspect of Government policy. I intend to focus on the big society. My borough, the London borough of Sutton, is one of the four lead authorities on the big society, so the issue is close to my heart.
As the hon. Member for Sedgefield said in his opening remarks, it will clearly be harder for the Government and people throughout the country to deliver a big society agenda against the nation’s current financial backdrop. We have the largest budget deficit in the G20. The Government are rightly taking measures to address that, and many organisations will be affected. I intervened on him to point out that his Government accepted that such action would be necessary. I was not aware of any suggestion in his remarks that the voluntary sector, for instance, should be ring-fenced from the budget cuts. I was hoping that he might set out an alternative approach that took into account the fact that we face difficult financial circumstances. However, he did not do so, providing us with a list of things that he did not think the Government should cut rather than an alternative approach to deliver the £44 billion in savings that his Government would have made, if they had been elected on 6 May.
On the big society, I make an unashamed plug for the work being done in the London borough of Sutton. The borough is concentrating on four things. It is developing the Sutton Life centre. It is concentrating on the public transport agenda, particularly smarter travel. It is progressing health provision, GP commissioning and ensuring that local people and the local authority have a bigger say in health provision. Finally—this is the area that I will focus on most—it is developing the Hackbridge vision, which is a grassroots effort. That is what the big society should be about. The community is driving a project to make Hackbridge the most sustainable suburb in the country.
The Hackbridge project has already got off to a good start. Members might be aware of a residential development called BedZED, which has been widely covered in many colour supplements in recent years. BedZED has received visitors from all over the world. When I catch the train that goes through Hackbridge, I often see visitors from every country in the world getting off at Hackbridge and going to visit the development. It will form the core around which the rest of the initiatives will be developed. The community, local authority and developers are all working successfully to develop the concept. I am sure that renewable energy plants will be delivered there. The local landfill site is already putting energy back into the grid using turbines. That is exactly what the big society is about—a grassroots movement to develop a community sustainably and with the support of local people.
I will mention a couple of exemplars. When the local authority identified the need for a children’s centre on the site of Amy Johnson primary school, the borough could offer only limited cash to the school. It said to the school, “We have £180,000 that we’re going to spend on developing this.” The school governors came back and said, “Give us the money and we’ll do it.” The local authority said, “Okay, but we will not give you £1 more than £180,000.” The school governors and parents went away and designed a project that ended up with 40% more floor space than what the local authority was going to offer. It was also designed to their specification and delivered within the £180,000 envelope. In addition to the voluntary contribution from the school governors, the school caretaker, who had worked in the building trade, took on a lot of the project management. That is a good example of what can be done in big society terms.
Another initiative is the Wandle Trust, which has taken over responsibility for maintaining the River Wandle from the Environment Agency. It is involving many more volunteers than the Environment Agency could ever hope to. Another example is Gaynesford Lodge, which provides day care for senior citizens. It is looking at setting up a social enterprise to take on responsibility for providing that service, and I hope that it will receive advice from the Government to help it to do that.
Earlier this week, I was at an event where the Federation of Bangladeshi Caterers talked about the role that its businesses can play in the big society. That might involve providing training or business mentoring to young people. Its members are therefore keen to get engaged.
I carry out an electronic poll once a month, sending out e-mails to about 6,000 constituents. One of those straw polls was about the big society, and I am pleased to say that 53% of the people who responded said that they would want to get actively involved in big society projects. There is, therefore, a real desire to get involved.
Let me read a couple of comments from people who responded to the poll. Sarah said:
“I believe this is a good opportunity for the community to work together for the common good of all.”
John said:
“It is easy to be cynical about Government and see this as a middle class gimmick but we all need to feel more connected to each other...Let’s get on and test it.”
Explaining why she collected litter in her road and the surrounding area, Margaret said:
“If more people did this we would have pride back in where we live. It is not taking jobs from people it is simply helping us to help ourselves.”
In the London borough of Sutton, at least, there is a strong desire to engage—people are not cynical.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will tell us which rules and regulations that apply to the Government, local government, the police and the NHS will be changed to facilitate the big society process. For me and my constituents, that process is about helping people get involved. Currently, they are being prevented from doing so, because a few obstacles have been thrown in their way. Those obstacles are not really necessary and can easily be removed. I accept that the Localism Bill, which the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) has mentioned, is part of that process, but I hope that the Minister and his officials are identifying some of the obstacles. I also hope that he will be able to tell us—if not now, perhaps as things develop—exactly what bonfire of regulations and rules will take place to enable people to engage in the big society in the way in which they are keen to.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I thank you, Mrs Main, and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
We all accept that community cohesion is a wide-ranging notion. We all want to live in a community where we feel safe from crime, where we give our children a good education and where everyone comes together at times of need to help those who need help most.
When I was first selected as the prospective MP for Hexham, and we first started talking about the big society and community cohesion, individuals in the 1,100 square miles that I am lucky enough to represent said, “But we already have this. We do this already.” However, they would then add a “but” and talk about the obstacles that prevented them from going forward and being freed up to do things. I will attempt to identify those individual problems, although I do not particularly seek to criticise previous Governments. None the less, it is clear that there is much in the big society agenda that we can take forward and use as an asset.
There have been accusations—in The Times on Monday, for example—that the big society is not being implemented in the way in which everybody would like, but, in my respectful submission, that is not right. Although the big society is there to a degree, and it comes to the forefront in times of crisis, the coalition has managed to make it an individual, overriding aim. Apart from wiping out the deficit, which clearly must be done, we want to decentralise government. Effectively, we are enablers; we are trying to take government back to the people, who are in charge. I can give multiple examples of that, but that is surely all about trying to give power back to the people with whom it fundamentally rests.
It follows from that vein of thought that it is up to individuals actively to transform community cohesion from being big only in times of need, as it was perhaps in the past, to being something that exists at all times. People need to be aware of it at all stages. I implore my colleagues to get behind this initiative, if they have not done so already.
I want to make an unashamed plug at this point. On 11 February, more than 100 individuals will get together in Hexham to see how we can take community cohesion forward. The event is not sponsored by anybody individually, although I am paying the bill. We are bringing together all manner of people—representatives of different faiths, councillors and housing representatives —to look at the opportunities. I will come to that in a bit more detail, but I just wanted to give the context in which we are working.
Ever since I have had the honour of representing Hexham, we have tried to support many big society initiatives, with the aim of creating more community cohesion. I want to list 10 things that we are doing. First, we have an internship programme in the constituency office to which everybody contributes. We have had 35 young people, which is an awful lot in seven months. They have been aged from 16 to 22, and 10 of them have already completed the programme. A further 30 young people have signed up for the internship programme for 2011.
Secondly, the volunteers and I help to run our MP’s charity quiz nights. We go to local pubs around the constituency raising money for charities. We have worked for Help the Heroes and a local charity, Tynedale Activities for Special Children.
Thirdly, we are committed to an annual Christmas social action project. Lots of people have such projects, but I want to give some idea of the extent of ours. I have a spare office—it is meant to be my surgery office—but I had to move out of it, because so many people contributed presents. The project mushroomed and acquired a wonderful life of its own. We sent those presents to Support Our Soldiers and collected care packages for our serving troops. The response in the community was wonderful. Almost more interestingly, the two regiments involved—one is 39 Regiment Royal Artillery—wrote to tell us what an amazing contribution that we had made. One individual even wrote just before Christmas, but sadly passed away. We saw the impact on the people we were trying to help on a regular basis.
There is also our social action programme, which has ideas for youth training, job clubs and producing community guides. There is not, for example, in the wonderful, wild world of Northumberland, a universal guide to its best parts, so we are producing one ourselves. We managed to persuade the tourist board to give us what it uses, such as photographs, and we shall integrate all those things into our programme, so that during the weekend all the individuals who are trying to set up bed and breakfast or support for organisations will be supported by us.
We also have volunteers who support nature projects such as tree and bulb planting, and community allotment days throughout the constituency. I am not at all green-fingered, but I am becoming better by the minute and have, delightfully, been offered the vice-presidency of the Prudhoe allotments, a welcome activity for destressing on a wet weekend.
There are small projects, but there are also very big ones. One is in the village of Humshaugh, which has a village shop. It lost its post office, which is a problem faced by every constituency. In Humshaugh, with the post office having gone and the shop struggling, the villagers faced closure, because they had no money to go on with. So the community rallied round and enlisted the support of a wealth of individuals. I use the word “wealth” because everyone involved—60-odd people—gives their time for free. It is an amazing example of a shop that closed, then reopened and is progressing. There was a contribution by a business man who prefers to remain nameless, but everyone else was involved. People thought that that was so good that they were a bit upset about the pub. The Crown Inn, Humshaugh, had not gone into receivership but it was not far off, so the villagers took it over as well.
I want to discuss broadband. Everyone knows that there are efforts to take it forward. I am lucky in that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), whose constituency neighbours mine, has money and funding for the Eden Valley project, which is a very successful and good project. It is just over the border—I wish it was with us, but such is life, and we must get on with it. We have gone to see what is happening, and we are trying to dovetail with what it is doing. Kielder forest and the Northumberland national park cover huge areas, with probably the largest forest in the country. We have no broadband or mobile phone coverage, and we have a problem with making progress, so we work with a host of different providers. How are they helping us? We have worked on the concept, of which the Minister will be aware, that there are alternatives, and we are considering how we can use Northumbrian Water, which is a substantial, FTSE 100 company. One might consider it and think, “How can you help? You are a very wealthy company.” In reality it is telling us that it is possible that it can provide pre-existing sewers and the like, and that we can use them to make alternative provision. There are other good examples to assist us, and I am hopeful that as the Eden Valley project expands, we shall be able to do more.
Ninthly, I want to talk about planning, which is a huge issue in every constituency. You have got individual people, on a regular basis—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I have no individuals, and the hon. Gentleman should refrain from using the word “you”.
Guy Opperman
I apologise, Mrs Main.
Hon. Members have individual problems with planning, and they are struggling, but that can be addressed. The Localism Bill will be of huge import, and it will be a huge success in the effort to free up the ongoing planning crisis. I urge hon. Members to get behind it. The Bill is a large one, and we could talk about it for hours, as we saw last week. All the things that I am discussing are about enabling people to do things. I keep coming back to that, because with such enablement we can take good ideas forward. Instead of a system that requires five or six different referrals to go through the Leader programme or other One North East programmes and get a result, things should be much quicker, simpler and faster. I hope that they will be.
I want to finish by talking about the Tynedale big society summit, which will be held in just over two weeks’ time. There will be representatives from business, faith groups, voluntary organisations, local politicians, health and housing, and environmental groups to help people with local government. I hope that the key players in expanding and enabling the big society will come together across Tynedale with the intention of sharing best practice and past successes, and developing a local framework that will help organisations and volunteers to play a strong role in delivering the ideas behind the big society. Participants will be able to question a range of guests on the opportunities ahead for the third sector to play a central role in the procurement and delivery of services.
There will also be specific examples of project-based best practice shared between the various sectors, in which local groups have made a difference to their communities, as well as group discussions on a plan of action taking forward ideas of further co-operation between those existing groups and volunteers. Best of all, the whole day will be staffed—aside from being paid for by my good self—by local volunteers who are interns. The sandwiches will be provided by a start-up company that wants to expand. The essence of what we are trying to do is there.
I could talk about the effect when previous councils, who suffered the blame for unpopular decisions, blamed Whitehall in the face of local anger. Things have developed to the point where very few people seem prepared to accept responsibility for a mistake or for unpopular decisions, whether right or wrong. That has even been transmitted to the social level. We live in a democracy where it is important to feel that someone can have their say, if they want their view to be heard.
We need to consider the glue that binds us together. On a national level, it can be a range of things, such as sport, conflict or even a general election. Those things bring us together, but often in different or separate camps. There are few instances where we are all unequivocally united on one side. We may be divided over the fighting in Afghanistan, but we are united in supporting our troops and doing our bit to ensure that they are supported. It is that sense of shared investment, a shared contribution and a shared goal that brings us together into a cohesive community not only nationally but locally. With the investments and projects that I have described, and with us as enablers, we can and should take that forward.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I came to listen to the debate and perhaps make an intervention, but I thought that what I had to say might go on too long and you might ask me to sit down, Mrs Main. Therefore I thought I might say something near the end of the debate if there were time.
When I saw the title, “Community Cohesion”, I thought, “What an admirable debate.” Is that not what everyone, on both sides of the House, is looking at in order to see how we can work in our communities? Is that not what MPs do? We try to figure out the solutions to problems and work together. We have to work within the set budget to take that forward, but, at the same time, I have found in my local community a desire to explore the capabilities of individuals and communities, and I have felt a bubbling up from the ground for people to take control of what they are doing.
Big society may be two small words that mean a huge amount to different people, but when the idea was introduced, the people of Wirral West grasped it. When shops closed on the high street, they came together and asked, “What can we do?” They did not want to see that in their little villages and towns, of which they are very proud. Art shops and places for children and families may have opened, but when people saw council-owned pieces of land, such as allotment areas, they wanted to expand on that and have some more, so that their sons could go there with their dads—and mums with their daughters—to understand what a root vegetable is and what fruit and vegetables are, rather than buy them from a supermarket. All those things were bubbling and building up.
There were also asset transfers. The local community centre was not doing so well, so people living in the area thought, “We know what’s best,” and they have taken it on board and are working together. Even bigger schemes started to bubble up, too. They asked whether first-time buyers could afford local housing and thought about what they were going to do about social housing. They are now looking to develop a plot of land that will be affordable for first-time buyers, and an eco-environment, which we would desperately like in our area.
We are all looking for community cohesion, which is why, when I read an article in The Observer last week which cited ideas on the Labour big society, based on local loyalties, family and common good, I thought that that was not so far removed from the Conservative big society. My example of the allotment is about the family, and my example of the community centre is about the common good for the local area, which is also the case with affordable housing.
The big society must be explored by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we have to work within the set budget. That is why I welcome the Conservative party’s proposals for a £50 million community first fund and a £10 million voluntary match fund, as well as the piloting of the national citizen service and the £100 million transition fund. All those things must come together.
I am delighted to hear about community cohesion, which is something that we are all trying to achieve, and I will be delighted to hear from the Minister not just about what else we are going to do that will work in places such as Wirral West, but about what would be an enabler in places such as Sedgefield, which may have very different needs.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate. His description of the community he serves is familiar to me. We are both very fortunate and privileged to serve as MPs for ex-mining communities. He is right to point out that, over many years, these communities have often been denied the tools to improve their areas, notwithstanding their ability and desire to do so. He was also right to remind us of the centrality of mutualism and co-operatives to the development of communities and, indeed, to the Labour party itself. Moreover, he was right to question whether the Government’s agenda is more than self-help.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made a number of interesting points about the role of the state. I say to him that, if Labour went too far in using the state as a way of improving communities, I hope that he would accept that this Government could be going too far in dismantling the state, particularly the welfare state. He might also want to consider the impact of that on disadvantaged areas in particular. He was right, however, to applaud the Localism Bill, which includes some useful elements and has created high aspirations for what it could deliver in my constituency. I hope that the Government will deliver on their rhetoric for my constituents.
As we might have expected, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) started off by blaming Labour for the world’s ills, but I hope that he would accept that Labour set out a clear plan to reduce the deficit. We said that we would do it more slowly and carefully than this Government.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
As I said, we set out clearly how we would reduce the deficit more slowly. The amount of money that we would have reduced would, therefore, have been less, so there would not have been these huge, up-front cuts affecting local government. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman outlined vividly one of the points that I wish to make—the voluntary sector and the big society were not invented by this Government. Much wonderful community and voluntary activity is already taking place, as he demonstrated so eloquently by talking about what is happening in his own constituency.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) outlined the obstacles that may prevent voluntary activity, but he gave little recognition to the fact that some individuals are more able than others to undertake such activity. Perhaps the atlas and geography of volunteering need to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the many volunteers in his constituency and to the wonderful work that is taking place, as I do to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has pointed out that much is already happening in her constituency and that the Government could do more to enable further activity to take place.
On the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, he was absolutely correct to focus on what is undermining the big society, rather than to question the principles that underpin the idea of encouraging more volunteering, supporting community organisation and development, and giving a new impetus to social enterprise, co-operatives and mutuals. It would be churlish for us to do that. In government, Labour more than doubled the amount of money provided to the charitable sector, and we encouraged more volunteering. Organisations such as V did wonders to improve the number and range of volunteering activities available to young people, and that is just one example. The outcome of Labour’s support for the sector was greatly to increase the number of those involved in volunteering, and to expand the role of the sector in delivering services.
Surely, therefore, it is a matter of great disappointment that recent data from the citizenship survey for April to September 2010 show that 24% of people volunteered formally at least once a month, which is a lower level than that which existed previously and, perhaps, a surprise given the emphasis placed on volunteering by this Government. We should not, however, be at all surprised that, this week, we began to see questions in the media about whether the cuts might be choking the sector and impeding the development of the big society. All MPs are now becoming aware of how cuts to funding are impacting on not just the voluntary sector in their constituencies, but on smaller charities and agencies that undertake highly valuable work in all of our communities.
As if things on the funding front were not bad enough, it is interesting to note that Phillip Blond—one of the architects of the big society—is quoted in the press this week as having to argue that the big society is not in crisis. Of course, as soon as he tries to defend the big society, we immediately think that it must be in crisis and that his comments suggest that there is trouble.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has so eloquently pointed out, Labour knows the value of supporting community development. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) did much at the Department for Communities and Local Government to put community empowerment on the agenda, but I sometimes wonder if the current Government understand the support that some communities and sections of communities need for that.
We know that levels of volunteering vary hugely across the country, yet it is the areas that have the lowest levels of volunteering—the poorest areas—that are suffering most from the public spending cuts. Those are the areas where most needs to be done. The deprived inner-city areas of London and the northern cities are experiencing the most drastic cuts, which undoubtedly will be passed on to the voluntary sector. If we are faced with huge cuts to services and funding, the Government will have to redouble their efforts if they are to succeed in developing more enterprise and mutuals in those circumstances. The big society bank has been put forward as a means of achieving that, but there are big questions about the delay in its implementation and whether it will have enough resources to do its job.
As well as flagging up what is happening with the levels of volunteering, the citizenship survey is important in other regards. It shows that 86% of adults in England were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, that 85% thought their community was cohesive and that 64% were not worried about being a victim of crime. That is hardly evidence of the broken Britain that the Government feel has to be fixed by an army of volunteers. That is not to say that volunteering is not important; quite the opposite, it suggests that much of what the Government say they want to create already exists in communities up and down the country. We saw many examples of that this afternoon. If they are to do more, they need support in terms of finances, resources and infrastructure, at least in a number of areas that face multiple and complex problems and have social needs. Social action can be a key feature in turning communities around, but it is not the only ingredient that is necessary.
I hope that the Minister will say what support he intends to give to groups and agencies suffering cuts beyond the inadequate transition fund and, crucially, how his community organiser programme will work with existing organisations. Perhaps he could answer the question posed in yesterday’s leader in The Times on why the Government still have to develop any signature policies or to bring examples of what the big society means. The Times was also useful for letting us know that the Minister has written to ask what ideas Conservative MPs have to make the big society a success. We will await the answers with interest. In the meantime, it is important to do what we can to support community and voluntary organisations and to develop social enterprises and mutuals, not least as a means of employment in our poorest communities. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how he intends to achieve that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the first time. We have had an excellent, wide-ranging debate and you have chaired it very firmly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on not just securing the debate, but battling flu so valiantly and presenting a sincere picture of his concerns for his constituency.
I have picked out three things that I would like to respond to directly. First, I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the Government do not really know what big society means—he talked about fresh air in that context. I would also like to address his valid concern about cuts to the voluntary community sector, which was picked up by his colleague who represents the beautiful city of Durham, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). I would then like to deal with the issue of landlords and how their practices risk unsettling, dividing and undermining communities.
Out of courtesy, if I could address the specific issue first, I will undertake to write to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on the issue of a national register. That subject is not my direct responsibility and I am sure that there are lots of complexities underlying his suggestion, so I will write to the Minister for Housing and Local Government to alert him to the concern expressed in this debate. I have discussed the matter with a colleague who represents a seat in Cornwall. That is a long way from Sedgefield, but it has exactly the same problem the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That area adopted the grass-roots solution of personal advocacy. Basically, the community was fed up with the situation, so it got together and lobbied directly the people causing the problem and forced a change in policy. I do not know how applicable that is in Sedgefield, but there are examples around the country where that problem has been tackled by grass-roots action—a very big society response. I will write directly to the Minister on his behalf.
Mr Hurd
I will not take an intervention at this point because I want to move on from that issue.
I shall address the hon. Gentleman’s main concerns about what the big society is, what the Government are trying to achieve and what we mean by it. If he wants to look at the record tomorrow, he will see that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) articulated the matter as well as anyone, when he talked about trying to promote a greater culture of social responsibility. The idea is not fresh air because, as the hon. Member for City of Durham and various hon. Members pointed out, a lot of wonderful activity is going on in constituencies across the country, where people are working together and giving up time to try to find better ways of doing things, supporting initiatives and getting things going.
The Government want to throw a bigger spotlight on that activity to try to make it easier for people to do more such things and be more ambitious. The matter should not be divisive. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) put the argument beautifully. We should all be encouraging such things. I shall put the matter simply: it is about trying to encourage more people to get involved. There is no point pretending that all is rosy in the garden, as I think both Labour Members were saying when they cited the citizenship survey. We know that the country faces enormous challenges and that there are very stubborn, expensive social problems. It seems absolutely ridiculous to continue pretending that the state, people here or in Whitehall or even local authority chief executives somehow have all the solutions.
From my constituency, I know that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the value that residents—constituents—can bring to the idea in terms of tapping into the talent, expertise, experience, ideas, networks and skills that are out there in communities. The big society is about trying to get more people involved and engaged in traditional volunteering or in that hugely important valuable work that we all know about from our constituencies. It is about providing the opportunity to give time to help improve someone else’s life. The value of that is two-way. Of course, we want to encourage more of that, but it is by no means the whole story. The big society is also about trying to get more people involved in shaping the future of communities, in the decisions that really matter and in trying to save things if things need to be saved, such as post offices, pubs, shops or whatever. It is about trying to combat the voice that I hear from constituents who say, “It’s not worth getting involved because it’s not as if we can change anything.” That is what we want to change.
The big society goes beyond that into the reform of public services and trying to open those up and get the people who pay for them and use them more involved in them. Again, in my constituency, I get a sense that people are becoming increasingly resentful of just taking what they are given and feeling that matters are being dealt with in a very detached way. Yes, this is about encouraging more volunteering, but it is also about getting people more involved at a local level in shaping the public services that they use. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) used the powerful expression “giving the power back,” which I liked. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was entirely right: that is what people want; they would like to get more involved. The citizenship survey showed that, and we are trying to make it easier.
There is a specific, proactive, big role for Government. There is no point in pretending that suddenly Government will disappear. The Government will play a hugely important part in all our lives, whatever the scale of the spending cuts. However, when it comes to making it easier for people to get involved and making the case for that more compelling, the Government are absolutely committed and on track, and will be delivering through three strands of action.
The first strand is about transferring real power to communities. That is now moving from words to realities. The specific measure has been mentioned—the Localism Bill. I am very pleased about and encouraged by the welcome that it has received, not least from the hon. Member for City of Durham. It is raising expectations. I think that that is right. People are excited about it, which suggests that its time has come. It is a huge piece of legislation, with lots of new rights and opportunities. However, there is more to the issue than just legislation.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington challenged me to be more specific about what we are doing to get out of the way. He was entirely right. If he listens to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, he will get the sense that that is a Secretary of State who wants to do exactly that. He wants to change the whole nature of his Department so that it works for citizens.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that our approach is to send this message to communities: “Tell us what is getting in the way and we will work to see what we can do to remove it.” There is a specific barrier-busting service, of which he may be aware. That flows from a very powerful piece of legislation called the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which I took through Parliament as a private Member’s Bill. Already, communities are responding to this invitation: “Tell us what’s getting in the way and we will see whether we can remove it, but give us the specifics.” The new website was launched a few weeks ago, and I think that more than 50 proposals have come in already. That is on top of the 300 different proposals that we had for the first wave under the Sustainable Communities Act. These things are community driven, so there is a real determination on our part to get out of the way.
The second strand is about public service reform: opening up the public services to new providers, including, specifically, the voluntary and community sector; bringing those services closer to the people who use them; and liberating people who are in the front line delivering the services. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury talked passionately about schools. He will know from his experience with local heads about their desire to be liberated. Specifically in relation to public service reform, a White Paper, which I think will be published next month, will set out our stall on that and explain exactly how we intend to go about it.
The third strand is about social action—trying to inspire people and make it easier for them to give time and money to get things done locally to help people. Again, the words are now being backed up by actions. The Cabinet Office has published a Green Paper on giving, which will lead to a White Paper. We seek fresh ideas on what Government can do with partners—the charitable sector and business—to make it easier for people to give time and money.
We have announced the pilots of the next phase of the national citizen service. Again, that is a powerful, positive programme, which is designed to connect young people with their ability to make a contribution to their communities. I think that one of the biggest pilots, involving 1,000 young people, is taking place on the edge of the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I urge him to engage with it, because I have seen that that programme can be very powerful in lifting the aspirations and confidence of young people.
The hon. Member for City of Durham rightly challenged me on this important point: the big society must be open to all. We all know that some communities are in a stronger position than others to take advantage of it. I represent a relatively affluent, suburban constituency on the edge of London, a long way from Sedgefield. My communities are well networked, strong and ambitious and, I think, will respond quickly to that agenda, but other communities will need some help.
The Government are determined to be proactive in encouraging, supporting and helping those communities to help themselves. That is one of the driving forces behind our community organiser and community first programmes, which we will be announcing more details of soon. The aim will be to establish, in those communities, people who can bring people together, organise communities and start building networks—people who have the confidence to start getting people together to get things done. With that will be a neighbourhood grant programme. Again, that will be targeted on the most disadvantaged areas, where the social capital is lowest. It will put money into the hands of neighbourhood groups to help them to develop and deliver on their own plans. The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned the big society bank. That is wholly designed to make it easier for social entrepreneurs—people who want to take a bit of a risk to get things happening and who want to do things differently in those areas—to access capital.
The Government are doing things, but things are also beginning to happen in communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was very modest about his pioneering work on developing job clubs in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham is getting a big society initiative going in his constituency. In my constituency, I am convening people in exactly the same way—in one ward, people are concerned about the future and feel that they need to come together and think about a neighbourhood plan for the area. I am facilitating that.
Last week I was in Halifax, where groups of people from the public sector—different stakeholders—were gathered round a table, talking about partnership in a way that they never had before, because they felt that that was possible and they were being encouraged to do it. One could sense that they were not going to go back to the bad old ways of sitting in their silos and just pursuing their individual targets and budgets. Something is happening and changing out there, and it needs to, because we have to find better ways of doing things.
I shall spend the time left to me on dealing with the very important issue of cuts to the voluntary and community sector, which is an emotive issue for many hon. Members. I have written to every Member of Parliament, inviting them to bring in representatives of their voluntary and community sector to talk to me about that, and many have taken up the invitation.
Of course, the voluntary and community sector is hugely important to this project, because of its ability to support and mobilise people, but it is not—we should be frank about this—the whole story. Business has a hugely important part to play, as do citizens and residents groups and as do Government. Charities are not a proxy for community, but they are a hugely important partner in the process.
There is a very difficult issue, which we should not underestimate, in relation to managing the transition. However, we need to be honest about this. Unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune from the cuts. The nation is spending £120 million a day in interest and borrowing £1 for every £4 that we spend. That is not sustainable. We have to reduce public spending on a scale that means that, unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune. That would have been a reality confronted by the Labour Government, exactly as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington emphasised, so there are cuts and there will continue to be cuts.
Mr Hurd
I would rather not, because I would like to finish this important point. The numbers being bandied around are entirely speculative. The Government are monitoring the situation closely, at central and local government level, because we are concerned that the process should be managed properly. We established a transition fund, which has now closed. That process was well run. From the Prime Minister down, we have sent a strong steer to local authority leaders that we do not expect them to take the easy option of making cuts to the voluntary and community sector before they have taken the opportunity to pursue their own efficiencies. Many councils, such as Reading and Wiltshire, which I heard about today, are increasing the amount of funding that they are giving to the voluntary and community sector. We are continuing to invest in the training of commissioners. We have reviewed and updated the compact, which is the framework that steers the relationship. The Office for Civil Society is continuing to invest to support and strengthen the sector.
We have three priorities. We ask ourselves, “What are we doing to make it easier to run a charity or voluntary sector organisation?” We are continuing to invest in infrastructure to support the sector. We are examining the red tape and regulation that get in the way. There are reviews across Government in respect of the Criminal Records Bureau and health and safety. Again, we are trying to get out of the way where we can. We are actively examining ways of getting more resources into the sector. The giving Green Paper is about trying to stimulate more charitable giving. The social investment bank—the big society bank—is about trying to grow a new market of social investment. We are reviewing everything that we can to try to make it easier for charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises to deliver more public services.
The transition that we have to manage is very difficult, but we are trying to help the sector to work towards a future in which it can be a very active player in the big society, delivering more public services, helping to give people a voice at local level, and benefiting from the extra time and money that we hope people will give. The Government are absolutely determined to make it easier for people to get involved, to live in even better connected communities and to feel part of something bigger.
UK Internet Search Engines
(13 years, 9 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
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Main, for chairing this Adjournment debate. I am told that it is on a subject that has not been addressed in Parliament so substantially before. However, the subject affects the UK economy and other European economies, and my constituency particularly.
Reach Global, in the ward of Church in my constituency, is a major online company involved in the search for, and retrieval and collation of information—it is a search engine. Netmovers is a major property internet search site that Reach Global owns and it is part of Reach Global’s portfolio of vertical UK search engines. Reach Global’s owners are resident in the UK, they pay taxes in the UK and they employ and train British people. Reach Global is a cutting-edge British company, but like many British companies it is being squeezed out by unfair and anti-competitive practices by Google. There is growing evidence that Google is leveraging its dominance in the search engine market into adjacent markets, much as Microsoft did when it leveraged its dominance in the operating systems market into adjacent markets, such as the web browser market.
E-commerce and e-business are booming. According to 2009 figures from the Office for National Statistics, the UK’s digital economy supports 143,000 enterprises, generating a total turnover of £178 billion of revenue, with nearly £100 billion of gross added value to the UK economy. Against that exponential growth, however, there is evidence that some smaller companies are finding that they are unable to gain access to the online search engine market.
According to Ofcom, in May 2010, 87% of internet search engine users chose Google. Numerically, that is 32.4 million out of 35 million UK searches, which was up 5% on the previous year. Google’s grip is tightening further. By January 2011, its market share had risen to 91% of the UK search market and as a result it dominated online advertising revenue. Bing has 3.87% market share, Yahoo! 2.85%, Ask 1.26% and the remainder of the providers, including UK providers, have just 1.34% of market share between them.
Google has been the focus of much criticism, with claims that it could be abusing its dominant position in the market. In my view, Google has gone from being a competitor to a predator and from a horizontal organic search client to a monopoly giant, with subliminal and unclear sponsored searches that favour other Google products.
It is important that we create the right market conditions to facilitate innovation in the online economy. Competition must be allowed to flourish, which I believe would create the right conditions and defend the interests of British companies, particularly high-tech IT companies.
Concerns are now being raised that Google’s dominant position is stifling innovation and preventing smaller companies from entering the market. Earlier this month, Google was in the headlines for disclosing that in 2010 it had made £2.2 billion in the UK market, claiming approximately 50% of UK online advertising revenue.
All that has led to Google becoming subject to an EU anti-trust investigation into its European operations, with allegations of anti-competitive behaviour. There are suggestions that Google’s search results are influenced by advertising and even that Google’s technology might deliberately lower the visibility of rival sites.
Acting as the principal gateway to the internet, Google has a responsibility to ensure that it provides an open and transparent service, and one that is free from bias or purchased favouritism. Because of its domination of the global search market and its ability to penalise competitors by placing its own services at the top of search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. Moreover, Google can deploy that advantage well beyond the confines of the search engine sector to any service that it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperilled. The top result in any search usually results in 50% of the traffic going through that site, so it is easy to see why anyone would want to have the number one slot in the return on any search that is made.
The preferential placement of Google’s price comparison service, for example, caused traffic to the UK’s leading price comparison services to fall by an average of 41% over two years. During the same period, internet traffic in general rose by 30%. That is a marked contrast, but more marked is the fact that traffic to Google’s price comparison site rose by 125% during the same period.
The preferential placement of Google Maps decimated traffic to Multimap and Streetmap, the UK’s two leading online mapping services. The share price of TomTom, a European maker of navigation systems, fell by 40% this week after the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. RightMove, Britain’s leading real estate portal, lost 10% of its market value on the basis of a mere rumour that Google was planning a UK property search service.
The delineation between advertising and search results is becoming blurred. It is becoming more difficult to separate a sponsored from an unsponsored result. Google’s revenues exceeded $29 billion last year, but that pales next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues that Google controls indirectly through search results and sponsored links. That revenue-driven model has encouraged Google to begin promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms that it uses to rank the services of others.
Reach Global in my constituency currently hosts a UK-focused search engine that is in its seventh incarnation. The search engine, Searchers, has been in continual development for seven years and is independent and owned and funded by a private company. It is a very British enterprise. I am led to believe that it is the largest UK search engine apart from those emanating from the United States. Reach Global believes that Searchers could have an important role to play in the domestic economy where it claims Google fails: focusing on British business, promoting a sense of our national identity and, crucially, aiming to keep at least a portion of the massive advertising revenues available within our economy. As it is UK-based, its results are relevant to UK users.
I hope that the Minister will take up an offer to visit Reach Global. It is a fantastic company, and its investment in IT is incredible. I hope that he will accept that offer and see for himself what a great company it is. According to the ONS, Reach Global is one of 65 businesses working in the information and communications sector in Hyndburn, one of 2,000 in Lancashire and one of 144,000 in the UK.
Foundem is another British company that appears to have been blocked or sanctioned by Google in what appears to be a misuse of internet-filtered search results. The company provides search database solutions to a variety of British high street companies. It was leading the way in supporting US and European Union investigations into monopoly practices. In 2006, Foundem dropped to 144th in Google searches but remained first on Yahoo! and seventh on Ask. It is time to look beyond network neutrality and consider search neutrality: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.
Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google everything—Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Property, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is so innovative that we need not worry, but Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented.
It is not just about computers. Google’s Android smartphone operating system is gaining significant market share. The bundling of Google products with the operating system puts other companies that offer a free product, such as Skype, at risk of losing out to Google’s in-built advantages.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Is the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) prepared to give way?
Mike Weatherley
I thank the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have also met representatives of Foundem. Does he agree that the Google position is stifling British businesses? I congratulate him on taking part in this debate, and particularly on championing the British aspect.
Graham Jones
I welcome that intervention, which is helpful. That is quite true, and it is the thrust of the point that I am making. British companies are being stifled. Moreover, the Treasury is losing out. In 2008-09, The Guardian reported that Google, by locating its companies outside the UK, avoided paying £450 million to the UK Treasury, and that was just in one year. Google is also taking advantage of the lower tax rates. It has leverage with large organisations and can employ other commercial anti-competitive practices to the disadvantage of British companies. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point; it is very relevant.
I want to come on to the extension of Google into the mobile market. There is speculation that Google may seek to acquire, or seek preferential contracts with, 3G networks specifically to harness advantageous proprietary Google technology into that network, which again would be to the disadvantage of other companies.
Although I am aware that competition law is predominantly dealt with on a European level, what legislative and non-legislative efforts do this Government intend to take to address the imbalance and protect cutting-edge British companies, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned? I am sure that in his constituency he has IT companies like Reach Global that need our help. What action are the Government planning to take to ensure that a competitive yet innovative market exists in the UK online industry, for the benefit of companies, customers and the economy?
At a time when other markets are struggling, the online digital economy is growing and innovating. We must ensure that it remains open to fostering as many innovative competitors as possible and that British companies and British interests are not compromised.
A recent study by the Boston Consulting Group found that the internet contributed an estimated £100 billion to the UK economy in 2009. To put the figure into perspective, it contributed more than construction, transport or utilities. To achieve its full potential, smaller businesses need to be given the opportunity to grow. The Government need to ensure that we create the right conditions for new economic activity to flourish.
In conclusion, it is in the interests of customers, business and securing the recovery of the UK economy that this issue be dealt with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on securing this debate. Initially, we were scratching our heads when the title was first put in front of us. In a sense, though, the debate is very much about Google and its dominant position in search.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on securing this important debate. Although I recognise his concerns, he has opened up a wider issue, which involves competition, innovation and the internet. I hope that the Minister will address the issue of his Department’s responsibilities for securing competition on the internet to ensure that the UK can play a leading part in the innovation and economic benefits that will follow.
Mr Vaizey
I will certainly try to do that. If I do not, I hope that the hon. Lady will intervene again to get me back on the straight and narrow. Essentially, the hon. Gentleman was talking about his concerns, and those of some of his constituents, who appear to be running very interesting, go-ahead, high-tech companies—exactly the kind of companies that we want to encourage in this country. There are concerns that the growth and potential of such companies are being stifled by the alleged dominance of Google. Let me give an illustration of how pervasive Google is—“dominance” is a word that is pregnant with other meanings, so I will use “pervasive”. The hon. Gentleman has cited the Boston Consulting Group report, which pointed out the value of the e-commerce market in the UK. My understanding is that that report was commissioned by Google, which just goes to show that almost everywhere we turn, there is a debate about Google.
This is the second time in this Chamber that we have had a debate in which the focus has been on Google. The previous debate was about the breach of privacy that was carried out by street cars that Google put on the road to create Google Street View. Many hon. Members raised concerns about not only that specific breach but privacy on the internet. It is my responsibility, within Government, to try to shape internet policy, so I will try to address some of the issues that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) raised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the Minister aware that a great many people with tremendous talent in my constituency have had to leave Northern Ireland to get jobs elsewhere? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that that ability and experience can be utilised to its full potential here in the United Kingdom? What does he intend to do to encourage and foster business?
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. This is a very short debate and I ask that interventions are kept brief.
Mr Vaizey
I am grateful to you, Mrs Main, and for the intervention.
What is the current position regarding search engines? It is absolutely true that the foremost popular internet search engines in this country are based in America. The top two have more than 90% of the market, and that situation is replicated pretty much across the globe, as evidenced by Google’s global market share of around 85%. On one level, the internet search engine market obviously operates in a free market environment, and in the UK there are no barriers to a consumer’s ability to switch to a preferred search engine or to stay loyal to the one of their choice. Many search engines, including the most popular, have local versions that search only UK websites.
Graham Jones
Will the Minister comment on the bundling of browsers? Apple’s Safari has a direct link with Google, in that the Google search is in the taskbar, and Microsoft’s browser has its own Bing search engine. Will the Minister admit that such bundling practice is anti-competitive and does not create an open and level playing field with fair competition?
Mr Vaizey
It is open to the consumer to choose the product that best suits them, but it is also open to individual companies to partner with whichever companies they choose. Consumers want a service that offers good performance and enables them to find what they want quickly and easily. Google has entered a market and gained market share by giving consumers what they want.
The hon. Gentleman is obviously not speaking in a vacuum, and he referred in his speech to the investigation that is being undertaken into Google. All businesses operating in Europe have to comply with competition law, and the EU is carrying out an anti-trust probe into the alleged abuses by Google. He has mentioned the case of Foundem, which was one of the companies that took a complaint to Europe to secure the probe. It cited allegations of manipulation of its search results, particularly the unfavourable treatment of its unpaid and sponsored results, and the preferential placement of Google’s own services. The probe clearly demonstrates that regulators are alive to the possibility of dominant market players abusing their positions.
The hon. Gentleman also made the point that a number of companies in the UK—not least in his constituency—have concerns about Google’s alleged dominance. It is perfectly open to those companies to ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate, and I understand that OFT considered the Google case in 2009 and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that UK consumers had suffered as a consequence of Google’s market share. In his evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, John Fingleton, the director general of fair trading said:
“Where a company has achieved that position by superior innovation, foresight and better targeting of customers, we’re very wary of intervening…We see a lot of customers benefit from what’s happening in this marketplace from very high innovation—it’s good for the British economy. We don’t want to send a negative signal about that.”
We must keep in mind that there are, according to one source, 177 UK search engines servicing the UK market, including not only the organisation that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, Reach Global, but companies such as Mojeek, which is based in East Sussex and offers a
“crawler based search engine providing unbiased, fast and relevant search results combined with a clean user interface and user privacy conscious approach.”
It is important to say that where allegations of abuse are made, it is open to individual companies to approach the Office of Fair Trading. We have a robust competition regime in this country and in Europe, and where there is evidence of abuse, it is perfectly possible for the relevant competition authorities to investigate it.
We are debating Google, but we could be debating equally interesting issues involving individual companies on or engaged in the internet. For example, many people who use the internet do all their transactions or engagements via Facebook. The hon. Member for Hyndburn has mentioned Safari’s tie-up with Google, but again, if one has an iPhone or iPad, much of one’s engagement with the internet works through applications vetted and sold by Apple. We are, to a certain extent, coming to a point in the development of the internet where consumers may choose to stay with one or two trusted sites or companies, be it Apple, Facebook, Google or a particular internet service provider, as well as using the open internet where people search and find information.
It is also worth making the point that many ISPs in this country are British-based. One can access the internet through BT or Virgin Media. When raising concerns about the dominance of Google, we should also celebrate the fact that a British company such as BT, which is at the heart of our tech industry, is a global company with a presence in 170 nations around the world.
On general internet policy, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central was probably inviting me to talk a bit about net neutrality, among many other things that take my interest. I am conducting a number of round tables and much policy development work on a host of different issues. The first is illegal piracy and the unauthorised downloading of music and film. I am seeking to implement the Digital Economy Act 2010, which will obviously affect the development of the internet. There is also the protection of children from inappropriate content. Again, I am seeking a self-regulatory solution from ISPs in order to give consumers the opportunity to choose to protect their children from inappropriate content.
Another issue on which I have spoken and which has produced an interesting debate is net neutrality, on which I will briefly set out the Government’s position. The term “net neutrality” is difficult, because it means different things to different people. Interestingly, my speech on the subject was called, “The open internet”, but it was interpreted in entirely the opposite way. Let me be clear that we are absolutely committed to an open internet. That is relevant to the constituents of the hon. Member for Hyndburn, because we want small, high-tech and internet companies to have an opportunity to reach consumers without being unfairly discriminated against.
The internet has developed at a huge pace and in directions that were impossible to predict, so we are wary about introducing legislation that would dictate how it might evolve. In my opinion, the internet has done very well without over-regulation, and I want such innovation to continue. Nevertheless, the improved transparency requirements provided by recent revisions of the electronic communications framework, along with a competitive marketplace and the ability to switch easily between providers, should mean that regulation in that area is unnecessary. We want to give the market the opportunity to self-regulate, which is important, but Ofcom will monitor closely how the market develops. If it develops in an anti-competitive way, Ofcom will have the appropriate powers to intervene.
Graham Jones
Does the Minister agree that the examples I quoted about Google’s rise show that that has taken place at others’ cost and that other companies have fallen? What has happened has been to the disadvantage of UK firms in an anti-competitive way.
Mr Vaizey
That is a difficult question to answer. First, Google operates in a competitive environment, where there will be winners and losers. As UK citizens, we may be patriotic enough to have wished that it was a UK search engine that had won that particular battle, but the fact is that it was Google. My second point is that it is an open internet, and it is open to any consumer to use any search engine that they choose. Thirdly, although I am not here as an advocate for Google, it is probably worth pointing out that, as a search engine, Google has provided huge opportunities to UK companies—not just high-tech companies, but retailers and small businesses—who have the opportunity to reach a global audience.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has mentioned the talent and ability of young people in Northern Ireland—I completely concur with his comments—and invited me by implication to talk about how we plan to ensure that our creative industries in this country continue to flourish. In that respect, the hon. Member for Hyndburn and, indeed, his constituents, whose letter I was fortunate enough to see a copy of, are right to point out that high-tech innovation takes place not only within the M25, but all over the country. The north-west and Northern Ireland are two particular areas where there is a lot of expertise and skill. Particularly in the north-west, the development of Salford and MediaCityUK will have a significant impact on the growth of creative industries. The creation of Creative England, with one hub in Manchester, is a source of Government support for the creative industries in general, and I hope that that organisation will have an impact.
In general, we want to create new businesses to try to keep our young talent here. We want to lower the regulatory barriers that have a huge impact on the sector, including employment and environmental laws, and take account of the cumulative impact of existing and potential regulation. We want to look at the international regulatory regime and how it should adapt to the rise of the internet and the challenges and opportunities that it presents.
The constituents of the hon. Member for Hyndburn mentioned the Hargreaves review, which will look at the intellectual property system and consider how it can possibly be reformed to overcome barriers to growth and enable business models to develop that are fitted for the digital age. We want to look at the application of the competition regime and consider how it should be best structured, empowered and guided to deliver a competitive and thriving UK media system. We also want to look at the removal of blockages in the skills system, which mean the needs of employers in the sector are not fully met.
Graham Jones
On the correspondence that he has received from Reach Global, will he accept my offer to come to Church to have a look at that company? I would appreciate that.
Mr Vaizey
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has asked me twice now, and the second time he did so particularly nicely. It goes without saying that I am delighted, honoured and flattered to be asked to visit that company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and see the work that it is doing, which has impressed him so much.
Those are some of the issues that we are considering under the creative industries growth review. Let me sum up briefly. First, I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about Google. The EU anti-trust investigation reflects the widespread concerns, although Google operates in a competitive market and the Office of Fair Trading investigated the issue about 18 months ago. Secondly, I passionately believe that we need an open internet that is not overly regulated and that allows innovation and competition to develop. Thirdly, we are focused on our creative industries growth review, which we hope will produce a strategy for growth that will help young people in Northern Ireland, in the north-west and in the north-east, and that will help this country’s huge creative advantages.
Holiday Accommodation
(13 years, 9 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
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I want to begin by saying how grateful I am to Mr Speaker for allocating time for this debate, which I will use to address two connected issues that I am sure are important not only to my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey but to a number of other constituencies with similar demographics. The first issue relates to how we provide development land for much-needed affordable homes, particularly in rural areas, while at the same time protecting what remains of our green spaces. The second issue is how we can help to revive the holiday homes industry on the Isle of Sheppey to reinvigorate the local economy, while at the same time bringing the current stock of holiday homes closer in line with actual need.
I want to deal with the latter issue first. There are more than 7,000 holiday homes in my constituency, mainly mobile homes and chalets. Much of that accommodation is of a high standard, although very little of it is currently suitable for occupation all year round. However, some of the accommodation in my constituency, particularly some of the chalets, is of a very poor standard and is simply not fit for use in the 21st century, even for a one or two-week stay.
I am keen to see a revival in the holiday industry on Sheppey. There is much to commend the island as a holiday destination. It is steeped in history, with one of the oldest churches in the country and an abbey that can be traced back to the birth of Christianity. There is also the recently restored Shurland hall. It was built by Sir Thomas Cheyne, and it was where Henry VIII dallied with Anne Boleyn during their ill-fated marriage. In addition, Sheppey has a rich naval heritage and is also the birthplace of British aviation. Furthermore, the island has some fantastic natural habitats, including the Elmley bird sanctuary, which forms part of one of the most important wetlands in the United Kingdom. Sheppey is easy to get to, with good road and rail links, and it is close to London, Canterbury and Dover.
I make no apology for sounding like a travel agent, Mrs Main. I am proud of Sheppey, and I want to encourage more visitors to the island, so that they can share its riches. To cater for those tourists, we need to maintain a stock of good-quality holiday homes. However, the holiday industry in my constituency needs support and flexibility, if it is to act as the catalyst to reinvigorate the economy of Sheppey, particularly on the eastern end of the island, which has experienced a steady decline in fortunes during the past 30 or 40 years. At this point, I declare an interest, because eastern Sheppey is the area where I cut my political teeth, representing its people on both Swale borough council and Kent county council.
The support for the island’s holiday industry must come from local and national Government. Nationally, I hope that the Government will introduce regeneration measures to help the coastal communities on Sheppey, which contain some of the most deprived wards in the country. Locally, we are looking for support from Swale borough council, which until four years ago offered a 50% council tax discount to the owners of second homes or holiday chalets. That discount has dropped to just 10%, and I hope that in time, as the economic climate improves, the 50% discount can be reinstated, because such financial support would encourage chalet owners to upgrade their properties.
In addition to support, holiday park owners also want more flexibility in the length of time that they are allowed to stay open. I know that Swale borough council is actively reviewing whether the current eight-month occupancy period, which has been imposed on many holiday parks, can be extended to 10 months. I commend my colleagues on the council for undertaking that review, because the extra two months of occupation could make a real difference to the viability not only of the holiday parks themselves but of the many local businesses that rely on holidaymakers for their trade.
I am realistic enough to know that the holiday industry on Sheppey will never return to its 1950s heyday, because we live in a different world. People can now have a two-week holiday in Greece or Turkey for the same price as a week in Britain. Even the Isle of Sheppey cannot guarantee that the sun will shine during a British summer. In Sittingbourne and Sheppey, we must recognise that we no longer need 7,000 holiday homes to cater for the number of holidaymakers whom we can expect to attract.
That leads me back to my first issue, which is how we can provide development land for much-needed affordable homes, particularly in rural areas, while at the same time protecting what remains of our green spaces. We can go some way towards answering that question by bringing our holiday-home stock more in line with current needs and allowing some development on the land that is released.
The vast majority of our excess capacity holiday homes are located in rural areas. Subject to local approval, which is vital, some of the poorest-quality chalets could be redeveloped to provide good-quality, affordable, all-year-round accommodation, such as the bungalows found on the Parklands Village development in my own constituency.
The irony is that although the Parklands Village homes were built to full building regulations and energy efficiency standards, the home owners can only live there for 10 months of the year and have to find temporary accommodation for the other two months. As I have said before in the House, such a situation is both perverse and ludicrous. Of course, any proposed development would be subject to normal planning and building regulations, which would include consideration of the highways implications and a requirement to provide the necessary infrastructure to support such development.
The problem is that some local planning authorities are loth to grant planning permission for the development of all-year-round housing on holiday sites, insisting that the land on which parks that close down are located must revert to rural status. A solution would be for the Government to classify as brownfield land redundant, out-of-use holiday home parks.
Five identifiers are used to define brownfield land: previously owned land which is now vacant; land that has vacant buildings; land and buildings that are derelict; other previously developed land or buildings that are currently in use but that have been allocated for development in the adopted plan or that have planning permission for housing; and other previously developed land or buildings, where it is known that there is potential for development.
Holiday home parks might be included in any one of those categories. However, explicitly including holiday park homes as a sixth identifier would leave planning officers with absolutely no room for doubt. Such a policy would not solve the housing problem that we inherited from the previous Government, but it might go some way to providing more affordable homes and perhaps ensure that young people in my constituency can afford to clamber on to the first rung of the housing ladder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on bringing to the Chamber his understandable concerns on two linked issues. I will do my best to give him some comfort on at least part of what he has to say. I am not sure whether this is an interest that I need to declare, but shortly before he was born, I had a holiday on Sheppey. I have been there, and I expect that somebody bought me the T-shirt.
Gordon Henderson
Since I am 63 tomorrow, I suspect that that is not quite true.
Andrew Stunell
I am sure that we both wish that that were the case. I have a recollection of the island and its unique character. I have not had the opportunity to go back, which I am sure will upset my hon. Friend. As he has said, times have moved on and he has painted an eloquent picture of the challenges faced by Swale borough council and locally elected representatives, as well as the challenges that he faces as the Member of Parliament.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate and wish him many happy returns for tomorrow. Important points have been made not only about the importance of affordable housing, but about protecting the green belt. The Minister has mentioned the issue of other authorities. The issue with affordable housing in my area of York is very similar to that faced by my hon. Friend. The real problem is that we are not getting development going, and it is the affordable housing thresholds, which are being imposed through the planning process, that are causing developers not to bring land forward. A 50% affordable housing threshold means that 50% of nothing is nothing. Does the Minister think that reducing the threshold might lead to more affordable housing throughout the country?
Andrew Stunell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will do my best to give him some assurance, but I will come to that in a moment.
I want to start with the wider context. We the Government are certainly committed to a major upswing in housing to meet Britain’s housing needs. I think that it is well understood in the Chamber that the level of household formations is approximately twice that at which new homes are being provided, and that is clearly challenging for us. There is an urgent need for low-cost, affordable homes for sale and for rent. The Government’s comprehensive spending review announced proposals to introduce a social and affordable housing programme and, by tackling the overall, macro-economic situation, the Government are strongly committed to creating an environment in which the private sector can flourish as well. We want greater stability in the housing market and house price rises to be more in line with earnings growth.
We have put in place a number of policies that are explicitly designed to generate that investment. The new homes bonus scheme will be a powerful and simple incentive for local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing growth. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey had to say about the council tax discounts that have been applied on Sheppey. That is not, of course, a direct generator of new investment, but I want to assure him that the level of discount is a matter for the borough council to determine, and that it is not prescribed by this House.
My hon. Friend asked about a number of other things relating to the current management of the holiday home stock on the island. He drew attention to the fact that the borough council is considering whether to change the planning conditions on the requirement of residence from eight to 10 months a year. That is a matter for the planning authority to decide, and it has the flexibility to do that. Again, it is not subject to national rules and restrictions in so doing.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May I add to the various comments made by my hon. Friends? I represent an area of south-west Wales that is heavily dependent on the holiday industry, and I wonder whether we are missing something. Will the Minister comment on the report of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission, which the previous Government, to their credit, put in place? It made the point that other hon. Members have made about the flexibility of planners and how some of them might not be as flexible as they could be—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should be brief, particularly in short debates. I ask the Minister to respond.
Andrew Stunell
Thank you, Mrs Main. I understand the points that are being made and I hope that my hon. Friend will get some comfort when I address the changes to the planning system, which are currently being discussed by the Committee that is considering the Localism Bill.
As I was saying, the borough council has the flexibility to decide what planning conditions it imposes on both existing and projected new developments. Such flexibility already exists in the current planning regime. I will say in a moment how I believe the measures that we have announced in the Localism Bill—should they find favour with the House—will increase the flexibility of local planning authorities to deliver what my hon. Friends, now numbering three in this debate, are really asking for.
We do not consider that holiday caravans are the right way to increase the provision of low-cost housing, and I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was advocating that. We would certainly appreciate any planning authority that took the view that the accommodation as it is at the moment would not be suitable for that use. In deciding whether an area should be developed or redeveloped for housing, any planning authority would want to take into account not just the site itself, but, as my hon. Friend said, issues relating to infrastructure, services, flooding and so on. All such matters should be considered by any planning authority when looking at the suitability of a site. They would have an encouragement via the new homes bonus to do so, which would bring them the equivalent of six times the annual council tax for that property as an un-ring-fenced, upfront payment—as a reward or a bonus for increasing their housing stock.
My hon. Friend said that the current planning frameworks make it difficult for applications on surplus holiday sites to succeed. There is definitely good news available in the planning system that we have set out in the Localism Bill. We are taking away the top-down prescription of what can and cannot be done. It will now be the case that if the Isle of Sheppey, or some part of the Isle of Sheppey, decided that it was appropriate for that community to have its own neighbourhood plan, it would be free to develop such a plan and reach such views as it saw fit about how the development should proceed. Although that would have to be within the constraints of the borough local plan, it would not be constrained by huge, thick volumes of national guidance.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made the point to the House when introducing the Localism Bill that the current planning guidance exceeds in number of words the combined works of Shakespeare. That is clearly a ridiculous amount for any planning authority to take account of and it unduly and unreasonably restricts the capacity of local communities to determine their own fate.
I commend the provision of neighbourhood plans in the Localism Bill as a way forward for the island and for all the different communities in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course they cannot discount the issues of traffic, they must take account of some of the broader strategic issues, and there will still be the national planning framework, which will provide overall guidance in relation to the country as a whole. None the less, local communities will have a far greater capacity to decide what factors are relevant when considering applications and what factors should be discounted. The sixth identifier that my hon. Friend talked about will rapidly become redundant because the neighbourhood plan will have supremacy—if I may use that phraseology. I believe that the changes to the planning process that we are initiating will provide him with the capacity to tell his constituents that the prosperous, regenerated and renewed island that they—and he—want to see can indeed come to pass.
The message that I have delivered for the Isle of Sheppey is, I believe, just as relevant for York, but I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that he will have to have discussions with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. The powers in the Localism Bill will be made available to the Welsh Assembly through provisions in the Bill, and the Assembly may, if it chooses, adopt them and then adapt them to the circumstances in Wales.
I think that I have addressed all the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, but if he feels that I have not, I will be ready to take an intervention. I hope that it is felt that I have given him a helpful answer, which is what was intended.
Gordon Henderson
I thank the Minister for his full response.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mortgage Market (Consumer Protection)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Today the Government have announced a package of measures intended to enhance consumer protection in the mortgage market. These measures will:
transfer the regulation of new and existing second-charge residential mortgages from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to the Financial Services Authority (FSA);
ensure consumer protections are maintained when a mortgage book is sold by a mortgage lender to an unregulated firm; and
extend the current regulation of the sale and rent back market to all providers.
An additional measure relating to a devolved matter—providing an exemption from FSA regulation for registered housing associations in Northern Ireland—is also included in the package.
This package is part of the Government’s wider programme to reform financial regulation, to improve consumer protection and strengthen financial stability. It will simplify the mortgage regulation landscape by making the FSA responsible for all residential mortgages.
The statutory instruments will be published later in 2011. In advance of this, the Government expect the FSA to begin work immediately to implement these measures.
Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments (Report)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
On 22 July 2010, I announced that the Government would establish the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments. This was in line with the Government’s pledge to
“implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure”.
Following the spending review, the Commission was asked to carry out two tasks. The first was to advise on the fair allocation of funds totalling £775 million among all policyholders, with the exception of with-profits annuitants (WPAs) and their estates. We had already announced that there should be no means-testing and that the estates of deceased policyholders should receive payments. The second was to advise on any groups or classes of policyholders that should be paid as a priority with regard to the timing of payments, again with the exception of WPAs and their estates.
The Commission has met with various interested parties, including the Equitable Members Action Group and Equitable Life, as well as receiving representations from a wide range of individual policyholders.
I would like to thank Brian Pomeroy, John Howard and John Tattersall for all their hard work on this issue. They have taken the time and care to find out policyholders’ concerns and have used this knowledge to help form their very useful advice. The work that the Commission has carried out helps bring us a step closer to resolving this issue.
Today, I am publishing the Commission’s advice and depositing a copy in the Library of the House. The Commission has recommended the following for the allocation of funds:
a pro rata allocation of the available funds, in proportion to the size of relative losses suffered. This equates to 22.4% of each policyholder’s relative losses;
a single policyholder view, wherever practicable, offsetting relative gains against relative losses where policyholders have multiple policies; and
a de minimis amount, in the region of £10, beneath which payments should not be made. This reflects the Commission’s view that administering very small payments below this sum would be disproportionate to the administrative costs of making them while being of negligible significance to recipients.
The Commission recommends that the following groups be prioritised for payment, subject to the practical constraints laid out in the Commission’s advice:
the oldest policyholders, as they are least able to wait for payment and are also least likely to be in a position to mitigate the effects of a delay; and
the estates of deceased policyholders and, as far as possible, the estates of those who die, before receiving a payment, in the next three years.
The Government accept the principles recommended by the Commission. Our task now is to work out how best those principles can be applied in practice to groups of policyholders while allowing us to begin making payments as soon as possible.
The Government will publish a detailed scheme design document that includes the practical application and delivery implications of the Commission’s recommendations. I will make this available for parliamentary scrutiny in the spring.
Single Source Pricing Regulations
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
I am today announcing that Lord Currie of Marylebone is to chair an independent review of the regulations used by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) when pricing work to be procured under single source conditions without reference to competition. The existing framework is described by the Government Profit Formula and Associated Arrangements (GPFAA)—the so-called “Yellow Book”—of which MOD is the sole user.
The GPFAA stems from an agreement between HM Treasury and the Confederation of British Industry in 1968. Operational aspects have been reviewed since that time but successive Governments have left the underlying principles in place. Getting single source pricing right is of great significance to all stakeholders, not least taxpayers: MOD typically places annually around 40% by value of work on this basis.
The formula sets out profit rates allowed as addition to costs, as recommended by the Review Board for Government Contracts; my predecessor announced acceptance of the board’s last report to Parliament on 30 March 2010, Official Report, columns 97-98WS. The GPFAA also includes Government accounting conventions setting out what costs are allowed when pricing single source work.
This review implies no criticism of the Review Board for Government Contracts, which is a valued part of the existing framework and whose remit has been to maintain the profit formula and examine only those issues set before it by MOD and industry.
The defence sector has evolved beyond recognition since the inception of the 1968 agreement. At that time, labour constituted over three quarters of costs in the defence sector. Now it is less than one quarter. The Government owned many more of the assets than we do now. Furthermore, the sector is facing an era of consolidation and restructuring. The Government inherited a fiscal situation that makes it more important than ever that industry is incentivised to reduce costs through the use of modern, fit-for-purpose commercial arrangements (including for small and medium-sized enterprises), additionally making UK industry more competitive on the world market. Therefore, I believe the time is right to carry out this review and have asked that an MOD team, working with the CBI, be established to support Lord Currie’s investigation.
Lord Currie will be consulting widely with other stakeholders and will present his initial recommendations to me by July 2011, after which there will be further consultation with stakeholders to agree an implementation plan, at which time I will report back to the House. In parallel, MOD has requested that the Review Board for Government Contracts continue its work to maintain the existing processes through completion of its 2011 annual review of the profit formula, due to conclude in April 2011, and thereafter until the outcome of this review is known and a way forward agreed.
Special Representative to Gibraltar
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I am pleased to announce today the appointment of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) as special representative to Gibraltar for defence.
The strategic defence and security review reaffirmed the importance of the permanent joint operating base in Gibraltar, which provides the armed forces with the ability to deploy force around the world and respond to changing strategic circumstances.
The hon. Lady’s role as special representative will be to work with the Government of Gibraltar, the Ministry of Defence and Commander British Forces Gibraltar on a range of issues connected with the continued presence of the permanent joint operating base.
She will also work closely with the Governor of Gibraltar, whose constitutional responsibilities include defence and internal security and external affairs.
The special representative may also undertake additional defence tasks by agreement with the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Lady has agreed that she will resign as chair of the all-party parliamentary Gibraltar group.
Independent Review of the Science Advisory Council to DEFRA
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I wish to update the House on developments related to the Science Advisory Council (SAC) to DEFRA.
I am pleased to announce a new model for the SAC following the outcome of the review of all arm’s length bodies, and a separate and independent review of the SAC.
The ALB review sought to ensure better co-ordination between science advisory bodies in DEFRA. As part of this, the Department reviewed the role and functions of its 18 scientific and technical advisory bodies. On 14 October 2010 it was announced that the majority of the advisory bodies will become expert committees. They will continue to provide independent advice, but the change will allow for greater co-ordination as the scientific expert committees will work more closely with the Science Advisory Council and DEFRA’S chief scientific adviser.
DEFRA’S Science Advisory Council is to be retained as an NDPB, and will support the CSA in oversight of all relevant DEFRA scientific committees. It will continue to provide independent advice and challenge to the chief scientific adviser and Ministers on the science underpinning a range of DEFRA policies
The independent review of the SAC, led by Professor Charles Godfray and commissioned by DEFRA’S chief scientist, Professor Bob Watson, contained 12 major recommendations. Professor Watson and I are content to accept these recommendations which include:
that the SAC be reconstituted as a leaner body of around six people plus an external chair;
the need to articulate more clearly the role of the SAC and how it adds value to the Department’s use of science and evidence;
the need to provide challenge and scrutiny to other bodies providing science advice to DEFRA.
A new model for the Science Advisory Council will be established in line with the independent review’s recommendations. With these recommendations in mind, new terms of reference and a revised code of practice for members will be raised. The recruitment of new members will commence in February 2011, with the first SAC meeting scheduled for September 2011.
The SAC will support the CSA by independently assuring and challenging the evidence underpinning DEFRA policies and ensuring that the evidence programme meets DEFRA’S needs.
The DEFRA CSA will have oversight of, and offer support to, all DEFRA scientific expert committees, and the new SAC will support the CSA in this role. This approach will ensure that the Department achieves a greater and more co-ordinated level of evidence assurance.
Separately, DEFRA are taking forward plans to replace many of its advisory NDPBs with expert committees. Further announcements will be made in due course.
BBC World Service
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I can inform the House that I have reached agreement with the BBC Trust on the strategic priorities for the BBC World Service for the period 2011-14. We have been engaged in close discussion with the BBC in the period leading up to and following the 2010 spending review (SR10).
As the House is aware, the context for the spending review was the fiscal legacy left by the previous Administration. We agreed total expenditure limits of £253 million/£242 million/£238 million over the first three years of the SR10 period. This represents a 16% cut in real terms. The FCO has provided a settlement that keeps the BBCWS’ proportion of the FCO family’s overall budget at or above its 2007-8 level through to 2013-14.
This settlement required difficult decisions to be made, and we agreed with the BBC that the overall objective was to ensure the World Service should remain an articulate and powerful voice for Britain in the world, and a trusted provider of impartial and independent news.
Under the terms of the broadcasting agreement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the BBC World Service, no foreign language services can be opened or closed without my written authority. As part of the BBC World Service’s strategy, I have therefore approved the BBC Trust’s proposal to close five language services: Albanian, Macedonian, Serbian, Portuguese for Africa and English for the Caribbean. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of my correspondence with Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, confirming this. Some 3.5 million people currently listen to the services that will be closed. The total World Service audience is 180 million.
The BBC World Service have also made strenuous efforts to find efficiency savings and drive down non-editorial costs, and will also be able to make savings from their move to Broadcasting House in 2012.
The BBC World Service asked for funds to help them with the additional contribution necessary for the deficit in the BBC pension funds. In the settlement, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were able to provide them with £13 million per annum to help them with these extra costs. I have also exceptionally agreed that if the additional contributions are less than the £13 million which the World Service have estimated, then the World Service can use the remaining funds for other purposes.
We are also providing an extra £10 million per annum for new services in markets that we and the BBC World Service have identified as priorities. These proposals include TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided to local partners. We have also guaranteed the capital for the move of the World Service to their new offices in West One.
These savings, together with the other changes the BBC World Service have announced today, should enable the World Service to prioritise their efforts away from shrinking markets and platforms (where there are developing local broadcasters, or short-wave audiences are falling) to growing markets.
The BBC World Service has an unparalleled international reputation. This Government are committed to supporting the BBC World Service, and ensuring it continues to retain its global influence and reach in a rapidly changing world.
Intercept as Evidence
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The lawful interception of communications is a vital tool for tackling the threat posed by terrorism and other serious crime. The coalition Government are committed to building on this by seeking to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.
The issues are complex. Because of this a first step has been to review previous analysis, including that in the Privy Council review (Cm 7324) and in “Intercept as Evidence a Report” (Cm 7760). Having done so, the Government are now in a position to set out next steps.
As recognised in the Privy Council review the state has an overriding duty to protect the public, including from threats such as international terrorism and serious organised crime. Bringing prosecutions against and securing convictions of offenders is an important means of doing so. Equally, the effective use of intercept as intelligence already makes a vital contribution to public protection and to national security more widely.
Therefore, the programme of work to be undertaken will focus on assessing the likely balance of advantage, cost and risk of a legally viable model for use of intercept as evidence compared to the present approach. The intention is to provide a report back to Parliament during the summer.
Recent work on intercept as evidence has benefited significantly from the experience of the Advisory Group of Privy Counsellors, comprising the right hon. Sir John Chilcot, the right hon. and noble Lord Archer of Sandwell, my noble Friend, the right hon. Lord Howard of Lympne and the right hon. Sir Alan Beith MP. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the members of the advisory group have, at my request and that of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, agreed to continue to provide assistance and oversight.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Bill [HL]
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have to inform the Committee that in Clause 40 if Amendment 21A is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 21B by virtue of pre-emption.
Amendment 21A
Baroness Maddock
Baroness Maddock
Members of the Committee will recognise that this is a similar amendment to one I moved on an earlier clause but this clause refers to tenants. However, the arguments that I used then apply to the position on this clause.
To refresh the memories of Members of the Committee but without going into huge detail, I am proposing that making regulations in this area should not be dependent on the outcome of the review in Clause 36. We had quite a discussion about how, particularly in the private rented sector and at the bottom of the market, we want to get this moving and do not want it to be held up by anything unnecessarily. That is all I need to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes
I have put my name to Amendment 21B in this group and I will not repeat the speech that I made linked to a similar amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I wholly oppose the noble Baroness’s amendment, in particular because she assumes that regulation is the right way forward. We had a good discussion about that and I hope that the Minister will reaffirm that the Government do not see regulation as an inevitability but something that should be used as a last resort. My amendment has been tabled more to discuss how much debate we should have before we start introducing regulations. It asks for Parliament to approve the review that will be undertaken. That was by way of emphasising that regulation should not be undertaken lightly and should not be seen as a default position in this Bill.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support this amendment. As suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, this subsection may be deleted because the second subsection still leaves it to the judgment of the Secretary of State as to whether regulations are necessary. Clause (1)(b)(i) would be part of those regulations in any circumstances; the Secretary of State would need to be convinced the regulations would increase the energy efficiency of the buildings in question. Any Secretary of State who failed to do that would be perverse.
The remainder of subsection (1), which the amendment is designed to delete, makes it time-specific; it requires the review to have been completed and it requires the Secretary of State to consider how the supply of privately rented accommodation would suffer as a result of the regulations, whether the effect would be neutral or whether the quality would increase, therefore having an effect on the rental market as well.
The Secretary of State needs these powers, irrespective of the report and the timing. Subsection (1) permits the Secretary of State to use them if he or she decides to do so. We are not jumping immediately to regulation as a sledgehammer to crack a rather large nut; however, the constraints on so doing in subsection (1) are unnecessary and I therefore support the amendment.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, I support this amendment. In the past I may have conveyed the impression that all landlords were bad. That is not true and it was not my intention to do so. There are, however, too many landlords who are not very good and some of them go up the Richter scale to very awful. We know that some of them will not be moved by the spirit of this Bill, either to get people’s homes well insulated or to save the planet. We recognise that it is preferable not to be unduly prescriptive when legislation is being introduced, but if we find there are abuses which we could more speedily remedy through regulation, we need not necessarily have that within the agenda of the review committee, worthy though its endeavours may turn out to be.
We know that there are landlords who do not enter into the spirit of even the existing legislation and if they are shown to be as recalcitrant following the new legislation as they have been in the past with the old, then we should move with all reasonable speed. That does not necessarily require us to make their activities the subject of a review procedure, some aspects of which may not be relevant to the problem and may require a more leisurely and rigorous approach to dealing with it.
If there are abuses and there are remedies available to deal with these abuses, it should be incumbent on the Government of the day to move with all desirable speed to address these challenges. Even with the best of endeavours, we are not going to produce an ideal piece of legislation which will inspire the desire to follow on with the good work or inspire fear in the part of the more recalcitrant landlords whom I consider, for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, a minority. Sadly, the nature of their abuses makes them a significant minority in a number of instances when we realise the pain they impose on, very often, vulnerable and disadvantaged families.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I do not underestimate the challenge presented by this legislation in terms of making it effective. We recognise that good people and true subscribe to the broad objectives, but that is somewhat different from action, which they may not always define as being entirely within their interests. As my noble friend Lord O’Neill has identified, there may be some necessity for a degree of regulation. We hope that the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are translated into action so that regulation can be kept to a minimum; we hope that we get a fair wind behind these concepts and that they work well. However, the Secretary of State should certainly have the power to make a regulation and not have to wait unduly for a review report that would cover many dimensions, not just the ones we are particularly concerned about here. Therefore, we are very much in favour of the first amendment but do not see the merits of the second.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, welcome back; it is very nice to see such a full contribution from noble Lords. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions as we move into day four. They have been incredibly valuable. I assure everybody that we are drawing up a list of comments and suggestions, which we take very seriously. We will look at them and if any noble Lords seek clarification, there will be some opportunity for that between Committee and Report. We will make sure that there is an opportunity for discussion. It would be quite nice if we could get through the Green Deal today; this will be our fourth day on it. It looks as though we are moving on quite nicely. It would also be very nice to get through the AV Bill today.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I have noticed that the AV part of the Bill has long since been discussed. It is the other parts that are more difficult.
Lord Marland
I am obviously delaying our finishing the Green Deal Bill by adding some levity to the occasion. I will get on with it.
There are just a couple of points that need clarification after Monday’s debate. I will run through them so that they are on the record. As I said earlier, if people want clarification, let us have it now because I do not want to reopen a debate that we have already had. The definition of “private rented sector” in the Bill covers accommodation provided under an assured agricultural tenancy occupation, which was one of the points raised, or a protected occupancy for the purposes of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. If they are let under an assured or regulated tenancy, this will not cover all cases. I have already agreed to consider whether the definition of “private rented sector” should be extended in the light of these amendments. That is for the subject of agriculture, which was discussed some amendments ago.
On payment holidays—another subject that my noble friend Lady Northover had to tussle with womanfully—Clause 30 enables us to allow the bill payer, who might be the landlord or the tenant, to suspend payments. However, suspension is likely to be available only in very limited circumstances. An example might be tenancy void periods. However, we do not expect tenants to be able to suspend payments, other than in the usual cases. The bill payer may also be able to enter into an arrangement with their energy supplier to reschedule their Green Deal payments.
Finally, on the purpose of the review of the private rented sector, our intention is that a key aim would be to safeguard against unnecessary and burdensome regulation. I hope this deals with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The Government are not set on regulation but on encouraging enterprise and activity. If we have to resort to regulation, it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, probably a failure of government.
I hope that that clarifies the matter. We have debated this subject and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Maddock for saying that we have discussed it already. We have given it a very good airing and I am sure we will have an opportunity to air it yet again. We are always open to discussion.
Lord Teverson
I thank my noble friend for that. I welcome his statement that the suspension of payments will occur in only a very restricted area, although I think that the Minister’s colleague may have taken the question the other way. However, in order for energy company providers to have faith in the scheme, they must know that they are going to be repaid. I understand that, but I like the fact that, in completely exceptional circumstances, there may be an alternative method. However, I welcome the fact that it will be a tight regime.
Lord Marland
The noble Baroness said that she had been put on the spot by a fellow Liberal Democrat Peer, which I do not think has happened too often, so I am very grateful that she should now have clarified these matters. It is very good for the Liberal Democrat Party that its members are now singing from the same hymn sheet. They were only not doing so temporarily—it was a momentary thing. I hope that, on that basis and the fact that we have debated this issue for quite some time, the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Maddock, will withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, as I have not moved my amendment, I cannot possibly withdraw it. I believe that the Minister set out the issues that emerged from our debates on a previous Committee day that he intended to take forward in this chapter of the Bill. However, he omitted to say that we had tried to tease out how the structure of the provisions for the private rented sector fitted with the requirement for tenants to be involved in decisions on whether or not Green Deals could be used. As this chapter is predicated on finance being used by Green Deal or energy company obligations, we discussed whether obligations could be imposed on the landlord beyond that, given the powers that were potentially being enabled via regulations. The Minister did not mention that as a topic to be taken away, but I certainly had a feeling in Monday’s Committee that it was not well articulated and that there seemed to be gaps. If there were gaps, we might want to come back on Report with amendments to make it clear what the extent of those powers were.
Lord Marland
The noble Baroness is right: I think that that debate showed that there are gaps. That is why I prefaced my opening remarks by saying that we have to take away a number of issues—that is the whole point of Committee—and we shall be looking at whether we can improve those gaps, as we are committed to doing. From my point of view, it was an extremely useful and valuable debate, and I assure the Committee that we will be taking those issues away.
Baroness Maddock
I thank the Minister for his comments. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord O’Neill, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for putting his name to my amendment. Between us, over the years we have had quite a lot of experience of the issue that we are dealing with here—that is, the private rented sector. I am not in total disagreement with my noble friend Lady Noakes, in that I am not in favour of unnecessary regulation. However, for those who have been dealing with the bottom end of the rented market for a number of years, there comes a point when you have to try to do something about this problem. That is particularly important when we sometimes pay out a huge amount of housing benefit on these houses. We have to remember that; I really do not see why taxpayers should pay housing benefit for substandard properties.
We are getting to the stage where we need to get to grips with this matter, and I am really pleased that this Government have grasped the nettle on the private rented sector. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that we do not want unnecessary regulation but I am sure that we all want people to live in decent homes. With that proviso, and thanking my noble friend for the point that he made about agricultural tenancies, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 21E. Amendment 21D is a simple amendment for the Minister to consider. By inserting the words “or third party” we recognise that tenants may act together. The “third party” could include an agent acting for a group of tenants. We wish to clarify that that would be covered in the Bill.
In Amendment 21E, we are similarly considering appeals against sanctions. In an earlier instance relating to tenants, we on this side intimated strongly that the overuse of regulations should preclude regulations regarding appeals against sanctions. Just as we feel strongly that tenants should understand exactly what they may or may not do as a result of the Bill, we would wish landlords to understand exactly what they may or may not do if sanctions were to be levied against them. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments proposed to Clause 42. Amendment 21D is not necessary, because I can clarify that a third party—a local residents’ association or similar body, for example—would be able to support tenants and take actions on their behalf, if the tenant so wished. However, I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue; we will consider it in more detail and, if necessary, return to it in secondary legislation.
Amendment 21E would remove the power which enables any new energy efficiency regulations to set out clearly the judicial procedures to be followed when a tenant applies to a court or tribunal for a ruling against a landlord. We believe that this existing requirement is essential to provide clarity in these circumstances, and we can assure the noble Lord that this is normal practice.
Given those explanations and assurances, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
In response to the noble Baroness, I will not move the amendment, but I nevertheless tell her that we are greatly concerned that the legislation does not specify whether it is a court or a tribunal. Although I note her words, these are the sort of instances where—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I am afraid that I must interrupt. If the noble Lord wishes a further response, he must move the amendment. If not, I am afraid that he must be silent.
Lord Grantchester
I beg the Committee’s forgiveness in getting the procedure wrong. I think that I have made the case several times and will pick the issue up later.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I have a question for the Minister on the Scottish section of the Bill. It was put by the Association for the Conservation of Energy that its people in Scotland had been looking at the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, and their feeling was that most of the provisions of this section relating to Scotland were covered by that legislation, perhaps in a more rigorous fashion. Has there been extensive consultation between officials, the Scottish Government and DECC on this issue, and are the Scottish officials on all fours with this? I am not making any point about one institution against another, but the impression conveyed to me was that it seemed that the prevailing Scottish legislation more than covered the area, and perhaps did it in a slightly better way than is suggested in the Bill. I would be interested to hear what the position is.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I appreciate the clear willingness of the noble Baroness to answer quickly. I wish to raise a very similar point, about how this legislation fits in with the existing climate change legislation in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has preceded us on some provisions. Can the noble Baroness give us some information on discussions with Scottish Ministers, and tell us what their response has been? Many of the issues that we have raised in relation to the Green Deal and other issues would apply to these provisions as well. Obviously we would not want to have the same discussions again; but if the noble Baroness can give some outline of the discussions she has had with Scottish Ministers, it would be very helpful.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I was not expecting to be provoked to speak on this amendment or this clause, but I speak in my capacity as former chair of Consumer Focus. It was always a little uncertain where the boundaries between reserved legislation and responsibilities applied in this area. Fuel poverty is a devolved matter, as are most aspects of energy efficiency; but, of course, Ofgem regulation is a reserved matter. I feel that quite a number of the clauses that we are about to consider stray across both areas. I am not necessarily saying that we should hold up proceedings and delay consideration today but, before this Committee finalises its activities, it would be helpful for us—and, I think, for my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament—to have a clearer delineation of which jurisdiction applies to each area of intervention. It has caused some confusion in the past under the previous Government, and we are compounding it here if we leave these clauses precisely as they are at the end of our deliberations.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising this matter, which gives me an opportunity to clarify things. Noble Lords can be reassured that there has been a great deal of discussion about this Bill prior to this stage, and after—as one hopes—the Bill goes through, there will continue to be discussions.
Chapter 3 deals with a policy matter which is indeed devolved to Scotland. It makes provision for Scotland which is equivalent to that made in Chapter 2 on the private rented sector for England and Wales. Similar to Clause 35, Clause 48 lays the foundations for the provisions in the private rented sector by clearly defining what we mean by “domestic” and “non-domestic” private rented properties in Scotland for the purposes of this Bill. The only substantial difference is the use of Scottish legislation to define what we mean by the domestic private rented sector in Scotland.
The domestic private rented sector in Scotland is defined as properties let under a tenancy covered by the landlord’s repairing duty in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. The intention is the same as the provisions for England and Wales. We wish to capture the widest range of private rental properties.
The definition of a non-domestic private rented property is one which is let under a tenancy and is not a dwelling. A dwelling is already defined under the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (Scotland) 2008, so it is logical to use this existing definition for the purposes of this chapter. I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for raising the point on Monday of whether the amendments on Chapter 2 should be extended to Scotland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, notes, as this is largely a devolved matter, it is for Scottish Ministers to consider the amendments and decide whether they would like similar amendments to be made to those provisions which extend to Scotland. Naturally, we will make Scottish Ministers aware of the amendments which this House has been considering, so that they can consider the issues raised and decide whether they wish similar amendments to be applied to the equivalent Scottish provisions in Chapter 3. It does not override existing Scottish legislation, but it gives Scottish Ministers the option to use these powers if they so wish.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s response, but perhaps I may ask for clarification on one point. She said that Scottish Ministers would be consulted about the amendments. I was trying to probe whether Scottish Ministers should be consulted pre-amendment. Have there been discussions about these clauses with Scottish Ministers?
Baroness Northover
Yes, indeed. I had hoped that I had made that clear. There are ongoing discussions and there have been a lot of discussions about the Bill, the amendments, and everything in relation to this issue. The noble Baroness can be reassured that that dialogue is very much ongoing, and we regard it as extremely important.
“Chapter 3ASocial rented housing“Review of energy efficiency in the socially rented housing sector: England and Wales
(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a property is a “socially rented property” if—
(a) it is a low-cost rental accommodation within the meaning of section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing; or(b) the landlord is a body registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996.(2) A socially rented property is referred to in this chapter as an “SR property”.
(3) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the energy efficiency of socially rented properties.
(4) The review mentioned in subsection (3) must, in particular, include—
(a) a comparison of the energy efficiency of SR properties with non-SR properties in England and Wales;(b) a consideration of the extent to which financial assistance is available to landlords of SR properties, for the purposes of taking measures to improve the energy efficiency of their properties;(c) a consideration of the need for action to be taken for the purposes of improving the energy efficiency of SR properties; and(d) a consideration of the possible effects of any action recommended to be taken as a result of the findings from paragraph (c).”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 28B. It is welcome that the Green Deal is available to owner-occupiers. We also welcome the review for private tenants. Our dispute on this issue is that ongoing work to improve the condition and energy efficiency of privately rented homes should not be dependent on the review. In Committee on Monday, we spoke of why it was important to urgently address fuel poverty and energy inefficiency in those homes. My amendments may partly clarify some confusion.
It seemed that on Monday some noble Lords were of the view that social housing was already included, and there was reference to the role of council houses in our discussions. However, 4 per cent of social rented properties suffer from excess cold. Tenants often have little control over their heating bills and have had no insulation or energy-efficient measures. They are often people on low incomes and they risk poor health by underheating their homes, because the cost of adequately heating them is too high. We may be talking about a relatively small number of people, but they are some of the most vulnerable in the country.
There are two reasons why these amendments are important. First, there is the social impact of energy efficiency, which impacts equally on social housing and private rented housing. If we really want to have an impact on our carbon targets—and we will later consider local carbon targets—we need to address the impact of energy-efficiency measures in the social rented sector. That is why we have tabled these amendments. I would be grateful if the Minister could address some areas of concern. Does he have any assessment or rating of the current condition of the social rented sector? If it is to be excluded, I should imagine that there is a reason.
The previous Government introduced the Decent Homes Standard scheme and there was improvement in areas such as replacement boilers but we are aware that there is a lot of work to be done, so we have put forward these two amendments. Amendment 28A would ensure that the socially rented housing sector in England and Wales should also be included under these measures.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in some social housing there is a district heating scheme. I am strongly in favour of decentralised energy but one of the reasons why it has got a bad name in some areas is because of the lack of consumer protection. With district heating it is often difficult for the tenant or, whatever the form of tenure, for the individual flat to control the use of energy. It is therefore important that consumer protection dimensions apply to those kinds of social housing.
There are examples where the schemes have led to a substantial increase in the fuel costs over which the tenants and leaseholders have no control. Among the tenants in particular, and in some cases among the leaseholders because they will be pensioners who bought under the right to buy scheme and have not got a great income, there will effectively be fuel poverty by the normal definition as a result of something over which they have no control—in other words, the level of use of energy within their own premises.
That is an additional dimension to why we need to be clear on social housing and how far social housing is covered by the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this valuable contribution which should be considered carefully. The idea of a new chapter in this Bill for energy efficiency in the social rented sector is a good one but I suggest that it should be inserted elsewhere in the Bill as a new chapter. However, that is by the by.
The intention of Chapters 2 and 3 of the Bill is to provide powers to improve the energy efficiency of private rented properties, should they be required. It is not the intention to intervene in the same way in the social housing market which we believe has made some of the biggest energy efficiency gains in recent years due to the priority that has been given to the investment in social housing stock. For example, the social housing stock is 10 points higher than the private sector, which answers the point of the noble Baroness, so it is already ahead of the curve.
To pick up on some of the concerns of my noble friend Lady Noakes that we should not regulate unnecessarily, if the social housing sector is leading the market, which it is, we should not start imposing regulation on it now but we should review it at a later stage to see whether it is still ahead of the game.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who as always makes a valuable and learned contribution in this area. Decentralisation is a big issue and is a subject for local authorities as well as the housing authorities but I do not think it is a matter for this Green Deal. We should take it into consideration in the overall scheme of things for some interdepartmental progress and I take on board what he said. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. Would he be prepared to assist in the drafting of something that would go in after Clause 2A, as he suggested this is the shortcoming of this amendment? The fact that local authorities and social housing organisations have been in the van of improving their housing stock does not mean that they should be left to take care of themselves. Funding arrangements of an easier kind may well become available. One would have thought that, if we are to continue to encourage them in their good endeavours, it would be desirable to include them in this, and for us to know—if not exactly, then a little better than we do already—the state of the stock and the work that is still to be done. Therefore, a review of energy efficiency would be very helpful. In other parts of the UK, including Scotland for many years, there have been regular housing reviews, which have been extremely helpful in determining the policy of the former Scottish Office and now the devolved Scottish Government. We are able to track over time the changes in the character of the housing stock and the shift in housing standards. Therefore, it would be unfortunate for people in the social rented sector, who tend to have longer-term tenancies than many privately renting tenants. People in the socially rented sector are usually long-term tenants; very often, they have in the past done work for themselves. As they get older they have fewer resources and, in some respects, greater need for energy efficiency and to keep their houses windproof, waterproof and well insulated.
The Government are missing a trick here by rejecting—out of hand, it would appear—the possibility of a review. If they are not rejecting it out of hand, perhaps they would be prepared to table an amendment on Report so that it could be inserted at an appropriate part of the Bill. It would appear that this is not the best part. I imagine that would be one of the arguments that my noble friend will make when she seeks leave to withdraw the amendment. It would be wrong to set aside a sector of the housing market that has been very successful so far in meeting many of the objectives that this legislation seeks to include.
Lord Marland
I will explain the Government’s thinking behind this to the noble Lord. This is a market-driven opportunity. The Government are not trying to be prescriptive. If two people were running a race, which one was winning easily by quite some margin, as the social rented sector is doing, you would train the runner who was not quick enough and encourage him to compete in the race. Here we have the social rented sector, which is by some margin ahead of the scale. It would be wrong to bring in legislation at this point that said, “Sorry, you’re not far enough ahead, despite beating the others. We intend to make sure that you get even further ahead”. The main aim of the Bill is to let the market drive the situation. At some point—the noble Lord is quite right—we will review the progress that the market has made and use any powers that are necessary.
The social rented sector should be congratulated. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, said as much and I totally agree with him. That sector has led by example; we should encourage, not discourage, it. It is not my intention at this point to redraft part of the Bill to be prescriptive about this sector. I take on board that it is a critical area, which continues to make progress. Through this Bill, we will ensure that it does.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and to my noble friend Lord O’Neill. However, I struggle with his analogy of two runners. One is ahead, so we do not help that one. However, we do not have two runners here; we do not have two sectors in competition. To stretch his analogy, we have two teams. In the team that is doing well, there are some who are lagging a long way behind. A trainer would give support to them.
We should congratulate the social housing sector. With a lot of support from the previous Government, it has done extremely well in moving ahead on energy efficiency. However, that is not to say that every single home in the social rented sector is as energy efficient as possible. I recently spoke to a couple who have not had a new boiler for more than 20 years and whose electricity bill for heating last winter was £400. That is shocking. The point is that it is not the kind of house that someone lives in—whether it is privately rented, owner-occupied or socially rented—but the need to have energy-efficiency measures. Housing stock that is 10 points higher in the social rented sector or the private rented sector is quite good but the private rented sector starts from a very low base. Therefore, although it is better, it is not good enough.
Last week the Minister said that he wanted to skip out of the Committee, and he almost had the same effect on me when I heard him say that this was a very good idea. At one point I thought I heard him say that he would look at the issue, although he seems to have moved away from that. If he thinks that there is another way within the Bill—
Lord Marland
Perhaps I may clarify that for the noble Baroness. We intend to look at this matter as part of the review. The whole point is that we have to keep reviewing the whole procedure to see whether it operates properly. I hope that that gives her enough encouragement, particularly as we will be reviewing the progress that this sector, the private rented sector and the non-domestic and domestic sectors make with the Green Deal. If progress is not made, we will of course provide the necessary encouragement. The noble Baroness made a comment about teams and so on. This group is ahead of the curve. We must congratulate it and let it carry on about its business. It has taken the initiative and we do not want to frustrate that by being prescriptive. That is not how this Government will operate amid market-driven forces. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to bring to our attention how important it is that this sector makes progress, and the Government will carry out a review to make sure that it does.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
There are a number of points to pursue on that. The most important point that the Minister made was that he was going to carry out a review. I am not sure which review he is referring to but he said that there would be a review of the private rented sector, this sector and the owner-occupied sector. Therefore, on the basis of there being reviews to look into the matter, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Carbon neutral buildings and developments
(1) The Secretary of State shall make building regulations that require newly built domestic housing to be designed and constructed in such a way as to be carbon neutral.
(2) These regulations will apply either to individual dwellings or to new developments as a whole.
(3) These regulations shall come into force during 2016.
(4) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall, by order made by statutory instrument, prescribe the date on which building regulations will come into force that require commercial buildings or commercial developments as a whole to be carbon neutral.
(5) The definition of the term carbon neutral shall be determined by the Secretary of State following consultation with the construction industry, the Climate Change Committee, environmental groups, energy companies and other experts and interested parties.”
Lord Teverson
I was glad to note in that last exchange that the Minister had moved far more towards the Opposition than the Liberal Democrats, as happened earlier in Committee.
We now move on to Chapter 4, which is headed “Reducing Carbon Emissions and Home-Heating Costs”. It seems to me that we have moved on psychologically from the paramount area—as the Government have recognised—of trying to retrofit and bring up to a reasonable standard of energy efficiency the existing building stock. Having moved on through the Bill from that stage, we now have an opportunity to look to the future, and I hope that this amendment will be particularly useful and helpful to the Government.
We have to make sure that in 25 years’ time we do not have to go through another Green Deal process with all the houses that we are currently building which will not be up to the standard that we require in the future. Instead, it would be much better to build these houses now to the right standards of energy efficiency and carbon emission levels. The Minister has perhaps recognised that in the area of energy and climate change there is a great deal of agreement among reasonable people and political parties. One area on which I certainly congratulated the previous Government was that they put a marker in the ground saying that by 2016 building regulations should effectively lead to carbon-neutral domestic dwellings. I do not think they said anything further regarding industrial buildings but that was what they said in respect of domestic dwellings. I tried to find out about it before the Committee, but my understanding is that Ministers in the present Government have endorsed that and have said that that will be the case.
We know that one important thing for industry and for people who have to build these Houses and ensure that regulations have been met is to have a degree of certainty in the market. We have heard how red tape and bureaucracy can be negative in legislation, but politicians and legislation should be able to give certainty to industry and the people who have to deliver policies, in a positive way. One of the best and most effective ways of doing that—the way in which we show true intent—is to put something in the Bill. Once we do that, that certainty of provision—the certainty that the Government mean that to happen—increases so that actions can take place, the target is met and the effect is achieved. In this case, it is not just for 2016 but for all the years ahead, when we are trying within this economy to reduce our carbon emissions and fuel poverty, so that they are history as well.
I tabled the amendment because it gives the Government an opportunity to confirm that target and to ensure that business, industry and the other various actors in producing these homes can make full plans for these measures so they can be delivered. The domestic sector is not the only sector. In fact, something that we truly welcome from the Government in terms of the Green Deal is that it includes a commercial aspect, which we have not discussed or debated much to date. The industrial sector is more difficult, so I have given the Government discretion to set a date, but it is important that the Secretary of State should set a date at some time.
Another area that I have emphasised or been careful about in my amendment is to avoid being overprescriptive. I hope that I have achieved that in two ways. It is not necessarily sensible for individual dwellings to be carbon neutral themselves, because the technology for renewables and low-carbon technologies are for groups of dwellings. They focus on ways in which a development as a whole can be carbon neutral in its broadest aspect, rather than an individual house, which is probably too big an ask, even for those who really want perfection in this area. There might be a renewable energy part of an overall housing development, which might be the travel plan that goes with it; there might be a district heating system or ground-sourced heat pumps put in across the whole estate that allow the larger unit to be carbon neutral, rather than the individual dwelling. That should be even truer of the commercial developments.
Another part of this amendment gives the discretion to the Secretary of State to define what carbon neutral means, because that definition is clearly something that we could debate for ever. At the end of the day, after proper consultation, it should be left to the Secretary of State to make that definition—one that is practical and will never be fudged.
The amendment introduces an aspiration for certainty by putting it into the Bill, which would ensure that we achieve it. I beg to move.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I support this amendment, which I realise is probing. One of the major reasons why we have an inadequate housing stock in the United Kingdom is that the incoming Government of 1951, charged with the ambition of building 300,000 houses, sought to achieve that by reducing housing standards. That was the way in which Harold Macmillan, as Housing Minister, achieved his obligation. It is as a result of that we have so many substandard houses in comparison with our European counterparts. In that fantastic period in the 1950s and early 1960s, when hundreds of thousands of houses were built every year, properties were more often than not built to standards which were less than desirable in terms of what could have been achieved. They were not bad but they could have been a lot better, and if they had been we probably would not have half of the problems we have today. It is useful, however, to give the Government an opportunity to make quite clear that they are signed up and prepared to take the appropriate steps to achieve the 2016 target.
The kind of pragmatic and flexible approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in respect of different forms of heating and the combination of different forms of accommodation, is an appropriate way in. We do not want to be overprescriptive, but there are areas where we have to be prescriptive—not only prescriptive but prescriptive in a fairly tight, legalistic way. These regulations tend to be a mixture of the consultative processes which are implicit in secondary legislation. They can afford that degree of flexibility.
As in this decade we address the challenges of climate change and the environment, in some respects we are parallel to the post-war reconstruction challenges which were being addressed in the 1950s. I would like to think that this Conservative-led Government will not make the kind of mistakes made by the Churchill Administration, under the responsibility of Harold Macmillan as Housing Minister, in the early 1950s. I would like to think the Government could clearly and explicitly embrace the desirable environmental objectives set out by the previous Government and which appear to be supported by the Liberal part of this coalition.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I have listened to this debate with some sense of nostalgia. From 1961 to 1963 I was chairman of the housing committee for Hornsey Borough Council, later to become the London Borough of Haringey. This was a period even later than that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and my clear recollection is of the overwhelming pressure to build more houses and flats. To digress for a second, we had the problem of a large number of tenants who were sitting in houses which were badly needed for social housing. I think I was the first housing chairman to propose we should offer them a sum and a mortgage to move elsewhere, within 10 miles of the borough, to get some vacancies, clear some slums and build more houses. To imagine that at that stage we should have been building more energy-efficient—and therefore fewer—houses is unrealistic. It is easy to be wise after the event. Others may have longer memories than I do, but having been a housing chairman at that time, I know that was the overwhelming pressure.
I turn to the amendment. Of course one must broadly support the intention but, even with the caveats that my noble friend Lord Teverson has included in his amendment, it verges on the unrealistic. Indeed, recent research by one of our leading professional bodies, Knight Frank, has said that to make sure that all the new houses being built by 2016 are carbon neutral is, in its words, “looking increasingly unrealistic”. I have some hesitation about writing this into legislation when extremely well informed people are saying from the outset that, however good the intention, it looks increasingly unrealistic.
Next, there is the question of cost. I am told that to build a carbon-neutral domestic dwelling now—it may well be that the differential will narrow in the years ahead—will add £30,000 to £40,000 on to every unit produced. If housing budgets are constrained, as they inevitably are in our situation at the moment, that means that there will be fewer houses, because with any sum of money fewer houses will be able to be built. In those circumstances, that too might be an undesirable consequence of trying to pursue and put into the Bill an unrealistic environmental objective.
My third anxiety about my noble friend’s new clause lies in subsection (5). He has said that it is an advantage that he is not being prescriptive but leaving the determination of what is a carbon-neutral construction to the Secretary of State, following consultation. I am told that the question of what is a zero-carbon house is highly technical and that there is as yet no agreement between the various bodies involved. I suspect that this includes the Minister’s department and CLG, the other housing department. A conclusion has not yet been reached on this. The question of indoor air quality is also poorly understood, and it is essential on all these issues that time is allowed to ensure that we have sensible definitions if we are going to pursue these objectives.
To have an undeliverable target and a completely uncertain definition of what you are trying to achieve is not appropriate for inclusion in legislation. As my noble friend indicated, what he is trying to get is in the Bill, but it is not very sensible to put it in a Bill when there is such a high degree of uncertainty about it. It may be possible, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, to frame something that really is an aspiration and something to be aimed for, but without putting in firm dates or such firm details as saying that it has to be zero carbon.
I understand that this is desirable and that over the years ahead more and more carbon-neutral buildings will have to be built; that is part of the process of fighting climate change, to which we are all firmly committed. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, though, that I hesitate to accept my noble friend’s suggestion that this new clause should be included in the Bill.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
May I ask the noble Lord about a simple point? Britain is not the only country that is building houses, or has been building houses since the 1950s. One of the great sadnesses and shames of being British is that when one travels, particularly in northern Europe, one sees houses of a far higher standard that were built in the days when Haringey Council could not afford to build decent houses, because of the scale of the challenge. It seems that in these other countries, such work was done without undue economic penalty. It seems even now that those countries are meeting that challenge with a great deal more alacrity and success than we are. In Finnish and Scandinavian houses generally, where conditions are more extreme, the quality of housing is vastly superior.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I yield to the noble Lord and any others, such as my noble friend Lord Deben. I am not as familiar as they are with the quality of the houses in Scandinavia. All I would point out is that winters in the Scandinavian countries and in many parts of northern Europe tend to be very much harsher than they have been over the decades and centuries in the United Kingdom. We get the benefit of the Gulf Stream, and so on. Last winter and the winter before were widely seen as exceptions to the trend. If you are not facing the same pressures from the climate as those faced by other countries which regularly have much harsher winters, I can well understand that perhaps we have been a bit slower in adopting the same standards as they have. All I am saying is that I do not think it is a realistic target that all new houses built after 2016 should be carbon neutral. It is certainly not realistic when no one seems able to agree—although they have been trying for quite a long time—what is actually a carbon-neutral house. I sound these notes not because I have any doubt about the bona fides and intention of my noble friend Lord Teverson, but because of the practicality.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, down memory lane, because my first post on the edges of government was as a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. That was in the 1960s. I remember then how we were already beginning to face up, not only to the inadequate nature of the building, but to the very disturbing social consequences of the kind of building that had been carried out. We put a lot of effort into how we might turn some of the old terraced streets in our cities, for example, into attractive urban cottages, with space and the rest, to make communities and not just houses. However, I must not get distracted into nostalgic reminiscence.
I hope that the noble Lord will not be embarrassed by a surfeit of enthusiastic response on this side of the Committee to his proposition. I find myself, not for the first time, very impressed by his analysis and argument, and the vigour with which he pursues his case. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, questioning the issue of what is carbon neutral. This disturbs me profoundly. Here we are, in a situation of profound urgency, yet luxurious seminars are still being held all over the place discussing what is carbon neutral and what is not. When are we going to translate this real urgency that from every objective standard confronts us, into the urgency of action? If I look back at my life, I realise that my youth and formative years were during the Second World War. We were in the battle for survival, to preserve our land, and for humanity. We did not fuss about prescriptive regulations in those days. We did what was necessary to win the war. When are we in Parliament going to wake up to the fact that we are in a war situation? We are in the biggest strategic battle in the history of the human species to save the human species from the consequences of climate change and global warming. It is essential to turn this into specific action, and I cannot think of a more practical or sensible suggestion than to say that building regulations are a very good way in which to turn aspiration into effective action.
I have only one question. With the noble Lord’s persuasiveness and very sound commitment and analysis, does not he feel that 2016 is a bit luxurious? Because of the urgency of the situation, should not we have an earlier date than that?
Lord Deben
First, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we are committed to 2016 in any case. That is what we are going to do—it is what this Government have committed themselves to and what the previous Government proposed. It is one matter that we agree about. I have to declare an interest because I have a financial interest in a business that seeks to build houses of precisely this kind of format now. It is perfectly possible to do. We are building houses that meet the requirements. The issue is that, unless you build enough of them, the price is greater. It is true that if you build them in penny packets when everybody else is building another type of house, it does cost you more. But if you start to build them as part of the general run of things, the result is that you can build them at a price not unadjacent, as Private Eye would say, to the present price for building houses that are not on eco level 6—to use my own shorthand—which is, roughly speaking, what we are looking for. At the moment, a lot of houses are built at eco level 3; we do not build any at less than eco level 4 and we are moving a whole stage up. As the machinery of being able to build those houses comes into operation, you can build more of them.
I very much support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because they underline the reality of what we can do. The noble Lord spoke of what was happening in Scandinavia and Germany, underlining the fact that, once you get the thing moving, you enable people to build to a price that does not make the market significantly more expensive. Most housing is done in units that are prefabricated in various ways; even in brick, many of the parts are prefabricated. They can be prefabricated to either a lower or a higher level; once enough of them are being made, the price begins to be not unadjacent to the price at present. It is perfectly possible to do it and we are committed to it.
I support the amendment because it says three things that are very important. First, it restates the commitment, and that is important because, I fear, a number of people in the construction industry have been speaking to some of my noble friends who do not want to do this. They have not done the work and do not like the fact that they are behind major companies such as Barratt and Taylor Wimpey that have done the work and know they can do it. They tell their shareholders that they do not need to do it because in the end the Government will give way. They are saying that the Government will not stick to 2016 and that they will save the shareholders a lot of money because they will not have spent money on research, and so on. The real way in which to let down the major housebuilders—which I certainly am not—who are trying to do this is to move in any way from the commitment to carbon neutrality at that date. The people who have spent the money in trying to make this work have been constantly dogged by the backsliders in the industry.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Teverson, and also the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I want to bring it home to people that this makes “eco-nomic” sense. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, delights in having arguments, but I agree with him on some of the points that he has made. I remember when I bought my first house, in 1966. It was a little box in Southampton, desperately hard to keep warm. As some of you will remember, there were floor-to-ceiling windows in those days, and we had one of those picture windows, so trying to keep the house warm in winter was quite difficult and the bills were quite high. Then I moved to a newly built flat in Stockholm where the winter temperature was minus 27, and I say to my noble friend Lord Jenkin that to heat that house cost me less than it used to cost to heat this box with the picture window in England. That is when I got the bug about building proper homes.
I am going back to 1969, and we still have not got there. The longer we put this off, the more it costs us as a nation. We have been spending masses of money over recent years on projects to try to bring houses up to a reasonable level of energy efficiency. It is desperate that we stop doing it any longer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, over the years many housebuilders and other builders were very conservative and did not want to go with this, and we have been suffering from it ever since. We really must not listen to the voices of holding back any longer. It makes economic sense to stop going down that road.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. Listening to the informative discussion by noble Lords, I have seen my foxes shot one after the other so I will not detain the Committee for long, except to agree that the industry with which we are concerned here is fundamentally conservative. If we wait until there is any indication from the industry that it is ready for this, we shall wait for ever. The only thing to do is to fix a date.
If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, with whom I so often agree, were to look at the regulations for vehicle emissions imposed by the state of California a number of years ago, he would see that the motor industry cried that this was totally impossible and would destroy the industry. Lo and behold, within a small number of years it was not only meeting the regulations but exceeding them. We have to fix a date and the industry has to work to it.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, I also support this amendment. However, I congratulate the Government on the lead they have taken in this Bill. I also congratulate the opposition Benches because, when they were in government, they gave an unequivocal lead on reducing carbon. It is great from these Benches to observe such common cause across the House. We need that.
I take on board a powerful point that the Minister has already made about having a light touch and not being overly prescriptive because it begs the question: when is legislation necessary? When in a process in a public debate do we need legislation? That question consumes this House on a number of subjects, but on this one it must be something to do with when the public attitudes do not yet match the public good. What we are agreed upon on all the Benches is that it is in the public good to reduce carbon as urgently as possible. Public attitudes, however, are not yet that adamant. Many of us in this House are working very hard in different ways to try to change hearts and minds on this subject. However, in the light of public opinion not changing as fast as the climate itself is changing, we need legislation, which is why I support this amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, not just about contemporary and immediate housing policy, and the necessities that face us with regard to the threat of climate change and improving the carbon content of our housing stock, but about housing policy in history. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and he made an important contribution to our deliberations this afternoon. We are as one with him on the importance of the date and of bringing into line an industry which, in the past in the United Kingdom, has not always been the most innovative and has distinctly conservative—with a small “c”—elements to it. It is important to realise that this Government, like the previous Government and all of us as a whole community, are determined on the issue of carbon content because it is so important in the battle against climate change.
The noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into housing history but he might recall that council housing was introduced by a Labour Government. He might also recall, having cast aspersions on the immediate post-war Government, that there was a fair bit of reconstruction to do, other than to housing, from 1945 to 1951. He might also think with regard to the present housing situation that people have either to buy or rent these houses, so cost is important.
In the basic need of housing, we are rendering many of our fellow citizens vulnerable to a market that is under terrible stress at present. The imminent possible significant interest rate rises cause enormous difficulties for people who have to meet housing costs, which in Britain are so reflective of movements in interest rates. In these circumstances, he might think that those parts of Conservative Party history that have put us in this position may not make us well placed to encourage our community to respond to the necessity of this dimension of housing construction and housing need. For the immediate and foreseeable future—in terms of housebuilding, 2016 is not very far away—people are bound to be constrained by cost and anxiety. The whole of the housing market is bound to be plagued by difficulties of people being unable to afford what they are committed to in terms of houses.
Having said that, I welcome the fact that all contributions to this debate responded to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin; he has played a valuable part in identifying the proper anxieties that the Government should have, such as the fact that they have to weigh up the overall position of what can be afforded and achieved. Regulations require enforcement. Who is going to do that—local authorities, with their huge, abundant resources to train and develop the capacity to carry out this degree of scrutiny and control? In the immediate future, we are not looking at too rosy a picture on that front either. The noble Lord has identified our anxieties and the Committee—I hope that the Minister will take this message and respond to it—is very strong in its commitment to this amendment, which offers a great deal to the Bill. We are pleased to support it.
Lord Marland
My Lords, that was a magnificent debate. I am very interested to have had a history lesson. It is a slight shame that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, provoked political crossfire, because both sides are completely aligned on this. I am delighted to hear about events in 1951 but I am surprised that the noble Lord is of an age where he can remember them—he looks so young. I take his lesson on board. We are all lucky to be able to look in the rearview mirror and complain and criticise, but that is not what we are here to do today; we are moving forward.
I declare my own interest, having been involved in a building project that is going before the planners today—obviously I am not involved any more—for a small carbon-neutral eco-village. I have been working with the Prince of Wales and the Prince of Wales Trust on further housing development in this area, so I am in the vanguard of everyone in this Room and completely in support of them, with perhaps the very mild exception of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who I know supports the spirit of this measure but is more worried about the timetable. I do not need to take messages back to the Government; I am completely in the vanguard and supportive of the attitude of the previous Government and the current Government to this subject.
In the end, though, we must remind ourselves why we are here: to talk about the Green Deal, not about new housing, which is what the amendment deals with. I am delighted to take this matter back to my honourable friend the Housing Minister, who is fully committed to enabling all new homes to be zero carbon from 2016, and non-domestic buildings from 2019. In July last year, my honourable friend made clear the Government’s ambitions for a low-carbon eco-friendly economy, with substantial and cost-effective reductions in carbon emissions forming an essential part of our effort. However, we are debating how we can improve the existing housing stock, not the new housing stock. On that basis, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I have been seriously impressed by the debate. I actually enjoyed the history. I disagree slightly with the Minister: the 1950s are relevant because we are going to have to spend some £60 billion, or whatever it is, refurbishing the whole of the housing stock from that time, but otherwise I take his point. The historical perspective on this subject is a lesson for the future, which is exactly why I have tabled my amendment. A significant amount of the Bill is not about the Green Deal but about other things. The Green Deal, as I said in my opening remarks, is the most important, radical and needed aspect of the Bill and I congratulate the Government on it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
If Amendment 29ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 29ZB because of pre-emption.
Amendment 29ZA
“Proposals for local carbon budgets
(1) For the purposes of ensuring local authorities assist in meeting the United Kingdom’s carbon budgets under section 4(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on proposals for introducing local carbon budgets by December 2011.
(2) These proposals shall—
(a) apply to all carbon authorities, as defined in subsection (4);(b) set for each succeeding period of five years, beginning with the period 2013–18, an amount for the net emissions from each carbon authority area consistent with the overall emissions reductions required to meet UK carbon budgets.(3) The Secretary of State shall subsequently report annually on emissions reductions from carbon authorities as part of the annual progress reports and responses as defined under sections 36 and 37 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(4) For the purposes of this Part—
“carbon authority” means any of the following authorities in England—
(a) a county council;(b) a district council;(c) a London borough council;(d) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority;(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;“UK carbon budget” means a carbon budget set under section 4(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
Lord Judd
My Lords, I think that every member of the Committee regards himself or herself as fortunate in having such a genial Minister handling this subject. I might say that he is genial not only in Committee and private conversation, but in his correspondence. I thank him for not only his letter to me about his concerns, but the very seductive handwritten comment at the end, which is always the mark of a Minister who is on top of the job.
Lord Judd
I will come to that. I genuinely have no doubts about his intellectual and, indeed, moral commitment on these issues. I have talked with him and I know that he feels deeply about this. I therefore hope that he accepts that much of what we are saying in Committee is to support him in the debates which always take place within Whitehall about turning generalised aspirations into effective action.
I remember in the opening deliberations on the Bill at Second Reading that very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Giddens. I am sorry that he has not been able to be with us in Committee, but, given all his experience and qualifications, he left no one in any doubt about how he saw these issues as imperative and needing the highest priority. I am sure that he would not mind me telling the Committee that not long after that speech, I went to a meeting elsewhere in this building to which he had been invited to speak on the subject. He started his remarks—which again were very telling—by saying that his message was so grim and would fill so many people with despondency, because of the urgency of the situation, that he wanted to start his remarks with a joke. He said: “There were two parrots. One said to the other, ‘I’m not feeling very well today’. The other said, ‘I’m sorry. What’s wrong?’. The first parrot said, ‘I think I have a touch of the homo sapiens’. The other said, ‘I wouldn’t worry, it does not last very long’”. That was a very sobering way in which to start his remarks.
My amendment is very much in the context of the discussion that we have just had on the previous amendment. I have heard for too long the repeated and vehement expression of aspirations. This is not a partisan point—it happens right across the Floor. Because of the urgency and the challenge to the survival of the species, we must really start being specific about this. It is no good just having targets and systems; we must have specific arrangements and measures to ensure that things are happening fast and effectively. That is why I have tabled my amendment.
I applaud the amendment proposed by my noble friend that comes after this one, and I fully support it, but I wanted to spell out some of the specifics, as they strike me. The Committee on Climate Change has said very firmly that a step change in action is needed if we are to meet UK climate change commitments. The vast majority of UK emissions—some 80 per cent—result from local activity, how we heat and power our homes and workplaces and how we get around. As well as getting the big national decisions right, reducing local energy use is really critical. Local government is in a strong position to lead and co-ordinate this local action. There is some outstanding work by trailblazing councils working with their communities to roll out strategies that create green jobs, cut fuel poverty and reduce traffic. But, nationwide, not nearly enough is happening. The challenge of climate change is too grave and urgent to be left to just those councils that choose to prioritise action.
The coalition—and I am sorry about this—has scrapped the local government performance framework, including the framework for councils to act on emissions reduction. From what I hear and read, early signs are that the result of this, and of other spending cuts, is the deprioritisation of action, with moves to weaken targets at the very time when they should be strengthened, the mothballing of area-wide strategies and the sacking of climate change officers. That is the reality of what is happening on the front line—the exact opposite of what we have all just been getting passionate about. A nationwide system is clearly needed to support councils and ensure that emissions come down in every local authority area.
I emphasise that I very much support my noble friend in her later amendment, but I should like to draw out the fact that councils that are trying to do the right thing are telling us that making action on climate change a core responsibility helps them to prioritise action alongside other duties at this time of economic pressure and spending cuts. I emphasise, too, that council leaders are calling for the system to be linked to the ambition of the Climate Change Act. Councils that are already delivering on strategies to cut emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020 are demonstrating that acting in line with the Climate Change Act may be ambitious but it is realistic. The aim of what is proposed in this amendment is to ensure a step change in action while empowering local people to decide on the emissions-cutting measures that will best serve their communities. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29ZB and also about the general principle of local carbon budgets, on which we have tabled two other amendments. We have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, will also speak on this issue.
At the start of discussions on this Bill, I suggested by way of an amendment that the Government should seek to quantify the level of carbon reduction they are seeking to achieve with this legislation, either directly or as a by-product of legislation, given that in improving energy efficiency we reduce carbon. The noble Lord, Lord Marland, said that he was in complete agreement on the relevance of the Bill to carbon targets and to the fuel poor. Today we are seeking to build on that agreement and that relevance.
The value and purpose of local carbon targets is quite evident. Local authorities were very keen to take up the previous Government’s pilot schemes which examined how carbon could be reduced by setting targets locally. The success and popularity of these schemes is quite significant. There is fairly widespread support for this approach. The Minister will be aware of the support from his ministerial colleagues, not just from his own department but from other departments as well. The Minister’s noble friend Greg Barker has said:
“It can’t all be done from the centre. We can put in the big infrastructure”,
but,
“fundamentally this is a transition that has to”,
have the active engagement of people locally. He added:
“I’m working now with my officials, having worked very extensively with Friends of the Earth in opposition, on local carbon budgets to try and come up with something that is effective, that is fair and useful, but also doesn’t impose undue burdens on councils”.
The key is the real difference that having local carbon budgets could make.
I am disappointed that since the 2010 spending review we have pulled back and local authorities are no longer required to choose which national indicators they wish to report on. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will still produce local carbon figures, so we are still recognising the relevance of local carbon reduction. This Bill, which already works with local authorities, is an ideal opportunity to bring forward these kinds of measures and work with local authorities and I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to raise this.
This issue has some very key supporters. One of the things said quite rightly by Greg Barker is that we have to find a way that is fair and effective but does not produce undue burdens on local authorities. The attitude of local government to local carbon budgets is one of support; clearly they would not support anything they considered placed undue burdens on them.
The Minister may have seen the letter to Secretary of State Chris Huhne from local authority leaders of all parties—Councillor Barbara Janke, the Liberal Democrat leader of Bristol City Council; Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester City Council which is of course Labour and Councillor Mike Heenan, Conservative leader of Stafford Borough Council. There were pages and pages of local authority leaders of all parties who want to support this. I am sure the other noble Lords received the same letter I did from the leader of the Conservative-controlled West Sussex County Council, Louise Goldsmith, as well as from Barbara Janke and Sir Richard Leese.
These council leaders, players not only in their local authority but in their community, would not be seeking to impose burdens on their local authority if they thought they were ineffective, or that they were too costly or that they would not work. They are proposing them because they know they can do it and they know they can make a difference. The Localism Bill is very interesting but one of its big problems is that local authorities may not have the money to implement some of the things they wish to do. This amendment is an opportunity, in the spirit of localism, to introduce measures to have local targets to meet carbon budgets.
Lord Deben
It is most important that we should consider these three amendments as one because they are seeking to do the same thing. I do not have any pride of ownership for my own amendment, I just want to raise some of the issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has brought forward.
It is right to say that this is a cross-party concern. There is no division between us on this and it is supported by all sorts of places, some of them not wildly likely. I would like to take up the comment of the noble Baroness about the word “resist”. There is another part which happens before that, as all of us who have been Ministers know, and that is when civil servants say, “Better not, Minister”, a phrase I remember very well. This seems to be one of those areas.
My only disagreement with the noble Baroness is this: perfectly rightly, the Government saw the particular way of reporting that we have had before with local authorities having a number of drawbacks and fitting into a pattern which the incoming Government were unhappy about. But because one gets rid of something one is unhappy about does not mean that it is better not to put something in its place, where that seems sensible. Here it is sensible. The first reason for this is because of the Localism Bill. If you get rid, absolutely rightly, of regional government and the rest of it, you are going to ask local authorities to co-operate with each other. They need a framework within which they can co-operate. This is one area where they will have to co-operate. In the borough of Ipswich, for example, much of the urban area of Ipswich is in the Suffolk Coastal district council area. To do the thing properly, local authorities will have to co-operate over the boundaries. Therefore I support this kind of structure which will enable people to start off with the same basis, so they know how they are going to do it.
I shall have the pleasure of chairing the Suffolk-wide green conference which we have every year to promote exactly these things. In an entirely Conservative-controlled local authority, county and district, everyone believes that this is a necessary part of doing what they want to do. Suffolk wants to become the greenest county because it wants to force other people to compete with it, and that seems a good thing. The Minister may have been advised that it is not necessary because this is all voluntary and we will all be doing it happily together. We are not asking for compulsion, we are asking for a framework within which people can use their several and different talents to do this job properly.
All the amendments, certainly mine, show the need to take seriously the fact that we will not meet national carbon budgets unless we meet local carbon budgets. I have spent most of the past 10, 12 or 13 years trying to help big businesses change so that they become much more corporately responsible and concerned about these issues. I have become more and more passionate about the practicalities of doing this rather than the high-flown rhetoric. The more one does it, the more one wants to say, “Can I tell you how you can cut your energy by 13 per cent simply by using some kind of regulator of the voltage? Can I help you to do these things in a simple, basic way?”.
When I looked at the Bill it seemed that the one failing I wanted to correct is that we need to engage local authorities so that they feel that they have a real part in the achievement of the Green Deal. That is why this is so important. It is to get the local authorities to think that the Government have said that if they are going to achieve these things, if they are going to do these things, local authorities are an essential part of it. A lot of the practical nuts and bolts, which is what the Federation of Small Businesses is saying, have got to be put together at the local level by the local authority working with its own community. That is why my amendment refers to working,
“in partnership with local residents, businesses and”—
I hate the word “stakeholders” but it seems to be compulsory—
“stakeholders including schools and hospitals in drawing up and carrying out the strategy”.
The joint strategy referred to specifically in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause draws attention to that co-operative element which the Localism Bill will have and points out that CO2 is not a respecter of county or district boundaries. It is very important to make this part of the way in which we proceed.
Lastly, I have suggested that we should ask the Secretary of State to introduce the local carbon budget scheme to begin at the start of the second national carbon budget period.
I would like to pick up something that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. We do not have a long period of time to decide when it might be convenient for this or that to happen. The timetable before us is dictated by the climate change which we have caused. I will not get back to housing, but if we had known about this at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we would have done things rather better. But we did not. Now we are having to pay the price for what was vastly beneficial for the United Kingdom. We have a bigger responsibility than any other country because we got a bigger profit out of it earlier on. What is happening now is something that we caused—not quite alone, but certainly we were the leaders in what has caused the climate change that we have, because it takes that much time to work through. Therefore we have a huge moral responsibility to put this right.
There is an urgency here. In everything we do we should be asking the Government to sign up to that emergency by putting dates on it. We have had too many pieces of legislation. I remember a White Paper on energy in which the only date was 2050; every other date had been taken out. I think that even the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, will accept that, if you take out every date which the Government are unlikely to live to see, it does not make for a sense of urgency. I am very keen on having things that everybody in this Room will see. Therefore I ask the Minister to take this extremely seriously.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am very happy to follow the noble Lord; I broadly support his amendment, along with the other two. There is a degree of repetition, but that in itself is not a problem. As we were listening to his remarks, I was almost tempted to do an AV Bill-type speech here—but I am not going to. As I think I have said before, those of us who laboured in the Augean stables of Scottish legislation in the past have over the years learnt how to make a rather thin line go quite a distance.
I am interested in something that the noble Lord, to an extent, alluded to in his remarks about the start of the Industrial Revolution. When you have been in the House of Commons for a time, boundary changes become a regular feature of your life as a politician, and quite often you move with the changes. Over the years, as a Member of Parliament, I had dealings with about five different local authorities. I do not want to go through them in great detail, but I had five coal mines in my constituency which fed coal into a power station in a different local authority, and that power station generated 2,400 megawatts of electricity. That is an awful lot of smoke going up the chimney and a fantastic contributor to pollution within Scotland. The coal mines have closed, but the power station is still generating.
Across the River Forth was the petrochemicals complex of Grangemouth, which was in Falkirk local authority; and adjacent to that was Bo’ness and one or two other places where there were petrochemicals and hydrocarbon facilities. Then you had Clackmannanshire, where there was, I think, the biggest bottle-making plant in Britain—again, spewing out industrial waste of all kinds. We also had timber-processing plants near Stirling, and the like. Therefore, in an area of 40 to 50 square miles, you had an incredible amount of pollution. The local authority is trying to keep tabs on this. It does not have a clear and specific obligation to try to reduce the pollution, although it has a kind of moral obligation to do so. However, I think that authorities would be anxious about co-operating on a collective basis to reduce carbon emissions and enhance the energy efficiency of these communities, because very often the pollution moves from one area into another simply with the wind gently pushing it along.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, I, too, support the thrust of the amendments. I completely agree with the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and shall not repeat them. However, I should like to emphasise two points. First, we hear a lot of talk about whether initiatives should be top-down or bottom-up. However, these amendments—especially the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Deben—bring top-down and bottom-up together, and I hope that in that pincer movement we shall begin to change local opinion. Secondly, the north-west is the most renewable energy-rich region in the whole of the United Kingdom. I have before me the local carbon budget of Liverpool City Council and that of the city region. These are very important documents. Indeed, the Prime Minister was recently in Liverpool and on Merseyside with Peel Holdings, the biggest property owner in the region, which is already a partner in setting up a consultation on looking at the tidal barrier for the River Mersey. These are really important initiatives. However, I am concerned that the leader of Liverpool City Council estimates that over the next four years the city will lose about £1 billion of inward investment. That is a serious blow to any community. However, the council is committed to the low-carbon initiative. The leadership of the city and the region need this sort of legislation to protect them from the pressure that will inevitably come when hard decisions need to be made.
We believe, as we have already rehearsed, in the urgency of reducing our carbon emissions. That now needs to be translated into protection for people at the local level who also believe in it but need our legislative support to deliver it.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am going to speak personally here: I welcome the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on this subject and on the previous amendment; he has brought us back to what it is all about—the fundamentals and challenges of climate change.
I am a member of a local authority. In the previous amendment I should have declared my interest as chairman of a regional development property company, although I am not involved in domestic dwellings.
I have a couple of questions. I agree that local authorities are fundamental to making the Green Deal work and helping to deliver our carbon targets nationally. I welcome particularly the various transition town organisations that have sprung up throughout the country, due sometimes to the frustration of the local authorities regarding their lack of performance in this area, and that are trying to move this whole agenda forward.
One of the things that I have learnt from my European experiences is that if institutions do not have the power to change things, you should abolish them rather than invent more of them, which is what tends to happen in Europe. It is a challenge that we have our own carbon budgets at a national level and, even at that level, the levers to make them happen are there and valid, but a number of those are beyond the reach of the UK Government. Car emissions have been mentioned; that is a European single market decision. The way that UK carbon budgets have been set up and brought together means, strangely enough, that in the whole of that carbon area, if we have huge improvements by industry covered by the EU ETS, they are not reflected in the performance of UK plc.
There are other areas, not the least of which is nothing to do with Governments—offshoring. One of the easiest ways for certain local authorities not to meet their carbon budgets would be to rely on the fact that major employers move or cease to exist. I am in favour of these proposals in principle, so I would like to understand what levers local authorities have in order to have a real effect on carbon emissions in their areas. There is a persuasive power, which is important, and a co-ordination power, but I would like to understand from the proposals how it is felt that what I see as a relatively powerless local government—in comparison with the golden days in the 20th century and early this century that we were talking about—fits in with that.
I have a personal plug to make as well about something that I feel is important. An issue for all carbon budgets is that we should look at carbon consumption within an area as well as carbon production. That way you get rid of offshore issues and that sort of thing. We cannot achieve this to that level of sophistication, and I am not asking for it in terms of a local area, but I would like to hear how local authorities can affect those carbon budgets to make this exercise necessary. This is important as local authorities are essential to delivering this package, but we should be careful before putting too many obligations on local authorities to ensure that they are able to deliver what we want them to.
Having said that, I understand that a number of major local authorities are promoting this—I know that Bristol, a Liberal Democrat/Labour authority, is one—so I am sure that the answers are there.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord asked if the promoters could tell him what local authorities could do. I admit I am rather surprised that, as a local councillor himself, he asked the question, because he knows about Bristol. I know that the Minister is anxious to reply, I hope positively. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to the local carbon framework pilots. I can give him the information, although it is easily available, on the work already undertaken by local authorities. Bournemouth, for example, has encouraged microgeneration in the domestic sector and production of energy from waste. There has been retrofitting for homes in Bristol. These pilots undertook a number of programmes to see what levers local authorities have and what practical measures they can take. It is because the outcome of those pilots was successful that not just I but all noble Lords would feel confident in putting these proposals before the Committee.
Lord Teverson
I thank the noble Baroness for that. My comment would then be that that shows how important local authorities are in this area. A number of them are probably significant as a proportion of total carbon within their regions.
Lord Marland
This has been yet another challenging and interesting debate. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has gone for fear of being lynched by the officials behind me. Or perhaps he has gone to speak on the first amendment still being considered on the parliamentary voting systems Bill. We will miss him, of course. I thought that at one point he was probably in the wrong Chamber, but all his views are valuable.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a passionate speech—as you would expect from someone who feels very passionately about this matter. I personally thank him for his kind comments. It is a great shame that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, is not here. He has challenged me to a game of tennis, and my fear is that he is practising in order to try to beat me. That may be his excuse for not being here, but he made a very good speech at Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, comes to this issue with great experience of local authorities, and I am grateful for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on this subject. I should be interested to see the report to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool referred. As he rightly said, the north-west is energy rich. We should be tapping into that, and I am delighted to hear that Liverpool is making strides within the local authority. Every person in this room—not everyone perhaps, but most of us—is looking to drive carbon reduction in every way. We are committed to it. We feel strongly and passionately about it. We want to see it happen, and we want to see it happen urgently. That is the strand of this debate.
Regarding the Green Deal, which is really what we are here to debate, our initial research revolved mainly around how local authorities could buy into this programme. It does two things. First, research shows that local authorities are among the most trusted when it comes to people’s homes. They have become good exponents of the Green Deal. By working closely with some of the building merchants and others, local authorities will be able to sell the Green Deal, because they will be trusted, and can advise on it. A definite incentive will be introduced for local authorities. If at some point the local authorities are not seen to be buying into the Green Deal—which I think is highly unlikely, because there will be great financial benefits for local authorities in this—we must bring in some form of regulation, where possible, within the remit of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, given that we are not the department that is responsible for local authorities. We must encourage a greater take-up. Our initial findings—I think that the right reverend Prelate said as much—are that there is a big take-up from local authorities, they are enthusiastic about the Green Deal and they want to participate vigorously.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify a couple of points. I am sad to say that I am disappointed with his response. The Green Deal is only one part of what is being put forward here with regard to local carbon budgets. The Bill is not just about the Green Deal; it is also about reducing emissions, about energy efficiency and the private rented sector. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister cannot look at this issue more carefully.
With regard to localism, he said that he cannot impose powers on local authorities. However, we are not seeking to impose; localism is also about giving local authorities the powers that they ask for, and in this case there is a very clear cross-party steer from local authorities unanimously seeking these powers.
The Minister also said that he did not feel the amendment was necessary because local authorities are going to buy into the Green Deal. He said—I wrote this down as he said it—that there are great financial benefits for local authorities to buy into the Green Deal. Can he tell me what those financial benefits are, because that may well help local authorities when they are seeking to do something about carbon budgets? I hope that the Minister can take this matter away and think about it. If he does, he will see that there is very strong non-party support for it in the Committee. I think that we would all be happy with any wording as long as there was a report to the Government. However, I urge him to think again and not dismiss this matter out of hand, particularly when his ministerial colleague, Greg Barker, has talked about his discussions with organisations such as Friends of the Earth and said how keen he is to pursue this issue.
Lord Marland
The first point is that these amendments come under the section relating to the Green Deal, apart from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which comes along later. The substantive issue here is the Green Deal, but the other substantive issue is that it is not for us to impose on local authorities what they should and should not do. As I said earlier, it is for us to produce a product that they are incentivised to put into homes and which they encourage other people to put into homes. This is what we are doing with the Green Deal. There are other elements relating to the energy sector, and of course we will encourage local authorities to set themselves achievable carbon reduction targets. However, it is for local authorities to buy into that; at this point, it is not for government to be prescriptive. I know that it is a tradition of the Labour Government to decide what everyone must do, and when and where they must do it. However, that is not the tradition of this Government. We are saying, “Here we are. Here’s an opportunity. Get on and do it”.
Lord Deben
It is not from the Labour Government that this comment comes. This amendment would impose something on a local authority to enable them to do things in common. If we do not do this, different local authorities will not easily be able to do things in a common structure so that they can actually work together. There is a practicality there. Furthermore, it does not impose anything on them to say that they have to produce a carbon budget. If they really want to be difficult, they can always produce a budget that does not mean very much, but then local people will know what they have thought of this. There is a very important localist and democratic position here. I want to know precisely what the Mid-Suffolk District Council thinks about these issues and what its carbon budget is. Happily, I think that I know the council well enough to go round there and bang on their door and say, “I really want this”. But it is a piece of information that the public should have.
I ask the Minister to think again about this being an imposition. It is a request to ensure that local authorities can work together and that the public can know where they are on these matters.
Lord Marland
I am not denying any of this. In an ideal world, that is what we would do, but it is up to the Department for Communities and Local Government, not our department, to ensure that there is a common theme running through this. Of course, we are working very closely with them to ensure standardisation. It is absolutely in our department’s interest, and the Government’s, that local authorities come up with a standardised plan. Of course, we are working within Government to try to achieve that, but it is not for us in this debate to be prescriptive of local government on what it should and should not do. It is for us to carry back the views of noble Lords to other departments, which is what I intend to do, and to make these valuable suggestions. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Do not get me wrong. I repeat what I have said: we are absolutely committed to driving down carbon emissions. It is a very important target for this Government. We have to get the 10 per cent reduction through government—it is a government diktat. That has to be achieved through the local authority and, if the local authority department does not drive it through, local authorities will be exposed in the tables that will be produced about reducing carbon emissions. So there is a mechanism. If local authorities have any sense, of course, they will try to standardise among themselves, but it is not for me today to make commitments. It is for me to take back these suggestions and report them back to the various departments.
I apologise for momentarily suggesting that this was to do with the Green Deal. Of course it is not; it is to do with the Bill as a whole. The noble Baroness was quite right to point that out, and I take back the comments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I would not want the noble Lord to think that we have any doubts about his commitment to reducing carbon and ensuring that this Bill is a success, but I do not think that he has understood the point that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I made about this not being a pressure or a duty on local authorities other than one that they seek for themselves.
The Minister said that there were great financial benefits for local authorities to bind the Green Deal. This will be significant in this debate and further debates, although we are not talking about the Green Deal at the moment. I appreciate that he may not have the information available, but it would help us to see whether there are other ways to achieve this objective for local government.
Lord Marland
I can answer that immediately. If local government is working with two or three suppliers, it may enter into a binding commission-sharing arrangement or something like that. So there could be financial benefits in supply or in being one of the registered assessors or accreditors, when there may be charges on behalf of building merchants, and so on. That is where there are potential financial benefits.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. It has been a privilege for me to propose my amendment in the company of other amendments with so much commitment behind them. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will understand this, but it is very cheering to me to know that we have as our principal spokesperson on our side of the House someone who is not only well up to the job with regard to the detail but also has a passionate commitment to the strategy.
The Minister has a rare opportunity. There is widespread, deep commitment across the political divides in this House. That is a good moment in political history and it is a moment of opportunity. It should not be dissipated. We have heard it evidenced by several contributions from different parts of the Committee that he has the good will and firm commitment of local authorities and also of many key people in industry. This is a very powerful combination, and history will take it ill if we are not to seize this moment of opportunity and move firmly forward.
I was impressed by the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about our own responsibility for the problem that confronts us. We will not get this right simply in terms of what we do ourselves in this country; we will get it right by combined international action. With his experience, I wonder if he would agree that one of the difficulties in generating the necessary positive and dynamic international consensus is the issue of credibility and leadership. An awful lot of people look at us telling them what they must do and say, “Excuse me, who caused the problem?”. They go on to say, “What are you doing about it?”. Therefore it is not just in our own immediate tactical self-interest as a nation; it is crucial in getting the international dynamic right that we are seen to take urgent action, and I am sure the Minister takes that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, also referred to the fact that we could not play our part fully without taking into account what should be done by local authorities. He will recall that in my own remarks I made it plain that some 80 per cent of UK emissions result from local emissions and that therefore the local dimension is crucial.
In asking the Minister to take this debate very seriously, as I am sure he will, I make another point. I was slightly concerned that we might drift into an intellectual structural debate about whether we did things centrally, top-down, or whether we did things bottom-upwards and with voluntary co-operation. Life is not like that. You get dynamic action by getting the balance right between the two. You need leadership and you need opportunity for those people at the local level who have taken the message to take it forward. That is why the points that have been made about having the necessary support and encouragement for them is so important. It is also necessary to give them the opportunity of mechanisms that are put in place which they can seize and which they have to take seriously.
One might not be spelling out the detail, but one is saying that these things are required of you in terms of telling us what you are going to do. We are not telling you exactly what to do but we are expecting you to be taking action in this sort of way. I go back to the war situation: either we are in a battle for humanity or we are not. If we are in such a central battle, we have to look for comparisons with what we did in the Second World War and the rest. I make that point seriously; it is of that degree of significance and gravity.
I would like to thank everyone and I wish the Minister well. It would be wrong to drive him into a corner unnecessarily at this juncture. We are looking at a situation where he comes back at a later stage in our deliberations, having digested and taken very seriously what has been said, and convincingly meets the arguments. I thank all noble Lords, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this is a convenient moment for a short break, as is usual. Perhaps we can reconvene in 10 minutes.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, we move to Chapter 4 of Part 1 and the clauses which encourage the energy industries to do much more in the way of carbon reduction. I do not need to go into the details of the clauses, although someone may want to make a speech on whether the clause should stand part.
Clause 61 applies to the gas industry and concerns the powers of the regulator and the obligations on the companies. In a sense, it replaces what was happening under the CERT programme. Clause 62 does exactly the same thing for the electricity industry. I shall discuss Amendment 29B at the same time because it concerns the same issue as Amendment 29A.
This matter has attracted the attention of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Whereas most of the regulations under these clauses are subject to the affirmative procedure, under subsection (6) in each case certain of the regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. When the Delegated Powers Committee looked at that, it recited the department’s arguments as to why there should be this distinction, the department arguing—I am quoting from paragraph 12 of the report—that the matters are,
“‘less central, more technical’ and ‘essentially administrative’”.
The committee then said that it did not find this argument persuasive. It remains unconvinced, for instance, that the provision enabled by new paragraph (c), which specifies the method for determining the contribution that any action makes towards meeting a target, falls into that category any more than the other paragraphs do. Therefore, it makes a very clear recommendation that these orders, which are the subject of that paragraph, should have the affirmative procedure on their first exercise. My amendments would simply take out subsection (6) from both clauses, because I was not sure how one would be able to table an order or draft an amendment that dealt with the first exercise of the power and not any subsequent one. That defeated my powers of drafting.
I believe that the case that the committee makes is a strong one. As I have said before in these debates, it is usual for Governments to accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because it is the body which the House has set up to look at these matters. I hope that my noble friend will be able to look with favour if not on the amendments then on the purpose that lies behind them and, if necessary, bring forward a government amendment at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Committee and indeed the Minister should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There is no doubt that the Government need to look seriously at the point raised by the Delegated Powers Committee, to which we always accord the respect which it deserves.
I understand the difficulty that the noble Lord has had. I myself could not work out what the amendment should look like. However, if we win the moral argument and the Minister is persuaded to observe the convincing case made by the Delegated Powers Committee, it will be for the Government to produce the necessary expertise in bringing forward the appropriate amendment. I am sure that, if the Minister agrees with us, he will address that point.
Baroness Northover
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments. They relate to the secondary legislation that we will be making under some of the powers that we are proposing and to whether provision made using such powers should be subject to affirmative or negative resolution procedures in the House.
This is not about the majority of the provisions which may be made under this part of the Bill, as most are clearly for the affirmative procedure. It relates to certain specific provision that we might make on more technical aspects, such as the precise qualifying actions or measures which will be eligible for inclusion within the scheme. The Government’s proposal was that issues of this sort should be set out in secondary legislation which is subject to negative procedures. The noble Lord, through his amendment, proposes that this should be affirmative.
I am delighted to say that there is a compromise position, which has the support of the Delegated Powers Committee. In its considered report on the Bill, the committee suggested that it may be appropriate for the first use of these powers to be affirmative, with subsequent uses—in effect, later amendments—being subject to negative procedures. That seems to us an excellent suggestion. It has the virtue of maintaining a very strong degree of parliamentary oversight over the essentials while leaving more flexibility for changes to be made over time. We therefore propose to come back at a later stage with an amendment in line with the Delegated Powers Committee’s suggestion, and on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I can only say that I am extremely grateful. However, before I withdraw the amendment, I want to raise one other brief point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. It is the question of the constant amending of previous legislation. Anyone wanting to look at the current state of the Gas Act 1986 or the Electricity Act 1989—as I am certain the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will have tried to do—will find it an extremely difficult job. There are now commercial legal publishers who will provide what they consider to be the up-to-date version as amended in perhaps four or five different Acts, as we are doing again here. There must come a time when these Acts will have to be consolidated, because it is becoming a matter of very grave difficulty not only for hapless Members of the two Houses of Parliament but for their advisers. Some of them are extremely good and know their way about. They keep their own copies very carefully annotated but most of us do not. There is therefore a case for consolidating these Acts and I hope that that message is taken back. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, in tabling my opposition to Clause 61 standing part of the Bill, I am delighted to see that I am joined by not one or two but three noble Lords from the Official Opposition. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall also speak to Clauses 62 to 67 and Schedule 1 standing part of the Bill. Other noble Lords may wish to speak to those clauses later, but the points that I make on Clause 61 apply with equal force to the remainder of this chapter in this part of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin has already noted, Chapter 4 deals with the energy company obligation, and I should state at the outset that I am not going to be talking about the energy company obligation itself. The issue that I raise with my stand part notifications is whether it is appropriate to legislate for something which has not yet been properly worked out by the Government.
I have mentioned in Committee the use of framework legislation, and I also raised it at Second Reading. The chapters of the Bill that we have already looked at—the Green Deal and the private rented sector provisions—are also very much lacking in detail. Indeed, to almost any of the many detailed questions put to my noble friend, he has tended to default to saying that this will all be dealt with in the later consultation on the regulations which will appear at some stage in the future. Perhaps I may remark that on that basis my noble friend has so far had a remarkably easy ride on this Bill.
As has been pointed out, it is customary with most framework Bills of this nature for advance drafts of related statutory instruments to be made available during the Committee stage of a Bill. This is important, because it allows the House to discover any issues in the way in which the Government intend to use the powers, which could be better dealt with in the Bill, or whether any safeguards are necessary. That is why it is quite normal for the Government to produce drafts of the related statutory instruments for the Committee—particularly in your Lordships’ House, where our obligations as a revising Chamber are more acutely felt than perhaps in the other place. We have not been offered that on any part of the Bill.
The Bill falls into that very small category of Bills which present a serious challenge to Parliament, and in particular to the role of your Lordships’ House as a revising Chamber. Our work is typically detailed and thorough, but it is virtually impossible to be detailed and thorough when dealing with long lists of enabling powers. The Bill is certainly not as bad as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will recall. It is not even as bad as the Public Bodies Bill, which is far from out of the woods in its passage through your Lordships’ House. However, the Bill is similar to both those pieces of legislation.
Let me read from the Sixth Report of 2010-11 of the Constitution Committee on the Public Bodies Bill. After rehearsing the history of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, the report states at paragraph 13:
“The Public Bodies Bill … strikes at the very heart of our constitutional system, being a type of ‘framework’ or ‘enabling’ legislation that drains the lifeblood of legislative amendment and debate across a very broad range of public arrangements. In particular, it hits directly at the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber”.
As I have said, this Bill is not nearly as bad as the Public Bodies Bill, but it is firmly in the same category.
I have singled out Chapter 4 of Part 1, rather than the chapters dealing with the Green Deal or the private rented sector, because Chapter 4 is so unclear and so lacking in detail on how the powers will be used, that it is simply not right to give the Executive the power to draft far-reaching regulations to impose the energy company obligation as they think fit, subject only to the affirmative procedure. That of course admits of no amendment and is a very unsatisfactory procedure for dealing with legislation which requires detailed, line-by-line scrutiny, in the way that we customarily approach things.
The impact assessment in respect of Chapter 4 has several pages of complete waffle. It is perhaps easier to go to the summary impact assessment, and I shall read from page 8. Under “Costs”, it states:
“There are no costs associated with the primary powers”—
the primary powers in Chapter 4 of Part 1—
“however, depending on the level of the ECO there is a potential for significant costs to suppliers in meeting the obligation which ultimately we expect to borne by consumers”.
Under “Benefits”, it is stated:
“There are not direct benefits from the primary powers, however they do enable future policy which has the potential to deliver benefits associated with energy and thermal efficiency measures”.
I note from the summary that there are likely to be significant costs. They are not costs that will be borne by the companies or taxpayers; they are costs which, as is fully anticipated in the impact assessment, will be passed on to customers. Therefore, there could be significant rises in energy bills, but neither customers nor the energy companies or Parliament will have any real influence over their size or incidence.
My contention is that this part of the Bill is simply not ready for passage as primary legislation. I do not challenge the fact that something may well be necessary in due course, but I believe that it would be correct for the Government to decide what to do, to consult on it and then to bring forward primary legislation to implement it, giving both Houses of Parliament—but in particular your Lordships’ House as a revising Chamber—the opportunity to do the job that it does so well. In that way, Parliament could give proper consideration to the practicality and fairness of how this area is to be tackled and its impact on companies and, importantly, on consumers. For these reasons, I do not think that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I want to make a very similar point relating to Clause 61 but also to Chapter 4 as a whole. We raised with the Minister previously the question of the amount of legislation that will need to be resolved through secondary legislation. There are 52 separate items in this Bill that would be dealt with through secondary legislation. I have had difficulty in understanding in detail what the ECO proposals really mean and how they will operate. It is a serious matter when it is difficult for noble Lords to assess the impact of the operation and the amount of money that will be involved for consumers as well as providers, because so little information can be provided in the legislation. It is all to be done by secondary legislation.
It might have helped the issue to be resolved if there had been a purpose clause at the beginning of this chapter, not dissimilar to the one that I proposed at the beginning of the Bill. Such a clause could set out what this chapter is seeking to do and the purpose of the energy company obligations. Without it, it is very difficult to assess the proposals put forward in the different clauses. Therefore, I have some specific questions for the Minister, although he may not be able to answer them, because the answers have not yet been compiled.
The noble Lord will recall that, possibly at Second Reading but certainly in the meetings that he has been generous enough to have with noble Lords prior to and throughout the passage of the Bill, I have raised with him the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has also spoken about—the need to have drafts of statutory instruments before us when we are considering these matters. Seeing the detail of where the Government intend to go would help to inform our discussions; otherwise, they are held in something of a vacuum. I certainly find it difficult to discuss the detail of the clauses.
Perhaps I may raise some specific questions to which the Minister may be able to respond. One question with which I struggle is whether the ECO is effectively and appropriately linked with the Green Deal. Without that link, I am not sure that the ECO can deliver, which is why I mentioned the purpose clause at the beginning. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at times I find the impact assessment difficult to read, and it is probably best not to try reading it during a late-night sitting of this House. The impact assessment states:
“The domestic sector has the potential to play a big role in meeting the UK’s carbon budgets by delivering cost-effective emission reductions. Under Green Deal there is a range of policies aimed at helping households install cost effective energy efficiency measures. However there are a range of market failures (positive externalities) and barriers (e.g. consumer inertia) that are likely to continue to restrict households from undertaking cost-effective abatement measures”.
It goes on to set out the difficulties, saying that,
“it is necessary to gain the powers to intervene to ensure that energy and thermal efficiency programmes are focussed on delivering measures in vulnerable and hard to treat houses”.
Because the purpose of the obligation and how it underpins the Green Deal are not defined, the provisions in the Bill for the energy companies do not state how these measures are intended to be delivered or how those most vulnerable households will be assisted. There is a lack of clarity about how this will work, and I am sure that the Government could do more to assist the Committee in bringing forward some information regarding it.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, I missed the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but I have heard her speak on this subject before. As I said at Second Reading, I am somewhat surprised that we are in broad agreement, although her concerns may not necessarily reach the same conclusions as mine. Nevertheless, we can make common cause in our concerns about this part of the Bill. As has been pointed out, we are affording ourselves the opportunity to pave the way for secondary legislation of an unknown kind. It is highly irresponsible for legislators or the scrutinisers of putative legislation to go down this road. This is not just a matter of partisan bleating; this is a serious constitutional issue.
The last point that my noble friend made, relating to Ofgem, is a serious one. A significant point about the handling of complex markets that are, in effect, oligopolies—not quite monopolies but dominated by big players—is the requirement that we have a credible quasi-judicial market regulator to protect the consumer and, equally important, to sustain competition if that is the road we go down. A shortcoming of the original privatisation processes was that we went from state monopolies to private monopolies. It took a while for the market to kick in. Indeed, it could be argued that we initially went down an overly simplistic route in respect of the competitive market. Certainly, in relation to electricity companies in England and Wales, the market structure was akin to pre-Cavour Italy—a series of city states fighting each other and, as a consequence, leaving themselves open to other invaders. That is what we have at present: five or six major generating companies, of which only two could be regarded as independently British. We live in a global economy and these things happen. However, it is dangerous when too many of the natural resources on which we so depend are in the hands of people who do not necessarily regard our national priorities as their first concern.
However, I do not want to go down that road tonight. All I want to say is that we must be exceedingly careful if we afford Governments of any stripe the right to change quasi-judicial organisations, such as the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, by a process that affords no real opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. We are delivered a statutory instrument that, although it has been the subject of extensive consultation, is the final article that we can accept or reject. If the changes were almost emergency measures but there was a difference of opinion, we could well have to defeat the thing and have another lengthy period of consultation before the Government of the day, regardless of party, got it right. So in terms of some of the powers which we are delivering to government here, if they were to stop and think about it they would not want to assume that kind of responsibility.
As far as the ECO is concerned, there were a number of points. First, there is the manner in which we allow electricity and energy companies to introduce new forms of subsidy by imposing what is, to all intents and purposes, an energy poll tax on the households of this country. There is not a great deal of difference in the imposition of the revenue-raising that takes place in these circumstances. The average charge to households is of the order of £80. We are talking in terms of introducing changes in market structure which have been calculated as being anything between £400 and £800. It is a fairly arbitrary means by which that is going to be imposed over a number of years.
We have to be exceedingly careful, therefore, if we are going to dress up support for the Green Deal, the energy and environmental improvement parts of the Green Deal and the financing of it as something that does not involve the Government or taxation but hits every household in this country, regardless of financial circumstances. If there is any group in this country that is entitled to feel that it is paying more towards this scheme through its electricity bills as a matter of course, it is those who live in hard-to-heat houses and those who are the most vulnerable, either in their health or their financial circumstances. It is to them that we have the first responsibility. That is to say, if we are to have an ECO, its fruits should go to the people who are either the most disadvantaged or the most vulnerable.
It would be helpful for us this evening to get something more than platitudes about market solutions. Markets are not perfect. If they were perfect, we would not need any form of regulation at all. The fact is that they need to be structured and nudged at particular times. What we need in these circumstances is recognition that if we do not have Warm Front or CERT, we still need some form of directed effort towards helping the disadvantaged. At the moment, my understanding is that the disadvantaged, whether they go in for the Green Deal or not, will still have to make their financial contribution through the ECO. It is my contention that they should not be required to pay for something from which they will not get very much, if that is because their local authority, social housing authority or private landlord—which we have discussed at length—is not prepared to enter into this deal in the way that we would like.
As we are giving Government the power to introduce a number of changes by secondary legislation, we are entitled tonight to get reassurances that fairly soon we will see the colour of the Government’s money in the form of some explicit draft statutory instruments. They will obviously be doing the rounds at the moment. It would be foolhardy to suggest that somehow they are going to emerge after Third Reading but before Second Reading in the Commons. They will be in pencil form somewhere, stamped with “Draft”, and it is not unreasonable for us to ask for that this evening.
We do not divide in this Committee and it is not our intention to gum up the works but such constraints do not apply when we get to Third Reading. A number of people will be concerned about this, not just within the ranks of the Cross-Benchers and the Opposition; we know that in both parts of the coalition there are people who have anxieties about this. Therefore we need a lot more assurance, a lot more clarity and a lot more detail than we are being offered here.
Baroness Maddock
The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, is known for not always being terribly polite all the time, and we have seen that today. An important point has been raised here by my noble friend Lady Noakes. This issue has been going on for some time. I have now been in the House of Lords for 13 years, and I remember that when I arrived the first Bill that I debated was on tuition fees—that famous Bill that we were not expecting because it was not in the Labour manifesto, but which nevertheless arrived.
Baroness Maddock
Sorry, that was a mistake—I should not have mentioned it. I remember the Bill coming in, and I remember that when a new Government come in they are keen to get their legislation through. What have we had in this Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and everybody else have agreed that there is a great urgency about what we are doing. So there is always a conflict about making this process in the Houses of Parliament, which goes very slowly, keep up with what you want to do and your ambitions for the nation. This is always a challenge to us, and it is partly what we are facing here. At the same time, there is an issue here.
One thing has changed since I came in 13 years ago. We have the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which gives a whole lot more scrutiny to secondary legislation than it ever did before. I served on that committee for the four years noble Lords can serve before they have to move on, and it was quite fascinating. In the normal course of events, if you are on the Front Bench, you do the primary legislation and you are lucky if you manage to keep abreast of what is going on in secondary legislation. I had done the last Housing Bill and then went on to the committee, where all the secondary legislation was coming through—so I knew what had gone on. We have something that is a little better, and we have used some of the facilities of this House to challenge secondary legislation as we could not before. It is not perfect and, if we were reforming Parliament, I think we would do it better. Nevertheless, it is slightly better than it was before, and we should remember that.
Quite often the previous Government got into this mess, but during the Bill people often tried to bring forward a little more detail. We are not very far into this Parliament, we are all keen for this to happen quickly and the Minister is trying to get to grips with this matter with his department. I appreciate the problems that he has, but most of us would like to see a little more clarification on Report, although his officials may not want that. Given the situation in which we find ourselves, and being realistic about when we will get to Report, that gives the Minister’s department a little time to help us with this issue. It is difficult, and I have heard a certain amount of hypocrisy today from the Opposition. I have been in opposition and I know what this is like. It behoves us all if we think this is important, and if we are all saying to the Minister, “Let’s rush ahead with this”, to give him a little time to come forward with a little more detail as we go through the Bill. I hope he can satisfy us on that today.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am not against relying on statutory instruments to clarify the policy as we go down the line. All Ministers find that it takes time to work out the details, but at this stage we need to put down some markers and to have an idea of the general direction in which the Government are going.
I agree with a lot of what my noble friend Lord O’Neill said on the ECO and fuel poverty. If the Government are effectively putting all their eggs in the fuel poverty basket through the ECO replacing all other forms of intervention, as my noble friend Lady Smith said, however good the scheme which emerges under the ECO is, it will be undermined if the payment for it is on a quasi-poll tax basis. You will take away with one hand what you have given with the other. I urge the Government to think clearly about what they are doing on both sides of that equation.
However, my main point is on Ofgem. I understand that a review of its role is still ongoing. As the Minister will know, there are widely different views, not necessarily on a party basis, on what Ofgem should and should not be doing. Ofgem itself tends to change its mind on what it should be doing. Clause 67 implies that we are taking something away from Ofgem. I should like to know from the Minister whether this is part of the review of Ofgem, which I understand will end in March, when there will be a report. Ofgem is also covered by the Public Bodies Bill, as my noble friend said, and there are uncertainties relating to what will emerge as a regulator in that regard. It is important that the totality of what Ofgem is responsible for is defined before we provide measures which could, piecemeal, carve off bits of Ofgem’s role or add bits to it. Before we finish the Bill, we need to hear the result of that review and what the Government propose in total.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have much sympathy with what has been said about the need to know more about what will be in the orders and regulations made under the Bill. Like others, as my noble friend Lady Maddock has said, I understand the pressures that the Minister is under. He wants to get ahead with this and in the mean time he is consulting on the details of what will go into the regulations. At the same time, he must appreciate that it is quite difficult to debate the Bill—these clauses, including Clause 61, are particularly detailed—without knowing what is in the Government’s mind. I shall pick out only one subsection, subsection (3), which inserts new subsection (5A) in Section 33BC of the Gas Act 1986. The new subsection states:
“If the order makes provision … enabling the Authority to direct a transporter or supplier to meet part of a carbon emissions reduction target by action relating to an individual named in the direction the order may also make provision”.
I do not imagine for one moment that Ofgem will make an order directing the supplier to deal with Mrs Buggins by name. This must mean categories or classes of consumer. Indeed, the purpose of the Bill— which I very much welcomed at Second Reading—is to concentrate this help on the people who are fuel poor or in a similar category. That is what we are trying to do. However, that is left vague in the subsequent new paragraphs. In new paragraph (a), it is stated,
“authorising the Authority to require specified persons to provide it with information for the purpose of enabling it to identify and select individuals who are to be the subject of a direction”.
New paragraph (b) refers to,
“specifying criteria in accordance with which the Authority is to select individuals who are to be the subject of a direction”.
One can see that one is moving into a very complex and obviously very necessary part of the whole procedure.
I compare this with the CERT programme, which, after a short delay, this ECO is intended to replace. The CERT programme dealt with very large categories and applied to 11 million people. There was the ridiculous situation that companies that were supposed to concentrate their efforts on the priority group were not allowed to be told who they were. After a tremendous effort, and through the Pensions Bill, we got a power to make a regulation that allowed the Department for Work and Pensions to specify the names of a very small class of pension credit beneficiaries. I was reminded of that marvellous line from Lucretius—I will not quote the Latin as that is out of order—that the mountains heaved in childbirth and what came out was a little mouse. It was a very small group, a very small part of the 11 million.
What seems to be intended is that Ofgem will be given the criteria and will be able to select the groups to which it may then direct companies to give help and support. I hope I have understood this intention correctly. I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench will recognise that it is very difficult to debate this if one does not have any idea of how that power is going to be used.
Over the several editions of CERT I made the point about not being allowed to identify these groups and having to search the streets to find the people who qualified for the priority group under that legislation. I get the impression that that message has been taken on board and that we are therefore going to have a more specific effort to try to define the group categories. When the Bill refers to,
“an individual named in the direction”,
presumably that means they are going to actually have names and therefore addresses so they will know where to go to give their help.
I suspect the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, is right and that it may be a while before we get to Report. We have to do that on the Floor of the House when it is not occupied with other legislation, but there may be an opportunity for Ministers to give an indication of how the order is to be implemented. This is at the heart of what the energy companies’ obligation is about. They are going to help designated groups of people much more specifically than form part of the priority group under the CERT legislation. It is quite difficult to debate this, however, if we do not know who they will be. I take as an example subsection (3) and it is the same in the following subsection; if we could have had some indication as to who they are that would make the debate more meaningful.
However, going back to my first point, I do understand my noble friend’s problem of having to move ahead with this legislation so as to bring forward the day in which it can become operative, while at the same time negotiating in detail with all the various groups and bodies about how it is going to be implemented. We must lean over a little more to help Members of the House to carry out our duty of scrutiny so that we know what we are talking about.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful for these comments. Obviously I am a new boy and this is my first Bill, so I do not really know what the procedure is; I bow to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who knows more about it than I do, as do many others in this Room. Knowing how you do this should mean that you are a bit careful and recognise what the Government have to do. Here we are, sitting in this Room, while in the Chamber there have been 14 days of Committee. What is that doing? It is preventing the Government bringing forward legislation.
In this legislation, therefore, we are setting out a framework Bill that allows us to add bits of legislation, allows us time to consider carefully what needs to go towards them and, of course, allows us to bring them back to this House, as a revising Chamber, and indeed to the House of Commons for approval through statutory instruments, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, kindly recognised has been normal practice and, I fear, will become normal practice if we have to sit for hours when there is a log-jam in the Chamber. Noble Lords should recognise that government is actually about trying to get things done.
Why are we doing the ECO? The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is right: the answer is that we have a problem with fuel poverty. It has gone up year on year despite CERT, Warm Front, CESP and every other possible and genuinely well intended attempt by the previous Government to reduce fuel poverty. I am not sitting here criticising the endeavours or saying, “You did this or that wrong”, but the fact is that fuel poverty has gone up significantly.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Before the Minister leaves that point, we should put this in its proper context. When energy prices were low, fuel poverty was falling quite dramatically. When energy prices went up, fuel poverty rocketed. There are three reasons for fuel poverty: inadequate houses that are badly insulated, the poverty and disadvantage of the households and the price of energy. The single most critical factor over the past eight years has been the changes in energy prices, which in large measure are beyond the capabilities and the control of individual companies. Indeed, it can be argued that energy prices in Britain are in fact in the lower part of the European basket. If we are going to change the circumstances of fuel poverty, insulating houses is a major consideration, but not the only one.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention because he has just mentioned what I was about to say. There are three criteria. The first is inadequate homes and house insulation, and that is what we are seeking to tackle with the Green Deal in a very strong initiative. That is why it is fundamental that we link the Green Deal and the ECO but that we are sensible and take a measured approach to how we create the ECO, given that CERT and CESP have largely failed in their endeavour.
Secondly, there is the price of energy, which is a separate debate; we will doubtless hit that at various times. This Government are doing everything that we can to deliver energy security. The noble Lord and I would agree that our endeavours to recreate the nuclear industry, which has had no activity for 23 years, and various other endeavours to generate electricity in this country and regenerate our grid system, which has had no investment for many years.
Then, of course, there are the genuine poor. That is what the ECO must be targeted at. Every person in this Room feels desperately concerned about the genuine poor and how we get them out of fuel poverty. As such, we have telegraphed that we will lead a review of fuel poverty to see how we can target them. We are doing several other things in the mean time to eradicate fuel poverty. There are winter fuel discounts and we have come up with the warm home discount; we are now looking for a contribution from energy suppliers to ECO.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly asks, in fine Conservative tradition: who will pay for it? What about value for money? That is at the heart of this Government: who will pay for it and how will people provide for it? It is not as though they are not paying for it at the moment. Energy companies are responsible for delivering CERT and CESP and will be responsible for delivering the ECO. It is up to this Government and future Governments to ensure that there is competitiveness in the market so that companies, in selling their products, try to get a competitive price, which will come largely, we hope, from their profits. Similarly, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reasonably quoted my honourable friend Gregory Barker in the other place. He said that £1 billion would be spent on this. In our analysis that is only an initial figure. You would not expect me to go wider than that in this instance until we have developed this further.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly says that we are reviewing Ofgem. It is right that we are doing so. I will not come to any conclusions on Ofgem yet because the consultation is taking place. It will conclude in March, which is before the autumn, when we start our consultation on the ECO and so will be able to take the findings into account and link them together, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would expect us to do. Because the result of the Ofgem will be available in March, we hope to be able to take it into account in the passage of this Bill.
Noble Lords should be under no illusion. There is a very good document, which we have put in the Library and should explain clearly what we are trying to do in the ECO and every measure in the Green Deal. It is an excellent summary. It must be good because I can understand it. This is to explain what we are doing. Make no mistake: we are not trying to railroad a new policy through.
Baroness Noakes
The Minister referred to an excellent summary that had been placed in the Library. Judging by the looks of incomprehension around me and my own lack of knowledge, this may not be widely available to the Committee. It certainly does not appear to be in the documents that are available to the Committee at the back. I am not sure that it will answer the questions raised by these amendments but I just note that there does not appear to be a wide knowledge of it.
Lord Marland
I fear that the noble Baroness may be in a small minority on this. I have just sent someone to the Library to get the document. It is there and I see my noble friend Lord Teverson has it. When we launched this Bill the document was attached. I do not want to get into semantics but I am happy for the noble Baroness to be provided with a copy now so that she can read it. I agree that my department produces an awful lot of information, which shows its willingness to be transparent. Perhaps the document could be passed to the noble Baroness; I am sorry that it is a photocopy. I have just sent someone to the Library to check that it is there. The noble Baroness seems confused. I hope the document is satisfactory.
Baroness Noakes
I have now seen the document and it gives virtually no information.
Lord Marland
That is a matter of opinion. That is the opinion of the noble Baroness, but I find the document quite informative, as I know many others do. We will disagree on that.
The reality is that we must, in tabling the Green Deal, look at all the ancillary events that come alongside it. We are trying to improve and work towards reducing fuel poverty. That is why we are embarking on, effectively, a review of CERT to make it better. CERT was a very good initiative and endeavour but it did not hit the targets to the extent that was needed. It had several misadventures, including too many light bulbs appearing on people’s doorsteps. Therefore, the ECO will be a development on that theme.
We consider the views of this House very carefully. If we did not, we would not be starting this Bill here, as we have done. We would not be entering into very long debates on every aspect of it before it gets to the House of Commons. We would not be taking away the comments of everyone in this Room to think about in between sessions and when we get to the next stage. I think that is a genuine commitment by this Government to listen, to improve and to get things fit for purpose. I hope this satisfies those people who have raised these points.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has gone some way to answering some of my questions, but not all the way, I regret. I welcome his point about linking the Green Deal and the ECO. If that could be enshrined in what comes before us, it would be helpful and, in the light of our later amendments, it might cover some of those points. His confirmation about roughly the amount of money involved is helpful. However, a number of questions remain. I will read again the document to which he referred and see if it answers them.
I am sorry if the noble Lord feels tetchy about my questions, but the Lords’ scrutiny is important. If I may raise one note of contention, I was most concerned that it would have wider implications when he seemed to threaten the use of more SIs if the Opposition seek to properly scrutinise legislation. The way to have shorter debates, if that is what he is looking for, is to have more detail; that is why I ask the questions. However, his comment gives me cause for concern, and, when we get the Hansard I will re-read what he has said about having more SIs if the Opposition insist on scrutiny.
Lord Marland
I am not concerned about scrutiny. Of course that is what SIs are for—to add on and improve legislation that is already in place. I merely said: do we think that the debate going on in the main Chamber at the moment is reasonable? Do we think things are being properly scrutinised and debated in the right way? Certain parts of the House of Lords do, large parts of it do not, and that is where the matter stands. I have no problem, of course, with proper scrutiny on these things and putting things towards the House. However, in the time available in this Parliament, we will probably not have the opportunity to get many more Energy Bills through that will be able to change various things. Therefore the opportunities available to us are through statutory instruments, and those are what we intend to use.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am not clear which Bill the noble Lord was talking about. The Bill that I am talking about is the Energy Bill before us today. However, in both cases the Opposition are fulfilling their legitimate and proper role in effective scrutiny.
I have a couple more questions. I know that the noble Lord has tried to answer the question, but I will re-read the Green Deal document as it addresses the issues that I have on the ECO. I am merely seeking clarity. I am genuinely not able to work out from the impact assessment, the legislation and the Explanatory Notes exactly how the ECO is going to work. That was the first of my questions. I am disappointed that I did not get answers to all of them, but I am sure that we can return to them. Perhaps the Minister could work with his officials and, before we get to Report stage, if there is more information available on the operation of the ECO, it would be very helpful to have that.
While it would be nice to have the actual statutory instruments before us then, I appreciate the Minister’s position. I have been a Minister. I have taken through legislation with statutory instruments. I have taken through a number of statutory instruments. However, if we were to have some of the information detail prior to that, it would assist this Committee and your Lordships’ House in being able to make a proper judgment. It is impossible to do so on what we have before us. I do not think that there is a person in this Committee who does not want the ECO to do exactly what the Minister wants it to do—address the issues of the fuel poor and the hardest-to-treat properties.
It would be very helpful to have clarification on two particular points. One is the cost to the consumer. That comes back to the idea of the consumer levy. I appreciate that CERT and CESP both included the consumer levy, but there was also Warm Front at that time, which was substantially greater than it is now. Perhaps the Minister can come back to us on that one.
The Minister also said that the energy companies would pay for large amounts of the ECO through their profits. Has he consulted the energy companies on that and what has there response been? If they intend to absorb the cost of the ECO through their profits, that would interest the Committee and the House, unless the energy companies intend to pass on the additional cost as well to their customers.
The final point is the one I made a moment ago about the report from GEMA, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. The Government are still consulting on what to do. That is why I understood it was in the Public Bodies Bill and that it could be moved from Schedule 7 to other schedules. But in this Bill it does seem that a more specific point is being made—I hope the Minister is listening and not just using his mobile phone—and I wonder if it is possible to give us more information on that, though I may be wasting my breath in raising the questions. I am not sure if the Minister is taking note.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I have had the opportunity to read this document and the three paragraphs referring to the ECO. It gives some detail but not a lot. Perhaps before we get to Report stage, if there is a delay and if things do take a long time, the civil servants will have the opportunity to provide us with the information we are asking for. It says that the ECO will be focused on houses needing support over and above the Green Deal. Can he tell us the manner in which this focusing will take place?
Secondly, he said the ECO will be able to combine legal powers to incentivise ECO support and Green Deal finance. Perhaps we could get some indication of how the incentivisation process will be carried out, because it would appear that the Government realistically anticipate in this document that something could go wrong. They are saying that these legal powers would be introduced only following a review of the company’s behaviour, if there was evidence that the households would lose out. We would want to know what losing out meant. If we can get some idea of the focusing process, if we can get some idea of the legal powers and the incentivisation mechanisms, and if we could get some information about how the Government would assess the means whereby companies would lose out, this would meet a number of our concerns, even if it was not in draft statutory instrument form. It would help if there was a slightly more explicit note.
I was rather surprised when the Minister referred to this document because we have all seen it before. It was a nicely produced thing but it was sufficiently insubstantial never to have appeared on the desk with the other papers. If the briefest reading and not a great deal of analysis under closer scrutiny can throw up four points like that, and if this is to be the defence of the Green Deal—the last but final word—then frankly we need rather more than we have at the moment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I thank all noble Lords from all parts of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, I thought the three paragraphs in the document on the energy company obligation clearly did not go any way towards giving the Committee the kind of information that we would customarily expect to see in something like draft statutory instruments. I did note that when the Minister responded, the one thing he did not do was undertake to give the Committee or the House any further information when the Bill returns to the Chamber. I regret that, and I suspect that it may mean that we will return to this issue.
I got the impression that the Minister was linking the time taken in the Chamber on amendments with the time taken on this Committee. I am conscious that we have not achieved the target that the Minister wished to achieve today; nevertheless, I do not think that any of our debates has in any sense been of an unnecessarily excessive length. I believe that we have raised genuine points.
The Minister suggested that the energy company obligation might be met from profits. I remind him that his department’s impact assessment says that,
“there is a potential for significant costs to suppliers in meeting the obligation which ultimately we”—
that is, his department—
“expect to be borne by consumers”.
That is why there are important issues that need to be teased out. What is this obligation? Which people will it affect? How much is it going to cost, and how is it going to flow through the system into consumer prices? There is a real problem that it may not alleviate fuel poverty if it just goes round the houses and comes back in the form of bills. We need all those details.
My main reason for tabling my opposition to the clause concerns parliamentary scrutiny; it is not to challenge any part of the energy company obligation. The Minister said that we have to recognise what the Government have to do. Governance is about trying to get things done, and there is a framework Bill in order to allow the Executive to do what it wants. I am sorry, but the reason why we have legislation is to ensure that there are proper checks and balances against the Executive doing exactly what they want. That is why we have Parliament and, in particular, it is why we have your Lordships’ House, which acts as a revising Chamber. It is not about stopping the Government doing what they want; it is about making sure that there are the right checks and balances in the process. This is what I feel most strongly about in connection with this part of the Bill. We are letting the Executive do what they want but with insufficient scrutiny by either House.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on this debate as we move through this Committee stage and before we reach Report. It is important that your Lordships’ House has further and better particulars as an aid to understanding how Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Bill will be used, and as an aid to your Lordships’ House in determining whether it is content with the formulation of the powers in the Bill or whether other safeguards are needed in the Bill. That is the role of your Lordships’ House and I hope that the Minister will facilitate the House in carrying out its role.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am aware that we were a little critical of my noble friend in the previous debate but there is something in this clause that I believe deserves mention.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Is someone shouting? In Clause 63(4) there is a whole series of paragraphs where the words “carbon emissions reduction obligation” are replaced by “home-heating cost reduction obligation”. These are two different things, of course, but I firmly believe that both the companies and, in particular, their customers will be much more responsive to a mention of home-heating cost reduction rather than carbon emissions reductions. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster we are very used to talking about carbon footprints and carbon reductions, but ordinary householders are looking at how to reduce their bills. I very much approve of this change in the wording. It moves away from what I always thought was a real problem with the CERT, which was that it started and ended by being a carbon reduction. Of course, that is what we want but it does not really appeal to ordinary people. Therefore, I welcome this change in the wording.
Baroness Maddock
“Advice on benefits of new or under-utilised technologies
(1) For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to assess the benefits of new or under-utilised technologies in reducing home heating costs and dealing with fuel poverty, the Secretary of State must request the advice of the bodies specified in subsection (2) on the following technologies—
(a) passive flue gas heat recovery systems (“PFGHR systems”);(b) voltage optimisation technologies;(c) standby down-powering technologies; (d) dynamic demand technologies;(e) district network connection technologies; and(f) such other technologies as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.(2) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) the Energy Saving Trust;(b) the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group.(3) A request for advice made pursuant to subsection (1) may also include a request for advice as to how those technologies can assist in combating climate change.
(4) The Climate Change Committee must within 12 months of the coming into force of this section consider and produce a report on the ways in which the technologies specified in subsection (1) can assist in reducing carbon emissions.
(5) In this section—
“PFGHR systems” means technology that can use the waste heat from condensing boilers in order to heat water;
“voltage optimisation technologies” are technologies that lower the input of voltage to electrical equipment from that at which electricity is currently generated;
“standby down-powering technologies” are methods by which electrical equipment is turned off, or reduced, during periods of non-use;
“dynamic demand” has the same meaning as in the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006;
“district network connection technologies” are technologies that enable consumers to link up lower cost and lower polluting energy generation.”
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, Amendment 30 would introduce a new clause into Chapter 4 of the Bill, which is about reducing carbon emissions and home heating costs. We have heard quite a lot about Greg Barker today, but this clause was actually tabled under the previous Government to be an amendment to the previous Energy Bill—as they have guillotines in the other House and a different way of selecting amendments, it was never discussed—and I know that Greg Barker and Charles Hendry, who both now have ministerial positions, were in support of it.
The amendment explains to people exactly what it is doing, but I thought that it might be helpful if I said a bit about what the different technologies are. Gas savers are devices that can be fitted above a boiler to track the waste heat. They improve the efficiency of the boiler because it builds up a reservoir of hot water so that when consumers turn on the tap, hot water arrives rather sooner. This has been described as “free to users” because you have not wasted the heat—you have used it to heat the water. They also reduce the wastage of water, and warm water arrives sooner at the tap; this gas saver won an award from Waterwise because of that. It heats the cold water going into the boiler, thus meaning that the boiler has to do less work to heat to the required temperature if warm water is going in rather than cold water. In a nutshell, this facility uses the waste heat from boilers to heat water. That is what gas savers are.
At some point today there was mention of the various technologies that allow us to use our power more efficiently. We have heard all sorts of figures about how much electricity we use with things that are left on standby, but currently there are no limits to how much power an appliance can use while it is on standby, and some things have to be on all the time—you tend not to turn them off, so a lot of energy is wasted. In the UK, standby represents about 80 per cent of residential electricity use. The proposal to limit standby power to between 0.5 watts and 2 watts could save 73 per cent of this wasted energy. I will not go through all the figures, but you reach 2 per cent of the total UK energy use if you take on these types of measures. Not only would they mean that we were not using the power but it would be another way of lowering people’s electricity bills.
The same goes for demand response. Another technology, dynamic demand technology, responds to the voltage in the national grid, and that was mentioned earlier today. These devices use electricity at times only at times when it is plentiful. When electricity demand is high, the appliances turn off; they turn back on again only when demand has dropped. Modern technology makes it possible for us to do this in a way that we would never have been able to do years ago. The current cost to the National Grid of dealing with fluctuating levels of demand is about £80 million, because we keep power stations running at part or half power so that they can quickly be turned up to full power when we get extra demand. If you have dynamic demand systems in appliances, that means we would need less of this type of facility, which wastes quite a lot of power. While the technology does not lead to less electricity being used by the consumer, it would help to save because we would not be running power stations at low power.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have a few things to say. The Minister has made comments about things that go on in the Chamber of which he disapproves. Committees finish at 7.45 pm and often at 7.30 pm. I want to know whether the government Front Bench is going to follow the rules or whether it is departing from them.
Lord Davies of Oldham
No, my Lords, I have asked whether the noble Baroness intends to move the adjournment of this Committee. It is 7.45 pm. I have quite a lot to say on this Committee. In fact, I could probably go on for three and a half hours and I assure the Committee that I certainly will unless the Government recognise that rules are rules. To complain about what is going on in the Chamber, which is well within the rules, and to break the rules in Committee is quite unacceptable.
Lord Teverson
I am not going to talk about the other Chamber, but with this Committee on the Energy Bill, if there is some time left, we take the amendment and finish after that amendment. I am amazed at that intervention. It is quite unnecessary. I find it absolutely astounding. I presume that we will do as we have always done, which is to finish debating the amendment then adjourn. I shall join with the noble Lord in doing that, if that is the case.
Lord Marland
We started at 3.45 pm and we have been here for four hours. That is how long I was instructed that we were here for. We are running over by a minute. I do not think that that is unreasonable; no one is trying to frustrate the Committee. I did not intend to stop the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, making her excellent speech. I naturally thought that we would finish the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Well, my Lords, the Minister may assume that we are going to finish the amendment, but we are all entitled to contribute. I would first like to emphasise that we have a great deal of sympathy indeed with the amendment, which has many parts to it that we can see are constructive and advantageous. We note the reference in the Committee to the Energy Saving Trust, a body that is being greatly reduced in its capacity to play any role because of the resources of which it is being starved.
Secondly, my understanding is that the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group is named in the Public Bodies Bill. If the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, were agreed to, presumably that would have implications for the support that she would in due course give to opposition amendments in the Chamber on the Public Bodies Bill that try to protect the very body to which she refers in her amendment. It scarcely makes a great deal of sense to table an amendment about a body that her Government are bent on abolishing under proposals in the Public Bodies Bill. We certainly would wish to give broad support to the amendment, but there are difficulties with it.
I say again that Committees work to strict rules. We have always obeyed them. I have never been on a Committee that has sat past 7.45 pm. This is the first time. If other noble Lords have experienced that, I am seriously in error. I thought I understood the rules regarding the timetable of the Committee stage and I still find it extraordinary that the government Front Bench did not move the adjournment when it should have done.
Baroness Noakes
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, might have forgotten that on Wednesdays the Grand Committee normally sits until 7.45 pm, not 7.30, so we are not 15 minutes but only a couple of minutes over. That is the Wednesday convention. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, having spent many days in Grand Committee, often with him. It is customary in Grand Committee not to overrun by more than a couple of minutes and it would have been helpful not to have begun consideration of this amendment. The custom is not like that in the main Chamber, where if you start an amendment before 10 pm you finish it, but as near as possible to that time. That was the custom when I was in Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, often had to call time on behalf of the Government. I thought it was fair to say that.
Baroness Northover
As the inexperienced Whip on this Bill, I think I need to apologise if we have overshot. Given that we started consideration of the amendment before the finishing time, and given that it is incredibly unpredictable as to how long any amendment will take, and given that we discussed various clauses, including the one that this amendment slots into, it seemed to me—although I was clearly in error—that we could look at it quickly. That is clearly not the case, and I therefore apologise for trespassing on noble Lords’ time.
Perhaps I may respond as rapidly as I can to my noble friend. We fully support the underlying ideas in this amendment. It is essential that, when designing new energy policies, we take into account the costs and benefits of the full range of technologies available. The noble Baroness flagged up some important areas. However, I should point out that including specific measures and organisations in the Bill in this way leads potentially to the kind of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was flagging up earlier, by potentially, if things become redundant, having the problem of needing to consolidate Bills because things have moved on and changed. Although we very much support the ideas behind the amendment, including bringing in new technologies, we encourage the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I am sorry that it is my amendment that has caused some disruption to the rather smoother running that this Committee has enjoyed. I understand what my noble friend is saying. When I intervened in the previous amendment, I hoped that I was being helpful to my noble friends about how we could proceed in the future and how we could satisfy some of the issues that have been raised today regarding having more detail about what goes on. It is unfortunate that we are doing this at the last minute, because that means it is not possible to get something on record about this in a little more detail. I hear what my noble friend says; I will take this away, and it may be that we look at other ways of ensuring that the Government consider these other sorts of technologies. I know that they take these technologies on board but the right signals must be sent to the markets so they proceed with them. If between now and Report we can bear that in mind, we may get somewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right when he says that the fuel poverty advisory group is down in another Bill. However, that Bill has yet to get through Parliament; it is not there. You write your amendment about the situation as it stands now. Having discussed these issues with the Government, I know that it is their intention that there will be a group that advises on fuel poverty issues, although it may not be called the same thing. Had the Government accepted my amendment and then introduced such a group, when it disappeared out of the Public Bodies Bill and a replacement body was there, they would amend the legislation accordingly. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
I think that this may be a convenient—or perhaps less inconvenient—moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday at 3.30 pm.
House of Lords
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Kestenbaum
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Morgan of Ely
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Arrest Warrant and Investigation Order
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vinson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Order conform with the principle of habeas corpus.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
The UK’s transposition of the European arrest warrant complies fully with the concept of habeas corpus. UK implementation of the European investigation order will also be fully compliant. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s principal concern is the separate issue of European arrest warrants being issued for trivial offences. The Government share this concern and are talking to other EU countries, bilaterally and through the European Union, to stop this happening.
Lord Vinson
I thank the Minister for her considered reply, but I am not as optimistic. The fact remains that hundreds of UK citizens are being compelled to appear before any EU court without the merit of the often frivolous charges being first assessed. They can be locked up without pre-trial. Is she not concerned that this totally overrides the ancient liberties of the British citizen enshrined in Magna Carta and habeas corpus? Will she assure the House that this will be resolved? Three member states of the EU have already declared the European arrest warrant unconstitutional. We should do the same. It really is time that we started to say no to damaging EU legislation.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Government are concerned, as I have just said, with the disproportionate use of the European arrest warrant for trivial purposes. That is one of the reasons why we have asked Sir Scott Baker, with the panel that he is heading on extradition, to look specifically at the operation of the European arrest warrant. He is able to take submissions from Members of this House and others and I hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of that.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, of course one must share the Minister’s concern about the civil liberties principles at stake, which sometimes are being breached, as the noble Lord said. On the other hand, will the Minister confirm that some serious criminals charged with terrorism or other equally serious offences have been brought back to Britain to face trial through the use of the European arrest warrant?
Baroness Neville-Jones
Indeed, my Lords, and I suspect that that is why our predecessors signed up to this measure when they were in office. It is the case that it has facilitated the return of prisoners to jurisdiction, so the noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
What exactly do the Government propose to do about this? The situation as it stands is obviously unjust and unsatisfactory. What will the Government do?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I hope that I have just indicated what we are doing. We think that we need some expert advice, so we have asked Sir Scott Baker to look at the operation of the European arrest warrant. He is due to report in September of this year and the Government will take action in the light of his report.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does not the Minister agree that habeas corpus is a process and not a principle? It is designed to make sure that a person who is in custody is there legally. If a European arrest warrant has been issued improperly, a writ of habeas corpus will succeed and, if not, it will fail. It is a simple issue and there is no conflict between the principles.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, in this House of legal eagles I hesitate, as a non-lawyer, to get on to the grounds, but I understand that the principle of habeas corpus is indeed a legal remedy against unlawful detention. It is therefore right to say that the European arrest warrant in principle is compliant. I accept entirely, however, that there is dissatisfaction with the warrant’s operation, which is what the Government have asked Sir Scott Baker to look into.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Can the Minister give some indication of how many people have been extradited from this country and to this country in recent years?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think that I will have to write to the noble and learned Lord about that. There are figures but I do not entirely have them to hand. The numbers are not huge, but they are sufficiently significant, and we wish to know how well this remedy is operating.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that one of the prime duties of government is to protect the interests of the citizen, particularly when abroad. She will be aware that members of the British public have been extradited to other countries without the production of any prima facie evidence at all. Moreover, they often go to countries that do not have the same respect for law and individual interests as we do in this country. The Government were warned about this when the Bill was discussed in Grand Committee. It is a serious matter and I hope that the Government will understand the level of concern about it throughout the country.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the point that the noble Lord makes about the Government having been warned at the time of the passage of the legislation is perhaps to be directed at the other Benches. We are concerned about the operation of the European arrest warrant, which is precisely why we believe that it needs to be looked into. I would add one point about the European supervision directive—I may not have the title quite right. There is a framework agreement on an arrangement that will come into operation whereby individuals who have been summoned for jurisdiction can nevertheless return to their country of origin during the period of bail and, if sentence is passed on them, can also serve that sentence there. Extra remedies are coming into operation to protect people’s rights.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, could my noble friend not take some advantage of the provision of European arrest warrants? We also have the problem of control orders. Perhaps she could get some friendly European country to take those who are currently subject to control orders and bang them up in a jail somewhere, without the need ever to bring them to trial. That would seem to be a most convenient solution.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, we will be discussing this topic shortly. All I would say is that, of course, control orders arise when there is insufficient admissible evidence to bring a successful prosecution.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the Question refers to the European investigation order. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are satisfied with the operation of that order and whether the demands placed on UK police forces as a result of such orders are proportionate?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the European investigation order is, of course, not yet in operation; it is still being discussed. Its objective is to facilitate mutual legal assistance between sovereign legal systems. We are endeavouring in the negotiations on this to ensure that its operation, when it comes into effect, will be satisfactory from the point of view of the traditions and the standards of this country.
Elections: Second Home Owners
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to regulate the ability of second home owners to register as voters in more than one constituency.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the Government have no current plans to restrict the right of second home owners who meet the residence requirement to register in two places, but we will keep the issue under review. An individual may be registered at more than one address if it appears to the electoral registration officer for the local authority area in which each address is located that the individual is resident in that area. However, it is an offence for a person to vote twice in a general election or European Parliament election.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is it not a principle, just as we have for one person one vote, that for a national election an individual should be able to cast their vote where they really are a resident and a stakeholder in the community? Will the Minister make sure that that is clarified for returning officers, and will the Government take steps to ensure that people are able to vote in national elections only where their main residence is located?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend for that question. The electoral registration officer is responsible for defining this particular issue. I also thank him for suggesting nominating a main residence, and I can confirm that the Government are considering this further. Noble Lords will recognise the difficulties that can arise from such definitions.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, does the Minister think it is fair that students have two votes in local elections, one in the place where they are studying on a temporary basis for three years, and the other in the home where they are presumably resident?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This matter has been a long-standing feature of our electoral system. The whole business of permanent and temporary residence has been defined by case law, and two English cases that set out the principles state that a person may have two residences that qualify them for an interest in the outcome of the elections in two local authority elections.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, returning to second homes, I wonder whether, since the Government have so rightly emphasised the importance of getting equity between the value of votes, they should address this issue of giving some people two votes, while everyone else, including those of us who are allowed to vote in whichever elections, have only one.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is a matter which, as I said in my original Answer, the Government are reviewing. It is a long-standing tradition that people can register in two different addresses where they have an interest. I should emphasise that it is against the law to vote twice in the same election to the same body.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Does the noble Lord not agree that the real problem that real democrats are concerned with at the moment is that 3.5 million people are not registered and are therefore not entitled to vote? Could he update the House on what the Government are doing to try to reduce that number?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Government are trying to make sure that all databases and the electoral register, which is in effect a database, are made as comprehensive as possible. I answered a Question not so very long ago, as the noble Lord will remember, on the census, as I did on election registration. There is currently a review to produce a national address gazetteer, which will assist both electoral registration officers and the census process in providing information, so that a more positive approach can be taken to address the issue that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
I do not think, with respect, that the Minister has precisely answered the question put by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. She asked whether it was right that a student should have two votes—one at home and one at the university—when he or she is likely to be at the university for only two or three years and is therefore electing someone who might well be in office for many years after they have left the university.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The opportunity for people with two residential qualifications to register is long-standing; it is part of the law of the land and would require amendment for it to be changed. It is not for me to pass comment on whether it is fair.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does not the Government’s decision to set their boundaries on the basis of the December 2010 register, which includes this flawed material on second homes and the registration of voters, further confirm how the data that are being used for boundary setting are just unacceptable and should not be used?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I wondered when that question would be posed, because it ties in with the debates that we are currently having on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. The distortions that all databases have—the census is no exception, because it, too, has to be assessed in various areas because of low returns—are distortions to the electorate numbers and would affect electorates in university towns and coastal recreational areas in particular. I should emphasise, however, that residences that are used primarily for recreational purposes are not, in general terms, considered to be second residences and should not be registered.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, the noble Lord has properly reminded the House that it is illegal to vote twice in the same general election. Will he say, under the present arrangements, how it is possible to police that law; and how many people does he think, or does he know, have actually been prosecuted for doing that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can answer the second question by saying that we are not aware of any prosecutions. As with so many British institutions, it depends on trust.
Design
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Whitaker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to promote the role of design in social and economic renewal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Government believe that design is an important tool for innovation and economic growth. The strategic use of design can be transformative for companies, for the commercialisation of science and for the delivery of public services. The Government will promote design through their continued support and funding for the Design Council and the delivery of its mission to place design at the heart of social and economic renewal in the UK.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that positive answer. Does she agree that there have been seminal reports from Sir James Dyson and Martin Temple explaining the importance of design to economic success, contributing, as it does, about £15 billion to GDP directly, quite apart from its wider impact? If she does agree, will she be a little more specific as to what the Government will do to ensure that the widest national expertise is brought to bear on giving design its proper place in strategies on innovation and growth?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the Government have welcomed the reports of both Sir James Dyson and Martin Temple, to which the noble Baroness referred, and the insight that they have given on the role of design in social and economic renewal. The Government are committed to continued funding and support for a restructured Design Council and we are working together to implement the recommendations of the Temple review. One of the recommendations was that the council should restructure to incorporate a broader cross-section of industry and society, with representation at both national and local level. This will ensure that the widest national design expertise can be utilised to contribute to our strategies for innovation and growth and to help to return the United Kingdom economy to strong, sustainable growth.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
The Minister will know that the Design Council has done good work and produced good results in the National Health Service in controlling infection and other improvements. Will she do her best to ensure that the council is not overlooked and that it will make a contribution to our reorganisation of the NHS?
Baroness Wilcox
I am delighted to answer that question from my noble friend. The Design Council has done some excellent work with the National Health Service and the Department of Health. The Design Bugs Out project demonstrated how the design of equipment can reduce hospital infections. These are wonderful ways of extending the use of the great talent that we have in this country for innovation in these areas. I am sure that other government departments will start to look at the sort of help that the Design Council could give them in saving money and promoting better practice.
Lord Bichard
As chairman of the Design Council, perhaps I should declare an interest. Does the Minister agree with me, as I think she might, that design is a powerful driver for economic recovery and for creating better public services at less cost? Will she ensure that her department takes the lead in developing a strategy across government for design? The lack of that at the moment suggests that design is not fully understood and is not given the priority that it deserves in all departments.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I am aware that, as chairman of the Design Council, the noble Lord has a particular interest in this subject; if I remember correctly, he made it the centre-point of his maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. The Government recognise the excellent work of the Design Council in promoting the use of design to create more efficient and effective public services. For example, Lewisham Council’s homelessness service now costs £1.2 million less than in 2008 as a result of mentoring through the Design Council’s Public Services by Design programme. There are other excellent public sector examples, such as in the NHS, as we have heard, and the Department of Health’s collaboration with the Design Council. These programmes have helped to raise awareness of the value of design across government. I know that this is an absolute personal crusade for the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and no doubt he will continue to ask me questions in this area until we have fulfilled his every want.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, the UK’s internationally recognised strength in design was built on 150 years of investment in design education in some of the world’s best colleges. The Government’s HE funding system takes no account of the economic value of any subjects, apart from science, technology, engineering and maths. If design is mission-critical to UK plc, as the Minister suggests, will she say how much will be invested in English design education in the 2011-12 academic year and what policy guidance the Government will provide?
Baroness Wilcox
Future funding for all university courses will increasingly flow from graduate contributions. Our universities will be able to secure an equivalent flow of income and, if their course provision remains attractive to students, some may be able to attract more income. Universities must consider, therefore, how to structure and design their courses in ways that make them as attractive as possible to students. The students will be making the choices, so the more attractive the courses, the more students they will attract.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, the design of accessible housing for our ageing society is vital. Will the Minister say how the Government plan to ensure that it will be provided?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that the noble Baroness is referring to the work of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. We recognise that good design of living environments can greatly enhance the quality of life for inhabitants. Following the decision by DCMS to withdraw funding from CABE, we are actively considering future arrangements for delivering its functions. An announcement is imminent.
Lord Broers
Does the Minister agree that, in many areas, design and engineering are inseparable? It seems strange to me that they have been separated in terms of university funding. Will she ensure that design plays an integral part in the new technology innovation centres?
Baroness Wilcox
Yes, I agree that design plays an integral part in pretty well all aspects of our lives. That is as far as I can go in answering the noble Lord’s question at this time.
Lord Razzall
Perhaps I can slightly broaden the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. Does the Minister accept that the creative industries, of which design is a significant aspect, will have to play a key part in the growth of the British economy? In the light of the GDP figures yesterday, does she not think that this is the moment for the Government to set out their plans to ensure that the creative industries provide a spur for growth in our economy?
Baroness Wilcox
Work on the creative industries is going on all the time, as my noble friend knows. He is right that the UK design sector has a worldwide reputation for creativity and innovation. Research indicates that £15 billion was spent on UK designs in 2009, so there is every reason for us to encourage every aspect of this that we can. I thank my noble friend for his question.
Unemployment
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to deal with the increase in the number of unemployed people aged between 16 and 24.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
The Government recognise the need to help young people into work and the adverse effect of long-term unemployment. Personalised support for young people through Jobcentre Plus, coupled with the new work programme will enable young people over 18 make the transition into work. We will help young people to make an effective transition from learning to work, and increase participation to reduce the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, given that these are the highest numbers of 16 to 24 year-olds recorded as unemployed since records began in 1992, does the noble Lord think that it is time for the Government to reconsider their decision to abolish the Future Jobs Fund, the guarantees on youth employment and the education maintenance allowance, as there is now a real danger of another lost generation? That concern is reinforced by the latest lack-of-growth forecasts, as I like to call them.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the figures for unemployment among young people aged 16 to 24 have risen with the recession and have been broadly flat from around the middle of 2009. They are still too high at 951,000 but they have been broadly flat in that period. However, I am worried about the number of NEETS in this country, which rose over the period of the previous Government by 250,000 to 1.4 million. That is a serious, long-term structural issue, and we have long-term structural plans to sort it out.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that despite the huge sums of money that were spent by the previous Government, he has inherited the worst legacy of youth unemployment that any Government have inherited in our recent history?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I confirm that I am very worried about the situation in respect of NEETs, which is underlying and structural, as I said. We have now transformed the programmes to do something about it. We are introducing the work programme in the middle of this year, and we are also transforming the nature of provision in Jobcentre Plus, making it far more flexible and designed to look after people as individuals rather than in broad groups based on their benefit, as has been the case.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, given the Minister’s concentration on NEETs, which many of us would agree is entirely right, is there more that companies could do to encourage young people to come in part time but be trained at the same time? Can he say more about that?
Lord Freud
Yes, an effective strategy has to be built around employers, and we are doing quite a few things. The most important one was the introduction earlier this month of work experience. The idea is to give eight weeks’ work experience to young people aged between 18 and 21 who are not in university, while they continue to collect benefit. We are also looking to introduce later this year the academy programme, which combines work experience with elements of training to introduce people to work.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, as a Minister, I introduced something very similar to those new work experience programmes. We should note that between 1997 and the beginning of the recession claimant youth unemployment fell by 40 per cent. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young, that unemployment for 18 to 24 year-olds increased from 17.7 per cent to 18.1 per cent in the last quarter. Is this because of the cuts to the Future Jobs Fund, the ending of the young person’s guarantee, the cuts to the education maintenance allowance and the raising of the cost of going to university; or is it because of bad weather?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I think that it is important that we do not get cheap on the movements: this is, as always, a very complicated set of movements. During the last month, for instance, the claimant count went down a little for the youngsters. It went up by 30,000 or so, but has been broadly flat since 2009. There will be reasons for the figure being up a bit, but I do not think that is the point. The point is that we have a serious underlying structural problem. We have about 600,000 youngsters who have not managed to get sustained employment after education. Within that figure, I do not have the exact number about whom we should be seriously worried. Of the 16 to 17 year-olds, it is about 50,000. These are youngsters who may never make the transition into proper economic activity. It is vital that we have structures to help them make that transition.
Lord German
My Lords, in the year 2009-10, there was a 99 per cent increase in the number of people who were taking the job seekers allowance for more than 24 months. Among that group, who are the hardest to get into work, there must be a significant number of young people without qualifications. What actions are the Minister and the Government taking to deal with many of these people who were parked by training providers because they were too difficult to deal with?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. Essentially, we are going to rely on the work programme and differential pricing to help the hardest to help.
Counterterrorism Review
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the outcome of the review of counterterrorism and security powers.
The review has taken place in the context of a threat from terrorism which is as serious as we have faced at any time. In dealing with that threat, it has been the consistent aim of this Government not only to protect the security of our citizens but also the freedoms of us all. We reviewed counterterrorism legislation because too much of it was excessive and unnecessary. At times it gave the impression of criminalising entire communities. Some measures, such as the extraordinary attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 90 days, were rightly defeated in Parliament. Others, such as the most draconian aspects of control orders, were defeated in the courts. These measures undermined public confidence. So I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will support me in preventing the excessive use of state power.
I make no apology for the time that this review has taken. It has rightly been deliberate and thorough to ensure that we safeguard both security and our freedoms. The review has taken account of all sides of the argument. It has received evidence from academic experts and civil society groups, from communities across the country and from the law enforcement and security agencies. I have, of course, consulted regularly with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, has provided independent oversight of the process. He has had access to all relevant papers and has played an invaluable role in ensuring that all the evidence was given proper consideration. I should like to thank him for his contribution in ensuring that the recommendations of this review are not only fair but seen to be fair. I am laying the review, a summary of the public consultation, the equality impact assessment of these measures and Lord Macdonald’s report in the House.
On pre-charge detention, the Government announced to the House last week that we would not renew the current legislation on extended pre-charge detention. This means that the sunset clause inserted by the previous Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The review sets out the detailed considerations leading to this conclusion.
The police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days. However, we recognise that in exceptional circumstances this might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. We will therefore draw up draft primary legislation to be introduced for parliamentary consideration only in such circumstances. We will therefore publish a draft Bill and propose that this be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I should make clear to the House that until it is repealed by the Freedom Bill, Section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will remain on the statute book allowing the Government to increase the maximum period to 28 days in an emergency, subject to Parliament’s agreement. There has therefore been no gap in our ability to seek Parliament’s consent to increase the period of pre-charge detention should the need arise.
On the use of Section 44 stop-and-search powers, I have concluded that the current provisions, which were found unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, represented an unacceptable intrusion on an individual’s human rights and must be repealed. But the evidence, particularly in Northern Ireland, has demonstrated that where there is a credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack, the absence of such powers might create a gap in the ability of the police to protect the public.
We therefore propose to repeal Section 44 and to replace it with a tightly-defined power which would allow a senior police officer to make an authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers to prevent a terrorist attack where there is a specific threat. This targeted measure will also prevent the misuse of these powers against photographers, which I know was a significant concern with the previous regime.
On the regulation of investigatory powers, we will implement our commitment to prevent the use of these powers by local authorities unless for the purpose of preventing serious crime and unless authorised by a magistrate. In this context, surveillance—the most controversial power—will be authorised for offences which carry a custodial sentence of at least six months.
On the wider question of communications data—the who, when and where of a communication, but not the content—the Government intend to ensure that, as far as possible, it is only accessed through the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. We will bring forward specific legislation to this effect in a future communications data Bill.
This Government are committed to tackling the promotion of division, hatred and violence in our society. We must expose and confront the bigoted ideology of the extremists and prosecute and punish those who step outside the law. The review considered whether counterterrorism legislation should be amended to tackle groups which are not currently caught by the law but which still aim to spread their divisive and abhorrent messages. After careful consideration, we have concluded that it would be disproportionate to widen counterterrorism legislation to deal with these groups, however distasteful we find their views. To do so would have serious consequences for the basic principles of freedom of expression. We therefore propose to use existing legislation, as well as tackling them through our wider work to counter extremism and promote integration and participation in society.
On the deportation of foreign nationals suspected or known to have been involved in terrorist activity, the review found no evidence that this policy was inconsistent with the UK’s human rights obligations and found that it was legitimate and necessary to seek to extend the arrangements to more countries which would include independent verification. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, says, the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues is likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.
Finally, on control orders the Government have concluded that, for the foreseeable future, there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported. I want to be clear that prosecution, conviction and imprisonment will always be our priority—the right place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. But where successful prosecution or deportation is not immediately possible, no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.
We are also clear that the current control order regime is imperfect and has not been as effective as it should be. We therefore propose to repeal control orders. Instead, we will introduce a new package of measures which is better focused and has more targeted restrictions, supported by significantly increased resources for surveillance and other investigative tools. Restrictions that have an impact on an individual’s ability to lead a normal life should be the minimum necessary, should be proportionate and should be clearly justified. The legislation we will bring forward will make clearer what restrictions can and cannot be imposed. These will be similar to some of the existing powers used in the civil justice system; for example, to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence.
These terrorism prevention and investigation measures will have a two-year maximum time limit, which will clearly demonstrate that these are targeted, temporary measures and not to be used simply as a means of parking difficult cases indefinitely. The measures will have to meet the evidential test of reasonable belief that a person is, or has been, engaged in terrorism. This is higher than the test of reasonable suspicion under the current regime.
Curfews will be replaced by an overnight residence requirement. Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas, such as particular buildings or streets, but not entire boroughs. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions, such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate. They will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions necessary to protect the public. We will add the crucial power to prevent foreign travel.
These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person’s conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and they will be required to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.
I have asked the incoming independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to pay particular attention to these issues in his first report on the new regime and to make recommendations that he considers appropriate to ensure the new regime is working as intended. I am also today laying a Written Ministerial Statement outlining the next steps in the work to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in court. We will repeal the current provisions which permit control orders with restrictions so severe that they would require the United Kingdom to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Government would seek to introduce such draconian measures. So the review I am announcing today will create a more focused and flexible regime. However, in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat which we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary. We want to prepare for this possibility while ensuring that such powers are used only when absolutely necessary. So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement. These measures will require an even higher standard of proof to be met and would be introduced if in exceptional circumstances they were required to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms. These powers would be enacted only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.
All of these measures will be accompanied by a significant increase in resources for the police and security and intelligence agencies to improve their surveillance and investigative capabilities. This will underpin the effectiveness of the regime and support the gathering of evidence admissible in court which could lead to a successful prosecution.
We will bring forward legislation to introduce the new regime in the coming weeks. We want to give Parliament the opportunity properly to scrutinise our proposals. I am sure the whole House would agree that in the past too many laws in this area were rushed through without the opportunity for adequate debate and consideration. So while Parliament considers that legislation, we will renew the current regime to the end of the year. Many of the other measures I have outlined will be brought forward in the forthcoming Protection of Freedom Bill.
I should like to finish by thanking the police and the security services for the tremendous work they do to keep our country safe. The measures I have outlined today will help them to continue to ensure our safety and security at the same time as we restore our civil liberties. They are in keeping with British values and our commitment to freedom, fairness and the rule of law. They will restore public confidence in counterterrorism legislation and it is my hope that they will form the basis of an enduring political consensus. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Home Secretary’s Statement made in the other place earlier today.
Recent events in Moscow have reminded us, if we needed reminding, of the devastating impact of terrorist attacks, and of the vital importance of the work that our police and security services undertake to protect us and the dangers they face in carrying out that work. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
Although we want to support the Government on matters of national security wherever we can, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition we also have a responsibility to scrutinise in detail the Government’s proposals and the evidence on which they are based. We support many of the measures that the Government have announced in the Statement repeated by the Minister. We support the Government’s approach to deportations, with assurances, to countries with which we can reach agreement, which continues the work we did when in government.
The Government have decided to continue with the existing regime for proscribing groups that are engaged in terrorism, which seems appropriate. The Minister confirmed to the House the other day that decisions for proscribing groups would continue to be made on the basis of the facts and hard evidence available. Does this mean that the Prime Minister’s commitment to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, made prior to the election, presumably without knowing the facts, will be abandoned or is his decision now supported by the evidence?
While we will scrutinise the detail to ensure that councils can continue to take action on issues such as tackling underage sales of tobacco or alcohol, we agree that the use by local authorities of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act should be restricted, as some of the uses to which those powers have been put have gone far beyond the intention of the original legislation.
We also support sensible changes to stop-and-search powers in order to prevent their misuse, and it would appear that the legislative changes proposed largely reflect the practical changes already introduced. However, in respect of Northern Ireland, stop-and-search powers have played an important role in preventing terrorist attacks. Are the Government completely confident that the police will still have all the powers they need in Northern Ireland under the new arrangements?
Turning to pre-charge detention, in the past three years no case has invoked pre-charge detention for more than 14 days, and if police and security evidence shows that we can reduce the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days with sufficient safeguards then we should do so. However, the Government’s review concludes:
“There could be circumstances in the future in which detention for longer than 14 days will be required. There may be rare cases where a longer period of detention may be required and those cases may have significant repercussions for national security”.
It recommends an emergency option to return to 28 days if necessary. Where, then, is the emergency legislation to do this? The old powers lapsed on Monday and the emergency legislation is not, it seems ready. Why did the Government not wait until the emergency legislation was ready before letting the old powers lapse?
Last Monday, the Government said that they could extend detention through an order under Section 25 of the Terrorism Act, yet the Government’s review appears to conclude that it would be very difficult to extend detention to 28 days in that way in response to, or during, a specific investigation, since time would be needed to get the necessary measures through Parliament. Again, recent events in Moscow have reminded us that this is an area where we cannot predict what may happen. What are the police and the Crown Prosecution Service meant to do if a difficult and dangerous case suddenly emerges now in the absence of the emergency provisions being in place? It appears as though the Government are relying on being able to rush emergency legislation through in respect of an individual and difficult case. Is that a sensible way to proceed? What would be the position if an urgent issue arose during a recess, or even during the weekend break?
On control orders, the Government’s review concludes that there is,
“a continuing need to control the activities of terrorists who can neither be successfully prosecuted nor deported”.
The proposals that the Government have set out today are not an alternative to control orders, but simply amendments to control orders. This is the view that appears to be held by Liberty, which has expressed its disappointment that control orders will continue in all but name. Many of the elements remain, including restrictions on movement, restrictions on communications, an overnight residence requirement in place of a curfew—it will look remarkably similar in practice—at the instigation of the Home Secretary and reviewed by the court. I shall say a little more about that later. The Deputy Prime Minister told the BBC that he had abolished control orders. The truth is that he has simply abolished the name.
First, the Government are introducing a two-year limit with a requirement for new evidence before a control order can be renewed. The last annual review of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on control orders said that:
“There is significant and credible intelligence that”,
three of the controlees, I think it was,
“continue to present actual or potential and significant danger to national security and public safety. I agree with the assessment that the control order on each has substantially reduced the present danger that exceptionally they still present despite their having been subject to a control order for a significant period of time”.
Those three individuals have been on control orders for more than two years, one of them for over four years. In the light of the proposed two-year limit, will they have their orders revoked? What measures will be put in place to keep the public safe from the threat that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the police clearly believe those individuals pose?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us whether these changes will mean a reduction in the restrictions that the Government are currently imposing on the rest of the eight people on control orders at the moment, and what measures will be in place to protect public safety?
Thirdly, the Minister has made clear that she intends to rely more heavily on surveillance and less on measures under control orders. We support greater use of surveillance if it increases the chance of prosecution, but why do the Government believe that exchanging court scrutiny for that of the security services improves transparency and enhances civil liberties? I also note in the Minister’s Statement in relation to these new measures on control orders that:
“These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases”.
I am not clear exactly what that means. Have there been any discussions with the judiciary to see if they will take on what appears to be an extra burden, since they will have to give the Home Secretary prior permission? Or is that not what the Minister’s Statement means? Normally, the courts review decisions made by, for example, a Home Secretary, but that sentence in the Statement appears to mean that the Home Secretary can act only with prior permission from the High Court—in other words, the other way around.
I mentioned the Statement’s reference to greater surveillance, but there are issues about the extent of the resourcing of these increased surveillance operations. The Minister announced a significant increase in resources for the police and security services to cover this surveillance. The Daily Telegraph appears to know rather more, since today it said that MI5 would be given £20 million. Surveillance is extremely resource-intensive and expensive. Can the Minister confirm that this money, whether it be a significant increase in resources or the Daily Telegraph’s £20 million, follows a £150 million cut in the counterterrorism budget and billions in cuts for the police? Can she assure the House that this will be extra money and will not be taken from the resources already needed elsewhere to fight existing threats to our security? Is she confident that the police and security services will have the resources that they need to keep Britain safe from terror?
This has been a delayed and confused review, riven by leaks, as today’s further story in the Daily Telegraph only emphasises, and influenced by the need to resolve differences between the coalition parties. It is the security of our nation that should be paramount and it is against that test that we will judge the detail of the Government’s proposals.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s last point—that this is somehow delayed and confused—first. As I said the other day when we were talking about pre-charge detention, the review has undoubtedly taken us longer than we originally thought it would. That is because we have taken great care over it. We do not intend to present Parliament with a series of differing proposals, such as was presented to us by the Opposition when they were looking at the question of pre-charge detention, eventually falling back on something that they had certainly not proposed in the first instance. We have tried to do a thorough job so we are confident of the rightness of the proposals. It is right that a Government should consult inside in doing that. We know the consequences when Governments inside fail to consult each other. I make no apology for the time it has taken, or the care with which this review has been conducted.
The noble Lord raised a number of detailed points and I will try to answer them. I was asked whether we are confident of the powers remaining in relation to Northern Ireland. One of our main concerns was to ensure that this was not a GB policy, but a UK policy. On stop-and-search powers, we felt it particularly appropriate to take due account of the situation in Northern Ireland. The new power has been fashioned to enable us to maintain a high level of security throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
The question of legislation for pre-charge detention was raised. Noble Lords will not find us dilatory in bringing forward the legislation. There is a problem of being at fault whether you do or do not. We want to try to consult heavily on this legislation so that it has general acceptance. One of the things that we are most concerned to do with this review is to lay a stable and accepted basis for the legislation and the provisions that we have in law governing our approach to terrorism. We want to involve the House as much as possible. Noble Lords will find that we will not be slow in bringing forward the necessary measures. In the mean time, Section 25 is not a perfect way of doing things, but it is certainly there, it remains and it is the power that we will resort to if we need to. We will certainly get on with the legislation.
The question of the House being able to legislate applies also to the question of whether we might have to introduce control orders in extreme circumstances. It is notable that if there is a consensus Parliament can act extremely fast and both Houses can enact the necessary legislation within one day; that is why we want to try to establish one. I do not think that we will be faced with a situation where we are not able to take action if we need to in an extreme situation, which I imagine that all sides of the House would recognise as being so. Parliament will act to protect the people of this country.
On the three individuals who are still under control orders, I remind the House that the legislation does not cease to have effect until new legislation is passed. Clearly, for the rest of this year, broadly speaking, because we will renew for the end of the year until such time as the freedom Bill goes through, we will have the existing regime and review cases under that. As the House knows, each control order has to be reviewed on an annual basis.
On surveillance, the emphasis on the ability and the duty of the police to increase the likelihood of bringing a successful prosecution is an important feature of these new measures. We do not believe that they are merely a new brand of control order. If noble Lords take them in their total substance, they constitute a different regime with a different emphasis. Undoubtedly we need to continue to have legislation on the statute book that enables us to take measures to protect the public, but there is an important emphasis on two things. We need to balance that protection with the rights of those individuals, because it has been demonstrated through the courts that we need to respect those rights; and we must increase the chances of a successful prosecution. That was not the effect of the previous control order regime, which we intend to reform. These are not like regimes. I was asked whether there would be new money for the extra surveillance. I can confirm that there will be new money available during the CSR period.
I hope that I have dealt with the various points that were raised. No doubt other noble Lords will have points that they wish to make.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I have two questions for the noble Baroness: one on control orders and one on 28 days, and that is all. I congratulate the coalition Government on getting rid of control orders at long last, if that is what they have done. We shall see how this works out. No one can say how much damage control orders have done to community relations over the past six years. Only one thing is clear; control orders have done great damage to our reputation as a country that values freedom and the rule of law.
Does the noble Baroness agree—I think she does from what she has said—that if credit is due to anyone in this whole unhappy affair, it is due not to us in Parliament, I am sorry to say, but to the judiciary? In particular, it is due to the judges sitting in the administrative court in keeping control orders within reasonable limits so far as they could and forcing the Government on so many occasions to think again.
On the 28 days, I opposed the increase from seven days to 14 days as long ago as 2003 when ACPO was asking for 14 days and got it. I opposed any increase in 2005 when ACPO asked for 28 days and got it. I opposed any increase in 2006 when it asked for, but happily did not get, 90 days. Has ACPO now accepted that it never needed 90 days or anything like it, despite the advice that it gave the Government at the time? Does ACPO accept that it was never, as it put it in 2007, “up against the buffers” with only 28 days? If so, how much faith can we put in the advice of ACPO in these affairs?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, one reason why the Government were determined to deal with control orders before they even came into office was precisely because of our perception that they were damaging to community relations. In the evidence and the responses to questionnaires and surveys, stop and search comes up quite as often as a source of grievance, if not more so, than control orders, but the Government accept that they were harmful. The Government respect the role of the judiciary, which is one reason why we are bringing this regime into line with what we believe is legally acceptable.
On the question of the number of days needed to bring a successful prosecution, I have not asked ACPO the specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord. However, like the rest of us, ACPO has learnt from experience about the time needed in practice to bring successful charges, and made it absolutely clear to the Home Secretary—as indeed have the intelligence and security services—that it is content with the proposals.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions so that my noble friend can answer as many noble Lords as she can.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am happy to give a general welcome to the Statement. In confirming that this is not a mere rebranding of control orders, will the noble Baroness point to requiring the permission of the High Court, which seems to take us into a completely different legal structure? I suspect that many of us will wish to explore the evidential test that she mentioned and whether we can move towards a criminal test beyond reasonable doubt. Will she and her officials continue to work actively on that? Secondly, does she agree that arrangements that enable a person subject to the measure to work or study are very significant indeed? That control was extremely offensive.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am sure that the last point would be very widely accepted. It does not particularly facilitate observance of the law or good behaviour on the part of someone who is under a measure of this kind if they cannot occupy their time usefully. One of our objectives has been to bring the daily life of people who are under such restrictions as near to normality as it can be, while being compatible with the security of the rest of the community.
On the question of whether we are rebranding, I hope I made it quite clear to your Lordships that this is not a rebranding exercise. There are significant differences in the measures that we are putting into place. They have a purpose that includes the need to continue at all times to open up the maximum opportunity for actual prosecution. One of the chief complaints about the previous regime, in our view, was how it made that extraordinarily difficult.
As the noble Baroness will be aware, we have raised the test to reasonable belief. We want to work in co-operation with the High Court. One thing that has clearly been learnt through experience is that to get into a situation in which any measures that we put in place are subsequently demonstrated in the High Court or in a court to be unacceptable does not add to their credibility. We want to get into a situation in which there is a clear understanding. We believe that it is necessary for the Home Secretary to be able to act in emergencies without seeking prior agreement with the High Court because, as I am sure noble Lords can imagine, in practical circumstances there may be a great need to do something extremely fast.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think we should hear from the opposition Back Benches.
Lord West of Spithead
That is me. Thank you very much indeed. I congratulate the noble Baroness and the coalition on actually having a review, because that is needed. Indeed, we need to have one constantly. No one was ever happy with control orders; they needed to be looked at. I am also delighted that it has seen that they were necessary for the very small number of people who were a threat to this nation. To try and pretend that they are not now control orders is pushing things a little. I would be interested to know what these new restrictions will be called. My advice would be not to call them anything, or else they will become another shy that people will throw things at.
I am also very concerned about resource. A very limited resource is available, both in manpower and in money. We know that there are real problems with money across all areas of government and I am concerned about the full amount of resource that will be required. Also, if we go for these slightly lesser periods of people being in their homes and so on, we will go back to the period before I became a Minister when people actually absconded. Will the Minister reassure us that she is absolutely certain that that will not become a feature again, because clearly that is a real risk with this very tiny number of people?
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that there is no doubt whatever that many other countries use other mechanisms to stop very dangerous people from being on their streets, some of which would be quite abhorrent in this country, so I do not think that we need to feel ashamed. I also thank the coalition for reassuring me; I began to feel that I might have been authoritarian and trying to have a police state. The people who were formerly Lib Dems certainly made me feel that. Now, I am delighted that the coalition clearly understands how important these security issues are and, as I say, I congratulate it on keeping measures in place for that tiny number of people who wish to do us harm.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I thank the noble Lord for the generosity of those sentiments. As I say, they are not going to be orders. I cannot emphasise too much that the total package really is different from the control order regime. These measures will be called terrorist prevention and investigation measures—note the insertion of “investigation”; it is part of their purpose.
The noble Lord is quite right to stress that resources need to be taken seriously. We do so, and, clearly, while control orders are still in place, it will be important that resources are made available such that one can increase the capacity and capability of those involved. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into more detail, but we are mindful of the need to make a reality of the extra mitigations that we are putting in place.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have not yet had a Conservative Back-Bench question.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend and, through her, the Home Secretary on striking the right balance in this very difficult area between the need to protect the public and the need to safeguard personal and individual liberty. May I ask about the emergency legislation to extend the period of pre-charge detention? Given what my noble friend has said about the Government’s ability to put that in place very quickly, do they intend this emergency power to be available not simply in a general period or emergency but for an individual suspect under detention, in respect of whom the police, and perhaps a magistrate or a judge, are convinced that a longer period of detention is necessary?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks, which I will pass on to the Home Secretary. On the question of emergency legislation, the intention is really to cover an emergency. I suppose that I can imagine—this is hypothetical territory—two broad categories, for instance, where the general threat level had risen even further. Those will be very dire circumstances in which we might be in a real emergency. There is also the possibility that one or a number of complex conspiracies come together and it is clear that a different approach is needed to the amount of time for, say, pre-charge detention. However, we stress that we believe that these kinds of measures, which at the moment are the norm, should be reserved for really exceptional circumstances.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if we are quick we can get one more round in. I suggest Cross Bench, Liberal Democrat, Labour.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Blair of Boughton
Thank you, my Lords. I need to declare an interest in that I was a former member of ACPO and of the police service in the metropolis. I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. I merely carry on from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, which is: how can Parliament legislate on the back of a police and Security Service operation? One reason why ACPO brought up the question of the length of detention in a period when we had no atrocity immediately before us was so that Parliament could debate it in an open atmosphere. I do not suggest that it cannot be done, but an enormous amount of thought has to be given to how both Houses of Parliament could decide that the situation had reached the point at which emergency legislation had to be brought in, particularly if it was not after an atrocity but merely because of a series of desperately significant operations going on. I do not understand how this House or the other place could debate that in the open.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Lord raises a perfectly fair question. The choices that we have made are not easy. In fact, I suggest to the House that there is no ideal solution here. Why have we gone for this method? I remind the noble Lord that we are not just going to place something in the Library or, indeed, suddenly bring the matter to the House without having gone through an important part of the process—pre-legislative scrutiny with the House—so that some of the conditions that would be needed to build consensus so that we could act rapidly and in agreement in an emergency were actually understood between us and in place. That process will be important in building the underlying consensus on which legislation can be passed in an emergency of that kind.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
My Lords, I declare an interest as the independent overseer of the counterterrorism and security powers review. Would the Minister agree that the review has made good progress in meeting its objectives of recommendations that, if implemented, would roll back state power consistent with public safety, and that on stop and search, surveillance powers, pre-charge detention, the removal of relocation and curfews, and house arrest powers, important reforms are signalled?
Would she also acknowledge that more work needs to be done on the precise circumstances in which restrictions may be placed on those who are not charged, prosecuted or convicted of crime, and that some quite tough decisions will have to be made before legislation is brought before this House?
Finally, will she indicate whether the Government will consider the proposal in my report that any regime of restrictions should be much more closely linked to a continuing criminal investigation so that the primacy of prosecution is protected and that prosecution is the prime aim of public policy in this area?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord for his contribution, which is very significant to the work of the review. He makes some important points and has outlined more eloquently than I have the effect of reducing the measures in relation to individuals that constitute a new balance between public protection and the rights of the individual. We believe, however, as the noble Lord acknowledges himself, that it remains necessary that measures of this kind are available in the interest of public protection. He is right that there is more work to be done on some of the detail, and as we work through the legislation and subsequently its implementation, I am sure that more detail will come into effect.
On the question of the regime of restrictions and the need for a closer link to criminal investigation, the Government share the view that it is important to increase the possibility within this regime of bringing successful prosecution. We are mindful of that being the proper goal. As the Home Secretary said in her Statement, terrorists should be behind bars in a prison cell. At the same time we draw back from the notion that one would not be able to introduce a measure of this kind in the absence of a close link to and a realistic prospect of being able to introduce a prosecution. We do not wish, therefore, to claim that we can do that, given that it might not be an honest claim. What I can say on the part of the Government is that we will try very hard to ensure that the maximum possibility for bringing prosecution in any given instance is a clear objective.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, the Minister has twice referred to pre-legislative scrutiny. Will she confirm that all the measures she has mentioned today will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny?
Secondly, she mentioned intercept evidence. The previous Government were looking at it and her Government have been looking at it. When are some positive proposals likely to come forward, because if we can accept the use of intercept evidence, some of the other measures will not be necessary?
Baroness Neville-Jones
On the noble Lord’s first point, that is certainly the case with the legislation relating to the possibility of having to revert to a longer period than 14 days. We are not going to introduce the legislation relating to control orders. We are, however, going to discuss it with the Opposition on Privy Council terms.
On the question of intercept as evidence, I am a proponent of being able to introduce intercept as evidence. Serious work is still going on on it. The issue is not entirely without complexity, but we take it seriously and we share the previous Government’s view that it will be highly desirable to be able to introduce intercept as evidence in such cases.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:57 - Division on Amendment 89BA - Ayes: 149 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 89BA disagreed.
Lord Touhig
“(5) If the number of constituencies allocated to Wales under sub-paragraph (3) is fewer than 35, an additional allocation shall be made to Wales to ensure that it has 35 constituencies.
(6) Where an additional allocation is made under sub-paragraph (5) above, sub-paragraph (7) shall apply in place of rule 2.
(7) The electorate of any constituency in Wales shall be—
(a) no less than 95% of the Welsh electoral quota; and(b) no more than 105% of that quota;the “Wales electoral quota” meaning W/P, where W is the electorate of Wales and P is the number of constituencies allocated to Wales.”
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I am pleased to be opening this debate on Wales so that we can air some issues that concern many of us. But at the same time I am saddened because none of these amendments was debated in the other place because of the use of a guillotine, which shows the importance of the scrutiny that your Lordships’ House is able to afford at this time.
Wales, more than any other part of the United Kingdom, will be adversely affected as a result of this Bill. Wales has just 5 per cent of the United Kingdom’s population but in this Bill Wales will lose 10 parliamentary constituencies. That equates to 20 per cent of the total reduction in the number of constituencies the Government are seeking across the whole United Kingdom. The Bill will see the number of MPs Wales sends to the Parliament of the United Kingdom reduced by one in four. That is 25 per cent compared with around 7 per cent for the rest of the country. That means fewer MPs than after the great reforms of 1832 when the population of Wales could be counted in thousands.
We are a small nation within a large country but our contribution to our democratic parliamentary life has been far greater than many would think possible for a country of around 3 million people. Sons of Wales at one time or another have dominated the British political scene. David Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan are but two. Our adopted sons James Callaghan and Michael Foot rose to great offices of state and came to lead their party. From the Conservative Benches the noble Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, changed the course of British politics when he resigned from Mrs Thatcher’s Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, became leader of his party. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, the longest-serving Welsh Office Minister who was in office for half the time the Welsh Office actually existed, was responsible for steering through the Welsh Language Act which gave Welsh equal status with English for the first time. And I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who served as a distinguished Secretary of State, is also with us this afternoon.
More than 700 years ago, with a population that counted in thousands, 24 Welsh MPs were summoned to Parliament. In those seven centuries, as the population has grown to 3 million, that number has increased to just 40. Parliament in its wisdom passed the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and in Schedule 2 it states:
“The number of constituencies in Wales shall not be less than 35”.
That, I would argue, gives a valid and sound basis for the amendment we have before us. It was based on the unanimous conclusions of the 1944 Speaker’s Conference and that 1986 Act went through Parliament without a Division. In fact, it was supported by all parties. If anything could be said to have support on all sides of the political spectrum it was that Act. Contrast that with the present Bill which was not the subject of a Green Paper, a White Paper or any pre-legislative scrutiny and certainly cannot be said to have widespread parliamentary support. I further believe that, by guaranteeing that Wales should have a minimum of 35 Members of Parliament, recognition was given to the need to make special provision for the small nations in our United Kingdom. With only 5 per cent of the UK population, Wales needs this sort of provision if we are to play our full role in the multinational British state.
Many people fear that reducing Welsh representation in the other place by 25 per cent when many aspects of Welsh life, including the ability of the Welsh Assembly to do its job, depend on the Government and Parliament in Westminster, would fuel a further interest in separatism. I raised the matter at Second Reading when I warned that this could be a threat to our union. When the people of Wales voted by a very small margin in 1997 for devolution and the creation of a Welsh Assembly, it was on the clear understanding that this would have no effect on Welsh representation in the British Parliament. I can, albeit reluctantly, accept that that now could be interpreted in terms of the minimum 35 seats in the UK Parliament, which this amendment seeks to achieve. Based on the many comments that I have received from noble Lords on all sides, I cannot accept that the protection afforded to Wales of a minimum of 35 seats should be removed.
Even after the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, huge areas of Welsh life continue to be determined by decisions of the Government and Parliament in Westminster: everything from pensions, benefits, criminal justice and policing, taxation, levels of public expenditure, macroeconomic policy, and defence and foreign policy, will remain the responsibility of the Government and Parliament in Westminster. This will continue to be the case even if the people of Wales vote in the referendum in March to devolve further powers to the Welsh Assembly.
The situation in the United Kingdom, with devolved Administrations in the various nations, is not uncommon around the world. It is common for countries which have a mixture of central and devolved government to exercise positive discrimination in their constitutions to safeguard the smaller, devolved areas. In that way, the strength of the union is made secure. In the United States, California, with 37 million people, sends two senators to Washington—as does Wyoming, with a population of 544,000. Again, it is important for their union. The smallest state in Germany, Bremen, with a population of 220,000, sends three members to the German Bundesrat, while the largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, with a population of 3 million, sends six. Again, it is important for their union that the smaller regions and nations are protected. Nor should we forget who helped the Germans to devise their constitution after the last war. Representation in the Spanish senate is weighted towards the smaller regions. That also happens in Australia. This is all done because of the need for a strong, central, good union.
Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches should wake up to the threat to our union posed by a 25 per cent reduction in the number of Members of Parliament that Wales sends here. The Conservative Party rightly and for a long time prided itself on being called the Conservative and Unionist Party. Regardless of our political differences—they will always remain, which is good and healthy for our democracy—we should make common cause to defend our union. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the heirs to Lloyd George, know in their hearts that it is not right to remove 25 per cent of Welsh Members from the House of Commons, with Wales bearing 20 per cent of the total reduction in the number of MPs for the whole United Kingdom. A week ago last Monday was the anniversary of the birth of Lloyd George. He loved Wales, her people and her language, and he would never have done anything to diminish her role in the United Kingdom.
The Government have made a case for special treatment for two parliamentary seats in Scotland, which will not be required to meet their ambition for seats of equal size. Your Lordships' House has done the same for the Isle of Wight. Why, therefore, will the Government not consider that there is a case for special consideration for Wales? The Bill proposes that Wales should lose the largest number of MPs in percentage terms of any part of the United Kingdom: 20 per cent of the reduction for the entire country will come from Wales. In the interests of fairness, that cannot be right.
There is another important aspect of Wales that merits special consideration: the Welsh language. In five parliamentary constituencies—Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Ceredigion and Carmarthen East and Dinefwr—Welsh is the first language of a majority of voters. Mr Lewis Baston, a senior research fellow with Democratic Audit, has been much quoted in the debates that we have had in the House in recent days. In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place, he criticised the impact that a reduction of 10 seats would have on Welsh-speaking areas. He said:
“The Bill risks severely depleting the representation of Welsh-speaking areas in the UK Parliament”.
Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom where some 20 per cent of the population speak two languages, Welsh and English. Surely that merits special consideration. If special consideration can be given to preserving two parliamentary constituencies in Scotland because of geographical, historical and community factors, surely Wales can be given special consideration. The same historical and community factors exist in Wales, on top of which there is the unique factor of the Welsh language, which is the first language for a majority of people in five parliamentary constituencies. Have the Government given any consideration to the fact that Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom where a second language is spoken by 20 per cent of the population? What thought has been given to ensuring that the sparsely populated areas of Wales are properly represented in Parliament?
We had a very good debate the other evening about Brecon and Radnor. As many noble Lords will know, this constituency in eastern Wales runs along the border with England. The northernmost tip of that constituency is closer to the north Wales coast than it is to the southernmost tip of the constituency, and the southernmost tip of the constituency is closer to the south Wales coast than it is to the northernmost tip of the constituency. It is a huge area. It is conceivable, if the Bill is not altered, that there could be just two Members of Parliament representing an area from the Welsh/English border in the east to Cardigan Bay in the west: two Members from the Heads of the Valley Road in the south to the borders of Wrexham and the A55 in the north. At a stroke, the long-established community links between MPs and constituents would be lost. Rural MPs in Wales would have to travel great distances to see their constituents, and they would have to travel great distances to see them.
I remind the House of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in our debate the other evening. He said:
“This piece of legislation says that you should look at representation from the viewpoint of the Member of Parliament and the number of constituents that he has. No, my Lords: you should look at it from the other end of the telescope—from the end of the ordinary constituent, who asks himself, ‘How accessible is my Member of Parliament to me?’. If you ask that question, you are likely to get a more reasonable and just result”.—[Official Report, 24/1/11; col. 800.]
I endorse what the noble Lord said.
I will take a step further the argument for the need to preserve community-based representation in Parliament. Has any consideration been given to sustaining the distinctive community-based representation of the south Wales valleys? The noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, made powerful arguments the other evening in favour of sustaining the close link between an MP and his constituents when they admirably put the case for the Isle of Wight. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said:
“This is not just a numbers game. If we end up making it a numbers game, we may very well find that respect, support and influence that Parliament is able to bring to bear through its Members in their constituencies are greatly diminished at a time when we need to strengthen Parliament”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. 413.]
We face the loss of community-based representation across the Welsh valleys. I mentioned this at Second Reading and again in the debate the other evening.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, it is many years since I represented North Wales at cricket, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that I shall follow these discussions with considerable interest. I hope that he will allow me to make one brief intervention, which relates to Clause 11 as a whole. Thereafter, of course, the tour of Wales will continue. I have today tabled an amendment, to which we shall come eventually, but not immediately, which would defer the coming into force of Clause 11 until the end of the work of the Boundary Commission on the constituencies—that is, until the reports are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State proposes to appoint a date and there are affirmative resolutions of both Houses.
I intervene briefly now to avoid any misunderstanding, thats if the coming into force of Clause 11 is deferred, we do not need to amend the clause now. I have tabled my amendment in the hope that it may contribute to an agreement that the Bill should pass, with a view to the referendum on the alternative vote on 5 May. In my view, it remains very important that we should try to get the Bill right. Obviously, there are the key questions of 5 per cent and the excluded constituencies. Before long, we shall come to the question of public inquiries. Today we have the question of the Welsh constituencies. I emphasise that I believe that all these amendments should be properly considered. If we can reach agreement, that is good. That is not inconsistent with my amendment, which would defer the coming into force of Clause 11 if the Bill is passed.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I thank my noble friend Lord Touhig for laying out the case on behalf of Wales so impressively. These three amendments, to which I have added my name, together form a coherent whole. There is the amendment that states that the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales should not be reduced below 35; there is the amendment that states that there should be no reduction of more than 10 per cent in the number of Welsh parliamentary seats at one boundary review; and there is the amendment that proposes that the measures in the Bill should not come into force unless and until powers have been transferred to the Welsh Assembly in consequence of a vote of the people of Wales in the referendum that is to be held this spring.
This is an important debate. It is a debate that we have to have, not least because in another place, there was no debate specifically on the measures in the Bill which would have such an enormous impact on Wales. In Committee in the other place, when amendments dealing with the situation in Wales would have been reached, I understand that some 30 Members of Parliament stood to catch the eye of the Chair, but the guillotine came down and that debate did not take place. That timetable Motion was not a proper way to treat the House of Commons, least of all when dealing with major constitutional legislation. As a consequence of that, aside from other considerations, it is our responsibility in this House to scrutinise the measure as it would affect Wales and discuss our amendments.
The Government are proposing an extreme and rapid reduction in parliamentary representation for Wales. Wales, which has only 5 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, would, under the Government's proposals, suffer 20 per cent of the reduction in the number of parliamentary seats for the country as a whole. Wales would lose 25 per cent of its existing seats. By comparison, Northern Ireland would lose 17 per cent of its seats; Scotland 9 per cent; and England only 5.5 per cent. Of course, it is in England that Conservative electoral strength is most concentrated. Whether or not it is the Government's intention to rig the parliamentary system in support of the Conservative Party, I must tell them that there is a real perception in Wales that that is what it is about.
The noble and learned Lord the Minister may contend that, as things are, Wales is overrepresented in the House of Commons. I recognise that, by reference to the principle of numerical equality between constituencies, that is indeed the case. But, as we have frequently contended in the debates on this legislation, there are other factors that it is proper to take into account. Wales is a nation. It was joined with England in 1536, but over the centuries it has had its own history and, as my noble friend emphasised, its own language. Until now, the Parliament of the United Kingdom has recognised that and has accepted that proportionally Wales should have more seats in the House of Commons than the numbers in its population alone would imply.
There are very good reasons for that. Aside from the reality of Welsh nationhood, there is also the geography of Wales which, as the House is aware, is singularly intractable when it comes to trying to achieve numerical equality between constituencies. There are very large rural areas that are very thinly populated. We have spoken about the constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire in our debates. It is 80 miles from north to south and 40 miles from east to west. It is a huge constituency geographically. If the Government’s proposals were to be implemented in their undiluted form, we would have a constituency that might stretch from Crickhowell in the south to Wrexham in the north. It would be an impossible constituency for a Member of Parliament to represent satisfactorily.
RS Thomas wrote some lines about a Welsh farmer penning his sheep in a gap of cloud on the bald Welsh hills. It is that kind of constituency. It is very difficult to traverse the length and breadth of it, and I wonder how the Member of Parliament, even so excellent a Member of Parliament as Mr Roger Williams, would be able to do justice to the work that needs to be done in the constituency on behalf of his constituents and also to his responsibilities here at Westminster. In the south, there are the valleys, the deep valleys, each of which contains its own very distinct community. Let me again say to the House that the Reform Act 1832, which the Deputy Prime Minister cites as his inspiration, introduced into our system of parliamentary representation the principle that Members of Parliament should represent communities and interests. That way, the people of this country would know that they were represented in the House of Commons and Members of the House of Commons would know what the responsibilities of their colleagues were in terms of representing their communities. It is not wise to ask Members of Parliament to attempt to represent at one and the same time very different communities separated by geographical realities that you cannot simply or sensibly ignore.
It may also be argued by the Government that this wholesale reduction in Welsh representation in the House of Commons is the more justified because Wales has its own Assembly which exercises devolved powers of government. I must remind the House that the powers the Assembly exercises at present are powers of secondary legislation and, as my noble friend Lord Touhig explained to the House, great swathes of the policy that determines how life in Wales is to be led emanate from central government. In macroeconomic policy, Wales receives a block grant that is transferred from London to Cardiff. It is an essential responsibility of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies to consider that block grant and make representations on behalf of their constituents as to its implications. Benefits policy, pensions policy, police, immigration, criminal justice, broadcasting, defence and foreign policy are not devolved responsibilities. The people of Wales accept the policy made on their behalf by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and, correspondingly, they need to have representation that enables their interests to be articulated and allows them to make their contribution to our debates. The Welsh nation has a right to see its interests protected through adequate representation in the House of Commons.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, save for a short intervention of about one minute, I have not so far taken part in debates on this Bill. My short intervention was on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—whom I wish well—when, in a fragile mood in the early hours of the morning, he reminded the Committee that the other place had lost its freedom of unlimited debate at the time of the Fenians in the 19th century. Whether the purpose of his remarks was a gentle hint, a threat—which was denied—or just a Freudian slip, I know not, but I was not surprised when, in a very short time, government supporters trooped into the Lobbies, in a very illiberal step, to force a closure not once but twice on the debate. Was that a sheer coincidence of comment and action, or was it something else?
I shall be very brief and I shall not go into the detail of the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Touhig, who has broadened the canvas and dealt with most of the points. However, I shall return to his main issue: our proposal that the number of parliamentary seats should be 35, rather than the 25 per cent reduction from 40 to 30 as proposed by the Government.
The figure of 35 has a long, almost entrenched history. In 1918, the number of seats in Wales was 36; in 1954, it was not less than 35. The figure remained at 36 through each review until it reached 39 in 1986, as recommended by the Boundary Commission in order to take account of geographical considerations in the county of Gwynedd. The fifth periodical review, operating under the same rules, determined that the number of seats should not be less than 35 and, in fact, it allocated 40.
I have been in politics more than 50 years, I have to confess—I have been in Parliament for more than that period. I had it always in mind that the figure of 35 is, somehow or other, entrenched so far as political representation for Wales is concerned. The reason for that goes back to the basic point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig: that Wales is a nation within a larger country. We need go no further than that. It is because we desire and need good representation as we are a small part of the United Kingdom. That is the basis on which our distinctive voice should be heard, in the way that it has been heard over the centuries.
We need within that very small number of 35 Members of Parliament of all political persuasions from north Wales, mid-Wales and south Wales to articulate the needs of Wales. Its distinctiveness as a nation is exemplified in one way—it may be a small way, but it is important—by the fact that no one in his senses would dream of chopping off bits of either Wales or England and adding it to the other. Why? Because England is a nation and Wales is a nation, and you would not go over the boundary of either country to make a brand new seat which straddled the two countries. Our basic case is that our need as a nation for strong representation at Westminster has in the past been recognised. If there is concern about the Tamar, the Tyne and the Isle of Wight—I have heard the debates about them—how much more concern there is when a nation is concerned. We are dealing not with counties in England but with the nation of Wales, hence our need for our traditional representation.
I understand the case for arithmetic equality across the whole country, but it is a fact that, in the past, Boundary Commissions have been allowed—indeed encouraged—by Parliament to take into account a whole host of other factors. Arithmetic equality is not the beginning and the end and it has never been thus. If it were, we could draw straight lines and squares across the whole of the United Kingdom. Allowing for the coast, we could parcel England and Wales into neat little squares. That is what relying solely on arithmetic equality would result in. Indeed, we would be behaving like our colonialist forefathers in Africa, drawing straight lines and creating new countries regardless of tribes one way or the other. It was my privilege as a young Minister as long ago as the early 1960s to help draw up plans for sharing the wealth of the North Sea. Well, that was very easy to do by drawing squares, because it was only water that stopped you from extending the square one way or the other, but you cannot do it when countries are involved and without having regard to strong community ties.
In the past, valleys and large areas such as Brecon and Radnor and Gwynedd have had to be taken into account by Boundary Commissions. People in the valleys do not often cross from one valley to another—I can count almost on the fingers of one hand how much I went over from my valley, the Afan valley, into other adjacent valleys. Some people did—there was some community of interest—but, generally, people went up and down, and the community of interest was north and south. The imagination boggles at the thought of trying to create maps in the north of Glamorgan and the north of Gwent to meet the needs of those different communities and of the poor, eventual, long- suffering Member of Parliament having to attend to those needs time and again.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made some very helpful points about Wales as a whole and about the valleys, the language and a certain number of counties. In view of his familiarity with west Wales, in particular Ceredigion, perhaps he could help the House by saying something about the special needs for representation in those areas.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I do not want to detain the House. I have made the point that there is a long association between a Member of Parliament and a constituency. If anyone knows anything about west Wales, and I venture to suggest that I do, other Members of this House also do; I see the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, nodding.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate already, and nearly all the salient points in favour of these amendments have been made with great force and eloquence by earlier speakers. I endorse, adopt and applaud everything that has been said. I am deeply flattered by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, quoting from an intervention of mine. Was it some days or weeks ago? I am not sure; time now seems to have lost its significance. I believe it goes to the very heart of truth. The most important contributions that have been made have centred on the nationhood of Wales. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who does not accept the fact of Welsh nationality and respect that as an historical and incontrovertible fact. TS Eliot, I think, says that a,
“Rose is a rose is a rose”.
It says everything. We could say, “A nation is a nation is a nation”, which means that surrounding that concept of nationhood there is respect for, and indeed an acceptance of, that entity, and that is the basis on which we should approach this question tonight, as I am sure we will.
Wales is one of the oldest nations in Europe. Noble Lords will remember that Milton, who was not only a great poet but the Principal Private Secretary to Oliver Cromwell for many years—in many respects the spin merchant of the Government of that day—spoke of Wales as an ancient “nation, proud in arms”. That was three and a half centuries ago. David Lloyd George, as I am sure his distinguished grandson will recollect, said once in the House of Commons that we in Wales were a land of poets and kings when the Anglo-Saxons were on the shores of the Baltic subsisting on piracy and periwinkles. I do not necessarily adopt that historical theory as the basis of my case, but one thing is certain and it has been said so clearly and eloquently; what is proposed here is not just a marginal change but a savage amputation of Welsh representation in the House of Commons. That is no exaggeration. It means that Wales, with 5.3 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, has to bear 20 per cent of this surgery.
To put this another way, in the whole of the United Kingdom there is a diminution of seats to the tune, I calculate, of about 7.6 per cent. In Wales it is 25 per cent. We can bandy figures around, but the fact is that Wales is disproportionately dealt with to a very cruel degree as far as this part of the legislation is concerned. Do we deserve that? Is that right? Is that just? Is that inevitable? Those are the questions which I think that the House would wish to exercise in relation to this matter.
I believe there to be real sincerity in the attitude of many Members on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches, who believe that they can achieve fairness by a slavish adherence to arithmetical consistency. I respectfully suggest that they are wrong. Of course, some idea of a norm that would apply generally, all other things being equal, to constituencies as a whole would be utterly admirable. I have no doubt, and I accept, that in every consideration arithmetical consistency has some part to play. However, my first submission is that it is entirely chimerical. It does not achieve fairness because of so many other factors, with which we have dealt earlier. For example, the accessibility of a Member of Parliament to each and every constituent is far more important.
Secondly, mathematical correctitude cannot be achieved. Let us think of it in these terms. The register will be inaccurate, so far as the population and the possible electorate of a constituency are concerned, to the tune of about 3.5 million. As for Wales, my calculation on the basis of 5.3 per cent is roughly 185,000. That is a considerable totality of votes, which can of course completely affect this philosophy. It is as if the Government are saying, “We are aiming at a target through telescopic sights, and once we have that target in the crosshairs, we will be satisfied that we have done everything”, but they forget that the barrel is bent. That bullet will never reach the spot at which the crosshairs are aiming. It will be a long way away. What possible validity can there be, therefore, for the theory that arithmetical correctitude governs all? There can never be.
I know that the noble and learned Lord who will reply to the debate will inevitably turn to devolution. In many public statements, he has already done so in relation to Wales and Scotland, but in Wales in particular devolution is linked with this considerable diminution in the number of seats. With great respect, I challenge that completely. Just before the Summer Recess, I asked the noble Lord, Lord McNally—I join everyone in wishing him a speedy return to this House—whether the culling of seats in Wales and Scotland would be affected by devolution. His answer was clear and to the point. He said, “No”.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, who is a man of high intelligence and total integrity, will consider this argument very carefully. It can be tested in this way. Let us pretend for a moment that there had never been devolution in Wales and that no Wales Office had been created in 1964. Let us assume that no Welsh Assembly had come into being in 1998 and that there had been no Government of Wales Act 2006. Wales would still be losing 10 out of 40 of its constituencies. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, must have been right; this problem has nothing to do with devolution.
Further corroborative evidence, were it necessary, comes from the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution. The Deputy Prime Minister gave evidence before it and was asked why the diminution should be so great in Wales? All he said was, “Either you apply the same rules to Wales in order to bring about a commonality of electors or you do not”. Not a word was mentioned about devolution. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would accept that, but from the way in which I have looked at that, whatever can be said about devolution I see that it has nothing to do with the reduction of seats from 40 to 30.
The case is simple. For a long time, Wales has enjoyed generous overrepresentation. There is no doubt about that. I think it was in 1377—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, will correct me—that the figure of 24 was decided upon. Some centuries later it went up to 28. In 1832, it was 32. We know—indeed, we have had the benefit of the researches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, into the latter period—that there is considerable overrepresentation.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I had rather expected that I might follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, whose name is on the amendment, but probably it is right that we should split the Cross-Bench speakers at this time—the noble Lord will have the opportunity to demolish any arguments that I may make.
I hope that it is not out of order for me to start with two personal remarks. The first is that it is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in the House. He and I often did not agree with each other, but I always respected his views and the way in which he put them forward. My second personal observation is that the amendment was introduced with the extraordinary courtesy that is always shown by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. It is in the spirit with which he spoke that I wish to take part in this debate. He said that we should all think about this issue. I have been thinking about it and I shall continue to think about it, but I would like to discuss a few thoughts that I have had along the way.
The noble Lord spoke about going too quickly. Others have also raised that subject. I greatly welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, because it gives the possibility of some further consideration along the road. I contrast that with the third amendment in this group, Amendment 102AA, which seems to me to kick the whole thing out so far into the future that it would effectively kill this legislation. I find it difficult to have any but negative thoughts about the third amendment, but I, too, understand the need for thought.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, referred to the 1944 Speaker’s Conference. My first thought is that there have been considerable changes since then. At that time, we did not have a Secretary of State for Wales in the British Cabinet. We did not have a Welsh Office or, as it is now, a Wales Office. We had not taken the first steps down the road to devolution and the creation of a Welsh Assembly, whether it has the existing powers or the powers that it may have after the referendum. Even the world of the valleys, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, spoke with feeling and great knowledge, has changed a good deal. Communities in those days were probably even more tight-knit than they are today. People walked straight out of their homes and into the pit or the mine and the road links between the valleys had not been improved. The first moves in 1944 were made at a time when the horrors of the recession were in many people’s minds and it was felt that Wales needed special consideration. But things have changed.
My second thought is about the effect of having more Welsh Members of Parliament. In part, the answer was given by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, when he started listing the names of distinguished Welshmen. In my experience, what has influenced the decisions of Governments has not been the number of Welsh Members of Parliament but the quality of the arguments that they advanced. I spent a number of years leading on Welsh affairs from the opposition Benches and then for eight years I was Secretary of State for Wales. I cannot think of a single occasion when an important decision was taken—or, indeed, when any decision was taken—with the thought in Ministers’ minds, “My goodness, there are 35 Welsh Members of Parliament, not 30”. The number was, I think, 35 in those days. I was influenced by the quality of the argument that was put to me.
I will cite one example, which will be all too familiar to Welsh people in this House. In the dramatic early days, when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and I had only just become Ministers, we found ourselves in passionate debate about the future of Welsh language broadcasting. The crucial moment in that consideration was not, as has sometimes been said, the actions of Mr Gwynfor Evans. In fact, it was a visit paid to Lord Whitelaw and me by three very distinguished Welshmen: one much-loved former Member of this House, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the then Archbishop of Wales and Sir Goronwy Daniel. After the meeting, Lord Whitelaw asked me what I thought we should do. I said, “If we cannot carry sensible, wise, moderate, middle-of the-road opinion on this issue, we should change our policy, because we cannot deal with the extremists if we cannot have the support of people like that”. The point that I am making is that it was the weight of the argument that was put to me that influenced the Government; it was never the thought of there being 35 Welsh Members of Parliament rather than 30. Therefore, I start with a certain scepticism about that argument.
Then it was argued—I think that the implication was made in this debate today, but it was certainly argued in another place at the time—that somehow the case for the Welsh language would be weakened if there were fewer representatives from north Wales, probably one fewer, incidentally. I think that I am probably right in saying that today there are more Welsh-speaking Welshmen living in Glamorgan, Cardiff and the industrial belt in the south than there are in north-west Wales. Furthermore, many of them represent the professional classes. They are in government, local government and the media. A number of them are very distinguished Members of this House. It is their voices—not just the voices, however strong, of the Members of Parliament for the north Wales constituencies—that support and sustain the Welsh language. Perhaps I might dare to add that it is not only the Welsh-speaking Welshmen. Regrettably, my grandfather was the last Welsh-speaking member of my family—I greatly regret that I do not speak the language—but I do not think that any Government of any political party have done more to support the Welsh language than the Government of which I and my English-speaking successors in the Welsh Office were members, supported and sustained all through, of course, by my Welsh-speaking noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. The Welsh language has its defenders without the need for that special representation.
Then there is the argument that I thought that I must consider most carefully and which I do consider most carefully. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, will advance this argument, too. It is about the pace of change.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord’s most eloquent submissions in favour of the argument that numbers do not really count; it is quality that counts and the ability to put a case. Would he with equal equanimity view the prospect of the number of English Members of Parliament being reduced by 25 per cent, confident that the remaining 75 per cent would put all the necessary arguments?
Lord Crickhowell
I do not really wish to add to the strength of the argument that I have already put. I am talking about the quality not just of the Members of Parliament but of all the other advocates who speak for Wales. They are not all in the House of Commons; indeed, some of the most effective ones are outside it.
I was going on to the question of the pace of change. I might be rather tempted on that, but I do not see how you seriously undertake the process gradually if you are to set about change. It is difficult. I cannot think of anything much worse than having a series of reductions taking place in successive elections. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said that the relationship that the individual Member of Parliament has with his constituency should as far as possible be stable and long-lasting. I therefore doubt whether a step-by-step change is feasible.
The other argument to which I have given thought was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in moving his amendment. Indeed, he brought me up short and made me think again. He suggested that somehow this would increase the threat of separatism and would threaten the union. I am doubtful about that proposition. It may be right, and I will listen to the argument, but I suspect that those who are so deeply moved by the question of whether there should be 35 or 30 Members of Parliament that it affects their view of the union are mostly politicians—Members of Parliament and perhaps Assembly Members—rather than members of the great Welsh public. I may be wrong, but I do not think that Owain Glyndwr is rising from his unknown grave and about to lead the people of Wales into a great campaign because our nation is threatened by this terrible change. I am a bit doubtful about that argument.
Then there is the proposition about small nations needing special representation. While pondering these issues over the past few days, I said to myself that it was rather demeaning for the Welsh nation to believe that it has to have a few more Members of Parliament in order to stand up as a nation. Surely that cannot be right. I know that there are examples elsewhere in the world—normally because of the structures of government in other nations, such as federal systems—where more Members are given, but I believe that the Welsh nation can take pride and have confidence in itself because it is the Welsh nation and not because it has 35 rather than 30 Members of Parliament. I do not find that argument wholly convincing.
We come to the final issue of community-based representation, which gives me some concern. I have some sympathy with the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde last night that most people are much more interested in the county or the area in which they live than in the political constituency. Indeed, I confess that I still have some difficulty remembering the new names for the two constituencies that now make up my former constituency. I have a feeling that, if any of my former constituents were asked where they live, almost without exception they would say “Pembrokeshire”. Very few, if any of them, would ever refer to a particular constituency. Yet, of course, community-based representation is extremely important and it is because I believe that it is important that I have consistently supported the proposal that there should be a 20 per cent spread from top to bottom rather than a 10 per cent spread. Indeed, I supported Members on the opposition Front Bench when they put forward that proposal, which deals with many of the community problems that have been identified in the debate today.
I do not see how we can go gradually down this road, although I was glad to have the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I will continue to think about it. I hope also that my colleagues on the Front Bench will continue to think about the genuine issues that have been raised today. In that spirit of consideration, although I would find it rather hard to support a vote if the amendment was pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, I shall certainly continue to consider very carefully the arguments that have been advanced.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for whom I have great respect. Yesterday he was courteous enough to mention that he was going to attack certain aspects of the three amendments with which I am proud to be associated. I am sure that your Lordships have had quite enough of special pleading. During the past few days, special pleading has really been the game around in the many hours of debate that I have sat through—although certainly not as many as other noble Lords. Yes, this is special pleading, but with a great difference. Wales is not a region but, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, have both mentioned, we are a nation of the United Kingdom.
At the weekend I looked again at my set of Encyclopaedia Britannica from the late 19th century which stands on a shelf in my library. I just wanted to remind myself and perhaps get a little worked up for this moment. There it was: under “Wales” it says, “See England”. We have come, admittedly, a long way since then. Rather perversely I could turn that on its head and say that if we were part of England, we would have a reduction of only 5 per cent. Coming from one section of the encyclopaedia to the “W” section and getting a full explanation of what our nation does appears to have cost us 25 per cent of our parliamentary seats.
So much has been said most eloquently by previous speakers, but I have three problems that I want to address: process, perception and fairness. I shall take process first. Last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, drew our attention in a different context to the report of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution. I shall read just two brief excerpts from it. The first relates to a report produced last October by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee of another place which was highly critical of process in the Bill. Paragraph 50 of the Lords committee states:
“We also note their view that ‘the unique position of Wales in terms of its geography, culture and history has long been recognised in its Westminster constituencies’ and their recommendation that the Government amend the Bill ‘to permit the Boundary Commission to give greater weight to these factors when drawing up new constituencies’”.
That is the considered opinion of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. The report goes on to say in paragraph 51:
“We reiterate that pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would have provided an opportunity for these concerns to be properly addressed”.
That, to my mind, puts a question mark against process. When things are done, they have to be seen to be done in an equitable fashion. Equity is quite a distorted word, so let us just call it doing things in a fair way. I can understand, though I disagree with, what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about whether we needed so many MPs. I overhead a noble Lord saying, “We could halve the number of MPs to 15 on that basis and we would still be a very proud nation”. The question is not whether Wales is overrepresented; it has been acknowledged for a long time that Wales was overrepresented, but it is overrepresented for a reason. I do not want to rehearse the reasons that have already been mentioned.
My attention was drawn to an exchange of correspondence between the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Speaker Clifton Brown on 24 May 1944. I am not going to quote it to you, though it would actually do us all well to hear the words of one of the more eloquent gentlemen of the last hundred years. In the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the Speaker, he requested that the Speaker set up a Speaker’s Conference to report within a certain period on—of course—redistribution of seats, reform of the franchise and methods of election. It does not seem to go away, does it? There are two points to make. One is about the process. The Speaker had assembled 22 or 24 Members of both Houses and some outsiders. They came back to the Prime Minister within four months with some very good recommendations which were sent to the Boundary Commission. That was the process: there it was; one could see how the whole thing started. It was a committee of all political parties which wanted to address what was concerning the Prime Minister at the time—that he wanted to take a look at the redistribution of seats in the United Kingdom.
We have heard that the last time there was an Act in which it was clearly stated that Wales should have “no less than 35 seats” was back in 1986. What we are missing in this is some reason why the Government have decided on numbers and then went on to fit parts of the United Kingdom into those numbers. I cannot be convinced. If I feel that way, I am sure that other equally ignorant people in the world will feel it also. The process is really faulty—it is faulty to my satisfaction, and will be faulty to the people of Wales when it is presented to them.
Let me draw the attention of noble Lords to my second point, about fairness and perception. In respect of fairness, I have talked about the reduction of seats—25 per cent, 40 to 30 and so on. I said in a slightly jocular way that if we were still part of England—“For Wales, see England”—or even Monmouthshire, we would only have got a 5 per cent chop. Where is the fairness in that? It just escapes me. Yes, I put my name to 35 MPs—the 1986 Act of Parliament has never been repealed. There are other parts of the Act that have been repealed. Why should it now just be thrown out because somewhere some group of individuals have put themselves together and said, “Wales is overrepresented; take it down by 25 per cent”? Really, the more I think about it, the more I think it is just extraordinary and savage—that was the word used by my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan.
I am a great supporter of these amendments. I believe that we really have to ensure that the Government think carefully about their treatment of Wales. I am a unionist, but I am talking about perception. What will the people of Wales think? I can tell you that the 10 MPs who lose their seats are going to make a great noise about it throughout Wales, and only one side of the story will be heard, and the perception will be there. I think it is dangerous.
Before I conclude, I would like to correct something that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. He said that the third amendment, Amendment 102AA, was to kick the issue into the long grass. It was no more kicking it into the long grass than the amendment recently tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. He was actually saying, “Look, hold on a second. If you are going to do something, just wait, because, if in March the people of Wales say, ‘We want to give more powers to our Assembly—to give them some power to make primary legislation’, then there could be a reason to look at representation”. But certainly in my opinion, it should be no less than the 35 seats that sits on the statute book today.
Lord Morgan
I lend my support to this amendment, which has been so admirably moved; there have been a number of excellent speeches. I see that I do so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who, among other things, represents the powerful traditions of David Lloyd George, whose spirit hovers over this debate. I think that the proposals to reduce Welsh representation in this way are deeply unfair to Wales as a nation and deeply damaging to its interests, to the House of Commons and to the United Kingdom.
Parliamentary representation is central to what has happened in the modern history of Wales. We heard the famous quotation from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It was a Welsh Bishop—not the Welsh Bishop who is the distinguished ancestor of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but another, the Bishop of St David’s—who said that there was no such place as Wales. He said that it was geographical expression, as Metternich had described Italy.
Since then, Wales has advanced rapidly. It has acquired increasing recognition of its nationhood and its identity. It has, in important ways—if the Minister will allow this thought—achieved equality with Scotland, and with other areas on the rugby field, more than equality, I think. This has been acquired through parliamentary persuasion. It has been in large measure political, but it has had social and cultural aspects as well. The interesting feature to me, and a feature of the history of modern Wales, is that this recognition of nationhood has gone along with ties with the Union of the United Kingdom remaining extremely strong, even after devolution. Therefore, the history of Wales in the United Kingdom, and the history of Ireland in the United Kingdom have been manifestly different.
The motor of change has been democracy; that means the use of the parliamentary persuasive method. I note the very sound point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the quality of the people involved is important. If Wales were represented by 40 idiots or people of mediocre talent, perhaps it might not matter how many you had. If you had a genius, Wales could be represented by one person. But I also think—to quote a famous advert—size matters, and a significant number to make a collective point at all levels of the legislature of the United Kingdom is extremely important.
If we look back, as I am prone to do, we find that the achievements of Wales have relied very heavily on the parliamentary pressure that Welsh MPs have been able to bring. A great landmark was the beginnings of legislation for Wales alone. That legislation was the ill starred Sunday Closing Act 1881, which is commonly thought of in a moral or religious context, but it was very important because it stated for the first time that you could have a statute that applied to Wales—a distinct legislative principle that did not apply to England. Obviously, that depended heavily on Welsh parliamentary pressure and representation. It was followed by the famous Act that set up the county schools in Wales and eventually, as it was seen then, the great triumph of the disestablishment of the church in 1920. There have been many cultural aspects associated with this, such as the National Library, the National Museum of Wales and the University of Wales, for which I had the honour to be vice-chancellor for some years. All of that depended on effective political pressure through Parliament. That was the way the Welsh chose—the method of persuasion. It is significant that throughout this period not only did Welsh parliamentary representation increase in quality but the numbers of Welsh Members of Parliament went on increasing, from 34 to 36.
In the period after the First World War, parliamentary achievement stalled. I think that that was because the United Kingdom was involved in social and economic problems of a great kind. Trade unions were strongly unionist in sympathy. The Labour Party changed quite remarkably in the interwar years from support for local devolution shown by people, such as Keir Hardie, to a strong commitment to centralisation. There was no advance between the wars but no retreat either. What we have heard about the Speaker’s Conference of 1944, including the very sensitive approach adopted by Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister at that period, shows how the point about Welsh nationhood and identity had been absorbed.
From the 1960s, as everybody knows, there was a period of very dramatic change. We had the Welsh Office, devolution and associated major changes in the cultural life of Wales, including aspects of a culture in the visual arts, for example, not traditionally associated with Wales. The movement for Welsh recognition has gone on but, as we have heard, the connection between Wales and Westminster and Whitehall has remained extremely powerful. We have heard of many areas such as social services, justice, and so on, indicating the enormous importance for Wales in having strong representation and pressure to sustain its interests. Throughout that period, representation went up until it reached a total of 40 in the Act of 1986.
One important point that strikes me from this historical background is that all the parties have contributed. It has been profoundly to the advantage of Wales that all the main parties have adopted a non-adversarial and constructive approach. The Liberal Party played a glorious and distinguished role before 1914. It is interesting to see how the Liberal Party changed its approach to Welsh matters. Gladstone, that great man who was concerned with home rule for Ireland, came to realise that Ireland and Wales were different. If you had, for example, disestablishment of the church in Ireland, that was taking you along the road of separatism. In Wales, that disestablishment of the church was an alternative to separatism and was committing you the more strongly to being in the United Kingdom.
The Conservative Party has been increasingly sympathetic, if the Bishops’ Bench will allow me to say so, since the disestablishment of the church. That was the great incubus for the Conservative Party in Wales. It was thought of as an English party and the party of the Church of England in Wales. Since the disestablishment of the church, the Conservative Party has been able to be hugely more constructive. Winston Churchill set up a Ministry of Welsh Affairs. We heard the recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on setting up the Welsh television channel, which I was fascinated to hear. We have had a series of remarkably sympathetic Administrations under the Conservatives in the Welsh Office. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and when I was in Aberystwyth, Lord Walker. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is remembered with great affection; Mr Redwood, I do not recall with quite the same warmth and affection. However, we had the talisman of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who was enormously valuable and deeply sympathetic. I used to argue that the Conservative Party would benefit enormously from devolution in Wales and that it would have a much more positive and central role in Welsh life. So it has proved.
The Labour Party has oscillated. It began with a very devolutionist view, then became a very centralist party, perhaps in the 1920s to the 1960s or 1970s, and has suffered from that electorally. The Welsh Office and devolution were the work of a Labour Government and the Government of Wales Act took the process of devolution considerably further. We will have the referendum on further powers for the Welsh Assembly in March and I hope very much that it will be successful. All that will create a more diversified but more durable United Kingdom and sets Wales firmly in its place.
I worry that this Bill is quite different. It gets away from this all-party constructive approach to Welsh politics. It inflicts greater damage on the Welsh political system than any legislation we have had since the mid-19th century. The ties of Parliament with Wales will be weakened at a time when the powers of the Welsh Assembly call for a strong Welsh presence in Parliament and when, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, the economic recession will make the need for a strong protective mechanism for Wales in Parliament more necessary than ever, given the greater importance of the public sector in Wales. This is a very damaging change of stance by the present Government and I find it deeply ironic that the party of the union is proposing a step that will weaken the ties between Wales and Westminster.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, observed, the perception is deeply important, and perception can lead to other things. It has been done in a thoughtless and casual way. We look forward to what the Minister will say, but so far there has been no compromise, no consideration or alternative views. We had the rejection of an idea of a Speaker’s Conference. There is no suggestion that we might have the kind of Boundary Commission that would take local views into account and reflect on a range of issues. As my noble friend Lord Touhig observed, a mishmash of new constituencies will be created, based on the crudest mathematical formula without concern for geography, history or community—the idea for which philosophers whom the Conservative Party reveres, such as Edmund Burke, have called across the centuries. The crudity of the process ignores the subtle variations within Wales, which as we have heard has very large constituencies, where the connection between electors and the Member of Parliament can be very difficult to sustain. It is particularly harmful to the Welsh-speaking areas of Wales. Again, slightly demurring from the stance of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I believe that what is important is preserving Welsh communities. It is quite true that most Welsh people live in south Wales—the Cardiff et cetera bourgeoisie—working in the public service. The huge concentration of governmental machinery in south-east Wales is a major reason for that. We want to take account of communities in sparsely populated rural areas. As I mentioned the other day, I have a Meirionnydd mother and a Cardiganshire father divided by the River Dovey. There are subtle variations that the mathematical formula pays no heed to at all.
I dread the thought of some of these new constituencies coming into play. We have already had aberrations in the reorganisation of Welsh local government. I well recall when I was at Aberystwyth dealing with a monstrous aberration called Dyfed, and confronting the councillors in Llanelli and Burry Port, trying on occasion perhaps to play the Labour Party card and totally failing because they did not really regard that area of the frozen north, as they saw it, as a part of Dyfed at all.
We must have a formula for the size of constituencies that is flexible. I find the irrational process in which this change has been conducted deeply distasteful. It is a result, as with so many of the policies we currently have, of secret backstairs private discussions within the coalition. But we have not had them within Parliament so far. The House of Lords is doing, as it so often does, what the House of Commons was not enabled to do. There was no debate on these dramatic changes in Wales that occurred because of the use of the guillotine. I regard these proposals as a throwback to the cultural imperialism of the 19th century, with a coalition claiming, in effect, that there is no such place as Wales; that they really do not care about it and they are not prepared to listen. That is, unless their policy changes, very deeply to their discredit.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who is a fellow north Walian. I look forward to hearing his maiden speech, but perhaps not this evening. We have gone on long enough I think.
As we are all aware, under the Bill as it stands, the total of Welsh parliamentary seats will be reduced from 40 to 30, which is an unprecedented figure. Even in 1832 Wales had 32 seats and, of course, the number has grown since then to 35 under the Representation of the People Act 1918, 36 under the Representation of the People Act 1948, to 38 in 1982-83, and 40 in 1995, under various statutory instruments passed by Conservative Governments. So the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, is perfectly correct in saying that both major parties have contributed over the years to this increase in Welsh representation. It is interesting to note that in 1948, while the Labour Government reduced the overall number of Members of the House of Commons from 640 to 625, they increased the number of Welsh seats by one.
How have the present proposals come about? The Government made their views very clear in the evidence that they supplied to the Welsh Affairs Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals. It is clear from that evidence that it is the equal value of votes cast at parliamentary elections across the UK that is the overriding principle. Currently they do not have equal value. The Government go on to say in that evidence:
“The electoral quota for Wales’s forty constituencies averages around 56,500, the lowest of the four nations in the United Kingdom. Welsh constituencies now have on average some 20% fewer electors than constituencies in England; almost 14% fewer than constituencies in Scotland; and some 13% fewer than constituencies in Northern Ireland”.
Those are the facts. The Government go on in that evidence to point out the inequality in vote value among constituencies in Wales. They say:
“For example, the vote of an elector in Arfon, with an electorate of around 41,000, is worth almost twice that of an elector in Cardiff South and Penarth, with an electorate of over 73,000. The votes of electors in Aberconwy, Dwyfor Meirionydd and Montgomeryshire, all with electorates below 50,000, are worth considerably more than those in the Vale of Glamorgan, with an electorate of over 70,000 … The Government believes that, again, there is strong justification for ending this manifest inequality”.
I cannot say that that is felt at all acutely in Wales. Nevertheless, those are the facts that we must consider.
Some would think that the Government’s proposals are among the consequentials of devolution and the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales with its 60 representatives. They would recall that Scottish representation was reduced in 2005 from 72 to 59. The Government’s evidence appears to deny that in the case of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was absolutely right on that. In their evidence the Government deal with the view,
“that given the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales and the extent of devolution to the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government, Wales’s representation at Westminster should be proportionally less than that of England, not the same. The Government disagrees with this view. Since devolution, Parliament continues to legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom on matters that are non-devolved, including social security, tax, immigration and defence. It is surely right in principle that the people of Wales should have the same level of representation in respect to these matters as the people of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
There we have the Government’s reasoned justification for their proposals. We are all aware of the factors that the Boundary Commission may take into account in deciding boundaries. We would all probably agree that a 10 per cent variation on either side of the quota would probably make life easier without mortally injuring the basic equality principle that lies at the heart of this Bill. As has already been said, Mr Lewis Baston of Democratic Audit has drafted a list of a possible 30 constituencies approximating the required size. The list is to be found in the Welsh Affairs Committee evidence. It merits close study. Of course it would be controversial, as any proposals for boundary changes are bound to be.
Devolution and the election of 60 National Assembly Members should have reduced the constituency workload of MPs, especially in the areas of devolved government—health, education, housing, and so on. But some MPs tell me that constituents still come to see them rather than their Assembly Members. If so, that is a problem that they should sort out among themselves at ground level. Wales has many problems. Indeed someone asked where Wales would be without its problems. More MPs than average is not the answer in my view. I agree that it is a matter of quality. Better quality MPs might help, but not more.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has expressed my views very well about the very eloquent arguments that we have heard in the course of this debate. Like him, I shall continue to ponder, but your Lordships may rest assured that there is no doubt that the issue of parliamentary representation of Wales is crucial. As the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, has said, Parliament has played a very important part in our history. I hesitate to say it but surely the 16th century Act that was passed requiring the translation of the Bible into Welsh was a unique piece of Welsh legislation. If my memory, which is faulty, nevertheless serves me correct, it was 1563 and it was a fellow countryman from the Conwy valley, where I reside, Richard Davies, who actually pressed that statute in this very House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, introduced this debate with eloquence and discipline and summarised the points beautifully. I wish to address two aspects only: devolution and Wales’s contribution to the UK today.
In the devolution settlement for Scotland, the powers were much clearer. Even if Wales has greater devolution —the Liberal Democrats had always said that they wanted to cut the number of MPs when the Assembly was stronger—and we go down to 35 MPs, we in Wales will still have lost a greater percentage than Scotland will have done. Fairness in devolution needs to be looked at.
What about Wales in the UK today? I refer noble Lords simply to the Armed Forces. We should remember that the population of Wales is just over 5 per cent of that of the UK. There are 37 regular battalions in the British Army, three of which are Welsh and six Scottish. Eleven per cent of recruits come from Wales and more than 7 per cent of casualties in Afghanistan are from Wales. At the height of Operation Panther’s Claw in summer 2010, the proportion of Welsh soldiers was between 20 and 25 per cent, as Welsh regiments such as the Welsh Guards were on the front line. An MoD spokesman, Paul Barnard, said in an interview last year:
“It’s certainly true … that Wales punches above its weight in the armed forces … And for that Welsh people should be proud, and the rest of the UK should be grateful”.
Indeed, the rest of the UK should be grateful, as Wales does contribute. We have a devolved Assembly, but the role of the MPs in the other place is important. We contribute to the UK. That is why this is such a serious debate and why the amendment as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, is well crafted and should be supported.
Lord Rowlands
My Lords, I had the privilege of representing for 30 years one of the most remarkable constituencies in the country. It cannot be denied that Merthyr Tydfil has played an enormous role in the political, social and cultural developments in Wales, particularly in south Wales. It also has a remarkable sense of continuity. There has been mention of the Reform Act 1832. That Act created Merthyr Tydfil as a constituency, although not until the very last minute. In the last moments of the debates in the Commons and the last stages of the third Reform Bill, the Government eventually gave in to pressure to create the constituency of Merthyr Tydfil. In three successive Bills it was proposed that Merthyr should be a contributory borough of Cardiff. Neither Merthyr nor Cardiff thought that that was a good idea. Cardiff believed that it would be swamped by the Merthyr hordes and Merthyr considered that it was—as it was at that time—a more populous and more economically thriving community than the decaying county town of Cardiff. At the very last minute, the boundary change was made, and the concession was made.
When I reread the proceedings of the 1832 Reform Bills, two things struck me. One was that the Government of the day, and Lords Grey, Althorp and Russell, made considerable concessions to gain parliamentary assent. They seem to have accepted that the only way they could get that major Reform Bill through was by building parliamentary assent. They made concessions that some people thought they never should have made, but they were made. You do not create great parliamentary reform of this kind through ministerial macho approaches. It is important to build parliamentary assent. One of the saddest things about our lengthy debates is that no such attempt to build parliamentary assent has been made—not so far, anyway. I hope that at this late stage that process can and should start.
As I say, Merthyr Tydfil was created by the Reform Act 1832. During the 19th century it grew in population and electorate and became a two-Member seat. In 1900, it produced a remarkable dual membership: the first Labour Member of Parliament, Keir Hardie, who served the constituency alongside one of the richest men in Britain, the mighty coal owner DA Thomas, later Viscount Rhondda. In 1918, it reverted to a single-Member seat. Since 1918 to this very day, the core of the Merthyr constituency is the Merthyr county borough. However, given its remit, I have no guarantee or assurance that the Boundary Commission will respect that core. It may do what a former Boundary Commission once recommended and fracture the core of that constituency—the community-based constituency that I had the privilege of serving. I am fortunate that, in 34 years in the other place, I went through only one parliamentary Boundary Commission.
Listening to these debates has brought back many memories of that experience. One of the first proposals of the Boundary Commission convened before the 1983 election was that Aberfan and the Merthyr Vale ward in the heart of the Merthyr Valley should be transferred to a new constituency in the Cynon Valley. There were two problems with that. First, there happened to be a rather large mountain between the two and there was no direct route between them, which meant that local people thought that the Boundary Commission was working off a flat map with no contours of any kind.
Secondly, can one imagine the total insensitivity of supposing that Aberfan and Merthyr Vale be removed from the Merthyr constituency at a time when, some years after the Aberfan tragedy, we were still dealing with its long-term consequences at both parliamentary and borough level? That is the kind of insensitivity that I fear will arise time and again if the Boundary Commission’s remit stays as it is. It will not respect the community feeling that is such a passionate part of our political and community life. I felt that most forcefully when in 1983 the then Boundary Commission eventually amended the constituency by attaching the Rhymney Valley to Merthyr. This was not thought well of in the Rhymney Valley. There are deep attachments not necessarily to counties but to constituencies. The people of Rhymney Valley were passionately attached to their constituency of Ebbw Vale. It was little wonder that that was the case as they had been represented for more than 30 years by Aneurin Bevan and were represented at that time by Michael Foot. It took a huge effort to try to rebuild and connect communities to make the new constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney feel as one, and these were communities with identical political and social values.
While Boundary Commissions are impartial, they are certainly not infallible. The great value of local inquiries is that they allow communities to educate the commissioners in what communities are all about. However, communities will be denied that under this Bill if the Boundary Commission makes the absurd proposals that have been made in the past, which happily were quickly rejected because of the outrage that they caused locally. That experience could be repeated over and over again, as they cut across normal communities and move wards around, as is feared will be the consequence of the Bill.
I also want to touch upon the second point about the relationship between the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster and the union. I heard and reread the first attempt by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to defend this argument a week last Monday. He said:
“The important point to remember is that the reform means that a vote in Cardiff will have an equal value to a vote in Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh or London. To me, that does not undermine the union; giving an equal value to a vote in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and London will, we hope, bring the union closer together”.—[Official Report, 10/01/2011; col. 1227.]
The notion that by cutting 10 constituencies in Wales and reducing representation to the Commons by 25 per cent will somehow create a closer sense of union is an absurd suggestion by the noble and learned Lord, who has made a very good fist of a very poor case throughout most of these debates. I do not think that the kind of cut that is envisaged will create a closer union; I think it will sow seeds of disunion.
I cannot follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that numbers do not matter. Besides equality, they matter every now and then in the Lobbies. Among other things, therefore, a proper representation—certainly not 30—is essential for the good maintenance of the union, alongside devolution itself. I might be a bit of an endangered species in this case. My noble friend Professor Lord Morgan was, I think, thinking of me; I am an old-fashioned Labour unionist at heart and in the Bevanite tradition that meant that you had to be where power is. Power is and will remain, very substantially, in Whitehall and Westminster to influence the affairs of Wales. We cannot afford to reduce that representation, or to be perceived to have done so. Never mind being perceived; it will have happened if we cut the numbers by the amount suggested.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, feel any affinity to the great Whig/Liberal tradition that created the Reform Act 1832, with Lords Grey, Althorp and Russell. At least during the course of that Bill they made very strategic concessions to create parliamentary assent. Thankfully, as a result of that pressure, they created the constituency of Merthyr Tydfil. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that they start making strategic concessions tonight by accepting these amendments.
Viscount Tenby
My Lords, I rise because my name has been mentioned on a number of occasions during this debate and I ought at least to thank noble Lords for the plug. I promise that my contribution really will be brief because all the songs have already been sung so expertly—probably the correct analogy to use in relation to Wales. There is a great deal of pleading for special causes in the Bill and there is, of course, ample justification for Wales to be included. Even if it were argued, as it has been today, that Wales might have been slightly overrepresented in recent years—no one is arguing about that; there is no dispute about it—it does not deserve to lose 10 constituencies at the stroke of a legislator’s pen. These amendments, so powerfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, would address this unfairness.
A number of distinguished former Welsh MPs from all sides of the House have contributed to this debate, and in terms of such practical experience I am indeed a piping voice without substance. However, I can at least claim this; I had a grandfather, father, aunt and uncle, all of whom represented rural Welsh constituencies—for all the parties represented in this House, I have to say. I can testify to the additional burdens that physically large constituencies can impose on their representatives. This is compounded by a road network that has hardly improved over the years—I am sorry, but that is the case—and a rail system that many would argue has actually deteriorated. The personal ties which an MP can establish with constituents fairly easily in a well defined and concentrated urban area must be far harder to achieve over a large and disparate geographical mass. In the case of Wales, any attempt to extend the size of already large constituencies to encompass the 76,000-elector figure could result in the entirely inappropriate solutions referred to so tellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in what I will call the Brecon-Radnor debate earlier in the week.
All these matters should surely be looked at carefully without a ticking clock in the background, which is why I hope that Amendment 102AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Williamson, will be received favourably by all sides of the House.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be taking part for the first time in this debate tonight. The Welsh Affairs Committee report has been quoted several times tonight. I will quote from it again:
“The Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill will have a greater impact on Wales than any other nation of the UK. Wales is projected to lose ten of its forty parliamentary seats, a reduction of 25%. We agree with the principle that all votes should have equal weighting. However, equalisation between constituencies is only one of a number of factors to be taken into account when deciding constituency boundaries. The unique geography, history and communities of Wales must not be ignored when the Boundary Commission undertakes its review”.
The former Secretary of State for Wales, my right honourable friend Paul Murphy MP, said in evidence to the committee that the reduction in the number of MPs is unprecedented:
“Wales has had a dedicated number of MPs in Parliament since the middle of the Sixteenth Century. This is to safeguard the rights of a small nation in a United Kingdom”.
The report goes on to say:
“In a democracy, it is an important consideration that every effort is made to ensure that votes have equal weight. However, no electoral system genuinely delivers a wholly ‘fair’ outcome in these terms. Notwithstanding this principle, other factors legitimately weigh in the consideration of where the balance of fairness lies. It is also important that the interests of each region of the United Kingdom are properly heard at Westminster. The Government's proposals would reduce, at a stroke, the number of MPs representing Wales by 25%. By any yardstick, this would be a profound change to the way that Wales is represented”.
Tonight, we have heard a lot about having equal weight in voting, but does saying that something is equal mean fairness? Does it mean democracy? One aspect of this is that Welsh Assembly boundaries will be different from Westminster boundaries, and I think that that will cause problems. I know that this has happened in Scotland, but Scotland is not Wales. Scotland has already reduced its numbers because it has much greater devolved powers than we have in Wales. I think that it will cause problems if we have 30 Westminster seats and 40 Assembly seats, especially if we have elections on the same day in May 2015.
We do not know what the result of the referendum on 3 March will be. Most of us will be hoping for a yes vote, but even with that yes vote no greater powers will be devolved to Wales. It will mean that Wales can make primary legislation without coming to Westminster on matters that have already been devolved to Wales.
Lord Jones
I am glad to follow my noble friend Lady Gale because she has huge insight into Wales and its workings. My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport quoted the poet RS Thomas. I wondered then how he would have responded had this Bill come before him. I think that the Nobel-nominated genius would have responded with a grimace and a frown and with sharp, thunderous, angry denunciations. That leads to what the genius of the south, RS Thomas’s cousin Dylan, might have done. Had he encountered this measure, he would, after a glass or two, have presented a laughter-filled satire of English arrogance.
The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts, both shrewdly emphasised the qualities of shrewdness in terms of representation here in Westminster as opposed to numbers. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, instance his argument by reference to James Callaghan, a man of great quality. I studied Leonard James Callaghan in his use of power for many years, and I thought that it was seated not simply in his great quality but in his absolute certainty that he would always be followed by many Welsh Members of Parliament. That was part of his capacity. I have studied these debates for, perhaps, over two weeks and I have noticed the numbers and the power of Scottish Peers. I concluded—shrewdly, I think—that the Scots people, that great nation, negotiated themselves into our union and that that great brute, Henry VIII, the founder of the English state, annexed Wales without any public consultation whatsoever.
The coalition is off course. It puts more and more Peers into your Lordships’ House yet it legislates to take many Members of Parliament out of the Commons, which does not seem logical. Instead of two Bills, we have one which is disparate and disjointed. It is not good enough. I believe that it is wrong for the coalition to debit 25 per cent of MPs in Wales. That cannot be right; it is unjust. We are talking of something approaching a parliamentary birthright. That is how the Welsh people see their representation here in Westminster. They always have and they would not be pleased if this Bill progresses. I believe Wales to be a very mature democracy. Wales likes its parliamentary politics. It is proud of its political heritage and it gives so much to the body politic here in Britain.
I am not the only noble Lord to say that Britain has gained so much from the Welsh constituencies; our great Mr David Lloyd George, who founded our welfare state; the mighty Mr Bevan—we all know what he contributed to Britain and to Wales; Mr Ness Edwards, who was very much a representative of the Welsh mining constituencies; Mr James Griffiths, a passionate man from the west who gave us national insurance Acts. Here are risks for the future, yet the coalition seems blind to them. Wales deserves better than this. It is a careless measure with more than a hint of a Heath Robinson disjoint.
Welsh people rate their Members of Parliament. They use them and their services with gusto. Now is not the time to denude the Principality of its favoured defenders. The MPs in Wales do a magnificent job of responding to their constituents’ concerns. They deploy their staff most effectively. I would say that is the case with all Members of Parliament, whatever their party, in Wales. The service that they give now is instant, devoted and very effective. The measures in the Bill are not a reform; a reform is an advance. These measures are a negative, not a positive—deleterious, in effect. I am not the first to pose the questions, but where was the pre-legislative scrutiny? Where is public consultation? Where is the consideration of our geography and its peculiarities or of our economic and social history?
What is proposed is unjust and we now know that, in the immediate years ahead, there will be economic and social changes of the greatest seriousness. There is the imminent impact of major cuts in local government services. There has been too much legislation, by all Governments—ill considered and careless legislation. The history of our modern Parliaments is littered with examples of hurried, ill judged legislation and for these reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Touhig on his amendment. I do not want to repeat much of the discussion that has taken place in the Chamber during this debate. I have studiously avoided, during my repeated interventions on this Bill, accusing the Government of gerrymandering, because I do not believe that that is the motivation behind this legislation. However, in Wales the accusation of gerrymandering will stick because removing 25 per cent of Wales’s Members of Parliament will create—indeed, it is at this moment creating—great suspicion in the minds of the Welsh people.
I claim a right to speak in this debate by way of my birthright in Swansea. My family is almost entirely Welsh. Due to the somewhat rare nature of the Savours name, which is easily traceable to 1602—a task carried out by a great relative of mine at the beginning of the previous century, before the age of the internet—we have quite a lot of information about my family’s activities over several hundred years. In preparing for this debate, I particularly researched the role that my family may have played in setting boundaries in Wales. I had been informed —incorrectly, as it turned out—that sheriffs and high sheriffs had historically had the responsibility of setting boundaries. There are two high sheriffs in my family: Edward Savours in 1747 and Robert Savours in 1845. Both were in south Wales, so I obviously had an interest. It seems that the only influence that they may have had was on parish or county boundaries. Since 1832, sheriffs probably had very little influence, as boundaries appear to have been set by a boundary commission after that.
However, during the research, I turned up some interesting background material on the boundaries in Wales. It seems that in 1944, as has already been alluded to, a Speaker’s Conference was established. From a pamphlet written in 1995 by Mr Iain McLean, a notable academic in this area, entitled Are Scotland and Wales Over-represented in the House of Commons?, we learn the lessons of history on the use of mathematical formulae and seat reductions in Wales—and how interesting these lessons are. Mr McLean explains what actually happened during the 1944 Speaker’s Conference, which was established to resolve arguments over representation. The conference, he says,
“was appointed and run on very similar lines to its predecessor of 1916-17 … Like its predecessor, the conference published only its conclusions”.
However, the minutes of the Speaker’s Conference committee are very illuminating. They say:
“It was pointed out that a strict application of the quota for the whole of Great Britain would result in a considerable decrease in the existing number of Scottish and Welsh seats, but that in practice, in view of the proposal that the Boundary Commissioners should be permitted to pay special consideration to geographical considerations … it was … unlikely that there would be any substantial reduction. It was strongly urged that … it would be very desirable, on political grounds, to state from the outset quite clearly that the number of Scottish and Welsh seats should not be diminished. The absence of any such assurance might give rise to a good deal of political feeling and would lend support to the separatist movement in both countries”.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, referred obliquely to that matter. I think that he was suggesting that that was a likelihood arising out of this legislation as it stands. Mr McLean goes on:
“Accordingly, the conference resolved not to cut the number of seats in … Wales and to establish a separate boundary commission … The 1944 recommendations have provided a template for all subsequent legislation … There should be no reduction in seat numbers for Scotland, or for Wales … There should be a Great Britain-wide quota, or target electorate, for each seat … The maximum deviation of any seat from this target should be 25 per cent … Boundary Commissions might ‘depart from the strict application of these rules’ if necessitated by ‘special geographical considerations, including the area, shape, and accessibility of a constituency’”.
Those are exactly the same arguments as we are having today. He continues:
“The Redistribution Act 1944 implemented these rules … During 1946 and 1947 the Labour Government announced that the 25 per cent rule was too restrictive and was leading the commissioners to break up historic communities. This conservative argument was accepted by the Conservatives; an Act of 1947 removed the explicit 25 per cent rule, and placed equal constituency size below respect for local boundaries in the Commissions’ rules”.
In other words, no cuts in the number of seats and respect for local boundaries put above a 25 per cent deviation from targets—a lot more than the 5 per cent that is being proposed in this legislation.
As far as I am concerned, this legislation’s effect on Wales is utterly absurd. It is unjust. It treats Members of Parliament miserably. It will interfere in family life for many Members of Parliament because the Bill is not even staged—and I heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on the question of staging. It also provides for a great level of disruption in the public service careers of Members of Parliament. Many Members go into Parliament because they believe in public service and the need to contribute to their communities. It is quite unreasonable suddenly to remove 25 per cent of them in the way that is being suggested.
Wales is being punished on the back of a populist response by the coalition Government. The expenses scandal has provoked a backlash against Members of Parliament. The Government’s response has been to cut expenses, promise September sittings and cut the number of MPs. It is a kneejerk response and Wales is being appallingly treated. It is absurd that this Parliament should treat the Welsh people and the Welsh nation in this way.
Lord Bach
We have had an extraordinary debate with many outstanding speeches from all sides of the Committee. I say more in sorrow than in anger that I am disappointed that no one from the Liberal Democrat Benches has spoken, particularly with their great tradition as a party in Wales. I cannot believe that they had nothing to say on this issue.
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will have a greater impact on Wales than on any other nation of the United Kingdom. Wales is projected to lose 10 seats of the 40 that it currently has. This represents, as we have heard, a 25 per cent reduction in its Westminster parliamentary representation. It is clearly a very significant proposal. What is so astonishing is that there was no debate in the other place on this matter. The guillotine came down. Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous and hard to understand how the elected House of Parliament could not debate this matter?
But it is worse than that. Many noble Lords who have spoken come from Wales and know how Wales is represented in another place. They will know that the Welsh Grand Committee, comprising all Members of Parliament from Wales, provides a forum for debate relating to Wales. The Grand Committee can meet only when the House directs it to do so. In effect, the Government decide when there is a need for such a meeting. A request was made from a distinguished ex-Secretary of State on 15 September 2010 to the current Secretary of State, the right honourable Mrs Gillan, to convene the Welsh Grand Committee. Unusually, the request was refused. In its report, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee made this comment about that refusal:
“We consider the Secretary of State for Wales’ decision not to convene a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in this instance to be very disappointing”.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that that decision can be justified.
As many noble Lords have said, the prospect of this drastic reduction in the number of Members of Parliament has caused great concern in Wales and among those who are interested in Welsh matters. The all-party Welsh Affairs Select Committee of another place, made up of six government supporters and six opposition supporters, produced a report shortly after the Bill began its legislative stages in another place which was highly critical of the proposed changes. It said:
“A decision to cut the representation in Parliament of one of the nations of the UK, Wales, by a quarter at a stroke should be one that can be shown to have been subject to the most careful and measured consideration, and should be taken in the light of proper examination of alternative approaches, including a slower pace of change”.
The Select Committee concluded, as we have been arguing during our discussion on the Bill:
“There is no need to rush into reorganising the electoral system without careful and measured consideration of the differential effects on the different parts of the UK”.
As the debate in the Committee today has shown, this drastic reduction in the number of MPs has provoked more than considerable concern. For a start, it is a complete departure from the current legal minimum of 35 seats for Wales, enshrined, as we have heard, in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which was passed by a Conservative Government, who should take great credit for that piece of legislation. It is also a significant reduction from the level of Welsh constituencies that was in place at the time when the Welsh people voted for the devolution settlement in 1998. That settlement, as the former Welsh Secretary, my right honourable friend Paul Murphy, noted in debates in the other place, was a package. It was, he explained,
“not simply the establishment of the Assembly, but the continuance of Members of Parliament, at that level, here in the House of Commons to protect the interests of the people of Wales and their nation. If we have a referendum, and there are greater powers, that might change, but at least people would have voted on it. However, in 1998, they voted for the opposite—the retention of Members of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 72.]
Importantly, that point was echoed by Mr Simon Hart, the Conservative Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, who warned the Government that a reduction of 25 per cent in the number of Welsh constituencies ahead of the referendum on new powers for the Welsh Assembly was being decided,
“without any reference to the Welsh nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 119.]
Will the Minister please explain why the forthcoming referendum on powers has no bearing in the Bill on the level of Welsh parliamentary representation?
Leaving aside the issue of the referendum, a number of factors suggest that this sudden and deep reduction in Welsh representation goes too far, too fast. The imposition of a UK-wide electoral quota of the kind imposed by the Bill is bound to create one or two enormous Welsh constituencies that will be overwhelmingly rural in nature and will cover wide and in places inaccessible territories. It will force the construction of new constituencies in the Welsh valleys, which will be impractical and injurious to local community ties, as many noble Lords have said.
Previously, these were the sort of concerns that could have been soothed to a degree through the application of common sense and through the forum of public inquiries, which the Bill proposes to abolish. Will the noble and learned Lord clarify whether there will still be a right to hold public inquiries in boundary reviews concerning the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not of the mother of Parliaments in Westminster?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for moving this amendment almost three hours ago, and for the measured and considered way in which he advanced his arguments. He encouraged Members of the Committee to be thoughtful, and triggered a considerable number of thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions to the debate. They ranged widely over parliamentary, cultural and family history, and over the contribution that distinguished Members representing Welsh constituencies have made to the parliamentary democracy of our United Kingdom. I will also refer at the outset to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about Wales being a nation. My noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, echoed that point. Certainly I accept that Wales is one of the constituent nations of our United Kingdom. I, too, would bristle if I looked up “Wales” in an encyclopaedia and found, “See under England”. Even though I am not Welsh, I would find that offensive.
The amendment seeks to guarantee a minimum of 35 constituencies in Wales. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, it is my understanding that when there was a debate on Report in the other place on the provisions of the Bill to equalise the size of constituencies, there were contributions from 16 Welsh MPs. Although the Government did give consideration to a Welsh Grand Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales and my honourable friend Mr Mark Harper, the Minister who is responsible for this Bill in the other place, held a meeting to which all Welsh MPs were invited. There was extensive discussion and Mr Harper offered individual follow-up meetings to all Welsh Members. That was the spirit in which the meeting took place.
Lord Kinnock
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way as a parliamentarian?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
No; I wish to answer some of the points that have been made in the debate.
The amendment stipulates the figure of 35, which—as was said by one or two contributors, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in moving his amendment—reflects the figure set out in the 1986 Act, which stated that there should be no fewer than 35 Members from Wales. I observe that the same Act stated that there would be no fewer than 71 Members for Scotland. That provision was repealed by the Labour Government. I do not complain about that; indeed, I encouraged them to do so. The number of Members of Parliament from Scotland under the Labour Government fell from 72 to 59, and is set to fall again under the Bill to 52, which is about a 26 per cent reduction. That will be relevant when we come to consider issues about devolution raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.
My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy gave a clear expression of the Government's position as admitted in evidence. One of the underlying purposes of the Bill is to try to secure fairness—equal vote, equal value—throughout the United Kingdom. The amendment which has been moved and those which have been spoken to would go against that fairness of one vote, one value throughout the United Kingdom. We believe that every elector’s vote in elections to the other place should have the same value, regardless of where that vote is cast in the United Kingdom. It is important to emphasise that we are not in any way proposing less representation for Wales than other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the value of a vote in Wales will be the same as the value of a vote in England, the same as the value of a vote in Scotland, the same as the value of a vote in Northern Ireland.
We have allowed for a 10 per cent range of tolerance between the largest and smallest constituency to take account of local and other factors. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, gave the impression—a caricature—that it was simply a matter of drawing square boxes on maps. That is not the case and does great disservice to the Boundary Commission, which will look at the issues and take account, to the extent that it thinks fit, of important matters such as special geographical considerations—the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency. The noble and learned Lord put it very well when he gave the illustration that a parliamentary boundary does not define which rugby team you will play for. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, said, when people are asked where they belong, they tend to answer in terms of old counties or smaller towns and communities. They tend not to identify where they belong in terms of parliamentary constituencies.
I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Steel is present—I saw him at one point—but he will recall that when he represented the seat of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, having the rugby teams of Hawick and Gala in the same constituency set up some interesting issues of rivalry between different communities. As I said in response to a debate yesterday evening, Members of Parliament by their nature represent a number of different communities within their constituency. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made the point about size and accessibility. Brecon and Radnorshire, which is the largest constituency in Wales, is often given as an example. To give a sense of perspective, it is worth stating that at 1,160 square miles, the current Brecon and Radnorshire constituency is considerably smaller than the constituency represented by my honourable friend Lord Thurso in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, which is just under three times larger than Brecon and Radnorshire. Then there is the constituency represented by my right honourable friend Mr Charles Kennedy, of 4,909 square miles. Of course, there are geographical limitations which the Government have submitted in the rules.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recall that the late Lord Livsey, who for many years was the Member of Parliament for the then Brecon and Radnor constituency, was one of the most loved Members of Parliament, hard-working and known throughout the whole of that constituency?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think that that would be accepted and acknowledged on all sides of the Committee. It is not just me standing here saying that it is feasible to represent a constituency of such a size, but the electors of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and of Ross, Skye and Lochaber have returned their respective Members of Parliament on several occasions, which suggests that they have been able to address the genuine needs of a constituency covering many communities.
Lord Kinnock
As we are explicitly discussing Wales, and the issue of Brecon and Radnorshire has been brought up, how does the noble and learned Lord suggest that that most rural constituency in Wales and England, with an electorate of 58,000, can be brought into consistency with the Government’s formula of a tolerance of 5 per cent either way and about 75,000 or 76,000 without making the size of the constituency now formed by Brecon and Radnorshire absolutely absurd and communication in that constituency almost beyond reach? I recognise the experience in Scotland. To create a constituency in mid-Wales that has about 70,000 to 80,000 constituents, there would have to be an effective destruction of neighbouring constituencies—to the north, in Montgomeryshire; or to the west, in Ceredigion; or to the south, in the former mining valleys. A suggestion about how a cogent constituency of between 70,000 and 80,000 can be formed would be helpful to the debate.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The first thing to note, because it happened very late at night, is that the Government accepted an amendment from my noble friend Lord Tyler with regard to existing constituencies being a factor to which the Boundary Commission may, if it sees fit, have regard. Perhaps that was not widely appreciated because there were not many of us around.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think that the noble Lord congratulated us on that at the time.
The point I am trying to make is that the two Scottish highland constituencies to which I referred are substantially greater than Brecon and Radnorshire—in the case of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, almost three times as big; in the case of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, more than four times as big. We would have to go a very long way before we got anywhere near constituencies of that size, which have equally challenging geographical issues. Nevertheless, Members of Parliament have successfully represented those constituencies, as can be seen by the fact that they have been returned regularly in elections.
I take on the genuine issue, which several noble Lords have mentioned, of the effect of the interaction with the Union. I express myself as a passionate advocate of the benefits of the United Kingdom, while at the same time as someone who has vociferously argued for devolution. I recognise the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, raised his concern about the Union.
My point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, picked me up, is not unreasonable. I think that there is an issue of fairness, and I have not yet heard the argument why it is in some way unfair that a vote in Cardiff should have the same value as a vote in Belfast, London and Edinburgh. Indeed, those who argue the contrary must tell us what explanation we give to a voter in Edinburgh that a vote in Cardiff should be worth more. I have not yet heard that explanation. Neither do I believe that in some way that difference in value will cement Wales’s place in the Union. In fact, I think there is some merit in saying that if all parts of the Union are treated equally, that is positive. I would have hesitated to say it, because I am not Welsh, but my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made the point that the Welsh nation can have true confidence in itself. It does not need overrepresentation in order to have confidence in itself. That is worth bearing in mind.
I come on to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, when he asked about various points I had made in the past about devolution. Points have been raised about the Speaker’s Conference. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, much has happened since the 1944 Speaker’s Conference, and much has happened since the remarks attributed to my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke in 1992. We cannot hypothetically say, “What would happen to this Bill if we had the Wales Office and had never had devolution?”. That is not the situation today. It is the case that on the back of devolution, Scotland reduced its representation from 72 to 59, but devolution is not relevant to the proposals that the Government are putting forward because we are not seeking to make a distinction between Scotland, which has a different form of devolution from Wales, Wales, which may have more powers following the referendum on 3 March, Northern Ireland, which has a different system of devolution again, and England, which has no devolved government.
Noble Lords made the point that the United Kingdom Parliament deals with macroeconomic policies, defence—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of the contribution that the constituent parts of the United Kingdom make to the Armed Forces—social security matters and pensions matters. The Government are saying that representation should be fair in all parts of the United Kingdom. There may be some who would argue that because Scotland has its Parliament dealing with a range of domestic issues, there could even be an argument for underrepresentation, but that is not the position of the Government. The Government believe that there should be equal representation in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is what underlies this. We do not find it particularly acceptable that, for example, the constituency of Arfon, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, has an electorate of just over 40,000 whereas Falkirk has an electorate of 80,000. Indeed, it was pointed out that even within Wales, there are substantial divergences in the number of electors.
I shall pick up the point on the Welsh language. I cannot see why the reduction in the number of Members from Wales would have an impact on the Welsh language. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, some of the great steps forward for the Welsh language were taken by people who were not Welsh-speaking in response to those who made very good, cogent arguments for the Welsh language over many years. It is the case that many Members of Parliament in our inner cities are dealing with constituencies in which a variety of languages are used by people from minority ethnic communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made an important and valuable contribution when he referred to his manuscript amendment and there will be an opportunity to debate it more fully when—when—we come to Clause 18. The amendment would, as I understand it, mean that the first boundary review would take place as though the new rules were in force; the existing legislation would remain in force in the mean time; the new boundary provisions would be commenced only once the Boundary Commissions had reported; and votes in both Houses on the commencement order would be at that point. The House would effectively have the choice of commencing the new rules or retaining the 1986 Act rules. I recognise the intention behind this amendment, which was briefly spoken to by the noble Lord, and I salute the helpful spirit in which it was proposed. We will clearly want to give thought to the issues that it raises, but I will put down a caveat in that it invites Parliament to do what it does not usually do. Parliament usually sets the rules for the Boundary Commission and does not give people who have more than a vested interest in them the opportunity to decide whether they should introduce new boundaries that have a direct effect on them. Having said that, it is an innovative suggestion that I would be very happy to discuss with the noble Lord. I hope we will be able to have that discussion soon before we debate his amendment in due course.
In conclusion, I repeat that the provisions in this Bill will mean a reduction in the number of Welsh constituencies, just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, pointed out that Wales has 5 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom. On the 2009 figures, the overall proportion of Welsh seats in Westminster would go from 6 per cent to 5 per cent. I do not believe that that poses a threat to the Union. If anything, I believe that greater fairness and equality can help strengthen our union, and I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we have had a first-class debate. Seventeen of your Lordships have taken part. We have had a debate in the unelected House of our Parliament that the Government denied the elected House. In responding, the Minister took an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who mentioned the late Lord Livsey. I, too, knew, admired and respected Richard Livsey, and if he were here tonight, I have no doubt about which side of the argument he would be on. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not follow the normal courtesy and respond to all the contributions that were made because I do not think that I could match the eloquence and power of the argument. We have spent just over three hours on this debate, and I am not here unnecessarily to take up your Lordships’ time.
Those who have spoken in this debate and I have sought to improve this Bill in the interests of the people of Wales. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. We have clearly failed to impress upon the Government our concerns about the adverse impact this Bill will have on Wales. I believe that we have approached the debate in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. We have expressed our view and our concerns about the implications of this Bill on Wales. We have not been prescriptive and said, “Here’s a problem; here’s an answer; you must take it”. Noble Lords who have signed the amendments in this group have put their names to not one but three possible alternatives which the Government might have considered and reflected upon and come back at a later stage with some proposal that might have assuaged our fears. I believe it is in the best traditions of your Lordships' House to give the democratically elected Government time to reflect on the arguments that have been put. We offered an olive branch, but I fear that that olive branch has been tossed away. I worry because those of us who feel passionately about Wales and about the Union of the United Kingdom intend to continue to make this argument and this debate. The other place did not have an opportunity to debate these amendments or to express a view. It is with a heavy heart that I feel it is necessary to divide your Lordships' House so that we may express an opinion on Amendment 89BA.
BBC World Service
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, with permission I shall now repeat as a Statement the Urgent Question that was answered by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place:
“The House will agree that the BBC World Service performs an invaluable role, reflecting British democratic values overseas and supporting British influence in the world, and that the services it provides are a beacon to many in some of the poorest and most insecure countries in the world. We announced in October that, from 2014, responsibility for the BBC World Service will be transferred to the BBC itself and funded from the licence fee, a move that has been welcomed by the World Service and the BBC Trust as providing new opportunities for the World Service to develop in the future. In the mean time, the World Service—like any other taxpayer-funded body—must ensure that it is working on the right priorities and as efficiently as possible. I announced in October that its expenditure limits would be reduced by 16 per cent in real terms over the next three years.
As I set out in a Written Statement earlier today, we are providing £13 million per annum to help with the deficit in BBC pension funds and £10 million per annum for new services in markets that we and the World Service have identified as priorities. Those include TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided to local partners. We have also guaranteed the capital for the move of the World Service to its new offices in W1. That is proper provision for the future of the World Service and will make up for inherited deficits.
The other services provided by the World Service cannot stand still, and those that have become less well used because of the rise of local broadcasters or falling short-wave audiences sometimes have to close. It is the World Service’s responsibility to be as efficient as possible while maintaining as many services as possible, something the previous Government recognised when in 2006 they closed 10 separate language services of the World Service. The World Service initially suggested to the Foreign Office the closure of up to 13 language services, but I refused to give permission for that. I have agreed to the closure of five language services, accounting for 3.5 million listeners out of the total audience of 180 million. Withdrawal from short-wave and other services will have a bigger effect, but will rightly allow for concentration on online and mobile services for the future.
The BBC World Service has a viable and promising future, but it is not immune from public spending constraints or the reassessment of its priorities. While any closures might be regretted, they would not be necessary at all were it not for the inherited BBC pension deficit and the vast public deficit inherited from the previous Government”.
That completes the Statement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. This is a very sad day for all supporters of the BBC World Service—a service that has unrivalled reach across the globe and has a reputation for independence and fair mindedness. The BBC World Service is loved by many people who listen to it every day and is envied by many Governments, who wish they had it. It is known for its authoritative news reporting and relied upon for such reporting by many people. Will the Minister tell us why this uniquely valuable service is being cut so much more savagely than the rest of the FCO?
There were of course cuts and changes under Labour. They were criticised at the time, but these cuts today go much further than a mere realignment of resources. This is not just a realignment of priorities; it is a real and huge cut of 650 jobs out of a workforce of 2,400. The BBC director-general has said that these cuts will,
“inevitably have a significant impact on the audiences who use and rely upon the relevant services”.
He also exhorted supporters of the international role of the BBC “not to despair”. What a far cry that is—do not despair—from the Foreign Secretary’s exhortations on 1 July last year that the Government’s new approach to foreign policy would include “cherishing” and “growing” the networks around the world through our language. He said:
“The English language gives us the ability to share ideas with millions—perhaps billions—of people in the biggest emerging economies and … to build networks across the world”.
Those were high sounding ideals, which of course Mr Hague explicitly said were underlined by the essential importance of the BBC World Service. He said that together with the British Council, the World Service,
“gives Britain an unrivalled platform for the projection of the appeal of our culture and the sharing of our values”.
He was right. The World Service is the envy of the Americans—of Voice of America. The Americans have nothing that has the reach; nor do the French or any of our international competitors in this field.
Radio programmes in seven languages will cease altogether and one of those languages is Turkish. Does the Minister recall that only two weeks ago he agreed that Turkey has a growing and huge importance around the world? He said:
“We have already taken decisive steps to inject a new dynamic into UK-Turkey relations”.—[Official Report, 13/1/11; col. 1576.]
I am sure that at the time the Minister had no idea that the BBC World Service would cease to broadcast in Turkish shortly. After all, it was only on 1 July 2010 that the Foreign Secretary boasted of a new relationship with Turkey, Europe’s biggest emerging economy. Does the Minister recall his right honourable friend saying that there would be a,
“particular diplomatic effort with Turkey”?
This is a very odd way to implement that diplomatic effort.
The Minister is well known for his steadfast and passionate commitment to the Commonwealth. Again, he is at one with the Foreign Secretary, who castigated the Labour Government as being “oblivious” to the value of the Commonwealth. He said that the Commonwealth was not mentioned in the FCO’s strategic plan in 2009. He was right. It was not and it should have been. But in Mr Hague’s approach, which has been set out today, many people will see the cut of English for the Caribbean regional service as a bit more of a blow for everyday life in the Caribbean than the lack of a mention in a document in 2009 of which none of them has probably ever heard.
In July, Mr Hague claimed that he was introducing a “distinctive foreign policy”. Today, the results are seen in the cuts in FCO funding, which are becoming clearer and clearer. They are very destructive. The director-general, in making the cuts announcements, said today that he wanted to make it clear that these are the direct result of last autumn’s spending cuts. Will the Minister tell us why the BBC World Service is taking such an extraordinarily heavy cut? He mentioned 16 per cent. I believe that the figure is anything between 16 per cent and 20 per cent in real terms, as opposed to 10 per cent elsewhere in the Foreign Office.
The National Security Forum gave advice to the Labour Government of the crucial importance of the BBC World Service in nation-building and in making the world a safer place. It did that and it does that. What has changed? We have the ready-made vehicle to help us in nation-building, to foster understanding and to make the world a safer place, as the Foreign Secretary exhorted that he wanted to do.
The Government know that, as was shown in November 2010 when the FCO’s business plan was published. It said that the coalition priorities were, among other things, the use of,
“‘soft power’ to promote British values, advance development and prevent conflict”.
To do this, the Foreign Secretary claimed that he would:
“Devise a strategy to enhance … the impact of the … World Service”.
That was his promise and his commitment. Will the Minister tell us how today’s announcement fulfils that promise, that commitment? Will he give us concrete examples of how these cuts will enhance the role of the World Service? The Foreign Secretary said:
“Britain will be safer if our values are strongly upheld and widely respected in the world”.
The BBC World Service has an audience of more than 180 million people a week, which is far higher than other international broadcasters.
Finally, does the Minister recall, in July 2010, being asked:
“Is not the World Service an unrivalled way of demonstrating the values of this country?”
Does he recall his answer, which was:
“I heartily endorse everything that my noble friend”,
has said. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, posed the question. The Minister continued:
“The World Service is an immensely powerful network for soft power and for underpinning and promoting the values for which we all stand. Everything that he says is right”.—[Official Report, 13/7/10; col. 600.]
On 13 July 2010, the Minister was 100 per cent right. Today, sadly, in the Statement which he has had to repeat to us, he is not.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I say straight away that I heartily endorse many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness about the BBC World Service. This is indeed a precious asset and, as the Statement of my right honourable friend says, we wish it to be an articulate and highly effective voice for Britain in the world. There is no disagreement about that.
The noble Baroness first asked about the size of the cut of 16 per cent in real terms over three years and asked why it is, or appears to be, larger than the overall real-terms cut in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole during the period of the spending review. It is not the biggest cut—the British Council has been asked to take a 25 per cent cut in real terms—but it is larger than the 10 per cent because we have to start from the position we inherited. The noble Baroness will recall that the Foreign Office took a fearful blow when the mess over the exchange rate had to be negotiated, which involved a large cut in its overall budget. At that time, the cut imposed on other ancillary bodies, including the BBC World Service, was somewhat less. If one looks at the arithmetic, all that is happening is that having to suffer 16 per cent now, which no one welcomes but is the reality that we have to face, merely brings the BBC World Service back to the same proportion of expenditure of a total FCO budget as was the position in 2008. We are back where we are.
Of course, it would be nice to be much further ahead and to have more resources, but we do not have more resources. The outgoing Minister—I forget his name—left a letter behind saying, “There is no more money”. We have had to impose on ourselves and in many parts of government inevitable cuts. Not this evening are we going to go into an argument about why those cuts were imposed or why the situation in budget terms was so utterly disastrous, which I know is a huge debate going on in this country. But disastrous it was and repaired it has to be.
As to specific services that were mentioned, five language services have been stopped, which my right honourable friend has outlined. On top of those, there are the effects of the changes in a number of other areas. The noble Baroness mentioned Turkey, for which there will be a stopping of radio programming and a concentration on online, mobile and TV distribution in a number of languages, and a phased reduction in medium and short-wave radio distribution.
That tells us something very important, which I am not sure that the noble Baroness or some other critics fully appreciate. We are dealing with a rapidly changing technology. The short-wave arrangements are not reaching the audiences. Short-wave is being cut out by the development of the technology, and by resistance in some parts of the world. In addition, millions of people are moving to online reception of news and views. They are using mobiles and television as well. This is changing the whole pattern of radio broadcasting across the planet.
Quite aside from these substantial economies, which cannot be denied, there has to be an evolution of the technology and the changes in the BBC World Service. If that is not understood, I am afraid that very little is understood about the world into which we are moving. Of course these are not the sort of things one wants to welcome—there are difficulties, there are challenges and this is the greatest matter for regret, redundancies. However, one has to also accept that we have to move on in the evolution of the World Service. In three years’ time it is going to be in a much better position, completely independent of my department or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and therefore reasserting its wonderful independence in the world in its voice and its opinions. This is something for the future which I think deserves some optimism rather than the concentration on what the noble Baroness calls “huge and savage cuts”. I believe these are overused as adjectives.
Lord Fowler
I shall ask my noble friend a few short questions. Is there any comparable international broadcasting service which has a higher reputation than the BBC World Service? Is that influence not of immense benefit to this country? Will he therefore understand that there will be serious concern about this announcement on all sides of the House? May I ask him something else which may not have such general support? If we are intent on saving money, why are we cutting only journalists and services yet preserving the costly bureaucracy of the BBC Trust? Even now it is in the process of recruiting a new chairman when even the previous Labour Government wanted to see it go. In that way we could save millions of pounds for broadcasting.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I shall start on my noble friend’s second point. We have to leave the design and pattern of the cuts to the administration of the BBC World Service within the confines, of course, of the requirement that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has to approve any cuts in language services. He has approved three. I think he was asked to cut 13 in the first place. I have no quibble with my noble friend regarding the value of the service in the promotion of our cultural diplomacy and soft power in the world. It is immensely valuable and its budget remains substantial. None of us welcomes this application of austerity but it is necessary because that is the position we inherited and we have to work within. Within those parameters the BBC World Service remains, in our minds, an immensely valuable instrument. It is a central part of the promotion of our values and I do not for one moment dispute a single word of what my noble friend said.
Baroness Coussins
Can the Minister explain how the disappearance of various foreign language services from the World Service, and of radio broadcasts in Russian, Mandarin and Turkish, can be reconciled with the Foreign Secretary’s recent remarks about the importance of languages in a United Kingdom which needs to engage more energetically with the wider world outside familiar European Union boundaries? Why is there this inconsistency in foreign policy? In view of the strategic importance of these services, at home as well as abroad, should their funding not be ring-fenced and protected?
Lord Howell of Guildford
With respect to the noble Baroness, I think there is a missing point in her concerns. Of course we want to see services, communication, influence and the independent voice of Britain promoted. However, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the English short-wave broadcasts to Russia, the former Soviet Union and China were simply not getting through. What was the point in going on spending money on services that were not getting through? We are moving into a new era of technology in which the way to get our values and the message of the BBC World Service through to the millions in Russia and China for a start is not necessarily best done through trying to push our way through short-wave systems which are being closed down. These people are turning to online information. They are using their mobiles. They are increasingly turning to television. These nations are developing rapidly and the radio plays a part but not the part that was played before. So while not denying for a moment that there are cuts—of course there are and it is absurd to pretend otherwise—the reconciliation is that we are looking at a new pattern of technology and the communications required have got to be different. That is the way our aspirations match what is now being proposed.
Lord Triesman
I declare an interest as the Minister who for several years was responsible, among other things, for the World Service. This is one of the most depressing Statements I think I have heard in the House. One of the answers to my noble friend Lady Symons demonstrated that a major public speech made at the beginning of July by the Foreign Secretary meant absolutely nothing when it came to the practical implementation and the cuts. As the Government knew on 1 July what the extent of the possible cuts would be, the speech should never have been made.
In 2006—and this does lead to the question—I agreed to the cutting of some language services in eastern Europe, mostly in nations which were then part of NATO and had fully independent media of their own, in order to move the money into the Arabic and Farsi language services which were due to make a very fundamental difference to our overseas action. I believe that was the right move. Of course it is right to move away from short-wave where it cannot be received, but we were moving away even in those cases to FM, which could be received. Everybody said, especially the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, that the switch to new platforms would not be an adequate replacement. Is it not the case that, from the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, onwards, it was understood that the projection of soft power was a good deal more economical than many of the alternatives, brought huge bonuses to this country, and that in fact these savings will turn out to be a fiction?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I really cannot comment on the noble Lord’s last point because the administrators of the BBC World Service are serious about operating their budget in a new and more effective way within the limits that have been imposed upon them. However, I should like to lift the noble Lord out of his depression because I believe that he is reading too much into the gloom and pessimism around this. I know that he understands the position because he knows all about these things, but I am not sure that he is accepting enough of the new possibilities and the new patterns. I mentioned that this Statement, among other things within the constrained budget, includes some new services, including TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided by local partners. No doubt other ideas and innovations are also in the pipeline which we will learn about in due course. I have also mentioned that funds are being found to assist the BBC World Service in its immediate pension deficit, which again is an inherited matter although I do not ascribe it to or in any way blame it on the previous Administration.
That said, I think that his words are exaggerated. The very substantial budget over the next three years of the spending round is still a big part of our intentions and expenditure in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When this joins up with the full BBC in 2014 the programmes will continue in a highly vigorous, effective and modern way. So I just do not accept the reasons for the noble Lord’s pessimism and depression at this time.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend on the difficult decisions that his department is having to take. At the time I was growing up in a developing country, the only access to free and impartial reporting was through the BBC World Service. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to extend sympathy in this regard other than to say that we are living in difficult times. My questions will be brief because many noble Lords want to come in.
Has the Foreign Secretary considered the proposal put forward in the briefing provided to noble Lords today by Mr Peter Horrocks which suggests that part of the DfID budget might be extended to cover some of the shortfall? DfID has very adequate resources, so it seems to make sense that some of its resources, particularly those dedicated to stability and conflict, should be used for the Urdu language programming and so on.
There is some confusion in the briefing provided by Mr Horrocks apropos the Statement. Can my noble friend confirm that BBC audiences have been falling in any event due to technological changes and the other factors he mentioned? Is it accurate to say that last year the audience was 180 million, which was down 9 million on the previous year, 2009? If he can confirm that, some noble Lords might understand that when audiences are falling because of new technologies, it is inevitable that some of the decisions that are taken will reflect that.
Finally, the Foreign Secretary’s Statement says that £10 million per annum will be dedicated to priority areas such as TV programming in Urdu whereas the BBC briefing suggests that that will not be the case and that new money will have to be found for programming in Urdu.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I find it difficult to comment on my noble friend’s last point. If that is what she has read in the BBC briefing, which I have not seen, it would appear not to coincide with the position which is as I have stated it. It is not argumentation or opinion, it is fact. I shall have to look into this because there seems to be some misinterpretation here.
My noble friend is absolutely right about falling audiences. This is so because we are moving into a different international landscape in which people’s listening habits are changing. The position of radio in all societies across the world is changing, and certainly in my lifetime it has changed in our society absolutely fundamentally. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and I both mentioned the fact that short-wave systems are just not operating in the way they did in the past, and the world is turning to online systems. Every morning some 2 billion people open the world wide web. That is almost a third of the entire population of the world. We have to adjust to these new realities.
My noble friend’s first point was very interesting. A certain amount of the expenditure on the World Service is classified as “ODAable”—I think that is the jargon. In other words, it is part of our overseas development budget. I do not want to encourage her that there is more flexibility in that area to be exploited at the moment, but obviously we keep in close touch with DfID on this matter and we will continue to do so. If resources can be mobilised to adapt to a new pattern of soft power projection, of which this is an important part, we will certainly look for them and I hope we will find them.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I join with everyone in saying that it will be a sad day indeed if the BBC World Service ceases to be a beacon for many of the world’s poorest and most insecure countries because, above all, they will lose the impartiality and independence of the World Service that we have all come to rely on. I am concerned, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that the World Service will lose something like 650 out of 2,400 jobs, which is a very large proportion. These are skilled people who would have been available as resources for other services. When these services are transferred back to the BBC, which we all hope will happen in a rather better way, will the BBC be strongly encouraged to see that these specialists are re-employed and made available? No one else is going to provide this sort of independent expertise.
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the last point, I think that that is absolutely right. There ought to be—although this is of course a management decision for both the World Service and the BBC—very adequate provision, as I hope personally that there will be, for the encouragement, redirection and reabsorbing of the redundant people into the media world in various forms. Redundancies are always a personally sad business, although sometimes they open new opportunities as well. The noble Baroness is quite right about that.
As for independence, I emphasise the point that has been put to me many times in recent weeks. The move of the BBC World Service over to the BBC, with the ending of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office being the paymaster of the BBC World Service, is very positive. It emphasises and re-emphasises the independence of a body that has always been regarded as being of great value by most people. However, one did hear, in the past, the occasional query as to how it was so independent if it was paid for by the Foreign Office. That will not be the case in three years’ time, so on that score I ask for all who follow these matters closely and value the BBC World Service to feel a glimmer of optimism, despite the pessimism that we have heard in every intervention so far.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have plenty of time. Let us hear from the Labour Benches and then from my noble and learned friend.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in many parts of the world, there is a serious struggle going on for the hearts and minds of people in order to persuade them to see our democratic values and the freedom that we cherish? Is he so certain that the technological changes that make him suggest that the radio is no longer important have spread into those countries where this battle for hearts and minds is going on most seriously? Turkey is only one of the many examples. Is there not a danger that the technological argument that some of the more affluent people in these countries can get television and the internet ignores the fact that there are many people who cannot and who rely on the radio? Might that not mean that we are losing the battle for their hearts and minds?
Lord Howell of Guildford
These are sensible considerations to analyse in seeing how our communications systems on the planet should change. I can only say to the noble Lord, who follows these things closely, that when I was on a visit to China the other day I was told that 330 million people in that country were now online and were looking at a bombardment of media services, not just from the BBC but from a dozen other sources throughout the planet, all of which they were absorbing before turning to the older-fashioned pattern of listening to the radio. I do not deny for a moment that the noble Lord may be right and that there may be areas where the end of these language services will be a real loss. That may be so, but I suspect that there are many more areas where the loss will not be so great because of the alternatives that are developing. Television services that did not exist 10 or 20 years ago are now filling the media in these areas, particularly those that we are concerned with, with a huge new supply of information.
Of course we want to make sure that our message gets through as clearly as it possibly can and we have to use all the methods that we can. However, it would not be a good message to the world if, at the same time as we were putting out our principles by communication, the word was coming over that this country was unable to tackle its debts, that it was losing its international credit status and that its economic recovery was being delayed by the near-bankruptcy, as some experts have said, into which our public finances unfortunately fell. That is where we start from and why we have to take these tough decisions.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right to identify the changes that are necessary as a result of the old-fashioned quality of short-wave radio. It makes me grieve that I can no longer get the BBC World Service while carrying around my little short-wave radio set. The other important point, which is common ground, is the extent to which the BBC World Service plays, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, a crucial role in our soft power. That becomes all the more so for the reasons just stated by the noble Lord. For example, the Chinese ambassador estimates that in five years’ time one-third of the population of China will be learning English. We need to be benefiting from that by maintaining the service, whose quality is agreed on by everyone.
Without being egocentric, I think that during my 10 years of masochism, first as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then as Foreign Secretary, we were able to maintain the real value of the World Service even though we were going through substantial periods of hardship and were cutting expenditure elsewhere. We did that by maintaining the percentage of our GDP going to overseas aid and development, not to the 0.7 per cent desired by the United Nations but to 0.36 per cent, which may be regarded as mean. However, one can regard the huge expansion of the ODA budget under the present Government as being so large that it cannot be impossible to find the modest sums of money necessary to respond to the anxieties expressed today. If my figures are correct, the budget for overseas development assistance in 2010 was £8.4 billion, due to rise to £12.6 billion. To put that alongside the trivial reduction in the resources available to the World Service could lead one to the conclusion that we must redeploy to the extent of maintaining, cherishing and expanding the service to which we have all paid so much tribute this evening.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble and learned friend has been at the centre of these matters for many years. Even before he held his high offices as Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, some of us in another place were promoting for the first time the concept of cultural diplomacy and the central role that it needed to play in the survival, prosperity and reputation of this country. I do not disagree with anything that he said, but I say simply that, although he talks about English becoming the language of China—indeed, the language of the planet or the lingua franca, if I may distort the phrase—it is the language of cyberspace; the computerised communication revolution of this planet is in English. That is how it has to be and those are the technologies that we have to use. I do not deny for a moment that the radio systems and other ancillary services of the BBC World Service are an immensely important part of that, but they are only a part. We have to be realistic about that.
As for whether a little more could be found, if I may say so to one of the most distinguished Chancellors—in my book anyway—of the post-war period, he knows that if we followed the argument, “We should exempt this, because surely there is enough from the bigger budget”, we would end up with the budget not being cut at all. These things have to be done. They are not pleasant. No one likes even having to defend them; I am not particularly enjoying this session now. However, it is a reality that we have to face and we must proceed in an optimistic spirit to make the best of the situation that we have inherited. In the case of the BBC World Service, I hope that we can do so.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McDonagh
“( ) When the average number of eligible voters per constituency exceeds 74,000, the Secretary of State shall introduce legislation to amend the electorate per constituency provisions of the 1986 Act.”
Baroness McDonagh
This amendment seeks to provide that when the average size of constituency reaches 74,000 voters, the Secretary of State will bring forward legislation to increase the number of constituencies. This is a probing amendment, as I want to hear the Minister’s views on this issue. I am not sure that the Government fully appreciate the enormity of what they are doing and the impact that this Bill will have on our democratic system.
I shall address a few of the arguments briefly. We have a representative, democratic electoral system in the United Kingdom. It is not proportional, nor is it meant to be. In 1979, for example, the Conservative Party gained 42 per cent of the popular vote and 61 per cent of the seats. Fast forward to 1997 and the position was reversed, with Labour gaining 43 per cent of the vote and 63 per cent of the seats. The first election in which I was active was that of 1979, when 58 per cent of the vote was cast for parties other than the Conservatives. Therefore, it was surely not intended that the Conservatives should win. However, it was very clear to me at the time that the electorate wanted the Labour Government out and the Conservative Party in power. By creating such large electoral constituencies with a ceiling of 600, when we know that the population will increase to 70 million over the next 20 years, and by doing away with community links at the same time, the Government will create PR through the back door. We should have a referendum on that in its own right.
In a previous debate on this issue I talked about differential turnout, and the Minister was good enough to say that I had a point, for which I thank him. I do not know whether it will show itself in any change to the legislation, but I mention one statistic to explain this point again, and that is the turnout in Labour and Conservative seats in the 2005 election. The average turnout in Labour seats was 57.5 per cent. In Conservative seats, it was 65.3 per cent. That situation will not change under the current legislation, but it represents tens of thousands of people as we go across the United Kingdom.
One issue that I did not mention causes a problem under the first past the post electoral system. I did not mention it for political reasons; I felt that the Conservative Party might feel that I was doing more than explain: that I was making a political point. I therefore start by using Labour as an example of what psephologists refer to as an inefficient distribution of votes. In my language it means that the first past the post system needs political parties, particularly the main parties, to be broad churches that are largely representative of the public. When parties become narrow in their views, extreme or unappealing, the electorate punishes us through our electoral system. That is what psephologists call an inefficient distribution of votes. If I give the example of 1983, I think the House will understand the point I am making.
In 1983 it took 33,000 votes, on average, to elect a Conservative MP, and 41,000 votes, on average, to elect a Labour one. I am sure the House would not expect me to say that Labour lost the 1983 election because of an unfair electoral system. Indeed, if I did, anyone who was medically qualified on my own Benches would escort me with a firm hand from the Chamber. We lost the 1983 election because we deserved to lose. We were unrepresentative of the population at large and, it pains me to say, of my own party.
Moving on to the Conservative example, the right honourable Theresa May, when she was chairperson of the Conservative Party, referred to the Conservatives, at the annual conference, as “the nasty party”. She did not put that view into the voters’ minds; it was how they felt at the time. To the public, the Conservative Party had become very narrow and, because of that, built up votes in small areas of the country and no longer had representation in Scotland, Wales or many northern towns. It could no longer command support across the United Kingdom and, because of that, deserved to lose.
Let me give one more recent statistic to show how that shows itself. In the 2005 election, in the south-east region, which is only 12 or 13 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom—just a small proportion of nine English regions and the nations of Scotland and Wales—the Conservative Party had 36 per cent of its vote: over a third. It is impossible to win enough constituencies to form a Government by piling up votes in your hinterland, and that is a product of your politics, not the electoral system.
Let us look at the average sizes of our current seats. To the nearest 500, in England and Scotland, Labour and the Lib Dems have an average of 70,000 voters for every seat. The Conservative Party has 73,000, so that is well within any quota. Obviously at either end there are some larger constituencies that are outwith the quota, and there are some smaller constituencies. We need to change that. I am happy with having a boundary redistribution before the next general election. I agree with the principle, as far as is practical within a reasonable quota, that we should have constituencies of the same size. Indeed, if the same sensitivity were granted in a bipartisan way to my colleagues from Wales as was granted to the two constituencies that we already have in the Bill, I am sure they would also be happy with those arrangements.
The constituencies are not largely different. Where they are very large, the largest is the Isle of Wight, of which we are making an exception—we certainly passed an amendment on it. I believe that the second largest is East Ham, which is a London constituency. In the top 10 largest constituencies, roughly half are Labour. We will find more or less the same at the other end. Indeed, in the 1980s, there was a larger disparity between Labour and Conservative. Labour had much smaller seats, yet for that whole decade the Conservatives remained in power.
I moved this amendment because I want to understand the Government’s thinking on the matter. I do not want to see such large constituencies in which, in a small number of years, we will have seats in excess of 100,000 voters. They would hold no community of interest and MPs would not be able to have a relationship with the areas that they represented. We might as well have introduced PR.
This is also a much bigger problem than we making of it at the moment. The manner in which the Government have introduced this, and their reasons for doing so, are associated with the sort of democracy that we do not want to be associated with. If a country such as Zimbabwe were doing this, we would deplore it.
In a previous debate, one of my noble friends said that we had to be very careful because we do not have a written constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked what difference that would make. I have a huge regard for the noble Lord and all the work that he has done over the years, but having a written constitution would make a huge and significant difference. I have a few examples of how you would have to do this if you had a written constitution.
If you have a written constitution and the method by which you arrive at seats is within that constitution, you generally change it by referendum or you need two-thirds of your Parliament’s agreement. In some cases, you cannot change the constitution at all. When we look around at countries, and I have picked a few different ones, I have not yet come across any that could introduce this legislation in the way in which our Government are introducing it—with no debate, no pre-legislative scrutiny and a limited debate in the other place.
I shall go through a few examples. Holland’s Parliament cannot interfere with how seats are determined as that is set out in its constitution. To amend that constitution takes a two-thirds majority on First Reading. You then have to have a general election and at Second Reading there has to be a further two-thirds majority. The constitution of Ireland, one of our closest neighbours, sets out that if the Dáil were to change the size, there would have to be a referendum of the Irish people. Latvia’s seats are set out in its constitution and for its Parliament to change that it needs three sittings of a two-thirds vote. In addition, many constitutional amendments require a further referendum of the Latvian people.
Slovakia needs a referendum to reduce the size of its Parliament and a majority of the country’s vote. It had a referendum on that, and it was lost. Spain has two Chambers that are not allowed to change their own numbers of seats. Again, to amend Sweden’s constitution two identical decisions are needed, with a general election in between. Denmark also requires a constitutional amendment. The Cook Islands need non-binding referenda to alter the number of seats; then there has to be a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In Australia, the process is set out in the constitution and Parliament cannot change the principle. It is also not allowed to reject or vary a boundary commission report.
In this last part of my contribution, I really want the Committee to consider the enormity of what we are doing. It is not just that we are creating enormous constituencies that will have no community link. We are also denigrating the esteem in which our democracy is held all around the world. We are also showing as parliamentarians that we can no longer be trusted with an unwritten constitution, something which I personally support. I believe that if we pass this through in the way that we are doing, we will look back and see this as the starting point of when we lost the argument and when a written constitution became inevitable. The worst part of all is that if this all happens, it will not address the problem which the Government seek to address, which is that the Conservative Party believes that the reason for its electoral loss is to do with the differing size of constituencies. It has nothing to do with it. I beg to move.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Committee should be grateful to my noble friend for having raised, with her great experience, this important matter. She seeks a response from the Leader of the House to the points that she has made. From the Front Bench, we have pointed out a considerable number of dangers in the scheme that the Government propose, and we look forward to what the Leader of the House has to say in response to my noble friend.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I, too, am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, spoke to her amendment because my officials were confused as to the intention behind it. Now we are much clearer that it was so as to have a good discussion about the purposes underlying the Bill, the case for a written constitution, more referendums, and so on and so forth, and to say in particular that this part of the Bill is somehow to do with this aching desire by the Conservative Party to fix the electoral system so as to make life more difficult for the Labour Party. The noble Baroness will not believe it but I can assure her it has nothing to do with that whatever.
The proposition under this part of the Bill is the simplest one could possibly imagine. First, it is to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600—nothing hugely exceptional in that. It is a drop of 7 per cent which is, I believe, popular with people and should be done. Secondly, it is to make constituencies across the country more or less of equal size. One day noble Lords opposite are going to argue why they should be of unequal size in terms of numbers of voters and perhaps even bring forward legislation to that effect if they ever get back into Government. I look forward to that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If you have a cap at 600 and the electorate rises in the way that my noble friend is saying, does that mean that the national quota for each constituency will then have to be changed and will also rise every five years? Is that really the Government’s position?
Lord Strathclyde
There is a remorseless logic to that fact. To return to the noble Baroness’s speech, I did not follow this thing about the written constitution. We have a constitution and we are not operating unconstitutionally. If we wrote down our constitution and it did not have a provision for this, it would not make any difference. It would only make a difference if it had the provision that you cannot change the number of seats unless you have a referendum. I could not work out whether the noble Baroness, with all her experience, was saying that there should be a written constitution and that if there were a written constitution, it would be unconstitutional to change the number of seats in the House of Commons without a referendum, but I think that is what she was saying. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sat down so quickly because he might have told us if that was official Labour Party policy, which would be most interesting and intriguing.
I would not rely on Irish referendums, much as I have the highest possible respect for the people of Ireland. Whenever they have a referendum and they get the wrong answer, they are told to do it again. So I am not a great fan of that. Incidentally, the fact that the Labour Party, which now thinks we should have referendums on changing the constitution, promised one on Lisbon and then did not provide it must be for ever a reminder. So if that is what it is all about, I am not very keen on it. There was a nice anecdote about the 1980s. The historians will argue about 1983 and all that. What must also be true is that the Labour Party split. My noble friend sitting next to me, part of our coalition partnership, laid out all these figures about Labour and Conservative. How many MPs did it take to vote for a Liberal Democrat, or whatever they were then? I cannot remember. They were not Liberal Democrats then but SDP and Liberals. So that is a factor and I think it laid the seeds for the coalition today.
So we are not minded to accept the amendment. It is all very interesting but our minds are set on the provisions in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McDonagh
I hope the point that I made about what happens between this stage and the next will bring some changes to the legislation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I have two questions. First, in Clause 11, rule 7(1)(b) states that if the Boundary Commission,
“consider that having to apply rule 2”—
which I understand is the electoral quota—
“would unreasonably impair … their ability to take into account the factors set out in rule 5(1)”,
which are,
“special geographical considerations … local government boundaries … any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies”,
and,
“the inconveniences attendant on such changes”,
it is entitled to apply those factors, and in effect downgrade rule 2. What is the thinking behind the Government treating Northern Ireland differently, particularly having regard to the principle, stated and restated, of the need for equality in constituencies? We have not referred to that either at Second Reading or in any other debate. I ask of course because I am interested in Northern Ireland, but also to probe the principle underlying the Bill.
The second question relates to the review date. During the debates about electors who are missing from the electoral register, it was said that the date on which the register would be taken was December 2010. I assume that this comes from rule 9(2), which states:
“For this purpose the relevant version of a register is the version that is required by virtue of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be published no later than the review date”.
Rule 9(5) on page 12 states:
“The ‘review date’, in relation to a report under section 3(1) of this Act that a Boundary Commission is required … to submit before a particular date, is two years and ten months before that date”.
Is it because the Government assume that the Boundary Commission will submit a report in October 2013 that the relevant register is that of December 2010? If the commission submits a report before October 2013, will the relevant register be a month earlier; and, equally, if it is submits it after October 2013, will it be a month later? The significance of this is that I understood from answers given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that the relevant date of December 2010 was rigidly fixed, whereas I understand that the way that the Act will work is that the register of two years and 10 months before the date of the report will be taken. If I am right in that surmise, how will the Boundary Commission know when it submits its report what the relevant register is? Those are my only questions on Clause 11 stand part.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for raising his questions in the debate on Clause 11 stand part. It is worth reiterating that the clause reforms the arrangements for drawing constituency boundaries for the House of Commons. It provides that in future the Commons will be reduced to 600 seats, and that the rules for the distribution of seats will be recast so that seats will be more equal in size and allocated to each part of the UK in proportion to the electorate.
As the clause points out, two constituencies are specifically excepted from the parity rules. We know what they are and have discussed them at length.
The noble and learned Lord asked about the role of Northern Ireland. As he pointed out, the rules make special provision for additional flexibility to allow for constituencies outside of the parity range in Northern Ireland in the event that simple rounding effects make it difficult for the Boundary Commission in that part of the UK to recommend seats within the quota. That could arise if Northern Ireland only just missed out on being allocated an extra seat. I hope that that explains the thinking behind that.
It has also been suggested that the provision is flawed and that the Bill should provide for national electoral quotas. However, that approach would give rise to more variation between constituencies. A single UK electoral quota has the advantage of simplicity and clarity, and that provision will be triggered only in the event that rounding causes difficulty. It has also been suggested that the provision ignores a similar issue that may arise in Wales. However, as Wales has about twice the electorate and will therefore have about twice the number of seats, the problem is half of that in Northern Ireland. As such, there is no need to make similar provision.
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the boundary review will be based on the electoral register in force at the time of the review, and the first review will be based on the register in force on 1 December 2010. Previous boundary reviews have used the electoral register. The Bill's provision is no different. As we have discussed, the registration rate in the UK is between 91 and 92 per cent. Work is under way to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible—for example, freeing local authorities to identify people not on the register using existing public sector databases. The date of the register to be used is fixed because it is calculated by reference to the date on which the commissions are required to report, not the date on which they actually report, hence the difference.
In summary, these proposals make a modest reduction in the size of the Commons and will ensure that the principle of equality is given its proper weight in the commission's considerations, while ensuring that local factors can still be taken into account.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Variation in limit of number of holders of ministerial offices
(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 2(1) substitute—
“(1) The number of holders of offices specified in Schedule 2 to this Act (in this section referred to as Ministerial offices) entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time, whether paid or unpaid, must not exceed 95 if the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is 650.”
(3) After section 2(1) insert—
“(1A) If the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom decreases below 650, the limit on the number of holders of Ministerial offices entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons referred to in section 2(1) must be decreased by at least a proportionate amount.”
(4) In subsection (2), after “subsection (1)”, insert “or subsection (1A)”.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The amendment would reduce the number of paid ministerial officeholders in proportion to the reduction in the size of the other place. The text of the amendment is identical to an amendment moved in another place by Mr Charles Walker, the Conservative Member for Broxbourne. Before I come to the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may set out the relevant background.
Prior to the general election, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, now the Prime Minister and his deputy, made much of their determination to empower Parliament and enhance scrutiny and accountability of the Executive. In a lecture which many noble Lords will recall, delivered to the Institute for Government on 26 January 2010, Mr Nicholas Clegg declared:
“The Liberal Democrats believe this election is an opportunity to turn the page on decades of relentless centralisation within government. … I want to be clear: I am talking about a major reorganisation of Whitehall … As a result of our restructure the number of Ministers and government whips would be reduced from 119 to 73”.
Less than a fortnight later, on 8 February 2010, Mr David Cameron gave a lecture entitled “Rebuilding Trust in Politics” in which he said:
“We'd want to reduce the power of the executive and increase the power of Parliament even if politics hadn't fallen into disrepute … We’ve got to give Parliament its teeth back so that people can have pride in it again—so they can look at it and say ‘yes: those MPs we elect—they’re holding the government to account on my behalf’”.
I do not want to pretend that Amendment 91 would necessarily deliver our full aim. It is arguable that it is too timid to bring about the radical rebalancing that Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg had previously advocated. It does not reduce the size of the Executive; it merely stabilises the number of paid Ministers in proportion to the size of the House of Commons, from which the bulk of ministerial officeholders are drawn. It would do so by amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which currently sets the maximum number of paid Ministers allowed to sit and vote in the other place at 95. If the House of Commons were to remain at its present size of 650 seats, the limit of 95 Ministers would remain. However, if the Government persist in their objective of reducing the number of MPs to 600, the amendment would ensure a pro-rata reduction in the number of paid Ministers to 87.
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as he just outlined, is premised on the belief that reducing the number of MPs creates a problem in that the proportion of Ministers in the other place then becomes greater than at present. My starting point is different. My contention is that there are already too many Ministers. Reducing the number of Ministers exacerbates rather than creates a problem.
The size of the so-called payroll vote in the House of Commons, including Parliamentary Private Secretaries, has grown over the years. In 1950, it constituted 15 per cent of the House. It now constitutes 21 per cent. Expressed as a proportion of the number of MPs in the coalition parties, it is 38 per cent.
I accept the case for Ministers sitting in Parliament. However, Ministers are members of a body that is expected to subject the Government to critical scrutiny and to hold them to account. The capacity to fulfil that task, both in voice and vote, is limited if the votes at the disposal of the Whips increase. A consequence of the Bill is that the proportion of the House not able to call the Government to account becomes even larger.
I appreciate that there is an argument that the number of ministerial posts has increased in order to meet growing demands of government. However, as I said in evidence to the Public Administration Committee in the other place, I have seen no study to support that contention. There is an alternative explanation: that the growth has been for political reasons, providing a greater pool of patronage appointments available to the Prime Minister. In my evidence to the Public Administration Committee, I quoted Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s former chief of staff, in his book, The New Machiavelli, where he wrote:
“If prime ministers had their way they would appoint all the MPs on their benches to ministerial office. The payroll vote is an essential parliamentary tool and the bigger it is, the better”.
The patronage explanation has found support from a range of sources. The claim that there are too many Ministers has been supported by, among others, former Prime Minister Sir John Major and my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell. My noble friend in his evidence in 2000 to the Conservative Party’s Commission to Strengthen Parliament, which I chaired, argued that the number of Ministers could be reduced without undermining the essential tasks of government. He said that,
“a decision by an incoming prime minister to abolish twenty ministerial posts at different levels would not only be popular but would be followed immediately by an adjustment of workload. The whips and those who enjoy exercising or receiving patronage would be dismayed, but the benefits would be great.”
A former Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, told the Public Administration Committee that some tasks could be carried out by officials. There is also the argument that some tasks are not necessary anyway. Ministerial work tends to expand to fill the time available—a point well made by a former Minister, Chris Mullin.
What is required is a greater emphasis on quality, rather than quantity. The emphasis has been on quantity for the sake of patronage, rather than on quality for the sake of good government. The growth of the payroll vote has strengthened the position of Government at the expense of the House of Commons. I contend that there is no need for so many Ministers. Ministers are largely amateurs in their roles as Ministers. Providing better training for them, and redistributing some tasks to Whips, as happens in this House, would ensure there was no reduction in efficiency. If anything I would contend the reverse.
The Commission to Strengthen Parliament agreed with my noble friend Lord Hurd and concluded:
“The case for reducing the number of ministers is compelling on its merits. It also has a number of beneficial consequences. Limiting the number of ministers increases the number of MPs who are not committed to government by the doctrine of collective responsibility. Narrowing the route to ministerial office may serve to make attractive the alternative careers in the House of Commons. We believe that these benefits should not be negated by extending patronage through other routes”.
We recommended that the number of Ministers in Cabinet should be kept at 20 and the number of other Ministers capped at 50. That is a little more than the number suggested by my noble friend Lord Hurd. Back in 1940-41, the Herbert Committee recommended an even lower figure, believing that government could be carried on by 60 Ministers. My right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the 1999-2000 Session to place an absolute limit on the number of Ministers at 82. In 2006, my honourable friend Jeremy Browne introduced a Bill to reduce the number of ministerial salaries payable from 83 to 60.
My amendment is a relatively modest one. It seeks to reduce the cap on the number of Ministers who can sit—paid or unpaid—in the House of Commons from 95 to 80. It is modest but essential.
I conclude by emphasising the constitutional significance of this amendment. When I raised the issue on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord McNally treated it somewhat dismissively, as an issue that could be discussed later, after the passage of the Bill. The constitutional import of the amendment is on a par with that of reducing the number of MPs. If the number of MPs is reduced, then the proportion of the other place that forms the Government increases, to the advantage of government and to the detriment of the House of Commons in being able to call to account that part of it which forms the Government.
My starting point is that there are already too many Ministers and reducing the number of MPs will exacerbate the problem. There has been, as I have indicated, a steady increase in the size of the payroll vote in the other place, and now is the time to reverse the process and to strengthen the House of Commons in its capacity to call the Government to account. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who, with scholarship, erudition and experience has made an extraordinarily powerful case for a reduction in the number of Ministers. But there are two matters before your Lordships’ House on these two amendments. The first is whether to maintain, as the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton would do, the number of Ministers at least proportionate to the number of MPs. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would go further.
I support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend to the extent that that amendment at least ought to be accepted. The Government have come with great and, in many ways, worthy protestations of a desire to reform politics, in particular to reduce the power of the Executive—I look particularly at those on the Liberal Democrat part of the Government Benches. I do not understand how they can be content when that is not what will happen under this Bill. Indeed, it will be quite the opposite, as my noble and learned friend has said.
Lest there be any misunderstanding outside this Chamber as to the significance of the payroll vote, let me try to spell it out. First, if you are on the payroll vote, which means those who are paid or unpaid for these purposes, including Parliamentary Private Secretaries as well as full Ministers, you cannot vote against the Government without resigning. It is as simple as that. If a piece of legislation is put forward that a number of Ministers do not like, they cannot stay as Ministers and vote against it. That automatically means that the Government have a greater number of Members of Parliament able and willing to support what they want.
Secondly, as noble Lords have said, the Government cannot be held to account. When I was a Minister I could not ask questions of the Government through the mechanisms which exist in this House, let alone those in the other place. One can do what one can behind the scenes, but one cannot in an open way hold the Government to account.
On 17 January, I drew attention to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, that the unambiguous judgment on the part of the Government was,
“that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians”.
I will listen intently to what the Minister—if it be the Leader of the House—says as to how that statement can be reconciled with a position which does not accept that at the very least the number of Ministers must be reduced proportionately to the number of Back-Benchers. Otherwise, the power of the Executive will not be reduced. The power of the legislature will not be boosted. Quite the opposite will take place.
Lord Tyler
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will take his argument a step further. There is a powerful case here for looking at this issue. With his great experience as a very senior member of the previous Administration, but as a Member of this House, he will immediately acknowledge that this is also related to the issue of how many Ministers should sit in this House.
In the past, I have heard a powerful argument that, if and when this House is reformed, it may well be that there should be a proper separation of powers and that there should not be any Members of the Executive who are voting Members of this House. Will he acknowledge therefore that there is a good case for this issue to be addressed in the context of the future role of this House, which, as we know, this House and the other place will consider in a matter of weeks? Therefore, it may be premature for this issue to be addressed in this Bill when the relationship of the two Houses and, in particular, the relationship of this House to the Executive will be in front of this House in weeks.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and for his kind remarks, because he makes my point. The problem is that the Government have chosen to introduce in this Bill not only the referendum, which they need as a matter of urgency because of their political deal, and with which I have no difficulty, as I have said before, but also the reduction in the number of MPs.
A part of this change is in this Bill. My concern is that this Bill does not deal with the whole of it. I do not find it acceptable for the Government, with respect to the noble Lord who will answer this point, to say, “Well, don’t worry, something will be looked at later”. I am going to ask the Minister three questions now and he can think about them. What are the Government going to do about this? I have already drawn attention to the fact that on the Constitution Committee, when we asked Mr Clegg and Mr Mark Harper, the Minister, about the risk of increasing the power of the Executive, Mr Clegg said:
“There is a strong argument that says that you must look at this and adapt the number of people who are on the government payroll so that you do not get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account”.
If there is a strong argument—and I agree with him that there is—what is going to be done to deal with it?
Secondly, when is it going to be done? Vague statements about the boundary changes not coming into effect for some time and having been able to look at this by then are all very well—but when is this going to happen? Thirdly, will the Minister tonight in his reply commit to some method by which the reduction in the number of Members, if this House or Parliament adopts the proposals in the end, does not come into effect until there has been a satisfactory reduction in the number of Ministers, either as suggested in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, or by that of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth? I would prefer to see that being dealt with in this Bill. I do not think it should be put off, which is why I support the amendment. At the very least, the Government should ask themselves what they are going to do, if the new politics are to have any credibility, in their proposals for increasing the power of the legislature, reducing the power of the Executive and giving more power to the people. So long as they do not give a clear, unconditional commitment on this question, that statement will appear just a mirage and a charade. Having got into power, they are happy, as many Governments have been in the past, simply to retain the reins of power and the patronage and ability to get their legislation through by having as many of their people as possible on the government Benches. For those reasons, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the manifesto on which the Conservative Party fought the last election stated on page 63 said that,
“we plan to change Britain with a sweeping redistribution of power … from the government to Parliament”.
The power and size of the Executive vis-à-vis the House of Commons has grown over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, suggested that there might be some justification for that in terms of the growing demands of modern government. On the other hand, one might say that with the appropriation—if I can put it that way—of significant powers of government over this country by the European Union and the devolution of significant responsibilities for government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is an argument that there is a need for fewer Ministers rather than more. The reality is, however, that numbers have grown and grown. One reason in recent times why the numbers of ministerial appointments and members of the payroll vote have grown yet again is because it has been found expedient in the formation of the coalition to provide more jobs for more of the boys and girls.
Mr Christopher Chope, an admirably robust and courageous Member of Parliament and someone who has never had any time for the excuses and the self-justification that big government makes for itself, said:
“This Government have a record number of Ministers—more than at any time since the 1975 legislation was passed. When I was first elected in 1983”—
that is the year in which I was also first elected to the other place—
“there were about 83 House of Commons Ministers in Margaret Thatcher’s Government. We now have 95, five more than we had at the height of the last Labour Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 103.]
He went on to observe that the number of government Whips is now at an all-time high.
The payroll has grown and grown, and as my noble and learned friend has just said, it is not paid ministerial positions alone that have grown; the number of parliamentary private secretaries has soared. I understand that in the 1950s only a very small number of extremely senior Cabinet Ministers had a PPS. Nowadays, every member of the Cabinet has at least one PPS, and some have two, while every Minister of State has a PPS. In this way, the House of Commons has been progressively debilitated. Not for nothing is the Chief Whip known as the “patronage secretary”. If this Bill is unamended, the patronage exercised by the government Chief Whip in the other place will become more significant still.
Professor Philip Cowley of the University of Nottingham has noted that, contrary to the folklore, in recent years there have been increasing numbers of rebellions as more and more Back-Bench Members of the other place have found themselves rebelling from time to time. The Executive’s response has been to create more jobs and, through this Bill, to reduce the number of Back-Benchers in proportion to the size of the House of Commons. Not only the Government do this. The Opposition and other parties have to do it as well, or at least they persuade themselves that they, too, must stock their Front Benches with increasingly numerous appointments. We have reached the point where approaching half the membership of the House of Commons is on one Front Bench or another. What proportion of independent Back-Benchers does that leave? By the time you discount the ambitious who are not truly independent and the disappointed whose votes are not as independent as they might suppose, how many Back-Benchers enjoy in every sense of the term the freedom of the Back Benches? Not very many.
The Executive, via the legitimate day-to-day operations of the Whips—who have a proper job to do, and it is entirely appropriate for them to appeal to their party members for loyalty and support in the Division Lobbies—via the growth of patronage, via the exploitation of the ambitions of an increasingly professional political class, via pressures that can be exerted on Back-Bench Members through their local parties and via the fear, possibly, of deselection, one way or another continue to increase their dominance of the House of Commons.
I shall quote again from the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election, this time from page 67:
“Because we are serious about redistributing power, we will restore the balance between the government and Parliament by … allowing MPs the time to scrutinise law effectively”.
Rarely in the history of manifesto betrayals can there have been such a quick retreat from the position taken in the manifesto to the practice adopted by the Government in their handling of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in the House of Commons. The coalition, in the metaphorical smoke-filled room—metaphorical because I do not suppose for a second that there was any real smoke in it—devised a scheme, which we see expressed in this Bill, to seize yet more power for the Executive over the House of Commons. Bogus justifications were produced. It was noted that Members of Parliament were unpopular as a consequence of the expenses scandal; it was noted that there was a deficit that needed to be corrected; so the justification was contrived for reducing the number of Members of the House of Commons.
One of the justifications offered was on the grounds of saving public expenditure. We are told that if you reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 Members of Parliament, you will save £12 million. On that basis, if you reduce the size of the House of Commons by 100 Members of Parliament, you will save £24 million. A reduction of 200 Members will save £48 million. But what price an effective House of Commons, and what price a representative democracy that enables the people of this country, through their representatives, to hold their Government to account? I think that that is worth more than £12 million.
The result of this legislation, if we fail to amend it with one or other of these amendments or something on Report, will be an even smaller proportion of Back-Benchers who are even less capable, in an already enfeebled House of Commons, of holding the Executive to account. One of the consequences of the enfeeblement of the House of Commons is that Members of your Lordships’ House feel that they have an increased responsibility to step in where the House of Commons has emasculated itself and denied itself the capacity to do the job that those who elected it expected it to do.
Lord Soley
I rise not only to support my noble friend with or without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton—I think there is an interesting debate to be had there—but to say above all that I regard this as a very important proposed new clause, which I hope and expect the Government to indicate some degree of willingness to move on. The reality is that, like the figure of 600, this discussion takes us back quite a few years. That discussion, as I have said in previous debates, has been around at least since 2004, when Andrew Tyrie MP wrote about it in his pamphlet, but it goes further back than that. Some noble Lords may have heard the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the Conservative side, and me saying that we had discussed the reduction in the size of the House of Commons in the 1980s or possibly the early 1990s. We always said—this was said on both sides of the House by people who took this view—that if you reduced the size of the House of Commons, two things had to be at the forefront of our minds. First, it should be by all-party agreement; and, secondly, there must be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons.
There were two reasons for that predominantly. One has been well spelled out. I shall not dwell on it in great detail, but it is glaringly obvious that if you keep the same number of Ministers and the payroll vote is exactly the same, you reduce the number of MPs, give greater power and influence to the Executive, and reduce the power and influence of the legislature. That is why this is so important.
I had not thought of the other reason until I heard Professor King of Essex University explain it. He is right that if you reduce what he calls the gene pool from which Ministers are pulled—the Back-Benchers—the gene pool that is available for new Ministers will be reduced. That is important, too. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the importance of the quality of Ministers. If you do not reduce the number of Ministers but simply reduce the number of Back-Benchers, that will inevitably affect the quality as well as the quantity available to a Prime Minister from which to draw.
As I say, the argument goes back many years. I am frustrated and angry about our current position because we have been crying out for these reforms for some years, but they can be done only in a consensual and thoughtful manner. The Bill leaves bits out, rushes things and tries to do it without all-party agreement, which makes it difficult. Many on the Conservative Front Bench, when in opposition or in government, have said that they recognise the importance of dealing with the number of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others have said, “We must wait for House of Lords reform”, but that is a very dangerous philosophy. Reform of the House of Lords will not be easy, not least because of strong feelings on the government Benches. Even if they think it will be easier than I do, the chances of getting this through at the same time will not necessarily be good. There will be that sort of battle all the time. This is so important that it ought to be linked in a Bill with the reduction in the size of the House of Commons. I do not know anyone either in the House of Commons in the past 20 years or in this House who has not recognised that if you reduce the size of the House of Commons, you ought to reduce the number of Ministers. I do not see how you can argue against that. If you are going to do it you should do it together, and in the same Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
I wonder whether my noble friend with his great experience in the other place can help the House. I have been puzzling about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, since he made it. I do not understand how changes in this House will increase the ability of Back-Benchers in the other place to hold the Government to account. Can my noble friend tell us whether it has anything at all to do with holding the Government to account in the democratically elected House of Commons?
Lord Soley
My noble and learned friend anticipates me to some extent. He is exactly right. I recognise the political reality that the two parties—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—have formed a coalition and have to agree to somehow stitch the Bill together. Of course, things get left out or it is difficult to change it. However, even the Liberal Democrats were arguing—and arguing strongly as I understand it—for a reduction in the number of Ministers, which makes it very hard to understand why it is not in this Bill now. It is not impossible. Instead, it is somehow being left to a change in the House of Lords; you get the feeling that one party or the other in the coalition is hoping that this will not happen or that will not happen and that then maybe they can get another part of the deal, and so on. If the coalition is that unstable, it is not going to last. My advice would be to try and get this in the Bill now or get a very strong commitment from the Government that it will be brought forward in another form before the House of Commons is reduced.
I want to go back to something that has already been said which is also very important. We tend to look at this simply in terms of the number of people on the government Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Howarth made the very important point that you have Front Benches in the other parties. All the other parties have Front-Bench speakers. All of them are thinking to their future to some extent. Inevitably, again, this reduces the power of the legislature to hold the Executive to account.
It will probably alarm some of my friends, but I considered at one stage that there was quite a strong case for having Ministers drawn from outside the House who could be brought into the House and cross-examined and questioned. That would really put the cat among the pigeons—an almost presidential system. You can make a number of interesting innovations with our constitution, although I certainly would not go too far down this road right now. I want to say and emphasise as strongly as I can that to reduce the size of the House of Commons without simultaneously reducing the size of the Government is an invitation to the Government to increase their power at the expense of the legislature. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks, there is no guarantee that he will get what he spoke about at a later stage when the House of Lords is changed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith indicated in his intervention.
We have to bite on this bullet. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, recognises the importance of this argument because, when I was talking about where the figure of 600 came from in the previous debates about this, he indicated that we would come to this under this proposed new clause. I am waiting with anticipation for him to say, “Yes, you’re all right, I’ll accept it”. There is no reason why ideally he could not accept the proposed new clause or redraft it in some way, maybe coming back to the House with some variation which we would all look at, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not stand up and say, “I guarantee that we will bring in a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons before the figure of 600 is imposed on the House of Commons”. That is what this House is waiting to hear. It is what, as other people have said, has been promised all along about reducing the power of the Executive and so on, and it will not be delivered without a very strong commitment that the number of Ministers will be reduced before the figure of 600 is brought into the House of Commons.
I have been saying for some time that the two reasons given by a number of people from the Conservative Party over the years for the reduction to 600 has been, first, saving money and, secondly, the belief that the Labour Party gets too many seats in Parliament and the Conservative Party would get more. This is in a number of speeches, press statements and booklets written by Conservative Members which I quoted the other week. Andrew Tyrie wrote a good document back in 2004 for the Conservative Party—although, as I say, I did not agree with his statistics—saying that the figure should be reduced to either 600 or 550 over a period of five to 10 years. He had the good grace—as did most of the Conservative commentators—to say that this should be done in co-operation with the Labour Party, although the phrase I would prefer to see used is “after all-party agreement”, probably in a Speaker’s Conference. However, Andrew Tyrie also made the point, as have other Members on the Conservative side as well as the Labour side, that any reduction in the size of the House of Commons had to be matched by a reduction in the size of the payroll vote. In our new-found spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Minister—we have not quite got round to the negotiations yet, but I know that he is thinking about it—will indicate very strongly that everybody wants this measure really. To put it off until some hopeful date when the House of Lords is reformed is, frankly, at best the triumph of hope over experience and at worst disruptive and will not achieve the aim that most of us want.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the direction of the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I look forward with great interest to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I wish to make four observations based on my own experience as a Minister in this House and in a career largely followed in business.
First, I have no doubt that the briefing note of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says “Resist”; there is an automatic response produced by officials which says “Resist”. From my own experience as a Minister, I am absolutely sure that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be advised to do. However, we know that he is a man of great wisdom and experience and I hope that he will not necessarily follow the advice, if I am correct in my supposition.
Secondly, in my 18-month experience as a Minister in the Treasury, I was surprised by the number of Ministers that we had. Indeed, the Permanent Secretary always had great difficulty remembering the name of one of the Ministers. He used to wave his hands and say, “The one down at the end of the corridor”. I thought that was a pretty telling admission that even officials in the Civil Service thought that we had too many Ministers. Therefore, in the context of what was said in the pre-election period by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, I am very disappointed that there are the same number of Ministers in the Treasury now as there were when I was a Minister.
The consequence of there being too many Ministers is that they get in the way and take decisions which are, frankly, too small. I say this from the perspective of chairing Marks & Spencer and other large companies. Ministers take minute decisions compared with the decisions taken by the leaders of our major corporations. I could not believe some of the small matters that came to me as a Minister to authorise, and the time that one had to take reading the material through fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would spot a lacuna and put down a Written or Oral Question which would catch me out. I found it quite extraordinary that the average junior Minister—at least this was the case when I was an average junior Minister—spent the first 45 minutes of a day topping and tailing letters. I used to top and tail 200 to 300 letters. Those letters were originally sent to the Prime Minister, or to even more powerful people such as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. They were passed on to the Prime Minister, who passed them on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who passed them on to Mr Liam Byrne and Ms Yvette Cooper and various other people until they came to me. I looked desperately for somebody else to whom I could pass the letters but there was nobody so I had to sign them. This was the starting point of my ministerial day. I lived in constant fear that one evening I would appear in front of Paxman and he would say, “I ask you again, Lord Myners, is this your signature on the letter?”.
I now have the temerity to admit to the House that I did not always read those letters in great detail.
Lord Myners
I said “in great detail”. I knew how to spot the tricky words. I tended to skip over the salutations at the beginning and the end but I read the meaty bit in the middle. However, to be more serious, the decisions that one took as a Minister were of a very modest order compared with the decisions that we would expect the leader of a large corporation to take. That seems to me to support the view that, regardless of this amendment or the Bill, we simply have too many Ministers and they create work; they get in the way.
My final observation relates to the role of this House. When I was first appointed, I was terrified—I really was—and I made a complete fool of myself at my first debate when I was given a speech by my officials which I should, in all honesty, have reviewed more carefully. It was clearly a cut-and-paste job from the other place; it had numerous references to “the honourable Member” and “the Speaker” and so it did not take long before the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rose to his feet from the Benches to my left. I had no idea what I was meant to do; nobody had briefed me, but I had watched it on television so I thought I ought to sit down. I think I was intervened on about eight times in five minutes before the Chief Whip came to my protection.
In my preparation for the ordeal of the House, whenever there was a Statement, I tried to go to the other place in order to see how it was handled there and then scuttle back here. What I observed from that experience was that the challenge for Ministers in the other place was simply of a much lower order than in this place. I think that that is an observable and unchallengeable truth. The questions that I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who is not in his place, but who was an excellent spokesman on Treasury matters for the Liberal Democrat Party and, I believe, continues to perform that role, were of a different order. I look across now and I see the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. There are very few people in the other place who can ask a penetrating, focused, accurate and informed question with the degree of precision and understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, can. There is a question of accountability. We have too many Ministers and they do not seem to be sufficiently accountable.
Finally—I said that I would cover four points and I believe that this is the fourth—I think that this is evident in the work of some Select Committees. The Treasury Select Committee, to which I had to report on numerous occasions, was mixed in its understanding of the issues. There were a number of good members—Mr Andrew Tyrie has already been mentioned; let me mention him again, an excellent chairman of that committee with a very good understanding of the issues—but I cannot say that about every member of the committee, nor can I say that they always showed evidence that they had thoroughly studied and understood the issues. Again, accountability is at the heart of this—it is an issue that stands apart from the Bill and needs to be addressed. There are too many Ministers making too much work, doing too many modest things and not subject to appropriate scrutiny, particularly by the other place.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about to spring to his feet. I seem to produce a Pavlovian reaction in the noble Lord, who is, no doubt, about to tell me that some ancestor of his, several generations ago, had some involvement which shows that he knows more about this than I ever will. That seems to be his normal response to me. I now give him the opportunity to see whether he can approach me in a courteous and constructive way. We have too many Ministers and, to my mind, they are not sufficiently accountable. I look forward, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, telling us how the Tory-led coalition will deliver on the promises made before the election to reduce the number of Ministers, regardless of where we end up on the Bill.
Lord Tyler
I am extremely grateful to my fellow Cornishman. I was going to say that the past few minutes have given us a fascinating insight into the workings of government and have actually proved the point that we should have more Ministers in this House and fewer in the other.
Lord Rea
It may interest your Lordships that, while I was listening to this extremely interesting exchange, I have done a little calculation on the back of the amendment list. The amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton would reduce the number of Ministers from 95 in the same proportions as the reduction of Members from 650 to 600. If that were to happen we would get 87, which is a lot more generous than what was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, whose arguments were impeccable. I do not think there will be a choice of voting for one against the other but I would favour the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am delighted to have been encouraged to leap to my feet. I was so enjoying the noble Lord, Lord Myners, who was in danger of slipping into his anecdotage, but it was great fun and he made some good, serious points as well, which I enjoyed. Some of what he said about his time in government should be taken up as a specialist seminar in itself, which some noble Lords wanted to encourage. The noble Lord demonstrated his experience and knowledge of Government because of course my brief says “resist”. But noble Lords should not be too disappointed by that because I hope to demonstrate that although it says “resist” what it means is “resist but”, and I shall get to the “but” in a moment.
This issue was substantially debated in another place, but the noble and learned Lord who introduced the amendment here has given us an opportunity to have another fine debate in this House. Therein lies the point, because as some noble Lords have spotted, the Government have never objected to the spirit behind the amendment. As the noble and learned Lord said and others such as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, spotted, this Government are committed to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. That much was witnessed by the swift moves to implement the Wright committee’s recommendations for the other place to establish the Back-Bench Business Committee passing control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members of Parliament and the power to elect the chairs and members of Select Committees. That is not letting any grass grow under the feet of the Government—fast action straight away.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing, so noble Lords will know that this Government are not looking to extend their own influence. This Government believe on principle that power should be dispersed.
In this particular instance, we do not see the need to rush to legislate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill will take effect. If we want to have new boundaries based on smaller number of seats at the next general election, we have to legislate now to give the boundary commissions the time to carry out their reviews and the parties time to prepare for the election. If we want to have fewer Ministers after the next election, we do not have to legislate now. In fact, we do not necessarily have to legislate at all. In any case, the heart of the matter appears to be not the number of Ministers in the House of Commons but the size of the Government’s payroll vote in the House of Commons. That includes Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are not covered by the current legislation and would not be covered by the amendment that we are discussing. As my honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons has said, it is only by “self-denying ordinance” that the number of PPSs is limited.
Clearly, the Government have been capable of self-restraint. That self-restraint will still be necessary should the amendment be adopted. So if the intention of the amendment is to try to limit that influence and bind future Governments, it would fail on that count alone. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, realised, the legislation would not cover the number of opposition Front-Benchers. Although they are of a different type of influence and a different type of patronage, it is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back-Benches. The Government's position is that it is not—
Lord Goldsmith
I am very interested in the noble Lord’s observation about the defect in my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendment. Can we look forward to a government amendment on Report which will correct that by making sure that it controls the number of PPSs as well as that of Ministers in the same proportionate manner?
Lord Strathclyde
I am going to come to that but the noble and learned Lord should not hold his breath for me making a commitment to return on Report, because we need to look at the ramifications of doing all of this. The Government’s position is that it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will look at how to address this, and we will do so. I wonder whether that was the ringing and unconditional commitment that the noble and learned Lord was looking for. I think that it probably was not—I think that he wanted a bit more than that—but it was pretty good.
Lord Strathclyde
I am glad to have got that right.
What about the ramifications of all of this? For example, it might seem an odd consequence if we were to reduce the number of Ministers in one House by increasing the number in the other, which is this House. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Tyler made and was right to make. He put it extremely well. In fact, there was an echo of what the noble Lord, Lord Myners, said about his experience in Government. Currently, of course, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons but we ought to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers might be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber or by the introduction of elected Members. That is something which the Government, in conjunction with the Opposition, are putting their mind to at the moment. There is also an argument about the separation of powers but I shall not make a case for that now.
It is possible that arguments might then be made for a smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber, to allow for more Back-Bench voices. Equally, it is possible that arguments might be made for a greater ministerial presence to help the House to hold the Executive to account. Both arguments can be made—or neither—and we should wait for another opportunity before coming to a firm view on all of this. Ultimately, we want to be governed by the principle that the number of Ministers must be a function of need.
Lord Soley
The Minister has set the alarm bells ringing in my mind with his earlier phrase that we might not need to legislate at all. He then started talking about other options. He must know, from all his long experience, that the longer a Government are in power, the more the Prime Minister and that Government rely on the payroll vote because there are more disaffected people on the Back Benches. If he leaves this, it will not happen; we all know that. We need either to legislate on this or to give a very firm commitment that it is going to happen before the 600 figure is reached.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I would not necessarily compare all Governments with the standard of the previous one. My noble friend has made the case for a reduction in Ministers from the current number. It is most interesting but not one that we find entirely convincing. However, we do find it convincing to reduce the size of the Executive when we get to 600.
We should not forget the purpose of a ministerial presence in Parliament. We need sufficient Ministers to support the essential business of both Houses, to make Statements and answer Questions in both Houses, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. In fact, my noble friend Lord Norton made an interesting point when he said that no study has been made of whether there has been an increased workload for Ministers. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Myners, spoke rather well about how unnecessary many of the things that Ministers do actually are. Perhaps there should be a study. I look to my noble friend Lord Norton for that. He will know the kind of people who ought to be able to make that study. I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not wish to rush to legislate until we had at least seen a little evidence from such a report.
There are some entertaining examples in all of this and it is amusing to look at the role of Ministers in each House. But there is a very serious underlying point and that is the fear that the proportion of the Executive will increase as the number of Members of Parliament falls. I understand that there is an impatience in this Committee to know how the Government will address that fact. I am trying to be as helpful as I can but there is a limit to the helpfulness. We have said that we will address this issue and we will, but there is plenty of time to legislate before 2015 if we need to. The Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform told the Constitution Committee, of which my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord are members, that we will bring forward proposals during this Parliament. That is in good time as the reduction in the size of the other place will not yet have taken effect. I hope that is a sufficient reassurance, repeated here, and that it will satisfy the noble and learned Lord enough to feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, if the Leader of the House is prepared to study the behaviour of different Ministers during the past 10 years, can I commend to him the experience I had as a government Whip with my noble friend Lord Rooker who, on occasion, took his own decision rather than the decision on the paper before him that was prepared by the civil servants?
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I was tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who suggested that we were in seminar mode. In that case I might feel the need to start allocating marks, and one or two people might not come out of it too well. I was initially encouraged by my noble friend’s “but”, although it was not as big a “but” as I would have liked. I hope between now and Report that he will go away and reflect on it so that if there are to be proposals, he can put a bit more flesh on the bone so that we know what they are going to be. I regard this to be as important as reducing the number of MPs. There is an extraordinarily important constitutional point about the relationship between the House of Commons and the part of it that forms the Government.
My noble friend made the legitimate point that the amendment cannot take into account the number of PPSs in the Commons. I understand that it cannot really be dealt with by statute. However, I hope that we might address it separately because there is an issue about PPSs, not just in quantity but in their role. Over time their latitude to vote against the Government has been constricted, and I am concerned now by how they are dealt with in the Ministerial Code, in which they are essentially members of the Government for the purpose of voting but Back-Benchers for the purpose of sitting on Select Committees. That is an issue to be pursued. The obvious point in the context of what my noble friend was saying is that if you reduce the number of Ministers, you reduce the number of people who require PPSs, so to some extent that addresses part of the problem but there is quite a long way still to go.
This is an extraordinarily important issue, so I hope my noble friend will reflect on what he has heard. I am grateful for the support that I have received from all parts of the Chamber, not least from the noble Lord opposite. The only point that I will make is that my amendment has an advantage over that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in that it comes up with a whole number. If one reduces the number proportionately, one ends up with a reduction of something like seven and a half Ministers. An incredibly important issue is at stake here, and I hope that my noble friend will reflect very seriously on it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am grateful for all the support around the House for Amendment 91. It was an amusing and vintage speech from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. However, it is worth analysing two parts of it. First, he accepted the importance of the issue that the Bill proportionately increases the size of the Executive and decreases the number of those able to hold them to account. He said that we should not rush. No one is asking the Government to rush, because the reduction would occur precisely when the reduction in the number of MPs would occur.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that we could get round this by the PPS route. In the light of what the Government, and in particular Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron, have said, I would have thought that they would not do this because they are committed to the measure. He said that there was a “but”, and we thought that there would be something bankable. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith asked what the Government were going to do about it. In this House, as in the other place, something is being looked for that would bring the thing forward. I have written down, “We will look at it”, and, “We will address the issue and do something”. It is very difficult to regard those assurances as having any reality.
As my noble friend Lord Rea said, our amendment would reduce the number of Ministers by eight. That is not many. It is hard to believe that it would affect the conduct of government—and my goodness, it would send a signal consistent with what has been said by Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron. It would be a very good thing for trust in politics if that could be done. I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and I will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“( ) of all written representations made to the Boundary Commission by publishing them online within 24 hours of receipt”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will not detain the House long. My amendment inserts a new paragraph into new Section 5(1) that requires the Boundary Commission to make public and in a timely manner all the representations that it has received.
I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is sensible, clear and concise, and it places an unambiguous duty on the commission to make public the representations that it has received in respect of its proposals.
The amendment states that the representations should be published online. This is modern and green. It saves trees, it is good for the environment and it quickly gets into the public domain for all to see what has been received.
All noble Lords who have been involved in boundary inquiries will be aware that representations are made available at the inquiries. The Government propose to take away those inquiries, so the amendment places a duty on the Boundary Commission to put what has been received into the public domain.
One of the most regrettable things about the Bill is the way in which it restricts—some would say strangles—public engagement on a crucial aspect of how they are represented. My amendment tries in a small way to offset that. If the amendment is not agreed, representations that are received could be kept secret. That cannot be right.
I feel strongly that this is another example of a bad Bill that has been handled in a very poor way by the Government. As I said before, there was no Green Paper, no White Paper and no draft Bill. It was railroaded through the Commons, leaving it to your Lordships' House to provide scrutiny, to make it better and to stand up for citizens and their rights, as it has done on so many occasions before.
I bring my remarks to a close by saying that I look forward to the debate and I hope for a very positive response from the Minister. I hope that he will not let me down.
Lord Lipsey
I can be even briefer. My amendment, Amendment 91B, reflects a suggestion made in the British Academy study to which the Minister has referred with great favour on a number of occasions, which is that the Boundary Commission should be bound to publish not just representations but comments. It is a small point, but the leading experts in the academic world regard it as an improvement. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept it.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
Amendments 91AA and 91B would change the process of consultation as set out in the Bill. The Government believe that it is important that there should be a good flow of information between the Boundary Commissions and the public so that people can be informed about the review and have their say. That is why we have extended the period for representations to 12 weeks from the four weeks currently provided for.
Amendment 91B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, would, as he said, require the commissions to take into consideration any comments that they receive on representations made on their recommendations—that is, the ability of the public to make counter-representations to those of other individuals, if that is not too convoluted. He referred to the British Academy study, which made that recommendation.
I reassure the noble Lord that our thoughts are very similar to those during yesterday's debate on the issue of wards—yesterday or the day before; anyway, earlier this week—and their use in making recommendations for constituency boundaries. That is that we are open to considering improvements to the process of public consultation on recommendations for boundary changes that do not compromise the key principles of the Bill. Adding an opportunity for counter-representations would not compromise the key principles, particularly that of dealing with boundaries that are as up to date as possible. We will consider the details of how the process set out in the amendment might function and come forward with our amendments at Report.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require the Boundary Commissions to publish all written representations received as part of the consultation process online, in a very environmentally friendly way, within 24 hours of receipt. That is a helpful and useful suggestion which we will certainly want to consider carefully before Report. We question one element. The commissions made extensive use of the internet in the course of the previous general review and, although it is for them to decide, I am confident that they would do likewise this time.
The practical problem with the noble Lord’s amendment is the requirement to publish those representations within 24 hours of receipt. Our experience of consultations is that many people submit their representations very shortly before the deadline. If the commissions have received thousands of representations just before the end of the period, they might find themselves overwhelmed if they are then required to publish them online within 24 hours, especially if a number of representations were received in paper form that had to be turned into a version that was electronically presentable. The secretaries to the respective Boundary Commissions told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that they have sufficient resources. I do not doubt that the commissions will act to publish the representations in good time following the end of the consultation period, but I fear that there may be occasions when it would be impractical to do so within 24 hours.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Kennedy, for highlighting these issues by way of their amendments and reassure them that we will bring our proposals to the House at the next stage of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response and look forward to what comes back at Report. If it would be helpful, I am happy to move amendments for a period of 48 hours or 72 hours.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(2) A Boundary Commission may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purposes of a report under this Act where, on publication of a recommendation of a Boundary Commission for the alteration of any constituency, the Commission receive any representation objecting to the proposed recommendation from an interested authority or from a body of electors numbering one hundred or more.
(3) However, a Boundary Commission shall not be obliged to hold an inquiry if they believe that any objection received under the terms of subsection (2)—
(a) raises no substantive issues that might benefit from further comment or representation from other interested parties or individuals;(b) makes counter proposals which are prima facie out with the stipulations of the Rules for the distribution of seats contained in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act.(4) A local inquiry held under subsection (2) must be completed within six months of the close of the consultation period referred to in subsection (1) above.
(5) Where a local inquiry had been held under subsection (2), a Boundary Commission may, after considering the matters discussed at a local inquiry, the nature of the representations received under subsection (1) and any other relevant circumstances, decide that a further local inquiry is not justified.
(6) If a further local inquiry is held, it must be completed within nine months of the close of the original consultation period referred to in subsection (1) above.
(7) In subsection (2) above, “interested authority” and “elector” respectively mean, in relation to any recommendation, a local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the constituencies affected by the recommendation, and a parliamentary elector for any of those constituencies.””
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is an important amendment about public inquiries. It is well known throughout this House and the other place what the Act does: it does not simply abolish the entitlement to a public inquiry; it prohibits a public inquiry, even though the Boundary Commission might consider that the most appropriate way in which to deal with issues that arise in relation to a proposed new setting of a boundary. Clause 12(1) inserts a new Section 5(2) into the 1986 Act which states that:
“A Boundary Commission may not cause a public inquiry to be held for the purposes of a report under this Act”,
and Clause 12(2) states that:
“Section 6 of the 1986 Act (local inquiries) is repealed”.
The old system of local inquiries is repealed, and a prohibition is imposed on the Boundary Commission concluding that it should have one.
We submit that this is damaging to the process and reduces its legitimacy in setting constituency boundaries. In our original amendment, we proposed to delete the subsection prohibiting public inquiries and to insert the wording relating to inquiries contained in the existing legislation. That would have put the Government at one end of the spectrum with their proposal to prohibit public inquiries and us at the other with a proposal to preserve completely the status quo. However, I believe your Lordships' House has expressed a very clear desire in recent days for both sides to work constructively for compromise on this Bill where there are differences of view. In that spirit of compromise and in an attempt to find common ground on this most important of issues, we withdrew our previous amendment and have tabled a revised version of our original amendment, which we believe addresses successfully the Government’s central concerns in relation to public inquiries. I am anxious to make it very clear at this point that we have genuinely sought to understand the Government’s reasons for abolishing and prohibiting inquiries, for it is only by seeking to understand their motivation that we can hope to come forward with a proposition capable of garnering broad support and encouraging the Government to accept public inquiries.
Mr David Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, outlined the Government’s position during Committee stage in the other place last November. He stated:
“The Bill abolishes them for three major reasons. First, we simply must speed up reviews … The second reason why we are abolishing the public inquiries is that they do not achieve their purpose. They do not provide the boundary commissions with a good indication of local opinion to aid them in the process of drawing up constituencies ... The third reason for abolishing inquiries is that they rarely lead to significant changes in recommendations … The changes are frequently minor. For example, at the time of the fifth general review in England, only 2% of wards in counties where inquiries were held were moved between constituencies as a result”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/10; cols. 729-30.]
I shall deal with the three points in reverse order. I submit that the weakest argument in favour of abolishing public inquiries at this time is that they rarely lead to significant changes. If we look at the last review in England, it is true that alterations were made in only just over a quarter of all parliamentary constituencies, but the context is all important. In every case where the Boundary Commission was proposing an increase or a decrease in the number of constituencies, its initial proposals were amended following a public inquiry. In many cases, such as Derbyshire, Sheffield, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and north-west London, substantial changes were made, and many times the Boundary Commission commented in the report that the recommendations of the assistant commissioner—the judicial officer who presided over the public inquiry—were improvements on their own.
The same is true in Scotland. A review of Scottish Parliament—not national Parliament—constituencies in 2007 based on very similar rules to those being proposed in this Bill led to the Boundary Commission recommending substantial changes to the electoral map. Your Lordships will recall the quote that I gave on the previous occasion from Sheriff Principal Kerr, who referred to the 10 substantial public inquiries that had had a significant effect on the drawing of the map of the Scottish Parliament constituencies. Thousands of objections and a rash of local inquiries resulted in major alterations being made to the original recommendations. As your Lordships have already heard, if the next UK boundary review takes place on the basis of the proposed new rules, alongside a reduction of 50 constituencies there will inevitably be widespread disruption to the electoral map of the UK. That prospect prompted Robin Gray, who was the former chair of the Boundary Commission for England, to say to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee:
“Particularly with this first round I can see there is a real need for public inquiries particularly to enable those who are interested, political parties and others, to actually argue this through because these are going to be big changes”.
Those remarks were echoed by Professor Ron Johnston, who is generally sceptical about the value of public inquiries but who told the committee that the scale of the proposed changes,
“is an argument for having public inquiries this time because you are drawing a totally new map with new constituencies and nearly everything will be different … local people are going to be concerned because suddenly the pattern of representation is going to be very different from what they have been used to for a long time”.
Likewise, Mr Lewis Baston of Democratic Audit has commented: “The banning”—he was right to use that word—
“of public inquiries is a severe and deplorable downgrading of public participation and transparency in the boundary process”.
There is then a powerful, principled argument for retaining public inquiries, especially in the context of a proposal fundamentally to alter the composition of the constituencies that make up the other place.
None the less, it is plain that we should recognise that there is an argument for controlling properly the extent to which public inquiries are used. We have therefore revised our previous amendment and now propose that the Boundary Commission should not be obliged to hold a public inquiry even where the threshold for triggering an inquiry has been met and that threshold is either a representation from an interested authority—essentially, a local authority—objecting to the proposed recommendation or electors numbering 100 or more. Even if the Boundary Commission received those objections which satisfied the condition for holding a public inquiry, if it judged that the issues raised were not substantive or constituted counter proposals which would infringe the general rules on the distribution of seats—that is, if it was plain that there was no real issue or if there was a strict rule that prevented any change—it could conclude that there should not be a public inquiry. The Boundary Commission would therefore have the power to say that it would grant an inquiry only when the representation was of real value and the condition was satisfied. That would go a long way towards dealing with the concern that inquiries would be used unnecessarily.
I shall address the second of Mr Heath’s criticisms, the charge that inquiries do not provide a good indication of local public opinion. The allegation here is that they engage only political parties. That charge loses a great deal of its weight in the context of the next review, which, as has been repeatedly mentioned, is so significant. We have already witnessed huge—I use “huge” advisedly—numbers of representations made; for example, in relation to Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. Strong public interest was aroused in both those areas, in part because it was already known that the new rules would have a particular effect either on the Isle of Wight—the island would be split into two and joined in part to the mainland—or on Cornwall, where there is very strong feeling about crossing a boundary.
Once the provisional recommendations for boundary changes are published, we are likely to see very considerable objection to them. I remind your Lordships what the four secretaries of the Boundary Commissions have warned,
“the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies”.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I support this amendment on the grounds already put before the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in opening this debate. My main concern is the effects on the courts of the removal of inquiries and the consequences that that could have for the proper workings of the Boundary Commission. I should acknowledge that that point was drawn to my attention by the right honourable Mr Straw in the other place who, of course, has been recently the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. As I understand it, he shares the same concerns as I will advance.
Before I do that, I feel that I should advise the House, on the basis of my general experience and my responsibility at one stage of my career at the Bar, of when I appeared quite regularly for the Government in inquiries which were going wrong. The problem was that the public felt that those inquiries, although they were local inquiries, did not give them the opportunity to express the strength of feeling that they had on a governmental proposal. In considering this amendment, the Government would be wise to take that possible unforeseen consequence into account. I am pleased that the proposed amendment deals with some of the problems that could arise in regard to the ability for local inquiries to take place.
The first matter was delay. I hope that the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for dealing with that will be considered to be satisfactory. Certainly, it seemed to me to be a constructive proposal. However, the most important reason for preserving this power for the Boundary Commission to hold a local inquiry in the form that will exist in law if this amendment is accepted is the fact that the Boundary Commission is given the key to the door as to whether there should be a local inquiry. It would have a discretion and, although there are thresholds, those thresholds do not bite on the discretion. The only situation when there would be an inquiry is where the Boundary Commission thinks that it is necessary, which, surely, is an important point that is made in this amendment.
If there is no provision for an inquiry I anticipate that there will inevitably be an increase in applications for judicial review. Applications for judicial review are a plague so far as the Government of the day are concerned. They are also a problem for the courts, albeit that the courts take great pride in the way, over the past decade and more, they have developed the ability of the public to seek the aid of the courts where they think their rights are being infringed. If this amendment is not accepted, the issues that will be sought to be raised on applications for judicial reviews are ones which the courts will find peculiar difficulty in dealing with. It is a very important part of our constitution—unwritten though it be—that there should be a relationship between the courts and Parliament which avoids Parliament trespassing on the proper province of the courts and avoids the courts trespassing on the proper province of Parliament. Matters dealing with constituency boundaries, it seems to me, are the very sorts of matters which the courts should not be required to deal with if there is a way of avoiding it. The best way of giving the public the ability to express their views is by public inquiries being held whenever the Boundary Commission considers it is appropriate.
On the basis of those two points, I urgently encourage the Government to look with sympathy on this amendment, which has so carefully been drafted to meet possible objections but achieve a very valuable safeguard for the public. It is in accord with the Government’s policy, as I understand it, of allowing the public to have a say on matters of such importance.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, we trust that the Government will be prepared to look on it with some sympathy.
I was very surprised indeed when I saw that, particularly from our Liberal Democratic friends, there was support for a change of this nature. I will say a few words about what I would class as being one of the most democratic exercises in which I have ever participated. I was on the Select Committee dealing with the hybrid Bill on Crossrail. We spent six months meeting four days a week with hundreds of businesses, taxpayers, ratepayers and individuals who had the opportunity of using the public process of petitioning against the way that the plans had been laid down for developing Crossrail. We listened to them all very carefully indeed and the noble and learned Lord the Minister will have considerably more experience than I do of petitions, with his experience in Scotland. To me it proved to be the most democratic public participative process that I have ever been involved with since I came into the House back in 1997. At the end of the day people went away. They did not necessarily get their way. In fact, the number of concessions granted was relatively small but the important point about the exercise to me was that people had had the chance to have their say, they felt they had been listened to carefully and we understood that many of them, even though they did not win their point, felt that democracy had not only been seen but had been seen to be at work and that they had had their chance.
I was surprised when we saw that, effectively, this major part of the process of our democracy is scheduled to be quite unilaterally guillotined. There has been no public consultation whatever, no Green Paper and no scrutiny across the two Houses, but we have a major change before us. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has bent over backwards in crafting the amendment to try to meet all the problems that were enumerated when this was debated in the other place. It is a pity that we do not have many people present in the Chamber, given that we have been told that we are filibustering and that we are not dealing sensibly and reasonably with the issues before us. If the Chamber had been full, I am sure that no one could have raised any criticisms about the way that this side of the House has endeavoured to try to meet the needs that have been expressed by the coalition Government. I hope that a very careful ear will be given to the arguments that have been advanced, and more particularly that, for the first time, there will be an indication of some movement in negotiations, which would go some way towards what we are looking for.
The other side of the coin is that if this is forced through so that public inquiries are abolished and prohibited, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, indicated, there is the distinct possibility that a very substantial number of calls for judicial review will be made in due course to try to counter the fact that people have not been given an opportunity to input their views into the way that the legislation has been developed. I should also like to hear, particularly from the Minister, a response to the point about judicial reviews: whether it is anticipated that they will arise if the Government go ahead, the scale of what may take place and how that in turn might interfere with the programme that has been set out. But I hope that the Minister will not have to address those points because he will, very sensibly indeed I trust, give a much more positive response to the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I was going to support this amendment even before hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, but his point, which I had not considered before, is one that the Minister really ought to consider. Speaking from experience of having to deal with inquiries and judicial review against government, the fact is that if you do not provide any form of outlet for local opinion and for people who are unhappy about decisions that are being taken, they will look for other ways. The legal profession is sufficiently innovative and able, as the noble and learned Lord knows, to find ways of doing it if we do not provide it. That is an enormously important point.
I would have supported the amendment in any event on the basis of the effect on the population and on localism. He and I have heard much about that in our debates, and rightly so. I look across to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. We come from the same city of Liverpool, where localism for his party might have been born. Certainly I saw it in operation there. It is therefore surprising to see that a critical part of that—the ability of local people to say what they think about this issue—is being removed entirely. Is it not plain, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said, that the real reason the Government are doing this is not because they think it will give more power to the people, which is what their programme is about, but because they are worried about delay? However, my noble and learned friend’s amendment deals with that. If the Government think that they can tighten it a little more but accept the principle, no doubt they can say so.
The really important point is this, and I support the noble and learned Lord in saying it: do not remove all opportunity to have a form of local inquiry that enables people not only to say what they think, but often to provide information and advice that, when it is heard by those who are making the final decision about boundaries, makes a difference. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will be positive about this amendment. If he tinkers with it and brings back slightly different time limits, those on the Front Bench on this side will no doubt consider those carefully. However, the principle is important.
Lord Goldsmith
I really must object to that comment from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who, as far as I can see, has been in the Chamber for only the past five minutes. I have been speaking for less than that. That really was an unhelpful comment. He should know better than that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing this amendment and for the very helpful and constructive spirit in which he proposed it. I also thank the other noble Lords who made important contributions to this relatively short but important debate.
The amendment seeks to introduce a public inquiry stage into the boundary review process, allowing the Boundary Commissions to hold a public inquiry where representations are received from any interested local authority or from 100 or more interested electors.
As we made clear in our response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in the previous debate, and in our responses on local government ward boundaries and existing parliamentary constituencies, the Government's position has been that we are open to considering reasonable improvements to the process, provided that they do not compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, and that still remains our position.
It is not a fundamental principle of the Bill that there should be no oral inquiries. The decision to end the process of oral inquiries, which appears in this Bill, was in fact taken on the basis of the evidence before us, when we came to consider the most effective consultation process for boundary reviews, which is what we are all trying to achieve.
Among the many contributions that we have heard not just this evening but over a number of Committee sittings, the case has been made tonight that local inquiries are an important safety valve because they allow everyone, as we might put it, to have their day in court. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, made that very point. It allows people to have their say. My view is that this is perhaps the only objective of local inquiries: for which any credible argument can be mounted in their favour. Evidence and academic opinion indicate that local inquiries are perhaps far more effective in principle than in practice.
Local inquiries do not as a rule consist of the general public having their say on boundary proposals. Professor Ron Johnston—whose namechecks in these debates are now getting quite considerable; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer quoted him—and his colleagues have concluded that the public inquiry process is “dominated by political parties”, describing the process as,
“very largely an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek influence over the Commission's recommendations—in which their sole goal is to promote their own electoral interests”.
Of course, he is perfectly right; political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and there is nothing wrong with parties contributing fully to the boundary review process. It is inevitable that they are going to do that, but if we are considering what would be gained by the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, which would restore oral inquiries in some form, we should not imagine that we would necessarily be giving the public a better chance to have their say. We would be looking to restore a potentially long process to which parties will send Queen's Counsel in their attempts to secure the most favourable outcome for their electoral prospects, certainly if history is anything to go by. It may be that the quasi-judicial nature of the local inquiry process could act as a disincentive to public participation by ordinary people who hope to have their say.
Our intention is that a written consultation process, with the existing period for representations extended from one month to three, will actually amount to a much more effective way to allow a level playing field for the general public who wish to have their say. Whatever the merits of the cases that are made for exceptions in this Bill—for example, for the Isle of Wight—I do not think that anyone could doubt that the people involved were very successful in making their voices heard through petitions, campaigns and websites.
There is little evidence, too, that local inquiries bring to light evidence that would not otherwise be considered. In an earlier debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, gave us an example of when a public inquiry had changed the boundary of the West Bromwich East constituency to reflect local geography, using a dual carriageway in place of a defunct railway line as a point of orientation. I am sure that that was a sensible change, and I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that local knowledge is immensely important in these matters, but I do not see why that could not have been raised as part of an extended consultation period, as proposed by this Bill.
That is why changes that are made following local inquiries are often minor. At the fifth general review in England, for example, only 2 per cent of wards in English counties where inquiries were held were moved between constituencies as a result. Robin Gray, a former boundary commissioner already quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that Professor Ron Johnston was,
“absolutely right about the impact that public inquiries had on the Commission’s initial recommendations. In a lot of cases there was no change”.
The evidence given by the Boundary Commission for Wales to the Welsh Affairs Committee is also instructive on this point. In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the secretary of the Welsh commission said that,
“during the fifth general review, there were four issues that the Commission changed its mind on as a result of the consultation process. Perhaps I should say that, while these issues were raised in the local inquiries they were also raised beforehand in the written representations. In one sense, the Commission, before the local inquiries, had in its mind that modifications were required in the draft proposals”.
That brings me to the evidence of Ron Johnston before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Professor Johnston, as we have acknowledged, has been much quoted in these debates. I think that anyone reading his evidence and his previous work will reach the same conclusion that the committee reached in its report that the result of Professor Johnston’s extensive research into the topic, and oral inquiries in particular, led him to,
“generally welcome the abolition of public inquiries”.
I stress that, not because somehow Professor Johnston’s view is the only one that counts, but because it dispels the theory that only we on the government Benches somehow hold the view that oral inquiries are not necessarily the best way to achieve the objective that we all want, which is a robust consultation process at which everyone, including those who are not able to appoint legal counsel on their behalf, can have their say on a commission’s proposals.
However, in the same session, Robin Gray stated that he believed public inquiries added value because they provided assurance that the,
“issues have been looked at and debated”—
perhaps an echo of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
One charge that cannot be laid against oral inquiries in the past is that they were anything less than thorough in this regard. This lengthy process, however, goes to the heart of one of the key principles in the Bill, which was identified by the noble and learned Lord when he moved his amendment. If no action is taken the boundaries in force at the next general election will be 15 years out of date, if we do not proceed to get a boundary review and report by October 2013, as set out in the Bill. We believe that it is simply not fair to electors—most notably all those who have come on to the register in the past 15 years. I believe that noble Lords opposite share our concern about this. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made that very point. I readily acknowledge that the amendment attempts to address it by limiting the triggers for inquiries and placing a limit on their duration, and I very much welcome how that has been presented by the noble and learned Lord.
It is also important that we listen carefully and reflect on what was said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Goldsmith, not least on the question of judicial review—judicial review if you do not have oral inquiries and judicial review if you do have oral inquiries. There is an argument that the proposal in the amendment to give the Boundary Commission the decision on whether to hold an inquiry in each constituency where the requirements in the amendment are met would also lead to a risk of judicial reviews of the Boundary Commission’s decisions on that point.
Important issues have been raised. I have indicated not just in this debate but in others that the principle should be that reviews must be conducted more quickly so that the pattern of representation in the other place represents the reality of where electors live now, not of history. That goes to the heart of fairer and more equally weighted votes throughout the United Kingdom, which is a core objective of the Bill. We will obviously want to consider the noble and learned Lord’s concerns on the issue of judicial reviews—as I have said, if you have them or if you do not have them. Subject to meeting the key principle, which I have indicated, I am content to take the noble and learned Lord’s amendment and consider the thinking behind it to see whether it offers a way in which the advantage that I acknowledge an inquiry can provide—a sense of “a day in court”—can be retained. On that basis, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am very grateful for a very positive response. I shall deal with a few points so that people can read them in Hansard.
First, the noble and learned Lord is right to say that Professor Johnston, who is an expert in this field, has expressed scepticism from time to time about the public inquiries in some contexts, but he has said that the scale of the proposed changes in the first boundary review is an argument for having public inquiries this time because you are drawing a totally new map. Without being unfair, or selecting out of context, Professor Johnston is in favour in this context. He also referred to Robin Gray, the former chairman of a Boundary Commission, who has a rounded view of public inquiries and recognises problems with them. Robin Gray says:
“Particularly with this first round I can see there is a real need for public inquiries”.
Therefore, the two witnesses that the noble and learned Lord cites both unequivocally favour public inquiries in this context.
Secondly, the way that this amendment is put is not as an alternative to written submissions, because it accepts that in the appropriate case written submissions would be sufficient. I draw attention to subsection (3) in the amendment, which says that the Boundary Commission can say no to a public inquiry if it raises no substantive issue that might benefit from further comment or representation from other interested parties or individuals. So the Boundary Commission would have to decide that there is some specific benefit in an inquiry. In relation to the timing, we have dealt with that already.
It is, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, difficult to see—and I am not going to press this too hard—why an inquiry should not be in the armoury in the appropriate case. He mentioned the fact that it is often about political parties vying in their own political interest. I am sure that is true. One of the things that we have often discovered in our system is that hearing two competing parties often produces the right result more easily through oral representations than through any other process. It is the process—without in any way saying that this should be exactly the same as a court process—that many of our courts have found the most effective way to come to the right answer.
I very much hope that when the noble and learned Lord considers it, he will come back and either suggest how it might be improved or accept the amendment. On the basis of the helpful and constructive commitment to consider the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.