House of Commons
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 12 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
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
1. What progress the NHS North West Specialised Commissioning Group has made in reviewing neuromuscular services in the region; and if he will make a statement.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
14. What progress the NHS North West Specialised Commissioning Group has made in reviewing neuromuscular services in the region; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I understand that the North West Specialist Commissioning Group received a report from its neuromuscular services review group at the end of March, and that it has since circulated it to all primary care trust chief executives with a request that it is shared with board members and GP commissioning consortia leads.
Barbara Keeley
The north-west has not seen the investment in extra services, such as transitional care and extra care advisers, that the report recommends, and now the Government’s proposed reforms are causing turmoil in specialised commissioning and real worries about how the commissioning of tertiary services will work in future, so will Health Ministers issue guidance to commissioners to ensure that the investment is made to cover those critical gaps in the north-west, and that emergency admissions are avoided?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I reject her assertion that the changes to the NHS—the modernisation of the NHS—have thrown the process into difficulty. Clearly, she feels that there is a problem in the first place. As I am sure she will agree, however, it will be down to the commissioning of the GP consortia and the primary care trusts to decide the best way to provide services in the light of all the information that they have. I understand that the commissioners will feed back to the specialised commissioning group on how they will deal with the recommendations.
Mr Leech
The report highlighted that, for an investment of less than £30,000, Manchester primary care trust could ensure that all muscular dystrophy sufferers, including my constituent Ben Dale, have access to specialist care adviser support, saving an estimated £5 million in hospital admissions costs. Does the Minister agree that that investment would be excellent value for money, given that it would help my constituent Ben to live a more fulfilling life and save money for the NHS?
Anne Milton
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentions a constituent of his, and I have every sympathy with people coping with muscle-wasting diseases, and indeed with their families. The burden can be quite considerable. The multidisciplinary group that examined services throughout the north-west deserves our thanks for its work, but the fact is that it is for NHS commissioners, PCTs and the emerging GP-led consortia to consider the evidence that they have. Indeed, if money can be saved by commissioning services in a different way, so they should be, but that decision should be taken locally.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to ensure the provision of acute services in Trafford district.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
This is a matter for the local NHS. Every NHS trust has a duty to provide the best quality care for its patients. The Government believe that the delivery of health services should be led locally, with clinicians working with GPs and patients to ensure that their needs are met.
Kate Green
I am grateful for that answer and for the Minister’s letter to me last week, but, having already lost paediatric and maternity services recently, and with the decision not to provide trauma services in Trafford, local people are understandably anxious about further services being lost. Is the Minister confident that sufficient independent oversight is in place to ensure that the needs and wishes of local people are adequately met?
Mr Burns
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, because if there were to be any reconfigurations in the future—I put that in the conditional tense because the relevant trust is confident that there will not need to be any—quite clearly the four tests that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced last May would have to apply. There would have to be full consultation with local people and with clinicians, GPs and others in the health economy.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
3. What processes he has put in place to allow lay members of the public and elected public representatives to contribute to discussions on the reform of the NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Following formal consultation last year, and as I told the House on 4 April, we are taking this opportunity to pause, listen, reflect and improve the Health and Social Care Bill. A total of 119 events have already been organised centrally, and the regional and local NHS will organise many more. Those events will allow us to hear a full range of views from professionals, the public and patients.
Simon Hughes
The Health Secretary knows that colleagues welcome the pause and the opportunity to reflect on what changes might be beneficially made to the legislation. Will he assure us that lay people and elected representatives, such as councillors and others, will be fully engaged in the process? The professionals have had their say, and they have very strong views, but the patients and elected people need to have their say, too.
Mr Lansley
Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I can give him that assurance. Indeed, one reason why it is important to pause and to listen now is not least that shadow health and wellbeing boards have been put forward by 90% of relevant local authorities in England, and it is an opportunity for them to be very clear about how we can improve patient and public accountability. I hope that they and others will take that opportunity. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Bill already substantially improves both the public and the patient voice in the NHS, and we have to ensure that we take every opportunity now further to improve it.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
If the Government do come back with some major changes to the Bill, will those changes go out to public consultation, and will this House have the opportunity to oversee and to look in detail at any further proposals they may make?
Mr Lansley
I think I made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman in the House on 4 April that we were looking to pause, to listen, to reflect and to improve the Bill, and we are taking the opportunity to do so now, before Report and Third Reading.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the listening exercise it is his intention, in addition to listening to representatives of local authorities and the public, to ensure that we fully take account of the views of representatives of the full range of clinical opinion within the health service—nurses, hospital doctors and community-based clinicians as well as GPs?
Mr Lansley
Yes. My right hon. Friend will know that we have done that in the past, and we continue to do so. Just as early implementers of health and wellbeing boards have an important voice in how local authorities will strengthen public accountability and democratic accountability, we also now have an opportunity that we did not have in the consultation last year for the new pathfinder consortia, as they come together—88% of the country is already represented by them—to have their voices heard. I hope that the public generally will exercise this opportunity too. I know that groups representative of patients are doing so and very much want to get involved in these discussions.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that if Lib Dem MPs were seriously opposed to this reorganisation, they could have voted against it on Second Reading—so how can he expect the public to take these discussions and the listening exercise seriously? Are they not just a device to get the coalition through the May elections, and is he not determined to get away with as little substantive change as he can manage?
Mr Lansley
On the contrary—the hon. Lady should know, because I made it clear on 4 April, that my objective, and that of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and all of the Government, is further to strengthen the NHS, and we will use this opportunity to ensure that the Bill is right for that purpose. The reason Government Members supported the Bill on Second Reading, and Labour Members should have done so, is that, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, the general aims of reform are sound.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As part of the listening exercise, will the Secretary of State confirm that the public, patients and medical professionals will be listened to? Many of them want to see root-and-branch reform of the NHS in order to improve its effectiveness and efficiency and improve patient outcomes.
Mr Lansley
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We have an opportunity, which we want to realise to its fullest potential, to improve many of the ways in which patients and the public are involved. For example, we want to arrive at a point where patients feel that the invariable response of the NHS to their need is that there is no decision about them without them. We are proposing in the Bill to strengthen the scrutiny powers of local authorities. We are also proposing to bring in a patient voice through HealthWatch and HealthWatch England that has not existed since the Labour Government abolished community health councils, and we are going to strengthen substantially democratic accountability through health and wellbeing boards.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
4. What his policy is on funding for a national framework and quality of service guidelines for diabetes patients.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
To support the NHS in improving outcomes, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has published a quality standard for diabetes building on the existing national service framework, which provides an authoritative definition of good-quality care. Under proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill, quality standards will have a central role within the new system’s architecture.
Keith Vaz
May I declare my interest as someone who has type 2 diabetes, and remind the Minister that we currently spend 10% of the NHS budget—£1 million an hour—on diabetes-related illnesses? Does he agree that what is central to this framework is providing funding for prevention? If we can prevent and assess diabetes, we will save a great deal of money in the long run.
Paul Burstow
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that prevention is undoubtedly the right way forward, but earlier diagnosis is also very important. That is why we continue, as a Government, to support the roll-out of NHS heath checks for people aged 40 to 65 as a way of ensuring that we detect more readily and earlier so that we can provide the appropriate support.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Just 10 minutes ago, I met representatives of Diabetes UK, who want to see greater emphasis on integration and co-operation between and within services in the NHS Bill. Can I assume that they will not be disappointed?
Paul Burstow
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already indicated in today’s exchanges in this House, we are committed to listening and reflecting during this pause, and to ensuring that we come back with substantive improvements to the Bill to deliver its central purpose of improving health care for the people of this country.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
5. How much his Department allocated to the provision of out-of-hours surgeries in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Government do not allocate centrally how much money is spent by local NHS providers on out-of-hours services. However, in 2009-10, the last year for which figures are available, £403.8 million was spent on out-of-hours GP services in England and £1.6 million was spent on out-of-hours services in Coventry. We plan to give GPs and other health professionals greater powers to commission out-of-hours care to achieve high quality, integrated services that are focused on the needs of patients.
Mr Cunningham
Given that waiting times in emergency units are increasing, what will the Minister do to protect out-of-hours clinics?
Mr Burns
It was, of course, the hon. Gentleman’s Government who did so much to undermine the provision of out-of-hours services. We propose not only to review the existing framework, but to ensure that there are the real improvements that benefit patient care, which are so badly needed.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are no artificial constraints so that GPs, even though they may be commissioners, can ensure that they provide out-of-hours services in combination with clinics and ambulance services?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
6. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government on the cross-border implications of the Health and Social Care Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The Secretary of State for Health met Ministers of the Welsh Assembly Government on 1 December last year to discuss the future of the cross-border commissioning protocol, and I am meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in the next few weeks. It was agreed that until the forthcoming changes in the Health and Social Care Bill are finalised, no substantial changes to the cross-border protocol should be introduced, as is right. The protocol, which expired on the 31 March this year, has therefore been renewed for one year with minimal changes.
Mr Hanson
More than 200,000 people from Wales, including people from my constituency, access services in England at the Countess of Chester hospital, Clatterbridge, the Christie, and the Walton in Liverpool. More than 50,000 people from England access health services in Wales. What guarantees can the Minister give me that the proposed changes in the Health and Social Care Bill will not wreck those arrangements?
Anne Milton
There is absolutely no reason why they should. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. It is worth pointing out that there are many areas of commonality between the health services in England and Wales. Of course, it is up to the Welsh Assembly Government to decide what scale of finance and resource they provide. I am aware that there are some cross-border issues that clearly need to be resolved.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm whether funds will be held by the consortia or the GPs in the practices, because there is confusion among GPs in my constituency of South Dorset on that point?
Mr Speaker
With reference to the discussions that have been held with the Welsh Assembly Government.
Anne Milton
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I was going to make that point. Although Dorset is a long way from Wales, I assure the hon. Gentleman that GPs will not have the money in their personal bank accounts.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Minister will know from the Welsh Affairs Committee report that there is considerable traffic of people accessing GP services across the border in both directions, with the net benefit going to England. Will she reassure me that the interests of people on both sides of the border will be served when the Health and Social Care Bill is finally enacted?
Anne Milton
Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Social Care Bill aims to resolve as many of the problems that we know about on the border as possible.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What estimate he has made of the number of local authorities which changed their eligibility criteria for social care in the last 12 months.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Decisions about eligibility criteria are a matter for local councils. As part of last year’s spending review, the Government committed an additional £530 million through the local government formula grant, and £648 million in direct support from the NHS, to support social care, as well as £150 million for re-ablement. By 2014, that will rise to £2 billion of additional support for social care.
Mrs Riordan
Is the Minister aware that according to a recent survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, 19 local authorities including my own, Calderdale, have had to raise the eligibility criteria for social care because of the cuts that they have received from the Government? Does he stand by his statement of 21 October that there is
“no justification for local authorities to slash and burn or for local authorities to tighten eligibility”?
Paul Burstow
I certainly stand by the idea that the Government provided adequate resources in the financial settlement last year, alongside efficiency savings, to ensure that every local authority could choose to maintain the current levels of eligibility and services in its area if it so wished.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Minister examine situations in which domiciliary care contracts are awarded under the EU public procurement directives, to ensure that especially when they are awarded on price, they are not dumbed down and the level of service reduced?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend makes an important point about ensuring that competition is always based on quality, not just price. If she would like to write to me with more details about the matter, I would certainly be happy to follow it up with her.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Since the Government are no longer doing an assessment of the provision of social care by local authorities, I have done it for the Minister. My survey has found that not only have eligibility criteria been tightened, but 88% of councils are increasing their charges, 63% are closing care homes and day centres and 54% are cutting funding to the voluntary sector. Now that I have told the Minister the facts, will he take back his comment that
“no councils need to reduce access to social care”?
Would he like to start being straight with the public?
Paul Burstow
I will take Labour facts with a pinch of salt. Under Labour, social care was always very much the poor relation. Under this coalition, social care has received a £2 billion spending boost and an unprecedented transfer of resources from the NHS—something that the hon. Lady’s party, if it had been in power, would not have been able to do, because it would have been busy cutting the NHS.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
8. What plans he has to visit NHS services in Rochdale; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health visited the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which delivers services to the people of Rochdale, in June last year. There are no immediate plans to repeat the visit.
Simon Danczuk
The reason I asked the question is that the people of Rochdale are extremely concerned about how Rochdale infirmary is being run and believe that the Pennine acute trust is not accountable. The Minister and the Secretary of State will be aware of the recent Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme, which showed the trust and its chief executive in a very poor light. The reconfiguration of services there has been handled very badly. May I ask the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to act upon all the concerns and investigate the management of the Pennine acute trust?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am aware of the recent “Dispatches” programme and the fact that the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is implementing a number of service changes in a number of areas, including Rochdale. Those changes are part of the “Healthy Futures” and “Making it Better” programmes, both of which have been subject to full consultation with local people. NHS North West has confirmed that both programmes meet the four tests for service change, but if the hon. Gentleman continues to have concerns, I am sure one of the ministerial team will deal with them personally.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to maintain front-line services in the NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
We are increasing funding for the NHS in each year of this Parliament, amounting to an increase of £11.5 billion over its course. Over the next few years, planned improvements in the efficiency of use of NHS resources, increasingly led by front-line staff, will support modernisation of the NHS to respond to rising demand and new technologies. Not least, we are cutting administration costs across the system by one third, saving £1.7 billion a year, every penny of which will be available for reinvestment in front-line services.
Chris White
Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the work of chief executive, Glen Burley, and the excellent team of health professionals at Warwick hospital, who are improving community care while seeking to reduce management costs? Will the Secretary of State also take the opportunity to visit Warwick hospital to discuss how those things can be done at local level?
Mr Lansley
I am glad to endorse my hon. Friend’s congratulations to the staff and team at Warwick hospital. I hope to have an opportunity to visit that hospital at some future date. Across the NHS, we are setting out not least to increase productivity and efficiency, stimulate innovation, reduce administration costs and put more decision-making responsibility into the hands of those who care for patients, which the Labour party failed to do.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
How can the Secretary of State convince people that he is protecting front-line services when a flagship Bill such as the Health and Social Care Bill is in such disarray? While he is pausing and listening and reflecting on that Bill, will he also consider whether the House will have a further opportunity to consider his reflections, because we are through the Committee stage? Will there be another Committee?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman misses the point that what matters to the public is the quality of services that are provided to them. When he asked his question, he might have reflected on the simple fact that the Labour party told us before the spending review to cut the budget of the NHS. We refused to do that, which means that this financial year, £2.9 billion more will be available for the NHS to spend than it spent last year.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
A crucial front-line service is the provision of stroke care. Can the Secretary of State confirm that under his proposed reforms, local clinical practitioners will have much more influence over the location of those stroke services than in the current situation, when management can make somewhat arbitrary changes?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I can confirm that. We are looking for commissioning consortia not only to lead from a primary care perspective on behalf of patients, but to work on commissioning services with their specialist colleagues. Of course, the stroke research network has formed a strong basis upon which such commissioning activity can take place.
There have been many improvements in stroke care. Over the last year, we have seen a significant improvement in performance in relation to responses to transient ischaemic attack, and I hope we continue to see improvements in future.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Last year, the Prime Minister made a very clear pledge to protect front-line NHS services. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the run-up to next year’s Olympics, which will bring around 1 million extra people to the capital, the London ambulance service is cutting 560 front-line staff? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that nationally, A and E waits of more than four hours are up 65%, that the number of patients waiting more than six weeks for their cancer test has doubled, and that more patients are waiting for longer than 18 weeks than at any time in the last two years? Will he now admit that the Prime Minister’s pledge to protect front-line care is unravelling even faster than the Secretary of State’s chaotic Health and Social Care Bill?
Mr Speaker
There were three questions there, but I know that the Secretary of State will provide a characteristically succinct reply.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Speaker. None of those questions reminded the House that the Labour party wanted to cut the budget of the NHS, nor that in Wales, a Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government are cutting the NHS budget in real terms—there is no increase at all.
Let me tell the hon. Lady that waiting times in the NHS are, on average, nine weeks for patients who are admitted and three and a half weeks for those who are not admitted. That is broadly stable.
The hon. Lady will know that the chief executive of the London ambulance service, Peter Bradley, has made it clear that the ambulance service, like the NHS, needs to maintain front-line services while continually improving efficiency. That will happen in the ambulance service and it will happen right across the NHS.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
10. What progress he has made on the establishment of local health and wellbeing boards.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Almost nine out of 10 local authorities have signed up as early implementers to press ahead with the setting up of health and wellbeing boards. Councillors, clinicians and local communities have told us that by working together through those boards, they can and will improve health and care outcomes for local people.
Karen Lumley
Does my hon. Friend agree that giving greater public health powers to the health and wellbeing boards will allow more targeted help in our local communities?
Paul Burstow
Absolutely. By bringing public health home to local government we will have the opportunity to ensure that many of the underlying causes of ill health can be tackled more effectively, and that is why we are making the reform in this way. By having a health and wellbeing board that brings together all the interested parties we can also ensure a far more integrated approach.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman persuade the Secretary of State to come to Yorkshire and perhaps speak to a small group of people—no more than 60—in a quiet room about what these boards are supposed to do? Who will be on them, how accountable and transparent will they be, and will they have any teeth?
Paul Burstow
My right hon. Friend of course is more than happy to go to all sorts of places to talk to people about the health reforms. However, local government fully supports this particular proposal and sees it as a vital innovation for the involvement of local government in the health service. It will be transparent because it will be part of the local authority and will meet in open.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
11. What recent assessment he has made of progress by GP pathfinder consortia in delivering improvements in NHS services.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I am delighted that nearly 90% of the country is now covered by pathfinder consortia, including my hon. Friend’s constituency, where the eastern Devon consortia chairs board pathfinder is up and running. I know that one area on which these emerging consortia are focusing is providing better, more flexible services for patients in community settings. We are supporting all the pathfinders through the pathfinder learning network, which is already showing a wide range of examples of where clinician-led commissioning is delivering benefits for patients.
Neil Parish
I welcome the Secretary of State saying that the consortium in my constituency is up and running. Will he also take this opportunity to ensure that through these consortia patients can get better access to their doctors? Labour paid doctors a great deal more money, but patients actually got less access to their doctors.
Mr Lansley
That, indeed, will be one of the areas on which the quality and outcomes framework for individual GP practices will focus. In addition, however, through the commissioning outcomes framework for the NHS as a whole, one area in which we want to see continuing improvement in quality is patient experience and outcomes as reported by patients. GPs and their clinical colleagues will therefore be incentivised continuously to improve quality.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell us how much this consultation exercise is costing the public purse?
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that many of us have received e-mails from constituents, the majority of which have been cut and pasted from a left-wing website. The impression given of the role of the GP consortia bears little relationship to that of GP leaders in my constituency such as Elizabeth Johnston. Will he confirm that he will listen very carefully to the experience and expertise of my local GP leaders, and not a left-wing motivated campaign?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know, like I do, that his GPs in Reading have already commissioned a new care pathway for people with lower back pain, which means that instead of having to go to hospital appointments, patients can be seen in their own homes by physiotherapists or occupational therapists offering practical advice and assistance in managing pain. Those are practical steps led by front-line staff, the purpose of which is to improve care for patients.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
12. What arrangements he has made for continuity of provision of existing hospital services under his proposed reforms of the NHS; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Commissioners would remain responsible for securing continued provision of NHS services to meet the needs of their local populations. We are proposing to support commissioners in this by introducing a comprehensive system of regulation at national level and additional regulation for designated services.
Luciana Berger
The Minister told the Bill Committee that some accident and emergency services might be undercut by private providers, which could force them to close. Will the Government bring forward amendments to the Bill to safeguard existing A and E services in all areas, including Merseyside?
Mr Burns
I know that the hon. Lady does not want to mislead the House, but she is totally, factually incorrect in how she paraphrased what I said in the Health and Social Care Bill Committee. As any hon. Member who was there will know, I tried to be helpful to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—it is the last time I will—and gave her an illustrative example of how designated services would work. However, I did not say what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) attributed to me.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Clinicians at the West Suffolk hospital in Bury St Edmunds are concerned that they will get the same tariff for an operation as a private sector provider, even though the NHS has to carry the cost of training whereas, on the whole, the private sector does not. What steps will the Minister take to address this perceived unfairness?
Mr Burns
I should like to reassure my hon. Friend. As he will know, we do not propose to introduce price competition into the NHS; rather, we propose to introduce competition based on quality. His clinicians are correct that the price will be the same. However, they must remember that we are going to stop the practice of the last Government, who, with independent sector treatment centres, paid the private sector over 11% more per operation than they were prepared to pay the national health service.
Mr Speaker
I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to come in on this question. That is what I have been told, but never mind: we will wait to hear his dulcet tones in due course.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
15. Whether he has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the 111 non-emergency number; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
NHS 111 is currently being piloted in County Durham and Darlington, Nottingham city, Lincolnshire and Luton, and a full independent evaluation of these pilots will be available in spring 2012.
Helen Goodman
In Durham, 111 calls are being answered by telephone receptionists without any medical training. They run through a list of pre-scripted questions and frequently divert ambulance paramedics away from 999 calls. Clearly that is risky. Will the Minister look into that before the number goes nationwide?
Mr Burns
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is a little bit confused. She says, rather dismissively, that the calls are being answered by telephonists. These are non-medically trained people who have nurses and GPs available to give them help and advice as and when the callers demand it, because of the complaint or problem that they are raising. The beauty of the 111 service is that people do not have to wait to be called back, as they do with NHS Direct. Instead, the people trained to help callers will point them towards the appropriate care—which in some cases will be the emergency services—and they are right to do so when this has been clinically determined.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that 111 telephone operators will be trained to the same level as 999 telephone operators?
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
16. What amendments he plans to table to the Health and Social Care Bill.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
As I told the House on 4 April, we are taking the opportunity presented by a natural break in the legislative process to pause, listen, reflect and improve our plans for modernisation of the health service. We will consider what amendments are required in the light of this.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Health and Social Care Bill is undoubtedly one of the most controversial pieces of legislation being proposed by the coalition. May I push the Secretary of State a little further on some of the answers that he has given my hon. Friends and ask him exactly how he will ensure adequate parliamentary time to scrutinise the amendments that he will bring forward?
Mr Lansley
I am not sure that I necessarily subscribe to the hon. Gentleman’s premise. This issue is important and it warrants the kind of attention that we are giving to it, and there is an opportunity to listen, reflect and improve the Bill because we want to ensure that we can thereby strengthen the NHS. On strengthening the NHS, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to refer to the £12.9 million increase in the budget for Tameside and Glossop PCT this year—something that Labour would not have offered. The truth is that we are going to strengthen the NHS through the Health and Social Care Bill, as we are strengthening it through our commitment to the priorities of the NHS.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had any further thoughts on the effect of HealthWatch England’s representatives being included in local health and wellbeing boards? Does he think that the provisions are sufficiently robust to ensure that they have an impact on commissioning?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows, we intend health and wellbeing boards to bring together HealthWatch, plus councillors, commissioning bodies and providers, as part of the process of local representation, so that we can link up NHS commissioning with public health and social care, to see how they collectively meet the joint strategic needs assessment led by the local authority.
Mr Speaker
I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). The change of mind on the part of the Opposition Front Bench fazed me, for which I apologise. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) wants his opportunity to ask a question, and he should have it.
Derek Twigg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there was some confusion between questions 13 and 16.
We obviously want to see important improvements to the Bill, including the deletion of part 3, which drives competition to the heart of the NHS, and of clause 150, which removes the private patients’ income cap. I also want to ask the Secretary of State a specific question. On 16 March, during the Bill’s passage through the House, the Prime Minister said to the Leader of the Opposition:
“Perhaps he would like to…support our anti-cherry-picking amendment.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 292.]
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether it is still the Government’s policy to table such an amendment in this House, or whether they intend to do so at a later stage?
Mr Lansley
As I said earlier, when we have completed this process of listening and reflecting, we will table amendments to the Bill. I will tell the House about them then, just as I told them on 4 April that we were going to go through this process. Let me make it clear that we are intending not to allow cherry-picking. We intend to make it absolutely clear to the private sector or anybody else that they must not be able to compete with the NHS on uneven terms because, actually, that is what the last Labour Government did. Under that Government, we ended up with £250 million being spent on operations in private hospitals that never took place because of the poor nature of the private sector provision that they put in place. We are not introducing competition into the NHS through this Bill. Why does the hon. Gentleman suppose that the last Labour Government set up the competition and co-operation panel, if not—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I call Diana Johnson.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
17. How much funding he plans to allocate to local authorities in order to perform their new public health duties in each of the next three years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
We want local authorities to have the powers and the resources that they need in order to make a real difference to the health and well-being of their local populations. Shadow allocations for the local ring-fenced public health budget will be announced later this year.
Diana Johnson
Hull’s Lib Dem council does not have a very good record on public health. It is currently slashing services delivered to children through its children’s centres and early years services. We all know that public health can be improved by that early investment. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that councils take their wider public health responsibilities seriously?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. With resources come responsibilities. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has welcomed the shift in public health. There is no doubt about it: local authorities have a long history of delivering public health improvements, and this will give them the opportunity to see again some of the improvements that were long awaited under the last Government.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
20. What assessment he has made of progress in providing co-ordinated medical assessments for children with disabilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The Department for Education Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: a new approach to special educational needs and disability—a consultation”, was published in March and includes a proposal to develop a single new co-ordinated assessment for education, health and care plans by 2014. The consultation on the Green Paper continues until June 2011, and I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to it.
Helen Jones
That was a very interesting answer, particularly as the Prime Minister told me on 30 March that this
“idea is rapidly becoming Government policy.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 340.]
Can the Minister tell us whether she intends to table an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill to ensure that those crack teams of medical experts that the Prime Minister promised would be set up will be set up by GP consortia?
Anne Milton
Families of children with disabilities and special needs will welcome the single, co-ordinated assessment. We have to see health and social care working more closely together, because those families bear a considerable burden of care. I would point the hon. Lady towards the consultation, and I suggest that she points her constituents towards it as well, as it is extremely important that we get their feedback.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
22. What steps he is taking to extend the choice that patients have over the treatment they receive from the NHS.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Government have consulted on proposals to give patients greater choice and control over their care and treatment. We have deferred publication of our response to take into account the results of the listening exercise.
Mr Evennett
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and refer him to the King’s Fund paper, “Patient choice”, which was published in March 2010. Does he agree that people value being able to choose and that the exercise of choice raises standards and encourages NHS providers to design services around patients and their needs?
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am certainly aware of the King’s Fund publication. The report was cited as a key source of evidence in the consultation document, “Liberating the NHS”. The Department of Health welcomes this significant contribution to the evidence base, which will inform how we implement the choice commitments set out in the White Paper, “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
When I was first elected, I regularly received letters from constituents who were concerned about how long they had to wait for treatment. During the years of the Labour Government, those letters went away, but they are coming back again. What I know from my constituents is that their main choice is not to have to wait. Is that a choice that this Government are going to offer them or will waiting times increase?
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England; to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities; and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.
James Morris
The Alzheimer’s Society predicts that by 2021, there will be a million sufferers from dementia in this country. Will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that those people suffering from it will get the support they need—now and in the future?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that the response to dementia is a key priority for this coalition Government. I think we have already demonstrated it in our commitment to dementia research. We need to improve both earlier diagnosis of dementia and the possibilities for treatment. We have demonstrated our commitment to improving standards in dementia care, both in hospitals and in care homes, and, indeed, in the further work we have done on reducing the use of anti-psychotic medicines.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
How does the Health Secretary square the Prime Minister’s promise to pause in his changes to the NHS with the NHS chief executive saying a week later:
“I want to stress very firmly that we need…to maintain momentum on the ground.”
With the Government’s health Bill, are we not seeing both rushed pre-legislative implementation and confused post-legislative policy making? If the Prime Minister really gets cold feet about his NHS changes, let me ask the Health Secretary for a fourth time whether the Government will guarantee the extra time needed for this House to examine the changes fully?
Mr Lansley
Let me be clear about the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Both things are entirely compatible because there are 220 GP-led consortia that have come together as pathfinders to demonstrate how they can improve commissioning and the service to their patients; 90% of local authorities have come together in health and wellbeing boards; while at the same time, we have to deliver the challenge of improving productivity, quality and efficiency. All of that requires us, on the ground, to continue the momentum of improvement for patients. At the same time, we are listening not least to all those clinicians and members of the public who want to be sure that the Bill will provide them with the opportunities for involvement and the safeguards they are looking for in the NHS in the future.
John Healey
The Health Secretary ducked for the fourth time this afternoon the question of whether he will do right by this House in allowing sufficient time for proper scrutiny of any changes to the Bill that come forward. While he is listening, will he consider the risks he is running with the NHS? The Prime Minister promised a real rise in NHS funding, yet this year more than nine out of 10 hospitals are faced with cutting costs by more than 4%; one in seven by more than 8%; while nearly £2 billion for patient care is being held back to cover the costs of the internal NHS reorganisation. Will he admit that this reorganisation is now piling extra pressure on NHS funding and services so that patients are seeing waiting times rise, operations cancelled and front-line staff jobs cut as the NHS starts to go backwards again under the Tories?
Mr Lansley
I find the hon. Gentleman’s cheek astonishing. It was his party which, before the election, announced its intention of making up to £20 billion of efficiency savings, it was his party which told us after the election that the NHS should be cut, and it is his party which is actually cutting the NHS in Wales. It is the coalition Government who have made decisions that will give the NHS £2.9 billion—a 3% cash increase—and, because of the way in which we are tackling the costs of management, will put more people on the front line. Following the election, there are 3,500 fewer managers and 2,500 more doctors and nurses.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T2. The Secretary of State is well aware of concern in the Yorkshire area about the review of children’s heart units, and I thank him for his recent letter, but does he accept that there is a contradiction between the logic applied to the south of England and that applied to the north, where 14 million people rely on the fact that the children’s heart unit in Leeds is only a two-hour drive away?
Mr Lansley
I should make it clear that the review is being led by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts, not by the Department of Health, and that it is being conducted by an independent team who are employing an independent consultative process. My colleagues and I have made no decisions so far, but we will expect all the points made by the hon. Gentleman and others throughout the country about paediatric cardiac surgery to be taken fully into account in the consultation.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. The Secretary of State will be aware that, according to the quarterly monitoring report from the King’s Fund, waiting times have hit a three-year high. Does he accept that that is a direct result of his actions, particularly the abolition of the centrally managed target in June last year?
Mr Lansley
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that waiting times in the NHS are stable. The average waiting time for patients who are admitted to hospital is nine weeks, and the average waiting time for out-patients is three and a half weeks. I think that people in the NHS might reasonably say that it is not fair to cite February 2011, when patients waiting for elective operations could not be admitted because critical care beds were occupied in the immediate wake of a severe winter and the largest flu outbreak since 1999.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
T3. According to recent press reports, hospitals have used money earmarked for front-line NHS services to pay salaries to trade union officials. Does my right hon. Friend consider it acceptable to spend taxpayers’ money on paying union hatchet people, and will he order an investigation?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Government consider it right for NHS staff to have access to trade union representatives at work, but that should not be abused. Arrangements for reimbursing staff for trade union activities should be agreed locally between trusts and unions. There are no current plans to review union facility time.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T6. Given that, according to the King’s Fund, waiting times are increasing as a result of the reorganisation, does the Minister expect things to improve now that the financial squeeze is starting to bite?
Mr Lansley
As I have already explained, I do not accept the premise; but would the hon. Lady apply the same logic to the fact that the number of cases of hospital-acquired and health care-acquired infection has fallen substantially over the past year, the fact that access to services for strokes and transient ischaemic attacks has improved, and the fact that diabetic retinopathy and bowel cancer screening are improving? Would she argue that those developments are a result of our reforms? No, because our reforms have not been implemented., but we are making the investment in the NHS that the Labour party would not make, and we are giving the NHS the credit, which the Labour party would not do.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
T5. There is some concern about whether GP consortia will be given enough specialist support when commissioning integrated cancer services. Will my right hon. Friend use the pause in the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill to consider extending the guarantee for cancer network funding from 2012 to 2014, when the transition period ends and GP commissioning comes fully into effect?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The listening exercise is a genuine one, and we intend to bring forward appropriate changes as a result. I can certainly give the commitment that we will want to take on board such representations. We are, and consistently have been, committed to such clinical networks for the valuable contribution they make.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T7. If Bassetlaw council refers the reconfiguration of accident and emergency, paediatric and maternity services at Bassetlaw district general hospital to the Secretary of State, what criteria will he use to make a decision?
Mr Lansley
Under those circumstances, if a referral is made to me, I will wish to apply the kind of criteria that I set out last year for reconfigurations across the country for the first time: that they must meet the tests of being consistent with the result of any public consultation and with the public’s view, with the views of prospective future commissioners—such as the commissioning consortia that are coming together as a pathfinder in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and with the future choices made by patients about where and how they want services to be provided to them, and that they must meet clinical criteria for safety and quality.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in urging the Secretary of State to protect the children’s heart unit at Leeds hospital as it is a very worthwhile facility for people in Yorkshire, and does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree with me that doctors should go to where the patients are, rather than the other way around by expecting patients to travel for many hours to get to such an important service?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but in response I will simply reiterate what I said to our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West: that these matters are currently the subject of consultation by an independent group representing the primary care trusts collectively, and not by the Department of Health at this stage.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
T8. Given the concerns of researchers and medical research charities and their belief that the research provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill should be strengthened, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the medical research community during this pause?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will know that the Health and Social Care Bill does make specific provision for NHS organisations to have regard to the needs for research. She will, I hope, also be very well aware that, by virtue of decisions made by this Government in the spending review, we have been able to sustain the level of research in the NHS. In particular, I was recently able to announce a new 30% increase in funding for translational research funded through the NHS.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the consultation on the future of children’s heart surgery units is complete, will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that it would be a preposterous and perverse conclusion that the unit in Southampton, which is one of the two best in the country, should be threatened with closure?
Mr Lansley
I am, of course, aware of these issues, which have been raised by colleagues on both sides of the House. At this stage, may I simply reiterate that the consultation team should consider the points that I know my hon. Friend and others are making to it? After the consultation team has fully reflected on all the points, I hope Members will be able to see that it has fully taken them into account in whatever proposals it brings forward.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
T9. The Secretary of State has just appeared to blame the rise in waiting times on, as it were, the wrong kind of snow. Can we infer from that that if waiting times continue to rise over the coming months, he will reinstate the targets that brought waiting times down and kept them low?
Mr Lansley
The point I made was that average waiting times are stable. Maximum waiting times continue to be a right of patients under the NHS constitution. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should go to Luton and Dunstable hospital and discuss with the staff there how they dealt with a combination of circumstances that led to there being unprecedented pressure on critical care beds. He must know that if hospitals do not have critical care beds immediately available, it is not in the patients’ interests for the hospitals to bring some patients in for elective surgery. That had an inevitable consequence on waiting times for a small minority of patients.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I have received representations from constituents regarding the reclassification by the primary care trust of elderly relatives for continuing health care funding, with severe needs apparently becoming moderate over time. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about this, and how widespread is this practice in the current climate?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend’s point is important and I regularly receive correspondence about this from hon. Members from all parts of this House. If she wishes to write to me, I will be happy to discuss the matter with her further, once I have had a chance to look at the details.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Given that Department of Health officials are actively discussing the privatisation of my local trust behind closed doors and are signing secret documents, will the Minister publish all those documents and will he make a statement in the House about the Government’s plans to privatise some of our NHS hospitals?
Mr Burns
I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of the question. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government are not seeking and will not ever seek to privatise either the whole of the NHS or an individual trust? St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust is, like all other health trusts, currently agreeing plans to achieve foundation trust status by April 2014. That involves ongoing discussions with the North West strategic health authority and the Department of Health to determine the issues the trust faces and the actions needed to address them.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
May I join my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) in supporting the children’s heart unit in Leeds? If the review fails to take full account of, and reflect on, the issues raised, what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that that is done so that we can fully understand the problems that would face families in Yorkshire?
Mr Lansley
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and that of colleagues in other locations across the country. If—I repeat the “if”—the consultation were not to arrive at what he or others in any specific location regarded as justified conclusions, it would be open to them, as this is a service reconfiguration of the NHS, to seek a referral of the proposal to me as Secretary of State.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Diabetes UK has a strategy to reduce the number of people with diabetes across the whole UK. Will the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Assembly—the matter is devolved in Northern Ireland—to ensure that the strategy of prevention, awareness and education is followed across the whole of the UK?
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, because this strategy must contain four elements; it must be about prevention, earlier diagnosis and appropriate self care, and we also have to have world-class research. Discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly are ongoing.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Professional autonomy need not come at the expense of transparency in the provision of public services. Given that the Department for Education was able to extend the Freedom of Information Act to academy schools, does the Minister agree that it would be healthy for the Act to apply also to GP consortia in the NHS?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The Health and Social Care Bill establishes the commissioning consortia as public statutory bodies and, as such, that Act will apply to them.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
As part of his consultation exercise on NHS reform, the Secretary of State recently visited Liverpool, where he met nurses. When he was listening to the nurses at the Royal College of Nursing conference, what did he hear?
Mr Lansley
I heard many things, including the nurses’ concerns about front-line services, which I share; Dr Peter Carter has said time and again that he is very worried that the NHS might go through a process of trying to salami-slice services to the detriment of patients when it is actually possible to deliver greater efficiency through cutting out waste, administration and bureaucracy. I agree with many of the things I heard and I want to make sure, as a matter of urgency, that right across the country that efficiency is achieved and we do not act to the detriment of front-line services.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating GP practices in Gloucestershire, all of which have decided to participate in the single consortium taking forward the commissioning of health services? Will he reassure those of my constituents who still have concerns that this whole process is about protecting front-line services and that it is absolutely not about the back-door privatisation of the NHS?
Mr Lansley
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and his pathfinder consortium in Gloucestershire is focused on how it can deliver more integrated services. One of the things that we are looking for is the integration of services, which has not happened sufficiently in the past. In Gloucestershire, both in the commissioning consortium as it comes together and in the work done by the local authority, we can see how, on the ground, there is determination and enthusiasm to make the modernisation of the NHS work for patients. We must ensure that the legislation supports it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues but as is so often the case, demand has exceeded supply and we must now move on.
Escape of Taliban Prisoners
(12 years, 12 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
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask what repercussions the escape of Taliban prisoners will have on United Kingdom soldiers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for raising the subject of this serious incident. It might help the House if I give some of the background to it.
At 4 o’clock in the morning on 25 April, 476 prisoners escaped from the national security unit in Sarposa prison, Kandahar. This prison is under the control of the central prisons directorate of the Afghan Ministry of Justice. A number of prisoners have been recaptured by Afghan security forces, and they continue to search for escaped prisoners. The Afghan Ministry of Justice will conduct a joint investigation into the escape with the national directorate of security. The head of the CPD, General Jamshid, is travelling to Kandahar and General Tahir, of the detention and investigation section of the NDS, is already there. In the meantime, all prisons in Afghanistan have been put on alert and have reviewed their security accordingly.
The UK has had no involvement with infrastructure builds, training, mentoring or any other support to Sarposa prison. We continue to support the development of the Afghan prison sector by assisting the Afghan Ministry of Justice’s central prisons directorate in developing prison infrastructure, policies and working practices; supporting and structurally maintaining the high security unit within Policharkhi prison in Kabul; providing training and mentoring to improve prison officer standards; and funding the construction of a prison in Lashkar Gah.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, this is a serious event that vividly underlines the importance of building a secure prisons sector in Afghanistan. We urge the Afghan Government to put every effort into recapturing those who have escaped in order to minimise the danger and damage to anyone—be they UK forces and personnel or anyone else—and to apply lessons learned from the planned investigation to ensure that this does not happen again.
Paul Flynn
The valiant professionalism of our soldiers in Afghanistan is as distinguished as that of any in our proud military history. They deserve our gratitude and they also deserve our vigilance to protect them against avoidable risks. This was not just a small incident—it was a disaster. Many of those who escaped were captured originally at grievous cost in blood and treasure. Now hundreds are liberated to attack our soldiers again.
The Government have been accused of being optimistic in their faith in the reliability and loyalty of the Afghan police and army. This is the second major escape from Kandahar. Three British soldiers were murdered by an Afghan soldier. This month, the Afghan police stood aside as United Nations peacekeepers were lynched. The Afghan security services have proved themselves, to a large extent, to be endemically corrupt, inept and probably, in this case, infiltrated by the Taliban. Their loyalty is often for sale. When will the Government realise that they cannot build an ethical reliable army and police force on rotten corrupt foundations? Will they now concentrate on a political solution in Afghanistan and abandon our misplaced trust in the Afghan army and police, which is now a deadly threat to the lives of our British soldiers? Optimism and trust become naivety when we do not know who to trust.
Alistair Burt
I understand, and go along with, a certain amount of what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a significant event—a disaster, to use his term. It is a disaster in security terms; of course it is. Were those held in the prison detained at great cost? Yes, they must have been, to all who were involved. I understand that only three or five of them were originally UK detainees who were passed into the Afghan system, but that does not mean that others who were involved in capturing and holding them were not upholding the very standards that he was talking about, or that they have not been let down by the security situation. That is why there must be an investigation, and why we must find out what happened.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s other points, it is of huge importance to us all that there be a transfer of power and responsibility to allow Afghanis to be responsible for their security, because there is no other answer. Security cannot be held indefinitely by those outside Afghanistan. I am sure that he is well aware of the political process that is going on in parallel with the transition process and everything else. I do not think that those members of the Afghan national security force who, along with the international security assistance force, were involved so much in Helmand last year in clearing out the Taliban and working so hard to create a safe space for their fellow Afghanis would quite recognise his description of them. Of course, maximum effort must be given to the training of new security forces—both police and army. Loyalty must be an absolute basic and training must be rigorous, but it is not correct to dismiss them all because of individual incidents.
That this matter is serious there is no doubt. We must get to the bottom of it and there must be tightening regarding those responsible and the security system. The future for Afghanistan is, as the hon. Gentleman makes out, a political solution, but the military and tactical support we are providing to the Afghanis, who must ultimately be responsible for their own security and safety, must continue despite the setbacks.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
Having been involved with several such prisons around the world, I know that reinforced floors and listening microphones were customarily fitted in them to prevent the digging of tunnels. Was such equipment fitted—and if not, why not?
Alistair Burt
Clearly, at this stage, not having the same experience as my hon. Friend, I am not able to go into detail about what equipment was available to protect security. The basic point is that if people have expended effort in detaining people to pass them into a secure system, the responsibility we owe to all those to whom those people might be a threat is to make sure that they are secure. It will be part of the investigation to look not only at what has been done to ensure security previously, but at what might be done in future to reinforce that and to make sure that in future, secure places are indeed secure.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I express our admiration and support for the work of our troops in countering the Taliban and inflicting heavy losses on them? Understandably, our troops will be concerned at the escape of some of those whom they risked their lives to capture. We fully recognise that these are early days in collecting information and framing a considered response. In that context, can the Minister give us an early assessment of the seniority, importance and capabilities of those who have escaped, especially as we approach the fighting season? We should be frank that this is a setback, but we also need to be clear about its significance.
Secondly, what assessment has been made about the—clearly failed—level of security at the prison, and what steps are being taken across Afghanistan to check on security arrangements at other prisons? Indeed, given the previous breakout, what had been done to make the prison more secure, and to vet the staff? Can the Minister give any assessment of those who have been recaptured—what level they are, and what level of co-operation has been given by the Afghan police and the local population in relation to their recapture?
Thirdly, has the Minister also asked for an assessment of recent intelligence gathering? Had any indication of an impending escape been picked up, and if so, was that information conveyed to the right level?
Fourthly, what discussions has the Minister had with our NATO allies, especially the US, about our immediate response and our assessment of the broader impact on progress in Afghanistan?
Finally, moving closer to home, has the Minister made, or will he be making, an assessment of the impact of the escape on the threat to our security in the United Kingdom?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful for the tone and the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, which mirror almost exactly the questions that we in the Department are asking. It is barely a day after the event, and the answers to his questions lie a little way in the future, but in fairness I must deal with them.
It is indeed crucial to find out who has escaped. Record keeping is not such that we can be supplied with a list immediately. It is a matter of huge concern to us to find out exactly who escaped, and their positions in the seniority of the Taliban. Estimates of who has been recaptured already vary. There are some estimates as low as 25 and others as high as 60, but we do not know. Again, it is just too early to find out, but we need to do that. The investigation into what happened will cover not only what has changed as a result of events but, as I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), what might be done in the future to make these places more secure.
The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) made extremely good points about intelligence gathering. Again, we have not yet had the reports on what might have been picked up, but plainly it was not accurate enough to enable the escape to be prevented, or on threat levels to us, but those are at the top of our agenda.
What the incident demonstrates clearly is that in the process of working with Afghan authorities in the essential job that they do—taking responsibility for their own country, its security, its prison system and its justice system—it is vital for our engagement and the engagement of others to continue. Kandahar, the area concerned, is not the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom. Another nation is responsible for the provincial reconstruction team working with the authorities there, including the prison authorities.
Of course the incident is a huge setback, but it demonstrates why we continue to need to be engaged as much as any reason to say no, there should be no further engagement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me, and the rest of the House, in saying that the work must continue and lessons must be learned every time there is an incident in order to prevent it from happening again, but ultimately Afghanistan must be responsible for its own security under a proper political process initiated by the Afghans themselves and supported by the international community.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
This event will come as a heavy blow to our armed forces just as the fighting season begins. The handover of operations to Afghan security forces is integral to our exit strategy, yet it seems that they are incapable of even guarding the Taliban, let alone taking them on in the field. Although it is early, what lessons can be learned from this in terms of our eventual exit strategy?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for understanding the essential nature of Afghanistan’s involvement in its own security. The lessons are blindingly obvious to all of us. Whatever security was in place there was inappropriate. The methods to detect what might be going on in terms of any potential escape were clearly inadequate, but we need to know a lot more before we can make definitive judgments and, more importantly, work out what needs to be done in the future. It is essential for the process to continue.
The Afghan security authorities and the Afghan Ministry of Justice are responsible for other installations elsewhere in Afghanistan that have not been subject to similar incidents. To draw from one incident the conclusion that none of them are working anywhere in the country would therefore not be appropriate or correct, which is why some provinces are moving towards transition, as was announced by the President just over a month ago.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I very much welcome the sober and serious remarks of the Minister today, which stand in sharp contrast to the claim of the Defence Secretary in the House last July, when he said:
“In Kandahar, and under the direct oversight of President Karzai, Afghan security forces are leading operations as part of a rising tide of security”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 511, c. 373.]
May I ask the Minister to respond to two points? First, there should be an absolute ban on that kind of happy talk. Secondly, is it not time for the United Nations to appoint a mediator to take forward precisely the political settlement that he and I agree is so essential to our exit from Afghanistan and its development as some kind of secure and stable society?
Alistair Burt
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, I do not necessarily make the same link as he does between this incident and the political process. That is continuing. There are further conferences this year on the peace process, which was authorised and supported at the Kabul conference earlier this year. There are processes in place, which are being followed by the international community and led by President Karzai. The UN is closely involved, but I am not certain that a call for a mediator is either enhanced or diminished by the events of the past 36 hours. I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that process is continuing apace.
As for remarks about optimism or otherwise, it is entirely appropriate that, as they have done in the past, colleagues make statements honestly as they see the circumstances and as they see security situations improving, or not improving. I am here to talk about an incident that has clearly set back the process, but there are other things to talk about in relation to Afghanistan that clearly show the process moving in a different direction. I think that it is right that colleagues should be able both to report honestly the optimistic aspects of what is happening in Afghanistan and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to assess things soberly if they go wrong.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister at least confirm the early report that suggests that instead of prisoners tunnelling out, accomplices tunnelled in to reach them? What does it indicate about the internal security of a prison if people are able to tunnel in and it proves possible to go from cell to cell assembling hundreds of prisoners so that they can take advantage of that outside help?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for such a detailed question. However, I am sure that although he will be disappointed, he will not be surprised to learn that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not yet have sufficient detail to confirm the veracity or otherwise of that report. It is such reports that lead, understandably, to our great concern about this case, and the need to find out exactly what has happened—and, of course, how we can ensure that such circumstances do not arise in future.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Minister is right that this is a blow of whose significance we cannot at this stage be certain, but surely it points to the fact that we cannot rely on the security sector alone to provide a stable situation in Afghanistan within the time frame that the Government have set—by 2014-15. We must now, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has called for, redouble out efforts on the political front, in conjunction with our allies. Will he ensure that the Government do precisely that without delay?
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. He will not hear any voices from the Government side of the House, or indeed from his colleagues, indicating that the events of the past 36 hours or so suggest any lessening in the determination to find a political answer. Ultimately, the future of Afghanistan will be in the hands of Afghanis themselves. They will be responsible for security, whether through policing, justice or the army, and the work of training goes on apace. I read with great interest the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report about its concerns and how it wishes to see people proceed in future. The political process is an absolutely key and integral part of that, and the United Kingdom will continue to support it, while at the same time supporting the work being done to ensure that the transition to Afghan security control is as good as possible, but that work will continue beyond 2015. The House should remember that although 2015 is the date when combat troops will be withdrawn, it is not the date when the United Kingdom will finish its commitment to the people of Afghanistan and their future.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the news of 476 dangerous Taliban fighters escaping from detention risks seriously damaging the morale of our troops serving in Afghanistan, and that it is therefore essential not only to improve the security at the detention centres immediately, but to tell our troops on the ground what measures are being taken to improve security, in order to shore up their morale and give them the confidence to know that that will not happen again?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Armed forces from whatever background, whether Afghanis, other elements of ISAF forces or UK forces, must be absolutely reassured that when they have done their job, at great cost to themselves, by securing the detention of those who have caused harm or danger to others, the system at that stage is able to pick those people up and make them secure. It is certainly my intention to ensure that once we have a full report and the Afghan authorities have completed their investigation, that information is transmitted to forces so that they know that if they do their jobs, other people will do theirs.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support the calls that have been made this afternoon for redoubling the political effort in Afghanistan, but is not one of the most depressing facts about this event that in many cases it will have been British special forces who captured those people in the first place, and it may well be British special forces that have to capture them all over again? I do not expect the Minister to comment on operational matters, but is it not depressing that at this stage we are cutting 650 troops from the Royal Marines—precisely where those special forces are largely drawn from?
Alistair Burt
May I repeat something that I said earlier? Of the 476 detainees who escaped from the prison, as far as we are aware between three and five of them were captured and transferred into the system by United Kingdom forces: as the hon. Gentleman makes his distinction, I have to make that distinction back. A very small number of the total were involved with and detained by British security forces—but that does not avoid the main point, which is that of course there are 476 detainees who should be inside the prison today, not outside. The situation affects all the forces that have been engaged, and we do not draw a distinction as to who detained the prisoners.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister has made a very clear and good statement, but is the situation not proof again that events in Afghanistan are controlling us, rather than the other way around? I wonder whether, on the subject of Afghanistan, a lot more people in this House and in the country may be recognising the salience of Pitt the elder’s remark that we should retract while we can, rather than retract when we must.
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] Clearly, we understand the point that he makes.
Alistair Burt
Yes, I am very comfortable knowing a great deal more about Pitt than I did when I first took this role, having read some excellent books about him over the past few months. [Hon Members: “Wrong Pitt!”] All the Pitts.
In answer to the question, however, I must say no. This is an example—whatever the effort being made on military operations in Afghanistan and on the political process—of an immensely complex and difficult process in which there will be progress and setbacks, and it is no more fair to suggest that policy is run by all the setbacks than it is to say that progress can continue in an absolutely linear direction without any setbacks whatever.
It is perfectly proper to advance the process on the basis that the work that so many people are doing will increase and improve security month after month as time goes on. That is what everyone is working towards, but of course it is absolutely inevitable that there will be setbacks and difficulties. The responsibility of the Government, and my responsibility, to the House is to make sure that anything that can be done to prevent those setbacks is done, and that if things occur to which there was no opportunity to make any change or difference, lessons are learned from them in order to make improvements for the future.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I think the record will show that I have spent the best part of the past five years asking Ministers in successive Governments how many secure prison places they think exist in Afghanistan. So far I have not had a decent answer, but, given that the Minister said he thought that this was an isolated incident, can he give us an assessment of how many secure prison places he thinks currently exist in Afghanistan?
Alistair Burt
The short answer to the hon. Lady is that I do not know, and she must forgive me for that. I will endeavour to get a written answer—to the best of our knowledge—to her as quickly as possible, so that it is public. The picture is more flexible, depending on what one sees as detention, official prison places and the like, but if the hon. Lady has asked successively we must get the best answer that we can for her, and I undertake to do that as quickly as I can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
That was a very sober statement to the House. The indications are that it took eight months to dig the tunnels and 450 prisoners on their hands and knees probably upwards of 12 hours to escape—but nobody saw anything. We in the United Kingdom have many governors and prison people with experience and knowledge, so will the Minister offer that knowledge to the Afghan authorities to ensure that they can improve on what has happened?
Alistair Burt
Yes, indeed. I have already had that discussion with officials. The inquiry and investigation must be carried out by the Afghans as the sovereign power, but we do indeed have great expertise in all aspects relevant to the escape, and it is absolutely clear that it should be made available to the Afghan authorities. We will certainly be doing that.
Middle East and North Africa
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on recent developments in the middle east and north Africa.
Britain has continued to take a leading role in international efforts to protect civilians in Libya, and the case for action remains compelling: Gaddafi’s regime persists in attacking its own people, wilfully killing its own civilian population. Our strategy is to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure on Gaddafi’s regime, and since the House last met we have made progress on all those fronts.
On the diplomatic front, I co-chaired the first meeting of the Libya contact group in Doha on 13 April. The 21 states and seven international organisations represented demonstrated clear unity, with participation from across the Arab world and the African Union in attendance. The group agreed that Gaddafi’s regime had lost all legitimacy, that the national transitional council should be offered further support, and that the UN special envoy should take forward an inclusive political process. I will attend the next contact group meeting in Rome on 5 May.
At the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Berlin on 14 and 15 April, I joined colleagues in showing our determination to increase the pace of military operations to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. The 28 NATO member states and six Arab countries that attended, 16 of which out of the 34 are engaged in military action, agreed a common strategy. That is an important milestone in world affairs, a sign of a growing ability to work across traditional regional divisions and a demonstration of the breadth and unity in the international coalition in support of the Libyan people.
On the economic front, since my statement on 4 April further Libyan entities have been sanctioned, and the regime is now subject to some of the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever agreed by the United Nations.
On military matters, since NATO assumed full control over all military operations on 31 March, more than 3,500 sorties and 1,500 strike sorties have been conducted. This action has seriously degraded Gaddafi’s military assets and prevented widespread massacres planned by Gaddafi’s forces. Gaddafi’s forces remain unable to enter Benghazi, and it is highly likely that without these efforts Misrata would have fallen, with terrible consequences for that city’s brave inhabitants. Yesterday, Italy announced that its aircraft would take part in ground strikes, and the United States Government have contributed Predator unmanned aerial vehicles to the coalition forces. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is in Washington today to discuss the military situation.
Heavy fighting continues around the towns of Brega, Ajdabiya, Yefren and Misrata. The regime’s indiscriminate shelling of residential areas in Misrata shows that it continues to target the civilian population. Gaddafi has shown that he has no regard for civilian lives. The International Criminal Court prosecutor has said that there is evidence of a case against Gaddafi for crimes against humanity. We look forward to the prosecutor’s report to the UN on 4 May. By his actions, it is clear that Gaddafi has no intention of observing the conditions in Security Council resolution 1973 that I described to the House earlier this month. He has repeatedly ignored the ceasefires that he himself has announced. Our military action is defined by the UN Security Council resolutions. We are also clear that Gaddafi should go, and it is impossible to see a viable or peaceful way forward for Libya until he does so.
The Libya contact group’s statement made it clear that, in contrast to Gaddafi, we and our allies regard the national transitional council as a legitimate interlocutor representing the aspirations of the Libyan people. Our diplomatic mission in Benghazi is working with it. Our special envoy, Christopher Prentice, will shortly be succeeded by John Jenkins, currently Her Majesty’s ambassador in Baghdad.
Last week, I announced our decision to expand this mission with a small advisory team of British military officers. Their sole purpose is to support the NTC’s efforts better to protect civilians by advising on military organisational structures, communications and logistics. They are not involved in training or arming the opposition’s forces, nor are they executing or providing operational military advice. This is fully in line with the UN resolutions, and I reiterate to the House that we will remain wholly in accordance with the UN resolutions, retaining the moral, legal and international authority that flows from that. We have supplied vital, non-lethal equipment to assist the NTC in protecting civilian lives. So far, this consists of telecommunications equipment and body armour. We are considering with our international partners further requests.
In the coming week, we hope to agree internationally the process for establishing a temporary financial mechanism to provide a transparent structure for international financial support for the financial requirements of the NTC, such as public sector pay. Yesterday, Kuwait announced about £110 million of support for the NTC.
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the skill, bravery and professionalism of the men and women of the UK and our allies’ armed forces. Their actions in the NATO operations have saved many lives and their efforts are essential to bringing a lasting peace and a better future for the Libyan people, who have suffered so much at the hands of this brutal regime. I also pay tribute to those from the international humanitarian community who have put their lives on the line to help their fellow human beings.
The UK is supporting the other needs of the Libyan people in every way we can. The humanitarian situation in the west of the country is getting worse every day. Many civilians in Misrata lack access to basic necessities, including food, water and electricity. There is a shortage of some crucial medical supplies. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced last week that the UK will provide medical and other emergency supplies, and undertake the evacuation of 5,000 migrants stranded at Misrata port in squalid conditions. The UK has so far given more than £13 million to meet immediate humanitarian needs through funding for medical and food supplies and emergency shelter, and assisting in the evacuation of poor and vulnerable migrants. In Misrata alone, British support has given 10,000 people food and 2,000 families water and hygiene kits, and it has provided essential medical staff. The regime must guarantee unfettered humanitarian access and not just give broken promises, which put the lives of aid workers and volunteers at risk.
The wave of demand for change in the Arab world continues to gain momentum in other nations. As I said earlier today, we condemn utterly the violence and killings perpetrated by the Syrian security forces against civilians who are expressing their views in peaceful protests. That violent repression must stop. President Assad must order his authorities to show restraint and to respond to the legitimate demands of his people with immediate and genuine reform, not brutal repression. The emergency law should be lifted in practice and the legitimate aspirations of the people met.
The United Kingdom is working intensively with our international partners to persuade the Syrian authorities to stop the violence and to respect the basic and universal human rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Syria is at a fork in the road. Its Government can still choose to bring about the radical reform which alone can provide peace and stability for Syria in the long term, and we urge them to do so, or they can choose ever more violent repression, which can only bring short-term security for the authorities. If they do so, we will work with our European partners and others to take measures, including sanctions, that will have an impact on the regime. Given our concerns for British nationals in Syria, we changed our travel advice on Sunday to advise against all travel there and to advise that British nationals should leave unless there is a pressing need for them to remain.
On Yemen, the UK welcomes this morning’s news that the efforts of the Gulf Co-operation Council countries to resolve the political deadlock are close to success. I understand that President Saleh and the parliamentary opposition have accepted the GCC’s proposal. That is potentially good news. Both sides now need to come together to confirm their commitment to the peaceful, inclusive and timely transition process that the GCC has brokered. The UK remains committed to its long-standing support for Yemen in these difficult times.
Although the immediate situation in Bahrain is calmer, there continue to be credible reports of human rights abuses. I urge the Government of Bahrain to meet all their human rights obligations and to uphold political freedoms, equal access to justice and the rule of law. Dialogue is the way to fulfil the aspirations of all Bahrainis. I urge all sides, including opposition groupings, to engage with each other.
In Egypt, which I will visit shortly, we welcome the actions being taken by the authorities to move towards a broad-based, civilian-led Government and an open and democratic society.
In Tunisia, we are providing support with EU partners to help its Government meet the wishes of the Tunisian people. On 11 April, the commission responsible for bringing together opposition parties and civil society approved the draft law for the constituent assembly elections scheduled for 24 July. That is a step towards free and fair elections, and an open and democratic society.
The European Union has a crucial role to play in the southern Mediterranean. The great changes in the Arab world are truly historic, and the response from the nations of the EU should be bold and ambitious. The review of the European neighbourhood policy is due to be published in a fortnight. We have been making the case that we have the opportunity to use that policy to help the peoples of the southern Mediterranean achieve their desire for freer and more prosperous societies. A renewed neighbourhood policy should see the EU using its economic magnetism to encourage and support political and economic reform in neighbouring countries. A partnership of equals should reward those who make the necessary political and economic reforms and, importantly, withdraw benefits from those who do not.
Finally, it remains essential that progress is made in the search for a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is what the majority of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis demand of their leaders. The extraordinary changes in the region are an opportunity to be seized, not an excuse for further prevarication leading to more frustration and discontent.
In our response to the dramatic events in north Africa and the middle east, we will continue to stand for reform, not repression, and for the addressing of grievances rather than brutal reprisals. It is a policy in accordance with our own beliefs, in line with our own national interest and in pursuit of the peace and prosperity of the wider world.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement this afternoon.
I join the Foreign Secretary by saying that the Opposition, too, support the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative to resolve the current crisis in Yemen and achieve a peaceful political settlement. I also associate myself with his remarks regarding the continued need for a focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need for a review of the European neighbourhood policy.
I begin with Syria. Every Member will have been appalled by the recent reports of Government violence and repression there. First, on the question of UK nationals, can the Foreign Secretary provide an estimate of the number who are in Syria at present, and can he assure us that all contingency plans are in place should it prove necessary, in time, for them to leave?
Of course, I fully support the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation this afternoon of the actions of the Syrian Government, but it was only a few weeks ago, on 27 January, that he travelled to Damascus to meet President Assad. From those conversations, how likely does he judge it that President Assad will now heed the calls for restraint and reform?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that work is under way at the United Nations. Can he provide more detail on what progress has been made regarding a statement and/or a resolution from the Security Council? In particular, will he outline what financial sanctions and freezes at UN or EU level are being discussed to make clear the international community’s condemnation?
In a statement this morning, the Foreign Secretary said:
“There needs to be accountability for the deaths that have occurred.”
Of course, I concur with that statement. What discussions have been entered into regarding the investigation of accusations of crimes against humanity and regarding Human Rights Watch’s call for an official commission of inquiry? Finally, what discussions has he held with the Turkish Government, among others, to marshal a unified condemnation of the recent actions and assess possible ways forward in the region?
Although news regarding Bahrain has subsided slightly, the reports of the arrests of opposition figures and deaths in custody, and allegations of torture and the denial of medical treatment, are of course extremely concerning. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the progress of the political reform process initiated by King al-Khalifa? Will he also tell us what recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prince, who, it has been reported, has been close to reaching agreements with the protestors? Britain’s historically close ties to Bahrain should give us all the more reason to be clear and unequivocal in our urging of reform, not repression, as a response to popular protests on those islands.
I join the Foreign Secretary in commending our men and women in the armed forces, and those of our allies, for their brave service in Libya while the House has been in recess. The specific operational steps announced by the Government during that time—providing telecommunications, body armour and 10 military advisers—each had an operational rationale reflecting the new realities on the ground. Although we understand that rationale, will the Foreign Secretary now update the summary of legal advice provided to the House to cover each of the announcements made during the recess? The ad hoc and apparently unco-ordinated manner in which they were announced, rooted in no clearly articulated plan, has, I fear, served only to increase anxieties held by many members of the public.
In truth, none of those specific measures is likely significantly to affect the strategic situation in Libya. As things stand, neither Benghazi nor Tripoli appears likely imminently to fall to either side. Can the Foreign Secretary therefore give the House a somewhat fuller assessment of the military situation than he has so far shared with us? I ask that because the Prime Minister’s official spokesman stated this morning, in summarising the Foreign Secretary’s report to the Cabinet, that we need to
“prepare for the long haul”,
yet a press release was published only this weekend on the Foreign Office website entitled, “Foreign Secretary denies claims of stalemate in Libya”. The situation on the ground led the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, to observe on Friday that
“Libya is moving towards stalemate”.
Can the Foreign Secretary share with the House the information or insight on military progress that was available to him that was apparently not shared with America’s most senior military figure?
That brings me to the question of political objectives and the military mission. On 21 March, the Prime Minister told the House from the Dispatch Box that resolution 1973
“explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 713.]
On 14 April, in an article in The Times, the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the US and France said that
“so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.”
Would the House be correct to understand that the language in that article means that in the view of the British Government, UN Security Council resolution 1973 cannot be enforced without Gaddafi’s departure? Given the article’s explicit commitment to maintaining NATO operations “so long as Gaddafi” remains “in power”, will the Foreign Secretary clarify whether a Libya free of Gaddafi is a political aim—incidentally, that aim is shared by all in the House—or a military objective of the British Government? Will the Foreign Secretary further say whether, following that joint statement, American fighter aircraft have once again engaged in ground-assault operations, and whether that statement of aims has led to any significant alteration of the US force posture?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is no plan, no mandate and no appetite for NATO ground troops attempting to fight their way into Tripoli to remove Gaddafi? If so, can he offer a clearer way forward, beyond the intensification of the current efforts that he spoke about in his opening remarks, to achieving the outcome that the Government seek? It is vital that he does so, not simply to ensure that the Government address the concerns at home and abroad, but, crucially, to convince Gaddafi’s henchmen that there is a credible strategy in place to ensure that his brutal attacks on civilians will not prevail.
We seek as broad a coalition as possible for these efforts, and in that spirit I add my welcome to the addition of Italian fighter aircraft to the mission, which we heard announced today. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the precise number of EU, NATO and Arab League countries that are participating in the military operation, and on what efforts are being made to expand those numbers further? Does he believe that the contact group is proving agile and effective enough to direct the mission? Does he further agree that the comparison last week by the Defence Secretary of the current mission in Libya with the Afghanistan campaign, where a decade on we have about 11,000 troops in theatre, not only ignores the different order of magnitude of threat posed by al-Qaeda and its supporters, but needlessly threatens support for the mission at home and abroad? In the light of that comparison, and given the continuing national security threat being confronted in Afghanistan, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that no personnel or equipment will be redeployed from Afghanistan to Libya?
The Government are acting in Libya for principled reasons, but that does not remove our obligation to look at practical questions. In conclusion, in the light of this morning’s statement, which mentioned a “long haul” in Afghanistan, what further diplomatic measures are being pressed by the Government on the international community to strengthen the isolation of, and to increase the pressure on, Gaddafi’s regime?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman particularly for what he said about various countries at the beginning of his questions. I am sure that the whole House will join him in welcoming the seemingly successful efforts of the Gulf Co-operation Council in relation to Yemen. There is also agreement across the House, I think, about the importance of the middle east peace process and a bold and ambitious European neighbourhood policy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about Syria. About 700 British nationals in Syria are now registered with us, although some of them of course will be dual nationals with their families in Syria, and we should not assume that they would want to leave Syria whatever the circumstances there. However, we have contingency plans for their evacuation. Previous to the change of travel advice on Sunday, we advised them to consider leaving Syria by commercial means, and it is still possible to do so—for instance, over the land border to Lebanon and by commercial flights still running every day out of Damascus.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the conversations that I had with President Assad at the end of January. From those conversations, I think I can fairly say that what has happened in Syria over the past couple of weeks will have come as a surprise to the President and the Government. I asked him then why he thought that Syria would be different from what had already begun to happen in Egypt and Tunisia, and he said that it was because of Syria’s clear ideology, the continuing resistance to Israel and the popular support for the Government in Syria. Clearly, however, there are common aspirations in many of these countries for economic freedom and greater political rights, and therefore the position of the Syrian authorities in relation to their population was not as strong as he and his Government assessed. Of course, we have many differences with the Government of Syria on many foreign policy subjects that I discussed with him. For a long time Governments of the United Kingdom have urged the Government of Syria in the direction of greater respect for human rights. Had they taken that advice, including from previous Foreign Secretaries, such as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), they would be in a stronger position today.
The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) was right to ask about work with the Turkish Government. I regard them as holding a central position in working with other nations on how we should proceed on Syria. I discussed the matter at length last night with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and we are in close and daily touch with the Turkish Government. The work on what may happen at the UN and in the EU is of course at a preliminary stage, and it will be difficult at the UN Security Council, because not all the permanent members will see this in the same light, so I do not want to raise expectations of action at the Council. That would be unrealistic. However, we are working closely with our European and American colleagues on the Council to see how we can proceed, and we are doing initial work on what action the EU could take. However, I cannot go into more detail about that at this stage.
On Bahrain, the dialogue between the Government and the opposition is not overtly progressing. However, the authorities there have reiterated to us their determination to proceed with and reignite that dialogue. I spoke recently to the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Sheikh Khalid al-Khalifa, to ask for his commitment to that, as well as to investigation of the human rights issues that I have mentioned in the House, and he has given those commitments. As I said in my statement, therefore, we look to all sides in Bahrain to commit themselves to that dialogue. That is the only way forward for a country in Bahrain’s situation. However, I do not have any reports of success in that dialogue to give to the House now.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Libya and our various announcements over the recess of non-lethal assistance to the transitional national council. It was my decision in every case to make public the information as soon as possible about every form of assistance. It might have satisfied his desire to avoid what he called ad hoc announcements had we waited to put them all together, but in my view it would not have satisfied the interests of full transparency and of giving Parliament the necessary information as soon as it became available by depositing it in the Library. This is a fast-moving situation. How we help the transitional national council has to be agreed with other countries in order that we do not duplicate what they do, so how we are able to assist the council will change from week to week. However, we will keep the House informed as rapidly as possible, as we did over the recess, even if that means that announcements come out at different times and are followed one after the other.
It is important to remember that the military situation remains fluid and has not settled into a stalemate. Hon. Members will be aware of how much the situation in Misrata has changed over recent days. Fighting has gone backwards and forwards on the western borders of Libya, and although there is a fairly static situation on what might be called the eastern front, between Brega and Ajdabiya, it has not yet settled into what one would call a long-term stalemate. The military mission is defined by the United Nations resolution, and what the Prime Minister said about that on 21 March absolutely stands. That has not changed, although it is the common assessment of all NATO and Arab League nations involved—there might be a difference of view in some African Union nations—that it is impossible to see a way of securing the full implementation of the UN Security Council resolution while Colonel Gaddafi remains. That is why it is quite right to reiterate, as we all do in this House, that Gaddafi should go. However, the military mission remains defined by the UN Security Council resolution, and there has been no change in the Government’s approach to that.
On the question of NATO participation, there are 16 nations participating in the military effort at the moment. The shadow Foreign Secretary asked whether the contact group of 21 nations and seven international organisations was unwieldy. My experience so far is that it is not unwieldy—provided that it is well chaired, which it has been—but works together well. Having such a wide spread of nations and international organisations might initially look unwieldy, but it allows the contact group to continue the international legitimacy and the broad-based coalition that are present on this occasion and in these operations, the lack of which has sometimes bedevilled our efforts and those of the previous Government in foreign affairs, so it is important to maintain that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Defence Secretary’s remarks about Afghanistan. The Defence Secretary was simply saying that we wanted Afghans to be able to take on responsibility for their own security; he was not comparing the conflict in Libya to the conflict in Afghanistan, and we should not give that impression. I absolutely agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that NATO ground troops will not be going into Tripoli to resolve this matter. It is clear in UN resolution 1973 that there should be no foreign occupation of any part of Libya. We will adhere strictly to that, as to all other parts of the resolution. The strategy going forward is what I set out in the statement—to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure.
The point that I made at the Cabinet this morning was that in this situation, time is not on the side of Gaddafi. We are often asked in international conflicts whether time is on our side. We should be confident that in this situation—given this coalition, this range of sanctions and these intensifying efforts—time is not on the side of Gaddafi, and the members of his regime need to know that. The resolve of the international community to implement the UN resolutions—and our resolve, separately from those resolutions, that he should go—is undiminished; indeed, it is strengthened by the experience of recent weeks. We have already achieved the saving of thousands of lives, the assembly of a remarkable international coalition and the prevention of the regime’s re-conquest of Libya by force, which could also have destabilised Egypt and Tunisia. These things have been worth achieving in the last five weeks, and if we continue to intensify our work in the way that I have described, we will indeed go on to success.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Front-Bench exchanges, although enlightening and engaging in equal measure, have nevertheless consumed almost half an hour. I am very keen that there should be time for Back Benchers to contribute. Short questions and short answers are required.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it may be over-optimistic to assume that the civil war in Libya will cease when Colonel Gaddafi departs the scene? As he knows, the estrangement of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica dates back to the Punic wars, which is why in 1946 Ernest Bevin wanted to restore Mussolini’s single Libya to its two historic entities. Moreover—if you will bear with me for a moment longer, Mr Speaker—we could impose an immediate partition on the country by air power alone. That would enable us to remove by sea those rebels on the coastal strip who found themselves on the wrong side of the dividing line, before they were massacred by the inland tribes.
Mr Speaker
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman. When I have heard him, I invariably feel better informed, and somewhat improved.
Mr Hague
Well, so do I. I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point about the Punic wars and the historical division between Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, but I have to say that I do not think that that is the solution in this particular case, in the 21st century. All the people we have spoken to in the transitional national council are very much committed to the territorial integrity of Libya as a whole. The country could not be so easily partitioned as my hon. Friend might think, in that there is strong support for the opposition forces throughout Libya, including in the west, in cities in the western mountains and in Misrata. The people of Misrata do not want to be taken away to the east; they want to stay in their own city, with their rights being respected and their lives being preserved. There is no simple east-west division in Libya now, in contrast to what has happened in previous centuries or, indeed, in previous millennia.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Fear is growing that, although we are doing enough to keep this operation going, we are not doing enough to bring it to a successful conclusion. If stalemate or de facto partition are unacceptable, and if the people cannot be properly protected while Gaddafi is in place, surely we need to make enough effort, now that we are engaged in this operation, to bring it swiftly to a conclusion, and to bring to an end the suffering in Libya. Surely that means doing more than is currently being done.
Mr Hague
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. Other Ministers and I went to the NATO meeting in Berlin to ask for an increased tempo in the military operations, as well as increased support from other countries for military operations, some of which we have secured. He will have heard us talking about Italy earlier. However, when he says that the situation needs to be brought to a conclusion more rapidly, he is really calling for a military effort that is very different in its scale and in its nature. I would say to him that that would not be in accordance with UN resolution 1973. The large-scale use of ground troops, for instance, would not be in accordance with the resolution. Whatever we do, it is vital to keep the legal, moral and international authority that comes from working within the United Nations resolutions. I must therefore resist his demands for a more rapid or overwhelming military solution to the situation. We have to continue to intensify the pressure on Gaddafi through diplomatic, economic and military channels, but we must stay within what is legal and internationally supported.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Government’s twin fundamental aims of protecting civilians and requiring the departure of Gaddafi cannot be achieved by coalition air power alone—or, indeed, by diplomatic and economic pressure—and that the achievement of those aims will require giving military support to the insurgents? I welcome the fact that instructors have been sent to Benghazi, but does the Foreign Secretary not agree that much more military support could be given that would be consistent with the UN resolution, which allows all necessary measures for the protection of civilians throughout Libya?
Mr Hague
The first point to make to my right hon. and learned Friend is that these are not instructors. I would not refer to them as instructors. It is a military liaison team; it is working on headquarters organisation. I stress that these officers are not involved in arming or training the forces of the opposition side in Libya. Our position—my right hon. and learned Friend has brought it up before—is that we will help with non-lethal equipment. The British Government have taken no decision to arm or equip the opposition forces with lethal equipment. I have expressed our view of the legality of that before, which is that the arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya, but that it is legal under the UN resolution to supply equipment to protect civilian life in certain circumstances. Other nations may wish to do that or to interpret the resolution in a different way. We interpret it in that way and believe that the best way for us to help is to supply the non-lethal equipment that I have mentioned.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on delivering an absolutely brilliant piece of Foreign Office speak for the last 10 minutes? He assured us that there was to be no ground intervention, yet military forces are being sent to assist the British diplomatic mission. He assured us that there was no intention of regime change, and then promptly called for a regime change. What exactly is the Government’s position on Libya? Is it to have a partition; is it the overthrow of Gaddafi; is it to hand over the oil and banking interests to Qatar; is it the sale of arms to the whole region? What on earth are the Government’s long-term intentions on Libya? Will he please explain?
Mr Hague
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s congratulations in the spirit in which they were offered, and I am tempted to go over my whole statement again. Our attitude to the whole issue of change in the middle east is that if it goes right, it will be one of the greatest advances in human freedom and world affairs that we have seen—certainly since the end of the cold war, and in some ways comparable to it. If it goes wrong, however, leading to more authoritarian regimes or a long period of violent disorder, it will provide a serious threat to our own national security and that of the whole of Europe, with new breeding grounds for terrorism, uncontrolled migration and threats of extremism. We therefore have to do what we can to make sure that change goes in the right direction, not the wrong direction. That is what we want for Libya and what we want for other countries. We are able to help in each country in different ways, but that is the context in which our Libya policy sits.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s careful and circumspect response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, is it not clear that the United Kingdom and France are disproportionately bearing the burden of the offensive air campaign? Why is it that our NATO allies are not making a better contribution, and is the Foreign Secretary disappointed by their failure to do so?
Mr Hague
It is certainly true that the United Kingdom and France make a huge contribution and, most of the time, the largest contribution to the campaign. I hesitate to use words like “disproportionate”, as I must say that the contribution—including an offensive strike capability—from countries such as Denmark and Norway is, considering their size as countries and the size of their armed forces, very much proportionate to the efforts that we are making. We should not think that only the United Kingdom and France are contributing. There are 16 nations involved in the military activity. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, Arab nations are also involved. In response to our recent requests, other countries have brought other military assets into play—Spain, for example, providing additional air-to-air refuelling capability and Italy bringing in ground-strike capability. At all times, the United States continues to supply about a quarter of all sorties flown, even in periods when it is not taking part in ground strike. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can see that the burden is spread more widely than the headlines sometimes give the impression, but would we like a greater contribution from some other nations and did we say so at the NATO meeting in Berlin? Well, yes, we did.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly referred to the legal, moral and international base that resolution 1973 mandates, and it is imperative that we stick within it. In that context, can he restrain those voices calling to go beyond that—as, for example, the call to target Colonel Gaddafi and others—and make them desist, because that sort of thing will not keep the coalition together?
Mr Hague
I am trying to restrain them, as I restrained the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) a moment ago in relation to a parallel subject. As for the question of specific targets, we will not go into it. Who or what become legitimate targets depends on how they behave. I will not expand, and no Minister will expand, on who or what will be a target.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given that the Libyan regime can place its forces in heavily congested urban areas and fight house to house, and given the terms of the resolution, is it not the case that the NATO forces are in no position to exert any influence over the outcome of this civil war?
Mr Hague
No. Although NATO air forces are constrained by having to operate entirely from the air—obviously there can be problems with air operations on days when the weather is bad—they have clearly had a huge and, so far, decisive impact. Had it not been for those NATO-led air operations, Benghazi would have fallen and Gaddafi would have reconquered the entire country; I think that Misrata would have fallen.
As my right hon. Friend says, it is very difficult when forces are making themselves look like civilians and fighting at close quarters in a city like Misrata. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of evidence that in recent days they have been pushed back. The use of a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle over Misrata is something that the regime forces have to worry about and, I think, have worried about greatly over the past 48 hours, however clever they may think they are at concealing themselves.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
May I compliment the Foreign Secretary on his attitude to this difficult matter? May I also urge him to continue to resist the calls that have come from certain important Members of Parliament, notably a former Foreign Secretary and a former Defence Secretary, my fellow Coventrian the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth)?
Difficult though the matter is, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reassurance that—as we all now accept—ground troops have no role to play, and his continued resistance to a deeper, heavier NATO involvement than that described by him and allowed by the United Nations resolution. I believe that this is the only way forward, and that, if pursued with sufficient patience and perseverance, it can achieve our objectives.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We do operate under certain constraints. The United Nations resolutions are clear and comprehensive—they authorise “all necessary measures”—but they are not qualified in certain important ways, and we are clear about what those mean. It is more important to stick to the resolutions, and to achieve success within their constraints, than to expect a lack of support among the nations of the coalition for our action in continuing these operations as necessary, along with our other diplomatic and economic efforts. I think that we must indeed have the persistence and the patience to continue with that strategy.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is working with our international partners to persuade the Syrian authorities to stop the violence, which he rightly condemns. Does he recall that the intervention in Libya came only after a request for intervention from the Arab League? Is there any sign of a further request from the Arab League for intervention in Syria?
Mr Hague
No. The work with international partners is very important—particularly the work with Turkey, as I mentioned in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary—but my hon. Friend is right: in the case of Libya there was a clear call from the Arab League for the United Nations to take action. That was a transformative intervention, in that it gave legitimacy and broad international support to our work at the United Nations Security Council. We should hesitate to draw direct comparisons between what we may do in Libya and what we may do in other countries in the region.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The reported use of cluster bombs against civilians by the Gaddafi regime has been rightly condemned. Equally worthy of condemnation would be the use of depleted uranium. Has the Foreign Secretary sought any assurances from his United States counterparts that depleted uranium weapons have not been, and will not be, used in this conflict?
Mr Hague
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about cluster munitions—and we might add land mines as well; there are reports of the Gaddafi forces laying them in the vicinity of Misrata. I am certainly not aware of any use of depleted uranium weapons. I would be very surprised if any such weapons were being used, and I think I can give her the assurance she seeks.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
It has been reported that NATO intelligence believes that some 450 of Gaddafi’s mercenary army are in fact Algerian-backed Polisario guerrillas paid for to the tune of some millions of dollars. Has the Foreign Secretary taken this matter up with the Algerian Government, and can he tell the House what we have done, beyond the freezing of British, European and American bank accounts, to deny access to the money that enables this sort of action to take place?
Mr Hague
Yes, there are many such reports. My right hon. Friend mentions reports concerning Algeria, and there are also reports of fighters for the Gaddafi regime coming from other countries in north Africa. We are taking these reports up; we have taken them up at the diplomatic level with some of the countries concerned. We need more specific evidence than usual in these situations, in order to be able to say squarely to the countries involved that they are in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, but whenever we have that evidence we will act on it, and at the ministerial level as well.
On the question of denying Gaddafi the ability to pay for such fighters, we have done two sets of things. One of them is the asset freeze, to which my right hon. Friend referred. Tens of billions of dollars of the regime’s assets have been frozen, particularly in the United States and our country, although that measure is also widely observed across the world. Secondly, the sanctions that we are implementing also deny a great deal of income to the regime. That is why I say that there is no future for this regime. Time is not on the side of Gaddafi. It will be very difficult for the regime to amass the resources required for it to be able to continue with this effort for the longer term. We will seek the rigorous implementation of those measures, and, of course, if any nation appears to have sanctioned the employment of people from its own country as mercenaries in Libya, we will pursue that matter with it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning, the BBC was reporting that four European Union countries were working up a new resolution for the Security Council. The Foreign Secretary did not refer to that in his statement. Is that because of the reluctance on this issue of the Arab League, to which he previously alluded? Is there not also a danger, however, that many people in the Arab world will perceive double standards if the UN Security Council does not at least adopt a strong resolution condemning the Ba’athist repression in Syria?
Mr Hague
I think the report in question was about the possibility of a presidential statement, rather than a resolution of the UN Security Council. Certainly, France, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom are working together at the Security Council to raise the issue of the situation in Syria. The hon. Gentleman asks about double standards. Different countries will have their own opinions on this subject, and I sounded a note of caution about the attitude of some of the other permanent members of the Security Council. Particularly on Syria, they will be very cautious about adopting statements, and especially about adopting resolutions. The position of the Arab League is a matter for its members. It is, of course, up to them to decide whether to be consistent in their statements or to regard the situation in different countries as requiring different responses. We have certainly had no call or clear message from the Arab League on the situation in Syria in the way that developed in respect of Libya.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
If, as my right hon. Friend suggests, there is such general international agreement that Gaddafi should go, is any work being done in the United Nations to change the resolutions to reflect that, because otherwise we will continue with a military objective that is at odds with the political objective?
Mr Hague
I have had no indication that it would be possible to pass a new and—what one might call—stronger resolution in the UN Security Council than the ones that have already been passed: resolutions 1970 and 1973. I think there would be a good deal of opposition to that. I think it is unlikely at this juncture that such a resolution could be adopted in the UN Security Council, which is why, as I have said in answer to earlier questions, we must work within the resolutions we have and maximise the diplomatic, economic and military pressure, consistent with those resolutions.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about developments in Yemen, and commend his efforts and those of the GCC? If the President signs the agreement tomorrow, there could be a new Government in 28 days. Are our Government ready to assist that new Government? What matters then is the stability of Yemen.
Mr Hague
Yes, we absolutely are ready to do that. At that point we will, of course, want to revive, with some vigour, the Friends of Yemen process, which was started under the previous Government—we have continued it, but the group has not been able to have meaningful meetings in recent weeks, given the situation. We will very much look to revive that, working closely with Saudi Arabia as co-chairs of the Friends of Yemen. There is a great deal we can do to encourage stability and peace in Yemen, and we will be highly active in doing so.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
May I ask the Foreign Secretary about Saudi Arabia, as there have also been reports of protests—albeit on a smaller scale—met with repression there and as its contribution to finding a peaceful solution to the unrest in Bahrain was to send in its troops? Does he think that the Arab spring could have a positive influence on human rights improvements in that oppressive regime? How can it be encouraged to take a positive attitude to the dialogue towards democracy that is so needed in Bahrain?
Mr Hague
Given the previous question, it is important to recognise in this context the strong and, it seems, successful efforts of Saudi Arabia to bring mediation to Yemen. The hon. Lady is right to say that Saudi forces are in Bahrain—at the request of the Bahraini Government—but I think that Saudi Arabia, like other states in the region, is very anxious that there is a successful national dialogue in Bahrain. I have no reason to doubt that at all, having discussed the situation at some length with Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, over recent weeks. Of course, we do ask all Governments in the region to respect the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
No one disputes the brutality of the Gaddafi regime, which of course we were selling arms to, along with other western powers, right up to recent events, but may I urge the Foreign Secretary to resist the calls that we have heard today from what I would describe as the “war party”, which wants to escalate the conflict? Some of us believe that what is really required is a genuine effort to bring about a ceasefire. I am aware of all the difficulties—I know that Gaddafi cannot be trusted—but if there is a chance of stopping the bloodshed on both sides in the civil war, that opportunity should certainly be grasped.
Mr Hague
Of course we all want a ceasefire. One of the stated goals of resolution 1973 is a ceasefire—a genuine end to violence—but it would have to be a genuine ceasefire in which the regime’s forces pulled back from the populated areas they were attacking and really ended the violence and stopped the suppression of all opposition in the areas that they controlled. Although it is important, as the hon. Gentleman says, to resist calls to change the nature of this conflict and go beyond the resolutions, it is also important to resist any temptation to weaken in our implementation of the resolutions. That is why we must continue carefully and persistently with the strategy we have set out.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given that there are now 300 dead in Syria and hundreds more imprisoned, is it not time for Britain to lead the way with a United Nations resolution to try to stop what Syria is doing?
Mr Hague
As I mentioned in answer to earlier questions, it is not a simple matter to pass a United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria—of course that may change as the situation in Syria develops. The important thing for today is to emphasise that, as I said in my statement, the Syrians are at a fork in the road and are coming to the last point at which they can say, “We are going to embrace the reform that is necessary in our country and that will be supported nationally and internationally.” If they continue down the alternative route of ever more violent repressions, our concerns will of course be shared more widely at the UN Security Council and the situation there may change.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I sympathise with the Foreign Secretary, but I am afraid I agree—I do not often say this—with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in that the arguments that the Foreign Secretary is using increasingly sound casuistical, especially when he tries to draw a distinction between why we are engaged in Libya but not in Syria or anywhere else and, in particular, when he says that although we are providing equipment, that is all right because it is non-lethal, or that although we are providing military personnel, that is all right because they are not instructors. Surely we are coming to a fork in the road: either we want rid of Gaddafi and we should get rid of him, or we should get out of there.
Mr Hague
Sympathy from the hon. Gentleman is entirely unnecessary in my case; I can assure him that I will be fine without it. Anyway, I suppose I am grateful for it. Let us think about the alternatives for which he seems to be calling. One is to weaken in what we are doing, to say that we do not really care what happens in Libya, and to allow Colonel Gaddafi to run amok in murdering thousands of his own people, destabilising everything else in north Africa. I reject that alternative. The other alternative to our policy is to say that we are not really going to abide by the UN resolutions and that we will do whatever we are urged to do, because we think that our public’s patience is too limited in any matter of international relations and so we will be panicked into doing other things. I reject that alternative, too. For too many years, we have been accused of not having the necessary legality or moral support for, or an international coalition behind, what we are doing. We are going to maintain those things in what we do in Libya and that requires persistence in the policy we have adopted.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary and I have had a number of exchanges on this subject. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, because the Prime Minister has written to me today saying that
“we do not rule out supplying lethal equipment, but we have not taken the decision to do so, and there remain legal and practical questions which need to be carefully considered.”
That is the Government’s policy, the legal basis of which seems to be as clear as mud. The problem, very simply, is that we want to relieve the pressure on civilians and to ensure that the people in Libya are properly protected. Unless they are given arms and the right kind of equipment under the resolutions—including paragraph 9(c) of resolution 1970, which I have mentioned before—there will be hand-to-hand fighting and they will not have the ability to deliver. That is where the problem lies and the policy must be made clearer. Why does not the Foreign Secretary go back to the sanctions committee and find out?
Mr Hague
I hope the policy as I have set it out is very clear about the Government’s understanding of what is legal under the UN resolutions and about what we are doing, which is different from going the whole way under the resolutions towards arming civilians and the opposition in certain circumstances. We have not taken the decision to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his letter to my hon. Friend. We are giving a great deal of other assistance. We should remember that what the United Kingdom is doing as regards the deployment of the Royal Air Force and its military action over the past five weeks, which has potentially saved the lives of hundreds or thousands of people, is a greater help to the civilians of Libya than we can provide to them in any other way.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As we have seen in the House today, to many outside this House Britain’s intervention in Libya looks like a blood-soaked political shambles. As we have moved from the protection of civilians to regime change, promises of no boots on the ground have been undermined by the presence of advisers’ boots on the ground. Now a limited intervention has moved to being a long-haul engagement. Have the Government given any consideration whatsoever to conflict resolution and taking up the offers from other countries of mediation to secure a peaceful settlement?
Mr Hague
Attempts at mediation by other countries so far have run into the problem of Colonel Gaddafi’s refusal to depart. Without that departure, it is hard to see a solution being arrived at in Libya. That is the difficulty. We have agreed in the contact group that it is primarily for the UN special envoy, Mr Khatib, to take forward the work of trying to search for a political settlement—that is absolutely what the UN special envoy is for. We have in no way lost sight of that aim, but it will require a genuine ceasefire, which seems also to require the departure of Colonel Gaddafi. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a blood-soaked result to what we have been doing, but there really would have been a blood-soaked result had we done nothing five weeks ago, allowing Benghazi to be overrun, thousands of people to be killed and tens of thousands to be driven towards the border. That would have been a blood-soaked result, and I think that was the policy that the hon. Gentleman favoured.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The debate and vote on Libya was couched very much in terms of humanitarian aid, but it has since become clear, from the rejection of the African Union peace proposals and from the joint statement, that Britain, the US and France will accept nothing less than Gaddafi’s removal. Will the Foreign Secretary sanction a further debate and vote on this issue in Government time?
Mr Hague
No. Of course, I will make statements to the House whenever possible and I am in no way resistant to long debates about the matter, but I do not think the Government’s policy has changed in any material way that requires a fresh vote in the House of Commons. We are absolutely within the United Nations resolutions and within the policy we expressed at the outset.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Could the Foreign Secretary explain how it is that the Italians are now providing strike aircraft and the Americans unmanned Predators? He described how the 1,500 strike sorties have seriously degraded Gaddafi’s military capacity and he described the severity of the UN sanctions, but those are all actions undertaken by external bodies—the UN, NATO and Arab allies. Will he tell us whether there is a plan—not a time scale, but a plan—so that the House can know how the national transitional council might be in a position to offer Libyan political and military leadership, which would bring an end to the problem?
Mr Hague
The national transitional council has organised itself over the past five weeks. It has a president in Mr Jalil and an executive prime minister figure in Mr Jabril, and it is seeking other adherents and allies in Libya—and not just in the east, where it is based, in Benghazi. In recent days, towns in the west—on the western border—have also declared their adherence to the national transitional council. It is making a genuine effort to include people in its work beyond its current base and operations. It believes in the territorial integrity of Libya and in being able to bring the Libyan people together in future. I think it does have a political plan and a plan for a political transition, but the behaviour of the regime’s forces at the moment prevents it from carrying that out.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It seems fairly clear that the western Sahara and the Tindouf refugee camps are being used as a recruiting ground by General Gaddafi, yet the Polisario Front maintains an office in many western capitals, including London. What pressure can we put on the Polisario formally or informally to make it very clear that any co-operation with Gaddafi is unacceptable and highly unlikely to help its cause?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary might well have the agreement of the Libya contact group, but does he have the support of the British public for what is happening? When we had a debate only weeks ago in the House we were assured from the Government Benches that there would be no mission creep and no targeting of Colonel Gaddafi. We were assured that regime change was not our objective and that there would be no boots on the ground, but we now have quite a strategic change. How will the right hon. Gentleman assure the British public that there will not be further mission creep when those military liaison officers advise that further support is needed on the ground?
Mr Hague
I hope that I have made it clear in the House today—indeed, on all days—that there will be no ground invasion of Libya and that we are not planning to send troops in any large numbers into Libya. I have made clear the terms on which the military liaison advisory team has gone into Benghazi. I think that what people would worry about with mission creep is a ground invasion—a protracted ground battle involving British troops in Libya—and that is not on the cards. It has no part in our plans and it is not consistent with the UN resolutions, so I can reassure people about that and I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in doing so.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
From contacts of mine in Libya it is clear that morale among the opposition fighters, whether they be in the east or the west, differs greatly depending on their military successes and on what the international community does and how it acts. One thing that many people are calling for is the British Government's recognition of the TNC as the legitimate Government, albeit a transitional one. Are we considering that measure?
Mr Hague
The wording that we agreed for the whole contact group at Doha and the wording that I used in my statement earlier is that in contrast to Gaddafi, whom we do not regard as having legitimacy any more in leading the Libyan people, we regard the transitional national council as a legitimate interlocutor representing the aspirations of the Libyan people. I think that is the right way to put it. My hon. Friend will say that that is not formal recognition of the council, and it is not, because we recognise states rather than Governments within states and there are very good reasons to continue that policy, but it means that our diplomatic mission in Libya is in Benghazi, not in Tripoli. Our active daily work is with the transitional national council, so for all intents and purposes our approach, and that of France and Italy, for instance, which have formally recognised it, is identical in practical terms.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that our activities in Libya have now gone well beyond the terms of a no-fly zone to protect civilians? Is he not concerned that we will be giving the impression that we are taking sides with the intention of regime change, rather than protecting civilians? Is that impression not being strengthened by the fact that we are not even calling for sanctions in Bahrain and Syria, in spite of the atrocities being carried out there?
Mr Hague
Well, no. It will be evident that I do not agree with that. I think we are operating within the UN resolutions and so do the vast majority of other nations—so does the whole of NATO and the vast majority of the Arab world, including the Arab League. I stress again the importance of the legitimacy of our actions internationally, which means that where the Arab League has called for assistance, as it did in the case of Libya, we are in a different situation from other countries and regarded as such at the United Nations Security Council. We are operating in response to the calls from the Arab League and with the authority of the United Nations Security Council, and we will continue to operate within those constraints.
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of colleagues are still seeking to catch my eye. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I always seek to accommodate as many as possible. I know that the Foreign Secretary regards occasions such as this as the political and intellectual equivalent of one of his judo routines, and I am sure he makes no objection, but I need a degree of economy if we are to accommodate the interest of colleagues.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
At the end of February, I and a number of colleagues visited Syria. It was obvious to us then that that country was at a tipping point. Two things were obvious: first, young people wanted economic and social reform; and secondly, the reformers and the hard-liners were locked in battle inside the Government. We now have a report that Iran has been invited in to crush the reformers. What robust message can we send that aligning itself with Iran is in the long term a losing game for Syria?
Mr Hague
Since it is possible to make quick, deadly judo moves, I will try to give quick answers. We have consistently given the message to Syria, including when I saw President Assad in January, that aligning Syria with Iran is a great mistake, and it would be a great mistake to intensify that in the current crisis.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I remind the Foreign Secretary that with a heavy heart I voted in favour of the intervention in Libya? I and many colleagues did so because we believed that it was imperative to stop the death of innocent civilians—men, women and children. That was the reason that I voted for it. I am very concerned about some of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks today, which did not address the report that many of us heard on Radio 4 this morning from a respected British journalist about the 1,000 deaths in Libya in recent days. We are not doing enough to stop that. I do not want ground troops; I am not a warmonger; but what has happened to the American intervention that seemed to be more effective in the early days?
Mr Hague
Just because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do something. It has of course not been possible to save every life in Libya—this is an extremely messy and difficult situation—but the hon. Gentleman should be proud of the fact that, although he voted with a heavy heart, the vote in this House, and that in other Parliaments, to support military action has probably saved thousands of lives and saved tens or hundreds of thousands of people from a desperately difficult humanitarian situation. It is better to vote with a heavy heart than to be a faint heart about this situation.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary carefully draws the distinction that the equipment supplied by Britain to the Libyan transitional national council is of a non-lethal nature, but in an era of improvised explosive devices how confident can we be that even telecoms equipment might not ultimately have a lethal use?
Mr Hague
We can be fairly confident that the transitional national council very much wants to use the telecommunications equipment that we have given it as telecommunications equipment, as it is doing. It would not be productive to divert that into other things. The other equipment that we have given is body armour, and it is quite difficult to use that in any way other than to save life.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
On 18 March the Prime Minister said:
“The resolution helps to enforce the arms embargo, and our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]
That has been reinforced by the Foreign Secretary today. Can he therefore tell us what active measures NATO forces are taking to stop the supply of any arms to the rebel forces from outside Libya, or is it in fact the truth that NATO is the military wing of the rebel forces in a civil war?
Mr Hague
The NATO operations, in which ships of many nations are involved, including those of our own Royal Navy, are dedicated to enforcing an arms embargo on the whole of Libya. They are positioned in order to do that, so the hon. Gentleman can be confident that they are doing that.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Given the permeable nature of the Libyan border, particularly around the Sarra triangle, will the Foreign Secretary please advise us on what actions he has sought from the countries surrounding Libya to prevent foreign mercenaries from entering the country and assisting the Gaddafi regime?
Mr Hague
We have made that point to neighbouring countries and have been particularly active with the Government of Tunisia in trying to stop any flows into Libya of matériel or arms that would be used by the Gaddafi regime and that would enter the country in contravention of the Security Council resolutions.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the weekend I met a number of constituents who are very concerned about their families and the situation in Yemen. Yesterday, two protesters were killed there and hundreds were injured. The Foreign Secretary spoke about the Gulf Co-operation Council’s efforts to break the political deadlock and a revival of the Friends of Yemen group, but what specific representations are the British Government making to call on President Saleh to end the violence?
Mr Hague
We have made those representations all the time. I went to Yemen and saw President Saleh at the beginning of February to urge him to come to an agreement with the opposition parties, which he seems to have done in the past 24 hours, thanks to the mediation of the GCC countries, so we have been very heavily involved in that. Our ambassador in Sana’a has been particularly heavily involved on a daily basis for many weeks with both the Government there and the opposition, and the British Government have been heavily involved.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the Assad regime that ordering the army’s tanks to slaughter its own people is completely unacceptable, that it will have repercussions for Syria’s international relations for years to come, that it may well be a war crime, and that it will undoubtedly lead to sanctions?
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
We have sent in a small team of military advisers, as have the French and, for all I know, some other countries. What co-ordination is there between those various teams of military advisers in order to provide coherent, rather than contradictory, advice?
Mr Hague
As ever, that was a very perceptive question from the hon. Lady. That is a very important issue. A French team is going, and there may well be a team from another European country. They are working very closely together, and the effectiveness and experience of the British team is helping to ensure that everyone there works together.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is important to communicate to the critics—in this country and abroad—of previous military conflicts that the intervention in Libya is not just another western intervention? Can I ask the Foreign Secretary, therefore, how many Muslim countries are contributing to the implementation of UN resolution 1973?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. The coalition includes countries from the Arab League, and the specific answer is that two Arab nations are involved in enforcing the no-strike zone, and in one case in ground strikes as well. Several other nations are providing logistical, humanitarian and, indeed, financial support. I have already mentioned the case of Kuwait, and Turkey is of course heavily involved in enforcing the arms embargo and in giving humanitarian support, so a wide range of Muslim nations is involved.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary sounds increasingly like Dr Pangloss —that this is the best possible policy of all possible policies—but in tone and content his statement is very different from the speech that the Prime Minister made here last month. There has been a clear defining of objectives on regime change and on taking one particular side in a civil war. I regret that the Foreign Secretary has already said that he will not organise a debate in the House on a voteable motion, and I hope he will reconsider that, because it is better done on a Government motion than on a Back-Bench one.
Mr Hague
Those are of course matters for the House anyway, but my point is that I do not regard the Government’s policy on the issue as having changed. I have said today that Colonel Gaddafi must go, and the Prime Minister said that in the debate on 21 March. I have said also that we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect civilians, although the nature of those measures may change from week to week, and that is what we said in the debate of 21 March that we would do, so we have not changed our approach.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Given the Gaddafi regime’s constrained refining capability, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the merits of strengthening the restrictions on supplies of petrol and diesel to the regime’s forces?
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
May I press the Foreign Secretary on the subject of the contact group? What discussions has it had about the need for humanitarian troops to go in and provide aid, and specifically what discussions has he had with Turkey and other Muslim nations about that role?
Mr Hague
The contact group has not discussed troops going in for humanitarian purposes. It did of course discuss in Doha the need for effective humanitarian relief, particularly for people in Misrata, and we have been successful in providing a good deal of that over the past couple of weeks, but the group has not had discussions about military provision to assist the humanitarian effort. We would be guided by the United Nations and, in particular, by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs on requesting any military support for humanitarian needs, but no such request has been made.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of a proper financial structure to provide short-term finance to the Libyan national transitional council, but he will be aware that one of the many challenges facing the rebels is the need for cash to fight Gaddafi as well as to provide important public services, so will my right hon. Friend consider releasing to the rebels the many hundreds of millions of Libyan dinars that are printed or held in this country in order to help to finance their fight?
Mr Hague
Those Libyan banknotes are held in this country as part of the asset freeze, and since they are held as part of the asset freeze they remain frozen. [Interruption.] Indeed, that is not surprising. The Government have not so far seen any legal way of releasing those banknotes from the asset freeze.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
May I add my voice to those on both sides of the House who have called for a further debatable resolution of the House about the future of this action? Does not this whole issue illustrate the importance of the International Criminal Court’s being able to take effective action against despots before their people rise up against them, and what is the Foreign Secretary doing to make that more possible?
Mr Hague
Of course it would be helpful if the ICC were able to do that. As the hon. Lady knows, there are cases such as that of the President of Sudan where we have all supported the ICC’s being able to come to its indictments. There is then the problem of the people of those countries not being able to turn over those despots to the ICC. However, we certainly support the ICC’s being able to make investigations in circumstances short of what we are seeing in Libya now.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the weeks leading up to the most recent major religious festivals, Jerusalem suffered the first suicide bombing for nearly three years and ordinary Israeli citizens experienced an escalation of rocket attacks from the Gaza strip. What has my right hon. Friend done to apply pressure to Islamic Jihad and Hamas to cease their terrorist activities and return to the negotiating table?
Mr Hague
The UK is very clear: we have expressed our outrage at those attacks. We have also called on Israel to exercise restraint in responding to those attacks, because we believe that there is an overriding need to put new life into the middle east peace process and for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the necessary compromises—compromises which Hamas leaders have never yet shown that they are prepared to make. It is necessary to do that in order to bring long-term security to the middle east and an end to the kind of appalling incidents that my hon. Friend mentions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Right across the whole of Libya a great many new battles are starting—for example, on the Libya-Tunisia border. Is NATO and the western alliance aware of all these battlefronts in places where people are fighting for freedom, and what help is it able to give them?
Mr Hague
Yes, I believe that the NATO command—NATO plus the Arab allies, I should stress—are aware of these situations, some of which are difficult to help for the reasons of close-quarters fighting that were described earlier. NATO air strikes have been used in recent days to relieve the pressure not only on Misrata but on towns in the west of Libya, with some effect. That will continue and, if necessary, intensify.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It was plain from my right hon. Friend’s answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that the Government have received very clear legal advice on the action that has been announced while the House has not been sitting. The Government made a great advance in publishing a summary of the legal advice on Libya before the last debate. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to update that advice by placing a copy of the Attorney-General’s advice in the Library?
Mr Hague
We provided the note on the legal advice in order for the House to have a debate and for it to take a very important decision. History showed that the House really did want to know more about the legal advice in such circumstances, but I am not going to commit the Government to doing so on a case-by-case or continuous basis.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Should Colonel Gaddafi be deposed, or go by whatever means, would he be subject to the 1970 human rights Act—I am sorry, not human rights—[Interruption.] If I may carry on, would he be subject to the war crimes part of UN resolution 1970?
Mr Hague
That depends on what Colonel Gaddafi has done. The International Criminal Court is looking into that at the moment. As I said, we expect a report from the prosecutor of the ICC to the United Nations next Wednesday, 4 May. That will be the next development in this subject and it is the ICC that will come to a view about it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the last few weeks, not only have the eyes of much of the world been on Libya, but, unfortunately, so have the eyes of the leaders of many of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world? If Colonel Gaddafi manages to cling to any form of power having turned heavy weapons on his own people, it will make such behaviour far more likely in other countries across the region, costing many tens of thousands of innocent lives and potentially putting back the cause of democracy for decades. Is it not for that reason that Gaddafi must go, by one means or another?
Mr Hague
That is one of the reasons. Certainly, if Gaddafi had been able to do what he intended to do, the Arab spring, as many have called it, and the desire for democracy and greater freedom in the Arab world would have suffered an enormous setback, with potentially damaging consequences for this country.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation in what were very full exchanges.
Points of Order
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Vicky Haigh, a horse trainer and former jockey, was the subject of an attempt by Doncaster council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in Parliament. There was discussion earlier today as to whether that case was sub judice. An application was made to the court, a copy of which I have provided to your office. Additionally, I have provided to your office a copy of the court order in which it was deemed that she would not be jailed. I assume, therefore, that the case is not sub judice, in accordance with sub-paragraph (b)(ii) of the relevant resolution:
“Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.”
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order and for notice that he was to raise the matter this afternoon. I do not intend to have a discussion on the Floor of the House, notwithstanding what he said about documents that have been deposited, on whether a particular case is or is not sub judice. One of my duties is to uphold the resolution of the House with respect to sub judice issues. As far as this particular matter is concerned, I am perfectly prepared to discuss it privately with the hon. Gentleman. I will not take any further points of order on this matter today, and I feel sure that he will take his cue from the clear response that I have given.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may have a separate point of order, but it is a bit greedy to have two in one go. We will have someone else first so that he can save his vocal cords and we will revert to him in due course.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had notice from the Secretary of State for Defence that he will come to the House to make a statement on the decision to refuse the invitation of Belfast city council for a homecoming parade for the men and women of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards, who have recently completed tours of duty in Afghanistan? That decision has been greeted with incredulity and anger across Northern Ireland. Given that there was a parade the last time they returned and tens of thousands of people turned out in the streets of the capital city of Northern Ireland, which the troops appreciated greatly, surely the Secretary of State owes it to this House to come and at least explain the decision, if not to announce its reversal and allow these brave men and women their moment of appreciation in the capital city of Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
I fully understand the strength of feeling of the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that the House will respect the sincerity and experience with which he registered his concerns. I hope that he, as an experienced parliamentarian, will readily understand that I cannot join the argument. However, he has put his point forcefully on the record in the presence of Ministers. In particular, it has been heard with courtesy by the Deputy Leader of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter in other ways, he can. I have not as yet had any indication that a Minister wishes to make a statement on the subject.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon in Health questions, the Health Secretary told the House that waiting times were stable in the NHS. In fact, for the first time in three years more than one in 10 in-patients are waiting more than 18 weeks for their hospital treatment; the proportion of people waiting more than four hours for emergency treatment is the highest for six years; and the number of people waiting for diagnostic tests for more than six weeks has doubled. Those are the Government’s figures, confirmed recently by the independent King’s Fund. Can the House, through you, Mr Speaker, ensure that the Health Secretary sets the record straight and, in future, gives a full and accurate account of the changes in waiting times that we have seen over the past year?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is as follows. First, Ministers are responsible for the content, including the accuracy, of the answers that they give and the statements that they make to the House. Secondly, I hope he will understand when I say that I cannot get involved in the question of the quality of an answer. Thirdly, I think it would be well beyond the limited powers and capacities of the Chair to join an almost theological debate about what constitutes stability, in respect of either the health service or any other feature of our national life. However, the shadow Health Secretary has put his point on the record.
John Hemming
On a second point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I also gave notice, I wish to make another point about sub judice. There is a tendency for people to issue injunctions on the basis of a claim that they intend to issue proceedings, but then not actually issue those proceedings. One such case is AMM, in which no proceedings have been issued. One would therefore presume that such a case never becomes sub judice.
Mr Speaker
The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman is almost boundless, and that fact will not have gone unnoticed in any part of the House. However, the initial observations that he made demonstrate to me that the second issue that he has raised is also one for consideration at our private meeting, which I feel sure he is eagerly awaiting.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that during the parliamentary recess over Easter, a number of Members wished to see the recall of Parliament in order to debate Libya more fully. Indeed, that was borne testament by the number of contributions following the statement this afternoon. Is there a way that is in order to thank you for extending the statement by almost half an hour to enable all Members to get in?
Mr Speaker
Well, there is, because the hon. Gentleman has just proved that there is and done it. We are grateful to him for his point.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the Easter break—an unfortunate term, perhaps—News International confessed to the fact that there had been a very significant degree of criminality at the News of the World, in direct contradiction to the evidence that it had provided to two Select Committees of this House. In other words, it had misled the House. In addition, Rebekah Brooks, who on 11 March 2003—I can see that the Clerk is worrying, Mr Speaker. I am not—
Mr Speaker
Order. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is clear to me that he is raising a matter of privilege. That is certainly my very clear understanding of what he has said—it is about privilege and the breach or invasion thereof. It seems to me, therefore, obviously a matter that should be pursued with me in writing in the first instance. I readily expect and almost invite the hon. Gentleman to take that course if he so wishes.
Mr Speaker
I am being very generous, but I will give the hon. Gentleman one last go at a point of order.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to you for your generosity, Mr Speaker.
In addition, Rebekah Brooks, who in March 2003 said that she had paid police officers for information, wrote to the Home Affairs Committee only a couple of weeks ago to say that what she really meant was that other newspapers had done so. That is a blatant lie. Before I write to you about standards and privileges, Mr Speaker, may I ask whether you have had any apology from News International? The House should no longer put up with being lied to.
Mr Speaker
I am not aware that the House has received any apology, and I certainly have not. Notwithstanding the intellectual and political ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, his second set of observations merely confirm the truth and wisdom of what I said in my first answer, which is that he should pursue these matters with me in writing in the first instance. He and other Members know that on this matter, as on others, I am very receptive to hearing what the House has to say. These matters should be aired, but they must be aired in the appropriate forum and at the appropriate time.
If there are no further points of order—the creative juices of the House are always on display when we have had a long recess—we will move on.
Industrial Relations (Voting Procedures)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
17:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 121 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit strike action in the emergency and transport service sectors unless a majority of employees in the unionised workforce has voted in favour of such action; to make procedural provision in relation to balloting for industrial action; and for connected purposes.
The right to peaceful protest and collective action are inextricably linked to, and bound up with, this country’s struggle for liberty, democracy and basic rights. The House will recall that it was a criminal offence to strike in Britain until 1875 and the Administration of Benjamin Disraeli. We should never forget the sacrifices made by those who went before, including the Chartists, social reformers and the early union movement, those who campaigned against child labour in the poor house and virtual slave labour under the poor laws, and those who campaigned for greater democratic representation.
Industrial action played its part in securing reform, from Annie Besant’s match girls union striking against the use of yellow phosphorous in match-making, which caused bone cancer, to the 1889 dockers’ strike in east London against the mercenary exploitation that pitted desperate workers against one another in competition for casual labour on the very harshest terms. I wonder what those heroic campaigners would have made of recent strikes over travel perks, annual bonuses and the right to retire at 50.
Despite a massive expansion of health and safety regulation, employment law and various other social protections, Britain is still episodically held hostage by a vocal minority led by militant union bosses. The damage to the British economy and jobs is immense. In 2002 and 2007, we lost more than 1 million working days because of strike action—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may find that a laughing matter, but the tax-paying public do not.
In 2009—a comparatively quiet year—we lost almost 0.5 million days, which is way more than in Germany, Italy, the US and Australia, and the last tube strike cost the capital £50 million each day, disrupting more than 1 million commuters. What is worse still is the way in which union bosses frequently rely on a minority of members to corral and coerce the majority into strike action. That is what the Bill addresses.
The number of strike ballots carried on a minority of members is increasing at a rapid rate. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, led by Bob Crow, is one of the worst offenders. A third of members supported his tube strikes in the autumn of 2010. The current ballot, for which results are due tomorrow, seeks to escalate previous strike action on the Bakerloo and Northern lines and carried just 35% and 20% of support from members.
In 2010, the Public and Commercial Services Union, claimed legitimacy for a strike ballot on redundancy pay that carried the support of only 20% of its members. Unite and the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union have also recently led strikes with minority support.
My Bill will address that by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to require the support of a majority of members—not simply a majority of those voting—for strike action in the emergency services and the transport sector to be lawful.
Let me be absolutely clear: the Bill would have stopped not the majority of recent strikes, but just those not supported by a majority of union members. Some will say, “Yes, but politicians are elected only by those who turn out to vote,” but strike ballots and political elections are fundamentally different—[Hon. Members: “Why?”] I am coming to that very point. Strike action takes advantage of an express immunity created by an exemption to the law. Without that exemption, unions could be sued in contract and tort law for the damage that they do, just like everybody else.
Strike action based on minority support allows union bosses to corral, cajole and sometimes even bully the majority of union members into supporting strike action and losing pay, when actually they want to get on with their work and their job. Guidance issued by many unions instructs all members to support strike action regardless of whether they voted for it. Then there are the widespread reports of bullying. When British Airways sacked and suspended almost 100 workers after the 2010 strike, it stated that they were mostly for allegations of bullying or intimidation made by other colleagues. The pending RMT ballot was called by Mr Crow in defence of a tube striker sacked after being accused of abusing another tube worker during a strike in 2010, and just last month his right-hand man at RMT, Mr Steve Hedley, was convicted of assault after attacking a fellow worker who crossed the picket line to work. It speaks volumes that the RMT leadership backed Hedley over the victim of that assault.
This kind of bullying is bad enough in any circumstances, but it is particularly reprehensible during strikes that cannot command a majority of support among a union’s own members. Why should a militant minority coerce, intimidate and bully the silent majority? [Interruption.] I think we are hearing the answer from the mutterings from Labour Members. Nor should the same militant minority be licensed to disrupt the wider public and damage the UK economy. This Bill will focus on strikes in the emergency services and the transport sector, where the scope for such disruption is particularly acute. The CBI, Policy Exchange and the London Mayor have all called for a threshold for strike action. Other countries, such as Denmark and the Czech Republic, have a threshold, and the Prime Minister has agreed to consider the case for reform in this area.
In truth, this is just one of the changes we need. However, the Bill is framed in terms that would at least allow for a wider debate, if Labour Members can stomach it, particularly on, for example, the case for a requirement that strike ballots specify the grievance, so that—God forbid—members are actually told what they are being asked to strike for, and so that union bosses cannot exploit a successful ballot on a specific grievance in pursuit of their own wider vested interests. Likewise, there is a case for requiring individual ballots for strikes against each legal public sector employer, so that nationwide strikes cannot be instigated on the thin pretext of some localised dispute.
The main aim of the Bill, however, is to give strikes greater democratic legitimacy. Union bosses on six-figure salaries, some elected by a small fraction of their membership, have grown out of touch with their members and with reality. The number of minority strikes shows that they are often less interested in representing all their members, and more interested in pursuing their own political agendas. Our law gives them too much power, and they are abusing it, not just to blackmail the Government, but to coerce their own members and inflict maximum damage on the wider taxpaying public. The question for the House, therefore, is: who is prepared to stand up for the hard-working majority in this country? These proposals will support the silent majority struggling and striving across both the public and private sectors. I commend the Bill to the House.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
Obviously, I rise to oppose the Bill. Let me be honest: it was not just the sight of the salivating rants of Tory MPs and their Lib Dem friends that got me to my feet; it was probably this sense of déjà vu, this groundhog day. I was looking round for Lord Tebbit—I have been in the House a long time—because this proposal is cast very much in the mould of what we have seen before. [Interruption.] Those same old Tories indeed.
The beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was interesting, because he invoked some of the great industrial disputes of the past, when people fought for their basic legitimate rights and the kind of things that people are now fighting for in Egypt, Syria and wherever else. However, the instinct of the parties of Government is to crush exactly that right of people to proper demonstration against injustices imposed on them whether by employers or someone else. That is what is so sad. Once again, we have a rewind of history.
I know that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton does not have the opportunity to reply to this debate, but there are some serious points that I hope he will consider. He did not mention where else our national legislation sets out such a terrifically high threshold. Not even the advocates of AV propose such a high threshold. The bizarre thing in all this is that any election with a turnout of 70% where 70% of those voting supported a proposition would fail the test for legitimacy under the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. A turnout of 70% with 70% in favour would be seen as an overwhelming victory for the proponents of a particular course of action, whether a politician standing for elected office or anyone else.
I will make an offer to Government Members. If they accepted the same concept—a 50% threshold among all those available to vote—as a means of determining the 2010 general election, when the coalition parties got under 40% of the vote between them, and if on that basis we reverted to the status quo of a Labour Government, then many people in this country would accept the legitimacy of that threshold. What they would not do, however, is accept that the Bill has anything to do with modern industrial relations.
It is interesting that in proposing the Bill, the hon. Gentleman failed to mention the fact that in many cases bad employers are involved. Bad employers have consequences for the work force. They lead to increases in, for example, absenteeism, sickness and, of course, the capacity of the work force to think about taking industrial action. The other thing that the hon. Gentleman did not mention is the fact that in many disputes the turnout would pass his threshold—a threshold that I do not think he managed to pass in his general election results. He did not get 50% of eligible voters voting for him in the general election. [Interruption.] I am told that he did. Will all Government Members who got the support of 50% of those eligible to vote put their hands up? [Interruption.] We see three—a very poor test of democracy among representatives of the governing coalition.
The important point is that this Bill has nothing to do with modern industrial relations or ensuring that we bring parties in dispute to the negotiating table. At no point did the hon. Gentleman mention the fact that we need an industrial framework that involves ACAS at an early stage, and includes a capacity for arbitration, and give and take on both sides. Instead, for Government Members, this issue is about domination—one side being the victor under all circumstances—but that is not the modern world that Britain wants. That mentality is why, when the Conservatives and their friends were in government in the ’80s, more than 1 million days were lost every year in industrial action. That dropped by a third when a Labour Government took office, because the industrial relations climate was very different.
Members in all parts of the House—even on those on the Government Benches—should pause and ask whether this Bill is really the direction of travel that modern Britain wants to take. I have been in this House for quite a long time, and I remember the days when rather bizarre ideas were thrown up by Back Benchers in ten-minute rule Bills, early-day motions and so on. We dismissed them and laughed at them as the fancies of the rabid right-wing of the Conservative party—and now its Lib Dem friends—but the problem was that quickly afterwards those ideas were translated by those on the Front Bench into Government policies. That is why it is so important that the House and the country should recognise the irrelevance of this Bill when it comes to having any practical impact on modern Britain or addressing its need for improved industrial relations.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to get out a little more and to talk to people who work and who are not bullied by trade union bosses but who cast their vote in secret. That is the nature of the balloting process for trade unions; it is a secret ballot in which individual members cast their own votes. Those members are sovereign. Most aspects of the balloting process for industrial action are widely accepted by trade unions and by employers as the legitimate way of doing this. Very few of them are arguing that we should increase the height of the hurdles to make it difficult for legitimate industrial action to take place.
The reality is that when we restrict the capacity for people to register this kind of protest, we do not improve industrial relations. There might be short-term gains, but in the end, such action merely entrenches the disaffection of those employees who feel that they have been badly treated and increases the arrogance of the bad employers. That is exactly what we had in the 1980s: an arrogant management culture; attempts by the Government to support arrogant managers; the de-industrialisation of Britain; an increase in the number of days lost through industrial action; and the very shameful record of previous Conservative Governments on industrial relations.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should come over and talk to some of the people on the Opposition Benches who know employers and employees, and who know what good industrial relations look like. Perhaps we could give him a quick crash course on how to move forward with a measure that makes sense in modern Britain. If his Bill is not defeated today, perhaps he could gracefully withdraw it and say, “Yes, I admit that I got this wrong. I was influenced by those around me who simply wanted to turn the clock back to the 1980s. On that basis, I withdraw my Bill and we will start again with a better concept and a way of looking at industrial relations as something that involves the employer and the employee in partnership, rather than in permanent conflict.” I urge hon. Members to oppose the Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23)
Finance (No. 3) Bill
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 313 - Mark Hunter
22:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before calling the Minister to move Second Reading, I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The clauses that we are here to debate are another important step on the long road to economic recovery. They will promote growth and provide support for households and small businesses under pressure. They will encourage investment as well as enterprise, and they will help us to clean up the mess that the previous Government left behind.
As we start this debate, it is worth recalling the state of the economy that this Government inherited nearly a year ago. Britain had endured the longest and deepest recession in living memory. We were borrowing one pound for every four we were spending. We had the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, one of the largest in Europe and the largest in the G20, yet no detailed plan was in place to deal with it—and that was not the end of the story. In the preceding decade Britain had slipped down the international league of competitiveness from fourth to 12th. We had seen our share of world exports decline, and we were considered to be a worse place to start a business than many of our European neighbours.
That was the coalition Government’s inheritance, which is why we have set about restoring confidence and stability to our economy, with a clear strategy for growth. At its heart is a credible plan to tackle the enormous deficit—a plan we are already implementing—so that the current structural deficit will fall in each and every year of this Parliament, and is forecast to be eliminated by 2015. National debt is forecast to fall as a proportion of gross domestic product in the same year, so that we can finally start to reduce the huge interest payments with which this country has been saddled—the lasting legacy of Labour’s failure.
The action we have taken on the deficit has shown that Britain’s economic future is now in safe hands, that this is a Government who know how to manage the country’s finances and that we have a credible plan to deliver the strong, sustainable and rebalanced growth that this country needs.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
If things are so rosy, why has the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for growth gone down from 2.6% to 1.7%? Why has it projected that unemployment will increase by 200,000 as a result of this and previous Budgets? Why is it that we are doing so badly under this Government?
Danny Alexander
I do not think I said that the position was rosy. I was going out of my way to describe the calamitous state of the public finances that the Labour party left.
I would like to touch on growth first. In the Budget we set out four economic ambitions: that Britain should have the most competitive tax system in the G20; that Britain should be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business; that we should be a more balanced economy by encouraging exports and investment; and that we should have a more educated work force who should be the most flexible in Europe. The clauses in the Bill set us on the road to meet those objectives.
For the past decade Britain has been losing ground in the world economy. While other nations have reduced their business tax rates, ours have lost competitiveness. While other countries have removed barriers to enterprise, ours have grown higher still. We cannot afford this to continue. Instead, our plan for growth is based on private sector enterprise, not public sector borrowing—growing businesses, not growing debts—and on securing sustainable long-term investment.
Essential to that is creating a competitive tax system—one that enables our businesses to compete on a global stage. That is why clause 4 will see our corporation tax rate fall by 2% this year. As the House already knows, we will implement further cuts of 1% in each of the next three years, so that by 2015 we will have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, allowing businesses to invest more of the money that they earn, hire more workers, export more goods and support the recovery.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman says that in order to encourage business growth he will drop corporation tax. Why has he taken a completely opposite approach to those who are developing the North sea oil and gas reserves?
Danny Alexander
For the simple reason that the very high price of oil on the world markets is having a direct effect on consumers and, I am sure, on motorists in the constituency of every Member. It is right, I think, to ask the one industry that is benefiting substantially from the high price of oil to make an additional contribution to help us to reduce fuel duty.
Danny Alexander
I will deal with the supplementary charge in more detail later, and the hon. Lady might want to come back to me at that stage, but I shall make some progress now, if I may.
An efficient tax system is not just about lower rates. To be competitive we must also look at how we tax, how that affects our businesses, and what has been holding them back in the past. The Bill legislates for reform of the taxation of foreign branches, as well as making interim changes to the outdated controlled foreign companies rules—a process started and consulted on under the previous Government. This will stem the tide of businesses leaving our shores for more favourable climes, and will ensure that the UK is an attractive place to locate and headquarter. This shows that Britain is once again open for business.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Has the Chief Secretary had a chance to look at the six tax principles set out in the Treasury Committee’s recent report? Will he tell us whether he agrees with those principles, and if so, how the changes in the North sea tax regime accord with one of them—namely, that there should be certainty over time to enable businesses to plan?
Danny Alexander
I have looked at those principles. The Government will, of course, respond to the Committee’s report—along with other reports—in the usual way, but the principles seem very sensible.
In fact, this is among the Finance Bills on which there has been the most consultation in advance. I believe that 260 of its 390-odd pages were published in draft some months before its publication. [Interruption.] I am replying to the question asked by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We have taken on board some of the principles to which he referred, but the Government must be able to respond to economic circumstances with their tax policy. As I have said, one of the predominant economic circumstances that we face is the high price of fuel. The Government considered that in order to relieve motorists of some of the burden on them—which we felt was incredibly important—we should ask the oil industry to pay a little more tax in the form of a supplementary charge.
Dame Anne Begg
At what point—it was certainly not during any discussions, because there were none—did the Chief Secretary discover that slightly more than 50% of the business of offshore oil operators is in gas, and that the price of gas is the equivalent of about $55 a barrel?
Danny Alexander
As the hon. Lady knows, the price of gas has also been on an upward path. However, we have discussed the matter with representatives of the industry, including Centrica, which has raised it directly with me and with other Ministers. We said in the Budget that we were willing to consider extensions of the field allowance regime to provide breaks for particular fields in the event of particular problems, and we are doing that at the moment. Existing rules allow breaks for very deep oil wells and heavy oil, for example. The discussion continues. It is right for us to engage with the industry openly, in recognition of the issue raised by the hon. Lady.
Danny Alexander
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make progress once I have heard his intervention.
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Gentleman says that the price of gas is rising. It will be driven up by, possibly, a third because the $75 trigger point established by the Government is equivalent to about 80p a therm. The gas price is currently about 57p a therm. The Government’s actions will drive the price up to an extraordinary extent. Did they not understand that before they set their Budget?
Danny Alexander
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. As he will know, we are currently consulting and engaging with the industry on precisely that question of the trigger price.
I am sure Members in all parts of the House agree that on the road to sustainable growth, access to finance is also a critical issue. For that reason, clause 42 increases the relief available for the enterprise investment scheme to 30%, encouraging further investment in small and growing businesses; clause 9 doubles the lifetime limit on entrepreneurs’ relief from £5 million to £10 million; and clause 43 raises the rate of research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises to 200%. As we announced in the Budget, from next year it will rise again to 225%, providing real support for small firms investing in research and development.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the driving force behind the recovery. They employ 60% of Britain’s work force, and contribute to about 50% of all output. Their success will help to define the future of our economy. The last Government planned to increase the small profits rate of corporation tax, but we have chosen to do the opposite. Clause 6 will reduce the rate paid by small businesses to just 20%. The Budget also revealed that we would continue to provide business rate relief for small firms for another year, which will support growing businesses up and down the country.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Many firms will, of course, be grateful for the reduction in corporation tax, but will not the slashing of investment allowances go a long way towards offsetting any benefit that might have been gained by small companies in particular? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the real beneficiaries of both measures will be the less capital-intensive service sector,
“historically typified by the financial sector”,
rather than the small companies that export and depend on investment which the Chief Secretary is seeking to help.
Danny Alexander
I believe that the reduction in corporation tax will benefit businesses in all sectors. As for the question of capital allowances, the changes in relation to short-life assets have been welcomed throughout the business community, and particularly by the Engineering Employers Federation.
In 2007 the last Government reduced the writing down allowances from 25% to 20%, and we are reducing them from 20% to 18%. That is a balanced move which will ensure that firms in all sectors, including manufacturing, benefit from the new corporation tax environment that we are introducing.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary has mentioned small business. It is clearly agreed throughout the House that the SME sector will make a vital contribution to future growth in the economy. Does it worry him that, once again, it has been demonstrated that lending to small business fell in the first quarter of this year, despite the attempts to boost it in Project Merlin? What is he going to do about that?
Danny Alexander
Of course I am worried if lending to small businesses is falling. The Merlin agreement, which we announced at the end of February, was an agreement with the major United Kingdom banks to secure an additional £10 billion of lending to small businesses this year. We will monitor the position, the figures will be made available, and we will watch the banks like a hawk to ensure that they deliver on the agreement. That is critically important: this Government have acted as the last Government did not manage to.
Danny Alexander
I am going to press on now. I want to deal with the issue of fairness.
Although growth is key to improving everyone’s prospects in the medium term, we know that many families face real financial pressure now. The Bill therefore includes measures to help hard-working people with low and middle incomes, and to support families who are struggling to make ends meet. The Government are committed to real increases in the personal allowance every year, until no one earning less than £10,000 is caught in the income tax net. Clause 3 takes the first step towards meeting this objective by increasing the personal allowance by £1,000 for this tax year. That is the largest single rise in history. It means that 23 million taxpayers in Britain will be £200 better off this year in cash terms, and that more than 800,000 people will be taken out of income tax altogether.
The Budget also revealed the next step in the process. An increase of £630 next year will keep us on track to deliver the £10,000 allowance by 2015, as promised. That is progressive action by a coalition Government who recognise that those with the broadest shoulders should continue to bear the largest burden, and that those on the highest incomes should pay their fair share.
The Bill includes 11 new measures to close tax loopholes that have remained open for too long. For example, clause 26 will help to end the unfair practice of disguised remuneration. No longer will highly paid employees be offered virtually tax-free lifetime loans which, in truth, will never be repaid. Such arrangements are completely unacceptable. We will ensure that they cannot continue, and that all income is properly taxed. We have consulted to ensure that the impact of the legislation on commercial arrangements is limited, and we intend to make further changes when the Bill is considered in the Public Bill Committee.
Those measures will give us more resources to help families who pay their taxes, but who are struggling with the daily cost of living. The same motivation lies behind clause 7, which increases the supplementary charge on the large profits being made from oil and gas extraction in the North sea.
I understand that the increases in the supplementary charge are controversial, at least in the oil and gas sector. Given that the sector is benefiting hugely from the rapid rise in the world oil price, which currently stands at $124 a barrel, it was right to ask it to share some of its profits with motorists, but we are listening carefully to its concerns about specific investments. As we said in the Budget, we are discussing with several firms the possibility of using the field allowance regime to continue to support investment. The industry is understandably concerned about the stability of the tax regime, given the long-term nature of investments in the North sea. That is why we committed ourselves in the Budget to working with the sector to provide certainty about the long-term future of decommissioning relief, and why we announced a fair fuel stabiliser to reduce the supplementary charge if oil prices fall below an agreed trigger level.
However, we should not lose sight of the fact that this money is financing a much-needed package of support for motorists. First, it is funding the 1p reduction in fuel duty to which clause 19 refers. Secondly, it has helped to cancel Labour’s inflation uprating until January next year. As a result of these two changes, fuel is 6p a litre cheaper now that it would have been under the plans we inherited.
I should also remind the House that this Government inherited plans for above-inflation increases in fuel duty for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The increase in the supplementary charge has allowed us to abolish this fuel duty escalator, so that duty will not rise above inflation for the rest of this Parliament. As with fairness, so in understanding the issues facing hard-pressed motorists it is this coalition Government who are looking to share the burden of higher oil prices.
Let me now turn to the issue of taxing Britain’s banks. The previous Government announced and implemented a temporary tax on bonuses for one year only. Indeed, it was the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who advised against repeating that. Clause 72 introduces a permanent levy on bank balance sheets, which will raise £2.5 billion in each and every year of this Parliament. That amounts to £10 billion of additional tax from the banks over the next four years, and, thanks to the decision announced by the Chancellor in February, an extra £800 million for this year too. There will be extra money to help us support jobs and growth this year, such as by providing the finance for an additional £100 million of investment in new science facilities at Cambridge, Norwich, Harwell and Daresbury, and £250 million of investment in the FirstBuy scheme for new-build homes, giving a helping hand to 10,000 people as they climb the first rung of the property ladder.
The Bill will also deliver fairness over the longer term. The changes to the requirements on annuitisation set out in clause 65 have long been called for, and will give people more control over their finances. They will allow those approaching retirement to make their own choices about how they use their pension savings, and they will offer greater flexibility in planning for old age. The introduction of automatic enrolment that is supported by the taxation changes in clauses 68 to 71 will help ensure that a low-cost pension scheme is available for the 5 million employees expected to save in the National Employment Savings Trust. The simpler, fairer rules on pensions tax relief in clauses 66 and 67 will limit the amount of tax relief received by those who make the highest pension contribution. From this year, the annual allowance will be set at £50,000 and the lifetime allowance will be reduced to £1.5 million. That will generate about £12.5 billion by the end of this Parliament, and it will ensure that the pension system remains generous for savers, is fair to taxpayers, and is affordable for the Exchequer. At the other end of the age range, clause 40 introduces individual savings accounts for children, offering a simple and tax-free way to save for a child’s future
Turning to the environment, the introduction of a carbon price floor in clause 77 is a revolutionary move. It demonstrates this Government’s commitment to being the greenest Government ever, and it makes us the first country in the world to introduce such a measure for the power industry.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there is concern about the amount of hidden subsidy for the nuclear industry in the Finance Bill, and given the coalition agreement that there is to be no subsidy for nuclear power, does he share my concern on behalf of manufacturers, particularly in my constituency, that if there is any windfall tax it should be directed to promoting energy and waste-resource efficiency in terms of manufacturing? Is there not a complete mismatch here?
Danny Alexander
I understand the concern, and I know that it has been expressed by a number of lobby groups, although I have to say that I think it has been grossly exaggerated. The purpose of the carbon price floor is to ensure a stronger, and strengthening, market over future years for investment in low-carbon energy. It will deliver a genuine incentive for green and renewable energies to be developed and invested in. Meeting the carbon reduction targets, which I think all Members support, will require several tens, or even hundreds, of billions of pounds of new investment in renewable and other energy sources, and I think that introducing a carbon price floor is exactly the right mechanism to achieve that.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that raising the carbon price floor initially to such a level above the EU emissions trading scheme will not actually reduce emissions across Europe because they are fixed on a European basis, will risk investment moving to the other end of the interconnectors, and will move us substantially away from consultation on the issue of £1 above EU ETS, which I think most people would have accepted as a starting point for a longer-term carbon price floor to move towards the 2030s? Does he accept that he has got that price floor wrong, and that he needs to review it so as to make it actually work by genuinely increasing investment and reducing emissions?
Danny Alexander
No, I do not accept that we have got this wrong; I think we have got it right. The level of the carbon price floor was set out in the consultation. A range of options were given, and we have taken a mid-point of the various responses we received. I think it is right that this country is the first country to introduce a carbon price floor. That is a very important mechanism to help us deliver on the low-carbon power generation to which I thought those on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House were as committed as we are on this side. Of course this will have an impact; it is designed to have an impact. It is designed to have the impact of ensuring that companies and industries seeking to invest in low-carbon power generation have a clear sense of certainty about the price they will receive for that energy over future years. As a result of that, our country can ensure that we deliver on our targets for renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction, which are, I hope, very important to every Member of this House.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not see any contradiction in terms in what he has said about making industry more competitive by giving it tax breaks? Introducing a carbon price floor will take more money from industry than corporation tax reductions give to it. Does he not recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead): that in places like Northern Ireland this will simply push investment in electricity into the Irish Republic because of the single electricity market, rather than keep electricity production in Northern Ireland?
Danny Alexander
I recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I have great respect for the detailed way in which he puts them forward, which I have learned about through the relationship we have had as a result of his role as Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly Government. On this point however, I have to say that I think he is wrong. I hope that the carbon price floor will, alongside other measures, encourage investment in low-carbon power generation, including in Northern Ireland. That is what we are seeking to achieve through this mechanism. I think he also referred to energy-intensive industries, and we have announced that the climate change agreements, which are to the benefit of such industries, are to be rolled forward for another phase and that the relief given through those agreements is to be significantly increased. I hope that will ensure that such energy-intensive industries will be able to make the transition to lower, or different, energy use in a way that does not have the economic effects he describes.
Joan Walley
Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the importance of investment, does he agree that the Budget should actually be giving the advantage to energy efficiency? Because of the delays in developing the green investment bank, are there not now real concerns about where we are going to get the resource efficiency from?
Danny Alexander
I agree that energy efficiency is important, of course. That is precisely why the Department of Energy and Climate Change has been working so hard to bring forward the green deal scheme, which will start next year. It is designed precisely to give additional encouragement and incentive, and to provide a mechanism for people to engage in the sort of action on domestic energy efficiency in which they have not previously engaged over the years, which I hope the hon. Lady agrees is very important. Also, there are not delays in respect of the green investment bank. Quite the contrary; we announced in the Budget both a trebling of the amount of public money going into the bank, partly through asset sales, and that it will start its operations in September next year, thereby providing yet another strand to the additional investment we all want to see in green energy.
The measure I have been discussing will make us the first country in the world to introduce a carbon price floor for the power industry. It will help to provide an incentive for the billions of pounds of investment in cleaner sources of energy that this country needs, so ensuring we are on course to meet our carbon reduction targets. We have also preserved the link between the climate change levy and prices, through clause 23, to act as a further incentive to low-carbon investment.
The Bill will also help to address other important social issues. The new duty on high-strength beers in clause 15 will help to tackle problem drinking, increasing the cost of a typical can of high-strength lager by 25p. That is coupled with a reduction in the duty on lower-strength beers to help encourage the consumption of alcohol in a more responsible way.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I agree with the intention of the measure, which is to encourage people to drink lower-strength beers. However, does the Chief Secretary agree that what would help both the industry and the health of the nation would be if the Government were to go to Europe to argue for that level to be raised from 2.8% to 3.2% or 3.4%, so that brewers could brew something tasty and drinkable that would nudge people to reduce their alcohol consumption?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He will perhaps know that the Economic Secretary, having taken this measure forward, is making that case for greater flexibility at a European level. As this country has taken a lead on having greater flexibility in beer duties, we are in a stronger position to argue this case. Similarly, as this country has taken the lead on deficit reduction, we are in a stronger position to argue the case that we must argue at a European level, which is that further increases in the EU budget are unacceptable. So in a number of ways the actions this Government have taken put us in a position to make strong cases at European level.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Are the Government not just tinkering with the alcohol measures, rather than facing up to the reality of the drink problem that Britain faces? Would it not be much better to have a significant unit price for alcohol, which would not affect pubs, beer drinkers in pubs or the average bottle of wine, but would raise the floor price for those who drink to excess, particularly the young?
Danny Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman were being fair, as I hope he would be, he would recognise that this Government have taken a number of measures to tackle problem drinking and that our approach on beer taxation, which is the subject of part of the Bill, will send further right signals. I hope that many hon. Members would agree that the consumption of high-strength beer is a particular problem in relation to antisocial drinking, and that allowing this sort of differentiation within the tax system should help to send the right signals. The Bill also includes a further step to help people to stop smoking, as clause 16 raises the duty on tobacco.
In conclusion, the Bill sets out changes that will enable our businesses to grow and succeed, supports the necessary plan to deal with the deficit, helps to tackle the rising cost of living, supports growth and supports fairness. I commend it to the House.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give the Finance (No. 3) Bill a Second Reading because whilst the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office acknowledged that the country faces an ‘immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we need’ this Bill does not address it; because the economic approach set out by the Government in this Bill puts jobs and growth at risk; because the Bill cuts capital allowances to businesses who invest in growth; because the Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that after all the measures in the Bill are taken into account the number of unemployed will be higher by up to 200,000 than forecast in November 2010; because the Bill fails to reverse the higher petrol prices faced by families as a result of the Government’s VAT increase in January 2011; because it does not address the damage done to family living standards caused by the wider tax and benefit changes this month; and because without a repeat of the bank bonus tax, the bank levy alone will mean lower taxes for the banks at a time when families and children are bearing the brunt of the Government’s cuts to household incomes.”
At the beginning of the Second Reading debate on a Finance Bill, it is appropriate to take stock of the situation that we face in the UK and of the Government’s handling of our economy almost a year into their time in office. This was the self-styled “Budget for Growth” that downgraded the growth figures. When one in five young people were out of work, it was a Budget that forecast higher levels of unemployment. This was a Budget from the deficit cutters which forecast £46 billion of higher Government borrowing.
After listening for months to his analysis of the economic challenges facing this country, I must confess that I am very worried about the credibility of the Chancellor. His explanation of the origins of the banking crisis and the recession that it caused is partisan fiction—it has very little connection to economic reality. It seems that I am not alone in worrying about his grasp of the facts, because over the weekend he has been attacked by the enemy within. He has been accused of “fiddling the figures” and telling “untruths”, threatened with a lawsuit and told to withdraw “completely unfounded” claims or risk losing “his credibility as Chancellor”—that is just what the Energy Secretary is saying about him.
The Chancellor is clearly also a founder member of the enemy faction identified by the Deputy Prime Minister in his interview with The Independent over the weekend as
“a right-wing elite, a right-wing clique who want to keep things the way they are”.
Perhaps the Chancellor could tell us, if he bothered to turn up—[Interruption.] Perhaps the “Orange Book” Liberals are part of that right-wing clique. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us whether this right-wing clique all have a uniform as fetching as the Bullingdon club tux?
What about the Chancellor’s deputy, the Chief Secretary? In response to the Chancellor’s wild accusations last week about the funding of the “Yes to AV” campaign, the Chief Secretary said:
“I think it is a real shame that this sort of pretty desperate scaremongering is going on.”
Well let me tell the Chief Secretary that I know just how he feels, because the Chancellor has been indulging in pretty desperate scaremongering about the threat of a UK sovereign debt crisis since his theatrically named “Emergency Budget” last June, and he has been aided and abetted by none other than the Chief Secretary. As the Energy Secretary said in his letter to the Chancellor over the weekend:
“Robust debate is normal in British politics. Persistent resort to falsehoods is not.”
So the Energy Secretary is off to consult his lawyers, and the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the chair of the Conservative Party all appear to be in his sights.
In the meantime, will the Chief Secretary now admit, in the interests of not persistently resorting to falsehoods, that the banking crisis and global recession were not caused by the previous Prime Minister? The truth is that he helped to avoid a global depression and that the current Chancellor got every important call in those days of world crisis wrong. Will the Chief Secretary also have the decency to admit that the deficit was not caused by too much spending on schools and hospitals or by the profligacy of nurses and teachers? The truth is that the crisis was caused by unforgivable excess in the banking sector. Will he also take this opportunity to disown and stop repeating the Chancellor’s irresponsible and pretty desperate scaremongering about Britain being on the brink of a sovereign debt crisis like Greece or Portugal, when it is obvious that it is not?
Like the Energy Secretary, I believe that robust debate is normal in British politics, but persistent resort to falsehoods is not. Will the Chief Secretary therefore now disown the “pretty desperate scaremongering”—I use his own words—about the supposed threat of a UK sovereign debt crisis? The truth is that it was the banking crisis that had a disastrous impact on the public finances. Between 2008 and 2009, nominal GDP fell by 1.8%—that cost £20.6 billion—and tax receipts dropped by 3.7%, costing £19.9 billion. Will he acknowledge that this sudden collapse in economic activity is responsible for the bulk of the deficit? This is not a deficit caused by too much public spending before the crisis, but a deficit caused by the crisis. The truth is that the deficit is the price that we are paying for the failure of the banking system and the recession that was caused by that failure. It is also the price that we paid to prevent a global recession from turning into a worldwide depression, and it was essential to our future well-being as a nation that a depression was averted. We could all have a more mature and relevant debate in this House about the formidable economic challenges facing us, if we began with an acknowledgement of the truth of these facts.
Last June, in their first Budget, this Government embarked on a risky and dangerous experiment with the future of our economy. Last year, they abandoned Labour’s plans to halve the deficit in four years and decided to plough full steam ahead with a deficit reduction plan that went further and faster than that of any other major economy in the G20. So preoccupied were they with their desire to make the biggest public spending cuts since the second world war that they also failed to ensure that growth formed a key part of deficit reduction. They opted for a high-risk approach, and this Finance Bill continues that dubious experiment.
It appears that the Government are in thrall to the economic dogma of a long-dead 19th-century economist, David Ricardo, and their ideological preference for a small state. They imagine that the smaller the government, the less taxation and spending there will be. They think that the private sector will somehow automatically fill the gap left by cuts and that the economy will just grow. That is why they have embarked on a drastic programme of deep and immediate cuts that, if their theory is correct, should already be turning the economy around by now and why they are so uncomfortable with publishing their wholly inadequate self-styled, “Plan for Growth”, which was meant to be the public relations centrepiece of the Budget. Their laissez-faire economic approach assumes that growth will happen automatically without the need for any Government support, much less a plan. That is why the plan was so delayed and of such dubious merit when it finally arrived. Keynesians, however, believe that the economy works very differently and that the Ricardian equivalence dogma is wrong. We ignore the insights of Keynes at our peril, which is why the Government’s economic policy, as set out in the Bill, is taking us in the wrong direction.
The great banking crisis of 2007, which began in the American sub-prime mortgage market, administered a huge and near-fatal shock to the world’s financial system.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree entirely with everything my hon. Friend has said. The Government have completely failed to understand the importance of demand in the economy if we are to get growth, and demand looks as though it is weakening. Even the Treasury now estimates that by the end of this Parliament, borrowing will overshoot by £11 billion. The Government are driving the economy in precisely the wrong direction.
Ms Eagle
That is essentially the insight that Keynes developed from his experience as a practising economist. We ignore his insights at our peril—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches can laugh, but if we get this wrong and the economy does not grow or develop, the price will be paid through a smaller economy, fewer opportunities and lower standards of living for men and women up and down the country. That is not something that the Government or the Government parties should be making a joke of.
The great banking crisis transmitted itself to the real economy in the form of a synchronised global recession. Nothing so serious has been experienced in the advanced economies since the Wall street crash. That great crash destroyed the economic and social fabric of many societies in the interwar years, causing untold hardship and misery. Governments in the 1930s were in thrall to the same Ricardian dogmas as now hold sway in both the Government parties. They did not see a role for the state in protecting the economic and social well-being of their citizens. Their lack of vision and hands-off approach to economic policy led to the great depression and ultimately, the collapse into dictatorships and a cataclysmic world war.
Fortunately, in 2007 the previous Labour Government and economic policy makers the world over did not make the same mistake. They had absorbed the lessons of the interwar years, and they took actions to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression, but before the recovery had become securely established, the deficit hawks reasserted themselves, demanding austerity despite warnings from leading experts around the world that that would be the wrong approach.
Ms Eagle
That is true—the Liberal Democrats gave us such warnings before the election.
Undeterred by the lessons of history and without an electoral mandate for such drastic cuts, the new Administration in the UK have proved to be the most extreme of the deficit hawks. They decided that dealing at breakneck speed with the deficit created by the banking crisis was more important than any other consideration, including protecting people against long-term unemployment or against cuts in vital public services. So, before the patient was long out of the emergency room, the Government decided to start administering a deficit reduction shock therapy that could end up being worse than the original illness. There is nothing in economic theory that dictates that Governments should plan to eliminate deficits in four years rather than eight.
The sheer scale and speed at which the Government have proceeded came as a surprise, not least to the 6.5 million people who voted Liberal Democrat at the last election. The Business Secretary warned about the dangers of cutting too far and too fast before the election, only to go along with the most savage cuts that we have had in the UK in peacetime straight after it. Meanwhile, in his speech to the Liberal Democrat Scottish conference last year, the Chief Secretary promised to
“create…jobs and boost the recovery”.
Instead, he has followed the example of the leader of his party when it comes to election promises—he has done the exact opposite of what he said he would do.
Just today, Mr Gary Millar, a councillor in Liverpool, has quit the Liberal Democrats in disgust over their broken promises. He said that he was once
“happy to call myself a Lib Dem, today they make me question my integrity and reputation.”
Like so many others, he feels personally betrayed by the Liberal Democrats, which is why they will face the wrath of an angry electorate next week.
At the time of the election last year, the economy had begun to improve from the depths of the banking-induced recession. Growth was up, inflation and unemployment were falling and borrowing had come in £20 billion better than forecast in the 2009 pre-Budget report. Formidable problems lay ahead, of course, but we were moving in the right direction and growth was seen as part of the solution.
Since the fiscal hawks rolled up at the Treasury, our economy, which was improving, has ground to a halt. Unemployment is higher, inflation is double the Bank of England target and the Chancellor has presided over a collapse in consumer confidence to lower levels than it reached in the depths of the 2009 recession, because he made the political choice to inflict on ordinary families the largest and longest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s. As the cost of living rises and wages fall, he has chosen to impose the increase in VAT, huge cuts in local services and a reduction in the support for child care that threatens to drive many women out of their jobs. His VAT increase alone will cost the average family with children £450 this year, far more than they will gain through increases to tax thresholds. Little wonder, then, that the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded the growth forecast again and again.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor boasted:
“Our country’s fiscal plans have been strongly endorsed by the International Monetary Fund, by the European Commission, by the OECD, and by every reputable business body in Britain.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 951.]
The IMF has lowered its growth forecasts for the UK, however, and its head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, has warned against cutting budgets too far, creating long-term unemployment and abandoning entire generations to a workless future with no hope. The recent interim OECD assessment of G7 economies predicted that the UK was expected to grow more slowly than any other G7 country except Japan, which has just been hit by powerful earthquakes, devastating floods and the ongoing battle against a nuclear disaster.
Kelvin Hopkins
Again, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who is making an absolutely excellent speech. There is another factor, however, driving deflation, and that is the fear of unemployment. When people are frightened of losing their jobs, they stop spending their money and try to pay off their mortgages. That is what is happening now and that is why demand will be savagely cut by this Government’s policies.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about confidence and sentiment in the economy transmitting their way into the real figures through their effect on demand.
Even those who gave their personal stamp of approval to the Chancellor’s aggressive cuts agenda last year in a letter to The Daily Telegraph are now voicing their doubts about weak growth. Ex-Tory MP Archie Norman is worried that the Government’s growth predictions are too optimistic and former Asda boss Luke Bond is predicting a two-year retail recession, which picks up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has just made.
The Government are going too far too fast, and we are paying the price in lost jobs and slower growth. Their phobia about the deficit means they are cutting public expenditure much further and faster than any other major economy. They have made deficit reduction the only thing that matters, regardless of how terrible its social or economic effects will be; they appear to be blind to the lessons of history; they refuse to listen to public concern; and they fail to recognise the absolute necessity of re-establishing growth to get the deficit down. Without growth, austerity measures simply make the deficit worse and impoverish the society they are inflicted on. The Chancellor should, as he so notoriously lectured us in February 2006, “Look and learn from across the Irish sea”. Ireland is on its fourth austerity budget with no end in sight. The evidence shows that all the countries that implemented drastic austerity measures saw their economies go into reverse in the fourth quarter of 2010. Those economies shrank in Greece by 1.4%, in Iceland by 1.5%, in Ireland by 1.6%, in Portugal by 1.5% and in the UK by 0.5%. In contrast, both the German and the American economies grew.
The Chancellor is not solving the problem; he is in danger of making it worse. The day after the Budget, the ratings agency Moody’s embarrassed the Government by suggesting that the UK’s triple A rating might be at risk not because of the deficit but because of slower growth. I would take any pronouncement from the rating agencies with a very large pinch of salt, as they are hugely compromised by the part they played in making the banking crisis worse and they need to be reformed, but, unlike the Chancellor, we have neither made their flawed and partial judgments the central justification for our economic policies nor installed them as the most important judges of our success by giving a dangerous credence to the fiction that the UK’s ability to finance its debts is at risk for reasons of petty party politicking. Their influence makes the inconvenient point for the Government’s political cuts narrative that growth is equally important to successful deficit reduction. Without growth, the deficit will not be sustainably reduced.
Ms Eagle
With a 25% devaluation in the value of our currency, we certainly ought to be seeing strong increases in economic performance, but my hon. Friend makes an important point about demand in other areas of the economy, especially in the European Union, which is our largest export partner—60% of our exports go there.
The Chief Secretary will already have seen the growth figures for the first quarter of 2011, and I am looking at his face for any scrutable or inscrutable reaction. The figures are due to be released tomorrow, so he has an advantage over the rest of us. I do not know whether he is going to give us any facial hints as to what is in them, but if the OBR’s three-times downgraded forecast of 0.8% is right, the economy will have grown a tiny 0.3% over the past six months against the 1.8% it achieved in the previous six months under the influence of the previous Government’s policies for recovery. As the Financial Times says today,
“it will be difficult to claim that the recovery is self-sustaining unless Wednesday’s number is at least 1.2 per cent and possibly as high as 1.7 per cent.”
The Government’s growth strategy is a hotch-potch of reheated Thatcherite fiddling on the supply side. At its centre is the dubious belief that the most important driver of economic growth is creating a low corporate tax jurisdiction for multinationals, but the economic literature shows that growth tends to be higher in countries that have a higher investment in social and intellectual assets, as well as good capital infrastructures. The Government have a simplistic view that cutting corporate taxes will automatically lead to more investment, but we believe that an investment strategy is needed and that it sends the wrong signal to cut investment allowances. The £200 million one-off extra investment in science and apprenticeships, although welcome, is dwarfed by the £5 billion-a-year cost of reducing corporate taxes, which will help growth only if that money is reinvested in business activities in the UK. The Government’s decision to abolish the regional development agencies and cut regional growth funding by two thirds has set back many viable plans for development that could even now have been building an economic recovery in every region of the UK.
Despite the biggest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s, the OBR is forecasting that one quarter of economic growth this year and a third next year will come from UK households and will be financed by a sharp increase in household debt. Close study has revealed something that the Chancellor chose not to mention in his Budget speech: the OBR expects families to go deeper into debt each year between now and 2015 and expects household debt to rise to a record high of 175% of disposable income, or £77,000 per family, by the end of this Parliament. The Chancellor claims that the only thing that matters is getting Government borrowing down, but he does not say that his plan is to pass that debt directly on to already hard-pressed families. Although they did not cause this crisis, ordinary hard-working people and families are being made to pay for it. People are suffering under the pressure of the Chancellor’s hike in VAT, sky-high petrol prices and inflation, and we know that his real economic strategy is to force people to take on even more debt just to make ends meet.
What then of the sector that caused the crisis? Instead of making the banks pay more this year, the Government are giving them a tax cut. Project Merlin, the Government’s so-called final settlement with the banking sector, is a damp squib. As the majority shareholder, the Government have just approved, for the chief executive of the nationalised Royal Bank of Scotland, £7.7 million in pay and bonuses for last year despite the bank’s having lost £1 billion. It has also emerged that bank lending to small businesses fell again in the first quarter of the year. Lending to small businesses is vital to recovery and despite all the promises from the banks it is going down, not up. The Government should not be giving the banks a tax cut, but should follow Labour’s suggestion and repeat the bank bonus tax this year. That extra money could be used to build 25,000 extra affordable homes, to create more than 100,000 jobs to help tackle youth unemployment and to boost enterprise in the regions.
The Government are hellbent on taking us back in time to the divided Britain of the 1980s. The Tory leaders in the coalition are trying to re-enact the failed Thatcherite policies of the past, which resulted in one part of our society being divided against another. Not only are they making life tougher for people, but they are kicking away the ladders to a better future. They are teaching people to blame the weak and despise the poor. It is happening all over again, just like in the 1980s, but this time the Liberal Democrats are helping them to do it. At the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister accused the Prime Minister of “defending the indefensible”, but I think that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government colleagues are doing a pretty good job of that themselves. In public they complain, but in private they roll over and agree to every damaging Tory plan.
The Government fail to recognise the pain that their economic strategy is inflicting on people up and down the country. They want Britain to have a smaller state; they want to create a nastier, meaner, shabbier society that leaves people to fend for themselves; and they are trying to fool the country into believing the myth that the economic storm was all Labour’s fault and that this extreme and dangerous fiscal consolidation programme is the only option to deal with it. The Government need not have cut this far or this fast, because there is a better, fairer and safer way. They need to wake up and accept that their economic polices are not working and are just hurting, and they need to change course before it is too late.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I welcome the Finance Bill, which will reform the economy, deliver real growth for business and create jobs. One of the very special parts of the Bill is what it does for the very smallest businesses, as they are going to be the key to re-growth in our economy. I am sure that the House is well aware that two thirds of our businesses are so small that they have fewer than five employees and a turnover of less than £250,000. They may represent only 15% of our economy but they are vital because, first, all our successful businesses have to start somewhere, and it must be there, and, secondly, without those very small businesses—whether it is the plumber or the electrician—some of our rural communities and some deprived urban communities would find it difficult to keep economically active. For these very small businesses, I am pleased to see a mandate for growth.
I shall elaborate on some of the provisions mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and look at what they deliver and how they might be developed in future. Businesses rates are, for me, one of the most important issues and the subject of many complaints from small businesses in my constituency. I am delighted that the small business rate relief has been extended for a further year, and pleased that half a million businesses will benefit. In the south-west, which is my part of the country, 68% of businesses will see some economic benefit from that relief.
Will my right hon. Friends and the Treasury team look carefully at business rates in future? An awful lot more needs to be done. Issues such as turnover are relevant criteria. It is not uncommon for me to walk into a pub and to be told by the publican that the way in which the business rates have been calculated is biased against small pubs. It is not uncommon for me to walk into a small retail business and to be told, “This used to be the high street but it’s not any longer, and I feel that my business rates are disproportionate and inappropriate.” A shake-up of business rates is needed.
I welcome the reduction of fuel duty by 1p and the removal of the escalator. Without that, the projection from the Federation of Small Businesses that all small businesses would find their bills going up by £2,000 in six months would have become a reality. To me, that reduction is crucial. I am sure that those on the Opposition Benches would be the first to say, “But at the pump, prices don’t seem to have come down.” My response is that they would have been an awful lot higher but for these changes. We need to consider how to ensure that those who are delivering petrol at the retail end are passing on those reductions to the customer. A number of people have expressed concern that the help that we as a Government are giving has not been passed on to the consumer.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
If I follow the hon. Lady’s logic correctly, she welcomes a policy, the results of which, she admits, have not been passed on to the customer, so what benefit have most of her constituents received from the fuel duty cuts?
Anne Marie Morris
They are 6p a litre better off than they might otherwise have been. The challenge that we face is the retailer, but I do not believe that the Opposition would have been able to do anything different. That is another aspect that needs to be looked at going forward. But we digress. Let us move on to some of the other issues facing small businesses, such as income tax and national insurance.
For many small businesses, national insurance is a headache and it is one of the key reasons why they will not take on new employees. We have the largest tax code in the world. One of the things that I am pleased to see predicted for the future, though not in the Bill, is a move to simplify tax and to consider combining income tax and national insurance. That would be a great step forward and a huge saving in administrative time and burden for very small businesses. I was sad to see that the NI holiday was not extended further for existing businesses, a matter that I have raised with the Treasury team on a number of occasions. If in future we could find a way of combining income tax and national insurance, that would be a good step forward.
I am pleased that corporation tax is coming down to 26%, and I am pleased to see a move to deliver the lowest corporation tax in the G7. That is extremely good news. Given that my mandate is to shout loud for the very smallest businesses, it would have been even better for the small companies rate to have come down further. I appreciate that it has already come down to 20%, which is a good move, but anything further that can be done going forward would be welcomed. The special provision to increase the SME rate of research and development tax credit to 200% is extremely welcome. I thank the Treasury team very much for that as it will make a significant difference.
The crucial challenge for many small businesses is finding investment, so I am particularly pleased to see entrepreneur relief changes which will increase the capital gains tax lifetime limit to £10 million. That is a hugely welcome step. I am pleased that the enterprise investment scheme has been also been developed so that the income tax relief has moved from 20% to 30%, and the eligibility criteria have changed so that larger businesses will be included in EIS. However, I would be grateful if the ministerial team would look at how we can extend EIS so that it attracts investment for the very smallest businesses. At present it is much more geared towards a small or medium-sized business and corporations. It is not intended for a sole trader or a partnership. If we could come up with EIS-lite in some form, that would be extraordinarily helpful.
In summary, I am delighted to see the focus on the smallest of businesses. I sincerely hope that that will be a trend to be welcomed for the future. One thought I have for the Treasury team is that, going forward, we might look more closely at a specific definition of a micro-business, a small business and a medium-sized business. If we did that, as happens in other countries, we might find that the Treasury team had a little more flexibility to give particular help to the very smallest businesses, from which growth will ultimately stem.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I shall speak about the oil and gas industry, to which the Chief Secretary gave prominence in his contribution. I am sorry that he has gone. He claimed the credit for the policy, but he may in future regret that rather naive political claim. He has produced a system that is too clever by half and does not pay much attention to the reality of the oil and gas industry.
The oil and gas industry is probably the single most important industrial investor in the UK. Some £6 billion was invested last year alone, with anticipated increased investment this year, led by the high oil price. The industry supports nearly half a million jobs throughout the UK, either directly or in the supply chain. A substantial proportion of those jobs are located in just four constituencies around the city of Aberdeen—my own constituency, Aberdeen North, and Aberdeen South, Gordon, and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, where we have a grand total of just over 132,000 oil and gas-related jobs. That has a huge impact on our local economy.
Oil jobs exist in other parts of the country too. There are, for example, 14,250 such jobs in the City of London, where many of the major companies have their headquarters, nearly 8,000 in Reading East, and over 8,000 in Poplar and Limehouse. Uxbridge has 2,170 oil and gas-related jobs, and Stockton North has 2,270. Even the Prime Minister in rural Witney has about 1,000 such jobs, according to figures produced last year by Oil and Gas UK. So it is not just a regional issue or one that involves only East Anglia or the north-east of Scotland. The last time such a survey was done—this one was carried out about a year ago—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would have been able to claim several thousand jobs in her constituency, but Kellogg Brown and Root, which used to be located in Putney, has moved on. The industry affects the whole country.
Last year, the industry paid £8.8 billion in corporation tax and the estimates show that £13.4 billion is likely to be paid in 2011-12. Of that, £3 billion to £4 billion in revenue is linked directly to the oil price, so the Government are already benefiting from the spike in oil prices. Before the Budget the industry was already the most heavily taxed sector in the UK economy, with 50% to 75% of all UK continental shelf profits going to the Government. Given that we own the oil after all, since it was nationalised under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934, such a split does not look excessive on either side.
However, exploiting our oil and gas resources is a dangerous and expensive operation that requires high levels of commitment and investment. Investment decisions in the UK industry are not all made in the UK. It is a genuinely global industry and UK sector decisions are made in Houston, Dallas, San Diego, Paris and Vancouver as well as in London and the middle east. Competition for investment is fierce. UK management has to fight against bids from other oil provinces, such as Brazil, Australia and India, and from emerging oil provinces such as west and east Africa and from a host of other foreign company headquarters.
The managers who make those decisions consider a number of factors in addition to the most prominent one—the likely return on investment. The key factors are a stable political background and a stable financial background. Above all, for long-term investment the oil industry needs certainty in the tax regime, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary had that message hammered home very seriously by the industry when she visited Aberdeen not so long ago.
Ever since the 1960s, when oil exploration started in the North sea, we have done very well on investment, mainly because we have had a stable political system and a more or less stable tax system, but it is getting much harder. The UK continental shelf is a declining province and the Government’s aim should always be to ensure that that decline is managed and is as shallow as possible. That means keeping the tax regime attractive enough to encourage investment while ensuring that the public purse gets its fair share. The Chancellor’s decision, which the Chief Secretary apparently claimed was his idea, will accelerate that decline rather than slow it down.
Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen from Aberdeen university recently produced an authoritative study on the impact of the tax changes. The report looks at the impact of the Budget on a range of oil and gas price scenarios. It finds that at a $50 a barrel oil price and 30p per therm of gas, over the 30-year period to 2041, there could be a reduction of 23 new field developments and substantial incremental developments undertaken. There would be a cumulative reduction in production of 920 million barrels of oil equivalent and a reduction in field investment of £19.2 billion, at 2010 prices. Total field expenditure would be reduced by £34.9 billion and tax revenues would be reduced by £12.8 billion.
Under a $70 a barrel scenario, with 50p per therm of gas, there would 62 fewer new field developments, loss of production of 1.7 billion barrels and a total field expenditure loss of £33.2 billion, but for the Government the tax revenues would increase by £23.3 billion. The analysis for the $90 a barrel scenario, with 70p per therm of gas, shows that even at the top of oil and gas price scenarios damage is done—79 fewer fields, 22.54 million barrels of oil equivalent lost and total field expenditure of £52.2 billion—but, again, tax revenues would increase by £51.6 billion. The question we must ask in these scenarios, which have come from a very authoritative source, is whether that is a price worth paying, given the reduction in our oil and gas producing capacity and the importance of the industry to the country. The Government increase their tax take, but at a considerable loss elsewhere.
I have known Alex Kemp for many years. He is the country’s leading expert on oil and gas taxation and many hon. Members in the Chamber with an interest in the oil and gas industry will have had many conversations with him. He has advised many companies, emerging oil countries around the world on their tax systems and various Select Committees in this House. He is completely independent. He and his colleague have produced a damning indictment of the impact of these tax changes.
The approach that the report takes is extremely important. The oil price is volatile and can change dramatically. For example, I remember that in 1985, when I was a young and aspiring parliamentary candidate ploughing my furrow in Aberdeen, the oil price dropped from $32 to $8 a barrel virtually overnight. The oil industry is, if nothing else, extremely focused and unsentimental. If a company is not making the returns it anticipated, it will quickly change direction. In 1985-86, the price we paid was that a huge number of projects were quickly shut down. Estimates showed that around 50,000 oil jobs were lost, mainly in the north-east of Scotland. That is the sort of picture that Professor Kemp and Dr Stephen paint for us in their report.
The House of Commons Library has produced a valuable report on oil prices which shows just how serious that volatility is. For example, the Library’s figures show that in 2008 the minimum price for a barrel of oil was $39.25 and the maximum was $132.40, all in one year. Of course, that was the year when the global banking crisis was at its height. That was a huge shift in extraordinary times, but these are extraordinary times, too. Who can predict the oil price next month, never mind next year?
The average price for 2011 will be higher, mainly because of the crisis in the middle east. Perhaps the price will go as high as it was in 2008, but again, who knows? Will we still have the disruption in the middle east next year? Will the world economy have improved, increasing the demand for oil, or will it still be bumping along the bottom? What new technologies will come along? Shale gas is transforming gas industry economics and new oil provinces may be discovered, along with massive oil fields, as new technology allows us to explore in more difficult areas.
In the meantime, UK oil and gas production continues to decline. It is sustained by investment, much of it coming from new entrants in the North sea introducing new techniques to improve recovery from existing oil fields, many of which are the most heavily taxed under the new proposals. The development of much smaller fields relies on existing infrastructure, much of which is well beyond its expected working life and requires constant investment to maintain it. The report by Professor Kemp and Linda Stephen shows just what the impact of these tax increases on investment will be.
As other Members have said, there is also real concern about the application of the tax increases to gas. Gas projects in the UK are highly marginal and the economics of gas are very different from those of oil. The price of gas is much lower and is likely to stay that way, particularly given the continuing discovery of substantial gas deposits around the world and the growing impact of shale gas on the economics of gas. The current value of gas, as has been mentioned in previous interventions, is the equivalent of $55 a barrel, well below the Government’s proposed threshold for the tax increase, but there is no sign that gas revenue will be excluded from the increase. To pick up on the point made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in response to interventions, I do not think that tinkering with the field allowance will have much of an impact on the gas industry. It needs a lot more than that and a recognition of the different economics.
The west of Shetland area is estimated to hold around 17% of the UK’s remaining resources, and much of it is natural gas. Development will be challenging and expensive, but the Laggan and Rosebank developments, for example, would open up other areas west of Shetland and provide a lifeline for the Sullom Voe terminal on Shetland. By the way, roughly 1,100 jobs on Shetland and Orkney are sustained by the oil and gas industry. Development in this area is crucial to the national interest, but these are just the sorts of projects that are threatened by the tax increases and the lack of any differentiation between oil and gas as products for the application of the increase, which makes the threat much more serious to all future gas projects in the UK.
It is worth adding that those consumers who are saving a penny on their petrol bills may well end up paying it back in other ways. One major gas producer gave me figures showing that the extra cost of importing gas into the UK from abroad to replace gas which would otherwise have been produced before the introduction of the tax increase could be as high as £100 per household per year, which is a significant potential increase. There would obviously be other major effects on the economy because of the loss of an indigenous resource and the need to import gas to replace it.
Of course, this is not the first time a Government have increased oil taxation. The previous Conservative Government did it in 1993. The reception then was as bad as this one, as it came out of the blue without prior consultation, and a number of companies were hit hard. In 1998, the Labour Government proposed an increase in taxation on the industry, started a formal review and consultation process and flagged up the possibility of a supplementary charge. For the record, I have never been opposed in principle to taxing the profits of multinational companies, but on that occasion I opposed the measure. At the time it seemed the wrong thing to do, even by my own Government, because we were going through a sustained period of low oil and gas prices. It was the wrong time to apply a tax increase, and the review concluded with exactly the view that I take: the industry was suffering a sustained period of low prices, and it was not the time to increase taxation. The then Chancellor accepted that view, and no increase was imposed in that Parliament. He also made it clear that the decision would stand for the life of that Parliament.
In 2002, things in the industry had changed and the supplementary charge was introduced. It was increased in 2006, and just for the record I did not oppose those measures, because I thought that the industry could afford them at the time. On each occasion, in 2002 and 2006, as in 1998, however, the Chancellor made it clear that the tax decisions would be for the duration of the Parliament, and that was a crucial reassurance to the industry: nothing would happen in the following year’s Budget or the one after that; the decisions were sustained for the Parliament.
When Labour took office in 1997, it quickly understood the importance of the oil and gas industry to the economy—and how little it was understood by government and civil servants. The Oil and Gas Industry Task Force was created as a regular forum for discussion between the industry and government, and relations between both sides improved considerably. Treasury officials were not initially involved, but in the past few years they have attended as observers, and there was a strong feeling that right across Whitehall, and particularly in the Treasury, government understood the oil industry much better than it had in the past.
In 2006, the Labour Government, again, started a review of the offshore oil tax regime, and it has been clear for a long time that the regime, which developed for a growing industry, has to be changed to take account of the decline in the industry and, particularly, the needs of decommissioning. That review survived the change in Government, and all the feedback that I have had from industry and from some Ministers is that the process was being dealt with constructively on both sides, and that good progress was being made, particularly on some of the more difficult issues, such as decommissioning.
All that work has been undermined by the unexpected decision to increase the tax rate. The Chancellor, with the increases, has taken UK into the top three in the world league of high oil and gas tax payers. I think that we were No. 2 in the league table that I saw, a long way from the mid-point where we used to be. He is playing a dangerous game with a crucial but declining industry that will continue to need foreign investment to survive. At a stroke, he has destabilised the industry and prejudiced the view of potential investors. All new developments offshore have long lead-in times, and many can take as much as 10 years to plan, design and construct, with expenditure in the billions of pounds before a single barrel of oil is produced or a penny earned. The oil and gas industry wins big rewards, but it takes big risks.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s remarks on what remains one of Britain’s greatest industries, but does he agree that there is a national security and geopolitical dimension to the issue? As events in northern Africa and in the middle east show, much of the gas and oil in the world is in areas that are unstable and not readily associated with democracy or human rights, so the more energy we can produce ourselves in Britain or offshore, the better for our national security. That is a crucial defence reason why we should cherish the industry.
Mr Doran
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes his point with the authority of having been Energy Minister for many years in the previous Government. The security that our indigenous oil and gas industry gives us is one of its most important benefits. We have never had full energy security, but the industry gives us a considerable edge in the current climate.
I mentioned the volatility of oil prices and the tax system in the UK, and the risks to future investment are real. The Chancellor has introduced even more uncertainty into the system with his proposal to link oil tax with fuel prices. We have a volatile system, and most predictions for oil prices in the medium to long term are wrong. We have not seen the Chancellor’s scheme for the new tax system, but it seems clear that it will add to more uncertainty about the tax rate.
The Government are absolutely right to express their concern about rising fuel costs, particularly given the impact on taxation, but I cringe a little when I hear Ministers talk, as the Chief Secretary did, about the Labour Government’s escalator. The escalator was introduced by the previous Tory Government, and during the Labour Government, particularly after the fuel crisis at the turn of the century, it was dropped. In 11 out of our 13 years in power, the escalator was suspended. That is the reality.
The current Government could have dealt with the problems faced by motorists in another way, without introducing all this complexity and the confusion that it will cause—particularly if the crisis in the middle east recedes and the oil price declines again. They have made a serious error by linking fuel costs to the taxation of the oil and gas industry.
Importantly, the oil industry has reacted very badly to the increases, with one senior figure describing them as a “drive-by shooting”. The industry relates to government in a very sophisticated way, and it probably has more contact than any other industry with government, but there is clearly genuine shock and concern about this Government’s decisions.
I have had many years of contact with leading figures and companies in the industry, and in the past I have seen the industry cry wolf more times than I care to remember. At the end of the day, it makes whatever adjustments necessary and gets on with it. This time, however, it seems very different. The sense is that there has been no proper consideration of the needs of the industry, as an industry in decline but one that will make a major contribution to our economy with the right support and management from government.
The sense is that Treasury Ministers in particular do not understand the industry and simply see it as a cow to be milked. They have taken a short-term decision, and the sense is that the cow has been milked for short-term political reasons—to throw some crumbs to the motorists and to accelerate the reduction of the deficit. Both are perfectly respectable aims, but not at the cost of causing the severe damage that Alex Kemp’s report envisages to our indigenous oil and gas industry.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I came to this Second Reading debate to get an outline of the Government’s case on the Budget and the Finance Bill, as I heard from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and because I felt that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), would give us the Opposition’s view. I tried to follow her as best as I could, but we seemed instead to get a lengthy diatribe on any spats that there might have been over the AV referendum, and a repetition of the arguments used after the emergency Budget some several months ago about public spending cuts.
We heard the cliché that the coalition wishes to turn the country back as far as government is concerned into a “small state”, to use her expression. That ignores the fact that the size of the state in public expenditure terms after the five-year programme will be back to that of 2008, which I am sure the then Government would not have described as a “small state”. We heard also great support for the Liberal, Lord John Maynard Keynes, which I found interesting, and the blaming of everything on “a synchronised global recession”.
Those are yesterday’s arguments, however, because we are here to talk about this Budget and this Finance Bill. The debate is about one thing above all others: after the budget deficit is dealt with, the plan for which the Government explained clearly in the emergency Budget, how do we ensure that the economy can expand without the problems of the past? Such problems occur when the economy expands, imports are sucked in without a commensurate export boom and migrants come to work here because we have unemployed people who do not have the necessary skills or, indeed, ability to fill the available jobs. Whether it is because they are unwilling, live in a different part of the country or do not have the necessary skills, that has been a problem. In my constituency, about 2,000 people, including young people aged 18 to 24, are on jobseeker’s allowance, yet companies still have to bring in labour from Poland, because their alternative is to shut the factory and move it abroad. The long-term purpose of the Budget is to deal with such fundamental core problems.
It is not just a question of consumption. The media and, to some extent, the Opposition are obsessed with retail sales numbers, but in the past booming retail sales have led to some of our problems, with imports being sucked in and household debt expanding to fund consumption. Adam Smith, a great hero of Conservative Members who has some support even among Labour Members, said:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production”.
When he said that, the economy was far less sophisticated than it is today, and he did not mean that retail spending is the be-all and end-all. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects British households to account for about a fifth of economic growth this year and about a third next year. There is a lot more to it than just consumption and what is spent in the shops.
The Daily Telegraph said in an editorial just after the Budget:
“The Chancellor bets on business coming to the rescue”.
That is absolutely true. The coalition’s strategy is based entirely on allowing business to produce the necessary jobs, exports and consumption so that the economy can expand, this time on a firm base rather than on the basis of property debt and financial services—although I am pleased to say that financial services, particularly international financial services, are very important for this country. Comments about the banking crisis and bankers’ bonuses tend to push to one side what I would regard as the core argument, which is how we can be competitive as an international financial centre. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, the Government’s strategy is based on allowing us to be one of the best places in the world to do business and to be competitive. That includes the financial sector, but it does not exclude the rebalancing of the economy that is one of the main aspects of the Bill.
The test of the Bill is whether it facilitates real growth given that we have a skills shortage—there is no question about that—and a work force among whom some, particularly in the south of England, where there has been a shortage of labour, regard it as acceptable to be on jobseeker’s allowance for very lengthy periods. Watford is in the south of England, and it has 2,000 unemployed people. Does the Budget bring about a change in this climate to deal with people who lack of skills and those who lack an ability or a desire to get a job? I would argue strongly that it does. Many aspects of the Budget help with that through incentivising people to set up businesses and allowing investors more tax relief through the enterprise investment scheme and other schemes.
The Government’s approach to tax cuts has been the best that they can take in the economic climate that they inherited. The corporation tax reductions are a good start, as is the relief for investment in enterprise. However, tax is a major issue for businesses and individuals. I believe that the 50% tax rate will prove to be a disaster, first, in the money that it brings in—we are waiting for the numbers on that—and, secondly, in providing a disincentive. In one of the first speeches that I heard after the 50% rate was brought in, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said that he feared that business people will, to use his expression, go on strike—that they will reach a certain age and say, “Why should I work harder if significantly more than half of what I earn is to be paid over to the Government?” My point is not to do with any principles of mine. I am very much in favour of taxation being used as a form of redistribution of wealth and of wealthier people paying a much higher amount than people at the lower end of the income scale, but the unfortunate fact is that it provides a disincentive. It is a free country, and when someone gets to a certain level of income they can decide whether to work a lot harder or to do what the Americans call “going to the beach”. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that 50% tips the balance in the wrong way.
In the long term, it is in the best interests of this country for us to be able to provide the kind of public services that we all want to provide. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Wallasey said, a Conservative-led Government, just as much as a Labour Government, want to provide really good-quality public services. The way to do that in the long run is to reduce the burden of taxation to encourage people to enter new businesses or to work harder in the businesses that they are in. They will not do that in return for progressively higher amounts of tax. I wish it were not the case, but it is human nature and unfortunately we will see it happening.
Business is a bit lumbered, in a way, because there are no direct votes in business. In the past, it has been easy to impose taxes as a burden on business—high business rates, employers’ national insurance and corporation tax are the obvious examples, as well as many other taxes—because there is not the immediate reaction from business that there is from the public. We now have to decide that what is good for business is good for the country, because employees make up businesses. People who demonstrate against companies that pay a small amount of corporation tax forget the billions of pounds paid by the employees in their national insurance and income tax and the VAT on what they spend.
As for skills, the Red Book points out that unfortunately 9.4% of all 16 to 24-year-olds are unemployed and not in education. A few weeks ago, I visited a company in my constituency that makes lenses—Davin Optronics. The business is 100 years old. It has declined a lot in the past 10 years, but it still turns over £4 million and employs 50 people. I was told that its biggest problem is that its skilled work force are getting older. The managing director said, “Young people don’t want to work here. They want to work in Top Shop or TK Maxx, or wherever, but they don’t want to work in a factory.” I am very pleased about the apprenticeship scheme that was introduced in the Chancellor’s Budget. We must somehow make people regard qualifying to do a skilled job as being as important and high-status in society as getting a degree. The 80,000 extra work experience places and the extra apprenticeships are very good news.
Small businesses are different from large businesses, not only in relative size but because many do not have the facilities to set up training schemes to recruit in a systematic manner and to deal with local further education colleges as regards the training side of apprenticeships. I hope that what the Budget and the Bill are doing in relation to finances will be enhanced by the training of people at further education colleges, at Government expense, to find businesses that would never have dreamed of offering apprenticeships and to show them how good such apprenticeships are for those businesses.
Confidence is everything in the economy, and the measures that this Government have taken have done a lot for the confidence of employers. I read in that great oracle The Sunday Telegraph, no less, that according to its City editor business has got £71 billion of cash in reserves; presumably that is worked out by some piece of software that adds up everything on the balance sheets of all the companies at Companies House. That money needs to be invested. In bad times, companies hoard cash because they are frightened of what might happen if sales go down, there are problems with exports, and so on. It is confidence that will make those companies spend that cash in investment. The tax breaks help a lot, but the fundamental benefit of this Finance Bill is that it is employer confidence that will get these jobs provided.
We have to get the economy right, and I think that the Finance Bill passes that test. We have to get the tax regime right, and there have been great improvements on that, although I realise that it has to be done very slowly. We have to get the work force right, which means having skilled workers and incentivising people to work. If we can do all that and incentivise companies that make profits to keep and reinvest them, I think that the economy will enjoy a proper, genuine boom in time, and not one based just on debt or consumer spending. In my view, the Budget and the Bill go a long way towards achieving that.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Finance Bill follows the Budget in March. On the opening day of the Budget debate, I laid out the SNP’s opposition to a large number of the measures in the Bill. Today, I will take the lead from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and concentrate on the most damaging single proposal: the Chancellor's and the Chief Secretary’s determination to see a 60% increase in the corporation tax supplementary charge on oil and gas production in the North sea from 20% to 32%. The proposal will take about an extra £2 billion a year in tax from the sector, and that is on top of last year’s £4 billion windfall as a result of the rising oil price and this year’s windfall, which is over and above the 2010 forecast as a result of oil trading at about $120 a barrel.
The proposal also runs counter to the Chancellor’s stated objectives: his objective in 2010 of providing tax stability for the North sea; his objective of delivering a growth agenda, which was meant to be at the heart of this year’s Budget; and his objective to see production here in lieu of imports. The proposal will drive a coach and horses through those worthy objectives laid out over the past year by the Government.
When the tax raid was announced, it was reported almost immediately that the leading figures in Oil and Gas UK, the sector’s trade body, gathered in a state of disbelief over the Government’s plans. It was reported almost immediately that oil companies were preparing to cancel and suspend investment plans, and that up to 40,000 new and existing jobs were at risk. It was reported that Statoil was suspending the development of the heavy crude Mariner field, putting the development of its sister field, Bressay, at risk. That led Jeremy Cresswell, the editor of The Press and Journal’s “Energy” supplement, to say:
“Statoil’s decision to stop the massive Mariner development and probably Bressay too represents a huge blow to future investment in the North Sea.”
That is significant. For those who are unaware, The Press and Journal in Aberdeen covers oil and gas in a way that no other newspaper in the UK can or does. When its energy correspondents and editors view what is going on, they do so with huge experience of the sector and of the implications that tax changes might bring.
To help us understand the impact of the Chancellor’s decision on his own strategy, a senior UK oil executive has warned that a slowdown in North sea activity will increase the country’s reliance on imported oil and gas, with the consequence of an even higher balance of payments deficit and a corresponding suppression of GDP growth. On tax receipts, Alan Booth, the chief executive of EnCore oil said:
“Undeveloped and undiscovered oil and gas pays no taxes”.
Of course, he is absolutely right. He was talking about future development and revenues. However, Valiant Petroleum acted immediately and said that its near £100 million project was no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move. Even the oil giant Chevron, the second largest US oil company, has warned that there will be unintended consequences from this move. Oil and Gas UK is clear that it has
“shaken investor confidence to the core.”
All we have from the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary is complacency. The Press and Journal reported that when the concerns had been put to the Chancellor, a Treasury spokeswoman said:
“Mr Osborne did not expect investment to be damaged.”
I am not sure who he was listening to, but that quotation proves that he is complacent, and I think that he is wrong.
Jim Hannon, a founding partner of the drilling analysts Hannon Westwood, warned that 30,000 people could lose their jobs if exploration activity drops by only 15%. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North quoted Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen at length. I was delighted to hear all the various scenarios described in detail, because it is important that nothing is ignored, and that was particularly helpful. Professor Kemp and Linda Stephen have warned that 2 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent could be left in the North sea because of this decision. Derek Leith, the oil and gas partner at Ernst and Young, has warned of projects being delayed and cancelled:
“I think Statoil is only the tip of the iceberg…There are a lot of companies that will not pursue projects but will not go public about it.”
He repeated the point that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary clearly fail to grasp:
“barrels left in the ground do not provide energy, do not pay tax and do not support jobs”.
Oil and Gas UK tells me that the tax increase announced in the Budget saw the value of investments in the UK continental shelf fall by 24% overnight. That is bound to have an impact on activity. This is a global industry and the ability of the UK to compete for capital to explore and develop new fields and, importantly, to extend existing fields will be impacted significantly. The level of the impact is explained in the research by Professor Kemp, who revealed, as we heard in some detail, that the tax increase could reduce UK oil and gas investment by up to £30 billion and production by up to a quarter over the next three decades.
I have spoken mainly about oil, but one of the biggest casualties is gas, which accounts for 46% of UK continental shelf production, and yet trades at prices substantially below the $75 trigger price proposed by the Government. Gas production is not seeing the same price increases, and the tax change will result only in less investment and lower recovery of this important asset. It is worth noting that although I am concentrating on the increase in the supplementary charge, the Government have also decided to reduce decommissioning relief, which might accelerate the decommissioning of essential infrastructure and make the extension of fields by the new entrants that we have heard about more difficult. The combination of those proposals leads to an 81% marginal tax rate for mature fields—not just the 62% proposed under the supplementary charge increase.
I am indebted to Centrica for its detailed assessment of the problem in relation to gas. It makes the point that gas projects are highly marginal and that gas economics are very different from oil economics. Brent crude trades at about $120 per barrel, whereas UK wholesale gas trades at about $57 per barrel equivalent. Centrica is convinced that the proposed increase will result in the decline of the North sea, as gas projects become uneconomic, which is likely to have a direct impact on jobs in the sector, the regional economy and the wider economy.
Centrica has a broader concern that the increase will add to existing upward pressures on customers’ energy bills. It makes the technical point that oil markets are deep and global in their nature, whereas gas markets are regionally priced and shallow. Increases in UK tax costs that result in reduced UK investment will therefore mean that lower-priced North sea gas production will be replaced by higher-priced gas imports. That leads to the conclusion that there may well be further increases in prices for gas and power consumers in the UK, with increasing wholesale energy costs adding to existing upward pressures. That was alluded to earlier by the Chief Secretary when he said that gas prices are rising in line with oil prices. We do not want to see the gas price hit the oil price. That would be the equivalent of an increase of a third in the cost of gas, which would be catastrophic for families and heavy energy-using businesses.
Centrica argues that the tax increase should apply to gas, but not at the equivalent trigger price to that for oil. The $75 a barrel trigger for oil proposed by the Chancellor is the equivalent of 80p a therm, which is much higher than the 60p a therm or so at which gas is currently trading. Centrica’s overall warnings are actually starker than those from the oil sector. It believes that the tax changes will result in an annual cost to the UK economy of up to £8 billion a year by 2013, undermining the Government’s intention to reduce the deficit. It believes that that will influence investor sentiment in other sectors as well, because of the global nature of energy companies. There will be an impact on the low-carbon agenda and the security of supply and jobs, and up to £100 billion-worth of energy investments and associated jobs will be put at risk. Those are frightening figures.
Of course, the warnings did not just appear for a day or two after the Budget when the industry was in shock; they have continued almost daily for a month. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said today that the increase in North sea oil taxation could cut offshore investment. It argues that whereas mergers and acquisitions in the oil and gas sector worldwide in the first quarter were not down on last year, the emphasis in deals was on frontier territories such as India rather than mature provinces such as the North sea. The chief executive and chairman of ConocoPhillips, Jim Mulva, has joined the chorus of condemnation and said that the “unexpected nature and scale” of the increase has damaged investor confidence and will hamper investment. He has said:
“Although the chancellor has shown an appetite to consider granting companies tax relief for new field developments, these can be rendered ineffective by tax increases…The industry has lost confidence in the UK’s fiscal landscape. With three major tax increases in less than 10 years, it is now a difficult place for future investments.”
Instead of being complacent, the Government ought to heed the warnings. I cannot believe that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary are right and Oil and Gas UK, Statoil, EnCore, Valiant, Chevron, Professor Kemp, Ernst and Young, Hannon Westwood, Centrica, PricewaterhouseCoopers and ConocoPhillips are all wrong. It strikes me as inconceivable that a month of warnings should be ignored simply to fill a hole in the Government’s books.
I hope that the Government will think again. They have an opportunity on the first day of Committee, as early as next week, to bring forward sensible amendments that recognise the difference between gas and oil and the dangers to investment and jobs. They can do so before the investment profile of this country becomes so bad that we begin to lose not only investment but many new and existing jobs, as has been warned about for more than a month since the announcement in the Budget.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I largely support the Bill and the Chancellor’s Budget proposals. He has inherited a poor hand, which he has played well. He is sticking to his plans to reduce the budget deficit, a strategy that is supported by the International Monetary Fund and the OECD and that will ensure the country’s long-term prosperity.
The Bill contains proposals that will help achieve two important objectives. First, the Chancellor is creating an environment that will encourage businesses to grow and to create new jobs. Policies such as reducing corporation tax, getting rid of red tape, reforming the planning system, investing in science and innovation and promoting apprenticeships will help create a business-friendly environment in which businesses can flourish and create jobs. The proposal to create 21 new enterprise zones is to be applauded, and I am an enthusiastic participant in the competition that he has launched, helping to promote an energy enterprise zone in Lowestoft, in my constituency, and the adjoining Great Yarmouth.
Secondly, the Chancellor has made proposals that will help to rebalance the economy in the move towards a low-carbon future. The establishment of a carbon floor price, the renewable heat incentive and the green investment bank will help achieve that objective. My personal preference would have been for the green investment bank to have had borrowing powers straight away, but I recognise the difficult financial constraints in which he has had to work and commend him for providing an additional £2 billion of investment to be added to the £1 billion already allocated, and for bringing forward the bank’s start date to 2012.
The Chancellor is to be congratulated on recognising the difficulties that people and businesses are experiencing due to high fuel prices, and on coming forward with proposals to ease the burden by cutting fuel duty by 1p, by deferring future fuel duty increases and by abolishing the fuel duty escalator and replacing it with a fair fuel stabiliser. However, those proposals are to be funded by an increase in the taxation of the oil and gas industry, which I believe requires further scrutiny and refining.
I make my observations having listened to people and businesses in my constituency who work in the oil and gas industry in the southern North sea. There is concern that, as matters stand, the proposals will discourage further investment, which could jeopardise jobs and threaten the move towards improving the nation’s energy security.
I have two specific concerns, which are along the lines of those set out in detail by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). First, a flat-rate tax would unfairly penalise smaller oil companies looking to work marginal fields. Such an approach could well result in such projects becoming financially unviable and companies diverting their activities to other countries where the taxation regime is more favourable. Not only would that lead to the loss of local jobs and income to the Exchequer, but it would mean that, as a country, we would become increasingly reliant on energy imports, often from areas of high political risk. It is important that the Government do all they can to ensure that we utilise our own oil resources fully.
Secondly, I am worried that the proposals will have a significant adverse effect on the gas sector, which is particularly important in the southern North sea. As we have heard, the financial parameters of gas projects are very different from those of oil schemes. Gas prices are considerably lower than oil prices. Whereas Brent crude is trading at approximately $120 a barrel, UK wholesale gas trades at approximately $57 per barrel equivalent. Although development costs are lower, they are not lower by a proportionate amount, so a tax increase would push lower gas returns down ever further. That would result in gas projects becoming uneconomic, with the result that schemes would not proceed and lower-priced North sea gas production would be replaced by higher-priced gas imports. That would feed through to higher gas and power prices for domestic and business consumers.
The East Anglian coast has the opportunity to play a vital role in providing for the country’s future energy needs. I am worried that the proposals in question jeopardise that role, and I wish to make three further observations about them. First, they could discourage investment by energy companies that work on a global stage and are footloose in deciding where to invest. Britain has a proud record of providing a stable political and fiscal regime that is conducive to attracting such investment, and it is vital that we do not lose that reputation.
Secondly, offshore renewables provide an exciting future and can help towns such as Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth reverse years of economic decline and create new long-term jobs. Many of the skills employed in the oil and gas sector are transferable to wind and wave technology. If we discourage investment in oil and gas in the North sea, there is a danger that the supply chain and skills base could be irretrievably damaged. In due course, that could deter investment in renewable energy.
Joan Walley
The hon. Gentleman, like me, serves on the Environmental Audit Committee, and he speaks with great knowledge about the renewable industries. Does he agree that the problem that he describes would affect not just constituencies such as his but manufacturing areas such as mine? We are seeking to manufacture the ingredients, if I can put it like that, of the renewable energy industries. If the Government do not adjust their plans towards his vision, we will not have the manufacturing capacity that we need or the ability to get people back to work.
Peter Aldous
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. I would love that manufacturing to take place in my constituency, but if it is not to be there, I hope it is in hers.
Finally, there will be a time lag before investment in offshore renewables results in electricity coming on stream. Until that happens, the gap needs to be plugged so that the nation’s lights do not go out. That could be achieved by making the best and full use of our national oil and gas assets in the North sea, thereby providing a triple dividend of more jobs, additional income for the Exchequer and improved energy security.
I request that the Government look closely in Committee at their proposed tax increase and that they address two issues. First, smaller oil companies should not be discouraged from making investments in marginal fields. Secondly, there should be a different taxation regime for gas to reflect the differences between the oil and gas sectors and the lower profitability of gas.
The Bill has a great deal to commend it, but it contains a fundamental flaw that I urge the Government to address.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
This is a very useful debate. I particularly enjoyed the three well-informed and well-evidenced speeches on energy policy and the implications of the proposed tax changes for the North sea. A bit of my past tempts me to follow the theme of energy, but instead, I shall talk about the impact of the Budget decisions and statements, and of the Bill, on aspects of social security.
Welfare states across the world, not least in Europe, are in many respects on the defensive and under political attack. They are in difficulties because of demography—the ageing of our populations—and the impact of the economic situation on public finances, but also because of a loss of confidence in parts of public opinion in the foundation stones underlying our welfare states.
I shall ask two questions of the Budget. The first is on the future of our national insurance system and the crucial contributory principle, and secondly, I want to address whether we are wholly right to pursue the policy, which we are now doing quite rapidly, of raising the age at which our people can claim old age pensions in the light of increasing life expectancy.
On the contributory principle, I would welcome Ministers’ comments on paragraph 1.77 of the Red Book, which states:
“The Government believes that integrating the operation of income tax and National Insurance Contributions…can remove distortions, reduce burdens on business and improve fairness.”
However, what are the likely impacts of that on the contributory principle? To be fair—I want to be fair, because I do not think that I am making a partisan point—the Government say that they
“will maintain the contributory principle”,
which I welcome, but how can we bring about that administrative change, which presumably affects people of different age groups and income levels differently, while maintaining the contributory principle? That is a genuine question to which I am seeking an answer.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman touches on the important point of the contributory principle, but does he agree that the longer-term project of amalgamating national insurance and Inland Revenue contributions would at least do away with the nonsense of reducing the amount that people pay in income tax while increasing the amount that they pay in national insurance contributions, and of selling that as a policy of reducing the amount that they pay?
Malcolm Wicks
Such policies have regressive implications and I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question—a not dissimilar one could be asked of VAT contributions. Deeply regressive changes to how we gather money in from the wider community are taking place.
Although the contributory principle has for many years, and arguably for several decades, been withering away—it certainly looks tired and rusty—we need it in the 21st century. One reason why is that if we are to maintain our broader welfare state and social security system as an instrument for redistribution and for tackling the emerging needs of this century, not least those associated with long-term care and the ageing of our population, we need an ethical foundation to underlie social security, rather than bits-and-pieces mechanisms that can be hard to communicate to a wider public.
One basic concept in that respect is that of citizenship. What is it to be a citizen in the 21st century? What are our rights as citizens? Equally importantly, what are our duties and responsibilities? For me, in moving from that simple piece of social philosophy into policy mechanisms that work, we would do away with or neglect the social insurance contributory principle at our peril. That principle says that when people are able to work and to contribute to that community chest, they should do so. That is a duty. However, as of right as citizens, people should be able, at certain times in their life cycles or at times of social need, to draw out not means-tested benefits, but benefits that they have earned through their contributions.
Of course, that was the principle underlying the Beveridge report—that great Liberal—and the one that the 1945 Attlee Government sought to introduce after the war. I am arguing that we should today try to bring about a renaissance of belief in that principle, and to make it an underlying concept of our social security system.
The principle is well understood historically. Long before the advent of the modern welfare state in the 20th century, there were friendly societies, building societies and co-ops, and trade unions emerged. It was well understood that members had rights, but also that they had duties and responsibilities. People paid contributions to trade unions and building societies—interestingly, that was in the early days, when building societies actually built houses—and to friendly societies. As of right, they could then draw benefits when eligible.
It is no coincidence that when we wander through Members Lobby, we see great statues of pioneers of the national insurance system. We could even argue which party has done most for social insurance, as it used to be called, or national insurance. Churchill can lay claim to have done much of the work in the pre-war years, and Lloyd George had more than a hand in it, as did Clement Attlee and his 1945 Government. Our entitlements to claim social security, and our rights and duties, are not simply technical matters that should be detailed somewhat obscurely in social security manuals, but a social philosophy foundation stone that folk in this country can understand as fair.
Of course, the national insurance system as devised in the modern era by the Beveridge report and the Attlee Government was not perfect. Rightly, it was subjected to critique by women’s organisations and feminists, who said that it had more to say about a typical man’s life cycle than a woman’s. Past Governments have done their best to rectify the inadequacies of the system when a mother leaves her career, which happened for quite a long period in the past, to care for her children, and to deal with what happens to the insurance contributions of family carers, who are usually but not always women, who have had to leave the labour market. Labour Governments and others have done their best to modernise the national insurance system, but not with total success. I am therefore saying, not that the principle of national insurance has worked perfectly historically, but that it is a basis on which we should build.
One of the biggest difficulties with national insurance over recent years has been that increasingly our friends in the Treasury—both Ministers and officials—have regarded national insurance as just another form of taxation. To be blunt I would point my finger at Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments. The Treasury has lost sight of the Beveridge report and the philosophy of citizenship. When considering how to raise revenue, it tends to ask, “What share should come from income tax, corporation tax or VAT, and what share should come from the national insurance system?” That is illustrated by the fact that when, a while ago, the two major parties were having that ding-dong—that argument—about whether extra revenue should be raised by VAT or national insurance, that is how it was viewed. There was very little in that debate about what national insurance should be about and how it should relate to a modern social security system. One reason why the contributory principle has grown rather tired-looking is a failure of communication and presentation. Governments have not gone out there to argue, as I hope to do—albeit inadequately—that social insurance and the contributory principle remain valid foundation stones for this aspect of our social policy.
The other aspect of the contributory principle I want to raise concerns the plans set out by the Department for Work and Pensions and, in particular, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), to move towards a far simpler state pension system in which everyone would be guaranteed a certain state pension. On paper, that looks like an interesting concept. I understand that, in theory, everyone is in favour of greater simplicity, but let us consider the matter in relation to the social insurance principle. I am alarmed by bits in the DWP document, “A State Pension Age for the 21st Century”, which was mentioned in the Budget. Although it states that in the future people should get the new simple pension after 30 years of qualifying, which addresses the issue about women—so far so good—it seems to imply, unless I have seriously misunderstood it, that no one would get more than a pension to which they had contributed for 30 years.
The Government are at pains to tell us that more and more people will have long life expectancies and will work longer in the labour market. What happens, therefore, to those who work 40 or 50 years? I might have misunderstood, but I was alarmed by paragraph 96 of the document, which reads under the heading, “Impact on individuals”:
“Groups who would expect to build up more significant amounts of State Second Pension, such as those with longer working lives and higher earners, would not be able to do so under this option.”
Well, why not? Is there not a danger of being so besotted with the idea of simplicity that we undermine the idea that if someone contributes more through their working life because they are working harder, they should be able to get more out of it at the end through a decent state pension scheme? I have serious concerns about that. Although there are many doubting Thomases in respect of social insurance, we must bear in mind the principles underlying it, such as citizenship and its common-sense nature: people can understand that they should make a contribution when they can and draw out of a community pot when they need to. If we sacrifice those things, we sacrifice a lot in our social security system.
I want to touch briefly on a matter that relates to a paper I published on my website last week. I question whether we are in the right place when it comes to raising the state pension age in the light of increasing life expectancy. May I say first and foremost that I am signed up—not least as a former pensions Ministers—to the reality of increasing life expectancy for most people. It cannot be right that we stick to state pension ages and occupational pension ages devised 40 or 50 years ago, given that more and more of us—hopefully—will live into our 80s and 90s.
Malcolm Wicks
My hon. Friend wants to become one of the centenarians. Indeed, to warm us up for difficult decisions, the DWP is now telling us, courtesy of statistics from the Office for National Statistics, that 11 million people alive today can expect to live to 100. That is an extraordinary piece of demography. I accept the logic, therefore, that most of us should expect to leave the labour market, retire and draw our state and occupational pensions at a later age. However, the main reason for raising this matter in the House today is that this is insensitive to, and has no understanding of, social class variations. There is an assumption that these broad figures about life expectancy apply equally to all of us, regardless of geography, constituency, whether people live in the north or the south, or the kind of work undertaken.
When I looked at some of these issues in the light of social class, I am afraid that, not for the first time, socio-economic status reared its ugly and unequal head. Nineteen percent—almost one-fifth—of men from social class 7, which encompasses those with routine occupations, such as cleaners, packers, van drivers and unskilled labourers, many of whom have been in work since the age of 15 or 16, are dead before 65. They never live long enough to draw their state pension. That compares poorly with those from the professional and business classes. There is a difference for women as well, but it is not so stark. I question, therefore, whether a one-size-fits-all scheme of increasingly raising the state pension age—the Government now want to consult on raising it even further to 68—is a sensible way ahead in this area of social policy. Furthermore, a second pension penalty is, of course, paid by the poorest men and women in our communities. Although most people from those social classes reach pension age, they enjoy far shorter pension lives than those from the better-off social classes. So a second pension penalty is paid.
The arguments for raising the state pension age across the board are based on the assumption that the labour market is sufficiently dynamic and flexible to provide the jobs for those people. Again, however, this ignores social status and the realities of many people’s working lives. It can be no coincidence that many who compete in a kind of macho competition to say how late we should draw our state pension—66, 67, 68, why not 70?—tend to be people from big business, the political class or the media, who may be able to continue their working lives almost indefinitely, writing articles, having portfolios, doing consultancy or, if they are unlucky, in the House of Lords. These people might be able to continue their work, but what about the van driver, the bus driver, the woman who cleans offices, the steel workers, the people with creaking backs and aching limbs, who come their 60s need to retire in a very old-fashioned sense?
The DWP would need to work on the details, but surely we could say that people in those social classes who typically started their working careers not in their early 20s, which will have been the lot of many of us, or their mid-20s, which will be the lot of many of our children and grandchildren with postgraduate qualifications, but at 15 or 16, and who often have worked hard ever since, once they have worked for, say, 50 years—we could check that in national insurance, tax and employment records— deserve a rest, in an old-fashioned sense. They need to retire. Given that the demography shows that those people are, sadly, likely to die four years before the average age, it would surely be only fair and just if they could draw their state pensions four years earlier than most of us.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
After the sound and fury of the Budget debate, every year we follow it up with a Finance Bill with its technical clauses, amendments to previous Finance Acts and anti-avoidance measures, that does not grab people’s attention in the way that the Budget does. All this will be considered when we reach the Committee stage, which I am sure will drag on for many sittings, as those who have served on it before—some of us have done that on many more occasions than others—will know from past experience. However, the Bill proposes many far-reaching and fundamental changes to the taxation system, paving the way for further reform, as the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) said, in what was quite a thoughtful speech. I want to dwell on three of the Bill’s provisions: those dealing with income tax and national insurance—which we just heard about—environmental taxes, and taxation of the banks.
Clause 3 raises the income tax threshold to £7,475 this month, April 2011. That raising of the income tax threshold was the cornerstone of the coalition agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, and implements the Liberal Democrats’ No. 1 manifesto commitment from the 2010 general election. The benefit of that commitment being implemented in government will be felt by wage and salary earners up and down the country in their payslips at the end of this month. Some 900,000 people will be raised out of the income tax bracket altogether, while those still in the basic rate bracket will see a tax cut of up to £200. The Budget also announced next year’s rise in the threshold—which will no doubt be implemented by next year’s Finance Bill—in April 2012, lifting a further 1.1 million people out of tax. This Finance Bill and this Budget help the poor and reward work.
I look forward to the review of the operation of income tax and national insurance which was announced in the Budget, which the right hon. Gentleman also spoke about. National insurance was introduced in 1911. This year is the centenary, which would be a good point for that review to announce its ending, at least for employees. Although I agree with quite a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman said, there was a touch of Victorian values in some of what he said about the contributory principle, which is what the founders of national insurance—he mentioned Churchill and Lloyd George—wrestled with. They were very much products of the Victorian era, but the right hon. Gentleman’s own party forebears—Aneurin Bevan in particular—rejected the contributory principle when founding the national health service, insisting that it should be based on broad taxation, not individual contributions into an insurance fund.
The right hon. Gentleman made many thoughtful points that will have to be considered in the review of national insurance, but the contributory principle has failed. He mentioned women and the fact that people sometimes find that they have not accrued the pension rights that they might reasonably have expected. He talked about citizenship, and that is where a citizen’s pension will be relevant. I hope that this Government will introduce one. However, it would be right to recognise the contributory principle for unemployment benefit, which he did not mention. I would not want someone in short-term unemployment to have to undergo a means test to claim unemployment benefit. One benefit of the contributory principle at the moment is that people who are unemployed for up to six months do not have to undergo a means test to claim a benefit to which their national insurance records prove they are entitled.
We will therefore need to retain some contributory benefits in the existing national insurance scheme for employees to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. None the less, the scope of the changes in the Finance Bill and the Budget to our income tax and—if we get them—our national insurance regimes represent the biggest shift in our direct taxation system for many decades. The reforms in the 1980s, particularly to income tax, tended to favour the better-off; the reforms of this coalition Government will help the low-paid.
The second area in the Bill to which I want to refer contains the provisions dealing with environmental taxes. Clause 25 raises landfill tax from £56 to £64 next year, giving local authorities a further incentive to achieve a step change in recycling. My local authority—Bristol city council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats—has shown a steady increase in the rate of recycling. We now have the best record of any city authority in the country, recycling close to 50% of our recyclable domestic waste, and we are aiming for 90% over the next few years. In the Easter recess, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I visited the plant being built at Avonmouth, just outside my constituency, by New Earth Solutions, which will screen the residual waste that people have not recycled from their doorsteps in order to extract the remaining recyclable materials. Landfill tax is a well-established tax that is achieving its aim, but we know that we have some way to go in many parts of the country.
A new tax in the Bill that several people have mentioned is the setting of a carbon floor price, at £16 a tonne this year, which it is proposed should rise to £30 a tonne by the end of the decade. There will obviously need to be much debate and thought about how the carbon floor price will operate, but it is an essential reform if we are to incentivise a switch to a low-carbon economy and make renewable sources of electricity generation competitive with carbon-intensive forms of electricity generation. There is an important debate to be had about how that affects nuclear power, and I am meeting Greenpeace later this week to discuss its concerns. I am also working with party colleagues to develop Liberal Democrat ideas on how the carbon floor price and carbon taxes can operate, in order to inform the debate as it unfolds.
A third aspect of the Bill that I want to mention briefly is the introduction of something that has been talked about for some time over the past year—the bank levy; it is almost hard to believe that a statutory basis for it did not exist until now. The detailed provisions governing how it will operate are in schedule 19, which I am still trying to plough my way through and understand. [Interruption.] Judging from their facial expressions, I am sure that Opposition Front Benchers are trying to get their heads round it as well. I am sure that they will be well advised by colleagues outside the Chamber.
The operation of the bank levy is incredibly important, but its introduction is incredibly important as well. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred earlier—as does the Opposition amendment to the motion—to the bonus tax that the previous Government introduced. This bank levy will raise more money year on year than that bonus tax. It is also renewable every year, unlike the windfall tax, which could be levied only once, in the unique circumstances of 2009. Such a levy on the balance sheets of banks is the first component of something that many people, including myself, have campaigned for—a Robin Hood tax. I hope that the Government will now move towards adopting the second component of such a tax plan—a financial activities tax—in order further to bring about reform in this area. That would require European Union co-operation, and I hope that the Government are seeking to achieve that co-operation among our fellow member states.
The Bill contains 91 operational clauses and 26 schedules. It is a particularly fat Bill, although not actually a record-breaker. As is the nature of Finance Bills, probably not much of it will endure in the memory. Several elements of it will stand the test of time, however. The reform of income tax, the reform of national insurance promised in the Budget, the lifting of the low-paid out of taxation and the further reforms to environmental taxes will be an enduring legacy of the coalition Government.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Despite what the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) has just claimed about the Bill’s great achievements, I am afraid that the Liberal Democrats will be remembered for only one thing—the fact that they all, including their leader, pledged not to raise tuition fees. That is never going to go away, and everything else that they say will be seen in the light of that betrayal of the future of our young people in this country.
I was pleased to hear the thoughtful contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) on the proposals on pensions, and particularly on pension ages. If we look back at the history of the actuarial analysis that was used to set the pension age at 65, we see that it was set at that age because most working-class people—there were many more people in heavy industry then—died before they reached the age of 65 years and six months. The calculation was made to minimise the amount that would have to be paid to the working class for their pension contributions. The change that is now being introduced adheres to that same principle. It does not involve earned rights through contributions. Rather, as my right hon. Friend said, it is seen as an imposition if someone without an adequate income lives too long, and has to rely on the state for support.
I am going to disappoint my right hon. Friend now, because I am going to return to the subject of the oil and gas industry. The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) was important but, like that of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), it related to the upstream industry—the oil and gas exploration and production industry. I shall quote from the June report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which the Government do not seem to have read. It says:
“The oil and gas industry operating on the UK continental shelf currently faces a quadruple whammy of high costs, low prices, lack of affordable credit and a global recession. Unless the fiscal and regulatory regime is well designed and highly attractive then the likelihood is that the UK may not recover anything like as much of its reserve as would be desirable.”
The Committee did not realise that there was another spectre to add to the quadruple whammy—a predatory Chancellor who did not even consult the industry when he brought in a £2 billion rise in the tax burden. This is not so much about the level of the rise as the method of its introduction. Changing a tax regime overnight without consultation creates uncertainty, which increases risk. According to the economists with whom I trained when I was studying, when the net present value calculations are made when looking at board bids for investment, such activity can reduce the investment’s attraction. We heard that again and again from the Members who spoke about the upstream industry.
I have been pursuing the so-called responsible Department with questions about the downstream industry—the UK oil refining industry. I tabled an early-day motion on 29 March drawing attention to the fact that two oil refineries were up for sale. They have since been sold to overseas investors. I said at the time that 150,000 jobs were involved. Those jobs are now genuinely under threat.
We have looked at the opportunities as well as the warnings, however. One opportunity involves the fact that there are massive deficits in low-sulphur, high-quality diesel and in aeronautic fuel in the EU at the moment. With the right incentives, it would be attractive for someone to invest in those. The Budget proposals that the Government are putting forward in the Bill should therefore provide those incentives.
It is interesting to note that an opportunity was spotted by Mr Ifty Nasir, who owns Essar, an Indian oil company, which bought a refinery at Stanlow. He said on 11 April 2011 that he intends to expand Stanlow’s shipping terminal in the Mersey to provide a UK entry point for diesel and petrol produced at the Vadinar refinery in India—one of the biggest refineries in Asia, which is in the midst of a £1.7 billion expansion that will allow it produce euro high-quality, low-sulphur diesel. That is the very opportunity that should exist for our refineries, for our companies and for British workers.
I wrote about this to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). I asked what future support for our refineries in the UK would be forthcoming. In his reply of 5 April, he said:
“We work closely with the downstream oil industry and its representatives to understand the impact of policy on the sector and to ensure this understanding is shared across a range of Government Departments.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 536, c. 886W.]
We had an hour and a half’s debate this morning in Westminster Hall about oil refining. I come here tonight to ask Ministers about the Treasury’s understanding of this issue and what its response has been, as I can find no indication that the Chancellor is joined up to the real world in any way in respect of his Budget proposals that will affect the UK refining industry.
Let us consider the background to oil refining. When the climate change levy and the EU emissions trading scheme were brought in, they were to have an impact on manufacturing, but were also to be tax-neutral. The scheme was about redistributing energy-reduction incentives in other parts of the economy, and it is about to become the European trading system mark 3. It puts £15 million a year on to the cost of refining oil in Grangemouth, a refinery in my constituency, alone. That is a high price to pay, but the industry accepted that environmental standards meant accepting it.
What we have effectively is a 15% disadvantage in EU refining, of which we are part, in comparison with the rest of the world, including India. If we bring in the new carbon tax, which the hon. Member for Bristol West seemed to be lauding, it will add another 10% disadvantage on top of that 15% one—and for UK refining alone. We will be disadvantaged in Europe by 10%, and in the rest of the world by 25%, in terms of the environmental taxes we pay. The cumulative cost to UK manufacturing business in general—we should remember that the Government said that they were going to “rebalance” the economy with their taxes and incentives—will be £9.3 billion. That price will not be faced by other parts of Europe or other parts of the world.
I want to know from Treasury Ministers what thought went into this policy. What extrapolation did they make? What cost-analysis or impact-analysis did they do when they thought up this scheme? The scheme does not attract me, when 1,350 jobs are at stake in the refinery in my constituency. Beyond that, another 4,000 or 5,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on that downstream work. About 150,000 people working in the refinery industry can see someone coming over from India to import a product that is refined in India where the pollution standards are much lower than here, yet the Indian owner does not have to pay either the emissions trading scheme costs or the carbon floor price. I want an explanation of why that tax is in this Budget.
Let me illustrate what happened on the day of the Budget because of the announcement that a carbon price will be introduced in 2013. A forward pricing exercise run by Heren shows what happened to electricity prices on that day. The electricity price for 2013 went up by £2.20 per megawatt-hour because of the fear and risk that had to be factored in. We spoke of the same thing earlier in connection with the impact of the Government’s decision to plunder the profits of the offshore industry. The price has now risen by another £3 to £56.50. That 5% increase will affect all industries that are heavy electricity users. The oil refining industry cannot pass it on, because its margins are so small. The Government said that they would rebalance the position in favour of the manufacturing base of our economy, but instead they have laid that burden on it.
The second tax that I wish to discuss is the carbon reduction commitment, which was designed by the Labour Government as a tax on office spaces and other entities that could not be reached by the emissions trading scheme. It has since been simplified, and we understand that it will also apply to the manufacturing industry and to United Kingdom refining. The UK Petroleum Industry Association has described it as no more than another general tax. Will the Treasury exempt manufacturing industries and the UK refining industry from that tax? If not, it will impose another burden on the UK’s manufacturing capability.
Sammy Wilson
Not only has the tax been extended to a wider range of bodies, but the Treasury has removed an incentive for firms to reduce energy consumption. Some of the money that they had paid into the scheme used to be returned to them, but that will no longer be the case.
Michael Connarty
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That incentive has gone. Ports such as Grangemouth, in my constituency, cannot pass the tax on to those who rent or are sublet property. It will not make people who rent property more energy-conscious, although it was originally designed by the Labour Government—who employed an excellent methodology involving a great deal of consultation with the industry—as an incentive for the reduction of energy use.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is probably partly responsible for matters involving the oil refining industry, although it seems to be burying its head in the sand and kicking that responsibility over to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The two Departments are supposedly engaged in a study of the cumulative impact of climate change and energy policies. However, the Treasury must be involved as well, and it must take responsibility for the damage that it will do if it does not moderate its carbon taxes. Specifically, anyone who pays the costs of the European emissions trading scheme should be exempt from them. It has been calculated that the carbon price in the UK is likely to reach €54 per tonne, while the price on the European mainland will be only €36 per tonne. We are therefore at a disadvantage in relation to Europe, let alone the world.
There is a further tax that the Treasury consistently hang on to. Those who import a fuel oil must pay tax on what they land at the depot or terminal. If, for example, Grangemouth refinery supplies the terminal in the north of Scotland by tanker, it will pay tax on the amount of product that it puts into the tanker. However, an evaporation factor places an additional burden on every tanker load, so no one with any sense will convey fuel from a UK refinery to any UK destination. INEOS in Grangemouth prefers to import it from Lavera in France, because it pays less tax on the same tanker load, because of evaporation. Regardless of which party is in Government the Treasury has retained that tax, but it is time to reconsider. If we want products to be made in this country and taxed in this country, we must have a tax system that gives incentives to industry rather than punishing it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance, and it has been wonderful to listen to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because he made a wonderfully Conservative speech, saying that taxation and over-regulation are fundamentally bad things—bad for the economy, bad for business, and bad for Britain. That is absolutely true, but unfortunately it misses the point that when this Government came into office, the coffers were bare. There was no money left, and therefore tough action has needed to be taken on both spending and taxation. I want to see taxes fall in every possible area—I want taxes on income, capital gains, companies and oil companies all to be reduced—but I only want Her Majesty’s Government to do that when it can be afforded.
We need to look back at the seriousness of the situation we inherited, and at what this Government are doing. Gross debt issuance from 2008-09 to 2010-11 is £540.5 billion. That is money that has to come from savers and from foreigners, and a good chunk of it actually came from the Bank of England: some £205.9 billion—getting on for half the total—was just printed by the Bank of England. That is not a way in which any responsible Government could ever have carried on; to have done so would have been desperately inflationary.
I want to come back to the point made so eloquently by the shadow Chief Secretary about Ricardian equivalence, because that is relevant. No one is saying that every £1 in debt is necessarily going to relate to £1 in future taxation, but the broad principle is right. The electorate understand this; they understand it from their own financial affairs and they see it from the Government’s. They understand that if a huge debt is built up, it has to be repaid, and it will be repaid by them out of their earnings or their assets. We already see not far short of £50 billion a year being spent on interest payments. The British electorate know that that £50 billion is coming out of their taxes, as will the repayments. Indeed, as we get on to the repayments and refinancing, we will have a further gilt issuance of £578 billion between now and 2015. Enormous amounts of money are still being raised on the debt markets even when the Government are implementing a programme of tough cuts and some tax rises, which people do not like, but that is because of the severity of the situation the Government inherited, and if they had not implemented that programme, the confidence of the markets would have evaporated.
That confidence is what allows the Government to finance themselves. This is where the gilt market is so important. The five-year gilt is trading 5% away from its historical real average; that is 500 basis points, which is a gigantic amount in gilt market terms. The five-year gilt is usually at a 2% premium to the retail price index, but it is currently at a 3% discount to RPI. That shows that the financial markets believe that the Government have got it right.
Most economic decision making takes some years to come into effect, and I must confess that in this regard we have heard a lot of nonsense about quarterly growth figures relating to decisions on cuts taken before any of their consequences had actually come through. It takes much longer than that for economic results to happen, and I would therefore say that the figures for this quarter, the last quarter and the one before that are to the credit of the Opposition, and not as yet to Her Majesty’s Government; it will be to the credit of Her Majesty’s Government when we have got 2.5%-plus growth. The gilt market and the currency market are, however, immediate responders to Government policy, and the response that they have given is a vote of confidence. They know that the Government have broadly got it right. The currency has strengthened, and is continuing to strengthen, against the dollar—an indication, perhaps, that the United States has not got its fiscal situation as well sorted out as we have here.
Let us consider some of the specific things that the Government are doing in this Bill. I particularly welcome, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), the increase in the tax threshold. A wonderful pamphlet produced by Lord Saatchi and Peter Warburton a few years ago asked why poor people pay tax and why we have this merry-go-round whereby we take money out of someone’s pocket and put it back into their other pocket having taken some element of it to finance our bureaucracy along the way. The more the Government can raise the tax threshold, the less of that money will be wasted as the machine churns through and the more people will be taken out of tax.
I will add one point that may not be deemed helpful. My hon. Friend mentioned that over a couple of years 2 million people are to be taken out of tax, but Her Majesty’s Government might like to know that the Chinese Government have just succeeded, by increasing the income tax threshold from 2,000 renminbi a month to 3,000 renminbi a month, in taking 76 million people out of tax. That is something for the Treasury to aim for, because that number exceeds the entire population of the United Kingdom.
The increase in the tax threshold is extremely welcome, as is the reduction in corporation tax. Being competitive on corporation tax is something that the Irish were so clever about, and may we wish them well in their fight against the European Union’s attempts to make them increase it. By reducing corporation tax we attract businesses that could otherwise go anywhere in the world. We know that businesses can move and that WPP is thinking of moving back to the United Kingdom because of the right trend in taxation. In that regard, I encourage Her Majesty’s Government to avoid any of this nonsense about a Robin Hood tax. Robin Hood was not as good as he was made out to be—particularly for the sheriff of Nottingham—but even if such a tax were as heroic as the late Robin Hood, it would still be a very bad tax for this country.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I was just wondering whether my hon. Friend would agree that Robin Hood actually took from the state to give back to the people.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am not entirely sure that that is what he did. I think he also stole from the Church, which is why I have my doubts about him; I am not really in favour of people pinching things from holy mother Church.
The other great thing about this Budget—this is why it should be welcome—is that it recognises the limitations of governmental power. Let us consider what has happened in Japan since 1990. The Japanese Government have tried loose monetary policy and loose fiscal policy, sometimes at the same time and sometimes at different times, and they have managed to take the fiscal debt to 200% of GDP without managing to achieve any growth in this period. Governments cannot command economies in the way that some socialists think that they ought to be able to do. Governments can only set the right terms for business to be done, and that is where the deregulation programme is so important.
If the Government can follow through on that programme and sweep away the burdens that stop business doing business, that is how we will be able to get economic growth. It will not be Government expenditure that leads to the economy recovering rapidly because—let us return to Ricardian equivalence—people will recognise that there is great waste in Government expenditure. It will not necessarily even be very low interest rates that will do that, although I am in favour of a loose monetary policy, because eventually we reach the point where there are no borrowers there to borrow—we may be in that position. The Red Book points out that total private sector debt is 450% of GDP. If that does not make your blood run cold, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what will, because that is an extraordinary level of private sector debt and it is very hard to pretend that an economy can grow by further private sector debt being taken on. So we are back with the real opportunity being a deregulatory one for the Government to push that agenda as hard as they possibly can so that businesses can do business, investors can invest and people can work. That will then lead to the tax coming through at lower tax rates and the expenditure being made that the Government wish to make, and we will be back to the glorious time that we had when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As a Member who represents part of the United Kingdom that has seen the highest increase in unemployment and that will see £4 billion taken out of public spending over the next four years as well as a 40% reduction in capital spending, may I say that I trust that the Chief Secretary was right to say what he did about the purpose of this Finance Bill, the objectives the Government have set for it and their hopes for it? That might seem strange from someone on the Opposition Benches, but if we consider the impact of the recession and the absence of growth on my constituents and on the public across the United Kingdom, we can only hope to get back on to a growth trajectory as quickly as possible. I am not so sure, however, given the proposals in the Finance Bill and the Budget, that that will be the case.
As the shadow Chief Secretary said, there is a lack of ideas on the demand side. Indeed, over the next five years, the Bill will put only £20 million additional money into the pockets of businesses and consumers, which is hardly a big increase that will allow the public and businesses to spend money. We know that Government spending is curtailed. As for investment, I believe that it will not have the impact that the Government hope that it will. The Government are relying on one other aspect of aggregate demand—exports. As I shall point out, some policies in the Bill will make it much more difficult for firms to be competitive. On the supply side, firms will invest only if there is a degree of confidence, if there is consumer demand and if there is the infrastructure that can give them that confidence. With cuts in the capital budget, in particular, I am not sure that that will be the case.
I do not want to get into a macro-economic analysis of the Finance Bill, as I want to follow on from the theme taken up by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and to consider the impact of some of the environmental taxes. Specifically, I want to consider the distorting impact that they will have on growth, industry and consumers in places such as Northern Ireland.
Some Members will know that I am not a great fan of green taxes—indeed, for many reasons, I do not believe that the adjustments that such taxes will make and their impact on CO2 output in the United Kingdom will save the world or have a great impact on the climate in 100 years’ time. They are not designed to be behaviour changing and, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has pointed out, some that have been claimed to be behaviour changing have resulted in nothing but stealth taxes. If we consider the Government’s predictions for the revenue from such taxes, it is clear that the Budget is dependent on their not changing behaviour. Otherwise, revenue predictions will be short of what the Government anticipate. The final reason why I do not support the taxes was shown in the illustrative example about the oil industry. Rather than helping to achieve the objective set out by the Government, namely to make our tax system the most competitive in the G20 and to encourage investment and exports, these taxes will make industry less competitive.
Let me deal with one tax to start—the carbon price floor. We have heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk about the impact on the oil refining industry. If one considers the Budget figures published by the Government, one can see that over the next five years firms will, as a result of the reduction in corporation tax, save approximately £1.1 billion in year five. As a result of the imposition of the carbon price floor, they will pay £1.4 billion. All the gains from the reduction in corporation tax will be wiped out and more by one specific environmental tax. Of course, that cost will fall more heavily on the very industry that the Government hope will lead the charge for growth, namely manufacturing, which is one of the biggest consumers of energy. As energy prices go up as a result of the carbon price floor, it will have an impact on business costs. We have heard the example of what will happen in the oil industry. The Government have published figures showing that for some heavy energy consumers, such as firms that make glass, tyres or metal products, the impact will be a rise of as much as 9% on their energy bills.
The carbon price floor will also have an impact on consumers. If the Government’s figures are anything to go by, electricity prices will have gone up by 6% by 2015. Let me put that into context: it means an increase of £30 a year on an average household electricity bill of £500. However, as a result of the Budget and the tax changes in it, households with income at the 10th decile—the lowest-income households—will receive an increase in household income of £1.42 a year. So, the impact of this tax, which the Chief Secretary has proudly said we are the first in Europe to impose, will be to increase fuel poverty among the lowest-income households and to make manufacturing industry less competitive at the very time when we want it to lead the charge for growth.
The tax has specific connotations for places such as Northern Ireland, because we are part of a single electricity market that links us to the Irish Republic, which has not gone down this route. The way in which the single electricity market runs means that electricity is drawn from the cheapest producer first and then, as demand increases during the day and at peak times, it is drawn from more expensive producers. The impact of the tax will be that the cheapest producers will be in the Irish Republic, which will have two impacts on people in Northern Ireland. First, our security of supply will become imperilled, because we will become more reliant on producers from the Irish Republic. Secondly, as the tax will be imposed on gas, which is used in Northern Ireland mainly for electricity generation, the cost of extending the gas network in Northern Ireland will fall on consumers as the consumption of gas goes down. The whole purpose of exempting Northern Ireland from such measures for a number of years was, first, to try to deal with fuel poverty by increasing gas distribution across Northern Ireland, thereby making businesses more competitive by ensuring there was a gas network, which enabled them to use cheaper fuel, but the carbon price floor is likely to put all that in jeopardy.
I welcome the discussions with the Treasury and the fact that it wants to investigate more fully the impact of the carbon price floor on places such as Northern Ireland. I hope that there will be a revision once the full extent of that impact is seen in terms of what it does to the electricity market, to the cost of energy for consumers and businesses and to the ability to increase the gas distribution network. Those who are concerned about carbon dioxide output and production will find it ironic that the tax could drive power production towards coal-fired power stations in the Irish Republic—so it will not even achieve, on a European basis, the objective that the Government have set out for it.
The second tax that I want to consider, which has been frozen for this year, is air passenger duty. The tax was designed to cut air travel and, in doing so, supposedly to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by people who fly around the world. One of the problems in a region such as Northern Ireland is that the Government of the Irish Republic, who received a loan of £7.5 billion from the Government here in London, have used part of that to reduce their air passenger duty to €3 and intend to reduce it to zero. That has an impact on the one international flight from Northern Ireland. Members may say, “Big deal—one international flight,” yet a large part of our economic strategy involved attracting investment from north America. We have succeeded in getting Citibank, the New York stock exchange and a range of other big investors into Northern Ireland, bringing high quality, highly paid jobs on the basis that there was a direct transport link between Northern Ireland and north America, as north American business men wanted.
As a result of the distortion of the air passenger duty, we are likely to lose that Continental Airlines flight, our only link with north America, as the airlines find that it is much more competitive to fly from Dublin, 100 miles down the road. That is one of the ways in which an ill-thought-out tax can cause distortion. It is not as though there is not an answer to it. Recognising that air passenger duty caused problems for areas away from the centre, the Government have already introduced an exemption for the highlands and islands of Scotland. An exemption could be made as part of the rebalancing of the economy of Northern Ireland. I look forward to the discussions with the Treasury on the impact of the tax, which may or may not be beneficial. I leave Members to make up their own mind about it. It may reduce air travel, or simply make it more difficult and more expensive for our constituents, but the distorting effects must be taken into account.
The third topic is the aggregates levy credit scheme—
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Before my hon. Friend moves on to that, does he agree that the carbon issue, as well as the issues of air passenger duty and corporation tax for Northern Ireland, arises because Northern Ireland has a land frontier with the Irish Republic, which is a unique circumstance within the United Kingdom? [Laughter.] That is not special pleading, but a recognition of the special circumstance in which Northern Ireland finds itself, because it shares a common land frontier. England, Scotland and Wales do not; we do, and therefore people find it easy to go down the road and fly out of Dublin, as opposed to Belfast. Government Members may laugh at these matters of fact and economics, but they are harsh realities for those of us who live in Northern Ireland, who try to make the economy work and who are trying to grow the private sector. All we are asking is that a Government committed to the private sector should help us in that, not diminish us or reduce our efforts to do so.
Sammy Wilson
One can see the mirth of Government Members. I can understand why the Liberal Democrats are keen to see regulation, interference and high taxation, but I would have thought that Members on the right wing of the Conservative party would sympathise with the case that I have been making, which is that less regulation helps to grow the economy and that less of the distorting impact of the influence of Government can help to improve the economy of Northern Ireland and enable people to stand on their own two feet.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Gentleman—if I may say so, my hon. Friend—for giving way. Many of us on the Government Benches sympathise with that point of view.
Sammy Wilson
I knew from the hon. Gentleman’s speech that he has sympathy with that view. Indeed, I hope that such sympathy will also be found among Treasury Ministers as we discuss these matters.
The problems with the aggregates levy credit scheme are also a result of the land boundary with the Irish Republic. The aggregates levy was designed to encourage the recycling of building materials and reduce the use of virgin stone from quarries. It is good not to waste building materials, and the levy made sense in an area that is surrounded by sea and does not have a land boundary with another country that also quarries stone but does not impose such a levy, so allowances were made for firms in Northern Ireland. The Government are sympathetic to the continuance of the scheme, but as a result of a referral to the EU Commission it has been stopped. I notice that provision has been made in the Bill for a new scheme, albeit an altered one, which can be made available once discussions have been held with Europe. Again, I look forward to that and hope that we will get a positive response from Treasury Ministers.
I very much doubt that there is a great deal of sympathy for my views on the green taxes, but I hope that there will be sympathy and support for the need to look at their distorting impact on a part of the United Kingdom that is up against competition from a country that does not impose the same level of taxation. The Government have said that they want a competitive tax system; we want that. They say that they want to create a situation in which exports and private industry can grow; we want that. I therefore think that cognisance must be given to the points that I have made.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I welcome the Finance Bill in so many ways, many of which are to do with creating growth and jobs. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), noted in his comments after the Budget that it will create growth, so it is interesting that some of the newer members of the shadow Cabinet on the one hand praise him for the things he said but on the other ignore his praise for a Budget that creates growth.
The Budget is helping to rebalance the economy, which is never an easy thing. We need to get more from private sector, as we have been over-reliant on the public sector. An important point that is often missed when discussing the private and public sectors and whether the Government should spend more money here or there is that the Government do not have any money. It is not our money; it is the public’s money. It is the money we take off people and businesses and from trading throughout the world. It is not our money for us to do with as we like. It is the public’s money, and we should ensure that we deal with it responsibly.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I am following my hon. Friend’s powerful argument closely. Will he add that, to the extent that we go into debt, it is actually our children’s and grandchildren’s money?
Alec Shelbrooke
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. That leads me to the problem, which I had not intended to mention, of how indebted the nation was personally. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made the point that a total private sector debt that is 450% of GDP is something to fear and shake at.
One reason I believe we did not see the increase in the public’s spending in certain areas despite the historically low interest rates—the Bank of England brought interest rates down and I think we understand why—was because people saw the opportunity to use the extra money they had in their pockets from the reduction in their mortgage payments to start paying off credit card debts, although many were on fixed-rate mortgages. That money was not poured back into the economy as was originally envisaged because people saw the writing on the wall and started to reduce their personal debt, and the Government should take a big lesson from that. We need to get debt down if we are to sustain future growth. We talk about interest of £50 billion a year on £1 trillion-worth of debt, but that does not mean anything to people because those numbers are huge. However, when we tell them that £120 million is being given to foreign nations every day because of the money we have borrowed, they start to realise the situation we face.
We all face such situations in our constituencies, where certain services are being cut—there is some politics involved, but that is not my point—and local councils need more money, which they cannot have because of the situation we are in. People realise that rather than going to foreign nations, that £120 million could be used to go some way towards addressing, for example, the closure of a leisure centre in my constituency that is losing £100,000 in a year.
That is why we needed to rebalance the economy. We became far too reliant on public debt and public money—public money that comes from private money—and we cannot keep magicking public money out of the air, because in the end it leads to hyperinflation. Indeed, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), made some link, which I could not follow, between our policies and the rise of the far right in the 1930s, which in turn led to the second world war. Hyperinflation certainly played a big role in nationalism among Governments, however, and it came about precisely because of the economic circumstances that we were moving towards recently.
I take issue with the hon. Lady when she says that we are attacking ordinary hard-working people. That is, quite frankly, a disgraceful comment to make. There is not a person on either side of the House who deliberately wants to attack the ordinary hard-working person, so let us just put down a few facts. We have just brought in an income tax cut for 23 million people and taken almost 1 million people out of income tax altogether. Let us compare that with doubling income tax for the lowest paid in society.
Alec Shelbrooke
But you cannot deny that your Government doubled income tax for the lowest paid in society and destroyed pensions—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the previous Government. The previous Government destroyed pensions, leaving many people whom we would class as the most vulnerable in society to take their pensions with fear and trepidation. At least we have brought in the triple lock on pensions, meaning that people should never again get the 75p rise in their pension.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
In addition to the facts that my hon. Friend is bringing to bear in this debate, is it not shocking that the amount that the Government have borrowed only over the past year is equivalent to more than £2,000 for every family?
Alec Shelbrooke
Again, that illustrates my earlier point: when the figures are brought down to a smaller level, people can understand their full impact and the state of the nation’s finances. When I compare that to our personal finances, I say to people, “For every £1 we’ve spent, we’ve borrowed 25p. How long would your household finances survive with that sort of economics?” They simply would not. Indeed, the increase in private debt and in people’s credit card debts, with some even committing suicide because they used credit cards to pay off credit cards, is a lesson that Governments should learn.
Let us look at the growth and debt figures. Our debt is 10.4% of GDP, Spain’s is 9.2% and Portugal’s is 9.1%, but I do not see our interest rates on the gilt markets being as high as Portugal’s. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made an excellent point when he described the percentage rates being below RPI by 300 unit points, or 500 unit points below normal. That shows that a credible plan had to be put in place.
I find it distressing when we get into this argument with the Opposition, who say, “You don’t need to do all this.” I will give the House an analogy. For 13 years, the previous Government fed everybody chocolate and burgers, and every person in this country now weighs 35 stone. Along comes the doctor, in the form of this Government, who says, “I’m afraid if you don’t lose at least 20 stone you are going to die very young and it is going to be disastrous for you.”
Alec Shelbrooke
Yes, probably! I am in a rotund position to say this, and I certainly speak with a certain authority on these matters, but it is never easy to lose weight, as indeed I can testify. I am getting married in a month’s time—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I am desperately trying to lose weight, and it is not easy, but it is never easy for someone if the previous lot who fed them when they were trying to lose weight say, “Go on, have another bacon sandwich, it won’t do you any harm. Have another chocolate. We’ll pay for that on the credit card by the way, which we’ve nicked off you.” But seriously, if we do not get the economy under control, we will find that it leads to the situation that we see in Portugal.
What does that mean to the public? The Opposition have attacked the Government and said that they have not done anything to protect people, but what would higher interest rates do to people? We have had an interest rate of 0.5% for well over a year. We used to think that 3% or 4% was a low interest rate when the Bank of England maintained it at that level for a good period of the last decade. If the interest rate went back to 4% in the next six months, what effect would that have on the people of this country? Having spent a great deal of time with interest rates at an historically low rate, they have learned to live within those means. We do not have the option to go back to 4% interest rates—that would be a disaster for hard-working families. Ironically, it could increase the pound’s value against the dollar, reduce the oil price and reduce petrol prices—I suppose there is a quid pro quo to everything—but let us not get away from the fact that going back to what we then thought were historically low interest rates would be seen as an absolute disaster.
I get annoyed with the twisting of the Keynesian argument when people say that in times of recession Governments should pour money into an economy. That was only half the truth: the other half was to invest it in capital investment.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend misses the other half of the other half, which was to accrue a surplus in a time of plenty.
Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend pre-empts me, because I was going to say that the Swedes put aside 2% of gross domestic product during the good times and the Australians paid off their national debt in the last quarter, leaving them well placed to deal with these issues.
People often say that the new deal in America, with its Keynesian attitude, dug the American economy out of its hole. No, it did not—that was achieved by the second world war and the fact that America was able to lend money and sell armaments to the rest of the world while not having its mainland invaded. That put the Americans in the economic driving seat, from which they have never looked back.
I want to talk about fuel prices. The Opposition were going to add another 5p to the price of petrol. I know that it is difficult to prove a negative. If we say to people, “We’ve cut 6p off a litre of petrol,” they will say, “No, you haven’t—you only cut a penny,” because if they are not paying that 5p it is difficult to prove it to them. However, at least we have done something to help, and we have to pay for that somehow. We cannot just go on printing money and saying, “It doesn’t matter. It’s the Government’s money—we’ll supply it, don’t worry about it,” because that completely misses the point and gets us into these problems. Under the previous Government, fuel prices rocketed because of taxation; under this Government, fuel prices have gone up because of the oil price, over which we do not have influence. If we are to believe what is said, we may have reached peak oil. We could have a discussion for three hours about whether that is so, and people would say, “Well, more oil comes online because at the current high oil price it becomes more economical and there is plenty of oil out there—it isn’t going to run out.” However, the key to that argument is that it relates to the current oil price. Let us not forget that the oil price is controlled by the oil traders and speculators, and if they believe that we are at peak oil, that oil price is here to stay. We have tried to cushion the impact and help hard-working families, and it is pretty cheap for Labour Members to snipe at that.
Drawing on the comments by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at the same time as the argument that we should try to reduce our carbon emissions, we hear that we should not build any nuclear stations or put any subsidies into moving forward with nuclear power. We have seen an absolutely terrible and disastrous event in Japan—something that shocked the world and daily covers the newspapers, and still gets talked about constantly, with Russia now making criticisms. As far as I am aware, that nuclear reactor has not killed anyone. It is funny how quickly people completely forget about the 20,000 people who died in the tsunami: the real human cost. But no, they focus on a nuclear power station hit by the third biggest release of energy the world has ever seen and a 30-foot tsunami doing 60 mph, and everybody says that that is why we should not have nuclear power. Nobody adds that more than 20,000 people have been killed by this natural disaster. Let us get some perspective. We know that nuclear power may not be the best way forward, but it is the best way forward at this moment. Until we develop the technology so that we can get to nuclear fusion and perhaps some better green technologies, these are our options and this is what we face. We cannot keep saying no to everything.
The Opposition always want it both ways. They want to cut the fuel price, but they do not want to tax oil companies. They want the banks to lend more, but they want to tax them so much that they would leave the country. They want to reduce carbon and to have secure energy, but they do not want to go nuclear. They are a joke. Their speeches vary from Member to Member. Some could be on this side of the House, some could be old Labour and some could be new Labour. I do not know what their policy is, but the blank sheet of paper is certainly something that they are all sticking to vigorously. We have seen very little in the local election campaign except for criticism of the Government.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman speaks about nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy. Does he have an opinion on the Scottish National party’s view on nuclear energy?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. He has asked his question. Members should not just walk into the Chamber and intervene.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am not aware of the SNP’s policy. It may have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman, but I stand here as a Conservative Member of Parliament.
I have a final plea to the Minister. I know that there are problems with the European Union interfering in all aspects of alcohol and that we cannot do certain things, but can he look at putting higher taxation on non-draught beer? He may have done so already and it would be interesting to hear about that when he sums up. That does not involve saying that if beer is sold in a supermarket it will be taxed more, which brings competition law into play, but just that draught beer will not be taxed as much as other beers. The reason for raising tax on non-draught beer is that draught beer is served in pubs and publicans have a responsibility to ensure that people do not drink out of control, because they are licensed and controlled. I think that that idea would go some way towards countering the binge drinking problem. It may be that we cannot do that under European law, but I make the plea to the Minister. I will be interested to hear whether it is something that he has considered.
I support the Bill and believe that it is the only way we can secure growth. It is an intelligent and credible way forward that, frankly, is not just trying to get a good headline in The Guardian, which the shadow Chancellor seems keen on.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has taken political propaganda to an all-time low this evening in trying to convince the Chamber that he has not eaten out on Labour’s chocolate and burgers, to use his words. That is a bit rich. None the less, I wish him well for his wedding, which is coming up shortly, and I hope that his battle with the bulge means that he will eventually fit into the dress come the big day.
I am delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is back in the Chamber, because I want to wish him a happy anniversary. It is exactly a year since the leader of the Liberal Democrats said in a TV interview with Jeremy Paxman:
“Do I think that these big, big cuts are merited or justified at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not.”
I wish the Chief Secretary a happy anniversary a year on from that bombshell from the Deputy Prime Minister. It is still the contention of Labour Members that the coalition Government are going too far, too fast, and that that approach is killing growth and causing rising unemployment in this country.
The Chancellor announced with a fanfare that this would be a Budget for growth that would add fuel to the economy. He gave his bold growth fanfare against the backdrop of the economy shrinking by 0.5% in quarter four, even though it was clearly on the road to recovery in quarters one and two of last year under the previous Government. On top of that came a huge embarrassment: the Chancellor’s trumpeted Budget for growth downgraded economic growth in every year of the economic cycle and predicted increased unemployment. The Chancellor’s own Office for Budget Responsibility concluded that the Government’s Budget for growth, which he said would “go for growth”, reduced the economic growth figures. Astonishingly, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is still in his place, blames Labour and not the snow.
We cannot pay back any deficit with lower growth and more people out of work. The Government’s decisions contained in this Finance Bill do nothing to help hard-working ordinary people and families up and down the country. We have heard several times this evening about the potential decimation of the UK oil industry, which will cost yet more jobs.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman therefore opposed to the measures taken in the Budget to reduce fuel taxation on hard-working motorists?
Ian Murray
No one would ever deny that a 1p cut would help motorists, but there are certainly no petrol stations in Edinburgh South where fuel is now cheaper than it was before the Chancellor’s Budget. Indeed, money is being taken off the oil and gas industry, and billions of pounds in jobs and future research and development are being put in jeopardy for a 1p cut in fuel prices that nobody is actually seeing at the pump. The Government have to take that on board and act with ferocity.
I agree with the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who let the cat out of the bag during an Environmental Audit Committee hearing just before the Easter recess. He said that prior to the Budget, the Cabinet had discussed the fact that there was
“an immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we needed”.
The Government’s response to that crisis was to produce a Budget that would make growth and unemployment levels worse—the “Dad’s Army”, “Don’t panic, Captain Mainwaring” approach to what they claimed was a “national crisis”.
Of course we need to get the deficit down, but by cutting too far and too fast, by hitting children, women and families the hardest and by following an ideology that attacks the economic drivers of this country, the Government risk a vicious circle of perpetual slower growth and fewer people in work. With fewer people paying tax, there will be more people drawing benefits and not spending hard-earned cash. The Government have presided over a set of decisions that have resulted in a collapse in living standards not seen since the 1920s.
On the subject of living standards, the Prime Minister promised to lead the most family-friendly Government ever. The Chancellor said, “We’re all in this together,” but changes to tax and benefits this month will hit those least able to pay—ordinary, hard-working people up and down the country—the hardest.
We have been through a global financial crisis, not a recession that was made in Britain. Like every other major economy in the world, the big challenge for us is how to get the deficit down. It cannot come down while confidence is low. VAT will cost a family with children an average extra £450 this year, draining much-needed funds from tight family budgets and potentially harming consumer confidence.
Of course, from this month, there are also cuts to the amount that parents can claim for child care; the freezing of child benefit for three years; the scrapping of the baby element of child tax credit; the setting of benefits on a permanently lower path, with a real-terms cut that means less generous benefits this year and every year in future; the cutting of the second income threshold for the family element of child tax credit; and the increasing of withdrawal rates for tax credits to 41%.—and of course the Liberal Democrats’ champion policy of increasing the tax threshold at the lower level is outstripped tenfold by the VAT increase and the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index for uprating tax thresholds, which will erode any threshold increase over time.
The message of this Finance Bill is not growth but the fact that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with many other hands. They have demonstrated in the Budget and the Bill how out of touch they are. They do not get the fact that hard-working people are being hit by VAT and now face cuts to tax credits and child benefit too. They do not get the fact that communities throughout the country are being damaged by cuts to local services. Even the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said after the Budget that
“there is an awful lot of giving with one hand...and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
That was an independent commentator talking about what the Government are doing.
The Government often look overseas to build up their justification for this austerity Budget and the Bill, but we have only to look at Ireland to see what too far, too fast austerity measures produce—yes, Ireland, a country that the Chancellor declared had an austerity package that was something of a success story. I suspect that no one in Ireland would agree with him now.
Let us turn, as I might be expected to do, to the Conservatives’ bedfellows on praise for Ireland, the Scottish National party. The SNP held up Ireland as the foundation for their arc of prosperity and as the economic model that an independent Scotland should follow, but look what happened! The SNP not only no longer talk of independence, but they never talk about the arc of prosperity. If Scotland were independent, our banks and our economy would have collapsed, and Scotland would be worse off than Ireland, Greece and Portugal combined.
To be fair to the SNP, not only Ireland formed its arc of prosperity policy, but Iceland too—another economy shattered by the worldwide economic crisis. The Irish austerity measures went too far and too fast, and now the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury never mention Ireland, and neither does the SNP—they have changed indeed.
I could go on and savage the SNP’s 4.8p local income tax proposals, but I know that that is not to do with the Bill, which I shall finish by addressing. The Bill is driven by ideology—an ideology that some have developed in exchange for ministerial Mondeos. The Bill does not improve growth or reduce unemployment, and it continues to hit families and ordinary people the hardest. It kicks away the ladder of opportunity for our country’s young people. It is hurting but certainly not working. For those reasons alone, we should not give it a Second Reading.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly at the end of this debate. This Finance Bill is but one part and but one significant change to the economic policy framework in the UK. The significance of some of the details in the Bill is matched only by the modesty of the amount of comment that they attract. We are debating many of the detailed changes, such as expanding gift aid, helping low earners, supporting motorists and improving the environment for enterprise. I support all those measures and will speak about them later, but I first want to address the context and background set for the Bill by changes to the economic policy framework.
One of the big changes has been referred to explicitly and implicitly throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) spoke about the Office for Budget Responsibility, and every Labour Member has referred to its figures. In that magnificent British way, we have managed to establish and accept a new tradition—the OBR—as if it were ever thus. I argue that that innovation in economic policy and others are significant and noteworthy for the long term. Over many years, evidence grew in the academic economic debate that economic policy is best set for the long term, and the short-term dash for growth became discredited. In the ’80s and ’90s a consensus grew that fiscal policy should be set for the long term, and that monetary policy should be set through an independent Bank of England and used to regulate demand in the shorter term—to keep inflation low and growth going. In fact, that became the cross-party consensus in the House. The shadow Chancellor even wrote a book on what a magnificent set-up that was.
The problem with that arrangement is that it stabilised only one part of the economy, and it was far too narrow. Where discretion was allowed, and within closely prescribed rules, policy worked reasonably well, and policy makers hit the inflation target with commendable accuracy. However, the success of that narrow area of economic policy making led its creators to believe—absurdly—that they had solved the problems of economic policy making. We know the phrases. They said that boom and bust had ended, but that hyperbole led them to ignore the growing signs that all was not well elsewhere, and to commit vast policy mistakes that led to the enormous crisis that we have gone through, and that Government Members are trying to help to clear up. The Labour Government admonished anybody who claimed that Britain’s economic policy framework was anything other than perfect, and that belittled debate.
The problem was that by aiming at one target only—inflation, and consumer price inflation specifically—everyone missed the huge and unsustainable growth in balance sheets throughout the economy. There was unsustainable public debt and unsustainable private debt—a classic debt bubble. The problem first became obvious in fiscal policy. The now discredited fiscal rules allowed the Labour Government to claim that all was rosy—indeed, the shadow Chancellor still claims that all was rosy. In fact, they were borrowing an unsustainable amount at the height of a boom. They then tried the classic trick of borrowing to fund their re-election. As the House knows, they fiddled the figures and moved the goalposts to keep on spending when the facts started to prove otherwise.
The new OBR will bring long-term independence to fiscal policy making, which will constrain not only the current Government, but—I hope—all Governments to come. Crucially, the OBR’s forecasts will define the discretion within which policy makers can operate, and will bring this constrained discretion, similar in structure to monetary policy, into fiscal policy. Different though the execution will be of course—because the policy levers will be different—the structure will be similar.
Although having an OBR in the past might have meant not entering the crisis with unsustainable public finances, what of those unsustainable private finances? No one can argue that the amount of debt in our economy—in our banks and households—was sustainable. Britain entered the crisis as the most indebted nation in the G7 ever, and also had the biggest banking bust in the world. Those are not unconnected, however, because household debt and the banking debt that supports it are a reflection of each other—one group lends to the other. That combination of unsustainable public and private debts means that Government Members have a huge mess to clear up.
The combination of targeting only narrow consumer prices inflation in one part of a tripartite system and the regulation of individual banks in another meant that the crucial piece of the jigsaw—looking at how bank balance sheets affected debt across the economy—was missed. It is a bit like a balloon: we pushed down on consumer prices and kept control of them, but all the extra liquidity shot out into prices of other assets, including, as we know from our personal lives and those of our constituents, the biggest asset of all—housing. We had a bonanza housing boom: equity withdrawal; get-rich, buy-to-let schemes; more than 100% mortgages. We all know about them. The bubble lasted all the longer, however, because it had a credible story behind it—of the extra savings being made in China and the rising Asian nations—and was harder still to argue against.
Nobody was there to pull the punch bowl away when the party got going. As we know to our cost, the power to do that was removed from the Bank of England in 1997. At the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) predicted it would cause problems. The link between looking at the sustainability of individual banks and looking at the macro-picture had been broken. Now that link is being restored. First, clause 72 and schedule 19 will introduce and increase the bank levy. It will be a levy on banks’ balance sheets, not bonuses, so will contribute to financial stability. Secondly, and crucially for the context in which we think about the Bill, the proposed financial policy committee, which will first operate in shadow form, will monitor that link. It will link the management of the country’s debt and balance sheets with the management of the macro-economy, linking fiscal policy and monetary policy through financial policy, and therefore allow for a holistic big picture of how we are managing our economy. Instead of allowing a bubble to build up by omission, the FPC’s job will be to look for it and act on it. Unlike under the former system, in which the Bank of England could complain and raise concerns but not act, the FPC will be empowered. Crucially, because the discretion is embedded in a respected institution, it will have the authority to exercise that discretion. For whereas discretion without rules gives us tyranny, rules without discretion give us futile bureaucracy.
The changes have been praised by the OECD and the IMF, and they represent a substantial and fundamental shift in how we run our economy. However, we should resist the hubris of saying that these reforms will ever be finished or that the ancient challenge of economic management, first recorded in Genesis, is complete. As we debate the details of the Bill today, we should consider how the context of those changes, in strengthening our economic framework, is about learning the lessons from the past and helping us to be stronger as we face the inevitable challenges ahead.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
If a week is a long time in politics, then a year—and perhaps some aspects of tonight’s debate—is an eternity. Yet a year ago, when we were all candidates and none of us was allowed to stand in this place, things were very different. The economy was beginning to recover, as unemployment was falling and growth was returning. Crucially for today’s debate and the provisions in the Bill, that meant that the deficit came in at £21 billion lower than was forecast. Well, here we all are, a year later, and just as the faces in the Chamber have changed, as have the sides that we are sitting on—some would say not for the better—so too has the economic picture. Given where we were last year, one would have expected the economy next year not simply to have recovered, but to have begun motoring; and yet now, thanks to snow it seems, it appears that the reverse is true. By cutting too fast and too deep, this Government are delivering slow growth and higher unemployment, which is why they will now have to borrow £46 billion more than they planned.
However, the question that this Bill raises is about not just whether to cut the deficit, but how we do so and who ultimately pays. Our national Exchequer certainly will: slower growth plus higher unemployment will make it harder to get the deficit down. As we pay out in jobseeker’s allowance, we will also lose out as families fear spending money that they do not have. That is what I want to highlight this evening. We have a duty to consider how the proposals will help or hinder the finances of families across this country, because it is not just the Chancellor who will have to go cap in hand for extra funds. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) seems to think—I am sorry that he is not here; perhaps he is in the gym preparing for his wedding—public debt and private debt are linked. Although public debt is down by £43 billion, private household debt is up by £245 billion—five times as much.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is a man for whom I have tremendous respect—both him and his pullovers. He lauds the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility, but like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he is hoist by his own petard, because the OBR forecast last June that household debt would increase from an average of £58,000 in 2010 to £66,000 by 2015. The OBR now expects the figure to be £77,000. That is the downside of the Chancellor’s deficit reduction plan. As taxes increase and public spending squeezes households’ disposable income, they will be forced to take on more and more debt in an attempt to maintain their living standards. In fact, the OBR’s March forecast shows household debt rising from £1.6 trillion this year to £2.1 trillion in 2015—or, from 160% of disposable income to 175%. The OBR reports that households will have to borrow more money than forecast in order to maintain their living standards. With the planned cuts in public spending, the only way the Government will see an improvement in the OBR’s forecast for growth is for that ratio to increase.
I know that many Members will be sick of hearing me talk about credit and debt. Many may also argue that it does not matter, because we are a nation that is comfortable with debt—something the hon. Member for West Suffolk talked about. We have always had a different approach to personal debt from many other countries. We are a nation comfortable with borrowing in ways at which other cultures baulk. It is no surprise that we have the highest level of personal debt in the G7. That is not a problem if it can be managed. Much of the money that this country owes is housing related, which reflects a culture in which mortgages are routine. The truth is, however, that the debt that families are now getting into is not related to such investment in their future or about luxury living; it is about the money that they spend on everyday items. That is what is missing from their family finances.
In the current economic climate, UK adults face an average shortfall of £165 each month, with 26% unsure whether they can pay their bills on time. Recent research shows that more than 2 million people have used credit cards to pay their mortgage or their rent. That is an increase of almost 50% in a year. Since the recession, nearly a third of Britons are now spending more than they have coming in each month, and 22% of consumers will carry a credit card debt throughout 2011, with 7% of people saying that they will still be paying for Christmas 2010 after June 2011. It is estimated that 5 million people are now permanently overdrawn, and that 18 million have gone into the red at some point in the past 12 months. Nearly 8 million of us failed to pay at least one bill in the past year.
It is not just the poorest consumers in our society who are affected. According to Experian, the biggest rise in insolvencies in 2010 was among the people whom it calls “suburban mindsets”, a consumer group comprising married, middle-aged people. That situation has not come about by chance. It is a direct consequence of how this Government have chosen to address the deficit.
Matthew Hancock
I do not wish to extend the love-in much further, but the hon. Lady’s arguments, which are being passionately put, would carry much more weight and credence if she were to disappoint her Front-Bench team and accept Labour’s role in bringing about this situation.
Stella Creasy
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening closely. Let me make it very clear: the figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility that I cited refer to this past year. Forgive me, but as far as I am aware, his party has been in power during that time and it has presided over this increase in the private debt that households are now taking on.
Let us talk about some of the things that are causing that increase. VAT is costing a family with children an extra £450 this year, on average, due to the rocketing cost of buying basics such as telephones and clothes and of getting a boiler or a washing machine fixed. That is before they even consider getting out and about to spend money. Many Conservative Members have talked about fuel prices, but the increase in VAT is adding £1.35 to the cost of filling up a 50-litre tank with unleaded fuel. The cut in fuel duty gives back only 1p, but the VAT increase costs us almost 3p a litre.
Those who are in work are finding it even harder to make ends meet as a result of the Budget. Since 5 April, 750,000 more workers have been dragged into the higher rate of income tax, and benefit recipients have lost £2.7 billion-worth of payments. Cuts to child care support have taken £1,500 a year from families. The £48 that people will get through the personal allowance increase in the Budget is barely a tenth of the amount that families will have to pay back through increased VAT. In two years’ time, 1.5 million families—including many in places such as Walthamstow—will lose all their child benefit. Credit Action has pointed out that, of the 45 changes to the tax and benefit system made in the Budget, 26 will have a negative impact on households.
There will also be fewer chances of getting a better-paid job, or of getting back into work, because unemployment is set to be higher in every year of this Parliament as a result of this Government’s actions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Those in the 16-to-25 age bracket who are unemployed will soon top the 1 million mark. Does the hon. Lady share my concern, and that of many other hon. Members, about what the future holds for them?
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been a close reader of the work of Paul Gregg at Bristol university, who has shown how unemployment can scar young people and affect their earning potential for life. I am extremely worried about young people in this country who are facing unemployment and have little prospect of a place on a training scheme or in a university.
There is little sign that these pressures on family finances will ease. With the current wage squeeze expected to continue until at least 2013, average wages are expected to fall to less than £25,000, which is more than £1,800 lower than in 2009. People do not have the pounds in their pockets that they need in order to keep spending in the way our economy needs if it is to grow. If we add to that the anticipated rise in interest rates and mortgage payments, which has been one area of respite in the past few years, we can see that things are going to get a lot bleaker. As our newspapers warn daily, and as the Bank of England has pointed out, interest rates are likely to climb, piling pressure on the 60% of low to middle-income families who are already struggling to pay their bills.
It is no wonder that four in 10 people are worried about their current level of debt, with 4 million fearing redundancy and 4 million more having taken on debt in recent months. We know that the cuts that we have seen so far are just the beginning. The ones that families across the UK felt this month accounted for a mere 10% of the total savings planned before 2015 from changes in the tax credit and benefit system. More than 40% of the cuts kick in in 2013.
Loading debt on to households helps this Government to cut the deficit at the pace they desire, but it is the job of Opposition Members to challenge them on the cost and consequences to all of doing so. In an economy where jobs and growth are in short supply, such debts do not just mean lower consumer spending, higher levels of bankruptcy or repossessions. Nearly 30% of British parents admit they are arguing over their family finances and a third of parents are suffering the stress of sleepless nights because they are worried about money.
Such changes also directly impact on our chances for economic recovery. As the Bank of England pointed out,
“prospects for consumption…have an important bearing on the outlet for activity”,
but it added:
“Near-term prospects have weakened further over the month. The squeeze on households…was likely to dampen consumption materially over the next year or so.”
Even after a sharp reduction in its private consumption forecasts, that favourite of the hon. Member for West Suffolk, the Office for Budget Responsibility, expects British households to account for just over a fifth of economic growth this year and for almost a third next year. The truth is that if the average family is not willing to dig itself deeper into debt, those figures might have to be revised.
The Bill reflects the Government’s complacency about the challenge. There is no commitment to act on these problems—only a general sense of unease, summed up best by the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who wrote:
“What is tough—and will get tougher—is losing jobs. People in work will mostly get by—somehow. People on benefits will mostly get by—somehow. But for those who lose their job—it will be devastating. The cuts were announced last year. Their impact has yet to fully hit. This budget promised growth. The proof will be in the pudding. And the question will be whether there’s a new job to be found within a time frame that can keep health, hearth and home together—and we need to keep a watch over that.”
Well, I want to do more than keep a watch over that, and I hope to answer a question posed by Government Members about what policies Labour Members could suggest.
Today, I argue that we could do more than squabble over Keynes or the Ricardian equivalence; we could do something to help those people in immediate danger of insolvency and bankruptcy. At present, this Bill is missing that. Given the large numbers of people facing financial difficulty, we should be deeply concerned about the strategies that families have to cope with these pressures and how the Bill could do something to help.
To cover costs, more and more people are turning to sources of credit, which might seem like short-term solutions but quickly become long-term problems. The number of people who say they are likely to use an unauthorised overdraft this month has nearly doubled since July last year—from 900,000 to 1.6 million. Similarly, the payday lending industry in the UK, with its 4,000% interest rates and more, has quadrupled in the past 18 months.
Being able to borrow in a way that does not leave a long-term scar on the family finances is the new dividing-line in our society. Those who can access mainstream credit might just scrape by in austerity Britain. Those with little option but the legal loan sharks, maxing out their credit cards or racking up unauthorised debt, could spend a generation or more trying to become debt-free.
This Government want to pretend that such kinds of personal debt are solely a private matter, but Opposition Members see the social and economic consequences and we must beg to differ. A lack of regulation of the high-cost credit market in comparison with other countries allows that industry to go unchecked in the UK. Recognition of the problems caused by casino banking in the City is widespread across the House, but that is only half the battle; we should not forget the financial needs of those in our communities. For the sake of our economic recovery and for the sake of those families, credit should not be lent in a way that is detrimental to consumers without those who profit from exploiting them being made liable for the consequences.
When this Government announced their Budget, I asked a simple question: how can they be so keen to show that they are so tough on national debt, yet so blind to the growing crisis of personal debt that their policies are stoking? Today, with this Bill before us, we are no closer to an answer, but thousands more edge closer to personal financial problems as a direct result. That is why I will table amendments to review whether the supplementary charge or the bankers’ levy could be applied in a way that would disincentivise negative, high-cost credit lending. It is time that this Government put the fortunes of every family first. Other countries have done that to protect their consumers, and I do not see why British consumers should be denied the same opportunity.
Let me offer an open invitation to Treasury Ministers to do what their colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have signally failed to do, and respond to the concerns of Members throughout the House. I invite them to meet us to discuss how we could cap the total cost of credit. Campaigners all over the country who support such action—Churches, trade unions, community groups and consumer associations—would thank them for taking it.
I hope that Members who share my concern about personal debt will support my amendments, and will join me in holding the Government to account for what they are doing to the personal finances of families in every constituency in the country.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr Speaker.
Many Bills are based on evidence, but this Bill takes a huge gamble on the judgment of a Chancellor who regards his plans for fiscal consolidation more as an article of economic faith. The extent of the tax rises that it imposes, when added to the effect of the Government’s decision to reduce spending by £81 billion over the next four years, threatens to remove about 2% of GDP from output. As Anatole Kaletsky wrote in the most recent edition of Prospect, that is the equivalent of the annualised growth achieved in the whole of 2010.
The theory that underpins the measures in the Budget and the Bill is that of expansionary fiscal contraction: the idea that cutting deficits as quickly as possible while also making a massive reduction in the scope of the state will liberate private sector capital to fill in the gap, and will create higher levels of growth. That theory is deficient for two reasons. First, in countries where it has been applied there has been a marked expansion in the export sector, normally accompanied by a depreciation of the currency. Secondly, it has tended to be applied in countries pursuing a policy of monetary easing. Neither factor is likely to obtain in the circumstances faced by the UK economy. In the last quarter of 2010 the country recorded the worst trade figures since 1985, there is weak demand in the rest of Europe apart from Germany, and inflationary pressures are making a rise in interest rates more likely than not this year. Nor is it credible for the Chancellor, who in January 2009 described printing money as
“the last resort of desperate governments”
whose other economic policies had failed, to rely on further quantitative easing to provide any additional monetary stimulus beyond the £200 billion already utilised by the Bank of England.
Government Members have prayed in aid of their fiscal consolidation plans the experience of the Canadian Government of the 1990s who faced the largest deficit in the G7. In a report entitled “Whose Canada?”, Mario Seccareccia of the university of Ottawa noted the real reasons for the success of the Canadian fiscal consolidation programme. High growth in the United States, Canada’s largest trading partner, a sharply declining Canadian dollar and the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement combined to push the export sector’s share of Canadian GDP to 45% by 2000. In addition, an expansionary monetary policy raised consumer spending, and continued until the financial crisis. None of those factors is likely to obtain in the United Kingdom.
Here we have a Finance Bill that imposes the largest squeeze on living standards for British households since the 1920s. As was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), its most worrying feature is the massive rise in personal debt and borrowing that underpins its provisions. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects total household debt to rise from £1.56 trillion in 2010 to a staggering £2.13 trillion in 2015, a rise of 36.3% in just five years. Whereas debt represented 160% of household income last year, the debt-to-income ratio will reach 175% by 2015. Through the higher taxes in the Bill and his Budget’s spending cuts, the Chancellor is transferring the burden of debt from the state to private individuals. As the International Monetary Fund’s recently published global economic outlook report finds, the global recovery remains unbalanced. High unemployment is likely to persist in the coming years. In the European Union economy, an underlying low rate of potential output is the biggest problem. The managing director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, noted in a speech at the Brookings Institution on 13 April that the global economic crisis had cast 30 million people into unemployment, and that over 200 million people across the world are currently seeking work. He says:
“The jobs crisis is hitting the young especially hard. And what should have been a brief spell in unemployment is turning into a life sentence, possibly for a whole lost generation.”
He further states that
“fiscal tightening can lower growth in the short term, and this can even increase long-term unemployment, turning a cyclical into a structural problem. The bottom line is that fiscal adjustment must be done with an eye kept keenly on growth.”
Those are wise words indeed.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s upward revision of projected unemployment for the remainder of this Parliament shows that there is little in this Bill to help tackle youth unemployment and to stop it nearing 1 million and surging over 20%. Indeed, the Government are cutting investment allowances to small and medium-sized enterprises by £2.6 billion in total, which will hurt manufacturers, particularly in the automotive and renewable sectors, and will most benefit high-profit but low-investment companies. As Richard Koo of the Nomura Research Institute in Tokyo says, drawing on his analysis of the Japanese economy in the 1990s, many businesses may remain in a “balance sheet recession”, preferring to pay down debt and protect cash flows and yet shun investment.
Despite this Bill’s lifting of some poor families out of income tax, there are cuts in child tax credits and child care support, and an increase in the withdrawal rates for tax credits to 41%. So the £48 per year which the Chancellor is giving through the increase in the personal allowance in income tax is more than exceeded by the increases in VAT, lower tax credit entitlements, and the slashing of child care support by 10%.
By the decisions the Chancellor has made in his Budget and by the tax rises introduced in his Finance Bill, he has boxed himself into a corner, and has made the economy the prisoner of the OBR’s growth forecasts. Missing the target for growth, as has already happened three times in the last year, means less revenue for the Treasury and a higher than expected deficit.
With tomorrow’s publication of the UK quarterly growth figures, we may get more of an idea of whether it was just the snow or, more likely, the Chancellor’s policies that put the economy in reverse in the last quarter of 2010. For output to bounce back from the calamitous fall in the autumn, the growth rate would automatically need to achieve the minimum level of 0.7%. If the OBR is correct in its above-average estimate for 2011, growth in the first quarter would need to fall in at around 1.2% tomorrow for the economy to be in recovery. If it does not, the Government will have to say how far they will be prepared to see unemployment rise before they decide to change course. It is not too late for a plan B, and I urge the Chancellor to take on board the advice from Gus O’Donnell and the Institute for Public Policy Research on a plan B and a slower rate of deficit reduction.
This Finance Bill is an example of faith-based economics and cynical politics from a Chancellor in whom this country is losing its belief. Britain deserves better, and only with alternative fiscal and taxation policies will we have a fairer way to sustainable public finances and rising living standards for the British people once again.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The amendment before the House declines to give the Finance Bill a Second Reading for simple reasons: because it will increase unemployment, it fails to tackle higher petrol prices, and it lets off the banks with their bonus tax being lower than it need be. The Bill will fail the British people and we will oppose it this evening.
We have had a good debate, in which we have brought out the differences between the Government and the Opposition on these key issues. There has been some agreement, for example, as the hon. Members for Watford (Richard Harrington) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said, on the need to tackle the deficit. We do agree that we need to grow the economy and to reduce unemployment, and we should do those things in a fair and equitable manner.
However, the differences between the Government and the Opposition are wide and deep, and during the passage of this Bill they will be shown to be based on principle. The backdrop to the Bill is important and cannot be spoken about in isolation—indeed, hon. Members have not done that today. From January, VAT increases have cost families with children an average of £450 extra. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, we face cuts to the amount parents can claim on child care. We face child benefit being frozen for three years and the scrapping of the baby element of child tax credits, which is worth £545 a year to people. Benefits are being set on a permanently lower path of inflation, and basic and 30-hour elements of the working tax credits are being frozen. The second income threshold for family elements of tax credit is being cut and the withdrawal rates for tax credits are being increased to 41%.
This Government are clearly determined to hit families hard, and this Budget and Finance Bill do nothing to take those issues forward in a positive way. The Government’s argument is that we need to tackle the deficit. We agree with that and we had a plan to tackle the deficit by cutting it over four years—the Department in which I was a Minister in the previous Government planned to save £1.4 billion. This Government’s measures go too far and are too deep, and they will increase the debt in this country considerably through the levels by which unemployment and benefit expenditure will increase.
The Labour Government had a plan to lower the debt, and before the worldwide crash our national debt was lower than that of America, France, Germany and Japan. The actions of the banks caused the recession and the deficit, and without the support of active government, from which this Government seek to withdraw, we would have faced even more unemployment and even more house repossessions. We are clear that these cuts are too deep and that they are being made too fast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said.
If the Minister does not wish to agree with me, perhaps he will agree with the Member who said:
“If spending is cut too soon, it would undermine the much-needed recovery and cost jobs.”
He also said:
“Do I think that these big cuts are merited or justified at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not.”
Those things were said by the leader of the Liberal Democrats one year ago this very week. He called for no cuts in public spending. He wanted cuts to be not so deep and not so fast, but he has changed his tune now.
We accept that getting the deficit down is important, and what happens to jobs and growth in our economy is crucial. That is why when last year the economy started growing, unemployment was falling. But cuts in public spending are now hitting not only people in the public sector and families and people who need support; they are hitting the private sector and private sector businesses harder. I heard the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) say that she was concerned about the private sector. This morning, I visited businesses in Ipswich and I was told that because of the fear of public spending cuts and the actual public spending cuts people were not buying things in the shops any more. I was told that the cuts were too deep and too fast, and that they were damaging the growth in our economy as a whole.
Last year’s Budget should have contained a bank bonus tax creating more than 100,000 jobs, building 25,000 affordable homes, rescuing construction apprenticeships and boosting investment in businesses, but this Government have failed to take those actions. As well as cancelling the fuel duty rise—we did the same in government when oil prices were rising—the Government should have reversed the VAT rise on petrol, which adds £1.35 to the cost of filling a 50-litre tank. The 1p fuel duty cut in the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough towards offsetting the increase in VAT that the Chancellor imposed in January this year.
The Finance Bill contains no real plan for growth. In clause 10, the Government cut Labour’s proposed allowances for manufacturers by £75,000, using that money to give a corporation tax cut that disproportionately benefits the banks when we could have had more investment in research and development and tax relief for small businesses as a whole. On living standards, the rise in allowances given to people in the Bill is taken away by the VAT increase in January. The House of Commons Library has shown that families will be £1,700 a year worse off because of the Government’s tax and benefits changes.
We know that the Government have not done enough to help drivers. We have seen the planned fuel duty rise delayed, which Labour Governments did when world oil prices were rising, but the Chancellor has done nothing to help individuals by increasing VAT, which has added to the cost of filling up tanks with unleaded petrol over the past three months. The cut in fuel duty gives only 1p back, while the VAT rise has cost almost 3p per litre.
We know that this year there have been tax cuts for the banks. Labour said we wanted an additional bank levy from the Government this year and that we should have repeated the bank bonus tax and raised at least £2 billion so that the banks did not get a tax cut and so that funds were provided to invest in jobs, growth and housing. The Government have said no. In future years, the Government should increase the bank levy to ensure that the banks continue to pay their fair share of tax, so that taxpayers are not left to pick up the bill for the banking crisis.
Finally, clear concerns have been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and by the hon. Members for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the investment proposals for North sea oil and the risks that the Government are taking. At the very last minute, with no consultation, the Government have made proposals to tax North sea oil still further. Oil and Gas UK has criticised the Government’s decision and uncertainty has been expressed from organisations across the board about this hasty move. The Government took the decision at the very last minute with no consultation and next Tuesday we will seek to discuss the matter in more detail and to ensure that we get further consultation.
The Government are cutting too far and too fast and the Finance Bill does nothing to help gain confidence, increase employment or secure the future for our society as a whole. The Government have implemented front-loaded cuts, which are hitting vital services and families, while giving the banks a tax cut. The Government need to think again about the devastating impact of their policies on our economy. We shall scrutinise the Bill in Committee and we shall undoubtedly welcome certain aspects of it in due course. Tonight, however, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment and against the Bill. The Bill will damage our economy, it does nothing for our society and I urge my hon. Friends to reject it.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had a very useful debate this evening with a number of contributions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for Watford (Richard Harrington) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who spoke about the measures for small businesses in the Budget and the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who brought his expertise in tax matters to the debate in a wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who, in their different—but both eloquent—ways, set out how a Government must live within their means, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who brought his economic expertise to the fore by highlighting the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
I remember our debate on last year’s Finance Bill following the June Budget, and this has been a somewhat shorter debate. I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and I think that only two of her 26 minutes were devoted to the Finance Bill. I wonder whether the Labour party’s interest in these matters is diminishing. If so, I would like to think that that is because much of the content of the Bill is uncontroversial, and because we have relatively few areas of contention. The Bill has been widely welcomed. It promotes growth alongside fairness, encourages investment and responsibility and provides for those who need help by supporting a more balanced economy on the basis of a credible and sustainable position.
We have set out our plans to reduce corporation tax—by 2p this year—moving us towards having one of the most competitive tax systems in the world once again, and meeting our objective of having the most competitive tax regime in the G20. We have set out our reforms of the taxation of foreign branches and our interim changes to the controlled foreign companies rules, which are resulting in companies looking to move back to the UK, not away from it. Britain is open for business again. We have set out our plans to double the amount of entrepreneurs’ relief to £10 million, and we have increased the research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises to 200%. Clause 42 increases the relief available through the enterprise investment scheme to 30%. Of course, tax rates matter as much to small companies as to large ones. Last year, we announced that instead of increasing the small profits rate we would cut it, and clause 5 reduces it to 20%.
Clause 1 increases the personal allowance by £1,000, which is the largest ever increase. In doing that we are removing 800,000 people from income tax altogether, as a step towards meeting our objective of a personal allowance of £10,000. Indeed, we announced in the Budget further measures toward achieving that objective.
Although supporting business is a necessary part of all this, it is important that the sectors with circumstances on their side contribute sufficiently to helping society. That is why we have increased the supplementary charge on profits from oil and gas extraction in the North sea. That will fund the 1p cut in the fuel duty that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget and will delay the increase legislated for by Labour. As of 1 April, average pump prices have been approximately 6p a litre lower than they would have been had we continued with the previous Government’s escalator.
On VAT—this point was ignored entirely by the shadow Chief Secretary—it is remarkable that the shadow Chancellor still wants to talk about reducing VAT on fuel, which would take six or seven years to negotiate if it could be achieved at all. There is an easier way of cutting tax on fuel: it is by reducing fuel duty, and this Government have done it.
There are long-term proposals in the Bill dealing with annuitisation, the national employment savings trust and the taxation of pensions. At the other end of the scale, clause 40 introduces individual savings accounts for children, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced that support will be available for looked-after children through junior ISAs.
We are providing for a better environment. Clause 77 introduces a carbon price floor, which will provide the incentive for billions of pounds-worth of investment in cleaner sources of energy. The fact that we have ensured that the climate change levy maintains its real value adds to that incentive.
The Bill also helps to address other issues. The new duty on high-strength beers will help to tackle problem drinking by adding 25p to the price of a can of super-strength lager. That is coupled with a reduction in the duty on lower-strength beers to help to encourage the more responsible consumption of alcohol. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell that there is anything in the Bill on draught beer, although we note his comments. I can only suggest that as he is dieting for his wedding, perhaps he should stay off the draught beer for another month or so. On behalf of the whole House, I wish him well. It is clearly the wedding of the year, and everyone will be looking forward to it.
We have set out to have a better tax system in the way that we make tax law, through a more deliberative and consultative approach, with greater emphasis on simplification. First, the corporate tax road map published last year set out changes to the regime. By introducing the changes to foreign branches and controlled foreign companies, the Bill takes the first steps alongside the corporate tax road map. Secondly, we published the majority of clauses in draft in the autumn. The Government have allowed proper time for better developed proposals and consultation. More than 200 responses were received on the draft clauses. Through the tax professionals forum which we set up, I received a large number of positive comments on our decision to consult.
Mr Gauke
The tax system needs to be simpler. Simplicity reduces the burdens on businesses—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Let me finish this point, then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Simplicity reduces the burdens on businesses, individuals and HM Revenue and Customs. The Office of Tax Simplification set up last summer has already provided the first in a series of recommendations, and the Bill takes forward the first of those recommendations by removing tax reliefs. We will introduce further abolitions next year, after a period of consultation.
Malcolm Wicks
I am grateful to the Minister for so graciously giving way. He has spent most of his speech listing the contents of the Bill. Will he find time soon to respond to the debate?
Mr Gauke
I am not sure that it is necessarily wrong to describe what is in the Bill when we are debating that matter. I know it is not an approach that the shadow Chief Secretary took.
The Bill sets out our objectives. We need a competitive tax system. We must respond to the needs of the British people, who are facing higher fuel prices. The Government have been able to respond. Most of the debate today has not been about the specific measures; it has been about the broad approach. The Government believe that the structural deficit needs to be eliminated by the end of the Parliament. That position has the support of the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the European Commission, the World Bank, the Governor of the Bank of England, Tony Blair, credit rating agencies, the leading bond traders, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and a host of business leaders.
It is the lonely position of the official Opposition to believe that the biggest problem facing the UK economy is that the Government are not borrowing enough, but what have we seen in recent weeks? We have seen the likes of Portugal, after its Parliament could not reach agreement on a credible deficit reduction package, having to seek a bail-out. We have seen credit rating downgrades for the likes of Portugal and the Republic of Ireland. We have seen long-term interest rates rising, and we have seen, in response to the situation across the world, President Obama setting out a deficit reduction plan that is faster than that proposed by the Government.
It is clear that this is no time to be complacent about the dangers to our economy from failing to reduce the deficit. To abandon our plans for fiscal consolidation, as advocated by the Opposition, would risk a credit rating downgrade. It would put at risk our long-term interest rates and even put us back in the danger zone of a sovereign debt crisis. Those are not risks that the Government are prepared to take. That is why, in the Budget and the Bill, the Government remain determined to stay on course. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) gets under way, I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that he gets a fair hearing.
Funeral Payments
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the issue of funeral payments and to seek some answers from the Minister.
I sought this debate following a direct request from a constituent of mine, Ms Teresa Evans, who contends that she was not given good advice following the tragic death of her 20-year-old son, Boyd Evans. I have raised the issues with the Minister via correspondence and written parliamentary questions, but they have not been dealt with to my constituent’s satisfaction, which is why I wish to raise them on the Floor of the House.
I should say at the outset that my constituent is not seeking personal recompense for her situation, but rather wishing to prevent similar problems being encountered by others. Newly bereaved people can be responsible and in control only when they are afforded sound information to make well-informed decisions.
Let me start by providing the background to the case. Teresa Evans’s son, Boyd, was killed as a result of passenger injuries sustained in a car crash in Staffordshire—some distance from his home in Milton Keynes—in 2006. Quite apart from having to deal with the emotional trauma of losing her son, my constituent also had to deal on her own with the practicalities of the funeral arrangements. She is a lady of very modest means. She had no money when she lost her son, so applied for a funeral payment and overdrew at the bank to provide a funeral. In her own words:
“It wasn’t a lavish funeral but a dignified one. In terms of distance and the cost per mile allowed from the social fund payment, I could not claim a total refund for the fee to return my son back to Milton Keynes from where he died in Staffordshire. The inescapable charge was £220, but despite an appeal to the DWP I was only paid £170. This left a shortfall of £50”.
However, she later found out that despite her son undergoing a post-mortem, she was within her legal rights to collect her son in her own vehicle and would have done so had she been aware of this at the time.
My constituent was also informed by the undertakers that the cheapest coffin available cost £680. Subsequently, she found that she could have bought the same coffin online for considerably less or buried her son in a shroud, which she had the legal right to do. In addition, had someone told her that she could still claim a funeral payment without using an undertaker, she would have done this, especially because she claims that the undertaker misled her with false information resulting in her not being able to return her son to his home to lie in wait for his burial. She would have done all these things had she been aware of her legal rights. This has led to her creating a campaign for the rights of newly bereaved people to be made known to them in sudden and unexpected circumstances.
Four years after her son was buried, my constituent discovered that no one had informed her that she could have recovered the fees for the burial rights to her son’s grave within three months of the funeral. If the system had worked properly, she would have received an additional £304 for the burial rights. Consequently, she was forced to surrender her life insurance policies to buy the burial rights, and she feels aggrieved that no one is held accountable for this action. She believes that the Department for Work and Pensions is overly reliant on the funeral industry to provide guidance to the relatives of a person who has died, specifically on what fees can be recovered. She claims to have evidence that proves that undertakers point applicants of a funeral payment to Jobcentre Plus for guidance. In addition, she claims that the National Association of Funeral Directors had no knowledge of the most technical information in existence—the DWP booklet SB16, which the Minister has stated is the most comprehensive guide. That this piece of literature is known only to some professionals would suggest that the bereaved may often not be aware of the full extent of their rights.
My constituent has also commented to me that a bereavement charity, the Alice Barker Trust, identified the same problem a long time ago. She is calling for much clearer guidance to be made available on the options open to relatives, particularly given that they will be in a highly emotional state. As the literature for the applicant may be understood only by those with technical knowledge, it needs to be written in plain language more readily intelligible to anyone. At present, the DWP relies upon undertakers to explain the rules to eligible claimants, resulting in the sort of problems experienced by my constituent. This generates unnecessary mystery and dependency, when we should be promoting education, self-help and self-reliance. A very simple and no-cost solution would be to amend the available literature in both print and online formats, making obvious what fees can be paid by the DWP in relation to the funeral, costs for opening the grave and burial rights for a fixed number of years.
I have already raised Teresa Evans’s case and her request for action with the Minister, but she has been dissatisfied with the response and with what she claims to be a lack of urgency in addressing the situation. She has therefore asked me to pose the following questions to the Minister. First, can he state, from records for the last financial year, how many claimants received payments for burials and what proportion of that number also received payments for what are technically known as burial rights, so they did not use what are known as pauper graves? Secondly, will the Minister consult the Alice Barker Trust to revise the wording of the advice that the DWP produces for printed, internet and other information? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that had the wording suggested by the charity been used before Boyd Evans was killed in 2006, his mother would have received her full entitlement to a funeral payment and would not have had to cash in her life insurance policies to cover the burial rights to her son’s grave? Fourthly, when it comes to the big society and developing strong communities, does the Minister agree that it is essential to empower all claimants in order to help them act independently and responsibly?
Nothing can bring Boyd Evans back, but his mother is hoping that her experience will result in the Department for Work and Pensions learning lessons, so that others do not encounter unnecessary emotional turmoil and financial hardship. Once again, Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Floor of the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on securing this debate and on raising these difficult and important issues in a measured, succinct and sensitive way.
People sometimes say, “What’s the point of these Adjournment debates?”, because there is no vote at the end of them, or, “Does anything ever change?” One thing that these debates do is, quite properly, require Ministers to focus on the issue that has been brought before the House. In response to this debate being called, I have looked at my hon. Friend’s constituent’s website. As he well knows, her tragic circumstances and the death of her son five years ago led her to campaign on these issues. She has her own website, which I have looked at today. I pay tribute to her for the way in which she has sought to turn her tragic circumstances into something more positive, so that others do not have the same difficult experiences that she did in dealing, as I understand it, not just with funeral grants and the DWP, but with a range of other public bodies and organisations. The way Ms Evans has pursued the issues over the following years is enormously to her credit. I hope that I can offer my hon. Friend some reassurance this evening that that campaigning has led to changes, and that the situation that someone who has been bereaved now encounters is a good deal better than it was five years ago. Clearly there is always room for improvement—we will continue to look at that—but we have made changes even this month in response to the points that his constituent has raised with us, which I will set out more in due course.
It might be worth briefly putting on record some background to how the social fund funeral payments system works, because it is not always well understood. Essentially, the system is designed for those on a low income. The presumption is not that the state will pay for funerals for all people—or indeed pay for the full costs of funerals—but that it will make a significant contribution for people in receipt of income-related benefits and tax credits. The idea is to provide a contribution towards the cost of a simple, respectful, low-cost funeral. The payment is in two parts. We, the DWP, will pay in full the costs of a cremation or burial, including the purchase of a grave with exclusive burial rights. That is a point to which I will return, because I know that it was important in Ms Evans’s son’s case, and it is something that might not have occurred to any of us unless we were faced with that situation. I can well imagine that it must have been very difficult to discover some time after she had buried her son that she did not have exclusive burial rights. I fully accept that we must ensure that that situation does not arise again.
The scheme meets those costs in full, which can vary quite considerably between different parts of the country. In addition, we will make a maximum payment of up to £700 for other costs, such as the coffin, church and the funeral director’s fees, if appropriate. I will return to whether one has to have a funeral director—which one does not—and to making people aware of that fact and how we will take this forward. Over the months, I have received a number of letters from hon. Members who have been contacted by funeral directors in their constituencies who have made the point—entirely accurately—that £700 does not cover the full cost of a funeral. We accept that; we do not dispute it. The typical total amount that we are paying is about £1,200, which includes the other costs plus up to £700.
There is a presumption that many people will take out funeral plan insurance, because they want to ensure that they are covered and do not want to leave a financial burden for their heirs. If that has not happened, many families will meet the costs themselves, but we also need to ensure that a safety net is in place. We also want to ensure that there is additional provision for those people for whom the £700 cap is a barrier. We are therefore taking powers in the Welfare Reform Bill that is now going through the Commons that will, for the first time, bring funeral costs within the scope of the budgeting loans system. I raised this matter before Christmas in a meeting with the National Association of Funeral Directors, and with the all-party parliamentary group on funerals and bereavement. They very much welcomed the change, saying that it was a further provision that would help to ensure that people who were very short of money at a difficult time would have sources of finance available to help them to meet the costs of a decent burial and to ensure that funeral directors’ proper costs were reimbursed through the individuals. The measures will therefore be welcomed. We also need to ensure that the way in which we respond to people is correct and helpful, and that it makes life easy for them at this difficult time.
I shall go through the questions that my hon. Friend has raised and try to give him what information I can. I shall also tell him what we have changed as a result of his constituent’s campaigning. He asked for a factual breakdown of the numbers of people who received financial support towards exclusive burial rights. Unfortunately, the way in which the information is held does not allow us to provide such a breakdown, as I think I have already indicated to his constituent in writing. I can confirm, however, that in the last full financial year, 2009-10, there were 39,000 funeral payments at a total cost of £47 million. We cannot give a more detailed breakdown, because of the way in which the information that my hon. Friend has requested is stored.
The information and guidance that goes to relatives is at the heart of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. In Ms Evans’s case, the information that came to her from the funeral director was incomplete, for whatever reason, and led to her making choices that, had she been fully informed, she would have made differently. I have made some inquiries into where the right information should come from, and the key is the fact that, on becoming bereaved, the family or its representatives will register the death. That is the point at which we aim to ensure that people get the relevant information. We will not have to rely on funeral directors to provide it. Indeed, there might not be a funeral director involved. The Government as a whole want to ensure that the information gets through to people at the point at which they register the death.
This is already being rolled out more or less nationwide, and we will continue to develop this “tell us once” service. The idea is to allow customers to report a birth or a death to multiple central and local government departments, agencies and services just once. This will help to reduce some of the complexity for customers at this particularly difficult time. The service is currently offered on a face-to-face basis by a number of local authorities, and we expect it to become a national service covering about 90% of local authorities by the end of this year. The remaining authorities will, in many cases, be remote ones for which this might not represent the right mix of services, but it will be pretty much a national service by the end of the year.
The idea is that a person can have a face-to-face session with someone from the local authority, or, if they are a DWP customer, as many people are, they can have a telephone session with someone from the Department. That one conversation will enable us to end benefits that no longer need to be paid, as well as triggering the possibility of applying for other benefits, including bereavement benefits and funeral payments. That is the crucial point. In the phone conversation with our bereavement service, for example, all the questions about what is covered and what payments are available can be answered. Our member of staff will have the latest information.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the technical information relating to what is covered and what is not, and we will have all that information to hand. In fact, the bereaved person will not have to fill in a form at all. They will be able to give all the information over the phone, which will constitute a claim that can be progressed pretty quickly. Speed is obviously of the essence, because people need to feel confident that, if they are eligible, the payment will be made. We want to do anything we can to remove delay or anxiety at this difficult time.
The “tell us once” process is being rolled out, as I say, across the country. To clarify, with the informant’s consent, information about the deceased, a surviving spouse or partner and the people dealing with the estate can be shared with up to 24 different benefits and services. It is going out far and wide. At the moment, 43 local authorities offer a service, and I believe my hon. Friend’s local authority, the Milton Keynes unitary authority, is due to offer its “tell us once” service from July this year. That will be an important step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of forms and paperwork. I can tell him that this month, in response to some of the points that his constituent raised with us, we have made a number of changes to the claim form for the funeral grant. Let me briefly run through them, as she would be interested to know what those changes are.
There are two documents. The first is a note sheet that accompanies the funeral payment application, and we have made three changes to it. On page 6 of the form, we have added a bullet point that says people can send
“evidence of the costs incurred if the funeral arrangements were made without using a funeral director”.
That is one of Ms Evans’s points—that people do not always realise that they do not have to use one and do not always realise that they can get their costs reimbursed if they have not used one. We have made it explicit that evidence of costs can be provided if a funeral director has not been used.
On page 7, we say, and it is worth reading into the record:
“Although most people use a funeral director to make the necessary arrangements, you may have chosen to make the…arrangements without using a funeral director. A funeral payment can be made whether or not you have used a funeral director. If you have arranged the funeral independently, you will have to provide evidence of the costs you have incurred.”
Anyone reading the notes will get the message quite quickly that they have choices and can choose how they want to proceed.
The third change we made to the explanatory notes is in the bullet point list of what can be included in the funeral payment. The second bullet point refers to
“the cost of opening a new grave and burial costs”,
and we have now added
“including any exclusive right of burial fee”.
That deals with Ms Evans’s point that she did not get the money because she did not claim it at the time because she did not incur it at the time because she did not realise the distinction. We hope that if we can get that information out at the start, the figure of about £300 or so, which my hon. Friend mentioned, would be covered in full and not be subject to the cap. We make that explicit in the notes to the form.
As to the form itself, we have made a couple of changes. On page 15, we inserted a new question:
“Have you used a funeral director to arrange the funeral?”;
and on page 20, the wording about making a payment has been amended to cover payments to claimants
“if you have not used a funeral director”.
I hope that those incremental changes—I know that Ms Evans has corresponded with my officials and others about this for some considerable time—will help. The forms are changed up to twice a year—we try not constantly to change them—and the April change has just taken place. It incorporates the important points that my hon. Friend’s constituent raised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I believe that the figure of 45 or 46 local authorities was mentioned. Is it the Minister’s intention to give this information out to all local authorities across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland? Does he also intend to ensure that the explanation given by the local authority is based on this information so that authorities can explain to people exactly what they have to do? I think that the explanation is important.
Steve Webb
I am grateful for that question. I will clarify the point about the scope. The idea is that local authorities would respond in a way that is tailored to their local circumstances. That is why some local authorities will adopt a particular local response, perhaps if their area is strongly rural. We also think it important, however, to give people the possibility of a face-to-face encounter. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman about whether the scope will be extended to include Northern Ireland. I am certainly aware that we are talking about the whole of Great Britain, but I will write to him about the applicability to Northern Ireland. The idea is that local authority folk can, to use the jargon, “wrap around” other support services at this important time. The DWP is concerned with bereavement payments and funeral payments, but obviously people may want or need a host of other services at the time of a bereavement. We want to ensure that local authorities can provide all the support that people need through a single point of contact. That can be done face to face, but we will also deal with specific DWP issues through the bereavement service.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Alice Barker Trust, and we are grateful for its input. It has worked closely with Ms Evans on the wording of the forms. We will certainly continue to consider its suggestions, although I do not want to give the impression that all the existing literature is rubbish. We carry out surveys and ask people what they think of the literature that they were given. We have, for instance, asked people—at an appropriate time—what they thought of a leaflet called “What to do after a death”, of which many Members will have heard. We found that 97% of people considered the leaflet to be very or quite helpful in answering their questions, and 95% agreed that it was easy to find the information that they wanted in it. There is good material out there, but I accept that more can always be done.
My hon. Friend asked about the way in which information was communicated to his constituent. Obviously I cannot comment in detail on what happened five years ago, but it is clear that the £300 was not paid because it was not claimed, and it was not claimed because exclusive right of burial was not part of the funeral. I hope that I have explained how we will try to ensure that people understand that they can claim the full amount, and that the unfortunate thing that happened to Ms Evans will not happen again.
Let me say something about funeral payment law. We provide general information, and, as my hon. Friend said, SB16 contains encyclopaedic guidance to the social fund as a whole, but we also provide leaflets which, inevitably, cannot be exhaustive. We have tried to strike a balance. Although a leaflet that covers every possible combination of circumstances is very useful, it may be off-putting for people who do not receive the key messages that they need. On the Directgov website we have tried to provide a wide range of information on what to do following a death, including arranging a funeral and registering a death. The site also lists organisations that offer help and advice following a bereavement. My hon. Friend mentioned the big society. We want to “signpost” people towards the many charities and voluntary organisations that provide effective support for people at this difficult time.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
If local authorities are to be involved, might it be suggested that the electoral register should be altered automatically? On Saturday I knocked on a door and found someone who had lost her husband three or four months earlier. She was still receiving letters addressed to her husband, because she had completely forgotten to let the district council know that he had passed away. Altering the register automatically would save a great deal of distress to people like that lady.
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is right. I think that we have all encountered such examples when canvassing because the electoral register is out of date. We may have written letters to deceased people, and perhaps caused distress to relatives. The “tell us once” system would deal with that. I do not think that local authority electoral services are explicitly part of the process, but I will convey what my hon. Friend has said to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who I believe oversees electoral matters.
We have come a long way. The Department’s bereavement service was fully rolled out in March 2011, and we have recently surveyed customers who have used it. They have ranked it
“above many other well known organisations that customers have to deal with when reporting a death”.
One customer said:
“I ...was surprised that a Public Service was that good and sympathetic and the staff were well trained. It really made a difference to something I was dreading. I was treated like a human being”.
Another said:
“I was impressed that it was all done in one call, it was also a huge sigh of relief for me”.
Let me give one final quote:
“We spoke about help with funeral costs and she completed the form there and then for me. I couldn’t have done this on my own.”
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South for raising this set of issues. They are clearly vital and all our constituents will face them at one point or another in their lives. Ms Evans faced a very difficult and tragic situation five years ago, which was not helped by her dealings with the Department for Work and Pensions or other Government bodies. I pay tribute to her for taking the issues forward in such a constructive way, and I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend that we have listened and responded.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 16 March 2011, Official Report, columns 9-10W, on the public bodies reform programme, what estimate he has made of the savings to his Department net of costs incurred in the assumption of additional departmental responsibilities to accrue from (a) the abolition of three public bodies within his Department's area of responsibility, (b) the merger of one such body and (c) the change in function of two such bodies.
[Official Report, 21 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 856-57W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Chris Grayling:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 21 March 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Chris Grayling
On 16 March 2011, Official Report, columns 9-10W, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), issued a written ministerial statement updating Parliament on progress on public bodies reform. That statement also announced that Departments estimate cumulative administrative savings of at least £2.6 billion will flow from public bodies over the spending review period.
I anticipate net overall administrative savings from structural reforms over the spending review period of £0.141 million. Overall administrative reductions from reform of all departmental public bodies are currently estimated to be £17.95 million over the spending review period.
The correct answer should have been:
Chris Grayling
On 16 March 2011, Official Report, columns 9-10W, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General issued a written ministerial statement updating Parliament on progress on public bodies reform. That statement also announced that Departments estimate cumulative administrative savings of at least £2.6 billion will flow from public bodies over the spending review period.
I anticipate net overall administrative savings from structural reforms over the spending review period of £0.354 million. Overall administrative reductions from reform of all departmental public bodies are currently estimated to be £17.95 million over the spending review period.
Communities and Local Government
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The wheels are well and truly coming off the Government’s explanation for their swingeing cuts to local government—that is pretty clear. Contrary to his assertion that he would protect the most vulnerable by making his cuts “fair and progressive”, the Secretary of State is actually imposing the biggest cuts on the country’s poorest communities and leaving more affluent areas relatively unscathed. Even his own housing Minister confessed last week that the poorest areas will shoulder the harshest cuts. Will the Minister replying do the decent thing and admit that the Secretary of State’s declaration about fairness and the Chancellor’s assertion that we are all in it together are completely and utterly preposterous?
Andrew Stunell
The hon. Gentleman has of course used a selective quotation, and that is entirely his prerogative, but it does rather undermine his case. The reality is that no local authority in this country faces a reduction in its real expenditure of more than 7.7%, and offset against that is the new homes bonus that we have announced today, through which Lambeth, for instance, gets £1.9 million.
[Official Report, 4 April 2011, Vol. 526, c. 728-29]
Letter of correction from Mr Andrew Stunell:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 4 April 2011.
The correct answer should have been:
Andrew Stunell
The hon. Gentleman has of course used a selective quotation, and that is entirely his prerogative, but it does rather undermine his case. The reality is that no local authority in this country faces a reduction in its spending power of more than 8.8%, and offset against that is the new homes bonus that we have announced today, through which Lambeth, for instance, gets £1.9 million.
Petitions
Privatisation of the Royal Mail
Higham Hopper Bus Service
Rail Services (Melksham, Wiltshire)
Regulation of Bus Services (Leeds)
Hospital Services (Shropshire)
Child Protection
Education Maintenance Allowance
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 12 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
Submarines and Frigates (Plymouth)
(12 years, 12 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
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I thank the Speaker’s Panel for selecting the subject of base-porting destroyers and submarines in my constituency for this debate, and I thank you, Mrs Brooke, for chairing it. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) will try to make an appearance—he has been caught up on the train—because he is keen to support the debate. I realise that the Government are still considering their base-porting strategy, and that the Minister may not be able to give me many answers at this stage. However, I hope he will take my arguments into account during the few weeks remaining before the decision on base-porting is made.
More than 25,000 people in the Plymouth travel-to-work area are employed in the defence industry, either through contractors or in the armed forces. That and the university have been a magnet for a cluster of maritime industries in a part of the country that is dependent on the public sector for employment. In the next few moments, I want to concentrate on the context of Plymouth Devonport within the strategic defence and security review, Devonport’s strategic case as a principal naval port, the benefits of base-porting frigates, destroyers and submarines in Plymouth, Plymouth’s economic dependency on the naval base and our dockyard, and the social and economic consequences of any further reduction in Plymouth as a strategic naval port.
In my submission to the Government’s strategic defence and security review last summer, I made it clear that as a maritime nation we need a strong Royal Navy. The United Kingdom’s basis for our defence should continue to operate through NATO and its framework of collective security, and our relationship with the United States of America. However, that contribution should reflect our geography, maritime history, and our trade and other relationships throughout the world. In that context, the UK’s obvious contribution to NATO should be sea and air power, supplemented with our amphibious and special forces capability.
The naval role should explicitly equip the UK to undertake naval policing responsibilities, including dealing with piracy, drug trafficking and international environmental responsibilities such as conservation of our fish stocks. In addition, the Navy should be equipped to offer more effective international assistance to countries and communities experiencing the consequences of natural and other disasters when they need assistance from the international community, as part of an explicit deployment of soft power as an arm of foreign and defence policy. The implication of that judgment about the UK’s role in NATO is that the Navy should be larger and equipped with greater transport and logistical capability. I fully support the building of the two new aircraft carriers. The Air Force should be maintained to provide effective air power, with multi-purpose aircraft in sufficient numbers to protect the homeland and to wage state-on-state warfare. In addition, it should be equipped with much greater heavy-lifting and cargo-moving capacity.
In my submission, I added that politics is about making political priorities. I welcomed the Chancellor’s decision to reduce the financial envelope of public expenditure in general and to cut the deficit during the lifetime of this Parliament, but I stressed that government is about reordering priorities, and that spending on defence should have a greater emphasis within our budget. Defence spending has fallen not only as a share of national income, but as a proportion of total Government expenditure. The study by the Office for National Statistics in 2009 on public sector output productivity between 1997 and 2007 exemplifies, among other things, how public expenditure priorities have been changed. The weight given to defence within general Government expenditure by service weight fell from 15.1% to 11%. That shows that, during a period of increased international risk when we engaged in more than two protracted operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and public spending was rising rapidly, the priority given to defence was reduced. In my judgment, those priorities must be reversed.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point: that at time like this, we should not cut defence spending. Does he not agree, however, that we have sold the pass on that issue because of the appalling legacy that we inherited from the previous Government? It is now essential that from 2015, no matter what the world looks like, we must see the uplift in defence spending that has been promised for the subsequent five years, without which this country will never again hold its head up in the world.
Oliver Colvile
The decision has been made, but other issues must be taken into account. I agree that we inherited a £38 billion shortfall, which needs attention. I also agree that from 2015 we must ensure that we have the ability to build up our capacity.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain where he gets the figure of £38 billion from? Even his own Front Benchers have now retreated from that election propaganda put out by Conservative central office.
Oliver Colvile
That debate is certainly above my pay grade, but my understanding is that there is a shortfall within the defence budget, and that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. What is important is that we must contain public expenditure. It must be reduced, and that is part of the general thrust of what we inherited and must try to deal with.
The principal issue of the level of defence spending is not affordability, but deciding political priorities. If the events in the middle east continue, I firmly believe that our defence budget may have to be reviewed. During the past 13 or 14 years, there has been real uncertainty about Devonport’s future both as a dockyard and as a naval base. Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that Plymouth should take precedence over Portsmouth, Faslane or Rosyth, but I am arguing that Ministers should not put too much reliance on one naval port for surface ships, and another for submarines. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already said that we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket. However, I want to challenge the previous Government’s plans to base-port both aircraft carriers, all the Type 23s, all the Type 45s and eventually the new Type 26s in Portsmouth, and to move the submarines currently based in Plymouth and the submarine school at HMS Raleigh in Cornwall to Faslane.
Last October, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to confirm that Plymouth Devonport will continue to play a major role in the defence of our country and will remain a premier naval port, he replied:
“I can absolutely confirm that.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 817.]
In all fairness, he added that both Plymouth and Portsmouth would have to face some challenges. We in Plymouth are up for that, but we are worried that if the previous Government’s plans are implemented, there will be a real threat that Devonport will be left with just three amphibious assault ships and five survey vessels.
I am grateful that the strategic defence and security review confirmed that Devonport will retain flag officer sea training, and deep maintenance work at the dockyard, and that the city will host the amphibious capability through 3 Commando Brigade, which is currently in Afghanistan. However, I am worried that the decision to move the seven Type 23s from Devonport to Portsmouth was taken at a time when the four Type 22s were expected to stay in service for at least another few years. That could make quite a difference to the balance of UK base-porting, and could do enormous damage to the skills base in a city and region where both skills and wages have traditionally been low. If the Government allow Devonport dockyard’s waterfront work to decline, they could make it difficult for Babcock, or its successor, to retain and attract the skilled work force needed to refit our nuclear submarines and surface ships. In my opinion, such a collapse in a service that provides unparalleled value for money could have an impact on whether Babcock is able to deliver economies of scale. That in turn could see greater costs for the Ministry of Defence and the taxpayer, and lead to a reduction in competition.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may expect me to go in to bat for Portsmouth, but I add my support to his call for all three naval bases to remain open and viable. One of the millstones around the neck of both Plymouth Devonport and Portsmouth is the amount of the defence budget that is spent on maintaining historic buildings. There are about 200 such buildings in Portsmouth’s naval base and, as in Plymouth, although there is no shortage of developers who want to take over those buildings, they are restricted by the MOD’s current procurement protocols. If we want both bases to be able to wash their faces, that issue should be a priority for both the MOD and the Treasury.
Oliver Colvile
I agree we should make sure that we use what moneys are available, and spend them on delivering ships, sailors and the kit needed by our armed services to do their job. Later in my speech I will speak further about some of the ways in which one might manage the estate, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution.
If all work associated with basing the Type 23 frigates at Plymouth was transferred to Portsmouth, it is likely that the relevant skills and experience would transfer with it. Such a loss could make it difficult and expensive to recreate that frigate expertise back at Plymouth if it is subsequently decided to base some of the new Type 26s at Devonport in the future. Moving the Type 23s would leave Devonport very much as a nuclear dockyard, unable to make use of its additional work force capacity, should submarine work be in a trough.
I welcome the building of the new Type 26 frigates, but I would like to see more of them and more landing platform docks once public finances become available. Ideally, I would—needless to say—like the Type 26s to be located in Devonport. The UK maritime sector takes a great interest in the evolution of Type 26s and the global combat ship programme as the Navy’s next—and only—major surface combatant proposed to replace Type 23 and 22 frigates. Most hon. Members who represent royal naval garrison towns, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), recognise the significant potential for the export of that platform, and it rightly lies at the heart of the coalition Government and the MOD’s agenda. Although the sector recognises that BAE Systems has the lead in the ship design and ultimate build, the industry—and we as taxpayers—look to the Government to help ensure that the rest of UK industry gains opportunities to provide the ships with key systems and equipment. We must ensure that other defence contractors are able to make changes to the equipment provided as and when necessary.
Having looked at a number of ships over the past year, I am aware that there is a tendency for pieces of equipment to be bolted on to current frigates and destroyers. No doubt that is also true for submarines and aircraft carriers. The approach I suggest will help maximise export opportunities for the UK, which in turn will deliver much needed growth and create new jobs. Although UK exports of ships have been challenging for some years, the maritime sector’s suppliers of systems, equipment and services have maintained an active export drive that could clearly benefit from further association with this flagship programme.
I understand the argument for moving submarines from Plymouth to Faslane because of the depth of the loch and access to the Atlantic on the west coast of Scotland. I recognise that Faslane has genuine merits, but I feel that the Navy should have submarines based in more than one location. Plymouth has a practical and convenient natural harbour to complement Faslane. When service families are relocated from one part of the country to another, there are always costs. However, whenever I look at arguments about location and the associated costs, I become aware that all Departments, including the MOD, have weak information about their unit costs. It is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office to pursue with vigour and vim.
I do not want to concentrate too much on Devonport’s geographical location, but its position on the western approaches means that it is within easy reach of the necessary training area. It was of little surprise that the previous Conservative Government decided to transfer flag officer sea training from Portland to Devonport in the mid-1990s. If the seven Type 23 frigates were moved from Plymouth to Portsmouth, they would regularly have to travel 150 nautical miles to participate in any training exercises.
Fresh water from the Rivers Plym and Tamar means that the Sound is permanently flooded, and the channels are kept from silting up. Plymouth Sound is not subject to the same amount of commercial traffic as the Solent. Although a terrorist could potentially sink a ship in the Sound—as they could in the Solent—by placing all our frigates and destroyers in Portsmouth, we could run the risk of bottling the vast majority of our surface ship fleet in one port without easy access to the channel. Portsmouth is a busy commercial port, which, with increased traffic, could make naval shipping movements more complicated and hazardous.
I will conclude by talking about the social impact that would be faced by Plymouth and the sub-region should there be a further reduction in the Royal Navy’s presence. Over 38% of the city’s employment depends on the public sector, not including the 5,000 people who work in the dockyard, which is also dependent on defence contracts. The city council, working with trade unions and other interested parties, has commissioned work from Plymouth university to quantify the impact that a further downgrading of Plymouth as a naval base and dockyard would have on the local benefits bill should there be a further loss of skills and jobs. Once that report is ready I will, if I may, brief the Minister on it so that he is aware of some of its findings.
That is not the only piece of work the city is undertaking. As many hon. Members know, Plymouth has an excellent, dynamic university with a fine reputation for marine science research and engineering. It is a global centre for maritime activity and has an historic dockyard and dramatic waterfront. I am currently working with the dean of the university’s business faculty, the editor of the Western Morning News and the council to identify ways in which Plymouth can create a cluster of maritime industries. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently wrote to the editor of the Western Morning News to voice his support for that initiative and encourage the dean and the editor to explore ways of making greater use of land that may become available once the base-porting strategy has been finalised. That land-management initiative could deliver further savings to the MOD and ensure that more money is available to be spent on equipment and troops—especially important at a time when the defence budget is under such pressure. I would welcome the chance to brief the Minister on that work once it has been completed. An enterprise zone to deliver that maritime cluster would be most useful.
Whatever decision is made on the base-porting of frigates, destroyers and submarines, I would be grateful to be told the timetable so that we in Plymouth can make the necessary plans to accommodate any changes. As a country, we must place greater emphasis on defence within Government spending than we currently do. We must recognise that we cannot do everything, and we should make our contribution to NATO through an air and sea power capability that reflects our history, geography and wider interests. The Royal Navy should be a central part of that, and I believe that Plymouth can play an important and cost-effective role in helping to make that contribution.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), on securing the debate. He made a strong argument for base-porting frigates in Plymouth and gave a detailed explanation of not only Britain’s position in the world, but Plymouth’s role. Those arguments have been made, tried and tested under successive Governments, but let me focus on base-porting.
The hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, Linda Gilroy, fought long and hard on the issue of base-porting, and so, too, have the trade unions in the dockyard and the naval base. As a result of the close synergy between what happens in the dockyard, which is now under Babcock’s marine division, but which was previously under Devonport Management Ltd, the unions have frequently voiced the view that base-porting is vital to not only the dockyard’s industrial base, but the city as a whole.
The importance of retaining the work that the frigates bring and the economic benefit that the crews and their families generate cannot be understated. No local MP will have attended a meeting locally or with Ministers at which base-porting was not on the agenda. The issue has certainly always been raised by the outgoing dockyard works committee chair, Roger Darcy, who knows just how big this issue is for Plymouth. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his hard work and commitment over 47 years—this is his last year in post.
Perhaps I can describe the position in which we find ourselves following the strategic defence and security review, or at least the position we think we are in, given that the turmoil in the middle east has called into question whether we have the right priorities. The frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Campbeltown and Cornwall have, in some cases, had to respond to the demands placed on them by the Government and NATO despite being en route to be decommissioned and scrapped. We must be clear that we have the right resources in the right places, and that we can apply force or the threat of force effectively against our enemies wherever that is needed. I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that the strategic defence and security review should be revisited.
The naval bases are undoubtedly an important part of our capability and significant strategic assets. That said, there is a recognition that we should have three naval bases. The maritime change programme announcement under the previous Labour Government effectively confirmed that position, as did the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in the run-up to the general election. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Labour Government had effectively said that all the frigates would go to Portsmouth, but that is incorrect—it was still a matter for debate, and it has ever been thus. What we really need is clarity, and I hope that we will get some from the Minister.
The naval bases are assets in which the nation has invested billions of pounds over decades, so it is crucial that the best and most efficient use is made of them. Is optimum use being made of Devonport? It has 4 miles of waterfront and 640 acres of landside space, whereas Portsmouth has only 3 miles of waterfront and 297 acres of landside space. Portsmouth—I am sorry to make this comparison, but it is important—must share its space with a substantial flow of commercial shipping, including busy cross-channel services. It is also due eventually to become the home port to the two aircraft carriers, the Type 45s and minesweepers.
We have just had the announcement that the replacement for HMS Endurance—the MV Polarbjorn, which is soon to become HMS Protector—is to be base-ported in Portsmouth. Why? That, too, is not a sensible decision, given all the expertise in Plymouth and the clear link to all the meteorological, survey and hydrographical work that happens there. We also have expertise in civilian science at the university and Plymouth marine laboratory, which could support and benefit the base-porting of that vessel in our city.
We need to have the Type 23 frigates, and eventually some Type 26s, to ensure that dips and troughs in the work stream at the dockyard can be filled and that Babcock does not have to reduce the full-time work force below a core level that can retain the skills that are vital to support the fleet. Plymouth also has the capacity to provide naval personnel with adequate accommodation, some of which is new and refurbished, at the naval base and HMS Raleigh.
Plymouth loses out every time, and never on the grounds of capacity, skill or added value, all of which we always offer. We can hope that a Minister will be brave enough at some stage to take on the Navy top brass in Portsmouth and to support Plymouth’s case. A Treasury Minister might also work out that it actually saves the Treasury money if vessels are based in the most cost-effective and efficient naval base in the country, and that any diminution of the Royal Navy’s commitment to Plymouth has a massive socio-economic impact on the region. Plymouth is very peripheral; we need the naval base and the work that it brings, and we need the frigates tied up there.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that academics are undertaking work on the socio-economic impacts, and I urge the Minister to seek that work out before finally reaching any conclusion on base-porting. I support the suggestion that MPs from the area should talk to him about the report when it reaches its first stage.
We need joined-up government when we look at these issues, because the implications of not base-porting in Plymouth are serious. I urge the Minister to talk to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government, because they will pick up the tab if the wrong decision is taken.
There is strong case for keeping the Type 23s, as well as for basing some future surface combatants in Plymouth. The Minister must be concerned that surface fleet sailors will be lost if vessels are moved out of the city of Plymouth, because they may want to leave the service rather than uproot their families. That view is expressed in a good article in Warships magazine, which also suggests that Plymouth might feel
“betrayed by a coalition of idiots”.
I hope that the Minister will prove that view wrong by showing eminent good sense and deciding to ensure the ongoing base-porting of frigates at Devonport.
The article, which was published in March, goes on unfairly to attack civic leaders in Plymouth for their lack of commitment to protecting the future of the naval base. However, leaders from our city have brought Plymouth’s case repeatedly to Whitehall on a cross-party basis, most recently just before the recess. We were seen by the Secretary of State, and although we were given reassurance, there was no commitment.
It would be wrong for the Government, in five years’ time, to allow Devonport to be reduced back to a home for amphibious ships that have been mothballed and for decommissioned frigates and submarines that are waiting to be sent for scrap. My fear is that Plymouth could then be closed shortly afterwards. Perhaps the Minister will tell us today that that will not happen. When will we know when the decision will be taken? Will he confirm that he will take the time and trouble to talk to colleagues across the Government for whom his decision could have significant cost implications?
Clearly, the discussions that I and the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) have with the city about future developments at the dockyard are extremely important, but the decision ultimately rests with the Minister, and I hope that he will make the right one.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. It is also a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in situ to respond to the debate, and I am sure that he will be as typically robust in responding in government as he was in opposition.
It is a particular pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on initiating the debate and on ranging so widely in his approach to it. We would err if we focused entirely on basing without considering, as he did, the larger issues of the state of the Royal Navy, the country’s strategic requirements from it and the amount that the country feels it can spend on it.
I want to start, however, by taking up some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who rightly said at the beginning of her speech that events in the middle east have rearranged the strategic furniture, as it were. She will not have been surprised by that, given that the odds are, strange to relate, usually very great that it will come as a surprise when some sort of conflict breaks out in that way. When conflicts have yet to break out, and still more when we are already fighting in such conflicts, it therefore behoves us not to be too dogmatic and rigid as we make arrangements for the Royal Navy and, indeed, the other armed services.
Alison Seabeck
I am merely pointing out that such conflicts come as a surprise, but is it not always the Navy that seems to be the first responder?
Dr Lewis
I will try to be as non-partisan between the services as possible but, following the hon. Lady’s provocation, I cannot resist pointing out that the Navy would have been an even quicker responder to the Libyan crisis had we not decided shortly before that blew up to take our last remaining aircraft carrier out of service. I have raised that issue a number of times, particularly with the Foreign Secretary, who on the most recent occasion informed me—I am sorry that he has such a low opinion of my knowledge of things nautical—that an aircraft carrier would not have been necessary because a Tornado could not be flown from it. I am reassured to know that the Government are well aware of which aircraft can fly from aircraft carriers and which cannot, but I do not hesitate to say that if we had had an aircraft carrier in commission when the events in Libya blew up so unexpectedly, I would have bet the farm on the fact that that particular warship—an aircraft carrier—would have been the first to be dispatched to the Mediterranean in response. It is very unwise to make decisions in peacetime, and still more unwise to make decisions when we are involved in not one but two conflicts simultaneously, that will bind us rigidly into circumstances that we might regret when the strategic situation changes as unexpectedly as it almost always does.
Let us consider the position with regard to frigates and submarines. I have never hesitated to say that the 1998 strategic defence review was a well thought-out document. The problem, as we know, was that the plans it outlined were not fully funded, although at least one had the feeling that a theory was being set out, which meant that some sort of balance was understood and some sort of flexibility was retained. We did not take the view that because our circumstances in the world were more limited in terms of the interventions we could make, we should reshape our defence forces in such a way that we would be incapable of responding to an unexpected crisis as we had responded in the past.
At one point during the years of the Labour Government, a naval base review was carried out. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that we, as the shadow defence team in opposition, were adamant that it would be most unwise to rely on only two naval bases in the entire country, one of which would be in Scotland and the other in either Portsmouth or Devonport. In particular, we had regard to the argument put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in his introduction to the debate: if we put all our eggs in one basket, or all our ships in one or two ports—one at one end of the country and one at the far end from that—we will be in danger of the basket of eggs getting smashed or the ships getting bottled up. We therefore argued strongly for retaining the ports at Devonport and at Portsmouth, and it would be a grave mistake to change that argument now. If we believe that it is strategically wise, strategically necessary and, I would say, strategically essential to continue to have the potential to use both Devonport and Portsmouth as naval bases in the future—I can never emphasise enough that we cannot predict the future—it follows that we must spread out our assets to ensure that both ports remain viable. I have no prejudice as to which assets should be in Portsmouth and which should be in Devonport, but some assets should be in each of the two ports.
The Labour Government took office in 1997, and when their SDR was undertaken we had a total of 35 frigates and destroyers. The deal done in the SDR was that in return for the great future promise and asset of two large aircraft carriers, the number of frigates would be modestly reduced from 35 to 32, and the number of attack submarines—nuclear-powered, but not nuclear-armed—would be reduced from 12 to 10. We know what happened over the years: the number of frigates went down successively from 35 to 32, as predicted, and then to 31 and 25. If I remember correctly, at the last count the figure had gone down to 19. It is true that during that period six new Daring class—Type 45 —destroyers came into play, and they are, of course, much more powerful, potent and potentially lethal, so one could argue that they are a much better deterrent than the destroyers they replaced. However, one should fight shy of getting into the position that Geoff Hoon, the then Secretary of State for Defence, got into of saying that because a new warship is so much more powerful than the warship it replaces, the number of “platforms”, as they used to say—the number of ships to the rest of us—becomes irrelevant. That is not true, because no matter how powerful a warship is, it can be in only one place at any one time. Unfortunately, but necessarily, the activities of the Royal Navy often have to take place in many places simultaneously. At the moment, we are considering what we should do in relation to events in Libya.
There is something else that slightly bothers me: I lost count of the number of times that Conservative spokesmen said in opposition that although we could not be sure whether we would spend more money on defence until we saw what the books actually said about the economics, we would definitely keep expenditure on defence in line with the commitments undertaken. I often stood up and said that we would need either to spend more on defence or to reduce our commitments. In reality, as we know, we are very stretched indeed as a result of the ongoing commitment in Afghanistan, and we now find ourselves suddenly with an additional commitment in Libya. After some prodding, the Foreign Secretary conceded that its cost, on which I was rather aggravatingly pressing him, would be met from the Treasury reserve, but all signs are that the commitment to a Libyan no-fly zone will not prove decisive in ousting Colonel Gaddafi, even though it may prove, and arguably has proved, effective in preventing him from initiating the wholesale mass slaughter that he was not only ruthless enough but stupid enough to announce to the world that he intended to visit on the citizens of Benghazi.
If those two statements are true—first, that the no-fly zone will not be enough to oust Gaddafi and, secondly, that it will nevertheless be effective in limiting the massacre of innocent civilians, which was our purpose for intervening—the logical consequence is that the commitment will go on for a considerable time. The Government will have to think hard about what they are prepared to spend on defence.
The Government cannot meet the costs from Treasury reserves indefinitely. We all know what then happens: we tend to get ourselves into the situation encountered by Tony Blair, who said towards the end of his time as Prime Minister that spending on defence had remained roughly constant at 2.5% of gross domestic product throughout the decade of Labour rule, but then added the crucial words, “if the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are included.” In other words, the cost of those two wars was effectively being counted as part of our basic expenditure on defence. Such a thing will always happen.
The Government must think clearly about whether to put the economic case at the top of their agenda or whether to put up there instead the ability to intervene, as we have intervened in Libya. They cannot have it both ways. Many countries, including in Europe, would doubtless love to be able to intervene to stop massacres in Benghazi, but they do not do so—or not more than minimally—because their simple view is, “Well, we’re very sorry but we’re too small, too ineffective, too weak and too poor, and we cannot afford to maintain the armed forces necessary to do that sort of thing.” That is fair enough.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a case for flexibility and options versus the economy, but it is worth remembering that we need a strong Navy with the right number of platforms to protect trade, our fuel security and our fibre-optic cables. Our economy depends on the Royal Navy.
Dr Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which takes my argument forward exactly as I intended. The key point is that the things that she outlines are constants. Those requirements of a strong Royal Navy will carry on regardless, even if we were not involved in those additional conflicts. It really worries me that if we continue to be driven by every crisis that pops up in other parts of the world, whether or not we have what is commonly described as a dog in the fight, something else will have to give. Unless we see a genuine increase in resources and in the priority given to defence, if we continue to take on roles such as the worthy one of trying to intervene in Libya, something will have to give, and it is precisely the sort of core functions to which my hon. Friend adverts that may suffer.
If we cap the defence budget, we might have to sell off or mothball vital defence assets, or not introduce new assets that had been planned for, but I am concerned that whenever a crisis pops up in another part of the world, we want to be at the forefront and to punch above our weight. There will be only one outcome of that approach: our very limited defence resources will be used up in dealing with these ad hoc crises, which are not of our choosing, but then one day, when we face an existential threat to the security of the United Kingdom, we will not have the assets necessary to defend ourselves. I predict that there will be attempts to derail the renewal of the nuclear deterrent on the grounds that we are so stretched in other conventional areas that we cannot afford to build those submarines.
That is not a subject for this debate but, with your indulgence Mrs Brooke, may I say that I am particularly alarmed about the Trident Commission? The commission is orchestrated by a well-known anti-nuclear group called the British American Security Information Council, and is funded by such anti-nuclear bodies as the Ploughshares fund and the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust but, nevertheless, such distinguished people as two former Secretaries of State for Defence—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and Lord Browne of Ladyton—have agreed to sit on it. What will the commission come up with? In my opinion, it certainly will not come up with a recommendation for the like-for-like replacement of Trident. What will it say? Will it say, “We’d better not have continuous at-sea deterrence,” or, “We must join up with the French”? Whatever it says, I bet that the root of its argument will be the statement that we cannot afford to continue with a properly self-sufficient strategic independent nuclear deterrent. If so, future generations may have cause bitterly to regret the sort of arguments that have been put forward when we one day find ourselves vulnerable as a result of that omission.
How does that relate to base-porting? It is simple: during times of economic stringency, it is vital to conserve defence assets. Whatever final decision my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues make about what should be based at Portsmouth or Devonport, one point is vital. Something must be based at each of those two ports so that their viability is retained, because we might need those naval bases one day not simply to allow us to intervene in wars of choice, but to safeguard ourselves against an existential threat to the United Kingdom itself.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Brooke, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this debate. He follows his predecessor Linda Gilroy, in being a strong advocate of Plymouth and the dockyard. As a Member, she was tenacious in debate. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, she put the case not only for Plymouth but for the Navy. On numerous occasions, as a Minister I was on the receiving end of her representations.
Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I pay tribute to the people of Plymouth. As a Minister, I had the honour to visit the town several times. Its contribution to the defence of the country is not only recent, and we should be thankful for what it did previously. I also pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy currently serving in Afghanistan, including the Royal Marines, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We often see Afghanistan through an Army prism, but it is important to recognise the contribution made by the Navy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Raleigh. It is an excellent facility, and I once had the honour of taking a passing-out parade there. The best of British youth can be changed in a matter of 10 weeks from what one mother described as being difficult to get out of bed and not knowing how to use an iron to people who can make a huge contribution to our country’s defence. We should be proud of the young men and women at HMS Raleigh.
Oliver Colvile
May I associate myself with those remarks? I recently visited Lympstone, another Royal Marines training centre. I decided not to go into the sheep-dip because I did not want to spend two hours walking about soaking wet. Nevertheless, I was desperately keen and interested in what was being done.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the work that is done at Lympstone. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) mentioned the economic contribution that the dockyard makes not only to Plymouth itself but to the surrounding area; some 25,000 individuals are directly employed by the dockyard and there is a knock-on effect on local business. In addition, I have seen for myself the support that exists for the excellent university.
My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the trade unions at the dockyard which, over many years, have campaigned for the dockyard and ensured that its case is put to both Tory and Labour Governments. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned the cross-party nature of the campaigning that has been carried out by the local authority. When I visited Plymouth, I was very impressed with the way in which the members of the local authority, irrespective of political party, spoke with one voice for Plymouth and the dockyard.
The previous Labour Government conducted a naval base review, in which the decision was made to support Faslane, Plymouth and Portsmouth. However, there were those who said that we should put all our eggs in one basket at Portsmouth, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned. I am sure that there are many who still say that and the Minister will have to address those pressures in the coming weeks. It has been said, perhaps unfairly, that some of the naval top brass prefer Portsmouth to Plymouth because it is nearer to London.
The review was supposed to bring some stability to the future footprint of the Royal Navy in the UK, which is important. Earlier, we mentioned forces accommodation. When I was the Minister responsible for armed forces accommodation, I was conscious that we needed long-term investment in the naval estate. However, that is difficult, especially if the sword of Damocles is hanging over a site—whether it be a naval base, an RAF base or an army base—because there is a tendency not to invest. We have certainly seen that at Faslane and other places. The delay by the previous Government in making a decision on the long-term basing of submarines meant that investment did not go into armed forces family accommodation. If we want our armed forces to be ready for deployment and to fight in difficult situations, it is vital to have good family accommodation and support. For far too long, we have thought of the families as secondary to the fighting forces. They are, in my opinion, integral and important. That is particularly relevant for the Royal Navy because individuals are away at sea for many months. It is important that, while they undertake their duties, they are content and feel that their families are being well looked after.
The naval base review agreed that HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark would be based at Plymouth along with the hydrographic survey ship and the Type 22s and Type 23s. More importantly, there was also a 15-year agreement with Babcock Marine on the dockyard itself. When people look at the arguments for or against Plymouth or Portsmouth, they should consider the fact that the dockyard at Portsmouth has not been viable since 1984, when it was closed. That is an important argument for retaining Plymouth. We need a dockyard capability not only for nuclear but for the refit of existing frigates and other service ships.
With the decommissioning of the Type 22s under the strategic defence and security review, there will be very little left at Devonport. The current review will consider whether the dockyard has a future. However, as the hon. Member for New Forest East so eloquently put it, to put our eggs in one basket would be a mistake. The arguments that were proposed by the previous Government in their base-porting review are relevant today. Although the SDSR is a defence and security review, it is basically led by the Treasury. Having dealt with the Treasury on a number of occasions, I am sure that it will be breathing down the neck of the Minister to ensure that it gets every last pound from any decisions that are made to free up money in the short term.
Alison Seabeck
If the defence review was, as we all believe, Treasury led, does my hon. Friend not find it surprising that the Treasury does not seem to be listening to the wider socio-economic case about the implications for Plymouth, given the huge cost implications of making the wrong choice?
Mr Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested that that review is being presented to Government. I urge my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, along with the trade unions and the local council, to make the case strongly to Government. However, I have to say that I sympathise with the Minister. Under any Government, the bottom line is that the Treasury will look only at the budget of the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend is right to make the wider case. Closing a dockyard might save money on the defence budget, but in terms of the overall spend to Government, it would cost money in the long term.
I was impressed with the way in which Plymouth, and particularly the university, tried to diversify into other naval-related and maritime sectors. Such efforts would be taken away if the dockyard were closed and the effects would be felt for many years to come. I come from a region which unfortunately saw the end of naval shipbuilding on the River Tyne under a previous Conservative Government, so I am not sure whether this Government will take much cognisance of the wider effects that such closures will have on the region or its capabilities.
The danger that we face is that the Treasury, which is leading the decisions in the SDSR, will make short-term decisions that will have long-term implications. If we were looking for an example of where a short-term decision could be made and we could get things wrong, this would be it.
Although I accept that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is a strong advocate for the armed forces and would argue for a larger defence budget, I have to say gently to him that it is naive to pin his hopes on an increase in the defence budget after 2015 saving his dockyard. The Treasury will not reopen facilities once they are closed and will not invest in new capacities. Its policy will be one of entrenchment rather than expansion. Both he and my hon. Friend must ensure that the case for Plymouth is put very strongly and effectively.
In closing, we are already seeing the effects of the short-term decision not to have any carrier-based air strike force for 10 years, in terms of our inability to deploy air power in Libya effectively and swiftly. Certain Ministers in the Ministry of Defence are recognising that it is now time to look again perhaps at the SDSR and to do so not only through the prism of the Treasury. We must realise that, if we are going to be a nation that wants to project power around the world—both naval influence and other types of influence—a strong, effective Navy is an important part of that aspiration. In addition, a well financed and strategically thought out defence policy is a cornerstone of any such aspiration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
Mrs Brooke, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this important debate.
I must state at the outset that I am responding to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government in the stead of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology. I am very pleased to say that he is in Japan undertaking work that I hope the House will approve of: promoting Britain’s defence interests and defence exports to that country. Consequently he is unavoidably detained overseas and so it falls to me to respond to the debate.
As is customary, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the other hon. Members who have taken part in it, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who is an esteemed former Front-Bench colleague, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, all three of them have taken part in various defence debates in this Parliament. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View have participated in such debates during the many years they have been in the House, and are therefore noted contributors to the wider issues of defence. They are not limited simply to their constituency interests, which I always think is a rather healthy manifestation of political expression in the House. It is healthier than simply articulating the case for one’s own constituency.
I must also say that, as ever, it is a great pleasure to participate in a debate with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I have sparred with him for many years and personally we have always enjoyed the best of friendships, although I am delighted to say that I am now on the Government Benches and he is on the Opposition Benches.
Where Royal Navy vessels are based is an important topic for the entire House. It has an impact on both service personnel and their families, and on local jobs and infrastructure. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the important role that Plymouth has played in the defence of the nation throughout our seafaring history and to pay tribute to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Those men and women have contributed so much to the United Kingdom’s defence, at home and overseas.
The story of the naval base at Plymouth stretches back as far as the time when the English fleet sailed out to face the Spanish armada. Famously, Sir Francis Drake, who was a vice-admiral in that fleet, was playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe when he sighted the armada. Indeed, the fleet accommodation centre at the base in Plymouth is still known within the Royal Navy as HMS Drake, in his honour. Since the time of the armada, the base has survived more than four centuries of warfare, including heavy bombing during the blitz. That is thanks in large part to the hard work and resilience of the people of Plymouth.
As everyone knows, we have had to make some difficult decisions in recent times as a result of the utter incompetence of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who virtually destroyed the public finances. It always astonishes me how few people in this country understand the magnitude of the budget deficit problem that we inherited. I ask people at various gatherings, “How much was the budget deficit in May 2010?”, and very few people—even well informed ones—know the answer. For the benefit of putting it on the record, I will say now that the deficit then was £150 billion. For those of us interested in defence, that translates to the cost of three Type 45 destroyers each and every week of the year. The deficit is that great. To put it in a wider historical perspective, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and I both remember that in 1979 the budget deficit was £8.25 billion; now it is some 20 times greater. [Interruption.] That statement is true. The hon. Member for North Durham is mumbling away, but I remind him that Jim Callaghan left an economic legacy almost as bad as that left by the last Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, last year.
Of course, it is in the context of the current budget deficit that we have to address the position on defence. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the budget deficit is itself a threat to our national security, and if we were not dealing with it in the way the Chancellor is dealing with it now, the UK would most likely have found itself in the same position as Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Mr Howarth
It is not a load of nonsense. I was in the financial world and I understand how important it is to secure the support of the international financial community. It is just as important for an individual, if they have an overdraft, to have the support of their bank manager. When the nation is in the dire straits it now finds itself in, it is absolutely imperative that we have the support of the international financial community. That support is what deserted Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
Mr Jones
I just wish that the Minister would not keep peddling this absolute nonsense. The idea that the UK economy is the same as the Greek economy is utter rubbish. The idea that somehow the UK’s credit rating was in peril, in terms of receiving the support of the international financial community, is complete nonsense. If he looks at long-term borrowing for Greece, he will see that more than 50% of its debt is on short-term loans of about three years. Most of the UK’s debt is on loans that are in excess of 14 years. If he is using the deficit argument as an excuse for decimating the armed forces, I can accept that he needs some cover for what he is doing; but he should acknowledge economic reality rather than just continually peddling nonsense.
Mr Howarth
It is wonderful that the hon. Gentleman can still come to the support of his former boss, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, after the devastation he wreaked on the country.
Penny Mordaunt
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, in addition to the deficit that we inherited, it was the web of incompatible programmes that made the strategic defence and security review a particularly difficult exercise to carry out? Does he also agree that if there is any justification for not having a carrier strike force in the short term, it is that the SDSR has drawn a line in the sand and we are now preparing for the future? To do that, we need to look at maintaining three Navy bases in this country.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SDSR sought to reflect the position that we found ourselves in. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View was perfectly right to refer to the Treasury. Inevitably, the Treasury had an influence on the SDSR. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made the point at the start of the debate that government is a question of priorities. This Government is not a Conservative Government; it is a coalition Government and the priorities were set by the Cabinet. The good news is that the Ministry of Defence took a lesser hit than many people imagined it would, and that is in large measure thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who ensured that the MOD did not fare as badly as some people had feared.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said that he wants me to be robust, and I will be. He is absolutely right to say that we face a dangerous world. That is what we said when in opposition, and the world is just as dangerous—if not more dangerous—than it was then. However, the cupboard is bare and we have had to allocate our resources as best we can. He also made the fair point that the 1998 strategic defence review was itself never fully funded, and therefore last year, when the Chancellor came to allocate the Budget across the Departments, the Ministry of Defence was hobbled by the fact that it was already underfunded for what it was trying to do—we took a double hit, one might say. These are challenging times, and the SDSR has had, and will continue to have, an impact on all areas of defence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to maintain a strong and capable fleet that preserves our long and glorious naval tradition.
Nowhere is there greater evidence of that than at Devonport, which is the largest naval base in western Europe, stretching along four miles of coastline. The naval base and the associated dockyard employ approximately 12,000 people and are an important part of the local economy. The dockyard has been privately owned since 1997, and operated by Babcock Marine since 2007. Babcock also manages naval base support services in Devonport. Devonport contributes to the UK’s defence capability through its vital role as the only facility in the UK able to carry out the deep maintenance of submarines, and it undertakes the long overhauls that all submarines must undergo at least once during their service life. As well as that unique role, it carries out valuable work on the support and maintenance of complex warships, and is a centre of excellence for sea training and for the UK’s amphibious capability.
Babcock Marine, along with BAE Systems Surface Ships, is one of our key maritime industrial partners, and the Department works closely with it to ensure that Devonport and the other naval bases and dockyards have the level of work they need to sustain them, ensuring that critical skills, such as high-end design, systems engineering and combat systems integration are not lost, and that we continue to maintain the ability to carry out such work in Britain.
Alison Seabeck
Given that the Minister is standing in for the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology, this is possibly an unfair question: under the business agreement—which was signed and is generally very welcome—how firm a commitment is expected from the companies, whether BAE or Babcock Marine, to continue to operate in Portsmouth, Plymouth or Faslane? The Minister might want to come back to me later on that.
Mr Howarth
As I understand it, the decisions are based on where the case for the best enterprise can be established. The agreement is between Babcock Marine, BAE Systems Surface Fleet and the Ministry of Defence, and the idea is to allocate the work around the three bases. As I shall say again in a moment, repeating the Prime Minister’s assurance, all three naval bases, including Portsmouth, will be maintained, for the very reason that everyone has been articulating: to maintain the capability and not to put all our eggs in one basket. That is the basis upon which the decisions are made, but I could invite my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology to drop the hon. Lady a note about it, if that would be helpful.
One of the mechanisms in place for ensuring that we can maintain the capabilities is the surface ship support alliance between Babcock Marine, BAE Systems Surface Ships and the Ministry of Defence. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, the alliance meets regularly to discuss the best allocation of support work, so that the work is balanced between various locations. The alliance has been in place since September 2009, and the proof of concept phase has demonstrated the benefits of collaborative working between the Department and the industry, and should lead to the delivery of a more sustainable programme of surface ship support work. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s point.
It is important to emphasise that the Department is not alone in providing employment opportunities in Plymouth. Plymouth city council and local business leaders are actively seeking to attract investment and business into the area, and I hope there will be further opportunities to maximise the benefits to the city from the proposed release of MOD sites. We remain committed to working with other Departments, and with trade unions and local councils, as opportunities emerge.
Moving on to base-porting more specifically, the Devonport flotilla includes HMS Ocean—a landing platform, helicopter and the largest ship in the Royal Navy—on which last year I was privileged to sign a defence co-operation treaty with Brazil. The 22,000 magnificent tonnes of British steel standing there in the harbour were a manifestation of the influence that the military can bring on behalf of our country around the world, and we should not forget that. Also based in Devonport are the active Type 22 frigates, seven of the 13 Type 23 frigates, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark—amphibious landing platform docks—four ships of the oceanographic squadron, and six Trafalgar-class nuclear-powered submarines. That is a substantial portion of our naval fleet, and the flagship of the Royal Navy, HMS Albion, is the first Devonport-based ship in living memory to hold the responsibility of fleet flagship.
The tough decisions that have had to be made as part of the SDSR mean that the Royal Navy’s fleet will decrease in size. As a result, the number of vessels based at Devonport will be reduced, but Devonport’s importance as a vital strategic asset supporting the Royal Navy will not be diminished. As I mentioned a moment ago, the Prime Minister confirmed in the debate that followed the SDSR announcement last year that we are determined to retain all three naval bases, and to keep them busy. We advocated that in opposition, and have kept our word. Any decisions taken on future base-porting arrangements for the Royal Navy’s vessels will therefore take into account the long-term sustainability of all three naval bases.
The SDSR made it clear that the Royal Navy has a bright future, with new aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers, new submarines and new frigates, and that maintaining 19 frigates and destroyers was the best option for delivering a sustainable and flexible surface fleet. To implement that decision, the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 15 December that the four remaining Type 22 frigates—HMS Chatham, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Cumberland and HMS Cornwall—would be removed from service. The decommissioning of Cumberland was delayed because of her involvement in supporting enforcement action against Libya under United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the ship’s crew for their fantastic work during that deployment, which emphasised the versatility of the Royal Navy at its best.
The seven Type 23 frigates based at Devonport, along with the six at Portsmouth naval base, will form the backbone of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet until the introduction of the Type 26 global combat ship at around the turn of the decade. I am lead Minister for the global combat ship, which we hope to build in collaboration with a number of other countries, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would like to see more of them. We advocated in opposition that although the ships should not be exactly cheap and cheerful, they should not have the sophistication of the Type 45 destroyer, the unit cost of which was £1 billion—simply unaffordable.
Alison Seabeck
I understand the need for much more of a workhorse vehicle than an all-singing, all-dancing one; however, lovely as it will be to have the new Type 26s, I hope the Minister will strongly consider the fact that Plymouth has the skills to manage and support some of those vessels into the future.
Mr Howarth
I hear the hon. Lady’s representations, and shall duly convey them to the Minister responsible, but I have to say that we are nowhere near making the base-porting decisions on the Type 26.
Alison Seabeck
I understand that that decision is not imminent, but in thinking through the decisions that need to be made, the Department must look ahead. The decision must be part of a bigger strategic vision for the future.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point, which I endorse and emphasise for the record. It builds on something that the hon. Member for North Durham said about the Treasury. If we are to have the Future Force 2020 that we seek, it will depend on uplift in financial resources from the middle of the decade. One of the last things that the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff, now Lord Stirrup, said to me was that if we want that uplift in 2015, we must start planning for it now. It is important that we as parliamentarians understand the importance of long- term planning. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for latching on to the point that she made about base-porting for the Type 26, but it feeds into a wider argument about defence planning, and she is right to make it.
Dr Julian Lewis
In referring to the new frigates as cheap and cheerful, to use the Minister’s phrase—
Dr Lewis
My phrase was “cheap as chips”, actually. It upset the First Sea Lord of the day, although not too much. Will the Minister confirm that the reason why it is important and practicable to make the new frigates in that way is that modern methods of naval design enable the production of a ship that is modular? Therefore, we can produce a considerable number of hulls initially and then upgrade them with bolt-on modules as resources allow, rather than producing something expensive from the outset.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend, as ever, has latched on to an extremely important point. A big selling-point in my discussions with other nations about working in co-operation on the programme is that modular building design not only gives extraordinary flexibility, but is something in which we in the United Kingdom have a world lead. We did it with the Type 45s and we are doing it with carriers; we can do it with global combat ships as well.
My discussions with the Royal Navy, from the First Sea Lord down, have proved extremely encouraging. The Navy has understood the force of the argument and is working enthusiastically to that end. All of us in the House have an interest in ensuring the success of the programme. Personally, I am staking a lot on it myself. If I were to leave office having done only one thing—securing a new fleet of frigates for the Royal Navy—I should feel extremely proud.
On submarines, we have made it clear that the Clyde naval base will become the base port for all Royal Navy submarines. The Vanguard class submarines are already based there, and as the Astute class enters service, it too will be based at and operated from the Clyde. The Department has announced that it will move in-service Trafalgar class submarines from Devonport to Faslane, although we are still assessing how best to implement that decision. None the less, Devonport’s highly skilled work force will continue to be called on to deliver the highest standards of engineering in the vital area of submarine maintenance.
It is important to recognise that decisions about changing the base-porting of naval assets are not simple or straightforward. Although factors such as sustainability and work loads are of importance locally and to the nation as a whole, I am sure we all appreciate that any changes have a major impact on the welfare of the service personnel affected, particularly those with young families. Any decisions to change the arrangements are made only after extensive deliberation and consultation. At this point, I would like to put on the record—I am sure on everybody’s behalf—what an immense debt of gratitude the nation owes to the families of our servicemen and women in all three services. Without their support, the men and women on the front line would never be able to do their job.
As part of the process, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View said, full consideration must be given to the impact on naval service personnel and their families, reflecting the need to give them sufficient notice to plan their futures, in line with the naval service individual harmony guidelines. The guidelines exist to ensure that naval personnel retain the ability to enjoy leisure at their place of duty and that they do not spend excessive time away from their homes and families.
I am pleased to be able to confirm, therefore, that we have made a decision that I hope will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. We have decided to make no changes to base-porting arrangements for surface ships, including Type 23 frigates. The frigates at Devonport and Portsmouth will remain where they are for the foreseeable future. That will provide a period of stability for naval personnel and their families at our naval bases, for the naval bases at Devonport and Portsmouth and for our industrial partners, which I know my hon. Friend and other Members were seeking. It is our view that any review of those arrangements should be linked directly to the wider studies informing future strategic defence and security reviews, which we have committed to undertaking during each Parliament, so we do not anticipate any changes until 2020 at the earliest. I recognise that that decision will be of interest to many Members. The Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, will write to those Members shortly to provide the detail that I am sure they seek.
To answer a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, HMS Protector will be based at Portsmouth because, as I understand it, that reflects the base-porting arrangements in place for HMS Endurance. However, we expect to decide on the longer-term delivery of that capability, including base-porting arrangements and the future of HMS Endurance, next year. I hope that that puts the matter in context. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to the university of Plymouth study. I say to all local Members that Ministers will be pleased to receive the results of that study.
In summary, I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that we remain determined to make the fullest use of all three naval bases, including Devonport, and to capitalise on the excellent skills and experience that they have to offer. Difficult decisions have been taken, but everyone involved can now look forward to a period of stability, confident in the knowledge that they will continue to be central to our island nation’s influence, prosperity and security.
UK Oil Refining Industry
(12 years, 12 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
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Brooke.
May I start by thanking a number of people who have helped me over the 18 years that I have represented Scotland’s only refinery? Believe it or not, I worked there in 1967 and in the winter of ’68, when I was a student, and I have ended up as the Member of Parliament. My thanks go to the staff and the management. Although there have been a few differences of opinion, particularly over pensions, the one thing about Grangemouth is that the industry comes first, because it is a vital part of the lives of the people of central Scotland. It is also important to the Scottish economy and, of course, the UK Exchequer.
I thank Gordon Grant, the present site manager, and his colleagues, Colin Pritchard and Gary Haywood, who have been active, both in writing to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change during its inquiry and in speaking to me about their concerns about the future of the industry. I also thank Stephen Deans and Mark Lyon, who are the joint shop steward secretaries for the industry in the area, and the national organisation for refineries which represents both the management and the work force in the UK, and which works closely with the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association and other organisations.
If we look at the report produced by the Energy and Climate Change Committee in June 2009 about the oil and gas industry in general, we will see that the odd thing about the situation was that the industry faced
“a quadruple whammy of high costs, low prices, lack of affordable credit and a global recession.”
At that time, we did not know that it would also have to deal with a predatory Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would take £2 million per annum out of the upstream. When taxes and the structure of taxes are changed as quickly as that, it frightens investors, and the question in relation to UK refining at the moment is about investment—is there an investment future for UK refining?
My questions to the Minister require serious replies. Do the Government realise what the impact will be of the forthcoming proposals to change climate change levies, the European Union emissions trading scheme and the so-called carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme? UKPIA has said that that is no longer based on climate change methodology, but that it is a tax, because the revenue will go not to the Department of Energy and Climate Change or to anything to do with climate change, which was the original decision on climate change levies, but to Her Majesty’s Treasury. It is a tax-raising power and will do no good in terms of climate change and energy reduction. It will just boost the Chancellor’s coffers.
It is as if the DECC document is living in a fantasy world when it says that
“the downstream oil sector has demonstrated its resilience to various supply disruptions”,
although it goes on to say that
“there is always scope to improve”.
There has, however, been a blindness on the part of Government to the real purpose of high taxes on a very important manufacturing industry, and to the impact of those taxes on that industry’s ability to survive in the world. That is why this debate is about competitiveness. It is not about the environment and the other things that the Minister has to carry in his brief. It is about something that should be answered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It should be a BIS Minister present, but BIS refused to take this debate because it has shifted the issue. The debate was secured before the recess and with that Department in mind, but a BIS Minister said that he could not handle it, because the issue is not seen as part of its remit. It is tagged on to the work of the hard-working Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change.
What has been happening recently in the refining industry is interesting. At one time, refining was the downstream part of a multinational commitment to exploration and production. British Petroleum was in the North sea and other parts of the world, and refining in Grangemouth in my constituency. Royal Dutch Shell was all over the world and refining in Stanlow, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), and French-owned Total was in Lindsey. They were all part of world exploration and production, but what is the situation now? INEOS has bought more than 26 of BP’s refining and olefin and derivative sites, including the refineries in Grangemouth and in Lavera in France. It is, essentially, a stand-alone commodity producer and it treats refining as another stand-alone commodity. Owing to heavy indebtedness in terms of purchase and the world downturn, INEOS has sold 50% of the refineries in Lavera and Grangemouth to PetroChina for £1 billion, thereby reducing its debt burden. That may or may not be a good thing, and I will talk about it specifically later.
My hon. Friend will talk more about this, but Shell in Stanlow has been 100% bought by Essar, whose declared intention is to bring in, from its own refinery in India, high-quality diesel for the European market basically to use the UK as a pipeline to sell its product in Europe. There is talk of some upgrading and I am sure that my hon. Friend will talk about that, but that is the strategy. I have been shown a clip from a website that was viewable before the deal was done. The company said that it was going to buy Stanlow, shut it and use the pipeline. That, thank goodness, has been fought off by both Shell and the work force, but that is the situation.
We were once the floating assembly shop for Europe for computers, televisions and white goods, because we had incentives from the European Union. Where have they all gone? Where has Chunghwa gone from Lanarkshire? Where has Motorola gone from Bathgate in my constituency? They have disappeared because we have become a transit route for selling into a large market in Europe. That is my worry.
Lindsey has been sold to the Klesch group, which is owned by a gentleman who makes his money by buying distressed debt from companies that are in trouble. I do not think that Total is in trouble; it just wanted to offload the refinery. We have no idea what its financial plan is, and that is the great problem that we face. Are the conditions there for the UK refinery industry to compete in Europe? When it is introduced, part 3 of the European emissions trading scheme will increase the cost in the UK by 10% against the EU. At the moment, because of climate change costs, the product of EU refineries is 15% more expensive than anywhere else in the world. We will then be disadvantaged by another 10% against Europe, which means that we will be 25% disadvantaged against the world in terms of our product. It is clear that Europe has been targeted, as has Australia, because there is a high price for refined product.
Another problem is that we do not have enough capacity. The UK refining industry, Grangemouth apart, is still geared towards the high petrol demand of the 1970s, when we should have been gearing up for high diesel demand, because high-quality diesel is what Europe is demanding. When Lord John Browne was in charge of BP, he showed me the new investment BP had made in high-quality diesel for Europe, and thank goodness it did that. Frankly, if the timing and the taxes were right, and if the burden were not going to put investors off, it is possible that, with the PetroChina deal, my refinery in Grangemouth—I am possessive of it, in the sense that I have always fought for it and that it is important in my constituency—could upgrade itself to supply all the demand for high-quality diesel in Europe and all the aerofuel required at the moment in the UK. That would be the by-product of decoking the heavy oil that is being taken out of the ground in Africa by PetroChina. There is serious talk about that. However, there can be that investment only if the taxation structure and the incentives are correct. There have been no incentives to help the industry; instead, tax burdens have been put on it.
I ask the Minister to think seriously about trying to convince the Chancellor—who, by the way, should get out more—about that. A man who has spent all his time in Conservative party central office does not know what the real world is like. As my father would say, he has never done a day’s work in the industry. We cannot save manufacturing by burdening it with taxes that mean it cannot carry the load and attract investors.
I want to make the following argument on the emissions trading scheme to this Minister, who is supposed to be responsible for the environment. We could have a situation whereby the UK, which is carrying the burden of such a scheme, does not invest. However, let us consider what happens in relation to other companies, for example, Essar. What kind of conditions does the Minister think exist in its refinery in India? Does he think it is anywhere near as climate friendly as the refineries in our industry, considering the burdens that are put on it? No, it is not. What will happen is that we will ship abroad to more polluting, heavier and probably more dangerous environments with lower health and safety standards.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In cognation of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, can I point out that the Fawley Exxon refinery in my constituency accidentally under-reported its CO2 emissions by one third of 1%? In accordance with the emissions trading scheme, as soon as it discovered what had happened, it reported it to the Environment Agency whereupon it was fined €1 million, which is more than some of the firms at fault in the Buncefield disaster are being fined. When a firm behaves responsibly and is punished for doing so under schemes that do not apply to other refinery companies in other countries, that does not constitute a level playing field.
Michael Connarty
That is a very important point for the Minister to take on board. He will have to argue—and I hope that he pledges to do so today—against the next wave of climate change costs, because they will just shift the burden. Those costs will not get rid of climate damage; they will shift the problem to other countries where climate damage is much greater. It is much more sensible for the UK to realise that it has to have a genuinely level playing field with Europe. We also need incentives for investment and sensible rewards for companies in this country that have a high standard of climate control and health and safety.
I recall when ICI decided to get rid of anthraquinone, which is a wonderful product. Anthraquinone was the green gunge in all UK fabric dyes. I am an honorary member of the anthraquinone club, for which someone gets a tie with a picture of the molecule on it. Anthraquinone was sent to India because it did not meet the health and safety and pollution standards in this country. However, it continues to be made in India. That is the problem. We think we are doing well by tackling our emissions but, in fact, we are just pushing them somewhere else.
I honestly have to say—and this is not because I am in any way a great supporter of the company concerned—that a considerable amount of money has been spent in UK refineries, particularly at Grangemouth, to reduce emissions. For example, it has invested massively in heat and power plants. It did not have to do that; it could have taken power off the grid. However, it has invested in a low-emission method of producing power and electricity. The company at Grangemouth is telling me that DECC’s new consultation contains no clear statement about exemptions, reductions or rewards for those vast investments. That is wrong.
That company has also asked who was at the table when there were talks about the impact of energy and climate change. BP was not at the table and, as far as I know, Shell was not at the table. It has asked other companies if they know who was at the table talking to the Minister. I presume an organisation that sets itself up to represent the industry was present, but where was the industry and where were the people who have to take these investment decisions day to day? They were missing; they were not at the table. How can someone make a decision in such a way about the future of a company that, in my area, employs 1,350? I should add that I am not just talking about my constituency. There are more people employed at Grangemouth who are from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce). People from Redcar and Nantwich are also permanent employees of the Grangemouth refinery. It is important that the industry is treated correctly.
The regulatory impact of the new carbon floor provisions could add 50% in total to the climate change costs of the refinery in Grangemouth. That is not acceptable. That will not incentivise investment and get us into a position whereby we can supply Europe with high-quality diesel and supply the UK and even possibly Europe with aerofuel, which is what we should be doing. Will the Minister say what he intends to do about that? I know that everyone is in thrall to the Treasury and that, at the moment, it collects taxes rather doing anything else.
On the effect of the changes, the Heren forward electricity prices scale shows that, during summer 2012-13, there will be a £3 increase in electricity prices to £56.50, which is a 5% increase. For a high energy using industry such as the oil refinery industry, that is a massive burden that must be carried. The things produced are commodities. From one of the biggest refineries in India, Essar can ship in high-quality diesel. We are not going to get the money back. The elasticity of demand is very low. It is up to the Minister. Does he want an industry that is capable of competing in the world, not just in Europe?
In Europe, Lavera would be advantaged 10% over Grangemouth if the climate reduction levy and the EU emission trading scheme went through. We have to convince the Treasury that this is a vital part of our future. I do not know what other refineries are up for sale. There was a rumour that there were two others, but I do not know if that will turn out to be true. We do not know what the plan is for one of the biggest refineries that has just been sold. We must consider how to incentivise the industry and how to protect it from a predatory Chancellor who just wants taxation.
There is also a port at Grangemouth, which has briefed me in detail. It has pointed out that the new climate reduction scheme was supposed to target offices and large buildings that were not caught by the emissions trading scheme or the climate change levies. However, that is not the case. The new scheme will be a tax and will do nothing to incentivise people to reduce their energy use. Why should we let the Chancellor get away with it? We should take him on and argue that this industry and the future of manufacturing are vital. Oil refineries are at the centre of manufacturing, not just in my constituency and in Scotland, but throughout the UK. I hope that the Minister will respond to that. We will certainly back him up on it, as I think anyone from any party would. This is an industry that we must not sell out to anyone.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on securing this important debate. My constituency has a long tradition of refining. Like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I am only too aware of the challenges that the industry is facing in a very uncertain world.
It is important to reiterate that refining companies are not oil companies. They may have been once but, in today’s world, the vast majority of refining companies sit between the oil companies and the resellers. In the UK, 75% of the companies—six of the eight—are margin businesses. They take a raw product—oil—refine it and turn it into fuel, and somewhere between the price of oil and the price of petrol, which are both set by the market, they hope that they can make a margin. At present, however, that is proving increasingly difficult.
Some 20 years ago there were many more refineries. In my constituency, there were two; we are now down to one. In the past 10 years, the number of refineries in the industry has dropped from 12 to eight. The margin—they are margin businesses—is now down to 2%, which I believe is the tightest in the history of refining. The situation is even tougher than it was in 2009, and that was deemed to be a particularly challenging year.
It is also important to understand that refineries offer different capabilities. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned that our refining capability is designed to produce petroleum, but the reality is that the major demand is for diesel. The individual refineries do not know what they will get out of the crude that they put in at the start, because different crudes yield different saleable products at the end of the process. There are therefore a number of challenges and, as I said, the margin is particularly tight and difficult.
As there have been a number of sales in the industry recently, one could argue that the market overall must be healthy. If people are investing in the UK and buying up refineries, they think either that the industry is healthy, or that it will be healthy in the future. It is important, however, to look at the actual sale price of those refineries. A good example is Stanlow, which was recently sold at approximately 10% of its replacement cost. While there is investment and some movement in the market, that does not represent the true value of the facilities that are being sold. While the headline figures that get bandied around are particularly high, it is important to remember that they will include the stock being held by refineries. As we know, given that oil is at a particularly high price, that stock could make up the majority of the price.
The recent sales are therefore not necessarily an indication that the market is healthy, but the situation gives rise to a number of questions. Is it important that the UK has its own refining capability? Do we value the energy security that our own capability provides, bearing in mind that it provides 33% of all fuel used in the UK and 90% of all petroleum products? Do we want to retain the engineering excellence that is developed through our refineries and the 150,000 jobs that are supported through the industry, either directly or indirectly?
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said that the industry supports many jobs in Falkirk. He talked about its relevance for the engineering sector, as local colleges, particularly in Falkirk, supply people who are trained specifically for the refinery at Grangemouth. Does the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) agree that the implications of getting the costs right are enormous for the local economies in all our constituencies?
Stephen Metcalfe
Yes, I do. It is important that the industry is supported because it supports the sort of jobs that we are trying to create in our economy and creates the impetus for colleges to produce highly-skilled individuals. It is therefore very important that we continue to support the industry.
If we answer yes to the questions that I posed, it falls on us to decide how best to support the industry. UKPIA, the trade association that represents the industry, has made a number of recommendations of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I do not propose to reiterate all of them, but I would like to make three broad points.
First, refining is a global business. We are competing with China, India, Russia and the middle east, all of which can export to the UK and the EU, but are not under the same stringent environmental conditions as the UK industry. While in principle it is right and proper that the industry does what it can to reduce its environmental impact and emissions, we must recognise that it is competing in a global market. If we do not support the industry here, we might just move the environmental impact offshore and into countries that do not have the same extent of regulation.
Dr Julian Lewis
To illustrate that point further, may I point out that the Esso refinery at Fawley, in my constituency, has something called the combined heat and power unit that enables it to generate not only the electricity to run the plant, but steam, which is also of great value in the process? That has been exempt from taxation in previous regimes, but under a new proposal, that exemption will go. Once again we have a situation in which an uneven playing field is being made even more uneven.
Stephen Metcalfe
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is why we must do everything we can to make the impact of legislation as proportionate as possible. As I have said a number of times on the Floor of the House when referring to business in general, we must not gold-plate regulation. We have to get regulation right and consider the impact that it will have on industries across the whole economy. My hon. Friend highlights a particular piece of regulation that will have a dramatic effect on a vital industry in the UK. It is crucial that we create a level playing field, and that should be not just in the EU—that would help, because our gold-plating is sometimes a disadvantage to ourselves—but, if at all possible, throughout the rest of the world, which I understand is a bigger challenge. We have to balance the cost of regulation against the impact that it will have on our own UK capabilities. The EU legislation that is being brought forward will have a significant impact on costs to an industry that is not making any money.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another particular blight is that of health and safety, which perhaps applies at a different level in the UK from elsewhere? The problem is relevant to the Murco refinery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) because it could be holding up the sale of that perfectly viable refinery.
Stephen Metcalfe
The health and safety issue is a real challenge. In this country we seem to ask who is to blame when something goes wrong, but other countries ask what went wrong. We have to get the balance right. We seem to want to create an environment that makes it almost impossible for businesses to function properly. No one is suggesting that we cut corners on safety, but we should at least try to have the same safety regulations across the whole of Europe so that we are not trying to compete with one hand tied behind our back. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive has been asked to cut costs, but I think that I am right in saying that rather than doing that, it has passed on additional costs to the people with whom it works. In this case, that is refineries, but the refinery industry is not making any money. It is a very tough environment out there, so my hon. Friend highlights an important point.
Secondly, the industry has strategic importance to the UK economy. Our economy relies heavily on oil. Maintaining our own refining capabilities is of great importance to securing our energy supply. It gives us the ability to adapt to our domestic needs, and to the demands of the motorist and the regulatory framework, without us being in the hands of people who are outside our control.
My third point relates to the importance of the industry to the UK economy as a business. Refining is a large manufacturing business. It takes a raw product and makes something. We have said that we want to rebalance our economy and that we want to move away from financial services and encourage manufacturing. This industry employs tens of thousands of people in skilled jobs. We need to do what we can to support those jobs. The skills generated through those jobs—this is the driver for engineering excellence—will not only help to rebalance our economy, but give us expertise that we can export around the world and improve capabilities elsewhere. We have made a commitment to focus on those areas.
I have a good example from my constituency: the Petroplus refinery down at Coryton. I would be delighted if the Minister were to visit—it is the nearest refinery to London—and if he were to do so, I am sure he would receive a warm welcome. He could then hear at first hand about not only the challenges but the good things going on at Coryton: the hundreds of people employed, its apprenticeship schemes and the graduate training programme.
The industry needs our support. I would like to think that the Government recognise that, that they want to do what is right and that they will be able to find a suitable way to balance the regulatory demands coming down the line so that they are not so onerous that they damage a struggling industry even further. We should do what we can to maintain a viable and vibrant refining industry in the UK that supports not only our economy, but the many thousands of people employed in it.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on securing this important debate. I agree with him that we are in an unusual situation, which in some respects is highly positive. The UK Petroleum Industry Association, the industry’s trade association, is working closely with Unite, the union, in this vital area, and I congratulate the parties on bringing people together to discuss an industry that is hugely important to our country.
Some of the rumours about Essar described by my hon. Friend have, I am pleased to say, now been comfortably put to bed. I am comfortable that we will have a productive relationship with an interesting and developing company which has refining expertise in two other continents, as well as other manufacturing skills elsewhere. I have met people at the highest level of Essar, whom I look forward to introducing to the Minister. He will find them a breath of fresh air in some respects, compared with some of the manufacturing industries he has to deal with. I recognise that the area commands cross-party concern, and we should look at the refining industry carefully.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has ducked the debate. The refining industry is a key part of the manufacturing sector and—I will come on to this—fundamental research is also involved, coming under the responsibility of the Minister for Universities and Science.
I will turn specifically to Stanlow, to put on record what is happening. Essar will own and operate all the refinery assets. The crude used is shipped to the Tranmere terminal, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), and transported to the refinery by a pipeline, which will also be owned and operated by Essar. The terminal will remain under the ownership of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company—part of the holdings of the Peel Ports Group—and the intention is to transfer the lease from Shell to Essar.
A number of smaller business operations will be in the Essar perimeter, including the lubricants blending plant, the polymer-modified bitumen plant and the liquefied petroleum gas terminal, where LPG is loaded on to road tankers for delivery. Also in the Wirral South constituency is the Eastham refinery, which will remain operated by Eastham Refinery Ltd and owned by Shell and its partner, Nynas AB.
The chemicals industries on the plant site reinforce the argument that the debate ought to be about manufacturing. There are two processes, manufacturing higher olefins and alcohols from ethylene, which is derived from natural gas from the North sea and delivered by the Shell-owned and operated north-west ethylene pipeline, linking up with Mossmorran in Scotland. Some ethylene is subsequently transported by pipeline to Carrington, Manchester. That business, including the manufacturing units, will remain under Shell ownership but will be operated by Essar.
The point of putting all that on the record is to illustrate what a complex, interrelated series of businesses is involved, covering the key transportation of fuel to Manchester airport and our military air bases, as well as key parts of the supply chain to the major chemical manufacturing operations in the north-west of England, and integrating with other business operations, including those of the Peel Ports Group such as the Manchester Ship Canal. The network is complex, and it is hugely important that the Government understand how such an integrated network impacts severely on the country’s ability to run if things do wrong. The Buncefield disaster, which was mentioned earlier, could have had a profound impact on the supply of fuel to the UK. Fortunately, with some smart management in utilising pipeline networks and road transport, the industry responded and managed to keep the supply chain thriving.
Ten years ago, the fuel protests started, when fuel prices were £1 a gallon or so cheaper—it is extraordinary that there were protests then, when fuel was considerably cheaper. When that happened, the civil contingencies secretariat Cobra was put into operation because of the recognition of how this complex, integrated industry could have a profound impact on the well-being of the nation in every possible respect.
The distribution of products manufactured at the refinery utilises the ship canal and the pipeline, and goes down to the Kingsbury terminal near Birmingham. The main pipeline from Stanlow to Kingsbury will remain under the ownership of Shell, BP and Chevron but will be operated by the British Pipeline Agency, which is a joint venture between Shell and BP. I am not sure how BP comes into things, given how small a share of the business it has in the UK. The issues are enormously complex and interrelated.
Furthermore, at Stanlow is the fundamentally important Thornton research centre, which has a significant number of graduate scientists on site. It has been working on fuel and fuel efficiency for a whole range of vehicles for many years. Putting on my other hat, as Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I am the first to recognise that the nature of research in such a centre will change and move away from the physical testing on banks of engines to more computer-based modelling of what happens inside an internal combustion engine.
I am relaxed about the nature of the research changing, but I am anxious to ensure that Thornton, which in a sense will be isolated—still part of the Shell empire, but located on land inside the Essar perimeter—remains protected. I ask the Minister to seek assurances urgently from Shell that it will continue to invest in research and development. I ask him to raise the issue with his colleague, the Science Minister, because it is hugely important to research effort in the north-west.
Overall changes will emerge in detail in June or July, as it will take until then for all the final dots and commas to be inserted into the various contractual relationships, and we will see Essar people on the site driving the managerial effort. I hope that before then we can deal with some details to ensure that the existing work force are protected in terms and conditions of employment; that commitments have been given; that we work on agreements to introduce further apprenticeships on to the site—to which Essar is committed—and that those aspects of the site that are within the Essar perimeter but remain under Shell’s control are properly protected.
Turning to the broader issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, I agree that the Chancellor needs to wake up to this hugely important challenge. If we do not get this right we will lose to other countries a hugely important manufacturing industry that directly and indirectly employs thousands of people.
I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) about health and safety. Colleagues may be aware that I have been asked to serve on the independent review of the health and safety legislation, and I am collecting anecdotes about the myths and facts of health and safety. If colleagues have any real examples of abuse of health and safety regulations, I would welcome them. My experience of dealing with the Health and Safety Executive is of a highly professional team that operates on common standards across the UK, working closely with UKPIA, the operating companies and the trade unions.
As for inconsistencies with other countries, I agree that we ought to have a consistent approach within the EU, but I am sure the Minister would not want us to harmonise down to the lowest common denominator of health and safety standards elsewhere in the world. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk was not saying that. However, we have to ensure that on balance, using fiscal levers and all other available tools, we make the UK an attractive place in which to continue to refine oil for the domestic market, particularly the hugely important area of aero-engines, which are increasingly key to parts of the British economy. An awful lot of fuel flows down the pipeline from Stanlow to Manchester airport every day of the week. The north-west economy is driven by important locations such as that. That does not mean that we duck our responsibility towards environmental issues. We should be working with the industry and research centres to drive forward pollution standards to the highest level. We should also be working on a multi-national basis to ensure that we pull other countries along with us.
An hour and half barely does justice to this huge issue. I know other colleagues wish to speak so I will terminate my remarks. I conclude by saying to the Minister that he has a huge challenge to face. It is a challenge for the coalition Government, and we have to get the balance right between pressures from the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and so on. We have to ensure that we attract the next generation of apprentices and graduates into the industry. It is an industry with a genuine future, but only if we do our bit.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on securing the debate, which gives us a timely opportunity to discuss an important downstream industry in the UK. My hon. Friend reminded us of his background representing his refinery constituency for a decade and a half and more, and his work there as a student. When I was teaching archery in the United States, he was getting his hands dirty at the forefront of British industry. He spoke with authority as an MP who understands the industry intimately, as did other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller).
As of summer 2010, the UK had the fourth largest refining capacity in western Europe. According to the UK Petroleum Industry Association, the UK’s eight major operational oil refineries supply about 33% of the energy used in the UK, and approximately 90% of the petroleum products sold in the country. As hon. Members said, all that is done as a result of a significant investment in 150,000-plus jobs. As has also been said, the industry itself has invested significantly. While creating those jobs, it has invested an average of £350 million a year over the past five years in reducing the environmental impacts of its products and operations, and we have heard constituency examples of how that has been made real. As the Minister’s colleagues in the Treasury will be aware, the industry also contributes to Treasury coffers about £30 billion a year in fuel duty and VAT.
Trying to maintain and build the competitiveness of the vital oil refining industry at the moment can be described, at best, as extremely challenging. UK refineries, in common with those in the rest of the EU, are under enormous pressure due to: a very difficult operational climate; fluctuating demand for oil products; increased competition from export refineries, particularly in Asia; structural imbalances in supply and demand; and a challenging and complex legislative background.
In 2007, a Wood Mackenzie report for the old Department of Trade and Industry said that relative to other EU refineries, for a range of reasons, UK refineries were mid to low performers on competitiveness. It remarked that the UK oil refining industry consequently failed to secure discretionary investment and was hampered by a shrinking pool of work force talent, which we know can be followed by a spiral of downward decline. At that time the UK ranked 17 out of 26 countries, which was behind many in central and eastern Europe, but ahead of France, Norway and Ireland. The report noted that countries such as Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Poland were
“highly competitive, partially as a result of large investments which were carried out, frequently with assistance from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in order for each country to satisfy EU accession requirements.”—
in effect, they had a leg-up. The report said that the UK’s position reflected our specific national characteristics of high-cost crude and significant exports.
It is worth noting that the average net refining margins in the UK industry fell from the equivalent of $2.79 a barrel in 2008 to just $1.11 in 2009, which was the lowest recorded figure for 13 years. The effect of that was that the 2009 UK refinery output was the lowest recorded, but that is not a new trend—the key point is that it goes back decades to the 1970s. If clearer indications are needed of the challenges facing the industry today, we need look no further than decisions taken by major refining companies in recent years to withdraw from the UK. BP has sold its two refineries in the last four years, Petroplus has closed its Teesside refinery, and Shell, Chevron, Total and Murco have sought buyers.
Given those challenges, what can be done to improve the UK oil refining industry’s long-term competitiveness and secure the jobs that rely on it? I shall pose a series of questions to the Minister on the competitiveness of oil refining industry and future investment in the sector. I hope that he will answer them as fully as possible. If not, perhaps he will write to me and to other hon. Members who are taking part in the debate.
First, the UK oil refining industry recommended a single benchmarking system under phase 3 of the post-2012 EU emissions trading scheme for all 98 EU refineries, based on the complexity-weighted tonne. That system was supported by the European Commission and has now been adopted. However, even with a proportion of free allowances allocated under the benchmarking system, early estimates of the cost of purchased allowances to UK refineries are around €70 million a year at current prices. Given the nature of international competition and recognising that qualifying for free allowances under the EU ETS is paramount, the risk remains, as hon. Members have said, that the UK may be disadvantaged compared with refineries in non-EU countries that can export to the UK. Do the Government plan to support the industry’s ongoing eligibility for free allowances under the benchmarking system, and do they intend fully to address the risks of carbon leakage?
Secondly, on biofuels, the EU renewable energy directive requires, by 2020, 10% by energy renewable content in fuels, and the EU fuels quality directive requires 6% greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The renewable transport fuel obligation in the UK sets a requirement of 5% biodiesel from April 2013. Stakeholder consultation is ongoing on how to transpose those directives into UK law while at the same time maintaining competitiveness in the downstream industry. Will the RED, FQD and RTFO targets be set so that all suppliers can comply on a stand-alone basis, recognising that they operate in different markets? Will a carry-over of energy and carbon certificates, trading and buy-out options be included to provide flexibility for refinery shutdowns and supply chain issues?
Does the Minister accept that the delay until the autumn in announcing the carbon and sustainability criteria, which are required for biofuels to meet the RED, will leave little time for suppliers to make arrangements for the new criteria to be implemented in December 2011? If so, what can he do to help the industry to prepare for that on a vastly condensed time scale?
Achieving the 2020 biofuel targets may require four grades of fuel on larger petrol station forecourts after 2015, with two high bioblends at least for petrol E10+ and diesel B10+. Smaller sites might be disadvantaged as they can accommodate only protection grades for older cars that are unable to take the higher grades E5 and B7. That disadvantage could risk the closure of rural and small sites, so does the Minister intend to take any action to help smaller and rural petrol station sites to adjust to the new biofuel regulations and to ensure the future of their businesses?
On the compulsory stocking obligation, the Government have been reviewing the arrangements under which the UK meets its EU and International Energy Authority obligations for compulsory stocks of oil products. The requirement currently stands at 67.5 days and will rise to 90 days post 2014. With the slow decline of UK oil production, there will come a point towards the end of the decade when the UK’s derogation will cease and we will be faced with an increased oil stock obligation. I understand that the downstream industry strongly favours a move to an independent and industry-funded oil stocking agency with the aim of providing greater transparency and certainty in the way we meet our obligations in future, as well as of improving resilience of the current supply infrastructure. With that in mind, will the Minister tell us whether he is considering any of those proposals and, if so, when they will be published?
I am aware that DECC’s downstream oil and industry forum task group recently undertook a number of reviews of the UK’s oil market, including on supply and demand balances, safety, planning and regulations, supply infrastructure, and the refining market. I understand that officials will shortly submit advice to Ministers on areas of public policy that could be addressed to ensure that we have resilience and security of supply. Will the Minister give an update on this matter with particular regard to the future competitiveness of the UK oil refining industry?
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend referred to supplies to petrol stations in remote areas. Is he aware that there is deep concern that the infrastructure of terminals where stocks are held is being threatened? I am told that one reason why that happens is that if a UK refinery wants to ship to a UK destination, it is taxed on the volume in the tanker when it leaves the terminal, but anyone coming from abroad to the UK is taxed on what they offload. That can add £2 to £3 a tonne to the cost of shipping within the UK, so terminals do not do that. To secure terminals, surely the Government should allow those who ship out of refineries such as Grangemouth to a terminal in the north of Scotland to be taxed only on what is offloaded at the terminal in the north.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I was going to come on to that pertinent point, and I hope that the Minister will address it. If he does not have the details, because they require dialogue with Treasury colleagues, perhaps he will write to me and other hon. Members in the Chamber. The matter is important, and involves trying to achieve a level playing field so that the UK industry can compete effectively.
Does the Minister intend—his officials might be doing so already—to consider providing a long-term policy platform that will provide a level playing field for UK refineries to compete with both EU and non-EU competitors, while ensuring security of supply of petroleum and other products at competitive and affordable prices? Is there any consideration of a coherent policy platform for the industry?
The DOIF study outlined the growing imbalance between petrol and diesel demand and supply in the UK. The UK currently imports around 3.5 million tonnes of diesel and around 6 million tonnes of jet fuel, and those imports are forecast roughly to double by 2020, even if refining capacity remains the same. At the very least, new investment will be needed for import facilities or for desulphurisation of fuel as demand grows. Does the Department have any plans to address that growing imbalance, either by incentivising new investment in import facilities, or by improving the uptake of petrol? If so, when will the details be published?
[Mr Lee Scott in the Chair]
On training, the 2007 Wood Mackenzie report for the DTI stated that the UK oil refining industry was hampered by a shrinking pool of work force talent, and similar concerns have been raised in other parts of the energy industry. Will the Minister update us on the current state of play for the availability of a talented work force for the UK oil refining industry? Is he involved in active discussions with the industry about improving and developing skills that are suitable for a competitive UK oil refining industry in the long term? As has been noted, some of those points are highly applicable to BIS Ministers as part of our industrial strategy, but I am sure that the Minister will be more than able to answer questions on skills, training and work force talent.
One interesting aspect of North sea oil and gas concerns the upstream perspective on the competitiveness of the UK oil refining industry. More and more of the world’s remaining crude oils are likely to be heavier than those of today, which are finer and sweeter, and that change in the character of future crude oils will make them more complex to refine. As the Minister knows, the UK continental shelf tends to produce finer and sweeter crudes, although I know that heavier oils are found west of Shetland, and some heavy oils are, we hope, awaiting development in the North sea. Therefore, sustaining investment in the UK continental shelf to maximise the safe recovery of high-grade oil found around the British isles is helpful in providing feedstock for north-west Europe’s refineries, including those in the UK. Does the Minister believe that the Chancellor’s decision to impose an increased tax burden on UK oil and gas production could have unforeseen consequences—I hope they are unforeseen—for the industry and the future viability and competitiveness of UK refineries?
Eric Joyce
UKPIA, the union Unite and others have pointed out that the carbon price floor will lead to an additional cost across Europe of about £36 per tonne. In the UK, it will be more like £54 per tonne, which in Grangemouth alone could lead to an initial cost of £10 million. That has enormous implications for a unit of that size.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Indeed, and when the Minister responds, it would be helpful if he would consider the implications for the downstream industry, which is the subject of the debate, of the announcements in the recent Budget. A range of implications have been noted by the industry, including direct costs to it, and the potential effect on investment and jobs.
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend will have heard me mention the shock rise in electricity prices of £3, which is equivalent to a 5% increase. ICIS Heren, which analyses the prices of gas and electricity, stated:
“The planned introduction of a carbon tax from 2013 in the UK remained the key driver with all contracts from Summer 2013…climbing at least £2.20/MWh.”
That is the effect of the carbon tax on forward purchasing, which people have to do to guarantee supplies of electricity to the UK refining industry. That is perhaps an unintended consequence, but it affects the cost base of our refining industry.
Huw Irranca-Davies
As far as I am aware, this is the Minister’s first opportunity—both personally and on behalf of the Department—to speak about the carbon price floor. In his response, perhaps he will tell us how well or otherwise that is linked to the EU scheme. If it is linked closely, some of the negative effects could be avoided, but if it is disjointed and there is a splitting of ways, there could be a significant impact. This is not only about costs, important as those are, but about carbon leakages. In effect, we export our carbon emissions. My hon. Friend makes his point well, and rather than us waiting for a response from the Treasury, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to address it. He is the right person to tell us what thought has been given to the competitiveness of UK industry, including the refining sector, compared with that of other EU nations and their industries.
I have outlined a series of questions for the Minister, but my comments could be summed up in two questions: first, does the Minister have any plans to formulate a coherent future policy framework for the UK oil refining industry that ensures long- term investment in, and the future competitiveness of, the industry; and, secondly, how would any such framework fit in with the UK’s overall energy policy objectives? I do not doubt that the UK oil refining sector can be competitive in the future. For decades, the downstream industry has enhanced the security of the nation’s energy supply through the consistent provision of a range of fuels and industrial feedstock at competitive prices, and it can continue to do that. However, the industry has many questions for the Government at this point in time, so I hope that the Minister has the answers.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. It has been a constructive and well-informed debate and there has been a considerable amount of agreement from hon. Members from all parts of the country and different political parties on the critical importance of the downstream oil industry, the role it plays in constituencies across the country, and the vibrant and important future we want it to have.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on securing the debate. He paid tribute to and thanked some of the people who have helped him, particularly on a local level. I add my thanks to UKPIA for the work it has done, and for its constant engagement with me, my officials, and hon. Members across the House. It makes us aware of the issues faced by the industry in a constructive and thoughtful way.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the start of his career when he worked in the refinery. I had a similar experience at the other end of the chain because my first job was working as a petrol pump attendant on the outskirts of my constituency. Petrol cost 36p a gallon for five-star—we do not even have that any more. That shows the incredible change that has taken place, although I am not as old as I look. The hon. Gentleman raised a range of important issues, and other hon. Members have taken part constructively in the debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the matter has not been taken up by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I see all issues that affect the industry as integral to the work of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. In all aspects of the energy supply chain—upstream through to downstream—it makes sense for a single Minister to have responsibility for what goes on, rather than saying, “I can’t go into that issue too much, because another Department deals with it.”
The other point on which I wish to reassure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members concerns the cross-departmental work carried out by the Treasury, BIS and DECC to look at the challenges of potential carbon leakage, and ensure that we fully understand the consequences of measures that are discussed either in this place or in Brussels, and the wider impact they may have on British industry. It would be unfortunate and irresponsible for measures to be implemented that resulted in the sort of changes outlined by the hon. Gentleman, where companies decide to stop working in the UK and go somewhere else, meaning that carbon emissions are greater and we lose jobs and income. That is why we are determined to focus on that issue in our cross-departmental work.
Michael Connarty
The Minister complemented UKPIA, and I echo that. How does he divide his focus, commitment and responsibility between the environment and competitiveness? The climate reduction commitment, which was designed by the previous Government after a great deal of discussion with industry, has been described by UKPIA:
“With revenues now going to Her Majesty’s Treasury, the scheme is now looking like a burdensome additional tax that does little to encourage energy efficiency beyond what prudent businesses do already.”
Surely the Minister should be arguing for the abandonment of that tax as called for by UKPIA. It has no effect on climate change.
Charles Hendry
The other side of that coin is found in other things that were expected to be charged on people’s bills. For example, the refinery industry was extremely concerned about the renewable heat incentive and its impact on bills, but the Government have now said that there will no longer be a direct charge on bills as the initiative will be funded out of general taxation. If we want such policies to continue and believe it is right for them to be funded out of general taxation, it is equally right for some of the funding to go directly to the Treasury to be divided up and spent on those different projects.
Michael Connarty
The Minister is coming dangerously close to saying that he rejects the argument I have set out and that he is not willing to argue with the Treasury that this measure should be scrapped if it does not affect climate change and energy use; he is taking the side of the Treasury against the industry.
Charles Hendry
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has chosen to introduce that tone. We had good discussions with the Treasury, based on discussions I had had with UKPIA about its concerns regarding what the renewable heat incentive would do to the industry’s costs and competitiveness. The Treasury listened to those concerns and decided that the RHI should be funded not by a charge on bills, as planned by the previous Government, but out of general taxation. That was an example of DECC, the Treasury and the industry working together co-operatively to deal with issues as they emerged. I am in no doubt that that is the right way for us to deal with these issues as we go forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) talked about skilled jobs, the nature of these employers and the attractiveness of the work they provide. He rightly reminded us of the importance of striking the right balance between the need to move towards a low-carbon economy and the need to protect industries with tremendous strategic, regional and local significance. I very much welcome his support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) talked about the role of the Health and Safety Executive. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) is one of the people who will look into the way in which the HSE works to make sure that the rules and regulations it puts in place and the way they are interpreted are appropriate. I hope that hon. Members will make not only the hon. Gentleman, but myself and ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, which looks after the HSE, aware of concerns should the HSE be seen to be overly heavy-handed. I will come to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but I would be grateful to meet Essar through him and to have a chance to hear first hand some of its plans.
We have had a good debate, and I should say how pleased I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) in his place. Although he is bound and gagged and not allowed to speak in such debates, he is an effective and articulate advocate of the industry’s interests, and I was pleased to have the chance to go with him to talk to Murco some while ago so that I could hear first hand the issues that the industry faces.
There is no doubt that we understand the crucial role that petroleum products play in the daily lives of people in this country. DECC’s data show that the total consumption of petroleum products in the UK was about 80 million tonnes in 2009. Our projections for primary energy demand to 2025 show an important, continued role for oil in the energy mix. Indeed, annexe H of DECC’s updated emissions projections for 2010, which I am sure Members have studied, looks at the central price scenario and shows that oil was 36.3% of total primary energy demand in 2010 and is projected to be nearly 38%—a slight increase—by 2025.
As Members have said, the UK operates in an international market for petroleum products. Although imports and exports have fluctuated over the past decade, a significant proportion of the products consumed in the UK are imported, and a similar level of UK production is exported. Overall, the UK has been a net exporter of products almost every year since 1974, although with different balances between products.
As others have said, the UK market is mature. Levels of overall demand are projected to remain flat for the next 15 to 20 years. Equally, the market has been characterised by increased and sustained levels of competition. Perhaps the most visible trend over the past few years has been the entry of supermarkets into the fuel retailing market. The UK’s refining sector has evolved over time. Industry data show a gradual contraction in the number of refineries, from 19 in 1975 to the eight primary operational refineries we have today.
Consumers benefit from a well-developed distribution infrastructure, which comprises more than 50 primary fuel distribution terminals, 3,000 miles of product pipelines and about 8,700 service stations across the country. The sector is a major employer in the UK, with more than 16,000 people directly employed by the major oil companies alone. In addition, more than 150,000 people are employed in other roles, such as service station staff, contractors and road tanker drivers. As has been said, refinery jobs offer a considerable productivity premium over jobs in comparator industries, and work conducted for DECC by Deloitte LLP in 2010 suggests that that could account for as much as £270 million per annum.
Over recent years, however, the refining sector in the UK and internationally has faced considerable challenges. Since the 2008-09 global economic recession, there has been a significant downturn in European and US product demand, with a major impact on European refining margins. DECC data show a reduction in overall petroleum product consumption by consumers of 5% during 2007-09. That constitutes the largest single consumption contraction since 1985 and it appears to be driven largely by the economic slow-down. Industry projections suggest that regional refining margins are unlikely to recover significantly before 2015. In its 2010 medium-term oil market report, the International Energy Agency bears that analysis out.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, the UK’s demand for oil products has changed. That has been driven by the growth in the aviation sector, the increasing number of diesel vehicles and a reduction in the use of oil for power generation. DECC data show that petrol constituted about 30% of total UK petroleum product demand in 1990; by 2009, however, that had reduced to about 22%. Similarly, diesel and jet fuel combined accounted for about 22% of total petroleum product demand in 1990; by 2009, however, that had risen to nearly 44%. Compared with current UK demand, UK refineries produce a surplus of petrol and fuel oil and relatively little in terms of middle distillates, as they are configured to meet historically higher levels of petrol demand.
DECC has worked with the industry over the past few years to gain a better understanding of it and the challenges it faces. Work conducted in 2009 and 2010, much of it in conjunction with the downstream oil industry forum, focused on the sector’s resilience. A key contribution to DOIF’s work was made by a report produced by Wood Mackenzie, which looked particularly at the industry’s infrastructure. Together with work produced by UKPIA on the refining sector, that valuable work has allowed us to develop a clearer picture of the sector.
Wood Mackenzie concluded that the position of UK refineries is middle to low relative to their European competition, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who speaks for the Opposition, said. That is due to structural factors, such as the fact that central European markets are landlocked and hence less open to imports and competition, and the fact that UK refineries process North sea crude feedstock, which is higher quality and therefore higher cost than is the case in much of Europe. Overall, the work identifies a long-term trend towards rationalisation in the UK refining industry, low levels of non-discretionary investment in the downstream oil infrastructure, static total UK oil demand, and supply and demand imbalances. Those are all factors.
Although that work has not focused in detail on regulation, it has noted certain policy areas that may enhance the likelihood of future investment in the sector as a whole. Those include legislation governing refinery emissions, the implementation of biofuels policies and legislation governing compulsory oil stocks, and all those issues have been brought up in the debate. A key finding of the work is the importance of encouraging a level playing field in the EU by avoiding disadvantaging the UK refining base relative to its competition.
In addition, work conducted last year for the Department assessed the UK sector’s capacity to withstand a range of supply constraints. The report considered seven scenarios involving supply interruptions for the UK. Those ranged from crude and refined product import disruptions through to a UK refinery outage and a fuel terminal-related incident. The report found that, in the short term, the UK downstream oil market should be resilient to a range of disruptions, although product prices were likely to increase to balance supply and demand. The work noted that the retention of a UK refining base enhances resilience by reducing dependence on refineries outside the UK, although it is likely in practice that the UK will increasingly rely on imports for diesel and jet fuel.
As many of those who have spoken have said, a number of operators have signalled their intention, are negotiating deals or have concluded deals to sell refining and related assets. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, INEOS recently announced a joint venture agreement with PetroChina regarding the Grangemouth refinery and related assets. Shell has recently reached agreement on the sale of Stanlow refinery to Essar Energy, and, as I said, I would be keen to meet Essar’s representatives in due course. Chevron Texaco has announced an agreement for the sale of the Pembroke refinery and related downstream assets to Valero Energy Corporation, which is extremely good news for the local community, which is so dependent on the energy sector. Last year, Total announced that it was seeking buyers for the Lindsey refinery and, separately, for a number of related downstream assets. As Murco announced last year, it is seeking to sell the Milford Haven refinery and some related UK downstream assets.
We all recognise that these trends can be unsettling; they certainly indicate a significant shift in the ownership profile of the UK’s refining base away from household name, international oil companies. In many ways, that reflects what we see happening offshore as well, where much of the new work developing reserves in the North sea is being done by smaller, more specialist companies rather than the international oil companies. We should welcome how the market is adapting to the challenges. The trend has been under way for the past few years, and PetroPlus and INEOS have both purchased refining assets in the recent past.
We must be open to new investors. Different companies have different strategic priorities and target markets, and will find different synergies between UK assets and those they hold elsewhere. I am encouraged by the initial plans that have been shared with my Department already, and I look forward to learning more as the negotiations under way bear fruit. It is clear from the contributions to the debate this morning that, for those people who have been talking to the inward investors, it is about the ideas and plans. They want to build on the assets and to see the industry become critical to this country.
As we have seen, the sector is going through a particularly difficult period, both in the UK and internationally. It is an internationally structured sector and is subject to competitive forces. The market is international, and the UK will continue to rely on a mixture of indigenously refined and imported products. I absolutely believe that the retention of a refining sector in the UK enhances security of supply, as it balances product reliance between the market for crude oil and refined products. However, I do not believe that the precise balance between the two can be centrally defined. Operators and investors in the market are ultimately best placed to determine how best to meet evolving product demand.
Earlier this year, my officials launched additional work with consultants to examine in more detail the evolution of the UK’s downstream oil market over the next 20 years and, in particular, to evaluate more closely the relative levels of competitiveness between UK and competitor refineries, and the likely evolution of the international market for petroleum products and its implications for the UK. That takes us in the direction in which hon. Members want policy to evolve. The work will build on the conclusions of the earlier studies mentioned and will evaluate some of the longer-term security of supply implications in the models. Once complete and evaluated, I will be happy to share the work with the House and industry representatives.
I very much recognise the concerns the industry has raised about legislation and regulation. There are many relevant areas of policy, some of which are owned by DECC and others are owned elsewhere in Whitehall. Some areas are EU-led and some are the preserve of the UK Government. I want to pick up on those areas that have been referred to in the debate.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned biofuels. Biofuels policy raises challenges and opportunities for companies in the sector. The Government are progressing implementation of legislation in this area in a balanced way. We have ambitious climate change and renewable energy targets to meet, but equally we recognise that there are still questions to answer on the best way to deploy biofuels across the different transport sectors. The consultation on proposals to implement the transport element of the renewable energy directive and the greenhouse gas savings requirements of the fuel quality directive was launched on 10 March 2011, and the consultation period will run until 2 June. Consultation documents are on the Department for Transport website and elsewhere.
We need to think about where biofuels will be best deployed across the transport sector. It may be best for the limited supplies of biofuels that can be sourced sustainably to be focused on the transport modes for which no other low carbon energy sources are viable, such as aviation and heavy goods vehicles. It is undoubtedly an area in which we have more work to do and more to learn.
We are also aware of the need to address questions regarding accounting for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels under the fuel quality directive. The European Commission is assessing options for a methodology, but we have made it clear that, in our view, any approach should be based on robust and objective data and should treat all crude sources equally. The Department for Transport is conducting a consultation, and I hope that people will take part in the debate.
Andrew Miller
The Minister has covered a series of areas fundamental to the research and development of the industry, so will he now respond to the point I raised about Thornton research centre?
Charles Hendry
That is one point on which I will write to the hon. Gentleman, if that is all right. As he is aware, we need to discuss the matter directly with Shell and be aware of what its plans are, rather than speculate over what they might be. I hope he understands if I write to him and other hon. Members on the exact position of the centre.
Compulsory stock obligations were also mentioned. DECC is reviewing our future approach to meeting our international obligations on compulsory oil stocks. As has been said, EU member states have different approaches to implementing the obligations. The UK is one of the five member states that meet their obligations via an industry-based obligation, and I acknowledge the industry’s preference for some form of agency-based system as the desired way forward. Industry work on the costs and issues associated with different options is being assessed by DECC, and although we retain an open mind on the different policy options, we must ensure that our stock-holding obligations are met and that any public finance implications are understood. We will announce our conclusions in due course.
Concerns have been raised over the funding of other schemes—for example, there has been coverage of the EU emissions trading scheme. We recognise that the refining sector is one of a small number of sectors at serious risk of carbon leakage. As such, for the next phase of the ETS, the sector will still receive a level of freely allocated emissions allowances up to the level of a sector-specific benchmark, rather than having to buy increasing numbers of allowances by auction. We have worked closely with the industry to develop the allocation methodologies necessary to bring that approach into effect. We recognise the challenges it might pose for individual installations, but overall we believe that it is an acceptable approach to take across the EU.
Michael Connarty
The Minister knows that I hold him in high regard, but frankly there has been a lot of bluff and bluster so far and no effort to answer the questions the industry asked. I understand that DECC and BIS together are studying the impact of climate change energy policies, and I have been told that no one from the industry—the companies—has been at the table. Perhaps they are talking to some oil industry forum, but the complaint is that they are not talking to the people who will carry the burden
A long time ago in his speech, the Minister mentioned a level playing field. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk made a point about the difference in the carbon price in the UK compared with the EU. The impact of taxation on the industry is a burden, which is already showing in the price of electricity. When will the Minister deal with the main problem? He can write to me if he likes. The industry has been burdened with climate change taxes that are not justifiable and make it uncompetitive with the EU or the rest of the world.
Charles Hendry
I may have to write to the hon. Gentleman on some of those issues because he has almost squeezed out the opportunity for me to refer to them now. We continue to talk to industry—not only the refinery industry but all aspects of the energy sector. We see that as a fundamentally important part of our role, and we do it across other Government Departments as well. DOIF does critically important work, and we are looking at how to make it more constructive and how to do even more important work in that area. We are absolutely committed to building strong, close working relations with the industry in order to understand the challenges it faces and to ensure that we keep the UK as a competitive place where people wish to invest.
We are encouraged by the degree of investment that has come forward. We want more investment coming in and to work actively with the new players in the market. We will drive forward that determination, and will do so through consultation with the industry and working in partnership with it, because that is the best way to deliver the long-term stability and security that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and everyone who spoke in the debate called for.
Camp Ashraf
(12 years, 12 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 David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before starting my speech, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his statement of 8 April, in which he condemned the attacks on Camp Ashraf. However, I am appalled by what I regard as a conspiracy of silence on the matter. I am at a complete loss to understand why the British Broadcasting Corporation and others have not reported on the subject. It is deeply disappointing and most insulting to the relatives of those who were injured in the recent attacks.
The House will be aware that on 8 April, following direct orders from Nuri al-Maliki and at the behest of the Iranian regime, 2,500 Iraqi armed forces used 140 armoured vehicles to carry out a vicious assault on Camp Ashraf. The camp was home to 3,500 Iranian dissidents, members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran, including 1,000 women.
I take this opportunity to add my voice to the international condemnation of that brutal and callous attack, a military assault against defenceless unarmed civilians. It led to the death of at least 35 residents, including eight women, the majority of whom were in their 20s. A further 350 were wounded. Of the 35 killed, 32 were shot in the head, chest or abdomen, and the other three were deliberately run over by Humvees and other military vehicles. At least 225 of the 350 injured suffered gunshots from the Iraqi forces.
The April attack is not over. Iraqi forces are amassing inside the camp, and several Iraqi engineering battalions have completed a 6 km embankment on the northern edge of Camp Ashraf’s main road. Malcolm Smart, the director of Amnesty International’s middle east and north Africa programme, stated:
“Given the nature and scope of these new military installations, we’re very concerned what Iraqi security forces may be planning.”
I strongly urge the Government to convey the demands that I shall list today to the Iraqi Government and their armed forces. They must stop any form of violence, aggression or attacks, especially using live ammunition against those civilised and unarmed refugees. Further, they must immediately withdraw all armed forces from Camp Ashraf.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that the Iraqis cannot now be trusted to uphold human rights in Camp Ashraf, and that the Government not only need to act but should act under international law?
Mr Amess
I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would go further. I am most disappointed with the American Government’s role in the matter. I am puzzled about a number of aspects, which I shall mention shortly. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend.
I emphasise that the Ashraf residents have resided in the camp for 25 years. They have turned a desert patch into a small town using their own resources and money. The receipts for all their expenses still exist.
I turn to the Iraqi Government’s position. Iraqi officials claimed that only three residents were killed and that no live ammunition was used during the attack. However, I refer the House to the numerous footages posted on the YouTube website and aired by international television stations, which clearly show Iraqi forces indiscriminately shooting at and running over unarmed residents.
In a statement condemning the attack, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed that, of those killed,
“Most were shot, and some appear to have been crushed to death, presumably by vehicles.”
Simply put, an unarmed civilian population was slaughtered. I shall give my hon. Friend the Minister photographic evidence showing those who were injured in that disgraceful attack. The Law Society’s human rights committee confirmed in a statement condemning the attack that, in footage of it, Iraqi security forces were seen opening fire on unarmed residents, while others were ploughed down by heavy military vehicles.
The US State Department said in a statement on 8 April that
“this crisis and the loss of life was initiated by the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi military”.
That is all well and good, but what is it doing about it? Why was no assistance given by the hospitals, which could have tended the injured? I remind the House that, when the Iraqi Government took over protection of the camp in January 2009, US officials publicly announced that Iraq had given a written assurance to treat the residents humanely and in accordance with Iraq’s constitution, laws and international obligations. I have evidence of people being killed or injured, but what are the US Government doing about it?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the United Kingdom Government making representations to the United States? Ever mindful of the fact that the UK and the USA fought together in Iraq as a coalition, is it not time for them to do something more constructive? Have our Government made representations to the USA?
Mr Amess
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I have said umpteen times that I very much regret voting for the war with Iraq, but he is right. The United States of America encouraged Britain to become involved. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will give us an indication of what pressure is being placed on the US Government to help.
The attack of 8 April is the second time that the Iraqi Government have resorted to using live ammunition and violence in brutally attacking defenceless and unarmed residents.
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I share his sense of horror at the activities going on in Ashraf. I hear all sorts of appalling stories of terrible crimes against humanity. He may be coming to this point, and I apologise if that is so, but I am most concerned about the treatment of the wounded, the sick and the injured. It is another example of inhumanity to neglect such people, given that they will be non-participants in any shape or form, and I find it appalling. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has it in mind, but I do not want the opportunity to go by without raising the matter.
Mr Amess
I know the hon. Gentleman to be a good and compassionate man. He is right. Indeed, as a result of the lack of treatment, another injured person has died. I understand that there are further difficulties in seeking adequate treatment, but I shall come to that in a moment.
On 20 April 2009, the Iraqi Interior Ministry signed a statement confirming that it had used its own police dogs in a search of Camp Ashraf and that no explosives or weapons were found. I have a copy of that document and I will hand it over to the Minister. It is crystal clear that the Iraqi Government have neither the intention nor the capability to protect Ashraf residents. The Government are far too weak and they have many Iranian proxies in their ranks. At the end of the day, they cannot be relied on to provide proper protection for their residents in accordance with international law and it would be naïve for anyone to claim otherwise.
On behalf of the majority of Back-Bench MPs and of 200 Members of the other place, I urge our Government to call on the United Nations to take responsibility for providing protection for the camp to ensure that the rights of the residents are not violated and to station a permanent monitoring team at the camp. To avoid any further loss of life or violent attacks, the Iraqi Government should immediately withdraw their armed forces from the camp, which is an unarmed civilian zone.
The Iraqi Government have often justified their totally unacceptable treatment of the camp residents under the pretext of imposing their sovereignty as a Government. Let me state clearly that the residents have respected Iraq’s sovereignty. Ashraf has been their home for 25 years. Photos and films exist to prove that. It is a well-documented and well-known fact. Furthermore, this sovereignty in no way can allow Iraq to breach international law and the residents’ fundamental rights under international human rights laws and the Geneva conventions. I have a copy of a protected person’s status card belonging to one of the residents, which was issued by the multinational force in 2004. It states that, until their final disposition, they are recognised as protected persons.
In a statement condemning the attack, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, described the attack as a “massacre”, and a massacre is exactly what it was. It was the cold-blooded murder of defenceless civilians by Iraq’s military. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said:
“There must be a full, independent and transparent inquiry, and any person found responsible for use of excessive force should be prosecuted.”
I demand that an international fact-finding mission, rather than one formed by Iraq, which was responsible for the brutal attack, carry out that task so that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity who ordered and carried out the killing of unarmed civilians are brought before international courts to face justice.
I have a list of 11 critically wounded Ashraf residents who could lose their lives, which I will give to the Minister along with a copy of my speech and the DVD of the attack. I ask that he takes action on the demands that we have raised today.
Furthermore, I have some details for the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for our relationship with the UN. Following the massacre in Rwanda, there was regret that the international community did nothing to stop it. In a world summit in 2005, a law was ratified stipulating that it is the responsibility of a sovereign state to protect the population in its territory and that if there are any signs that crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes are about to happen, every UN member state has a duty to intervene to stop it. Such intervention does not violate the sovereignty of a Government. Rather it provides support for a state to realise its responsibility to protect its population. A massacre has already occurred in Camp Ashraf and there is every sign that the Iraqi Government have not fulfilled their commitments towards Ashraf residents. Instead, they have launched a massacre that has so far killed 35 and wounded hundreds.
I have four points on which I should like the Minister to reflect. First, we call on our Government to demand that the UN take responsibility for providing proper protection for Camp Ashraf and set up a permanent team in the camp. Secondly, the Government should demand that Iraqi forces immediately leave the camp and halt all further such attacks and aggression. Thirdly, I hope that the UN will form an international investigative mission for the perpetrators of this crime to face justice. Finally, the US should urgently provide medical assistance to the injured.
I urge the Minister and the Government to forward those basic demands to the highest levels within the UN, the European Union and the US Administration. I know that there is overwhelming support in the House of Commons and in the other place for the residents of Camp Ashraf to be protected. I cannot understand why there is so little reporting of this situation on TV and on the radio and in our newspapers. Why is there that conspiracy of silence? As far as international jurisdiction is concerned, right is entirely with these poor people in Camp Ashraf.
Following the Minister’s statement on 8 April, I know that I can rely on him to do the right thing and ensure that the injured and wounded in Camp Ashraf are dealt with and that permanent protection through the United Nations is given in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for securing the debate and for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his remarks in advance. I know that the situation of the residents of Camp Ashraf is important to him, as well as many Members of this House and the other place. I also thank other colleagues who have contributed to the debate. The recent incident at Camp Ashraf is a matter of great concern for the UK Government and others.
The Government have closely followed events at Camp Ashraf for some time. Staff at our embassy in Baghdad have made consular visits to Camp Ashraf to inquire about the welfare of those who may be entitled to UK consular services or protection. The last of these visits by embassy staff was on 16 March 2011. We believe that a small number of residents there have some connection to the UK, although no one has yet come forward to request consular assistance. In addition to those consular visits, we hold regular discussions about the situation at the camp with EU and US colleagues, and the Government of Iraq.
The situation poses complex challenges and, as hon. Members will appreciate, there are no easy answers. It has lasted a long time and is very far from clear cut. The Iraqi Government have a long-standing commitment to close Camp Ashraf and they have made that clear to the camp’s residents. Iraq’s sovereignty extends across all its territory, including Camp Ashraf, but along with our EU colleagues, we believe that using force is not the way to resolve the situation at the camp, and I shall say more about that in a moment. However, it is the Iraqi Government’s responsibility to respect and protect the human rights of the camp’s residents.
I want to say something about the residents of Camp Ashraf, who number nearly 3,500, the organisation to which they belong, and why they are there. Camp Ashraf is controlled by the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran—the PMOI. As I am sure hon. Members know, the PMOI is an Iranian opposition group with extreme leftist origins that was founded in 1965. It is also known as the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, or MEK. The PMOI is often referred to as the main opposition group to the Iranian regime and it works vigorously to promote that view of itself. However, the UK Government believe that it has little or no support within Iran and that it is not considered a legitimate opposition group by the Iranian people. Furthermore, we are unable to forget the PMOI’s violent history. It was responsible for a number of serious terrorist attacks that led to the deaths of many Iranian civilians. The violent history of the PMOI led to it being proscribed by the UK as a terrorist organisation. The UK Government have strongly opposed the PMOI’s de-proscription on two occasions: first, domestically in 2008; and, secondly, in the EU in January 2009. The organisation remains proscribed in the US. Nevertheless, whatever the history of the PMOI, our views and concerns about Camp Ashraf, the rights of its residents and the violence of the recent incident in the camp are clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West made the point very strongly that, out of concern for the welfare of the residents of Camp Ashraf, the UN and the US should intervene to establish some form of presence there. However, as I am sure he is aware, it was always clear that following the expiry of the UN Security Council resolution mandate at the end of 2008, responsibility for the security and administration of the camp and its residents would pass from the US to the Government of Iraq. Before the handover took place, the US received assurances from the Government of Iraq that outlined their commitment to the humane treatment and continued well-being of the camp’s residents. We recognise that Iraq is now a sovereign democratic state and that responsibility for the residents of Camp Ashraf lies with the Iraqi Government, but we also expect Iraq to act in accordance with its legal obligations. The UN makes weekly visits to the camp and has regular telephone contact with representatives of residents of the camp. The UN also holds weekly meetings with the Government of Iraq’s Ashraf committee.
We are aware that there have been calls for the residents of Camp Ashraf to be considered as protected persons under the fourth Geneva convention. However, under international humanitarian law, that status applies only when there is an international armed conflict or a situation of occupation. Neither of those scenarios applies in Iraq now, but that does not mean that there is a legal vacuum. As I have said, Iraq is obliged to treat residents of the camp in accordance with Iraqi law and the international human rights treaties to which it is a party.
I now turn to the events of 7 and 8 April. Along with our international partners, we have been active—and we continue to be active—in calling on the Government of Iraq to stop the violence against residents of Camp Ashraf. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West was good enough to mention the statement that I made on 8 April, but it bears repeating so that it is in Hansard:
“The UK Government is disturbed to read reports that a number of civilian residents have been killed and many more wounded at Camp Ashraf yesterday. I absolutely deplore any loss of life and my sincere condolences go out to the families of those involved.”
Alistair Burt
May I finish reading out the statement before I give way to my hon. Friend?
My statement continued:
“The Iraqi Government has provided us with assurances on several occasions that it will treat individual residents of Camp Ashraf in a humane manner, act in accordance with Iraqi law, the Iraqi Constitution and its international obligations. We urge the Iraqi Government to uphold this commitment. Our Ambassador in Baghdad has been expressing our concerns to the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the highest levels. We call on the Iraqi Government to cease violent operations in Camp Ashraf immediately and to ensure that the residents have full access to medical care.”
That last comment about medical care addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr Benton) and a number of other hon. Members. The statement went on:
“It is important that the Government of Iraq takes immediate steps to calm the situation and ensure that the human rights of the residents are respected. We are aware of a request by UNAMI”—
the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq—
“to send a humanitarian monitoring mission to Camp Ashraf as soon as possible. We fully support this request and therefore urge the Iraqi Government to quickly grant permission. We call on all sides to engage in a constructive dialogue that can lead to a lasting resolution to the situation.”
Mr Binley
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I respect him immensely, so I am surprised that the Foreign Office is continuing to argue against the findings of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which dismissed the Government’s view of the PMOI totally out of hand at the time. Furthermore, for all the talk about international law, at the end of the day Britain and other nations committed themselves and made sacrifices to create the Government of Iraq in the expectation that that Government would be democratic and free. We now know that the Iraqi Government are not willing to uphold international law, and I believe that we ought to be doing much more than the Minister’s statement of 8 April suggests. If I may say so, I believe that the Minister secretly thinks that too.
Alistair Burt
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. On the first part of his intervention, I stand by the Foreign Office’s belief that the PMOI’s background, history and present activities require it to remain proscribed by the UK—that is our view. Nevertheless, as I indicated very clearly, the history of the organisation does not relate to what is happening on the ground now, which is a matter of fundamental human rights and of ensuring that people are treated properly and decently, as well as having proper access to medical care. The injunctions of my hon. Friend and others in that regard are absolutely right, and we are seeking to ensure that the Iraqi Government uphold that commitment.
The second part of my hon. Friend’s intervention was about the difficult issue of how a sovereign Government, once they have been established, meet their obligations when they have a particular responsibility. It is not the responsibility of those outside the country to do the things that are required to be done by a sovereign Government. The process is difficult, but it is absolutely necessary to get the sovereign Government to live up to the obligations that have been set out. We and our international partners must continue to make that clear.
This is a frustrating situation. The circumstances of Camp Ashraf, including the living conditions of its residents, must be extremely difficult, but it is a complex situation. The history of the organisation involved cannot be completely ignored, which was why I set it out, but our position on the immediate recent issue has been clear, and I have stated both what we did at the time and what we are attempting to do now.
Mr Amess
I know that my hon. Friend has very little time left to respond, but I must say that the fact that the PMOI is a proscribed organisation is absolutely ridiculous. One only has to consider the way in which we deal with the Irish Republican Army to see how facile the position on the PMOI is. However, does my hon. Friend think that the Foreign Office could facilitate a small group of British parliamentarians going to Camp Ashraf to see the situation at first hand?
Alistair Burt
I will not answer my hon. Friend’s question directly, because clearly I would need to take some advice on colleagues’ safety, background and everything else. Ultimately, it would be a matter not for us but for the sovereign Government involved. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will consider it.
In addition to my making my statement of 8 April deploring the loss of life and injury, which I have just read out, Cathy Ashton, the EU’s high representative, did much the same. UK representatives on the ground reinforced the message. The ambassador in Baghdad and EU heads of mission met the Iraqi Prime Minister on 4 April to discuss Camp Ashraf. Our ambassador hosted a meeting with the UN, the US and the EU on 7 April to discuss concerns, and he phoned the Iraqi Foreign Minister to urge the Government of Iraq to allow immediate access for a UN mission to Camp Ashraf. We also called for the violence—from whatever source—to stop immediately, so we have made our position as clear as we can.
Latest reports indicate that the situation in Camp Ashraf remains tense but calm. The Government of Iraq allowed a small US medical team access to the camp on 10 April. I understand that, following international pressure from the UK and other countries, the Iraqis have subsequently allowed medical access. A visit to the camp by UN officials took place on 14 April. Although the Government of Iraq did not allow other missions to participate in the UN mission, a UK military adviser to UNAMI was present. The UN visited a makeshift mortuary within the camp and photographed 28 dead. Yesterday, the UN confirmed to our embassy officials in Iraq that 34 people were killed in the recent incident and more than 70 people were injured. I repeat that we deplore those events.
The current situation in Camp Ashraf is of great concern to the UK and we remain fully engaged with the issue. We hope that UN missions, including the British embassy, will be allowed to visit Camp Ashraf to assess the situation in the near future. We will continue to work with our international partners to press the Government of Iraq to respect the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf.
Reddish Business Incubator
(12 years, 12 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
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Scott. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.
I wish to raise a number of issues about the Reddish business incubator, a business support project that has been operational in the Stockport part of my constituency since 2008. When I secured this debate, there was confusion among officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government about whether the debate should be for them or whether it fell under the remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I can assure the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that it most certainly falls within his Department’s responsibilities, because most of what I want to say concerns the ineptness of the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport metropolitan borough council.
I would like to highlight a number of the irregularities that have dogged the business incubator project since its inception and continue to do so to this day and, more importantly, the consequences for Stockport’s hard-pressed council tax payers. The situation is so serious and complex that it is difficult to do it full justice in the time allotted for the debate, so I will briefly outline the main issues.
Some of the main points are: for a long time the business rents on the incubator units have not been collected; there are ongoing financial problems with the whole project; and there is a complete lack of transparency in how it has operated finically in the recent past and how it will do so in the future. This series of failures has ultimately led to Stockport metropolitan borough council having to offer additional financial assistance, and to take over the project just to keep it afloat, despite Councillor Dave Goddard, the leader of the council, being on the company’s board—a real conflict of interest, which I will explore further in my speech.
The project’s troubled history began back in 2008 when the Stockport Business Incubator Community Interest Company, a provider of business incubation facilities, started trading as a social enterprise, owned 50% by Stockport council and 50% by Broadstone Mill Ltd. At that time, Stockport council matched Broadstone Mill Ltd’s £315,000 investment—a substantial amount of council tax payers’ money. The council subsequently invested an additional £150,000 via the local authority business growth incentive, further to extend the incubator and develop the Stockport enterprise centre, which, in January 2010, resulted in the incubator moving to the third floor of Broadstone Mill. Almost £500,000 of local taxpayers’ money was therefore invested in the project.
Let me clear: it is not a bad thing that local councils want to invest in business support and help businesses through these tough economic times; indeed, neighbouring Tameside council, which is also part of my constituency, did just that with its very laudable Tameside Works First programme, and Stockport followed suit with Stockport Boost. Nevertheless, I and a number of others in Stockport have for some time had serious doubts about the Reddish business incubator and its financial viability. Those fears are justified because, as the incubator was set up as an arm’s-length company, there has always been an unclear understanding of exactly how its financial dealings could effectively be scrutinised.
I know that the Minister champions valiantly the cause of open government, and that he will understand the concerns of my constituents who have paid a lot of their money into supporting the project. Here is an issue for him: Stockport council has failed properly to scrutinise the running of the facility. An inspection of the company’s board meeting minutes, which were released under a freedom of information request, paints an interesting picture. We are told that in October 2008 the build costs had stayed within the £630,000 budget, and so all appeared to be fine and well. Even so, early concerns were expressed about the failing global economic situation, and in late 2009 there were concerns that the occupancy take-up at the incubator had not been as high as anticipated, and that the flow in the pipeline of new-entrant companies had stalled during the year. By this time, we are told, working capital had been hard to secure. Indeed, that was such a concern that the board started to operate a policy of ensuring that new-starting companies had at least several months’ working capital. However, despite the warnings, the business incubator company minutes of March 2010 show that things were still okay at the mill, with a 70% occupancy rate. Indeed, board members, including the leader of the council, were also informed that the project would financially break even by March 2011.
Here is the real irony: just a few weeks after the general election in May 2010, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), was only too happy to hot-foot it up north to visit the incubator, as an example of the Liberal Democrats in action and, as was reported in both the Manchester Evening News and the Stockport Express, he was only too happy to praise the project. As well as stating that it was a shining example of what could be done to help economic growth, he said:
“Local initiatives like these are exactly what the country needs.”
Given his party’s subsequent actions regarding the education maintenance allowance, tuition fees and the cuts to council budgets, the support of a Liberal Democrat Cabinet member was pretty much a kiss of death to the Reddish business incubator project.
I must congratulate the persistence of the Stockport council Labour group, and particularly that of Councillor Philip Harding, who had real suspicions about the project’s finances and put in freedom of information requests to shed some light on how the project was operating. As a result, we now know that concerns were raised by the Reddish incubator company’s board in September 2010, when two tenants’ unpaid rents totalled approximately £20,000 and there were further reported cash-flow problems, leading to wider questions about why the project was facing a financial deficit. The documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that concerns were raised at a very senior level about the governance issues, and about how they should be looked at as part of a financial review, and that there were concerns that roles and responsibilities in the venture should be made clear for all parties and individuals concerned.
Stockport council Labour group’s suspicions proved correct when we saw reported in the Manchester Evening News that in September 2010 a further £38,500 of Stockport council tax payers’ money, which could well have been used to protect vital local services, was transferred across to address the increasingly perilous cash-flow situation. However, as we were to see, that was not even enough to balance the books. Meeting notes from October 2010 show that further questions were asked about why the business incubator’s financial situation was so poor when a report to the March 2010 board meeting had suggested that the incubator should have broken even by March 2011. They also outlined how monthly project expenditure was significantly exceeding income.
By November 2010, it was becoming clear that there were very serious financial problems with the Reddish business incubator, that ongoing difficulties with collecting rents and other factors were making it run deeply into the red, and that it would need immediate payments to become economically viable. Furthermore, the board minutes show that for the incubator to run as a viable project it would have needed to attract 80% occupancy by March 2011, to rely on significant and difficult-to-achieve cost reductions, and to recover all previous bad debts. As we have seen in a leaked council cabinet report in the Manchester Evening News, in March this year it fell yet again to Stockport council financially to bail out this ill-fated project. Indeed, the confidential report to the council’s executive tells us:
“The company is projected to be in deficit by £160,000 by the end of the current financial year”
due to both
“lower than expected income”
and
“higher than expected expenditure”.
The report adds:
“The company does not have sufficient funds to clear the outstanding deficit.”
The leaked report also recommended that the council should directly oversee the future management of the incubator facility with a business plan to make the facility viable by 2011-12, and that Stockport council should take out a new 25-year lease with the landlord of Broadstone Mill. That is a shocking situation for the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to find itself in. It will effectively have to bail out its own scheme entirely from Broadstone Mill. Then again, the council certainly has form when it comes to wasting council tax payers’ money shamefully. Only last year, the arm’s-length organisation responsible for managing Stockport’s council homes spent £20,000 throwing a massive birthday party for itself, to which it invited some 370 revellers. The Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that I declined my invitation.
We must put the matter into the context of today’s economic background and all the cuts that Stockport council plans to implement. So far, Stockport council plans reductions of about £17 million this year, and about the same amount is due to be cut from its budget the following year. That means that £123,000, allegedly in efficiency savings, will be cut from the welfare rights and debt advice service, and £250,000 will be saved by effectively doing away with the community meals service, or meals on wheels, in its current form. Perhaps worst of all, £100,000 will be cut from the school crossing patrol budget, which might mean that one third of the lollipop ladies and men in the borough will be lost.
There are important questions that must be answered, given that Stockport council seems intent on throwing good money after bad. The council must come clean and tell us exactly where the £160,000 will come from to keep the Reddish incubator afloat. It also seems that the council’s strategy to keep the project running banks heavily on increasing the number of businesses operating in the centre, although no increase is certain. The plans to make the scheme a success seem to be based on an assumption that the current financial position will be turned around, but no thought seems to have been given to the possibility that the scheme will just rack up more debt and become an even bigger burden to the council tax payers of Stockport.
As the council’s own report indicates, it runs significant risks in taking on the scheme itself. It needs a significant increase in rental income, vastly improved occupancy rates and robust rent collection activities, all on top of a marked reduction in expenditure and rigorous cost control. Given that Stockport council was naive enough to invest £500,000 in this folly during some of the worst economic times in recent years, the latest development does not inspire many with confidence for the future. It is recommended that the council bail out the project at a cost of £160,000 and take over its running entirely. As I understand it, that could well be on a 25-year lease, with no first break for 10 years, so the council tax payers of Stockport might have to prop up the project for the next decade or more.
Councillor Dave Goddard, the Liberal Democrat leader of Stockport council, has been a member of the board of that rotten council tax-sucking company, which I feel raises many uneasy questions about conflicts of interest. Councillor Goddard should be ashamed not only to have been a member of the board of a community interest company so financially inept that it has failed miserably to collect rents or even cover its own costs, but to have ensured, as leader of Stockport council, that his administration wrote blank cheques to keep the scheme running. Now the council is effectively being authorised to take it over completely. It is frankly wrong that members of Stockport council have been kept in the dark about that costly but cosy arrangement, and that it took freedom of information requests and a leaked cabinet document for it to be placed in the public domain. Frankly, it stinks.
It also raises a question about the relationship between Stockport council and the scheme landlord, Broadstone Mill Ltd. As the Reddish incubator is owned 50:50 by each, will the Broadstone Mill share benefit financially by being effectively bought out by the council? We certainly need more transparency and clarity about the financial links between the two and what payments have been received to date. To recap, some of the payments that we know have been made between the two include rents, loans of about £40,000 to Broadstone Mill for lift refurbishment and extra payments to make up the revenue deficit on the business incubator. Although those extra payments might not be financially irregular, they must at least be scrutinised fully to eliminate any lingering suspicion of financial impropriety.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on whether the Reddish business incubator scheme does not raise a wider issue about community interest companies, which are funded by local authorities but run at arm’s length from them. It is difficult, if not all but impossible, to scrutinise them effectively until it is way too late or, as in the case of the Reddish business incubator, until one has run into significant financial problems.
I know that the Minister is a great champion of open local government, as is his boss, the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will take a dim view of the goings-on at Stockport council regarding the scheme. I have every confidence that his Department will take a close look at what has happened and continues to happen there, and I am sure that that will further his resolve to ensure that proper scrutiny arrangements are developed for all arm’s-length companies and trusts that operate council services and spend council tax payers’ money. Under his Government’s big society plans, it is likely that even more local services will operate under such loose arrangements.
Councils need the power to scrutinise. To return to Reddish, it is Stockport council tax payers who are bearing all the risk of the scheme and effectively picking up the bill for the inept failures of the community interest company, the council leader and the Liberal Democrat council executive. I am grateful for this opportunity to raise these serious issues in the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have raised.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing the debate. To judge from his suntan, he comes hot from the campaign trail. It has been a beautiful weekend to be out on the hustings, and I detected a hint of the hustings in his remarks, if that is not too churlish an observation.
I shall address the context of the business incubator before I turn to the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. As he acknowledged, the Government’s policy is one of localism. It is important that local authorities’ behaviour and policies are held to account by local people—as a local representative, he is taking the opportunity to do so today—but it is not for central Government to comment on the detailed policies and practices of local authorities. They are, rightly, independent of central Government, responsible for their own finances and free to make their own decisions.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Localism Bill will increase opportunities for local authorities to be relatively free to take decisions and to be scrutinised on them locally. Indeed, we want to go further than that. Beyond the Localism Bill, the local government resource review, which has kicked off, is considering options to allow authorities to keep their business rates precisely so that there can be a better relationship between the opportunities for new business in an area and the rewards that an authority receives from them. It is important that we consider and expand the opportunities available for local councils to engage with their businesses so that there is encouragement for more to be set up.
The potential for increased control of local finances will mean that local councils will be able to consider whether business incubators—or innovation centres, as they are sometimes called in other authorities—are right for them. There is no reason why such types of activity should not be provided by the council or with close council involvement. It was not clear from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks whether he thinks that the innovation centre—the business incubator—should be closed down and its activities ceased, whether it should not have been established in the first place, or whether it should be run in a slightly different way. I will be happy for him to intervene if he can clarify that.
Andrew Gwynne
I mentioned that I was supportive of local authorities supporting local businesses. I also mentioned Stockport Boost and Tameside Works First, which are good examples of where that happens in my constituency. What I am concerned about is the bottomless pit that seems for ever to be filled by council tax payers’ money in Reddish. We need to get a grip on this. More importantly, the local community, through the local council, needs to scrutinise that effectively. The real problem in Reddish is that there has not been effective scrutiny.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s clarification. I take it from that that he is in favour of incubators and of them succeeding. I think that he would want to be the first to congratulate the council on securing valuable jobs. Some 140 people are employed in the incubator, and I think it is important to recognise the potential for increasing employment in small businesses in a part of his constituency that is relatively deprived. I hope that he supports the principle of an incubator, although it would be reasonable for him to set out any concerns about how it has been managed in the past and how it will be managed in the future.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the incubator model is typically not financially self-sustaining. Most of those that have been established involve some degree of public support, whether from European funds, as is sometimes the case, national Government funds or local authority funds. For example, his Labour colleagues in Darlington are keen to establish a business incubator and are looking for central Government funds to support that. The model of a business incubator usually involves some commitment of public funds with the intention that that should create jobs and reduce other demands on council revenue and expenditure so that a virtuous cycle is generated.
The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man and I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that, in times of economic difficulty, small businesses will be affected—perhaps more so than larger businesses, in some ways. I am sure that he would agree that it would not be right to take away something of particular importance at a time of economic difficulty. It is right to keep faith with small businesses, rather than exacerbating the difficulties they might have due to the state of the economy by introducing jeopardy into an arrangement that exists to make sure that there are jobs to replace those that are lost elsewhere in the economy.
Andrew Gwynne
I take on board what the Minister says about business support, but does he think that the obligation of the community interest company to the local taxpayers of Stockport should be at least to collect the rents from the businesses in the business incubator?
Greg Clark
Of course, and I will talk about the hon. Gentleman’s point later. Any administration of any organisation should be run to standards of good practice, and it is important that that continues. It was the hon. Gentleman’s Government who established community interest companies as a model in which the voluntary sector, communities and the local public sector could come together to pursue not-for-profit opportunities of local benefit, so I hope that he is not suggesting that there is something inherent in the structure of CICs from which we should back away. Obviously, he is right to ask questions and he has obtained information on the running and the practices of the organisation.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his council in Stockport and other Greater Manchester authorities have come together to make a successful and impressive proposal, which I think he supports, on the local enterprise partnership for Greater Manchester. The document that was successful in achieving authorisation is clear that the No. 1 ambition of the LEP is to develop Greater Manchester
“as a powerhouse for entrepreneurs, business start ups and innovation”.
I think that incubators such as that under discussion can play an important role, as all Greater Manchester councils, whatever their political complexion, would recognise. I do not think that this is a question about the principle of business incubators or about having community interest companies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the performance of the incubator in question. On accountability for public funding or any other type of initiative, it is established that there are means—for local councillors, and for local representatives such as him—by which to obtain information and to shine the spotlight on the way in which organisations operate. He has done that by securing this debate, and I know that he has done so locally as well.
When considering Stockport council’s decision to support the business incubator project, it is worth remembering that every authority has a structure in place whereby it has to account for public sector funds. Indeed, legislation requires, and will continue to require, all local authorities to make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs, to ensure that their financial management is adequate and effective, and to have in place a sound system of internal control that includes arrangements for the management of risk. I believe that this particular project was called in by the council’s scrutiny committee and considered in detail. Information has been disclosed through the freedom of information process and the future plans for the organisation have been established. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, after looking at the matter closely, nothing has led me to believe that Stockport council has not exercised the proper degree of scrutiny. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said today has established that the council has been derelict in any of its responsibilities.
Greg Clark
I will not, because we have only a couple of minutes left and I want to conclude my comments. It is not a question of passing judgment on whether Stockport council was wasteful in its decision to provide support to the incubator. That decision has been made by a democratic and independent organisation and by a local authority aiming to help businesses to start up and grow in its area. As central Government, we should respect that.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we should make use of the powers available. He said at the beginning of the debate that I believe in transparency. The measures in the Localism Bill will increase the transparency to which local authorities are subject. I am keen that local people should be able to see what is being done with taxpayers’ funds. The local authority’s business plan for the incubator is in the public domain and people can take a view on whether it is an acceptable way to proceed. If they look at other business incubators throughout the country, they will see that it is rare for an incubator to operate at 100% capacity. The point of an incubator—almost—is to have some space available so that prospective businesses can locate there, so this situation is not out of the ordinary.
I know that that the local enterprise partnership will take a particular interest in the matter. It has made it clear that the facilities will be important for the full employment potential of Greater Manchester to be realised. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Greater Manchester, including the other authorities, will consider how this particular incubator can be part of a network that the LEP may look to establish across the city so that it can realise the undoubtedly great potential for the small businesses of Greater Manchester to lead the way out of the economic difficulties from which they are suffering. I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to address the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Sikh Turbans (Airport Searches)
(12 years, 12 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 Lee Scott (in the Chair)
Before we begin the next debate, I would like to say that the sheer volume of hon. Members in the Chamber means that all interventions should be as brief as humanly possible to give the Minister the chance to respond fully.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Scott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who helped me in securing the debate. Protocol dictates that I refer to him as an hon. Friend, but I genuinely feel that I and the Sikh community as a whole have established a deep friendship with him. He is a valuable asset to the debate and to the House.
The world seems to be in a challenging season at the moment. There are natural disasters and Government instability all over the globe. Security checks have become a way of life, and will be for the foreseeable future. We, as citizens of this challenged world, are tasked with finding the balance between security and freedom. Problems have arisen in the past few months regarding the hand searches of Sikh turbans in airports based on new EU regulations. Under EU regulations, airport security is allowed to insist on a hand search of the turban if the passenger in question either sets off the metal detector or is chosen at random for a search.
As a Sikh, although I do not wear the traditional turban, my father is turbaned and I understand the Sikh community’s great distress at the thought of having turbans either publicly hand searched or, in some cases, physically removed. That is seen as deeply disrespectful in the Sikh culture and is perceived in almost all the community as a humiliating breach of personal privacy. The Department for Transport has taken the lead in trying to rectify the situation by establishing a trial that would have airports offering swabs of turbans for explosive residue.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the implementation of that practice is taking too long and that the Department for Transport should press all UK airports to implement it at the earliest possible opportunity? Airports should also ensure that proper training and equipment are put in place for staff.
Paul Uppal
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and echo the sentiments he has expressed. I am taken aback by the number of hon. Members who want to intervene and speak in the debate, so I will be very brief in my comments.
The trial was well received by the Sikh community, but it is still not the norm in airports. The trial is optional in airports but, even in participating airports, some staff are loth to allow Sikh passengers the option. I am proud that the Government have advocated on the issue and have put in place alternatives without sacrificing the safety of their citizens.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned—as I am given the consultation I have had with the substantial Sikh community in Wolverhampton—about the inconsistency of the application of the principles and guidelines that have been issued by the Government to the airports? That is a matter of great concern. Even in those airports that have opted in to the trial, not all staff are carrying out the procedures as they should.
Paul Uppal
I will cover some of those issues in parts of my speech that I intend to reach. However, I understand the sentiments that the hon. Lady is expressing.
In particular, some of the concerns have focused around Italy and Poland, where there have been problems. Perhaps I can illustrate the strength of feeling on the issue by quoting the Indian External Affairs Minister, Mr S.M. Krishna, who said:
“Wherever there is an insult to Sikhs, we take it as a national insult.”
That related to an issue involving the removal of the turban of Amritinder Singh, who is the coach of Sikh golfer Jeev Milkha Singh, at an Italian airport. He was made to physically remove his turban and place it with other security items in a tray.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is illustrating the core of the problem. The UK has a substantial Sikh population, whereas hardly any of the other European Union countries do. There is a real lack of understanding of the culture of the Sikh community and, indeed, of the Sikh faith in some European countries. In the UK, our shared history and our substantial Sikh population mean that we do understand. Is it therefore not utterly incumbent on Ministers and officials to fight on the issue strongly at European level to make sure that those concerns are heard, understood and acted upon?
Paul Uppal
I completely understand the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of my speech, I will echo such points. The UK can take a lead on the matter and provide a way forward for a lot of our European partners on the issue. I will come to that during the denouement of my speech.
There is still discussion among Sikhs on the issue and many hon. Members are being contacted by Sikhs in their constituency, which is why I have secured this Westminster Hall debate. I hope that we can get clarification on the things that remain ambiguous, as well as enter into a frank discussion between ourselves and the Minister on what needs to happen in future.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I have had such discussions with my Gurdwara in Hounslow. There is a major concern that the fact this is a trial means that many airports are not taking part in it, including Luton and London City. In total, we are talking about 18 million passengers. A lot of Sikhs are going through airports that are not part of the trial.
Paul Uppal
I completely understand the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. She has also campaigned on Sikh issues and is actively engaged with them. I echo that comment in saying that the current trial is not a long-term solution and there are still screening problems at airports in the UK and all over the world. It is my hope that the swab test will be the standard test all over Europe in the near future and that it will be offered first, rather than attempting to force people into a hand search.
There is always hope for tomorrow. New technology is being developed from X-ray machines and will be more sophisticated than swab tests. That could make the problem a thing of the past. However, until that happens, we must work together to increase awareness both in the Sikh community regarding their right to ask for a swab test and in airports to ensure that all passengers are treated with respect regardless of their choice of religious dress.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about new technology. Is this issue the reason that new technology should be explored more quickly? I am thinking particularly of a company in my constituency called Laser Optical Engineering, which could produce a system of lasers that would scan passengers, both Sikhs and non-Sikhs, for explosive substances. The technology already exists and it is incumbent on the Government to adopt such technologies to help to solve these issues.
Paul Uppal
I agree with my hon. Friend. Technology will be the way to solve the problem and the need for it is paramount. I wholeheartedly agree with her perspective.
I shall be very brief because I can see that many hon. Members want to speak. I shall sum up with this last paragraph, which is personal to me and is something I saw with my own eyes. In the aftermath of 9/11, two individuals were killed in the US after reprisal attacks because they were turbaned. The people who attacked them assumed that they were terrorists because they were turbaned. Such a view breeds on misconception and ignorance, and I want to highlight in today’s debate the need to tackle such opinions head on. I want to champion the fact that we have a long-established Sikh population in the UK, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), and that we have a respective history.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I represent a constituency with the largest Sikh population, where a large number of people work at Heathrow airport, and they also work at other airports around the country. When we are talking about new technology, security is the prime issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after the five K’s, the turban is the most respected symbol of identity among the Sikh community and that the majority of Sikh people have proven to have integrity and respect for the security of the world in general? Does he also agree that airport staff and other European nations need to be told to be more respectful towards that fact when we are trying find solutions? The Government should be negotiating with European Governments to ensure that that happens.
Paul Uppal
Perhaps I can answer that by specifically referring to this philosophical point. In a sense it is obvious for me, as a British Sikh, to speak about this issue. One has to be very careful, because one can be stereotyped. It is important, however, to come to all such issues from a philosophical point. We very rarely, in legislation or in other things we do, understand anybody else’s pain. I assure hon. Members that I understand the pain of Sikhs on this specific issue, because it is something that I have seen and experienced in my own family.
I will sum up quickly, because I feel that there is a groundswell of hon. Members who wish to speak. We, in Britain, have a rich and deep historical perspective and understanding of the Sikh contribution to British history.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know that he feels very strongly about the issue. Does he agree that it is key to ensure that we have a balance between the security concerns of the travelling public and treating people with respect? It seems to me, and to the Sikh community in Dartford, that we can achieve that balance through the use of modern technology, which has been mentioned, rather than simply having Sikhs manhandled in airports around the country.
Paul Uppal
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the balance that we are talking about. Nobody taking part in this debate, nobody to whom I have spoken in a Gurdwara and nobody I have met in my constituency wants security watered down in any way. That is the furthest thing from any right-minded person’s mind, but there has to be a balancing act. That balance is the point, not just in what we do in Britain, but in what is done across Europe. I have mentioned the fact that we have a deep history here. I wanted to raise that point because it would be remiss of me, as a British Sikh, not to remind our European partners of the unique contribution of the Sikhs—not just to British history, but globally—through what they do and their values.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I want to congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), on securing the debate. I agree with him that this is an issue of deep concern to our Sikh constituents and it has been raised with me many times. A petition was presented to me with several hundred signatures from the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara in my constituency, and I know that that view is reflected elsewhere.
There is one issue at the core of this, which is that we all agree that there is a need for adequate security at airports for all passengers, but it is surely better to implement it in a way that respects cultural traditions and does not offend people of a particular faith. To that end, the Department organised meetings with Sikh representatives in the run-up to implementing the decision. Those representatives thought that agreement had been reached at the beginning of February about how to implement the directive using swab and wand technology and using searches only as a very last resort. The core of the problem has been an inconsistency in the application of that, a lack of communication on how that is to be done, difficulties for Sikh staff working at airports as well as Sikh passengers passing through airports, and an ongoing dissatisfaction and deep distress and concern in the community about how this is unfolding.
Will the Minister, in her summing up, say whether she understands the distress in the community? Why was the implementation in February not preceded by proper information for both passengers and staff on how to implement the new procedures? Why has there been such inconsistency between one airport and another—surely the security requirements are the same throughout all airports?
Mr Lee Scott (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, this is actually an intervention. There has not been an application to speak, so there cannot be an intervention on an intervention.
Mr McFadden
I stand corrected, Mr Scott. I will briefly come to a conclusion. Does the Minister agree that the exchange of correspondence between Ministers and Sikh representatives has not resolved the issue since February? Is the time now right for a meeting at ministerial level between Ministers and Sikh representatives? I am sure that I and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West and other hon. Members with many Sikh constituents would be happy to facilitate and attend such a meeting if that were helpful. It would be important if the Minister were to do that.
I echo the point that, because of the long history and tradition of the Sikh community in the UK, other countries in Europe will look at how we implement the directive. So far, that has not been done in a way that the community has consented to. I suggest that the Minister has that meeting and that the UK implements the directive in a way that enhances security at airports, that the community can go along with, and that means that other countries in Europe will look at our lead in implementing the directive. If that is not the case, we will have ongoing concern and distress in the community, and other countries in Europe perhaps going even further in causing distress to Sikh passengers passing through their airports.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) on securing the debate on this very important issue.
I should first respond straight away to the request for a ministerial meeting. I am very happy to agree to meet representatives of the Sikh community to discuss the issue. I will also respond to the questions about the Government’s approach. I emphasise that the Government are fully aware of the major importance of this issue for so many hon. Members who have turned up today and for the Sikh community. I appreciate and understand, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, the pivotal role of the turban in Sikh culture and religious observance, and the distress and concern caused by the possibility of a public hand search of a turban.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
All of us in this Chamber, when we see a turban, understand the spiritual nature that it signifies. Does the Minister agree that the values of Sikhism—tolerance, self-discipline and respect for others—would, when applied to this policy, sort it out straight away? What we actually need is for our European partners to be told in no uncertain terms that we stick by the Sikh community in Britain and we want them to be shown respect.
Mrs Villiers
Absolutely. As I shall go on to outline in my speech, the key to resolving the issue in a way that the Sikh community are happy with is to secure a change in EU rules. The Secretary of State is focused on that, as am I, and I will outline what we are doing on that in my remarks. We are anxious to resolve the issue in a way that is consistent with Sikh beliefs and values.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are considering those in the Sikh community, and we appreciate and understand their circumstances. May I suggest that the Minister should also look at the issue of Christians having to go through a body search whenever they go through airports? I make that comment because some of my constituents have come to see me about this issue. Some have had metal parts put into their bodies through medical procedures, and have to be subjected to a strip search every time they go through an airport. We are looking at the issue in relation to Sikhs; will the Minister look at it in relation to Christians as well?
Mrs Villiers
We always keep security arrangements under constant review, but I think that all of us here would agree that this issue has special resonance and concern for the Sikh community. Protecting air passengers from the threat of terrorism is crucial. Although several high-profile attempts to blow up commercial airliners have been foiled since 9/11, aviation remains, I am afraid, an iconic and enduring target for terrorists. The recent cargo bomb plot demonstrated once again that those wishing to launch attacks on aviation are well informed about the processes in place—any potential vulnerabilities could be exploited by terrorists.
As the threat evolves and as the terrorist groups devise more sophisticated plans to attack aviation, so our response must evolve. Working closely with airports, we regularly reassess our security regime to ensure that passengers and cargo are effectively screened, and that we comply with our international obligations. However, at the same time, we are very aware of the impact of screening measures on all communities and on the travelling public generally. We are always open to ideas on how to reduce inconvenience for passengers and to improve screening.
Fiona Mactaggart
I note the Minister’s point. I challenge my constituency neighbour’s claim to represent more Sikhs than any other Member in the south—they have all moved to Slough now, and I represent them.
The issue is not only about getting European agreement but about consistency in UK airports. Previously, Heathrow had agreed to abide by the wand and swab arrangement, yet I hear from constituents working or travelling through there that it is not consistently applied. Would the Minister, in advance of any meeting with the community, meet with airport operators to ensure consistency within the individual airports?
Mrs Villiers
The DFT is of course in touch with airports. There were some teething problems associated with the trial of alternative screening methods, but we are anxious to ensure that they are resolved.
In April last year, new European rules on the screening of headgear came into force, requiring headgear to be searched by hand whenever a passenger or member of staff triggers a walk-through metal-detector alarm or is selected at random for a search when entering a secure restricted area. The new rules immediately triggered serious concern in the Sikh community.
The coalition Government were not in office when the rules were adopted in Europe, but we acted swiftly in response to the opposition expressed by Sikhs about how the new rules were operating. Meetings with the Sikh community were held, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked UK airports to delay implementation of the new EU rules while we discussed with the community how to address its concerns. The Department also raised the issue with the European Commission, and further meetings with representatives of the Sikh community were held.
Following those meetings, we conducted laboratory tests using explosive trace detection equipment to identify, if possible, an alternative to a hand search that would give equivalent protection. I am grateful to all the members of the Sikh community who took part in those tests. Initial results indicated that the most effective alternative process involved the use of ETD coupled with a hand-held metal detector. Although the lab work produced some encouraging results, scientists recommended that a larger on-airport trial would be required before any final conclusions could be drawn. We then acted quickly and got permission from the European Commission to proceed with a larger trial, to establish formally whether a combination of ETD equipment and hand-held metal detectors could provide an effective screening method for religious headgear as an alternative to the EU rules which had caused such concern.
The Commission agreed to our request and the trial started on 14 February. It will last for 18 months and represents a crucial step forward towards the solution that everyone present in the Chamber wishes to achieve. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are all taking part, along with 19 other airports around the country. The trial is now in progress or due to commence shortly at most major UK airports. Seventeen of the top 20 airports are taking part, including Birmingham, which serves the region including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West.
Once the trial had been approved by the European Commission, I am afraid that we could no longer postpone the implementation of the April 2010 rules, which I know caused disappointment—I fully recognise that—but our obligations under the EU treaty meant that we had no choice. Airports had either to comply with the EU regulation or to volunteer for the trial of the revised procedures for screening headgear. We were left with no other course of action.
Mary Macleod
I congratulate the Government on making progress on the issue, while trying to find a solution that works for everyone. Can the Minister clarify what ongoing discussions are happening between the Europe Minister and the European Commission to find a resolution as soon as possible?
Mrs Villiers
A number of discussions have taken place with the European Commission. I shall report to it after this debate, to emphasise the serious concern expressed in Parliament about the issue and the importance that hon. Members place on achieving a resolution as quickly as possible.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The issue is important not only in the Sikh community; all other faith communities, as far as I am aware, are supportive of the view of the Sikh community, because they understand the respect-for-faith issues. The matter is now the dominant political issue in the Sikh community.
Before the Minister finishes her speech, I hope she can assure us that the Government’s position is that the outcome should be: no hand interference with the turban and no forced removal of it. If she can give that position statement on the Government’s behalf, we will know that we are aiming at the right place and, hopefully, that the negotiations will be a success.
Mrs Villiers
Certainly our aim is to reach a solution that avoids public hand search and removal of the turban. That is what we want to reach, but we must be certain that effective alternative screening methods are available.
My officials have been working with the airport industry to encourage the widest possible participation in the alternative screening method trials, but such trials are voluntary. We cannot compel all airports to take part, but we are seeing real progress as the trial proceeds. We are getting a valuable, real-world opportunity to see how the technology works in practice. Only by such testing can we demonstrate and be certain that the method works. Only then, with such evidence, can we hope to secure a change to the European rules so that one day, we hope, all airports will offer the alternative screening method using a combination of ETD and hand-held metal detectors. My officials will pass the trial data to the European Commission, as part of our efforts to secure a resolution.
We are continuing to work hard with airports to ensure that the introduction of the trial methods proceeds smoothly and that any teething problems are resolved. Airports are committed to working with the community to resolve those difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West highlighted concerns about search procedures in other EU member states. We have no power to tell other member states how to run their security procedures—that is a matter for them—but I appreciate the concern and unhappiness expressed in other member states about the searching of religious headgear.
Mr Virendra Sharma
Is the Minister willing to write to the partner states expressing the concerns of Members and of the communities represented at the debate, so that the member states can start listening as well? As previous speakers have said, there is a lack of understanding in the European countries about Sikh and other faiths.
Mrs Villiers
That is a good idea. I am happy to write to the equivalent Ministers in other member states, pointing out the concerns expressed.
The strength and vibrancy of our Sikh community in the UK gives us a special interest in the issue, an insight we can usefully share with our European partners, so we will be doing our best to lead the debate not only with the Commission but with other member states. We are working hard for a solution. I appreciate that there is real frustration. Achieving the change we need will take time. Unfortunately, amending European law is never a speedy process. However, I would like to assure the Sikh community, all my hon. Friends and other Members present at the debate today that the Government take the issue very seriously.
Further meetings with the Sikh community are planned for May. We will continue to work hard on the issue and to engage closely with community leaders to maintain the highest levels of passenger security, but to do so in a culturally sensitive way which we hope will address the concerns of the Sikh community.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Convergence Programme (2010-11)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires the Government to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. This assessment is comprised of the Budget report and the Office of Budget Responsibility’s (OBR’s) “Economic and fiscal outlook”. This then forms the basis of the UK’s convergence programme, which is therefore based entirely on information already presented to Parliament. The UK is obliged to submit a convergence programme annually to the European Commission under article 126 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (the “Lisbon” treaty).
Article 126 is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive Government deficits, although the UK, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, is only required to “endeavour to avoid” excessive deficits.
The Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR’s) “Economic and fiscal outlook” were deposited in the Library of the House on 23 March 2011. A small proportion of the content of the convergence programme may be drawn from other material that has already been presented to Parliament, such as last year’s spending review. All of the information it contains has therefore already been published and made available to Members.
A debate in this House has been scheduled for 27 April in order for the House to approve this assessment.
The UK’s convergence programme has been published today. Copies have been deposited in the Library of the House and the document is available electronically via the HM Treasury website. It will be submitted to the EU by 30 April as required by the European Commission. While the convergence programme itself is not subject to parliamentary approval or amendment, a small supply of advance copies was made available to Members through the Vote Office on 21 April.
Informal ECOFIN (8-9 April 2011)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The informal Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 8-9 April 2011. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also represented the Treasury.
The informal ECOFIN began with an extended session of the Eurogroup to discuss Portugal’s request for financial assistance. Ministers released the following statement:
Ministers acknowledged the Portuguese authorities’ request for financial assistance. Ministers invited the Commission, the ECB, the IMF and Portugal to set up a programme and take appropriate action to safeguard financial stability.
In the context of a joint EU/IMF programme, the financial assistance package to Portugal should be financed on the European side within the framework provided by the European financial stabilisation mechanism (EFSM) and the European financial stability facility (EFSF).
Euro-area and EU financial support will be provided on the basis of a policy programme which will be supported by strict conditionality and negotiated with the Portuguese authorities, duly involving the main political parties, by the Commission, in liaison with the ECB, and the IMF. The preparations will start immediately to reach a cross-party agreement ensuring that an adjustment programme can be adopted by mid-May and implemented swiftly after the formation of a new Government.
The programme will be based on three pillars:
An ambitious fiscal adjustment to restore fiscal sustainability.
Growth and competitiveness-enhancing reforms by removing rigidities in the product and labour markets and by encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation, allowing for a sustainable and balanced growth and unwinding internal and external macro-economic imbalances, while safeguarding the economic and social position of its citizens. This should include an ambitious privatisation programme.
Measures to maintain the liquidity and solvency of the financial sector.
The set of measures announced by the Portuguese authorities on 11 March is a starting point in this regard.
We call on all political parties in Portugal to conclude swiftly an agreement on the adjustment programme and form a new Government after the upcoming elections with the ability to fully adopt and implement the agreed fiscal consolidation and structural reform measures. After an agreement has been reached with the Portuguese authorities and supported by the main political parties, the programme will be endorsed by the ECOFIN Council and the Eurogroup, in line with national procedures, on the basis of a Commission and ECB assessment.
The Ministers of the Eurogroup and ECOFIN, the Commission and the ECB are looking forward to ambitious fiscal adjustment, comprehensive structural reforms and measures to safeguard financial stability that will address the fiscal and structural challenges of the Portuguese economy in a decisive manner. It will thereby also help restore confidence and safeguard financial stability in the euro area.
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the economic governance package, with a focus on the set of indicators which will be used to monitor macro-economic imbalances. They also discussed the Romanian balance of payment assistance.
During the afternoon session, Ministers were joined by Central Bank governors. Discussions centred on financial stability and bank stress tests, where the Government believe that the EU needs rigorous tests with appropriate back-up plans. There was a clear signal that much had been achieved with the setting up of the new supervisory framework, but that momentum needed to be maintained to cement the roles of the European supervisory authorities and prevent future crises.
On the second day, discussions focused on commodity markets, a forward look to the G20, IMF and World Bank spring meetings, and the comprehensive response to the crisis.
Animal Health and Welfare Board for England
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am pleased to announce that the Government are setting up a new Animal Health and Welfare Board for England. This is an important step in sharing responsibility for animal health and welfare with animal keepers and other interested parties. The aim is to build trust between Government and animal keepers and strengthen arrangements for working together to develop a true partnership.
Animal diseases, whether outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, avian influenza, or bluetongue, or current ones such as bovine TB, or salmonella, can be costly to animal keepers and Government alike. It is in everyone’s interests to reduce the risk and costs of disease outbreaks relating to all kept animals, including farmed animals, horses and pets, and to maintain our reputation for high welfare standards.
Since the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak, industry and Government have worked more closely together to agree disease control strategies, and there has been a series of proposals and consultations about what respective responsibilities should be in future. Most recently the report of the independently chaired advisory group on responsibility and cost-sharing was published on 13 December 2010. I record here my thanks to the chair and all the members of the advisory group for their work.
In developing our proposals for the board we have carefully considered the group’s recommendations, and listened to the views expressed about them since the report’s publication.
The new board will have responsibility for strategic animal health and welfare policy and oversight of its delivery in relation to England. It will be composed of around 12 members, who will be the senior DEFRA officials with responsibility for animal health and welfare (currently five people including the chief veterinary officer in his England role) and around seven to eight external non-executive members. The board will be the principal source of departmental advice to DEFRA Ministers on strategic animal health and welfare policy in relation to England.
We will seek external members (including the chair) who between them, have the skills, knowledge and experience to understand the whole range of strategic policy matters. We are looking for individuals who have the trust and respect of animal keepers and all other stakeholders.
Each external member of the board will have responsibility for engaging with a set of stakeholder groups and ensuring that the views of those groups are articulated in the board’s decision-making processes. We will consult the NFU and other stakeholder groups on the best way to organise this to ensure effective two-way communication.
The external members of the board will serve in an individual capacity. Members will be appointed on merit in a transparent process. I will advertise the posts publicly and invite organisations to encourage suitable candidates, who can demonstrate the confidence and trust of stakeholders and their representative organisations, to put themselves forward.
I expect the board to be appointed in the second half of 2011, and its views will shape the way DEFRA does business in the future and how it manages key relationships with delivery bodies, particularly the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency.
This is an innovative and exciting approach to bringing those affected by Government decisions into the heart of the process in order to create a more direct link between those making DEFRA policy and those experiencing the delivery of that policy. Its success will depend on the support of animal keepers and stakeholder organisations for the board and its members. I look forward to continuing the constructive dialogue already evident in the responses to the advisory group report.
The board will not deliver results overnight. This is a new way of working for both Government and stakeholders. I expect it gradually to strengthen joint working and lead to a greater understanding by all of the practices that collectively and cost-effectively reduce disease risk and maintain high welfare. Agreement on how best to achieve them should lead to greater adherence to responsible practices and thence to reduced animal disease risk and improved standards of health and welfare. This will benefit the Government, the public and animal keepers.
The advisory group recommended that cost-sharing should be taken forward in a staged approach once responsibility sharing arrangements were in place. Once established I will look to the board for advice on funding arrangements as it develops animal health and welfare policy for the future.
The full terms of reference for the board are published alongside this announcement (at http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/animals/diseases/sharing/) which fulfils one of the commitments in the Government’s structural reform plan and the Department’s business plan.
International Criminal Tribunals (Special Court for Sierra Leone)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
The Special Court for Sierra Leone is the first international criminal tribunal to be funded entirely from voluntary contributions from Governments. Since its creation in 2002, the United Kingdom has been a strong and steady contributor of funds to the Special Court. As a demonstration of our continued support, I am informing the House that the Government have recently contributed an additional £3 million; the United Kingdom has now contributed around £27 million overall. Our contributions have helped the Special Court successfully to investigate and prosecute eight of those who bore the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed during its bloody civil war. The Government’s latest donation will also help allow the Special Court to complete the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia, the first former head of state to be brought to trial on charges of war crimes for actions he took while in office. We look forward to the verdict from the court this summer.
Furthermore, the Government support and promote international justice widely as a key pillar of their foreign policy. The United Kingdom is active in all six existing international criminal tribunals and I can inform the House that, in addition to its support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Government have recently contributed a further £1 million to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and a further £l million to the special tribunal for Lebanon.
The Government are fully committed to the principle that there should be no impunity for the most serious crimes at the international level. The effective prosecution of those who commit these crimes is fundamental to suppressing such crimes, which in turn is vital in the development of communities which are more stable and prosperous. I applaud the important work of all of the international tribunals.
Immigration Policy (Marriage of non-EEA Nationals)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Tackling abuse of the system is a significant element of the Government’s immigration policy. This includes preventing marriage in the UK being used solely to gain an immigration advantage. The Government have been working with partners to look at ways in which the problem of sham marriages can be addressed.
I am therefore pleased to welcome procedural changes which have been made by the Church of England which will afford closer scrutiny and help to deter or prevent those seeking to marry in order to gain an immigration advantage. The Church of England has issued new guidance to allow for greater scrutiny for applications for marriage where one or both parties is a non-EEA national (that is, not a national of a country that belongs to the European economic area or a British citizen).
This will allow the clergy greater opportunity to satisfy themselves, prior to the ceremony, that the marriage is a genuine one and, where they have concerns, to refer the matter to the UK Border Agency.
In order to enable the Church of England to introduce its new procedures in respect of non-EEA nationals, I have agreed that use can be made of an exception under the Equality Act 2010 for differential treatment on the basis of nationality.
These measures took effect from 11 April and a copy of the ministerial approval and guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.
Welfare Reform Bill (Universal Credit Contingency Fund Advance)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
The Department for Work and Pensions has obtained approval for an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £18 million to allow for the development of IT for universal credit before Royal Assent. This amount is part of the proposed investment in universal credit of £2 billion agreed at the time of the spending review.
Universal credit is to replace a range of existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for people of working age, rolling out in 2013. It will improve work incentives, simplify the benefits system and tackle administrative complexity.
The Department is using a flexible approach to IT development where the build of IT components is brought forward to allow for early customer testing. The advance from the Contingencies Fund will enable an earlier move to the new simplified benefit than could be achieved without it. This enables the Department to achieve better value for money by enabling a more rapid take-up of online claims with lower operational delivery costs. Parliamentary approval for additional resource and capital of £50 million for this new service will be sought in the main estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £18 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Ampthill
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I regret that I have to inform the House of the death on 23 April of Lord Ampthill. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to his family and friends.
Clerk of the Parliaments
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
To resolve that this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Mr Michael Graham Pownall from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence and integrity with which the said Michael Graham Pownall has executed the important duties of his office.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, on 8 November last year, I informed the House that Mr Michael Pownall had announced his intention of retiring from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 15 April this year. I indicated at the time that in due course there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Pownall.
Some Members will know that, by convention, the retiring Clerk of the Parliaments makes sure to absent himself from the Chamber for this part of our proceedings. Those who were well acquainted with Mr Pownall will not be surprised to hear that it was his ardent wish to go one step further and to ensure that he had left the estate for good by the time the House dwelt on his achievements. In that respect and in many others, he led those who serve us in this House by example. In the self-effacing manner in which he performed his duties, he helped to sustain the fiction, carefully crafted by successor generations of servants of this House, that we, the Members of this House, are solely responsible for its actions and achievements. Such a wonderful and convincing tale they have woven that I, for one, have never had occasion to doubt it.
Michael also led by example in the unfailing courtesy that he displayed towards Members of the House. Imposing as we are in our collective guise, one might concede that there are some formidable individuals among our number, yet if ever the Clerk of the Parliaments shared this perception, he did not let it show. His advice was invariably delivered patiently and with good grace. There is no Member for whom he would not make time and no predicament he would have dismissed as unworthy of his assistance.
Mr Pownall’s tenure as Clerk of the Parliaments marked the culmination of 40 years of service to this House. In that time, he held every important post, including that of private secretary to the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip when those positions were occupied by Lord Soames, Baroness Young and the noble Lord, Lord Denham. As well as serving the first woman Leader of this House, Mr Pownall is known to have distinguished himself during that period by bravely drawing our minimum intervals to the attention of the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher.
In recent years, Michael served as Reading Clerk and Clerk Assistant before being appointed Clerk of the Parliaments in 2007. When assuming that august office, he could not have anticipated the twists and turns that events would take. His term coincided with the removal of the similarly venerable appellate jurisdiction of this House, with allegations of paid advocacy that prompted the House to revive its powers of suspension, and with a press campaign that exposed serious abuses of the financial support available to Members of both Houses, some of which have since led to prosecutions and criminal convictions. These have been testing times for the House—times which placed unprecedented demand on the Clerk of the Parliaments’ judgment, integrity and resilience. I am confident that I speak for the whole House when I say that in more dispiriting moments it was a great solace to know with absolute and distinctive certainty that Mr Pownall would not be found wanting on any of these counts.
Michael leaves behind a more resilient institution—one equipped with a new Code of Conduct for Members, an independent Commissioner for Standards and a simpler and more transparent system of financial support for Members. He leaves behind a legacy that I am sure will stand the test of time. That legacy alone would have been sufficient to earn Mr Pownall a place among the most accomplished of his predecessors. But there is no rest for the wig-wearing, and more upheaval was in store for the Clerk of the Parliaments. The general election only a year ago, in 2010, saw the first change of Government for 13 years and the first coalition Government since the Second World War. The speed and dexterity with which the needs of coalition Government were anticipated and catered for is of immense credit to Mr Pownall and his staff. Their planning, pragmatism and good grace allowed the strange and unaccustomed to be overcome and innovation of one day to become the tradition of the next.
There are, of course, more achievements that I could list and I trust that some of them will be mentioned by others, but the pinnacle of them all, perhaps, is that Mr Pownall succeeded in notching up his manifold achievements while holding together the unruly flock that is the House. He is not only respected and admired but held in sincere and lasting affection around the House and at all levels of the administration. That is why I very much hope that, although he may be intending to while away his retirement in Italy, the lure of the deep red carpet, the Pugin interiors and our collective good sense will prove too strong and we will see him in the House again from time to time.
It remains for me only to wish Michael and his wife Deborah many enjoyable years ahead. We are greatly indebted to him for the exemplary service which he has rendered to this House and to Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure on behalf of the Opposition to second the Motion moved by the Leader of the House. I associate myself and my Benches with all that the noble Lord has said about the recently retired Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall.
Michael’s long service to your Lordships’ House, his diligence and commitment to his work and, at the same time, his reticence and modesty are all qualities from which the House has enormously benefited. It is characteristic of Michael’s modesty that he somehow managed to contrive to retire during the recess while the House was not sitting, but we will not let him get away without paying tribute in the Chamber to all that he has done for the House and for the Members of this House. It is characteristic too, though, that even after leaving the job Michael Pownall will still be doing it because he has to return to give further evidence in court proceedings being brought against Members of this House, and it is on these issues that I wish to focus. In paying an overall tribute to the former Clerk, the Leader mentioned that he could only touch on Michael’s role in dealing with the difficult issues with which this House has had to deal in the past few years. For most of that time I was in the noble Lord’s place as Leader of the House, which gave me a particular perspective on Michael, and it is from that perspective that I shall address the substance of my remarks today.
Parliament has had a bad time of it over this period: we have seen a scandal erupt; we have seen a media frenzy; we have seen the standing of Parliament lowered; we have seen trust eroded; we have seen Parliament fail the British people. In all this, your Lordships' House has not been impacted on to the same degree and extent as the House of Commons, but it has none the less been seriously affected. As the noble Lord the Leader said, we have as a result reformed our procedures radically. In all this, at every point, was Michael Pownall. I tell your Lordships this quite plainly: whatever difficulties this House has been in, they would have been worse, so very much worse, if Michael Pownall had not been in his job. At every moment, in every aspect of the issues involved, Michael was centrally involved not only in dealing with them but with stretching himself and his team to find ways of resolving them.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this is the first time since the formation of the coalition Government that I have spoken from the Liberal Democrats Benches. The reason I do so is that I want to make it clear that the tribute I wish to pay is on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this House, although I heartily concur with the remarks of the Leader of the House and, in particular, with the Leader of the Opposition in the way she dealt with the torrid time that Michael Pownall had to endure as he piloted us through some of the most difficult times that this House has ever had to endure.
The phrase that comes to mind is courage under fire, because that is what he showed. Because he showed courage under fire, he was able to give steady advice to the various party leaders. Like the Leader of the House, I believe that when this period in the House is looked back on, although it will be seen as a period of turmoil and of some distress, it will also be seen as a period of genuine reform when we put our House in order, and we did so under the wise guidance of Michael Pownall. I will not try to repeat what the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition said, but I appreciated the passion that the noble Baroness showed in her tribute, which was richly deserved.
It is always difficult to find new things to say in this slot, and I usually rely on my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who is keeper of the blessed memory as far as this House is concerned. She brought two facts to mind. She remembers that, when Michael Pownall was secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Denham—who I am glad to see is in a place if not quite in his place—under stress, he would turn to cigarettes. This surprised me. I could not think that there could be any stressful moments being private secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, but there you are—you never cease to be surprised. I was also told something even more disturbing: Michael Pownall is a mimic of Rory Bremner-type skill and some of his finest mimicry is, in fact, of Members of this House. I am looking forward to getting him in a private place when he returns and asking him to go through his repertoire. There was another thing I found surprising. It did not surprise me that Michael loves Italy and is a good squash player, but I read that he is a supporter of Luton Town. A Clerk of the Parliaments supporting Luton Town! Luton Town is at the Pukka Pies end of football rather than the prawn cocktail end, but that again shows the depths of the man. Luton Town won 4-0 yesterday, so he should be quite pleased about that.
I hope that what has come through is the amazing Clerks we have in this House. They hold this House’s oldest office, yet we attract men and women who are willing to serve this House. Forty years’ service is almost unknown in today’s career paths. Michael Pownall gave 40 years of service to this House including four years of tremendous service as Clerk of the Parliaments during a historic period. I think that again the Leader of the Opposition got it right. Michael Pownall was a great public servant at a time when the term is going out of fashion. He is much appreciated as a public servant and a great servant of this House. Our thanks to Michael Pownall.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross-Benchers, I support the tributes already paid by the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. One of the first things that one has to acknowledge about Michael Pownall, or MGP, as we like to call him, is that there is almost nothing that he does not know about the House of Lords both legislatively and procedurally. He, like so many of the Clerks, is a walking Companion to the Standing Orders, in fact, so much so that he is almost a standing order himself. His rise from being a serious young man of 23 in 1971, when one of his first appointments was as private secretary to the Leader of the House, to the culmination of any Clerk’s ambition in this House as Clerk of the Parliaments has been inexorable.
We have all become accustomed to seeing a rather worried-looking MGP speeding along the corridors, but he had much to be worried about, as we have already heard. Two major changes occurred under his watch: the removal of the Law Lords to the Supreme Court and the acquisition and refurbishment of the Millbank site. These seemingly smooth operations have entailed many hundreds of ducks paddling furiously underwater, and Michael was, at all times, their overall leader. We can perhaps repay his and others’ work by persuading some of those still entrenched in fusty corners of this Palace to move into the light, airy offices of Millbank. On behalf of the Cross-Benchers, I thank the Clerk of the Parliaments as was, Michael, for all that he has done, and for all that he is. I trust he will keep in touch with us so that we might all get to enjoy seeing him freed from his clerkly burdens.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I rise to associate the Bishops’ Bench with the tributes already paid to the retiring Clerk of the Parliaments. There is, as your Lordships know, a steady stream of new Bishops entering this House, since we rarely stay beyond retirement. Over the past few years, Michael Pownall has been a welcoming face and voice to many Bishops undergoing their induction into your Lordships’ House; many of them, unlike other noble Lords, arriving knowing almost nobody here and almost nothing about the ways of the House. The Church of England, even with its modernising agenda, has its own peculiarities and particularities, as you may have noticed. They are, however, different, from the peculiarities and particularities of this House. The Clerk of the Parliaments has always enabled those on this Bench to find their feet and even, in time, their voice. The Lords spiritual, to whom I have spoken, have paid tribute variously to his knowledge, compassion, even-handedness, approachability, modesty and courtesy. That is an impressive catalogue of attributes.
From this Bench we thank him for his years of service and pray that his retirement be blessed with health and happiness. Like everybody else, I should mention Italy, but also hope that he will be happy and healthy here at home.
Baroness Boothroyd
Excuse me. My Lords, some years ago, as Speaker, I was lucky to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary conference in Trinidad. Our hosts entertained us one evening at a concert, which was in a theatre hastily constructed for our special conference. It was a black, velvet, tropical evening and, on returning to our seats after the interval, and unseen by my colleagues, I fell through very flaky floorboards right up to my armpits, the remainder of me hanging in an abyss. My legs were dangling and I lost my shoes as I tried unsuccessfully to locate some foothold to pull myself out. After a time, I was spotted by my Clerk, Bill McKay, Clerk of the House of Commons, who grabbed his chum who was the Canadian Clerk, and together they came to my rescue. I tell you, it was a frightening experience. I said to Bill McKay, “I’m so grateful to you. What would I have done without you?”. He said, “Madam Speaker, think nothing of it, that’s what Clerks are for, to get Speakers out of holes”.
I doubt that Michael Pownall had cause to pull the Lord Speaker out of a hole—even a procedural one—but I certainly have no doubt that the sage advice given to me by the Clerk prevented me from falling into procedural holes on more than one occasion.
Parliamentary procedure may not be quite the black art it is sometimes made out to be, but the sheer size of Erskine May testifies to its complexity. The Clerk’s function, of course, is to interpret it and to advise on its application to particular circumstances. I think the Clerk could be described as the essential lubricant in the parliamentary process; he keeps the wheels of Parliament running smoothly. It would be a most unusual, not to say unwise, Speaker who did not acknowledge their debt to the Clerk who supports and keeps them on the straight and narrow. But the responsibilities of the Clerk and his staff, as we have heard already this afternoon, go wider than this: they advise Ministers, opposition spokesmen, Cross-Bench Convenors, and individual Members, like many of us here, with equal zeal and with impartiality. Quite simply, we could not manage without them. Clerks are low-profile but high-value members of the parliamentary community. What I found to be the case in the Commons is equally true here.
In recent years, of course, the role of the Clerk of the Parliaments has expanded to encompass a much greater managerial function in the administration of this House, and this has placed increased demands on Michael which he has met with energy and equanimity. Michael Pownall has served your Lordships' House and its Members with skill, devotion and fidelity, which is the characteristic of the Clerks of our Parliament. We are blessed with the best. I think the finest tribute I can pay to Michael is to quote from Chaucer’s description of the Clerk in the prologue to The Canterbury Tales. It certainly applies to Michael Pownall:
“Not one word spoke he more than was his need;
And that was said in fullest reverence
And short and quick and full of high good sense”.
In paying tribute to Michael personally, which I do in full measure, I wish him a long retirement with his family, enjoying good health and happiness in the years to come.
Lord Boston of Faversham
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for intervening prematurely.
As one of your Lordships’ former Chairmen of Committees, I support the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I served first as Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, and I worked with Michael Pownall in that role. He was, of course, in charge of me. I predicted at that time that he would finish up as Clerk of the Parliaments. I said that to myself; I did not say it to anyone else in your Lordships' House, and I certainly did not say it to Michael Pownall. On my first day as Chairman of Committees, the then Clerk of the Parliaments noticed, when I took the chair for the first time, that I was wearing my pass—my badge. I took over the chair when the Lord Chancellor rose—when we had a real Lord Chancellor—and Mr Michael Wheeler-Booth, who is now Sir Michael but was then our Clerk, very discreetly and delicately mentioned to me after we rose that I had been wearing my badge. I think he thought that it was unseemly of me to wear it on the Woolsack. Mr Pownall would not have drawn that to my attention.
I can say only that it has been a very great privilege to serve in your Lordships' House with Michael Pownall as Clerk of the Parliaments. It has given me very great pleasure. I wish him well, as we all do, I wish him a good future and I hope to see him frequently here in your Lordships' House.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful for the fine and well deserved tributes which Michael Pownall has just received. We all know how genuine are the feelings that have been expressed on behalf of us all about Mr Pownall. That makes it particularly unfortunate that Mr Pownall is, I believe, the first Clerk of the Parliaments for centuries—I have been unable to discover how many centuries—to be retiring without a knighthood. I happen to think that that is extremely unjust to him personally, as well as being undeserved and unreasonable. I also happen to think that it is very much not in the interests of Parliament.
As we know, Parliament, the House of Lords as much as the House of Commons, depends absolutely on the high calibre of our Clerks and on being able to attract into the cadre of Clerks young men and women of the greatest ability. They do not get much opportunity for public tribute to be paid to them, but the tradition that whoever rises to the top of this profession receives a knighthood is one way that enables us to make quite clear the esteem in which we hold the profession as a whole. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House to have a word in the right place to see whether this matter can be rectified.
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, only the very best of the best become Clerk of the Parliaments. I am taken back to the time when the late Lord Soames was Leader of the House and was then made the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. As a result, I found myself being made the acting Leader of your Lordships’ House. I was set up in the room that the Leaders use, a very large and frightening place, but I was there and got used to it.
The then Clerk of the Parliaments, the late Sir Peter Henderson, asked whether I would interview a young man who he thought would be good as the private secretary to the Leader and the Chief Whip. I said, “Of course I will”, because I could not really say anything else. “Send the young pup along”. The young pup who came along was, of course, Michael Pownall. After the interview, Sir Peter asked how I got on. I said that Michael Pownall was a charming and delightful person, but that he had not said very much. Sir Peter, in defence of his newfound protégé, rounded on me and said, “Nor would you because that is the most frightening room to be interviewed in”. I knew it was, but on that occasion I was on the other side of the table.
As Michael Pownall’s progression went on, I am glad to think that my modest intervention of a non-offensive nature resulted, some 30 years later, in a Clerk of the Parliaments who has been one of the best, the nicest, the most courteous and dignified Clerks who we have had the good privilege to see. We are all very grateful to him for that.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I saw Michael Pownall on virtually every sitting day when, as Clerk of the Parliaments, he would come to brief me before the House sat for business. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, was quite right to talk about the particular role played by Clerks in relation to Speakers, even in this House. Not only did he pull me out of holes, but perhaps more important, he stopped me falling into them in the first place. He did that, as the Leader of the House has said, with an unfailing courtesy and kindness. I owe him a debt of gratitude.
The phrase I heard him use most frequently was, “Is there anything we can do to help?”. It was always “we” because Michael is a very modest man who never took on himself that he was the person who would solve everything; he saw himself as leading a team. The phrase that came a close second to that was, “I am sorry I am late, Lord Speaker, but I was waylaid on the way to your office”. He was inevitably waylaid on the way to the office because he was incapable of discourtesy to anybody whether it was staff or Member. He took their issues seriously and he did what he could to help. He had time for everybody. I hope that, now, he will have time for himself, for Deborah and for the daughters whom he loves so much.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Clerk Assistant
Baroness Hayman
That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Speaker, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Mr Edward Christopher Ollard to be Clerk Assistant of the House in place of Mr David Richard Beamish appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House informed the House on 17 January, I have appointed Mr Edward Christopher Ollard to be Clerk Assistant in place of Mr David Richard Beamish appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. I therefore beg to move.
RAF Northolt: Commercial Flights
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to increase the capacity for short-haul commercial flights at RAF Northolt.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Colour Sergeant Alan Cameron from the 1st Battalion Scots Guards and Captain Lisa Head from 321 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, 11 EOD Regiment Royal Logistics Corps, who both died as a result of injuries sustained on operations in Afghanistan. My thoughts are also with the wounded and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
We are able to generate income from the existing surplus capacity at RAF Northolt providing that this is consistent with Ministry of Defence business and operational requirements. There are no plans currently to increase the capacity for short-haul commercial flights but, as with all MoD assets, alternative uses and other sources of income generation are kept under review.
Lord Spicer
I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with my noble friend’s remarks about the two heroes and their families. As for his Answer, it was much more favourable and positive than I expected. Pushing my luck a little, perhaps I may ask whether he envisages that there will be, or could be, a lengthening of the runway at Northolt?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but we have no plans to extend the runway. Any proposals for development of RAF Northolt would need to be considered on their individual merits, taking into account defence requirements as well as economic and environmental considerations and the impact on the local community.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I should like to associate these Benches with the Minister’s condolences to the families and friends of Colour Sergeant Alan Cameron and Captain Lisa Head, both of whom died as a result of injuries sustained in Afghanistan. I should also like to associate these Benches with the Minister’s thoughts and tributes regarding the wounded.
The exchange that we have just heard might lead one to the view that Northolt is being seen as, shall we say, a stealth third runway for Heathrow. That would not be an uncontroversial idea. Can the Minister assure me that before any decision is taken to significantly increase commercial traffic there will be a full impact analysis of the effect on surface transport and aircraft noise as well as of any other environmental effects?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the impact on the local population needs to be considered before any changes are made, and I do not underestimate their concern about the adverse impact of any potential increase in the number of civil movements above the 7,000 per year limit. Commitments have been made previously to consult prior to any increase above the current ceiling, and I am happy to repeat the commitment to consult appropriately now.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, first, on behalf of these Benches I join in the tributes to those who have fallen and to the wounded. On the Question, does the Minister agree that where high-speed rail networks have been developed domestically in countries across the globe, domestic air travel has shrunk or even collapsed? Therefore, there has to be another and better route to a future for Northolt. The focus should be on high-speed rail, not expanding domestic aviation.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. A national high-speed rail network would provide an attractive alternative to domestic aviation in both its initial and subsequent phases and would therefore reduce the pressure on Heathrow. Around 7 per cent of Heathrow passengers travel on domestic routes which could be served by high-speed rail, and 8 per cent are short-haul passengers.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I speak as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association. Although the restricted use of Northolt is worthy of consideration, the extended use of Heathrow is vital. Is it not clear that the longer the Government prevaricate over this issue, the more the benefits will accrue to French and German aviation at the expense of their British counterparts?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord as a very distinguished president of BALPA. Heathrow currently operates at around 99 per cent capacity, and we cannot let it grow out of control, but the Government are committed to developing a new policy framework for the whole of UK aviation which supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impact. We want to see a successful and competitive aviation industry that supports economic growth and addresses the environmental impacts. Aviation should be able to grow, but to do so it must play its part in delivering our environmental goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, what is the total number of military and civilian air traffic movements at Northolt in any one year, and are there any air traffic control constraints due to the closeness of Heathrow and the overall impact of its terminal marshalling area—TMA?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question, I do not have those figures with me but will write to him. As for proximity to Heathrow, both military and civil flights are subject to very strict air traffic control procedures.
Lord Desai
My Lords, the noble Lord has talked about an aviation strategy but in an earlier answer he made it clear that high-speed rail also has an important role to play. As there are also objections to high-speed rail on environmental grounds, do the Government have a co-ordinated transport policy which puts aviation together with rail and road transport?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, that would all be covered in the Department for Transport’s new aviation policy framework, which would look right the way across the board.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, since it appears to have fallen to the noble Lord to answer questions on aviation, which I do not think is his normal brief, would he be kind enough to convey to his colleagues in the Department for Transport that, as welcome as the Government’s current position on airport expansion is, for communities where there are airports it is none the less extremely difficult to live with continuing uncertainty? Every time a decision is taken and the question is then raised of whether it might be overturned, it creates a new kind of blight in each of those communities. Perhaps he would convey that to his colleagues.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am answering this Question because RAF Northolt is primarily a defence institution. However, I will of course pass on the noble Baroness’s point to the Department for Transport.
NHS: Chiropody and Podiatry Services
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure the continuing provision of training and practice in chiropody and podiatry services under new commissioning consortia and the National Commissioning Board.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, it is the responsibility of local National Health Service organisations to commission services to meet the needs of their community and the education and training necessary to deliver them, including the provision of chiropody and podiatry services. This will continue in the future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that GP consortia may lack the necessary strategic overview to prioritise longer-term preventive care options and ensure future podiatric care? Can he further clarify whether Health Education England, or some other body, will have full responsibility for seeing that adequate numbers of podiatrists and chiropodists are trained?
Earl Howe
My Lords, let me first make it clear to my noble friend that GP consortia will not be responsible for commissioning training—at a local level that will be the responsibility of the skills networks, made up of healthcare providers. Health Education England will be a new organisation with new executive powers. It will provide national leadership on planning and developing the healthcare workforce and promoting high-quality education and training that is responsive to the changing needs of patients and local communities.
Lord Harrison
Is the noble Earl aware of the recent study by the American Podiatric Medical Association which demonstrates that early recognition of foot ulcers or foot problems in diabetics can prevent hospitalisation, or indeed amputation, if action is taken early and resources are commanded to deal with potential problems?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of that study. If we apply the lessons learnt to the UK, the noble Lord may already know that approximately 100 people have an amputation due to foot ulceration, as a complication of diabetes, every week. The International Diabetes Federation has estimated that 85 per cent of these amputations could be prevented through early intervention by a diabetic foot team that includes a specialist podiatrist. Indeed, the diabetes foot protection team in Southampton, to take one area, reduced in-patient stays from 50 to 18 bed days and saved £1.2 million in the first three years.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that I consider that any feet over the age of six months are utterly revolting? However, I have a serious question: will wounded servicemen, who are unable to reach their own feet due to injury, be given free chiropody?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. She will know that the injuries sustained by our service men and women in the theatres of conflict form a high priority for the National Health Service and the Defence Medical Services. Indeed, chiropody and foot care will play a large part, I am sure, in ensuring the mobility of those wounded personnel. The key will be to ensure that there are sufficient chiropodists and podiatrists to deliver the services required, and that requires a process of local determination and prioritisation to ensure that workforce numbers meet healthcare needs.
Lord Morris of Manchester
My Lords, I have an interest to declare as president of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. Can the Minister give the House the Government’s estimate of the number of NHS patients who have suffered preventable amputations due to lack of state-qualified podiatric care?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is obviously difficult for me to give the noble Lord a precise figure but his central point is absolutely correct. We know that many people suffer needless amputations who, if they had had early intervention, would be spared that appalling outcome. The role of chiropodists and podiatrists, as he will know more than anyone, is in the field of prevention not least for patients with diabetes but also in the care of the elderly to ensure mobility and proper foot care.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, in some parts of the UK it is not possible to train as a podiatric surgeon. Consequently, podiatric surgery is not widely available. Will my noble friend tell the House whether in England the Government are planning to encourage more centres for training appropriately qualified podiatrists, thus remedying the situation?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. She will know that there are universities that specialise in the training of chiropodists and podiatrists, and we place great reliance on them. What will emerge from the new architecture that is foreshadowed by the Health and Social Care Bill is a much greater sense of local prioritisation regarding needs. Flowing from that, with the advice and guidance of Health Education England, which will be the national body supervising workforce requirements, we may well see further centres of excellence in training emerging.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being slightly personal, but I wonder how often he trims his toenails. I expect that he can actually reach his own toenails unlike many elderly people who cannot reach theirs, do not have anyone to do it for them and cannot afford a podiatrist. Would the Minister be happy to have his toenails trimmed once every three months, which seems to be the standard offer by health centres and GPs at the moment? I am sure that he will share my concern that even that service is under threat from the cuts at PCT level. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that podiatry services for the elderly become a priority for the National Commissioning Board?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am fortunate in being able to cut my own toenails. However, the noble Baroness makes a serious point about the elderly. It is often the lack of that simple service that prevents elderly people being as mobile as they wish and sometimes confines them to their own homes. This is a serious issue in terms of the way that we can prevent unplanned hospital admissions due to elderly people falling over. The process that I have referred to whereby we will see joint health and well-being strategies emerging from the health and well-being boards at local level should ensure a sufficient supply of the workforce over a period of time.
Finance: Hostile Takeover Bids
Lord Borrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy towards hostile takeover bids by foreign interests of United Kingdom companies of national or strategic significance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has a tradition of welcoming long-term foreign investment that can bring in new technologies and skills. Ownership of companies is a commercial matter for the companies concerned. Where mergers may affect the public interest, powers exist to protect issues such as our national security.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, so far as it goes, that is a fine Answer and I entirely agree with it. I suggest, however, and I hope that the Minister agrees with me, that some takeovers from abroad may have serious adverse consequences for the consumer interest, for the workforce or for both, and that some takeovers come from countries that do not themselves allow the process of a takeover bid in the reverse direction—in other words, there is no reciprocity. Does the Minister agree that there are provisions in the Enterprise Act 2002 that enable the Government, in the case of concerns of national strategic importance, to intervene? I think that the phrase is that “an intervention notice” may be submitted. If that is not satisfactory, the Act provides for statutory orders to be made to the same effect. Has the Minister considered these matters in relation to a Bill that she knows a great deal about, the Postal Services Bill, under which Royal Mail shares will be made publicly available and might, unless something is done about it, be purchased for a foreign entity?
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord will know that the Postal Services Bill is still in this House. While no decision has been taken on the formal method of sale, we would certainly not rule out the sale of shares in Royal Mail to foreign-based companies. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, knows from his experience as director-general of the Office of Fair Trading that we have methods in place to make sure that any bids we look at will be right and proper for the safe concern of the future. The Government’s objective, as noble Lords know, is to secure the future of the universal postal service and to maximise value for the taxpayer. You can be assured that this Government will do what is best for Britain.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke about reciprocity. Just because the Americans or the French can be protectionist, we should not be protectionist. Does the Minister agree that we are one of the most open economies in the world and should be proud of it? Furthermore, does she agree that protectionism is one of the greatest dangers to our globalised world economy at the moment? On the other hand, will the Minister tell us how we prioritise industries as being of strategic significance or not? A takeover is not just about broken promises, as in the case of Kraft and Cadbury; a hostile takeover disrupts the supply chain and all the other companies involved with the target companies. How do the Government intend to deal with that?
Baroness Wilcox
There were a few questions there. Yes, we should allow for open global trading because it is best for us, best for the world, best for our companies and best for the jobs that we need in this country now. Noble Lords will know that there are consultations going on at the moment over the Takeover Code, corporate Britain and the competition regime. We are reviewing all of them to make sure that we have the best methods in place to take us forward in the coming years.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, bearing in mind the success of acquisitions by UK companies of several overseas companies in several jurisdictions—and following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—in formulating government policy on this issue, will the Government confirm that they will look at the risk of reciprocal actions by other countries were we to restrict takeovers in the UK?
Baroness Wilcox
I thank my noble friend. Yes, the Secretary of State is, as I have said, now looking at the Takeover Code, corporate Britain and how it looks to the long-term focus for this country. I am absolutely sure that he will consider that at all times.
Lord Mandelson
My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that it was I who first tasked the Takeover Panel to look into these matters in the wake of the Cadbury takeover? While it was never my or the Government’s intention to introduce or apply a nationality test in the case of foreign takeovers, I was conscious of the potential sensitivity and possible conflict of interest in the energy sector. What would be the Government’s attitude to a foreign bid for a UK energy utility from outside the European Union?
Baroness Wilcox
There were two questions there. One was about the Cadbury acquisition by Kraft, which raised wider questions, as we know, about short-termism and shareholder engagement. They are being considered as part of the reform of the Takeover Code and the Government’s call for evidence on the long-term focus for corporate Britain. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord on that. As to whether the Government would act to stop the takeover of a British energy company, I am unable to comment on any specific case. However, any proposed merger involving the supply of energy and its infrastructure would be subject to robust scrutiny and considered on its merits.
Lord Elton
The concerns of the four Members of the House on the other side are fairly widely shared. I declare an interest as a former member of the Takeover Panel. What are the arrangements now for keeping the Takeover Code up to date?
Baroness Wilcox
The Takeover Code is, as I have said, being reviewed at the moment. The Government strongly support the proposed changes to it, which will significantly strengthen the UK’s takeover regime.
NHS: Consultation on Reform
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they propose to report the outcome of the consultation on NHS reform to Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we ran a public consultation on NHS reform last year and received some 6,000 responses. As a result, we brought forward important changes to our modernisation proposals. We are now taking advantage of the natural pause in the legislative process to listen and reflect, supported by advice from the new NHS Future Forum. The Government will then respond to the forum’s report and the wider listening exercise, setting out the improvements that we will make to the Bill based on what we have heard.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, did the Minister see the Statement by the Secretary of State that the reason for the pause was because the Bill was allegedly not understood and he had to explain it better? Will he explain to Mr Lansley that it is precisely because the Bill is well understood that there is such widespread opposition, including an unprecedented vote of no confidence by the Royal College of Nursing? Will he give a guarantee that substantial amendments will be brought before Parliament after the current consultation? Otherwise, it will be seen as a complete sham.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think there is widespread agreement that the principles on which the Bill is based, such as devolving control of the NHS to local levels, placing patients at the heart of decisions about their own care and improving public accountability are the right principles for us to be guided by, but that there are also, as the noble Lord said, questions and concerns, some quite deep, about what we are doing and the mechanics of putting the principles into practice. As the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister made clear, this is a genuine chance to make a difference. Where there are good suggestions to improve the legislation, those changes will be made.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to plug the gaps in the membership of the NHS Future Forum? Will the minutes of the forum be made available to the public?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the forum, as I understand it, is now fully composed. The appointments were made over the past 10 days or so. I am not aware of any further appointments. The plan is for the forum to produce a report which will be published at the end of the day. I will, however, write to the noble Baroness as regards the minutes, which are a matter for the chair of the forum, which is independent of the Government, as she will know.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the pause and the mechanics that he has talked about have to be dealt with—there are lots of issues around that—but that the pause or gap is causing great concern to people working in the health service? Pause is an incidental word as regards the feelings of people who are going through this process and are caring for patients but are not sure what method they are supposed to be using. Will the noble Earl please tell us when we will know what is happening and how these people can get on with the job that they want to do?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of that concern. This matter has occupied the minds of Ministers. I say to those who are serving in the NHS day by day and, indeed, to the pathfinder consortia and the early implementer local authorities that they should continue with the work that they are doing because it is from them that we most wish to hear about the practical lessons that our proposals may point to. It is, I am sure, an unsettling time for them but we hope that after this period of reflection we can continue with the passage of the Bill with proper momentum.
Lord Ribeiro
Does the Minister agree with me that the principles referred to earlier underpin the NHS reforms? These principles are supported by the coalition Government and follow on from the same reforms that were introduced by the previous Government. I would like him to acknowledge that these principles should be reaffirmed in any response to the listening exercise.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is quite right: the principles that underpin the Bill and—I emphasise this—the principles that have always underpinned the National Health Service, are not going to change. He is right that the approach that we are adopting is in many senses an evolutionary one, following on from initiatives taken by the previous Government. I am grateful to him for pointing that out and I am sure that this will be a feature of the government response that we shall publish in due course.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that there is some concern about so much of public health going over to local authorities? Will he give an assurance that directors of public health will be well qualified in public health?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about local directors of public health, who most certainly do need the right qualifications for that role. As she will know, they will be jointly appointed by local authorities and by the Secretary of State and we need to ensure that they can perform their role properly. The four main themes to the listening exercise are: choice and competition; public accountability and patient involvement; clinical advice and leadership—that may be an area that impacts on her question; and education and training. In some ways it is difficult to separate those issues; they are all of a piece and we do need to look at them very carefully.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, if the current listening exercise hears the almost universal concerns about the Government’s proposal to introduce a new economic regulator into the heart of the NHS—concerns, I have to say, that were expressed but ignored by the Secretary of State right through the autumn and the spring—will the Government be removing that part of the Health and Social Care Bill?
Earl Howe
My Lords, no, because we are clear that the current system requires independent oversight of competition within the health service. Essentially, we have an unregulated health service at the moment; the Government in which she played a distinguished part as a Minister rolled out the independent sector treatment centre programme but its terms were, in the judgment of many, not fair. We need independent scrutiny and determination of pricing in the health service to ensure that there is a fairer playing field for all those providers of NHS services.
European Union Bill
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 16B. These are amendments to Clause 3 and their purpose is to allow Ministers pragmatic flexibility to act in the national interest in cases of urgency. The arguments I will make are very similar to those I will make for Amendments 17, 18 and 19, and I intend to move those formally when the time comes. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 are about extending the significance test that the Bill gives Ministers to a wider range of issues than currently listed in Clause 4(1).
It is important when debating these amendments to emphasise that we are not talking about treaties that are subject to the full ratification process. We have different views about whether those should be subject to referenda, but that is not the topic of the amendments. They are about the use of referenda in cases where, under Article 48(6) of the treaty, the simplified revision procedure is used. This procedure can be used only when it does not extend the European Union’s competencies. Its purpose is to give member states flexibility to meet new situations that the treaty drafters had not anticipated when they wrote the treaty. Any changes agreed under these provisions would of course be subject to full parliamentary ratification. On this side of the House, we are not disputing that requirement.
On the first day in Committee, we considered amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Dykes, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Richard, who argued that in such cases only parliamentary ratification should be necessary and that that should be the end of the matter. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, argued, on behalf of the Government, that this was simply not good enough to restore public trust in the European Union. However, I regret to say that, from our perspective, he was unable to give a satisfactory answer as to why this was not good enough, and he was unable to cite examples of where, in these special circumstances, referenda would be required in other member states. This set of amendments enables us to come back to the same issues of giving Ministers more flexibility of action in another way.
Clause 3(4) introduces the concept of significance into whether a referendum is required. We think that that is quite a sensible approach. The Minister should have the flexibility to decide what is significant and insignificant, and put that to Parliament. Unfortunately, the Bill restricts this ministerial discretion very narrowly indeed. The Minister can apply this test of significance only under Clause 4(1)(i) and (j). The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave us an example of what that test might be—for instance, if the Government decide that the new reporting requirements they have to make to Eurostat, in order to comply with the new economic governance arrangements, are not a change of sufficient significance to require a referendum. I think we would all agree with that.
However, we are seeking, first in this set of amendments, a provision that no referendum should be required in urgent cases; and, in Amendments 17 to 19, that the significance test should apply to all those matters listed in Clause 4(1). Why does this make sense? It is for the obvious reason that what is being talked about is a requirement to put fairly minor changes through a double ratification process. The Lisbon treaty went through a thorough ratification process in this House and the other place, but this Bill states that, to use its provisions, we have to go through yet another ratification process—this time involving a referendum. This double ratification does not seem to make any sense, particularly when it is not on issues of major significance.
That is not to deny that on this side of the Chamber we of course accept that the European Union has a significant legitimacy problem, and I think we are all alarmed by the rise of populist parties in various member states. However, our analysis is that the root of the problem is not so much an accretion of power to Brussels as a failure of political leadership in Europe to use the powers that Europe has to address the economic problems, social malaise and environmental and political challenges facing the Union. I think that this affects Britain as much as any other member state. We all recognise—at least I hope that we do—that in this world of interdependence there are a lot of these challenges and they can be met only by our acting together.
No one on this side of the Chamber is arguing for a transfer of powers to Brussels simply for its own sake. However, the huge problem with the Bill is that it is designed not, as its promoters claim, to build support for Europe in Britain but rather to appease those who do not really want us to be members of the European Union at all. By introducing this new constitutional concept of perpetual referenda, the Bill rules out the pragmatic flexibility that we need within the European Union to pursue our national interests. It is ironic that as, next week, we approach the first nationwide referendum in 36 years in this country, we should be debating in this Bill the possibility of 56 different issues which could be subject to a referendum. That does not seem to make sense; it is a denial of the pragmatism for which the British are famed. I think that this is a very un-British piece of legislation, and it is very limiting. Who can tell what urgent situations might arise or what minor changes might be necessary to make the EU effective?
I dearly hope that later, either in Committee or on Report, we will be able to argue and persuade this House to accept amendments that will sunset the Bill and mean that it does not apply beyond the present Parliament. However, if that attempt fails, we need to find pragmatic solutions within the context of the Bill that will enable the UK to continue to play a leading role in the European Union. We have to strike a better balance than the Bill does at present between what we need to do in our national interest and what needs popular assent. Therefore, with these amendments we are arguing for an exemption from the referendum requirement in cases of genuine urgency and where the test of significance can be applied more widely.
The Government say that they are trying to institute a referendum lock on major decisions. I think that what we have here is referendum paralysis on lots of minor decisions. I believe that the amendments would help to make a bad Bill marginally less bad and increase Britain’s ability to negotiate from a position of strength in Europe.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I report that my understanding is that, after the debate on this group of amendments, we will take the Statement on the Middle East and north Africa.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, I was wondering when the Statement would be made, hence my hesitation. I hope that I will be forgiven for making a few general remarks on this my first speech in Committee. It is very important that people should be clear about the context in which almost all the amendments are brought forward. We know perfectly well the origins of the Bill, which of course lie in the coalition agreement, but it is important to be clear where the opponents come from. The supporters of these amendments, and many others, seem to say that as there is no issue of lack of trust, there is no harm in blunting the instrument devised by the Government to restore trust. That is what it is all about. It is, therefore, a very good idea to allow a Minister to try to avoid a referendum in as many cases as possible by saying that the matters are “not significant”. They, like almost all opponents of the Bill, seem to think that any dislike of the EU is due not to any failings at all on the part of the EU, but because, as my noble friend Lord Deben said, a week or two ago,
“a large number of people spend a great deal of time misleading as many people as possible”—[Official Report, 5/4/11; col. 1637.]
You cannot talk more nonsense than that.
Surely it would be very surprising if some people were not annoyed at some of the facts, not the myths about the EU, and the truths, not the falsehoods. It would be surprising if there was not in some quarters a feeling of disillusionment and dismay. It would be odd if there was dancing in the streets to celebrate the EU budget and if people were congratulating the EU on improving the lifestyle of Hungarian dogs and securing first-class travel for MEPs. It is nonsense to say that there is no dissatisfaction; there clearly is. I note that my noble friend Lord Wallace said that when he went to Yorkshire recently he got an earful. When people hear of some of the goings-on in Brussels they get pretty cross. They are cross, for instance, about the enormous salary paid to the new President of the European Council, which is more than the salary paid to the President of the United States, and wonder what on earth that is all about.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Has the noble Lord noticed that in the past year there has been some dissent and public concern about salaries and expenses in Westminster, both in the other place and here? That does not mean to say that Westminster does not have an important function to perform, just as the European Union does.
Lord Waddington
The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to pick on what I said about salaries but, of course, it goes very much further than that. I could quote umpteen examples of things that have caused enormous annoyance. There is also enormous annoyance at the salary paid to the new EU Foreign Minister, and goodness knows how much will be paid for the European External Action Service. It is worth remembering at this stage where we are. Mr Blair was not going to have an EU Foreign Minister at any cost and was totally opposed to an external action service, but of course at the end he gave way, rolled over and agreed to it.
Of course, both posts were created by the constitution/Lisbon. I venture to suggest that if the people had had a say, not about the constitution or Lisbon but in the matter of either of those posts, they would have said, “Certainly not. Why should we pay for pointless EU aggrandisement?”. There have been some terrible betrayals by the Government of this country. Take, for instance, the surrender by Mr Blair of a large part of our hard-won rebate. It was supposed to be for reform of the agricultural policy, but no reform has taken place. There were all the carryings-on over the constitution/Lisbon. Some insist that there was enough difference between the two to justify Mr Blair ditching his promise of a referendum, but surely there is one thing on which we can all agree. With all the parties promising a referendum in 2005, and with the main changes proposed in the constitution reappearing in Lisbon, it was not at all strange that a lot of people felt that they were entitled to have a say in what was afoot, but they were told to mind their own business. They did: they went off in large numbers to vote for UKIP.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I did not want interrupt the excellent speech of my noble friend, if I may refer to him as that, except to ask him about the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, sitting beside me. Surely the difference is that the British people can do something about what happens in Westminster. They can elect and dismiss the people who make their laws, who defraud their expenses and all the rest of it. In what goes on in Brussels, the British people and the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament are completely powerless. That is the difference. I apologise again for interrupting the noble Lord’s very important speech.
Lord Waddington
Undoubtedly, history has shown that it is extremely difficult to give the people the role to which they feel that they are entitled through our parliamentary structure. That is an additional argument that, in certain circumstances, there ought to be referendums.
I mentioned our Government having let the people down, but I must also point out that sometimes the EU itself has not enhanced its reputation for fair dealing. The reintroduction of the working time directive as a health and safety measure to destroy Britain's opt-out from the social chapter was, some might say, barefaced cheating. It was certainly most extraordinary behaviour. The misuse of Article 308 was a disgrace. Is not what happened with Article 308 a complete answer to the argument, which has been advanced time and time again on the other side of the House, that there is no need for referendums in Article 48(6) cases because it is not supposed to be used to increase a competence conferred by the treaty? What on earth is to stop the Commission and the Council of Ministers determining that something does not increase competence when it clearly does? That is precisely what the Commission and the Council did with Article 308, which was supposed to be used to further the common market but was used for all sorts of extraordinary things, such as giving aid to Mongolia.
Some noble Lords say that they are against referendums as a matter of principle because they are an affront to parliamentary democracy. I see their point.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Lord was waxing eloquent on Article 308. Can he confirm that the Government of which he was a member voted—as was required, because it required unanimity—for any number of measures under Article 308?
Lord Waddington
The noble Lord is entirely right, which proves the point that there ought to be referendums in such circumstances to stop Governments behaving in that way.
As I said, some noble Lords say that they are against referendums as a matter of principle, but it is a pathetic argument in the context of the EU. We elect MPs to use the powers that they have inherited. We certainly do not elect them to give those powers away. I find it interesting that all those who go on about being against referendums as a matter of principle turn out to be Europhiles who, at the time of Lisbon, knew that a referendum would result in an emphatic no and would mean a pause in the constant leaching of power from Westminster to Brussels.
Some say that the Bill will make it very difficult for Governments. They may favour a proposal but stop short of embracing it because that would mean a referendum they might lose. That gives me no sleepless nights. It does not frighten me one little bit. The whole trouble is that while most Europhiles protest that they do not want us to lose our independence as a nation, every step we take involving a sacrifice of sovereignty brings us closer to that end. So reluctance by Ministers to sign away any more of our powers would be a very welcome development.
The wording of the first group of amendments supports my assertion that those attacking the Bill do not accept that there is any real problem to be addressed. If in the circumstances listed in Clause 4(1), and not just in the circumstances listed in paragraphs (i) and (j) in this group of amendments, a Minister could argue that the effect of a particular decision on the UK would be insignificant, and you would be giving the Minister far too much wriggle room and far too great an opportunity to avoid a referendum. There could be repeats of what happened over Lisbon rather than the rebuilding of trust that is the object of this exercise.
I cannot for one moment support these amendments, and I fear that almost every amendment on the Marshalled List at present is designed to blunt the instrument that has quite rightly been put before Parliament by this Government.
Baroness Rawlings
I am reluctant to intervene at this stage, but I remind noble Lords that the Companion advises that in Committee noble Lords should not make Second Reading speeches but should keep briefly to the amendment concerned.
Lord Risby
Listening to the proceedings on the Bill, I was struck by the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who reminded us of the important reasons why we should have a positive relationship with the European Union. I also agree with comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that had we been involved at an earlier stage, many of the difficulties that have subsequently arisen could have been dealt with more satisfactorily. As we reflect on the situation today, there has been a breakdown of trust right across the European Union. It is not something that is confined to the United Kingdom, but is found in many parts of the rest of the European Union.
What has happened in this country is that scepticism has grown because of a sense of disconnection between successive Governments and the people. This Bill is designed to define very clearly exactly what the important considerations are for the calling of a referendum to assure people that it is necessary to try to bridge the gap between the attitudes of the people and the sense of failure in our relationship with the European Union. I disagree that having a referendum would not achieve this.
Specifically on the issue of national interest and the question of urgency, as my noble friend said, this gives room for Ministers to make judgments. We have been through this time and time again. We need to be specific in drawing up legislation to give back to people the sense of confidence that they now lack. That is why extending the definition of national interest or urgency in this way would not be satisfactory. After all, something that is urgent could well require some important constitutional consideration. In that sense, I believe that we need to look at these two amendments.
Finally, I return to the point that it is perfectly legitimate for people not to accept the value of referendums, but they are now part of the political culture of this country and of many other countries in the European Union that face this problem. It is hugely important that we narrowly define what is in the Bill to maximise the credibility of this legislation. The amendment does not do that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I speak in support of this amendment, though I support more drastic surgery in terms of reducing the number of areas in which a referendum would be required. This amendment, however, goes in the right direction. In supporting it, I make two points, which arise from what the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Waddington, said.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made an extremely important point, which has been overlooked so far, but which is integral to my own approach and some of the amendments I have put down for later debate. It is not suggested that we should go back to the status quo ante, to the situation prevailing under this House and the other place’s ratification of Lisbon, a situation where these decisions should be endorsable purely by a resolution of both Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said in his introduction that his amendments accepted that it would go back to primary legislation. The position of Parliament in approving these matters would be strengthened over the present situation. That is, frankly, a very important point. I hope that the Government will take due account of that. There is an acceptance among a number of us—and that is true of amendments of a more drastic kind that I have tabled and which we will debate later—that we should not just be going back to the Lisbon provisions, but should be going back to Lisbon plus.
The second point relates to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. As one of those who are moving amendments, I do not contest the analysis that the Government have made, namely that support for the European Union in this country has been losing ground and that there is often dissatisfaction with measures taken in Brussels. It would be quite stupid to deny that. What I, and probably some others who are moving amendments, contest is whether a whole list of referendums on matters of highly technical, and some might say trivial, interest would actually help to deal with that situation. My own view—and I would be interested to hear anybody contesting this—is that it would actually make it worse. If we went around the country trying to persuade our compatriots why they should vote in a referendum on whether or not additional advocates-general should be created by qualified majority voting, or whatever, they would think we were certifiable. Certifiable or not, the reason I am supporting these amendments, and moving my own amendments, is not because I dispute the analysis, but because I dispute the prescription.
Lord Flight
My Lords, it is a sad fact that this legislation is needed because successive Governments have let down the people of this country in failing to protect our national interests—particularly the last Government.
A sensible balance has been achieved in this Bill. There are as many items that do not require referenda as those that do require referenda. A reasonable, practical and sensible balance has been achieved. This amendment is about waiving the referendum in cases of urgency and national interest. I am not quite sure what that means, but it occurs to me that we are right now living at a time when several European countries are in dire financial straits, largely as a result of being uncompetitive, having adopted the common currency. I can just see a financial crisis coming up in due course in Europe and the classic argument being put that, in the interests of urgency and in protecting us from some of the contagion, there is an urgent need for the introduction of far greater collective decisions on matters fiscal and economic. This would be the ultimate objective of achieving a European state with fiscal and economic powers. Should this, as has been suggested, slip by under one of the three different new powers that we have for introducing measures without referenda if it qualifies as being in the national interest out of urgency? No, the Bill has struck a sensible balance, as I have said, and putting up a whole list of new potential excuses that should remove the need for referenda is merely ducking the issue and trying to weaken the impact of the Bill.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, I was not going to speak to this group of amendments, but I have been provoked by the previous speaker. He seems to suggest that we are implying in these amendments that there will be circumstances in which we seek to hide behind amendments such as these in order to deal with circumstances of economic and monetary convergence. We should, however, look at the current reality.
I have just come back from spending two and a half weeks with some of our continental friends in the European Union. Even though I am a teetotaller, I spent a number of hours in a number of quite agreeable bars speaking to expatriate Brits there, among others. They are not complaining about the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro; they are complaining about the exact opposite. They are complaining about how weak the pound sterling is and how few euros it buys them in what they had anticipated would be golden years spent in the sunshine. I recall, when I first became involved in buying a property in Spain some five years ago, buying euros at the rate of 65p to the euro. Now I have managed to sell my house in Spain, I was able to repatriate money at the rate of 89p to the euro. That shows that the euro has improved by 38 per cent vis-à-vis sterling. There is a serious point to this, because when we talk about the rising costs of our membership of the European Union, they are the rising costs of a budget that is denominated in euros.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
Does the noble Lord agree that, in view of what he said, it is somewhat surprising that the German economy is booming at the moment because of the weakness of the euro?
Lord Tomlinson
The euro might be weak in relation to some other countries, but it is certainly not weak in relation to the pound sterling. The pound sterling is doing abysmally in relation to the euro, and partly in consequence of that so is our budgetary contribution to the European Union, about which there are permanent complaints from Members opposite. Complaints are being made very merrily at the moment about what will happen if Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne fail to control the Commission with regard to the budget for next year, for which the aspirations are for an increase of 4.9 per cent. The 4.9 per cent is largely the product of the relationship of the pound sterling to the euro. We, and not just the countries in euroland, have a responsibility in that regard.
I think that your Lordships are becoming engaged in a rather tortuous argument. That started off with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who I think should be a worried man when he gets praise for what was the alleged excellence of his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. In his speech, he flipped over quite a number—
Lord Waddington
I was grateful for the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, because it enabled people to recognise the truth that there is he on the Eurosceptic wing, there on the other wing are the Europhiles, and here is the moderate centre.
Lord Tomlinson
If that is the moderate centre, I wonder why I gave way so easily to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he seemed somewhat reluctant to do so himself when he was on his feet. The intervention was not really worth the anticipated value.
Many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, during his speech were rather inaccurate, so just for the sake of making the record clear—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, on making the record clear, is the noble Lord referring to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, or to me?
Lord Tomlinson
Has the noble Lord finished? When the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was speaking, I think I quote him accurately when he talked about Labour’s broken promise in relation to a referendum. That is not—
Lord Waddington
My Lords, I think I can say that there was a time when that might have been my view, but it is not what I said today. Even if you accept that the difference between the two arguments was enough to allow Tony Blair to say that there was no need to have a referendum, there were so many similarities that it was hardly surprising that many people in the country felt that they ought to have a shout, and that has added to the disillusionment. I was trying to avoid the argument which the noble Lord is now raising.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, now that we have had five or six sentences of clarification when I have managed to get only half a sentence out, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will now understand that I will not give way to him until I have finished my point.
The noble Lord made it clear that he thought the broken promise of the last Labour Government, the alleged broken promise, was a matter of fact. He knows perfectly well that he does not have to take just the clear points of argument which were the prevailing view in this House during the ratification of the Lisbon treaty; he can take points of view from places like the Dutch constitutional court. Having looked at the matter carefully, in its judgment the court made it clear that the issue on which there had originally been discussion of a referendum, not only in this country but in countries like Holland as well, was about a referendum on a constitutional treaty. By the time Ministers had finished at the Council of Ministers, there was no constitutional treaty and a referendum was no longer necessary because what we got was a change in the existing treaty base. It was the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty of Nice being changed in a similar way to that in which all previous treaties have been changed, so it would not be a constitutional treaty. So the point was never quite necessary.
My final point is that, again, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has attributed views to the former Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Tony Blair. When he checks his record about that which Mr Blair was alleged to have decided, he will see that it was not in fact true. It would be a hard task to show clearly where Mr Blair ever said that he was opposed to the role that was fulfilled by Javier Solana and subsequently is now being fulfilled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and to welcome both him and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, back to the debate. However, I intend to follow neither of their arguments and to set a dangerous and reprehensible precedent by speaking to Clause 3. I wish to speak in support of Amendments 16A and 16B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It might be convenient if I were also to explain why I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 3.
I started our discussion in Committee by asking why we needed Clause 3.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are we not still on Amendments 16A and 16B? We have not come to the Question whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am open to correction. I thought that it might be convenient if I made now the points which I have on Clause 3. Most of them are in relation to Amendments 16A and 16B, but they are also on the general question of Clause 3. I will do as the Committee wishes.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I asked at the start of Committee why we needed Clause 3. Clause 3 refers to the simplified or accelerated method used in Brussels for producing a treaty amendment. Clause 2 refers to the product of the normal method used in Brussels. The product, by the time it reaches us, is exactly the same: it is a treaty amendment. How it began, who proposed it and which process was followed in Brussels are irrelevant to the ratification requirements here. We should decide the ratification requirements and any necessary referendum requirements on the basis of the weight of the amendment, not of the means by which the amendment was agreed in Brussels. I therefore asked why we needed Clause 3 as well as Clause 2. I have read very carefully the Minister’s answer at the end of the debate. He did not answer the question. He cleverly lured me into a semantic debate about competencies and powers, which we played into the sand, but we did not hear the answer as to why we needed Clause 3.
There is a difference between Clause 3 and Clause 2. If you eliminated Clause 3, you would eliminate something that is not in Clause 2. That is the final section of Clause 3, which contains the significance test. It is to that section that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is now proposing an amendment.
There is no significance test in Clause 2, which is the first of the two clauses setting out what we do when a treaty is amended. Does that mean that the Government believe that any treaty amendment made by the traditional method, however insignificant, must require a mandatory referendum? That seems to be the implication of having the test only in Clause 3 and not in Clause 2. I would be inclined to argue that we should eliminate Clause 3 now but transfer subsection (4) to Clause 2, so that the significance test, whatever its form—the form in the Bill, the form as revised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, or the form as revised by others—applies to any treaty amendment. That seems to be logical.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, used two arguments which perhaps play on the question. One was implicitly that Article 48(6), the accelerated method, would be used for the trivial, whereas the full-dress method, Article 48(2) to (5)—Clause 2 of this Bill—would be used for the heavy stuff. That may be so, but it does not seem very plausible to me. The noble Lord argued that we need not worry about having a series of referenda on the trivial because amendments would be bundled. He said that, from his long experience of Brussels, he knew that that was the way it worked. That is completely correct. In the past, treaty amendments have been brought together in a bumper-package intergovernmental conference, resulting in a new treaty or a massive treaty amendment.
In my view that will not be the case in future. A lesson has been learnt that it is not right to lump a whole series of questions together. The answer in the French referendum and the Dutch referendum came about partly because a whole lot of measures—not all of them necessarily very large—were put together and people were asked whether they would buy the package. If there is anything in such a package that you do not particularly like, the reasonable answer is to say no. The European Union has learnt from that and the Article 48(6) method—the Clause 3 material—will not be trivial relative to the Clause 2—or Article 48(2) to (5)—material.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Is there not a logical problem in saying that because a number of insignificant matters are lumped together, they will by definition become significant? If they were to be lumped together as the noble Lord is saying, surely it would be very difficult for someone who accepts one matter but not others to vote in a particular way. But surely a bundle of insignificant matters does not by itself therefore become insignificant; it becomes significant.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That seems likely to be the case. I agree with the noble Lord.
The second argument that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, used was about time. Here I have to say that I warmly welcome the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, which brings in the concept of urgency. It seems to me that the situation in which Article 48(6) is likely to be used will be the urgent situation. That is what was in the minds of those who invented the Article 48(6) procedure. The heavy procedure under Article 48(2) to (5)—Clause 2 of our Bill—contains provisions for a convention of representatives of national parliaments and the European Parliament meeting with representatives of the member states. It also contains provisions for doing away with that and concludes with a two-year period for national ratification. These timetable elements, and the reference to the convention, drop out in the accelerated method. The idea of a two-year delay has gone in Article 48(6), just as the convention has gone. People had in mind that there could be crisis situations in which the European Union would need to revise its texts quickly—hence Article 48(6). That makes it a little paradoxical that we are insisting on adding a referendum requirement.
More than that, we are—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out at the start of our first day—doing something that we have never done in this country before: we are providing for an Act of Parliament to be overruled by a referendum. That is literally unprecedented, and we would be doing it in relation to matters, if they were under Article 48(6), where we had voted in the Council for an urgent change, since nothing can be done other than by unanimity in the Council. Everybody has voted for it; it is sufficiently urgent to justify the accelerated procedure; it goes through the House of Commons and through the House of Lords; but under this Bill it then requires a referendum which could overrule an Act of this Parliament. That is why I think that there is something really dangerous in the Bill, not just in terms of our position in the European Union but in terms of our basic constitutional position in this country. I really do worry about it.
I come back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It must be right to introduce the concept of urgency and to make the tests not cumulative. It seems to me that Amendments 16A and 16B deserve our support. However, even if they were included in the Bill, I would still argue that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill, because in logic you do not need different procedures depending on how it started over there. The procedures you follow should be decided by the significance of the measure itself.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I sense that it is the feeling of the Committee that the Question on Clause 3 stand part should be debated with this grouping of Amendments 16A and 16B, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I therefore invite the Committee to proceed on that basis.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I think that the Committee generally will very much welcome the Government’s suggestion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, on the point that the noble Baroness raised, I do not think that I heard a loud voice saying that we should not debate Clause 3 stand part. So if anybody wishes to debate Clause 3 stand part, when the Question is put to the Committee, any Member can get up and speak to it. Is that not right?
Lord Dykes
The Committee can now benefit from the correction provided by the Independent Labour Member on the Cross Benches. It enables us to make progress because, in a way, the linkage between Clauses 3 and 4 is dangerous, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the more we think about it the more dangerous it becomes. It is quite astonishing to reflect on the fact that Clause 4—even if it was included and referred to the Article 48(6) differences—would have been better as a brief clause of perhaps five lines at the most, without the long and lethal list of possibilities for passerelles and other areas of quite routine procedure within the European institutions which have to be automatically referendable in this system.
We forgive the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the length of his speech on 5 April, because on that occasion he said some very pertinent and welcome things that will help us to improve this Bill if the Government accept that improvements are necessary, as I hope they will. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for quoting his own material, but towards the end of the last but one paragraph in col. 1634, he put a question on which there has, as I understand it, been total silence despite a two and a half week Recess and time for the Government to give at least a provisional indication. I am ready to be corrected if it is not true that no answer has been given. Briefly, in that last but one paragraph, the noble Lord said:
“Therefore, it seems to me that the references to Article 48(6) and simplified revision procedure in the Bill are otiose. The only other explanation for them could be that the Government envisage referenda on EU issues where no transfer of powers or sovereignty is envisaged”.—[Official Report, 5/4/11; col. 1634.]
If that is so, are they doing it because of a small number of active anti-Europeans in this country who hate the European Union? There is no indication that the public in general are very excited except by the concept of the remoteness of Brussels. That is certainly an issue, but it is an issue that the European Union is trying to address through various measures such as the Lisbon treaty and other means which are gaining ground.
The number of visitors to the European Parliament is massive compared with the numbers visiting even those national parliaments, such as this one and the German Bundestag, which get the most visitors. The number of people visiting the European Parliament has increased massively over the past 10 years, and especially over the past 20 years, and the vast majority of responses from those visiting the European Parliament —from people of all political persuasions and orientations and from people of none, who visit for all sorts of reasons—show that people are gaining a greater understanding of how the institutions of the Union work in a complicated matrix. There are now 27 member states of the Union, as opposed to six when it first started, and complicated machinery is inevitably needed to deal with all the possibilities and ramifications.
It seems to me to be a pity that the Government are persisting obstinately in not entertaining the idea of any substantial or far-reaching amendments, particularly to Clause 4 and the end of Clause 3. I share what I perceive to be the general approbation for the amendments, including the two new additions at the beginning of this cluster proposed by the Labour Front Bench today. We need to spend some time on this, aware as I am that there is a Statement coming along about a very important subject—Libya and the Middle East.
There are three conditions: the referendum condition, the exemption condition and the significance condition. The end of Clause 3 deals really with the significance condition but partly with the exemption one and Clause 4 gives an exhaustive and dangerous list of referendable items. By reversing the whole process and putting back into the list deliberately virtually all the Clause 4 list the Labour Front Bench and others who are in favour of these amendments, and Amendment 28 as well, can show the full absurdity by widening out fully ministerial discretion on everything so eventually nothing in Clause 4 would need to be subject to referendum apart from the very significant matters mentioned in one or two of those paragraphs—not very many of them, I hasten to add.
The clause does direct damage to the existing competences under the treaties and prevents any member state even responding within the powers already granted by treaty. That is the most extraordinary thing, hence the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and of my noble friend in front of me who expressed fears about an Act of Parliament then being overturned by a referendum. My noble friend Lord Goodhart emphasised that in the first Committee sitting, and I hope that he will have a chance to emphasise it again as this one proceeds.
Such treaty competences or powers surely have the reverse effect of what the Tory antis, UKIP and the Independent Labour Cross-Bencher say. In my estimation they enhance the intrinsic sovereignty of both an individual member country and the union. These provisions emasculate this country in these crucial areas but not the other member states. A British Government would have an automatic and hugely burdensome disadvantage built in. A huge ball and chain would be attached to the Minister’s leg every time he or she appeared in the Council chamber, whatever ministerial Council it might be—not just the European Council and the Council of Ministers. It would be the beginning of us being marginalised in the European Union, with the other member states saying, “The United Kingdom already has more grumbling and whining about Europe, more derogations, offsets, excuses, opt-outs, exemptions than any other member state and now it is inflicting this absurd and, indeed, crazy Bill on the body politic of its own country and inflicting it on the Council of Ministers as well”.
The Government are therefore, I suggest, effectively abrogating existing treaty duties even by interposing a new interruption or cancellation procedure which directly damages the capacity of a sovereign member Government to deal with routine treaty additions or changes. Many items in the Clause 4 long list are capable of further rational development in coming years. If we exclude defence, which some people would want to do, and particularly because of the recent bilateral deal with France, then the loss of sovereignty of us doing a bilateral deal with France is axiomatic. It is bound to be, yet there is no objection from the anti-Europeans on that matter. There is no objection from them to us losing our sovereignty seemingly by being ordered by an American general to carry out bombing raids in Libya or a NATO senior commander giving us orders. Why is just the European Union singled out for these absurd and self-imagined fantasies about the loss of sovereignty? What does sovereignty mean in the interdependent modern European Union and the world community at large?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
To assert that those of us who are a bit sceptical about the European Union are quite happy to accept defence arrangements with France and are prepared to take orders from the United States is simply not true. I do not want to take orders from the United States. We take far too many orders from the United States but certainly not with my consent as a European sceptic. There are and would be dangers of having too close an association with the French in matters of defence. What I want and what most Eurosceptics want is for this country to be free to make its own decisions.
Lord Dykes
I thank the noble Lord for intervening. I took a chance on including Independent Labour in these grumblings of mine and I should not have done so; he has a noble tradition of wanting us to be a solitary country on our own, making our own “sovereignty” decisions. That is a perfectly respectable view and I respect it. If people want to hark back to the past, however many hundred years ago it might be—maybe even only 50 or 100 years—they are entitled to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I would not want the noble Lord to misrepresent me. I do not believe that this country should be on its own. I want it to be worldly and to make bilateral agreements; indeed, I want it to exploit the great Commonwealth of nations that we have built up over so many years.
Lord Dykes
That is an improvement, then. The noble Lord is now saying that this country should sign lots of treaties with other countries for all sorts of arrangements. Why can they not include the most sensible treaties of all—the treaties of European union and the two treaties listed in the Bill, which enable us to increase our own intrinsic sovereignty rather than reduce it?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Because those other organisations do not make our law without the consent of this Parliament or our people. That is the difference.
Lord Dykes
We do not want to get into a permanent Second Reading debate; I am sure that that would be very irritating for those gathered in the Chamber today. The sovereign Government of this country are asked to go to Brussels, within the international organisation, following the result of the latest general election, whenever that might be, and represent the people. That is the power that the people give to the Government and the Parliament. There is no loss of sovereignty in that process at all. We actually gain in sovereignty.
Lord Dykes
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me; he has not been here since the beginning of the debate.
I shall quote from the Lisbon treaty itself. One of the most important clauses of all shows the intrinsic respect for national sovereignty that comes into the treaty as well as the collective obligations and duties that any treaty applies to its members. That is the case in the European Union. It is nothing to be afraid of. One of the most important preambular clauses states:
“Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties”.
The tasks that flow from the treaties include the long list in Clause 4, the Article 48(6) items and others as well. There is nothing to fear from any of the minor extensions that come from there, and any of the significant ones can be referendable if the Government do not say what any Government of this country always say that they will do, which is to veto an unacceptable proposal in the Council of Ministers, meaning that a treaty obligation therefore lapses and is not carried.
The Lords Constitution Committee said on 17 March that most referendum-lock items would never be covered because of policy decisions. That would make some sense, but can we really rely on the Government being able to stand up to their very vocal lobby of Eurosceptics and chauvinistic characters, particularly in the House of Commons, who have got worse and worse, as we have seen in debates in the Commons on this Bill? If they wanted to maintain sanity in a difficult world, Ministers could therefore issue a non-significant decision every few weeks or months. Would that make sense? Indeed, the unique national British referendum requirement could actually be at odds with international law—but I suppose that we would not mind that too much, least of all the antis.
There is a great deal of doublethink and confused thinking here among senior members of the Government, including, I am sad to say, the junior partner—I never thought that I would say that in this House but that is the reality that we have to face—but it is time for the Government to consider these amendments seriously and accept them today.
Lord Richard
My Lords, we have had a brisk debate so far, to put it mildly. I want to try to meet an argument that has been put today by two noble Lords opposite about the question of balance. It says that the Bill basically provides a sensible balance between the position that the European Union is not the most popular institution with the great British electorate and what should be done about it. The question of balance is being raised.
Let us just analyse this for two seconds. It applies to Clauses 3 and 4, to Clause 6 and to the schedule. The basis for the so-called balance is that if certain issues arise, the great British public will be reassured because there will have to be a referendum. That is the whole basis of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 set out which treaty amendments will require a referendum. I see that under Clause 4(1)(a) to (m) a referendum will be required. Quite how would you frame a question for a referendum on, for example under paragraph (d),
“the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States”.?
Will you ask, “Are you in favour of this new competence shared with the member states, which the Government have already approved and put to Parliament”? Does that make sense? Is that balanced? Of course not; it is a gross distortion of the whole process.
That is Clause 4—the height of the Bill. Go to Clause 6, which is unbelievable as far as balance is concerned. The Bill gets worse as it goes on but I will just deal with Clause 6, which says:
“The decisions to which subsection (1) applies are … a decision under the provision of Article 31(3) … that permits the adoption of qualified majority voting”.
Look at paragraph (c), which refers to,
“a decision under Article 86(1) … involving participation by the United Kingdom in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office”.
That will demand a referendum. What will we ask? Will we say to the British people, “Are you in favour of the United Kingdom’s participation in a European public prosecutor’s office”? Will it be feasible to have a referendum campaign on that? Will people be lined up on each side of that argument, saying “Yes, I am in favour of a public prosecutor’s office” or “No, I am not in favour of a public prosecutor’s office”? Look at the next one.
Lord Richard
No, not yet. The next paragraph refers to,
“where the United Kingdom has become a participant in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a decision under Article 86(4) … to extend the powers of that Office”.
What will you ask in relation to that? Will you say, “We have already decided that we will be a member of the public prosecutor’s office. Are you, the great British public, now in favour of an extension of those powers”? It is fatuous. How could you possibly campaign on that, and how could you possibly respect any result that you got?
Lord Goodhart
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points. I should make it clear that I have tabled amendments, which will be dealt with later when we get to Clause 6, that deal specifically—and very much in line with what the noble Lord has said—with these subjects and other rather similar ones.
Lord Richard
I am glad to have such approval of what I am saying in advance. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord appears to want to do.
Go on and read the thing. See what it demands in terms of a referendum. Further on, the Bill gets even better. I implore the two noble Lords who talked about balance to look now at Schedule 1 to the Bill. Its heading is:
“Treaty provisions where amendment removing the need for unanimity, consensus or common accord would attract referendum”.
There are lists under Parts 1 and 2. Look at the list under Part 1, particularly,
“number of, and system for appointing, Commissioners”.
Will we have a referendum in which we go the British public and say, “Do you agree with this system for appointing commissioners, or would you prefer that system for appointing commissioners”? How on earth could you run a campaign on that basis? You could not because the issue is so narrow. You certainly cannot use it as balance.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend illustrates the matter brilliantly in relation to the extension of powers of the public prosecutor’s office and the issue that we are now discussing. I ask him to contemplate this referendum taking place if the two sides of the coalition were on different sides of the argument and the dialogue that might occur between Nick Clegg and George Osborne, to take a random example. Would not the dialogue in that case be far more vitriolic even than the dialogue that is taking place at the moment if they were talking about the public prosecutor’s office?
Lord Richard
My Lords, I can promise my noble friend one thing: if such a referendum were to take place, the turnout would be absolutely minimal. I do not understand how in those circumstances anybody could conceivably rely on that result as providing balance vis-à-vis the argument that the European Community is at the moment unpopular and deserves to become more popular.
Lord Richard
With respect, I have given way a great deal. If the noble Lord will let me make progress, I will give way later.
Part 2 of Schedule 1 is even better. There is a whole page of it—35 lines—referring to, for example,
“police co-operation … cross-border operation by competent authorities … harmonisation of indirect taxes … broad guidelines of economic policies … conferral on European Central Bank of specific tasks … measures on working conditions”.
All these issues are there for the purpose of achieving balance, according to the two noble Lords who spoke. Is it conceivable that you can have referenda on any of these issues and properly consult the people of the United Kingdom? You cannot. To pretend that you can is, frankly, dishonest.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord because I would have thought that it was perfectly possible to hold a referendum on whether we wanted a European public prosecutor’s office or an extension of its powers, and certainly on the indirect taxes that he mentioned. All these subjects are much closer to the British people’s heart than the referendum that we are about to have on the method by which we send people to Parliament, given that those people cannot do much when they get there, as the powers have been passed to Brussels. I would be perfectly happy to run a campaign against the noble Lord and I can tell him that there would be a big turnout and I would win it.
Lord Richard
With respect, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, before giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The only answer that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is that his remarks indicate clearly what is wrong with the position of UKIP. If he really believes, as a member and, indeed, as a quasi-leader—I suppose that is what we should call it—of a serious political party in this country, if it is meant to be serious, that we could have a sensible referendum campaign on those issues, that seems to me highly indicative.
Lord Goodhart
The noble Lord said that people would be very upset by having a European public prosecutor’s office, but is he aware that the EPPO would deal only with matters of international litigation and would have no effect whatever on any litigation inside the United Kingdom?
Lord Richard
My Lords, I am sorry that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because he was interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and that point has nothing to do with me. I am sure that he is right and that we will consider that matter in due course.
Finally, I urge noble Lords to read the Bill before they make up their minds on any of these issues because, frankly, in 45 or 50 years of political activity, I have never read a Bill that I find more distasteful or absurd.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, in light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said a few moments ago, I seek a little guidance, before we go any further, about taking these amendments with the clause stand part debate, which will be voted on separately. Will the Minister reply to all these amendments and clause stand part together? It would help those of us who are going to speak on the second group of amendments to know in advance what the Minister is proposing to do.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
The answer is yes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, to come back to Amendments 16A and 16B, I oppose them because they make it possible for the Government of the day to avoid a referendum if they think that some new EU power grab, whatever it happens to be, is sufficiently urgent or if they think that it is in the national interest. I fear that the supporters of these amendments have not yet grasped the point that the British people do not want any more powers passed to Brussels, period, as the saying goes—full stop. In fact, a growing majority of the British people want all their powers back; they want to be a democracy again with the power to elect and dismiss those who make all their laws.
I am afraid that the amendments do not work in detail, either. Who is to decide the urgency of the decision or whether it is in the national interest? The octopus in Brussels of course, not the British Government or Parliament. To be certain of this, we have only to look at the way in which Brussels has treated both our Government and Parliament over many years. I refer of course to its constant indifference to our scrutiny reserve. I remind your Lordships for the record, and for those outside your Lordships’ House who may not know, what the scrutiny reserve is. It is a promise made to Parliament—to the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House—by Governments of all persuasions over many years that they will not sign up to any new law or initiative in Brussels if the Select Committee of either House is still considering it. If the Select Committees have finished looking at it or have agreed it, or if it has been debated in Parliament, the Government of the day are free to sign up in the Council of Ministers in Brussels to whatever initiative is concerned. That is the promise or scrutiny reserve.
A Written Answer to me from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on 7 February this year reveals that in the past five years alone the scrutiny reserve has been overridden—in other words, the Government’s promise has been broken—no fewer than 267 times in the House of Commons and 248 times in your Lordships’ House. That means that in the past five years more than 500 proposals from Brussels, which the Select Committee of either House thought sufficiently important to examine and to advise the Government on, became law anyway. The juggernaut rolled on regardless. It is worth adding that the situation does not appear to be improving, despite regular complaints from the Select Committees to the Government. In 2010, 151 overrides were notched up between the two Houses—79 in the House of Commons and 72 in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Sewel
Would the noble Lord be good enough to inform us how many of these—I forget the numbers, so could I be reminded?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, that is not the point. The point is that it will not be the British Government or this Parliament that makes the decisions covered by these amendments; Brussels will go on doing it.
It is partly this situation, together with the fact that Brussels pays almost no attention to what our Select Committees and Parliament manage to say when they are not being completely ignored, that has led me to suggest that perhaps we do not need quite the number of Select Committees that we have, although that is perhaps a debate for another day.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am not quite sure of the relevance of this discussion to the amendment that we are debating. The noble Lord does not reveal how much of this is double-counting. He has given a number for the Commons and a number for the Lords, but perhaps he could enlighten us as to how many are for the same measure. Secondly, he gave figures for 2010, which was a general election year here. During that lengthy election period, the House of Commons in particular did not have a European Scrutiny Committee. It has always been recognised that there are overrides during such a period. Thirdly, I wish that the noble Lord would recognise that the scrutiny reserve is a matter for consideration between the two Houses of this Parliament and the Government. It is not a matter for the European institutions and it never has been. That has always been clear. It would therefore be good if we could get back to discussing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to ameliorate an intolerable situation. It is a fact that the scrutiny reserve is a promise given by the Government of the day to Parliament that has been broken more than 500 times in the past five years. Therefore, it will not be the British Government who make the decisions covered by Amendment 16B, but Brussels—as it always has been. No British Government can therefore be trusted to decide on these issues, as set out in the amendments, because Brussels will simply go ahead, even if the British Government of the day could be trusted. If necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reminded us, the Commission will simply bring forward the EU’s new powers under treaty clauses that were not designed for that purpose. However, that has never stopped the Commission, as I also pointed out in our Committee proceedings on 5 April at col. 1640.
In conclusion, and without wishing to go anywhere near making a Second Reading speech, a number of noble Lords today—the noble Lords, Lord Risby and Lord Hannay, among others—as well as the Minister in Committee and at Second Reading, lamented the disconnect, as they put it, between the British people and their Government and the European Union. I should like to put to the Minister a point that I have not yet put to him; I should be grateful if he would answer it either on this occasion or at some future point in our proceedings.
The reason for the disconnect between the British people and the European Union—and, indeed, the Finnish people and the European Union, and a growing number of people in France, Germany and elsewhere—is that the big idea that gave birth to the project of European integration, honourable though it was at the time after the last war, has, in fact, gone horribly wrong. I need hardly remind the Minister of what that big idea was. It was that the nation states, with their unreliable democracies, had been responsible for the carnage of two world wars and the long history of bloodshed in Europe. Those nation states, therefore, had to be emasculated and diluted into a new form of supranational government run by technocrats. That is where the Commission gets its monopoly to propose in secret all our European legislation. That is where COREPER comes in. That is why the Council votes in secret on what is becoming the majority of our law, if that is not the case already. Surely that is what has gone wrong. Until we address it, realise and confess that the whole project has failed—not just the currency, which has clearly failed—and get out of it as soon as possible, we are all barking up the wrong tree.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, perhaps I may refer briefly to the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on his amendment, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which would satisfactorily fall within the purview of Clause 3.
We have not addressed in any sensible way in this debate the issue of the referendum. I should make it clear that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and those amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons—I shall not for now discuss them further—are all attempts to address the issue of a referendum as something that is a special, rare and significant constitutional development that should embrace the interests and concerns of the bulk of the British people.
If there is to be an adequate turnout in a referendum, and if there is to be adequate understanding of, and information on, what it is about, one dare not spread the referendum concept over one relatively insignificant issue after another. We will bore the people of Britain absolutely stiff if we continue in the way suggested in what is in some ways, if I may say so, this somewhat ridiculous Bill. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples; I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments.
If one pursues many, many referenda, the turnout will steadily decline. The concept will become a joke and the subject of television satire, and more and more people will wonder what on earth they are being asked to do. We have already seen falling turnouts in referenda. For example, the number of votes in the Welsh and Scottish referenda was not particularly outstanding, even though at the time the matter was close to the hearts of the people of Scotland and Wales. Therefore, unless we change the Bill in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and, I suspect, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, we will simply wreck the currency of referenda to the point where they become totally insignificant and are treated as nothing more than an addition of no great importance.
As well as boring the electorate into very low participation in referenda, there is a second matter that we should carefully consider. It is closely associated with experience in the state of California in the United States, where there is growing evidence that referenda are won on the basis of how much money is spent on them by special interest groups with an interest in the outcome. That was the story of the property law referendum in California. It increasingly became an issue between estate agents and customers but it did not interest large sections of Californian citizens. Exactly the same will happen here. Whether a referendum is carried will depend on the willingness of people to finance information, propaganda and so on in trying to get the electorate to come out. Quite quickly we will see these referenda become the politics of only the most extreme interest groups on either side. The whole purpose of referenda—to try to discover the broad interests and concerns of the British people—will effectively be destroyed by the fact that they become increasingly the referenda of conflicting interest groups.
The paradox is that those who support the Bill, believing it to be an important weapon in reducing the power of the European Union, will in fact rapidly destroy their own case through their ludicrous attempt to include every minor issue within the spectrum of things to which a referendum might be considered appropriate. Even from their point of view, which I do not for one moment share, it is in no one’s interest to do what is being done in the Bill—that is, to spread the concept thinly across a huge range of subjects, many of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out in a brilliant and eloquent speech, will be of very little interest to anyone other than the small handful of people directly involved.
I plead with those who support the Bill, as well as with those who, like me, oppose it, to consider very seriously the constitutional consequences of what they are engaged on. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, set out brilliantly how we might endanger the whole role of Parliament by allowing a referendum with a small turnout to veto an existing Act of Parliament. That is a very dangerous path to go down. Even if one does not go that far, there will be a gradual destruction of the constitutional structures that are about making law with a relationship to the European Union as well as more widely, and people will find that they have kicked away the very structure that they claim to care so much about—the structure of representative democracy. I strongly suggest that we address this issue with due seriousness.
Lord Grenfell
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, applied the test of common sense to the relationship between Clauses 2 and 3. Sometimes I wonder about the common sense on the other side of the House as I do not hear much of it in this debate. He concluded his remarks with a devastating argument against the inclusion of Clause 3 on the grounds that it is simply not necessary, and that with the amendments to Clause 2 it really should not be there. The great French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said that perfection is reached not when everything that could be written has been written but when everything that need not be written no longer remains. I have that pinned on my computer at home when I write. If he had been listening to this debate he might well have come to the conclusion that Clause 3 fell under that rule and that it is not necessary. I shall certainly support those who claim that it should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I had not intended to be drawn into the debate but, having heard my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby saying that people would be bored by referenda on European issues, I wonder how bored they will be on a referendum on the alternate vote system, where I suspect the turnout will be minimal. I am not sure that there will be a large number of referenda on these issues for the simple reason that Ministers will have grave doubts about whether they are likely to win those referenda, so they will not be able to give way on these matters in the European Union anyway.
There is a terrible misunderstanding of the disillusion in this country and the way in which the British people have been misled by successive Governments on so many issues dealing with the European Union. We started by being told that we were joining a free trade area when it was never to be that, and from then on we have seen transfers of sovereignty which have never been popular in this country. The reason why people dislike the EU so greatly is because they see sovereignty being drained away and successive Governments lying about what they claim to have achieved in the European Union when in fact they have transferred sovereignty from this country to the European Union.
Lord Waddington
Is not my noble friend guilty of excessive moderation? When one thinks about it, there is no need for a single referendum and no need for any further transference of either competences or powers. The trouble is that there have been so many transferences that the whole machine has indigestion, so the demands in this country are not for giving more powers to the EU but for repatriation to our Parliament of the powers that have been taken.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I agree absolutely with my noble friend. I only wish that I could believe that we were going to see repatriation of powers, but unfortunately with the acquis and so forth that will be extremely difficult.
The plea that has been made for the amendments is that, in special circumstances and when there is great urgency, discretion should be given to Ministers to allow things through without a referendum. You can imagine how that will be abused. The procedure, like so much done by past Governments, will be abused to let things through without referenda and we will be back where we started. I totally oppose the amendments.
Lord Goodhart
If the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, thinks that what happens in the European Union is of immense concern to the average member of the United Kingdom, will he consider the result of the general election in 2001, when the right honourable Mr Hague was the party leader and fought that election largely on the basis of dislike of the European Union? Perhaps the noble Lord remembers the result of that election.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Yes, and perhaps my noble friend would like to remind himself why William Hague fought the election on European issues. It was because he had done so incredibly well in the European elections not much before, and it seemed at that point that the country did not want to have anything to do with Europe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Perhaps I may also remind the noble Lord that Mr Hague did not fight that election on the issue of Europe; he fought it on the issue of the euro, the currency. He said that the election was, in effect, a referendum on the currency. That was not wise, because a referendum on the currency had already been promised by all parties. That election was not fought on the issue of Europe.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, perhaps your Lordships might find it useful if I were to intervene at this stage, because one or two noble Lords have had a bite at the cherry, as it were, and it might be helpful if I were to answer some of the many questions that have been put to this Bench and comment on all the amendments, although I should like first to address the two original amendments, Amendments 16A and 16B, which have a particular element to them which is very important and needs to be addressed. Then I will come to the broader issues raised by the broader amendments, of which the central theme is whether the significance condition should be enlarged or extended. It is interesting to note that in the other place, all the pressure was for them to be reduced, so there is a certain contrast between your Lordships’ views and those of the other place. Often that is healthy.
I say at the beginning that I strongly agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that proper leadership in Europe best comes through using the powers that the EU already has. That is a strong statement and highly relevant to what we are debating in the Bill. I ask noble Lords to reflect on it, because I think that many of the worries about what the effect of the Bill might be in checking the expansion, development, changes of treaty, new ideas and proposals for the EU stand in contrast to the wisdom of that remark. An enormous amount can be achieved in our neighbourhood, in relations with the rest of Europe and in the reform of the EU itself to make it suitable to meet the totally changed international landscape which we now all confront, by existing powers rather than further changes in the treaty or transfers of power from member states to the European institutions.
I turn to the first two amendments, which would insert into Clause 3 a new type of exemption from the referendum lock in respect of Article 48(6) decisions, otherwise known as the simplified revision procedure. Perhaps I can deal right at the beginning with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I very much respect for his vast experience in this area. He asked me—he said that I did not answer him very well before, but I will try to do better now—why we needed Clause 3 as well as Clause 2. The answer is simple. Clause 2 deals with ordinary revision procedures for changing the treaties; Clause 3 deals with the special revision procedure for transferring powers from the nation state—the UK in this case—to the European Union. It is the desire of many, not just in this country—I shall give examples from other countries—that changes, whether of the treaty or in powers, should be dealt with in the same way, regardless of whether they are dealt with under the ordinary revision procedure for treaty change or under the special revision procedure, otherwise known as the passerelle procedure. That is why we need Clause 3. I hope that that clarifies that aspect. Of course I shall come to the detail much more extensively in a moment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I apologise to the noble Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. He does not agree, clearly, that the way we handle a treaty amendment should depend on the nature of the treaty amendment, not the process in Brussels which started it. I do not understand that. I do not know why treaty amendments should not be treated as treaty amendments whether they come under the procedure that we are now dealing with under Clause 2 or the procedure which we think appropriate to Clause 3. This is nothing to do with the passerelle. That comes later in a different clause. We are not talking about Article 48(7); we are talking about Article 48(6) here. I accept that the passerelle, on which I will disagree with the Minister on the substance, is a separate issue. I do not see why treaty amendments should not be handled by a single clause setting out a single procedure. In fact, I still think it would be better.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The reasons lie in the procedures that flow from the Lisbon treaty, which gave birth, rather unwillingly, to the ordinary revision procedure. The whole idea of it getting into that treaty was a compromise, as noble Lords who followed it all closely will remember, but that is where it comes from. Whether powers are transferred or treaties are changed by the ordinary revision procedure or by the special revision procedure is of no particular interest to those concerned with our powers and competences moving away from this country to the European Union in ways that are not fully explained or subject to the appropriate procedures and rules that this Bill lays down.
I hear exactly what the noble Lord says, but he asked me a specific question and I have given him the specific answer that whether these changes are under the simplified revision procedure or the ordinary revision procedure they should ideally be treated in the same way. That is what is happening in other countries. I have a note here that states that Ireland and Denmark examine all uses of Article 48(6), the simplified revision procedure, in the same way as the use of the ordinary revision procedure to decide whether a referendum is required. It is done by the Attorney-General in Ireland and by the Ministry of Justice in Denmark. I am told that it is now going on in Denmark in relation to the simplified revision procedure applied to the matter, already discussed in this House, of changing the treaty to accommodate the European stability mechanism. I will come back to that in more detail, but that is the answer to the noble Lord’s question.
In addition to the significance condition already provided for in Clause 3, the amendment would insert a provision that would allow for the possibility of a Minister seeking to rely on urgency as a reason to avoid holding a referendum. In a previous debate in Committee, we debated what the Government mean by a transfer of power, and I will recapitulate some of the points in detail when I come to my comments on the other amendments in this group. These two amendments would mean that if a Minister deems a particular decision to be urgent and in the national interest, he could dispense with the referendum requirement regardless of the nature of the transfer of power from the UK to the EU or the significance of that transfer of power. If there was ever a proposal under Article 48(6) to give up the member states’ veto over the areas where we will still retain the right to oppose measures taken at EU level, such as decisions on the seven-year financial perspectives or on social security, if these amendments are agreed, a Minister could claim that giving up these vetoes was considered urgent and in the national interest and therefore should not be put to the British people for them to have a say but should rather by approved solely by Parliament.
This shows a lack of understanding of how the system works and how the simplified revision procedure works. Let me give noble Lords an example. The use of the simplified revision procedure to enable member states in the euro area to set up the European stability mechanism to safeguard the financial and economic stability of the euro area is obviously a matter of vast import. It will take 21 months—one year and nine months, which is admittedly not two years—to be finalised. It was agreed in March 2011, and the target date for final approval is the end of 2012. That is hardly what most people would consider urgent. Even under the simplified revision procedure, which may or may not be associated with the passerelle—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that they are in a sense separate, although criss-crossing, issues—the whole process of changing treaties, whether by the simplified procedure or the ordinary revision procedure, takes a long time. The urgent issue of saving the eurozone from its tribulations will take one year and nine months. This example of an urgent and important treaty change certainly sets a precedent that shows that there would be more than enough time for the UK to hold a referendum, should one be necessary, under any future uses of the simplified revision procedure that I described. I remind noble Lords that one will not be necessary for the current use of the simplified revision procedure as the present change to do with the European stability mechanism does not apply to the UK.
The truth of the matter is that while urgent issues arise, the business of putting them through the simplified procedure or the ordinary procedure is extremely lengthy. This is one reason, which I shall come to in a moment, why these things will only rarely occur. The picture of a series of small referenda issues coming along is a completely unrealistic. In fact, it is a fantasy. Whether they go through one way or the other, it will be a lengthy and complicated process, and nations will rightly seek to exert the leadership that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to of using existing competences rather than having to resort to the kind of treaty change that leads to major debates of the kind we saw over Lisbon. The truth of the matter is that this amendment would have no practical impact as there would not, in practice, be a situation where an Article 48(6) decision could be rushed through in a matter of weeks or months—it is more likely to be months and years—and the amendment would, in fact, be pointless.
That has dealt with those two amendments concerned with urgency, and I now want to turn to the broader issue.
Lord Radice
The Minister said that it is a fantasy that there would be a series of small referenda. If it is an absolute fantasy, why do we need 58 policy areas described in the Bill that would trigger a referendum?
Lord Howell of Guildford
If the noble Lord casts his mind back to the Lisbon treaty and the previous treaties, he will recall that some of them tend to turn up in the great package treaties that emerge from the European Union from time to time. They emerged at the time of Lisbon and caused so many of the agonies and concerns, the consequence of which we are now debating. I forget the number of issues of this kind that were in the Lisbon treaty, but the answer is almost certainly a considerable number.
Now I want—I will give way again, but I have to say that I am trying to help the Committee and guide it through. I will give way once more, but after that I think I am entitled within the custom of the House to be rather reluctant to yield to constant interventions on things I am just about to say anyway.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the Minister, and I will certainly not intervene in his speech again. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, earlier in the debate, the Minister has taken us down this road that there will not be all these minor referendums provided for in the Bill because the habit of the European Union is to group all these things together in a major grouping.
I would plead with the Government not to go down that road of reasoning. Most of us, even those of us moving these amendments, believe it is not in the interest in the European Union or this country to have any major package of institutional reform in the period ahead, yet here the Government are using an argument that is inciting people in the other member states to go in that direction—they can read Hansard too. All they will see is that the noble Lord and his colleague are saying, “Do not worry, none of these mini-referendums will take place; it will all come together in a big package”. I ask that the Government not pursue that line because there is no difference between the two sides of this argument. Nobody wishes to argue—I certainly do not—for pushing towards a new major institutional package, but the Minister is making it impossible to avoid one.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I fear that that is a good example of taking part of an argument, which I wish to develop much more fully, and giving it a particular boost. That is just one of a whole series of reasons why there will not be referenda over trivia and over small issues, which will come out separately, and why these matters simply will not arise. I could straight away give a long list of other reasons why it will never happen. Where there is no transfer of power or competence anyway, there will not be a referendum. There are plenty of powers already, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has said. Where it does not apply to the UK, there will be not be a referendum; as with the current treaty change going through. Where there are accession treaties, there will be no referendum—not in this country anyway. Where there is codification under existing competencies there will be no referendum. Where there are significant tests—we have yet to debate that in full—there will be no referendum. So there are five other reasons, as well as the question of the package, why we will look at these things in a mature and rounded way.
It is really quite pointless citing one issue and trying to project it to be the explanation of the whole situation. When you look at the whole situation it is perfectly clear that there will not be a whole series of tiny referenda on complicated issues that people will not want to vote for. That applies to almost everything that has been mentioned in this debate, including—I would love to dilate on it but it is probably out of order—the whole question of the European public prosecutor’s office, on which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is a great expert. We are going to debate that in Clause 6. Certainly it is one of many issues that may well come up, but the chances of it coming up as a separate issue as part of a treaty change, to which the Government would then agree and that other nations would all agree to, are very remote indeed—in fact, I would say, non-existent.
At this stage, it might be worth going over some of the essential points from the lengthy debate we had at the start of the Committee stage on the role of Article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union and the rationale for Clause 3, which I mentioned in an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, a little while back. There are two types of treaty change. This does not seem to be totally understood. I will try my best to remind your Lordships what they are. There is the ordinary pattern which requires an intergovernmental conference and the simplified type of treaty change which does not require an IGC. Both of them result in an amendment to the treaty and so both should be treated in the same way.
It is not right as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said in the earlier debates that the whole point of the passerelle is to dispense with the paraphernalia of treaty change. It is not true. It has the same elaborate systems of treaty change through the simplified revision procedure as does the ordinary revision procedure. People simply will not understand that because one method of treaty change is being used a referendum would be required yet if the same treaty changes—in this case dealing with powers rather than competencies—were being proposed and agreed under the other type of treaty change, then it would not be required. It is just that kind of incoherent approach which will go against the Bill’s aims—they may be disputed by noble Lords opposite but they are our aims—of regaining some of the trust of the British electorate and seeking to reconnect them. It would leave people completely baffled—it would certainly leave many of the experts baffled—and not enlightened at all.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank my noble friend for giving way for a moment. How would he escape from the horns of a very difficult dilemma? If, on the one hand, Ministers, in order to avoid a referendum, had to tell themselves that something was not in the national interests of Britain, would one not find oneself subsequently an extremely weak force in the European Union? If, on the other hand, they decided to press on with something that they regarded as being in the national interest and that would attract a referendum, would they not find themselves subject to the kind of fragmented referenda that we discussed earlier and which the Minister described earlier in his own speech?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not think that that would be the case, for the very good reason that the great issues that concern our national interest can be delivered very largely by the co-operation and development of close working within the existing competences of the existing treaty. My noble friend has in her mind some thought that new treaty requirements would indeed come along that would somehow be in the national interest but which Ministers would be reluctant to push for fear that they would have to expose them to the British people. There might well be issues in the future, although I cannot see any countries at the moment being terribly willing to go through the complex treaty procedure for them, which Ministers believe are in the national interest and of value and which can be pursued only by treaty change. In that case, they would rightly be required first to come before both Houses of our Parliament so that it could be explained whether they were significant or not. If they were significant, they would then be required to be put to the test of a referendum, with the Government arguing that these changes, or this package of changes, were necessary to improve the national interest and the strength of this country. That is the kind of debate we should have had over the Lisbon treaty, but of course we did not.
Lord Howell of Guildford
No, I am not going to give way again, I am afraid. We have had enough interventions.
I was concluding by saying that all the long-standing accusations of decision-making behind closed doors without public consent would therefore still hold true if these amendments were accepted and the wider and wider number of decisions were left to the judgment of Ministers as to whether they were significant. There are concerns, as I have said, that creeping power and creeping competence are not being properly debated and explained and not justified as being in the national interest, and have weakened the European cause.
People talk about the need for “reconnection”—that phrase came up. We have to be realistic and accept that reconnection has failed. It is failing here in this country, although we are not the only country in which it is failing. Some noble Lords seem to want to continue as before and seem to be happy to see a continued advance of European treaty changing, competence transferring and power transferring, which are precisely the trends that have so undermined public trust, weakened the European cause and made the European Union today in need of reform and less well positioned to meet the colossal challenges of the future than it should be.
I must say that I hope that some noble Lords who are my noble friends, and noble Lords who I greatly admire, will not be offended if I see them as the last knights or the lost lords of the old Europe, of the Euro elite. They are the ones who want to go back while the world goes forward, and indeed I myself sometimes have the same wish that things could go back, but they cannot. We are now in the information age. In the age of the internet and the website, the age of public empowerment, those ideas are as out of date as the Teutonic knights with their armour and their glories. So I urge the noble Lords who have moved and spoken to these amendments to withdraw them and to understand that we are living in a changed age in which the requirements of a strong and democratic European Union will change in themselves and will require new and agile legislation, understanding, and a new connection with the people of Europe.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, we have had a long debate on a series of relatively small amendments designed to improve the Bill, but it has been a very interesting one. Three weeks ago, when we had our first day in Committee, I have to say that I felt a bit sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He cut a rather lonely figure, with no one on the Benches behind him coming to his defence. I thought that he was having difficulty persuading the House that the Bill before us is essentially as he described it: a pro-European measure. In the mean time, the Government have called in their reinforcements. We have heard speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, Lord Flight, Lord Risby and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, all defending the Government’s position. I wonder if the Minister feels any better as a result of the people who have come to his aid, because my reaction to what they said is that if they—the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, Lord Flight, Lord Risby and Lord Hamilton of Epsom—truly represent balance and the moderate centre on these issues, then God help us and particularly God help Britain in Europe. The only reason that they see their position as balanced is that this Bill essentially does not contain what they really wanted. What they really wanted was an in-or-out referendum on Britain’s European membership and the repatriation of powers. I hope that the scales are beginning to fall from the eyes of some of their Lib Dem coalition partners about what really lies behind the motive for this piece of legislation. It is to appease anti-Europeanism—I was going to say Euroscepticism, but it is not scepticism, it is anti-Europeanism in this country.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that those of us who are described as Eurosceptic are not anti-European? We are against the project of European integration. We love the real Europe, the Europe of separate nations each with its glorious and distinctive past and future, if it could get out of this ill-founded and unfortunate project.
Lord Liddle
I certainly do not want to contradict what the noble Lord has said, but he ought to remember that, loving Europe’s history as I do, I know that it is also a history of bloody conflict, of massacre and genocide, which the European Union has played a major part in bringing to an end. I listened to the Minister’s supporters speaking from his Benches, and it seems that they all think that the history of the European Union is essentially one of betrayal. So when Winston Churchill called for Europe to unite, that was a betrayal, and when Harold Macmillan decided to take us into the Common Market, that was a betrayal.
Lord Waddington
I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to put him right on this matter because it was raised the other day by my noble friend Lord Howell. In his great speech at Zurich, Winston Churchill said that he wished America, Britain and even perhaps the Soviet Union to be the godfathers of the new Europe, and he quite obviously was not considering that we were qualified for membership because of our own worldwide interests. He said that Germany and France should bury their differences and build a new Europe of which we would be the godfathers. We want no more of this nonsense of pretending that Winston Churchill committed himself to Britain being a member of the European Union, because he said exactly the opposite.
Lord Liddle
We can all trade our Winston Churchill quotes, but certainly the thrust of his intervention was greatly to promote the cause of European union. Was it a betrayal when Lord Cockfield pursued the White Paper on the single market? Was it a betrayal when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, fought for the Single European Act in order to bring that White Paper into legislative effect? Was it a betrayal when the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, as a Commissioner, fought tooth and nail to extend the single market? And was it a betrayal when John Major and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, agreed to the Maastricht treaty, which has led to a more effective Europe on issues such as cross-border crime, freedom of movement, an effective presence in the world and progress towards co-operation in defence? The trouble for the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is that although he is right to say that the leaders of Europe can take Europe forward largely by using the existing powers granted to the European Union, most of those sitting behind him seem to think that those existing powers are a great betrayal. I do not understand the logic of their position.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, argued that referenda are now part of our political culture. Let us be clear: Members on this side of the Committee believe in referenda on big issues. Were we to join the euro, there should be a referendum. Were there to be some equivalent of the European constitutional treaty, there should be a referendum. But the point of this Bill is not major referenda of that kind, but proposals for, I think, 56 different issues on which referenda could be held. Next week, we will have the first national referendum in Britain for 36 years. This is not a coherent policy. The fact is, as my noble friend Lord Richard brilliantly outlined, that many of the topics which are to be subject to a referendum would just be the subjects of ridicule if we ever got to the point of having such a contest. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, there are grave dangers to our democracy in multiple referenda, which give power to big money because it is big money that wins. That, of course, may be the position in the referendum next week.
I would say that, yes, Europe should largely work within its existing powers and we should not be arguing for big transfers of powers. That is not the purpose of these amendments. Their purpose is to give Ministers pragmatic flexibility to deal with situations in the real world as they arise. I was not at all satisfied by what the Minister had to say about crises. What would Britain do if there was a major banking crisis which affected cross-border banks and something needed to be done at the European level in order to rescue the banking system? This is a hypothetical case, but what would Britain do? How can a Government credibly sign up to measures to tackle the problem if they know that they have to go to the country in a referendum? That is the basic argument for the amendment, which would allow Ministers to sign up to things in cases of urgency.
Listening to the Minister, one might think that there is a lot of pragmatic flexibility in the Bill to decide whether matters are significant. But that is not what the Bill says. The significance test is presently limited to Clause 4(1)(i) and (j). Its application is therefore very limited.
We are not arguing for massive transfers of powers; we are arguing for pragmatic flexibility within the structure of the Bill, and that is why we have put forward these amendments. Doubtless we will come back to these issues on Report. In the mean time, I am happy not to press Amendments 16A and 16B.
Middle East and North Africa
(12 years, 12 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 will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place.
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I will update the House on recent developments in the Middle East and north Africa.
Britain has continued to take a leading role in international efforts to protect civilians in Libya, and the case for action remains compelling. Gaddafi’s regime persists in attacking its own people, wilfully killing its own civilian population. Our strategy is to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressures on Gaddafi’s regime and, since the House last met, we have made progress on all those fronts.
On the diplomatic front, I co-chaired the first meeting of the Libya Contact Group in Doha on 13 April. The 21 states and seven international organisations represented demonstrated clear unity, with participation from across the Arab world and the African Union in attendance. The group agreed that Gaddafi’s regime had lost all legitimacy, that the National Transitional Council should be offered further support and that the UN special envoy should take forward an inclusive political process. I will attend the next contact group meeting in Rome on 5 May.
At the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Berlin on 14 and 15 April, I joined colleagues in showing our determination to increase the pace of military operations to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. The 28 NATO member states and six Arab countries that attended, 16 of which are engaged in military action, agreed a common strategy. That is an important milestone in world affairs, a sign of a growing ability to work across traditional regional divisions and a demonstration of the breadth and unity in the international coalition in support of the Libyan people.
Economically, since my Statement on 4 April, further Libyan entities have been sanctioned and the regime is now subject to some of the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever agreed by the United Nations. On military matters, since NATO assumed full control over all military operations on 31 March, more than 3,500 sorties and 1,500 strike sorties have been conducted. This action has seriously degraded Gaddafi’s military assets and prevented widespread massacres planned by Gaddafi’s forces. They remain unable to enter Benghazi, and it is highly likely that without these efforts Misrata would have fallen, with terrible consequences for that city’s brave inhabitants. Yesterday, Italy announced that its aircraft would take part in ground strikes and the United States Government have contributed Predator unmanned aerial vehicles to the coalition forces.
Heavy fighting continues around the towns of Brega, Ajdabiya, Yefren and Misrata. The regime’s indiscriminate shelling of residential areas in Misrata shows that it continues to target the civilian population. Gaddafi has shown that he has no regard for civilian lives. The International Criminal Court prosecutor has said that there is evidence of a case against Gaddafi for crimes against humanity. We look forward to the prosecutor’s report to the United Nations on 4 May. By his actions, it is clear that Gaddafi has no intention of observing the conditions in UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that I described to the House earlier this month. He has repeatedly ignored the ceasefires that he has announced.
Our military action is defined by the UN Security Council resolutions. We are also clear that Gaddafi should go, and it is impossible to see a viable or peaceful way forward for Libya until he does so. The Libya Contact Group’s statement made it clear that we and our allies regard the National Transitional Council, in contrast to Gaddafi, as a legitimate interlocutor, representing the aspirations of Libyan people. Our diplomatic mission in Benghazi is working with it. Our special envoy, Christopher Prentice, will shortly be succeeded by John Jenkins, currently Her Majesty’s Ambassador in Baghdad.
Last week, I announced our decision to expand this mission with a small advisory team of British military officers. Their sole purpose is to support the National Transitional Council’s efforts better to protect civilians by advising on military organisational structures, communications and logistics. They are not involved in training or arming the opposition’s forces, nor are they executing or providing operational military advice. This is fully in line with the UN resolutions, with which, I repeat to the House, we will remain wholly in accordance, retaining the moral, legal and international authority that flows from that.
We have supplied vital, non-lethal equipment to assist the National Transitional Council in protecting civilian lives. So far, this consists of telecommunications equipment and body armour. We are considering with our international partners further requests. In the coming weeks, we hope to agree internationally the process for establishing a temporary financial mechanism to provide a transparent structure for international financial support for short-term financial requirements such as public sector pay. Yesterday, Kuwait announced around £110 million worth of support for the NTC.
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the skill, bravery and professionalism of the men and women of the UK’s and allied Armed Forces. Their actions in the NATO operation have saved many lives and their efforts are essential to bringing a lasting peace and a better future for the Libyan people, who have suffered so much at the hands of this brutal regime.
The UK is also supporting the other needs of the Libyan people in every way we can. The humanitarian situation in the west of the country is getting worse every day. Many civilians in Misrata lack access to basic necessities, including food, water and electricity. There is a shortage of some crucial medical supplies. That is why my right honourable friend the International Development Secretary announced last week that the UK will provide medical and other emergency supplies and undertake evacuations for 5,000 migrants stranded at Misrata port in squalid conditions. The UK has so far given more than £13 million to meet immediate humanitarian needs, providing funding for medical and food supplies, emergency shelter, and assistance for evacuating poor and vulnerable migrants. In Misrata alone, UK support has given 10,000 people food and 2,000 families water and hygiene kits, and provided essential medical staff. But the regime must guarantee humanitarian access, not just broken promises which then put the lives of aid workers and volunteers at risk.
The wave of demand for change in the Arab world continues to gain momentum in other nations. As I said earlier today, we condemn utterly the violence and killings perpetrated by the Syrian security forces against civilians who are expressing their views in peaceful protests. This violent repression must stop. President Assad must order his authorities to show restraint and to respond to the legitimate demands of his people with immediate and genuine reform, not with brutal repression. The emergency law should be lifted in practice and the legitimate aspirations of the people met. The UK is working intensively with our international partners to persuade the Syrian authorities to stop the violence and respect basic and universal human rights to freedoms of expression and assembly.
Syria is now at a fork in the road. Its Government can still choose to bring about the radical reform which alone can provide peace and stability for Syria in the long term, and we urge them do so. Or they can choose ever more violent repression, which can only bring short-term security for the authorities. If they do so, we will work with our European partners and others to take measures, including sanctions, that will have an impact on the regime.
Given our concerns for British nationals in Syria we changed our travel advice on Sunday to advise against all travel there and to advise that British nationals should leave unless there is a pressing need for them to remain.
In Yemen, the UK welcomes the news this morning that the efforts of the Gulf Co-operation Council to resolve the current political deadlock are close to success. I understand that President Saleh and the parliamentary opposition have accepted the GCC’s proposal. This is potentially good news. Both sides now need to come together to confirm their commitment to the peaceful, inclusive and timely transition process that the GCC has brokered. The UK remains committed to our long-standing support for Yemen in these difficult times.
Although the immediate situation in Bahrain is calmer, there continue to be many credible reports of human rights abuses. I urge the Government of Bahrain to meet all their human rights obligations and uphold political freedoms, equal access to justice and the rule of law. Dialogue is the way to fulfil the aspirations of all Bahrainis. I urge all sides, including opposition groupings, to engage.
In Egypt, which I will visit shortly, we welcome the actions being taken by the authorities to move towards a broad-based, civilian-led Government and an open and democratic society.
In Tunisia, with EU partners we are providing support to help the Government in Tunisia meet the wishes of the Tunisian people. On 11 April, the commission responsible for bringing together opposition parties and civil society approved the draft law for the constituent assembly elections scheduled for 24 July. This is a step further towards free and fair elections and an open, democratic society.
The European Union has a crucial role to play in the southern Mediterranean. The great changes in the Arab world are truly historic and the response from the nations of the European Union should be bold and ambitious. The review of the European Neighbourhood Policy is due to be published in a fortnight. We have been making the case that we have the opportunity to use that policy to help the peoples of the southern Mediterranean achieve their desire for freer and more prosperous societies. A renewed Neighbourhood Policy should see the EU using its economic magnetism to encourage and support political and economic reform in neighbouring countries. A partnership of equals should reward those who make the necessary political and economic reforms, and—importantly—withdraw benefits from those who do not.
Finally, it remains essential that progress is made in the search for a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. This is what the majority of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis demand of their leaders. The extraordinary changes in the region are an opportunity to be seized, not an excuse for further prevarication leading to more frustration and discontent.
In our response to the dramatic events in north Africa and the Middle East we will continue to stand for reform, not repression, and for the addressing of grievances rather than brutal reprisals. It is a policy in accordance with our own beliefs, in line with our own national interest and in pursuit of the peace and prosperity of the wider world”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating for this House the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary on the Middle East and north Africa. We on the opposition Benches join him in supporting the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative to resolve the crisis in Yemen and to achieve a peaceful political settlement. I also associate these Benches with his remarks regarding the continued need for focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, indeed, on the review of the European neighbourhood policy.
Every Member of this House will have been appalled by the recent reports of government violence and repression in Syria. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the number of UK nationals who are in Syria at present? How many are in the southern city of Deraa? It has been reported that 5,000 soldiers and seven T55 tanks entered the city on Monday and attacked the protestors. Have the Government had any discussions with our European Union partners about working jointly, as we ended up doing in Libya, eventually, on contingency plans to try to help to get our people out if the need arises? Of course, I fully support the condemnation in the Statement of the actions of the Syrian Government.
It was only a few weeks ago, on 27 January, that the Foreign Secretary travelled to Damascus to meet President Assad. From these conversations, how likely do the Government judge it that President Assad will heed the Foreign Secretary’s calls for restraint and reform? I welcome the Minister’s statement that work is under way at the United Nations, but can he provide a more detailed analysis of what progress is being made regarding a statement and/or a resolution from the Security Council? In particular, can he outline what financial sanctions and freezes are being discussed at UN or EU level to make clear the international community’s condemnation?
In a statement this morning, the Foreign Secretary said:
“There needs to be accountability for the deaths that have occurred”.
What discussions have been entered into regarding the investigation of accusations of crimes against humanity and the call from Human Rights Watch for an official commission of inquiry? Finally, given the strong lead that the Arab League showed in relation to the unacceptability of Colonel Gaddafi’s actions, what diplomatic work is being done across the region to marshal unified condemnation of these actions?
While news has subsided slightly regarding Bahrain, the reports of the arrests of opposition figures, deaths in custody, allegations of torture and the denial of medical treatment are extremely concerning. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of the political reform process initiated by King al-Khalifa? Can the Government also tell us what recent discussions they have had with Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who, it has been reported, has been close to reaching agreements with the protestors? Britain’s historically close ties to Bahrain should give us all the more reason to be clear and unequivocal in our urging for reform, not repression, as a response to popular protests on the islands.
We join the Minister in commending the brave service of our forces in Libya while the House has been in recess. The specific operational steps announced by the Government during that time—providing telecommunications, body armour and 10 military advisers —each had an operational rationale reflecting the new realities on the ground. Although we understand the rationale for these steps, will the Minister now update the summary of the legal advice previously provided, to cover each of the announcements that have been made during the Recess?
The ad hoc and unco-ordinated manner in which the Government steps were announced, rooted in no clearly articulated plan, has, we fear, served only to increase public anxieties, although in truth none of them is likely to significantly affect the strategic situation in Libya. As things stand neither Benghazi nor Tripoli appears likely to fall imminently to either side. Can the Minister give the House a fuller assessment of the present military situation? I ask this because the spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office stated this morning, in summarising the Foreign Secretary’s report to Cabinet colleagues earlier today, that we need to prepare for the long haul. Yet, on the Foreign Office website, there is a press release, published this weekend, entitled: “Foreign Secretary denies claims of stalemate in Libya”. The situation on the ground led the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, to observe on Friday that Libya is “moving towards stalemate”. What information or insight does the Minister possess about military progress that apparently has not been shared with America’s most senior military figure?
That brings me to the question of political objectives and the military mission. On 21 March, speaking of Resolution 1973, the Prime Minister told the other place:
“It explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/11; col. 713.]
However, in the Times on 15 April, the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the United States and France said,
“so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds”.
Would the House be correct in understanding the language of this article to mean that, in the view of the British Government, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 cannot be enforced without Gaddafi’s departure? Given the explicit commitment to maintain NATO operations so long as Gaddafi remains in power, is a Libya free of Gaddafi now a political aim—one, incidentally, shared on all sides of the House—or a military objective of the British Government?
Can the Minister further explain whether, following this joint statement, American fighter aircraft have been once again engaged in ground assault operations and whether this statement of aims has led to any significant alteration of the US force posture? Can he be clearer on the means by which the Government seek to achieve the outcome that they seek? It is vital to do so not simply to ensure that the Government address the real concerns at home and abroad; crucially, it matters also to convince Gaddafi’s henchmen that there is a credible strategy in place to ensure that his brutal attacks on civilians will not prevail.
We seek as broad a coalition as possible for these efforts and, in that spirit, I add my welcome for the addition of Italian fighter aircraft to the mission, as we heard announced today. Can the Minister update the House on the precise number of EU, NATO and Arab League countries that are respectively participating in the military operation? What efforts are being made to expand those numbers further? Do the Government believe that the contact group is proving agile and effective enough to direct the mission?
Does the Minister agree that the comparison made last week by the Defence Secretary between the present mission in Libya and the Afghanistan campaign, where, a decade on, we have about 11,000 troops in theatre, not only ignores the different order of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its supporters but needlessly threatens support at home and abroad for the mission? In the light of that comparison, can he assure the House that no personnel or equipment will be redeployed from Afghanistan to Libya, given the continuing national security threat being confronted in Afghanistan?
The Government are acting in Libya for principled reasons, but that does not remove our obligation to look at practical questions. On the rebels, can the Minister update the House on whether any further information has come to light regarding possible al-Qaeda involvement? Amid talk of the long haul, it should not be overlooked that Resolution 1973 contained a number of diplomatic measures and non-military powers designed to maintain the pressure on and isolation of the Gaddafi regime, including sanctions and embargoes. What further progress has been made on this front, in particular to put the financial squeeze on the Gaddafi regime?
From these Benches, the Opposition remain steadfast in their support for the enforcement of the United Nations Security Council resolution. That decision, implemented with professionalism and bravery by both our own and our allies’ armed services, saved the 700,000 residents of Benghazi from a grim fate. The continued threat of murderous slaughter in Misrata shows why NATO forces still need to be in the skies over Libya, but we are not and should not be deaf to the anxiety in the country about Britain’s present and future role in the Libyan mission. Therefore, as the Opposition, we urge clarity and coherence from the Government’s side so as to maintain support for this mission at home and abroad.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank the noble Baroness warmly for the supportive nature of her remarks and for her commitment that Her Majesty’s Opposition stand fast behind the UNSC resolution and its implementation. That is a warming and strong message, for which I am grateful. I cannot possibly answer all her questions in detail, but I will attempt to answer those that I managed to write down as she spoke.
On UK nationals in Syria, there are figures, although I give them with some hesitation. It could be from about 700 upwards, but I do not want the noble Baroness to regard that as the final figure, as it is not always easy to gather all details quickly. However, the figure is in that sort of range. We are most certainly talking and co-operating with the European Union at many levels on how to react to the Syria situation.
On what we are doing about the very concerning developments in Bahrain, the answer is that we are in constant contact. We have been talking to Ministers as well as to the chief authorities in Bahrain, urging that they get back to the national dialogue that the King always wanted to argue for and observe standards of human rights as rigorously as possible. We have expressed considerable concern about the reports of torture and other aspects. We believe that our representations have to be constant and strong and we are continuing to press them.
The noble Baroness raised the issue, which one sees in many commentaries, of the possibility of stalemate in Libya. To my mind and to many of those observing the situation closely, the position is fluid rather than stalemated. There is clearly movement to and fro. One moment, a street in Misrata is in the hands of the opposition and the next it is in the hands of Gaddafi’s forces. No one can say that a stalemate, implying some sort of rigid settling-in of defensive lines on either side, has anywhere near been reached. The interventions of NATO in protecting civilians and destroying the weaponry that is killing them, with some precision in many areas, are part of the means by which the situation remains extremely fluid.
In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary reminds us of the words that he rightly used. If I get his words precisely right,
“it is impossible to see a viable or peaceful way forward for Libya”,
until Gaddafi goes. That has been reiterated by a number of world leaders and is apparently very much the view of the entire Arab League and leading Arab nations. While the UN Security Council resolution obviously does not involve, require or authorise direct attack on the personality of Gaddafi himself, there was a clear statement by the contact group in Doha and by the allies that until Gaddafi goes there will be no solution and no achievement of the aim of the Libyans being able to decide their own future peacefully.
How is that to be done and what are the pressures? The first pressure is in implementing the resolution and doing everything to protect civilians by all possible means. Beyond that, the organisation of freezes and sanctions has been extensive. The movements, by no means fully achieved, towards controlling the financial resources available to Gaddafi and his team are strong. As far as possible, given that many of Gaddafi’s funds are under other names or obscure patterns of ownership, those funds are being frozen and individuals in Libya are being named as those who cannot have access to them or admission to other countries.
In addition, pressure is preventing Gaddafi from achieving further revenues from oil sales. There have been some unauthorised liftings of oil on the side, but they may be coming to an end. If he cannot get oil money, he will not get money and he will not be able to buy in weapons, mercenaries or any other of the instruments that he is using to attack his own people. In addition to that, we look for further defections of the kind that we have already seen from those closely around him.
This all adds up to a pattern of international pressures that come particularly from the Arab League. I stress that this is not just an Atlantic, a western or even a European project; it is a united project with the support of a very wide number of countries, representatives of many of which attended the contact group in Doha the other day, including Japan. I cannot go into details about the precise contribution that the various allies, including the Americans, are making, but we welcome the arrival of the UAVs. We believe that they will help to reinforce the protection of civilians, which is the main aim of the whole project.
Ahead lie fluidity and increasing pressures on Gaddafi himself. Ahead lies a pattern in which the nations and regions of the world, including the Arabs, the African Union—to a lesser extent so far, I admit, although there have been some strong voices there as well—and certainly the responsible nations and democracies of the world, through the UN, are all depicting an end game and a better future for Libya, in which Libyans can decide their differences and carry forward their prospects without the dark and malign influence of Colonel Gaddafi. This is a possibility. To say that it is a probability at this stage is going too far, but it is an aim that can be worked for and is being worked for at this moment.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that the Statement he has just read is one of the most remarkable that many of your Lordships will ever have heard? It is about complete convulsion in a very important area of the world which threatens very significantly our whole economy and the stability of the region and the durability and survival of an enormous number of people. It is a remarkable Statement in the breadth that it has represented. We know about Tunisia originally and then Egypt; we have been involved in Libya; we now see the situation in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria; and there are uncertainties in other Arab countries, which I will not particularly mention except maybe Morocco and Algeria, where there are concerns and rumblings.
There was some comment made about the Prime Minister’s comment that we are in for the long haul. What is absolutely without question is that it is going to be a very long haul whether it comes out well or badly. The economic and security implications of what is happening now are going to be with us for a very long time indeed. There is an old phrase, “The future is not what it used to be”. There has been a convulsive change and we may be in the middle of it now or we may be only just at the beginning.
I want to add one particular point. In the first instance the Statement is concerned with the outcome in Libya. Can the Minister comment in particular about the situation in Algeria and the Polisario? What evidence is there that Gaddafi is purchasing a considerable amount of mercenary assistance which may be concealing the fact that the support he has within his own country is rather less than he might seek to pretend?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am very grateful to my noble friend whose experience in these matters is unquestioned. What he says is right: these are historic developments. They are of course different in the different countries. There is a danger, while there is a certain degree of cross-border infection and contagion, of seeing the political mechanics inside each country as similar, which they are not. Each country is different and I have been reminded of that very vividly having spent the whole of last week in the Middle East.
My noble friend asked particularly about Algeria and its involvement in this. It is something we are watching very closely indeed. We welcome President Bouteflika’s announcement that he intends to introduce political reforms, including the setting up of a constitutional commission and a revision to the law governing political parties. We hope that is a political reform statement that will be put in practice. There is no clear evidence of Algerian support for Colonel Gaddafi but it is certainly true that in the past Gaddafi has sought friends in that large neighbouring country, as he has sought friends throughout the African Union further south. Some of these friendships probably remain but I do not think I can comment further on the precise posture being taken up by Algeria externally at the moment; internally it is clear that the Algerian authorities are aware of the reform pressure operating on all governments which do not recognise the need for reform and do not recognise that the world has changed and that people now feel empowered to demand the freedoms and justice which they have been denied in the past.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, while the Minister has said the Government are resisting mission creep, does he not accept that the greater danger is mission drift? The contact group met once this month largely to reiterate what the policy previously was and it will not meet again until next month. This does not show any degree of urgency in this matter. Does he accept that a lack of cohesion and urgency appears to be shown by ad hoc statements made by Ministers which they contradict the next day? We said we were going to arm the rebels. No, we are not. We were going to train the rebels. Well, not really. Although the Minister has said specifically today Gaddafi is not a target, the Defence Secretary in New York, I think, two days ago said that Gaddafi was a legitimate target. We cannot have this position where we swing from one to the other. While the measures on sanctions and so on are important the fact is the urgency arises in stopping the fighting and the killing as soon as possible. I regret the idea we seem to have settled easily into the acceptance that it is going to be a long haul. A long haul will not really protect civilians. We really must show a greater deal of urgency than at present.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not accept that depiction of the situation at all. Of course in all dramatic and violent situations, such as the one that has developed in Libya, it would be the unwise person who predicted exactly what is going to happen next and exactly which path can be followed with clockwork results. The situation simply is not like that.
However, the overall strategy and direction are clear. They are to act within the resolution and to make the obvious point, which has been made throughout the entire Arab world and in parts of Africa and indeed in Asia as well, that there can be no peace and better future for Libya until the civilian killing stops and the chief agents of the civilian killing—notably, Colonel Gaddafi—go. Of course that raises questions of where and how he should go, which are not questions we feel are our responsibility to answer. However, the general trend is a strong one, although the timing is impossible to predict.
The actions are firm and have already been decisive in some areas, although in other areas less so. There are major difficulties where tanks and Howitzer artillery and mortar artillery and possibly some revolting weapons as well are being used by Gaddafi’s troops inside civilian areas—within the narrow streets of Libyan towns they cannot be picked out. This is the problem of fighting, which is bound to go to and fro. However, I do not think the noble Lord’s picture of indecision and drift is a fair one. There is a pattern here of responsibility to protect and responsibility to open a more stable future for this very sensitive part of the Middle East and the north Africa region.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement. It has been widely reported that mercenaries from various African countries are now fighting for the Gaddafi regime. Referring to the question of the noble Lord, Lord King, the Algerian supported Polisario Front is reported to have now sent 450 members to fight for Gaddafi’s regime. Am I to understand from the noble Lord’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord King, that the United Kingdom has made no representations on this matter?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the broader issue of the Polisario and the United Nations resolutions, and the way that that affects not so much Algeria as Morocco, we have certainly said that we think that the resolutions should be upheld. As for the cross-currents, though—either the one that the noble Lord did not quite refer to of apparent Algerian support for certain aspects of Polisario activity or the Polisario involvement in Libya, encouraged by Algeria—I am afraid that I cannot give him any precise information. I would say that I would write to him, but I am not sure that such detailed information exists in the smoke and fog of battle. Certainly mercenaries have been brought in, drawn from many areas of Africa, who are fighting for Gaddafi and are receiving large wads of money for doing so. That has been proved by some of those captured or killed who have been found to have this money on them.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the questions that have come from other noble Lords about the Polisario actually concern the no-fly zone and its effectiveness? Will he at least explain to the House why that zone does not seem to extend to the road routes into Libya, which is apparently where these mercenaries are coming from? I understand that maritime routes are being re-examined to ensure that they are sealed, but road routes do not as yet appear to be sealed.
On the broader point, does my noble friend agree that the most intractable conflict in the Middle East is Israel-Palestine? What discussions have the Government had with the Middle East envoy or indeed through the quartet to attempt to do something to kick-start the process again and get both sides to break the impasses and move forward?
On Bahrain, will the Minister tell us at what stage he will believe that we have got to a stage with regard to human rights violations where we might do something more than just implore the Bahraini royal family to sit down and negotiate seriously?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend raises three questions. The no-fly zone is authorised over Libyan airspace, not over the back channels through which manpower and weapons may continue to be supplied into Tripoli and into the hands of Gaddafi’s forces. That is not a possibility consistent with strict adherence to UNSCR 1973.
On the Middle East peace process, we are arguing strongly that this is an opportunity, not a time for the Israeli authorities to draw back, hunker down, hope that things will pass over and wait and see. On the contrary, this could be a large and open window through which those who genuinely want peace and a two-state solution, and who want to see Palestine emerge as part of a two-state pattern in a sensible relationship, should now be pressing forward. That is a view that we have pressed very strongly and which is represented by our actions at the United Nations in support of certain relevant resolutions, which my noble friend will know all about.
As for the Bahraini situation, we are concerned about what has happened and we think that the pattern of handling the protests has not been successful or the right path. We have urged that the whole emphasis should be on seeking a national dialogue, which the king himself and some of his advisers always wanted from the start. We think that that is the right way forward. We believe that the concern of surrounding countries, including that expressed by Saudi Arabia in physical form through its support of security in Bahrain, if rightly handled, is part of a beneficial theme, in that we are seeing the GCC countries and the leading Arab regional authorities take seriously the internal security of their own region. The same applies in Yemen, where there may be some hope, as the Statement said, that the GCC solution is going to bring a breakthrough and a pattern of less bloody and less violent development. These are early days, though, and all that I can tell my noble friend is that we are in constant contact with the Bahraini authorities and urging the sensible course, which we believe lies along the path of national dialogue and reform.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, one of the striking points in the Statement was the fact that only six Arab countries attended the meeting on 14 and 15 April. There are of course 16 countries in the Arab League, not counting Libya, which might have been there. It is worrying that 10 Arab League countries did not attend. Can the Minister offer an explanation for this? It was of course the support from the Arab League countries for the humanitarian objectives of the action in Libya that neutralised opposition at the United Nations and allowed the Security Council resolution to go forward, so it is enormously important that the support of those countries is maintained during this period.
While we are looking so hard at Libya, I ask the Minister to assure us that we are observing and, as the Statement says, concerned about the carnage on the streets in Syria. It would be difficult to defend going in on a humanitarian basis to stop the wanton killing of unarmed civilians in Libya while doing nothing at all about the newsreels that we have seen of the Syrian armed forces simply gunning down people in the streets in a number of different cities in Syria. We must not be caught on the argument of double standards. It is important that we respond in equal measure to equal problems.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, particularly in her last remarks. She is well positioned to know about these matters in an acute and profound form.
Attendance at the contact group of the Doha meeting was by invitation. In a sense, the Arab League authorities represent the whole range of smaller and larger Arab countries; it is their voice that has been sought, and to a large extent secured, in the recognition that one of the causes of the civilian killings is the personality, actions and attitudes of Gaddafi himself. That has come out clearly from the Arab League as a whole. However, I do not think that we expected all the smaller Arab countries to attend the Doha meeting, nor did they want to. I am not even sure that they were invited. The invitation was to the countries that are in a position to make contributions, both financial, as Kuwait has just done, as noble Lords heard in the Statement, and in terms of hardware, as Qatar and the UAE have done, as well as in a variety of other forms, as a major country like Saudi Arabia is interested in doing. The aim of the conference was not to invite every country, large and small, in the Arab region but to ensure that the Arab League as a whole spoke as far as possible for the whole region.
As for Syria, the noble Baroness is completely right. There is murder and mayhem on the streets of Syrian cities, Deraa and elsewhere. Thinking back through history, we all know of the colossal massacre that took place at Hama when the former president, Hafiz al-Assad, was alive—under the aegis, I seem to recall, of his brother, who was the chief police authority there. Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. Our protests are extremely strong but of course this requires international co-ordination, which we have with the EU and through the UN.
There is also the question of criminal charges being pursued by the International Criminal Court, and I believe that an investigation has opened. That is an independent court that makes its own decisions, but they are certainly ones that we welcome as we watch with horror the unfolding violence that will get the present president, Bashar al-Assad, and his Government nowhere. They will simply move constantly behind the curve, as I was told in the Middle East last week, and they will fail to catch up with the outrage and fury that will simply grow greater the more blood that is shed and the more violence that there is in that country.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
The Minister has reiterated the consistent attitude of the Government to regime change in Libya. However, is it not the case that our own forces, with those of our allies, are taking part in rigorous battlefield activities which, if successful, will have the effect of emasculating Colonel Gaddafi and degrading his capacity to murder his own people and, if that continues, ultimately there will be regime change? Therefore, is this the answer to the question: we do not aim for regime change, but our actions, with those of our allies, could well bring it about, and if that happens we will welcome it?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord, with his usual precision and crystal-clear legal mind, has put the matter in a nutshell. This is the way that things will go. It is not just about the battlefield activities, the aerial activities, the advisory role and the provision of telecommunications equipment mentioned in the Statement. The international freezing of resources, assets and oil revenues, and the international pressure from every side on the existing Libyan regime, will also be part of the package of forces that will lead in the direction that the noble Lord so rightly described.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, in repeating the Statement the Minister described the Libyan regime as illegitimate for the very strong reason of its treatment of its citizens. Given the violence in Syria that has been mentioned during this debate, do the Government take the same view of the Syrian Government and the presidency of Bashar al-Assad?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I refer back to my observation that each country is seeing a different pattern unfold. If my noble friend thinks about the Libyan pattern, to which he has just referred, it is a country with clearly organised opposition forces holding certain cities and territory against the organised force of a murderous regime, which still holds authority in Tripoli. That is one scene. In Syria, something else is unfolding—a very unpleasant pattern it is—in which the authorities are clearly acting in murderous ways and authorising their security forces to take part in actions that smash up human rights, destroy lives and create still rising tensions. It is not at the same point in the curve and is not the same pattern of development. There could come a time when the shape of things will change in Syria. There could come times when attitudes towards the Syrian authorities will evolve and grow increasingly determined to see changes in the pattern. It could come but you cannot compare like with like at the moment. These are different countries with different patterns of turmoil and political discontent, which all manifest in different ways. We in this country will use our tailored pressures with the EU, our American allies and our Arab and African allies to try to temper these great forces that are sweeping the Arab world, and see that they bring change—but change that is beneficial and not soaked in blood.
European Union Bill
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this bloc—Amendments 17, 18, 19, 19A and 28. They relate to matters that we discussed extensively in our earlier debate. To help the House, I am willing not to move these amendments at this stage, on the understanding that we will probably come back to these issues of pragmatic flexibility on Report. We have had a very long discussion on this and the best thing is probably to move on. However, there may be Members who wish to have a bit of a discussion on whether Clause 3 should stand part.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords I had not intended to speak on whether Clause 3 should stand part. However, I wanted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but was not permitted to do so because the Minister got to his feet and obviously wanted to intervene. I was later unable to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who did not seem to want to hear what I had to say. The first thing I want to say is that I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said. Indeed, he got to the core of the matter. The reason we are in this difficulty today, the reason we have this Bill, and the reason we are talking about referendums is that Parliament, under the European Communities Act 1972, cannot do its job. That is why we have this difficulty.
Under normal circumstances, when great changes take place Parliament is able to discuss and amend. However, when Ministers and the Government agree to hand new powers to the European Union and make a treaty, we can discuss the treaty but we cannot amend its provisions. That is not how Parliament should work. If Parliament is to work properly, the European Communities Act needs amending so that Parliament can do its job. Then, when a treaty—or whatever means of handing further power to the European Union—happens, Parliament can properly discuss the Bill with some effect by moving amendments, voting on them and disagreeing if necessary with what has been agreed by Ministers. In particular there was great concern about Clause 3, which refers to Article 48(6), in another place and—as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, knows—in this place as well. He expressed his grave concern about the possible use of Article 48(6) of the Lisbon treaty.
The whole basis of the European Union is wrong as far as democracy is concerned. The problem is that the more power that is acceded to the institutions of the European Union, the less democratic it becomes. That has been shown. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred earlier to setting aside the provisions of our own Select Committee as well as the Select Committee of the House of Commons. If the Government believe that something is urgent, they just ignore everything that has been said here. What is more, the discussions we have here are long and good; there is no question about that. The European Union Select Committee works extremely hard, takes a lot of evidence and brings forward good suggestions and reports. However, they are either set aside or ignored by the European Union itself. I do not believe that any recommendation made by this House through its Select Committee has been accepted. What on earth is the use of that? The Select Committee makes reasonable proposals which are discussed and accepted by this House but are then not accepted by the European Union. In spite of the fact that the Select Committee is a good committee doing hard work, in the last analysis it has no power.
Lord Grenfell
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, he has not quite grasped the purpose of the European Union Select Committee. The purpose is not to advise the European Union but to advise the Government. If, in their sovereignty, the Government choose not to accept our advice, there is nothing that we can do about it. However, I do not think you can say that we are not performing our function just because the institutions of the European Union might not accept what we have said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
That is precisely what I did not say. I said that the Select Committee was performing its function and doing it very well but—whether it is a case of what the Government will accept or what the European Union will accept—in the last analysis, its recommendations have not been accepted, which is a great pity. Some of the changed arrangements for the Select Committee might make it more effective, but I very much doubt it.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who would not allow me to intervene in his speech, that the peace in Europe has had nothing to do with the European Community or the European Union but has been kept by NATO. The greatest threat to Europe occurred in 1949 with the Berlin blockade. The treaty of Rome was not signed until 1957 although I think that it was thought of before then. The United States and Britain ensured that the Russian blockade was broken; it had nothing to do with any other European state, with the exception perhaps of France which gave a little help. Therefore, it is about time that we stopped talking about the European Community or the European Union being responsible for keeping the peace in Europe—NATO has kept the peace in Europe. I do not know what would have happened without NATO and the American deterrent, so please let us give credit where it is due.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, while the noble Lord is on this subject, would he care to comment on the European Union’s record in Yugoslavia?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
That would take rather a long time. I think that perhaps Germany rather than the European Union had some strategic purpose in regard to the break-up of Yugoslavia, but I had better not go into that at this time. Time is getting on and I have no doubt that noble Lords want to get to dinner, so I shall sit down.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I apologise as I am standing up. Mine is the first name attached to the Clause 3 stand part Motion on the Marshalled List. The Minister gave extremely courteous answers to the questions that I asked. I am very grateful to him for taking my questions seriously, but I have to say that the answers that he gave do not satisfy me. He has not explained the substantive reason why we need Clause 3 as well as Clause 2, nor has he answered my question about why there is no significance test in Clause 2 but only in Clause 3. He and I agree that you cannot use Clause 3 to transfer competence; you can use it only for things that do not transfer competence. The converse is not true. In Clause 2, you could, under the ordinary treaty revision procedure, do things which did not transfer competence. You could do very small things such as changing the number of justices in the Court of Justice. You would have to do that as a treaty change and you would probably, almost certainly given the structure in Brussels and the advice you would want to take from the court, do it with the heavy procedure. Therefore, it seems to me that the significance test ought in logic to apply in Clause 2 unless the Minister’s position is that anything, however insignificant, done under the standard treaty revision procedure will require a mandatory referendum.
The minatory warning of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about the foreigners who read our Hansard is valid as regards bundling. I would add a second—the idea that, as the Minister said, what will happen is that,
“a whole raft of issues requiring attention can be wrapped up and packaged”.—[Official Report, 5/4/11; col. 1670.]
If we are imposing a referendum requirement on that package, it really is an insult to the public. We are asking them to vote on a package, not on the merits of individual measures. It seems to me that the idea of bundling is not just bad practice in Brussels, and not likely to be followed in future in Brussels—people are trying to get away from it—but is also inimical to the idea of a referendum, where the purpose, presumably, is that the people answering the question understand it. If there is a raft of six or eight questions and you get only one yes or no because it is a bundle, that seems to me to be acutely unsatisfactory as a way to proceed.
I also did not hear a satisfactory answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about urgency. It is perfectly possible to envisage circumstances where waiting for a year, a year and a half or two years might not be in the UK’s interest. Therefore, it seems to me that the Liddle clause, bringing in urgency and national interest, is an extremely good idea. But even if that were accepted, I cannot see any need to have Clause 3. I will not press my point now and I apologise for burdening the House with my arguments at too great a length, but we will have to come back to this on Report. Will the Minister please read what we have said in this debate and my questions and consider whether they deserve serious answers? Will he also please look back to what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in his striking speech at the start of our first day in Committee in which, as a member of the Minister’s party, he gave strong advice that there would be many fewer problems with this Bill if there could be some movement on the 48(6) procedure in Clause 3?
Lord Empey
My Lords, in the short time that I have been in this House, it has seemed very difficult to have discussions without noble Lords dividing on the basis that they are either for or against the European Union. Virtually every comment seems to boil down to that issue. However, I do not believe that that is right. People should not be put into one box or another; we are in the European Union and these measures—some of which have significant inelegancies, one has to admit—are there for a purpose. When the concept of nations working together is a perfectly good idea, when there is evidence that there is practical advantage in that, how is it that the general population do not share that view? Disillusionment has crept in because over a prolonged period of years Governments of different persuasions have made promises on these matters which they simply have not kept. This has built up a resistance; it has been seized on by red tops and tabloid newspapers and become a very stale and futile argument.
Nevertheless, we have to realise that there are certain practicalities. For instance, no subject is better at bringing Members into their places than a debate on Europe. I looked back and discovered that the largest number of Lords participating in a vote was in the Maastricht treaty debates in the 1990s, when 621 turned up to vote—the largest number that had appeared in this House since 1831. This clearly indicates that there is a huge interest and I suspect that it is because people are still on separate sides of the argument. We have to move away from that. We are in the European Community. I do not see any prospect of us being out of the European Community in the foreseeable future, so the issue is how can we make it more acceptable, more flexible and more answerable to the population?
Some very interesting arguments have been put forward about the measures, and we will have them again at Report. I suspect that their purpose is to try to get away from a position where Ministers make promises which they simply will not keep. That has undermined support for the European Union, from which there are many advantages to be had. For eight years in Brussels I gained experience on a modest organisation, the Committee of the Regions. There are Members on all sides of the House who were on that committee, some of them at the same time as I was. I have to say that it was not a particularly successful part of the European apparatus.
Europe and the bubble in Brussels have become disconnected from the ordinary person and that is a most unfortunate development. I fear that if Clause 3 is removed without this Chamber taking a more comprehensive view on what we should do about this disconnect, and if we go back to the old ways where Ministers make decisions and put them through the House under the Whip, then there can be little confidence about gaining the acceptance of ordinary people. The Minister referred to the danger of people becoming elitist—we say that people do not understand things. However, if we put propositions to people then we should jolly well ensure that they do understand. People are perfectly capable of understanding the significance of certain things. I therefore feel that we should not run scared. If you believe in something and you think that it is worth doing as a Minister and as a Government, you should jolly well go to the people and put it before them and ask for their support.
Lord Mandelson
My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships so near to the dinner break; I shall make only three observations in relation to Clause 3 and whether it should stand part of the Bill. What we have seen during the course of this debate is a series of false assumptions and non sequiturs advanced to justify the Bill, and in particular this clause, which the Government are bringing forward.
My first observation is that we must be absolutely clear that there is no intention on the part of any Government or any member state in the European Union to claim further powers for the institutions of the European Union at the expense of member states. If anyone can jump up and point to a position, a policy, a statement, a direction of thinking on the part of any member state that would suggest otherwise, I would be perfectly prepared to hear it. Instead, what you have among the 27 member states of the European Union is not a determination to claim more powers—on the contrary. You have a determination, rightly, to better use the existing powers for the EU and its institutions, with a better sense of strategic direction for the European Union, a better set of priorities which really support our long-term economic and other interests in Europe and a better quality of decision-making on the part of the institutions, including the Commission and the European Parliament, as well as the European Council.
Lord Mandelson
If I may persist, I am not going to make very extensive remarks and we have heard a lot from the noble Lord.
On the basis of my first observation there is really no need for this Bill.
Secondly, if there were a move by one or more member states or institutions in the European Union to secure the transfer of more powers to the EU, the Government would not win their case or prevail against this argument or mood or sentiment by picking up the blunderbuss weapon that such a referendum would represent. For the Government to persuade others to their point of view, they need to use argument, they need to use persuasion and negotiation. If we were proposing something and another member state said that it was having nothing to do with this and was, indeed, going to put us over a barrel and blackmail us into submission by holding a referendum in its country that would bring the whole thing to a grinding halt, do you think that we would give in to that sort of blackmail or pressure? Of course not. We would want to hear the argument, we would want to be persuaded, there would have to be negotiation. That would be the case if the opposite situation arose.
I slightly hesitate to make my third point as I always fear I might go too far in conceding too much to the Government, but judging by their record to date as far as Europe is concerned, they are in reality and in practice adopting a largely pragmatic and common-sense approach. Why on earth would they allow themselves to be diverted in this ridiculous way by an absurd Bill, simply to console and accommodate the extreme Europhobic views of a portion of the Tory party? Much better, in my view, to go back to what the Prime Minister said in an earlier incarnation when he was leader of the Opposition. David Cameron used to say that what we need is a strong, determined, focused European Union with all the combined strength that it can bring to address the really great global problems and challenges that we face in the world. I remember him writing an article in the Sunday Telegraph where he talked about the needs of global growth and tackling global poverty; the great challenge of global warming, the insidiousness of global terrorism for which, he said, we need a strong European Union in order to combine our strength to address these great issues. How right he was.
I wish only that the Government would revert, in time and in rhetoric, to those words and that sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister in an earlier incarnation. Instead, we are grinding through the Committee stage of the Bill, trying desperately to put the equivalent of lipstick on a pig. Let us be honest, these amendments will make the mildest and most modest difference to a pathetic and inadequate Bill. I hope that the Government will recognise this, see sense before it is too late, and resolve to get on with following their largely pragmatic and common-sense approach to Europe that has, in the main, characterised their policy since the election.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, did not take my brief intervention, which is slightly against our school rules—he is something of a new boy, so I of course forgive him—I would just comment that it is of course true that if the corrupt octopus in Brussels does not want or try to take any more powers, it is because it does not need any. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, pointed out today, and as I have often pointed out in the past, you have to look only at the European Union’s use and abuse of Article 308 to see how it takes powers, even when they are not clearly sanctioned by the treaties.
My main point is to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who extolled the virtues of governmental collaboration. We all agree with governmental collaboration, but I am afraid that that leads me to the question I put to the Minister in our earlier debate. I do not expect him to answer now, but I would like to keep it on the agenda, because he moved magnificently from the proceedings on the Bill to the Statement, and then straight back to these proceedings. Perhaps he therefore has not had time to consider my point, which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. It was that the idea behind the European Union—the object of the exercise—is precisely that the nation states should lose their national democracies. It is precisely that the nation states were responsible for two world wars and all the rest of it, and they therefore had to be emasculated and diluted into this new form of supranational government, which is not working.
The euro—a subject that noble and Europhile Lords are going out of their way to avoid—was never an economic project, as I have pointed out many times over the years since its conception. The euro was designed as a cement to hold the emerging mega-state together. The euro is in deep trouble. With any luck it will not be with us in its present form for much longer. However, that does not get us away from the original project of European integration, which remains highly dangerous and is finally being rumbled by the people of Europe. Quite frankly, the sooner the whole thing collapses and we go back to intergovernmental collaboration, as extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others, with democratic nations freely trading and collaborating together, the better. It is impossible to think of any so-called achievement of the European Union that could not have been achieved by friendly intergovernmental collaboration among the consenting democratic nations that the countries of Europe, thankfully, are. I want to keep that deep question on the Minister’s agenda, and I trust that we can address it before we conclude on the Question that the Bill do now pass.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I should like to talk about Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.
The EU factsheet that the Government put out stated that the Bill is designed to strengthen the connection between the British people and the European Union. Actually, Clause 3 seems to be almost perversely designed to do the exact opposite of that perfectly reasonable ambition. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who, sadly, is not in his place, said that those of us who had supported the amendments to Clause 3 were in denial about the lack of popularity of the European Union. I am afraid that that is simply not true. I agree with much of the diagnosis about the EU’s lack of popularity, but I absolutely disagree with the treatment that the Government are putting forward by means of Clause 3.
The exceptions to the referendum lock are very limited. On most issues, that lock is unbreakable, as was pointed out earlier. It is enormously strict, and the purpose of the amendments has been to give Parliament greater flexibility in respect of whether or not a referendum is necessary. The Government are on record as saying that referendums should be kept for exceptional issues and important decisions that ought to be taken on a nationwide basis.
In an earlier debate in your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, described this as a “watershed” Bill. The measures in Clause 3 are watershed measures that need to be tempered by greater flexibility—the sort of flexibility that the amendments provided for—that will maintain the authority of this Parliament, which would otherwise be hugely undermined. We are a parliamentary democracy; that is the basis of our government. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that concept.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said that it cannot be denied that the frequent use of referendums will seriously damage the legitimacy of Parliament. I think that the situation is much worse than that. The measures in Clause 3 will engender enormous cynicism among the British people if they are asked to take part in referendum after referendum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said. Worse, there will be not just cynicism, but ridicule—the worst of all possible weapons that can be used.
In time, Parliament will recognise that that is the case and will probably, therefore, avoid using referendums. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said earlier that he would welcome avoiding such referendums, because it would mean that a block on EU decision-making could be made. Of course we may be able to block EU decisions in order to avoid a referendum, but other countries may have decided to go ahead under the enhanced co-operation provided for in the Lisbon treaty. The Minister has not answered that point. There is no such thing as an absolute block in many areas because of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty in allowing for that enhanced co-operation, and I should be grateful if the Minister said a little more about those provisions and the likelihood—indeed, some would say, the inevitability—of them being used. If that is the case, this country would be pushed to the margins of Europe again—as a result, distancing the British people even further from Europe and even further from the objectives that the Minister so passionately espoused when putting forward the Bill.
The amendments that we discussed today have been designed to provide that greater flexibility and to give Parliament the ability to look at what really merits a referendum and consider the serious issues on which the people of this country, on a nationwide basis, should be called upon to take decisions. Somehow the impression has been given—notably by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that if the United Kingdom blocks a measure, that is the end of it. Those of us who went through the Lisbon treaty know that that simply is not true. On this issue I look particularly at the Liberal Democrat Benches. They are good Europeans. I regret to say that in many ways they have been better Europeans than my own party. That is the truth of the matter, and that they can go along with these sorts of measures in Clause 3 frankly beggars belief.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we have discussed the principles and details embraced in this clause at some length and I am grateful for the additional points that have been raised in the stand part debate.
I apologise straight away if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thought that I cut him short or intervened as he expressed his very sincerely held views. I thought that he had commented earlier but I am very glad that he has now had an opportunity to speak. He raised issues that go wider than the Bill, although they are not totally unrelated to it. He raised the question of scrutiny in our two Houses, which is something that we want to strengthen. He is absolutely right that in the past the reasons for not observing or waiting for the scrutiny process were possibly a little too cavalier. These are matters that we have all argued for and there is a constant search for improvement. However, I think that the operation of our own European Union Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place are commendable. They cover an enormous amount of ground with very great thoroughness. Speaking from this government position, I can say that it certainly is right for the Government to pay maximum attention to that. It makes complete sense.
There is the broader question of the democratic nature of the European Union and the kind of issues that were addressed in the Laeken declaration. That declaration pleaded with the European institutions and national Governments to seek ways to bring European affairs closer to popular consent and to the people so that they had a greater understanding of where the European Union benefited its members—as a home club or home team it could achieve greater things in combination—and where it should not necessarily intrude on affairs that were properly the concern of nation states and those close to the ground of intimate local issues, which were best governed and decided at national or local level and possibly not at the loftier level of the European Union. That is a broader issue which we shall perhaps come to.
The European Union, like any great institution and certain institutions of the last century, needs reform. We are now facing totally different conditions from the ones that we faced even a couple of years ago, and so is Europe. Power has moved, wealth has moved and economic activity has moved. The things that some of us forecast 15 years ago, such as the rise of easternisation, as we called it—the rise of the eastern powers—have taken place. That is a question not just of shifting economic gravity but of shifting political gravity as well. In those conditions, Europe as an institution needs to move ahead and the nation states within it need to achieve greater popular support and democratic consensus than they have achieved so far. I shall come to that point again in a moment when I address the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, which were extremely interesting and stimulating.
I turn, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I am sorry that he did not think that my answers were serious. They were intended to be deadly serious; obviously I did not have quite the right tone. However, I emphasised as strongly as I could that we need Clause 3 as well as Clause 2. Clause 3 is needed to address areas where there can be transfers of power and where the special short revision procedure is employed. The noble Lord asked why there was no significance test in the case of Clause 2. The answer is that in Clause 2 we are dealing with treaty changes where competences are shifted or not. In the case of the judges that he mentioned, there would not be a transfer of powers, so there would not be a transfer of competences. If more judges were appointed, the issue would not arise, so there would be no need for any of these procedures at all. Otherwise, all the issues in Clause 2 require treaty changes; and treaty changes, unless they are exempted or unless there is no transfer of power, qualify for and attract a referendum. In Clause 3 the pattern is completely different. There, we are dealing with transfers of powers which are not defined in the treaty, although they are defined to a considerable extent in the Bill. I have listed them again and again until I have become almost short of voice. This is a whole range of powers that can be transferred, and a degree of judgment—although not a vast degree—is required in relation to their significance. That is the difference.
Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Revocation, Savings and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To resolve that this House regrets the lack of detailed information contained in the explanatory memorandum on the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Revocation, Savings and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/544).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the regulations before the House tonight revoke the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004, which regulate access to the UK labour market by nationals of eight of the states that acceded to the European Union in 2004. This is required because the treaty governing the accession of those states to the EU provided that existing member states may restrict such access to the labour market for up to seven years following accession, and this period expires on 30 April 2011.
The UK signed up to the right to the free movement of people within the EU, as codified in the EU directive 2004/38/EC, which included provision for free movement of workers within the territory of member states and the European Economic Area. Since the expansion of the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK has accepted immigrants from central and eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus. There are restrictions on the benefits that members of those countries can claim, which are covered by the worker registration scheme. The significance of that is that the consequence of revoking the regulations, as we are doing tonight, is the closure of the worker registration scheme.
The scheme was introduced in the UK as a transitional measure to monitor accession states nationals’ access to the UK labour market. The scheme did not place any restrictions on the access of nationals of accession states to the labour market in terms of numerical ceilings, resident labour market test or a skills test, but it did make employment subject to a requirement that workers register their employment under the scheme within one month of starting work. Workers ceased to be subject to the requirement to register after 12 months of continuous employment in the UK in accordance with the 2004 regulations.
The reason that I have sought a debate on the regulations is to seek from the Government an assessment of their impact. This matter was raised by the Merits Committee in its 26th report. In that report, the committee drew this statutory instrument to the special attention of the House. The Explanatory Memorandum to the SI states:
“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is negligible. The lifting of the registration requirement imposes no additional costs on business, charities or voluntary bodies and means that employers will no longer need to be compliant with the requirement to ensure that an accession State worker requiring registration has registered their employment … The impact on the public sector is that the UK Border Agency will no longer incur the cost of administering the Worker Registration Scheme. This impact is negligible for the public sector because these costs were recovered though the fee charged for applications”.
We are informed in the Explanatory Memorandum that no impact assessment has been prepared.
The Explanatory Memorandum is silent on assessing the impact of the termination of the worker registration scheme on the benefits system. That is what particularly caught the eye of the Merits Committee, to which I pay tribute for the thoroughness of its work and the help that it gives Members of your Lordships' House in understanding what are sometimes the mysteries of statutory instruments. It will be seen from the 26th report that the Merits Committee followed that comment up in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions. That response is helpfully published as Appendix 1 to the 26th report, which states that the DWP says that,
“over 11,000 claims from nationals of the eight countries for income-based Job Seeker’s Allowance were refused last year, but which may have succeeded with the end of the WRS and the transitional arrangements under the Accession Treaty”.
The Merits Committee informs us that,
“DWP say they are still working on the potential costs following the end of the WRS … DWP also say that rules are in place to prevent abuse and they have an expert team scrutinising the quality and consistency of decision making on claims from nationals of the eight countries”.
As the Merits Committee comments, it is disappointing that the Department for Work and Pensions is still working on the potential costs following the end of the worker registration scheme.
This debate is an opportunity, first, to encourage the noble Baroness’s department to be more forthcoming in its impact assessments in future. Secondly, I hope that the noble Baroness will update us and the House on whether the DWP has made any further progress in its work in analysing the potential costs following the end of the worker registration scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this statutory instrument was drawn to the attention of the House because of the public policy likely to be of interest to it, not because of a defective Explanatory Memorandum. It is not so long ago that we had no Explanatory Memoranda to orders, only Explanatory Notes, which still exist but which are much narrower, technical and often, I must say, opaque. It has only been since 2004, when the Merits Committee was formed, that we have had this type of assistance. I should declare that I am a member of the Merits Committee at present. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the committee's advisers, Jane White and Grant Oliver, who pursue with a quiet doggedness issues which arise on too many of the literally thousands of SIs which come before us: things such as lack of reporting on the outcome of consultation, and very often the late presentation of an order so that there is no proper time to investigate before it comes into force.
It should go without saying—although I had better say it—that accountability and access to what the Government do is of the utmost importance. Transparency may be a little overworked as a term, but the concept is not. Information must be available and accessible, not least to avoid any suggestion that what we have—this is not my term, although I wish it was—is not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. The Explanatory Memorandum is important, because it is a public document, but I think that this Explanatory Memorandum is clear. It is detailed within its own terms. Perhaps it would be good to have an impact assessment to accompany statutory instruments, but, as things are at the moment, that is not usual.
My greater concern is the usual—the importance of joining up different parts of government. The SI comes from the Home Office; it was announced by the noble Baroness. Her statement dealt with the procedures affecting people coming into the UK from the accession states, not the wider impact. The report notes with disappointment that the DWP has not provided an estimate of associated costs. It had seven years to do so. I cannot resist the basic arithmetic, which tells us when six of those seven years were.
The noble Lord has raised a number of interesting questions, and I will, to an extent, repeat them. Given the time that there has been, why have the Government not sought to develop a more accurate measure of the likely numbers? The noble Lord referred to the 11,000—it may be almost 12,000—claims rejected in the past calendar year which apparently would have succeeded with the ending of the transitional arrangements. How confident are the Government that those figures are close to being accurate? How will they seek to verify them? Newspaper articles use the figure of more than 100,000 migrants. If I were to ask the Minister whether she knows where the newspapers got the figure of 100,000 from, that would probably be an unfair question, because we all know that newspapers are not necessarily the most accurate reporters.
Have the Government worked out the cost of the increased access to benefits? It would be helpful if the Minister would say a little about the Jobcentre Plus team to which the noble Lord referred. Is it dealing with just these accession state nationals? I hope not, as I hope this is all in a wider context. I also hope that it is not just the DWP but, for instance, BIS or Communities that have considered the implications of this change. I am not suggesting that they have not.
The point of the transitional arrangements was to monitor accession state nationals’ access to the UK labour market. We are told that by paragraph 7(2) of the Explanatory Memorandum. What was the result?
The best argument for a full Explanatory Memorandum dealing with the impacts is yesterday’s Daily Express, whose front page screamed, “Migrants Flood Back to Britain”. I know the reluctance to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but perhaps fuller Explanatory Memoranda on this sort of issue would assist in ensuring accuracy rather than raising the temperature so unnecessarily and unpleasantly.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. Let me try to explain why the Government limited themselves in the Explanatory Memorandum to the points that it made. It was not out of a desire to deny Parliament legitimate information. It had much more to do with the inherent difficulty of getting reliable figures into the public domain. I will try to explain why we were cautious.
There are two aspects to this. The first is what the future pattern of migration to this country is likely to be and the second is the consequences for the benefits budget. My first point is about migration. Noble Lords will know from experience that making predictions about levels of migration from new member states is a fairly precarious activity. The Benches opposite are abundantly aware that previous efforts to put numbers on expected arrivals after May 2004 were not entirely successful. Indeed, they subsequently chose not to estimate arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania when they joined the EU on 1 January. I have sympathy with that because of the previous experience. We all recall that it was estimated that 13,000 A8 nationals would migrate to the UK in 2004. There is genuine difficulty in this.
However, there are some points that can usefully be made. First, there is the position of A8 nationals who are already here. One effect of the worker registration scheme has been that those entering the UK labour market have generally been prevented from having immediate access to out-of-work benefits if they are seeking work or become unemployed. It is also reasonable to assume that a substantial proportion of those who have arrived since 2004 were already no longer subject to the restrictions because once they have worked here legally for more than 12 months they are no longer subject to the WRS.
The number of A8 workers who have registered under the WRS since May 2004 is approximately 1.1 million. The WRS does not record how many of those who have registered have subsequently left the UK, but statistics from the Labour Force Survey suggest that the number of A8 nationals in employment in the UK in the three months to the end of 2010 was 615,000. It can be assumed that a fraction of that number, but we do not know how many, are A8 workers who have already worked legally and continuously in the UK for more than 12 months and so are not subject to the WRS and therefore the termination makes no difference to their status.
What is more difficult to predict is the extent to which we may experience more or less migration from A8 countries after 30 April 2011. While the Labour Force Survey provides us with some information on the stock of A8 migrants to the UK, it does not tell us about flows over time. The general trend indicated by the International Passenger Survey estimate of long-term migration from A8 countries, which was published by the Office for National Statistics last year, is that immigration levels steadily fell during 2008 and 2009 and then levelled off while numbers of A8 nationals emigrating from the UK rose sharply in 2008 before exits fell off. The result is that net migration from A8 countries appears to have been positive, but not particularly strongly, over the past year.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very glad to respond to this short debate tonight.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is absolutely right about the powerful help that we receive from the publication of Explanatory Memorandums. She will be aware that I was the first chairman of the Merits Select Committee. When we first met, relying simply on Explanatory Notes proved very insufficient, so the publications of EMs for all statutory instruments has been very helpful. I very much agree with her comments about the argument for very full Explanatory Memorandums. I certainly support that, and I certainly endorse her comments about the work of the Merits Select Committee. It is very difficult for Members of this House to scrutinise statutory instruments properly without the kind of help that we receive from the Select Committee. I am very grateful to it for the work that it does, and I sympathise with the noble Baroness for the no doubt weekly delivery of statutory instruments that have to be read.
At the end of her speech, the noble Baroness referred to six out of seven years, the implication being that if the DWP had had seven years I ought to accept responsibility for six-sevenths of the failure to produce the figures. It is, of course, in the final year that one expects most of the work to be done, which falls under different management.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for explaining the difficulty in achieving reliable budget figures. I understand the particular challenges that face the DWP, particularly in the light of the data protection issues that she mentioned, and I certainly fully accept the complexity of these matters, but I think that the Explanatory Memorandum would have benefited from the kind of explanation that she gave tonight. The problem is that the EM was silent; paragraph 10(2) simply describes the impact on the public sector as negligible. It would have been helpful if reference had been made to the potential cost of the benefits, and it would have been entirely acceptable to have said that it was not possible at this point to quantify that cost for the reasons that the noble Baroness gave.
I hope that this debate has been helpful and that when the Home Office comes with further SIs, as no doubt it will—it always does—it takes that particular point to heart. I am glad to have raised the matters contained in this statutory instrument tonight, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
European Union Bill
Lord Liddle
Lord Liddle
My Lords, there is a danger in this Committee that we will be accused of mind-boggling pedantry on the clauses of the Bill, and I am very aware of that. However, I think that that is because of the nature of the Bill, which is basically pedantic and full of unnecessary detail. The amendment I am proposing would amend Clause 4(1)(i) to make it clear that there would be no question of a referendum arising,
“except where such conferral strengthens the ability of the European Court of Justice to enforce compliance with European Union law”.
In other words, we are trying to provide that the ability of the European Court of Justice to do its job is a vital national interest of Britain and, if the need arises, we should be able to enhance its powers. Again, this would not be a change of major institutional or constitutional significance, although I suppose it would be anathema to our friends who believe that any acceptance of the European Court of Justice’s role is a denial of British sovereignty. But for those of us who think you have to have a European court in order to make the structure of the European Union work and hold member states to their obligations, it is very important that we are clear that we are prepared, if necessary, to see the powers of the European Court of Justice enhanced.
I raised this as a matter of principle when I tabled the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, but at the weekend I glanced with interest at the recently published report from Sub-Committee E of the European Union Committee. The summary of conclusions is rather stark:
“We predict another crisis of workload soon … We agree … that ‘structural solutions need to be found’”.
Later in the summary of conclusions it states:
“We do not make any suggestion likely to involve Treaty change because in the short term other solutions are available. But the Member States should not be put off from undertaking necessary reform involving Treaty change when the opportunity arises in the longer term”.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to say that we need an effective European Court of Justice and that we should be open to such changes. Frankly, the fact that under the Bill such changes might be subject to a referendum requirement could well mean that a British Government would not agree to changes in the workings of the Court which were actually in the British national interest. That is why I am moving the amendment.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. He is about to move a whole raft of amendments which are designed to do what we were debating before dinner—that is, to introduce a little more flexibility into the application of what the Government call a referendum lock. That could be done either by importing the significance criterion into Clause 2 or in the way that is now being suggested. I should just recall that the British Government of the day, who form one part of the present Government, spent a great deal of time in the 1990s doing precisely what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, would do, which is to strengthen the powers of the European Court of Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is no doubt too modest to say so, but he played a major role in securing the provisions which enabled the European Court of Justice to levy fines on member states which were in gross breach of their obligations. That was not easy to do; it was certainly in Britain’s interests that it be done. I would be subject to correction, but I do not believe that any British Government have ever been caught by those provisions, although quite a lot of other people have.
The amendment is very sensible. I make a plea to the Government to think very carefully between now and Report about ways in which they could introduce a bit more flexibility into the Bill. A whole number of different ways are being put forward in different amendments, of which this is just one. By the time we come back on Report, I hope that it will be possible for the Government to show a bit of flexibility on this, so that future British Governments have a certain degree of flexibility, too.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I am not quite clear what the amendment is intended to achieve. If it is intended to block any real transfer of power to the European Court of Justice, those of us who believe that it is inappropriate obviously could not support it. However, it seems to me that that is not quite what it is saying; indeed, I am not entirely clear what it is saying. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Lord could in due course be a little more specific about his real objective.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Having heard the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I wonder whether my noble friend might be able to tell us whether the powers required by the ECJ, were any transfer contemplated, would be covered by the significance test. My understanding is that they would be.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I welcome a debate in which we are discussing the amendment in front of us rather than having another Second Reading-type debate as I felt at some point this afternoon we were doing. I can see where this amendment and the other probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, are going, but they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill. The Bill does not intend to tie a British Government hand and foot to prevent them co-operating within the terms of the treaty.
The coalition agreement accepts the Lisbon treaty. That is, after all, a major step forward. The Lisbon treaty includes a substantial extension of competencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said in his very useful speech before dinner, the task that the European Union now needs to pursue is to use effectively the competencies that it has to make good decisions and then to implement worthwhile policy within those existing competencies. I have been struggling, with this and a number of the other probing amendments that the noble Lord has put down, to discover what particular difficulties these will cause for the British Government.
The European Union, as we all know, has often preferred—or at least those enthusiasts and habitués of Brussels have—to spend time writing new laws and devising new institutions rather than getting on with implementing policies. Part of the hole that we now find ourselves in and the mistrust we have across the European Union is the result of 25 years of treaty amendment, from the Single European Act, through the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty, the Convention and the Lisbon treaty. They have provided very substantial competencies for the European Union, many of which have not yet been used.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee produced a very interesting paper the other week on the number of powers that the previous Labour Government had acted to put into the law, which have not yet been implemented. There was this great feeling in that Labour Government that when something happened, you passed a new Act or created a new criminal offence. There is now, as a result, a huge list of things on the statute book that have not yet been implemented and which I rather hope that this Government will get around to repealing.
As far as the EU is concerned, there are now substantial competencies. There are a large number of regulations in force, many of which unfortunately have not been fully enforced or implemented. I am puzzled by what it is that one needs to do with the European Court of Justice for which Article 256—which I have read, again—does not provide the powers that we need. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said—on at least one occasion and I think more often—that we will need to change the number of judges in the European Court of Justice, which will require a treaty change and therefore a referendum. My understanding on this—and I may be wrong—is that to change the number of judges on the court, which we all know is overloaded, would require unanimous agreement by Governments of the member states in an intergovernmental conference; but in terms of this Bill, that would not involve a change to the treaty and certainly not the provision of extra powers or competencies. Yet again, I fear we may be dashing off after a hare that is bolting rather faster than we did.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The number of judges in the court is defined in the treaty. So changing the number of judges in the court requires an amendment to the treaty. There is no doubt about that. Whether that would require a referendum—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was debating with me before dinner—is another question. He may well be right: it depends on whether you view an increase in the number of judges as an increase in the power of the court. If you did, then, under this Bill, you would require a referendum; if you did not, then, under this Bill, you would not. However, it is certainly a treaty amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Before the Minister replies, can I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, whether, with his great knowledge of these matters, anything can be done about the quality of these judges? Is it not true that none of them would pass muster as a judge in even the lowest and least distinguished of British courts? Is there anything we can do about that under the treaty? Who decides it?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is not going to answer. I had something in my notes about how the European Union attracts pedants and conspiracy theorists, but I thought I would not use that on this occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, we all know that we are sometimes a little pedantic on this. I am a Eurobore of some considerable standing, having helped to write several textbooks on the subject and struggled each time to remember how the treaty articles have been renumbered and so on. We could go on for a great deal of time.
We have heard one or two conspiracy theories this afternoon and this evening. Noble Lords may be aware that I received an even better conspiracy theory today from Migration Watch suggesting that the increased migration under the previous Labour Government was a deliberate attempt to increase the ethnic vote, which would split down for Labour. That is an even better conspiracy theory than anything that I have ever heard from the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I encourage the members of the Labour Party to have a go at that when they have appreciated it fully.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I do not think that I have ever said that. I have never accused the Labour Party of gerrymandering and bringing millions of people over here to vote for it. The noble Lord might have seen it in a newspaper but I have certainly never used it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I was in no way suggesting that his imagination had stretched that far. Perhaps I might return to the amendment because I hope that after dinner we are going to keep to each of them. My puzzlement on this one is that I see nothing in the Bill that cramps the powers and competences of the European Court of Justice to enforce compliance with European Union law. Her Majesty’s Government support an effective European Union—as did our predecessors, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said—and strongly support the better implementation of European Union law. We shall continue to do so.
Lord Liddle
There is a lot with which I agree in what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has said. I agree with the basic analysis: that the question is of how the powers of the Union, as granted by the Lisbon treaty, should be used. What the noble Lord glosses over in his defence, as it were, of the Government is that the Lisbon treaty covers much of the ground that we need to cover but this Bill is designed to cramp the flexibility that it contains. That is the fundamental issue which noble Lords from around the House are trying to address. We are saying: “Look, we're not asking for a mandate for vast new powers for the European Union. That isn't what the argument is about”. We are saying: “The Lisbon treaty? Fine—but there is flexibility within it. Why are the Government ruling out using that flexibility where we, as the United Kingdom, think that it is in our national interest and where the British Government support it?”. Those are the conditions which would have to be met.
I am not a great expert on the European Court of Justice, unlike other noble Lords who may be in the Chamber. However, in its analysis of that Court your Lordships’ own committee, under the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed to the possibility of the need for some change in the treaty. We ought to be open to that possibility and to a little bit of give on this kind of thing. If the Bill is to have a less troublesome Report stage than it looks as if it might otherwise have, the Government have to find a way of accommodating the view that we need more flexibility on some of these more detailed provisions.
Baroness O'Cathain
The noble Lord stated that the Bill seeks to cramp parts of the Lisbon treaty. Does he not agree that if you look at it in a dispassionate way—I know it is very difficult to look at this Bill in a dispassionate way—and use the word “moderate” it might actually be more acceptable. If you felt that this was to moderate rather than to cramp, it is not a physical thing of trying to stop but one of trying to get an acceptable level of agreement throughout. I just wish we could pursue this on that basis.
Lord Liddle
The noble Baroness has made a helpful point. My fear in all of this is that what we are doing through adopting this very restrictive position is putting British Ministers in a position where they would want to agree things that they regard as being good for Britain and they are going to have to say no because they believe that the referendum lock would apply. That is not very sensible where the issues are not of great concern to the public, where there is not real competence creep and where the benefits of change could be quite considerable.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is that not one of the disadvantages of this amendment? It does nothing to prevent competence creep. If the noble Lord does not agree with that, would he care to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, earlier this evening and indeed by myself about the way the European Court of Justice has permitted and supported the abuse of Article 308 of the treaty of Nice, as it then was, which allowed Brussels to get involved only,
“in the course of the operation of the common market”?
That was the wording in the original treaty, which lasted right through until Lisbon when it was strengthened in the Court’s favour.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned aid to Outer Mongolia as being justified by the Court in this matter. There was urban renewal in Northern Ireland, the co-ordination of our social security systems—quite a big one that—the prevention and aftercare of terrorism, establishing the EU’s agency for fundamental rights and a £235 million “information campaign”, which to those of us who understand these things is of course propaganda.
The European Court has been able to abuse the treaties in these ways and there are many other clauses such as flexibility clauses which the European Union has abused. Indeed, in 1996 when the use of Article 308 was taken to the Luxembourg Court, in its judgment the Court said that the point of this article was to pursue the interests of the Union. In its judgment it did not mention the first words of the clause:
“If in the course of the operation of the common market”.
I really do not see how this amendment is going to do anything to stand up to that sort of behaviour. There is no appeal against the judgments of this so-called Court, the quality of whose judges, I repeat and I am not trying to be amusing, is extremely low and unacceptable. I really do not see why we should have anything in this Bill which enforces the powers of this particular creation. As the noble Lord said when he introduced his remarks, those of us of a Eurosceptic bent would rather they had nothing to do with us or our law at all.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am sure that the noble Lord knows Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court well. Justice Scalia has argued on a number of occasions that no American court could ever give credence to international treaty law or to any international court because intrinsically United States law is superior to that of any other state or court—a fundamentally nationalist line that is familiar to us. I am sure that the noble Lord shares it from an English perspective.
I do not wish to pursue that much further. I merely wish to say that my puzzlement on this amendment and on those that follow is that there is considerable flexibility in the treaty that is now before us. It is not the aim of the Bill to tie the British Government or to repatriate powers. We have heard today, even from some of the people behind us on the coalition Benches, that the Bill is inadequate and that what they wanted was repatriation and a reduction of the powers. That is not what we planned. What we are asking for is a pause. Pauses are sometimes used to try to rebuild public confidence in a range of different policy areas and it seems entirely appropriate that, after the considerable extension of competence that the EU has been through over successive treaty changes, there should now be a pause.
We should draw a line under the conspiratorial suspicions and fears—the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, used the word “fears” about his views on what the Bill might have behind it, underneath it or somewhere in a back cupboard—that Brussels is going to slide things past us by saying, “Let’s work within the existing treaties for the foreseeable future and then, when we are absolutely clear that additional powers or competences may be needed, we will return to this process”. However, I hope that all Members of this House will agree that we have spent far too long with Governments and members of the European Commission and Parliament who love discussing institutional change—much more than they wish to discuss real policy outcomes. What we need to do now in the EU is to improve our real policy outcomes using the substantial amount of competences that we now share. I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Liddle
I shall of course withdraw the amendment at this stage. What I find puzzling, though, is that when the Minister reads the Bill he sees in it lots of flexibility and possibilities for dealing pragmatically with the challenges that arise but when I and other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, read the Bill we see real inflexibility and an attempt to tie a British Government down in a way that is contrary to our national interests. I urge the Minister to have another think about this. Although he is a highly intelligent man who knows a lot about the European Union, his perception of the Bill is not shared by some of the most formidable experts on these issues in the country. I hope very much that the Government will have another look at these matters when we come to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Liddle
Lord Liddle
This is a similar amendment, which is an attempt to insert in Clause 4(1)(j) an exception of where a conferral of powers would strengthen the ability of the European Commission to enforce European Union competition, state aid and single market rules. Why move this? This is a clear national interest. The Prime Minister has just produced a great glossy booklet about the single market, which he has sent around the chancelleries of Europe to convince his partners that Britain is fully engaged in the European Union. It is a central interest of the United Kingdom. We face a constant complaint that there is, in practice, a lack of a level playing field within the European Union. To enforce the single market, we are largely dependent on the ability and strength of the European Commission in enforcing its rules. I am not saying that immediate changes to those rules are required, but we should have the flexibility, again, to look in a positive light if proposals are made. Again, these are not fundamental issues that involve transfers of powers. These are issues where action could well be in the British national interest, giving us something we want: a deeper, more integrated single market that is good for British business.
We all know that there are areas of the single market where action is much needed. The services directive has been passed; how will it be enforced? The Commission says that it will act. What will be the result when it tries, and what conclusions will be drawn from that? We do not know at this stage. We should be open to seeing what might have to be done to make the services directive effective. Similarly, on the Commission’s competition powers, I should like to see a more proactive European Commission in enforcing competition. However, we do not know whether the existing procedures will prove adequate to the purpose. On state aid, again, there is a very difficult balance to be struck between too much interference in the minutiae of state aid—activities by member states that should not go anywhere near Brussels—and the need to create a level playing field for the future. All I am saying here is that there are issues that might, in future, require us to accept changes. We should be open to that, rather than ruling them out. That is why I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Waddington
Surely there is a point to be made with regard to this amendment, which could have been made with equal force about the previous amendment. It is not a mere drafting point. You may have a conferral of power that strengthens the ability of the European Commission to enforce European Union competitive state aid and single market rules, but also has other very serious consequences. This is just one of the examples where you have to be very careful to make sure that one power is not used for a different purpose. It is plain—and not just a question of bad draftsmanship—that if you were to do this, you would allow the conferral of a power that did a lot of mischief as well as the things that the noble Lord rightly wants to see done.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment but let me first deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has made. It is clear that any powers can be abused, and it is clear that any suggestion that powers should be changed or extended in any way should be the subject of lively debate among member states in the Council of Ministers, as has always been the case. Only when we are satisfied that something is in our national interest should we consent to any proposal from the Commission or anybody else. That is how the European Union has always been conducted and, I trust, always will be conducted. I do not think the fact that a power can always be abused is a reason for not providing for the possibility that we might need to adopt it or to grant it to the European Union.
As my noble friend said in introducing the amendment, the inspiration for this amendment is similar to that which led to the previous one. I rise to speak particularly on this amendment because it deals with the single market. That is an area where I always thought that there existed an all-party consensus—this was true until very recently—that a positive, what you might call forward, policy on the single market was in the interests of this country. Indeed, I remember a time when the Tory party took enormous pride in having created the single market under Lord Cockfield and Jacques Delors who, with the strong support of Margaret Thatcher, brought through those 300 directives and created a single market. When I entered the House of Commons as a Conservative, as the House knows, we all felt—I felt this, as did most of my Conservative colleagues—a great sense of pride that this was a great Conservative achievement. Now we have a situation in which the Tory-dominated coalition Government are trying to bring an end to this forward policy. When I say “forward policy” what I mean is an acceptance in principle that the best way we are likely to be able to achieve our national purposes in the single market area is by according strong regulation-making and enforcement powers to an objective central authority—in this case the European Commission but also the European Court of Justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reminded us a few moments ago that in the 1980s among the Conservative achievements in this area was to successfully override the opposition of other member states to, and then to implement, new enforcement powers for the European Court of Justice, including the very memorable historic move forward at that time of introducing the concept of fines on member states. It is extraordinary that in the course of 20 years—this has been part of the agony of my political life—the Conservative Party has done a complete somersault on this.
In referring to the Conservative Party, I can anticipate the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, might make when he sums up, following what he said on the previous amendment. I recognise that the Lib Dems are very uncomfortable with this process. As I know him well, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will have played the most positive part he could in trying to prevent complete extremists and head-bangers setting out the agenda that was to be adopted by the coalition Government. Indeed, the Lib Dems saw off the threat of repatriation of powers, which has been a very strong demand by a great majority in the Conservative Party for far too many years. Of course, that is splendid. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is really saying to us: namely, that they tried their best and could not do any better and therefore they ended up with a compromise, a kind of stalemate, between Conservative Eurosceptic extremism and Lib Dem pragmatism, if you like. That is where we are.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we all understand the dramas in his party and in the coalition but that is not a good basis for legislation. We should be trying to legislate as far as we possibly can on the basis of a dispassionate analysis of the country’s interests. I do not believe that the country’s interests have changed in the area of the single market at all since the 1980s when, as I say, the Conservative Party took the lead in creating what we now call the single market, and a fine achievement it was. Should we say that we have certain powers which should be used—that is correct and I quite agree with that—and that we should exclude the idea that any new powers may be needed? However, life is not like that. Life always presents you with new challenges, difficulties and unexpected problems that you cannot possibly anticipate.
I am not brilliant enough to anticipate what might happen but of course there could be financial scams and major problems requiring new legislation or regulation. Big threats could arise to competition in some areas which may show up the inadequacy of our present competition powers. Problems could arise in implementing the single market. It may be shown that the one reason why we have so far failed to implement the single market in the energy area is because our powers are inadequate and therefore it might be necessary to take more powers. I am not suggesting that we should take more powers and I am certainly not clever enough to anticipate in what hypothetical circumstances we might need them. I am simply saying that—I think that we are saying this on this side of the House generally—it would be very stupid to exclude ab initio the possibility that we might need to develop the portfolio of powers that we currently have to try to build up and nurture a successful single market and to assume that all the problems that we face exist now and have revealed themselves once and for all and that there will be no surprises in the future. That is not a realistic way of conducting the nation’s business; it is certainly not a way one would ever conduct a private business, of course not. One would know that what was needed, to use my noble friend’s term, was the flexibility to respond to the unexpected. That will never cease; as long as human history continues we shall always need to do that. And here we are depriving ourselves of that flexibility, let there be no doubt about it.
Of course the Eurosceptics on both sides of the Chamber will say that the Government will not have a referendum because it might be lost. Well, a referendum may be lost or gained but it is quite clear to me—I made this argument at Second Reading and I believe it firmly—that in most cases a Minister will be deterred from getting into the position where there might be even some legal doubt about whether an action or decision by him could trigger one. It would be the end of a Minister’s career to come back from Brussels to be told by his legal advisers a few days later that what he had agreed to would require a referendum. The Prime Minister would sack him on the spot. No Prime Minister wants a referendum suddenly landed on him.
Irrespective of what the British nation might feel or whether the great public expect to be asked by us to do all the homework, to read the documents, to come to a substantive decision on technical issues, the very fact that a referendum could be triggered under the regime the Government propose with this Bill will act as a total deterrent and a total freeze on any flexibility at all. So, from having led the way on the single market with an imaginative, forward-looking and enterprising approach, sadly after a generation we are now, substantially under the leadership of the party that more than any other in Europe should be given credit for the single market, producing a situation in which, by definition, we cannot be part of any change however sensible because, irrationally and substantively, a referendum is clearly a political impossibility. It is certainly an impossibility if it is on a technical matter which might be considered to be rather minor by the British electorate. As politicians in this House, we all know that is the truth.
That is what we are letting ourselves into if we pass this Bill, unless we do so with the kind of amendments which my noble friend has introduced to bring a little bit more reality and realism and a sense of the way the world is into its operation. I therefore wholeheartedly support my noble friend. I hope that, if this amendment is not pressed now, we shall get into serious business at Report stage and that we manage to change the Bill into a more sensible direction along the lines he has proposed.
Lord Flight
My Lords, it seems perhaps surprising but state aid is yet another area where powers granted to the EU have exceeded themselves. Noble Lords will have been aware that, in the recent Budget, the Government quite rightly wished to provide additional support for small companies and to widen the EIS to do that because the equity funding gap is up to £10 million. This has been limited because the state aid rules, which were rightly intended to stop unfair massive state subsidy of uncompetitive industries, have been used to decree that you fall foul if there are any sort of tax incentives to companies with more than 50 employees or those raising more than £2 million per annum. This ridiculous intrusion into the economic life of this country has been put in under the guise of state aid, so the Government have rightly said “We are going to go back and renegotiate this”. However, instead of being able to put in the financial support when it is needed—when the economy is on its back as a result of the last Government’s failures—we have to wait another year to try to negotiate to widen these issues.
I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord has said in principle but, when it comes to experience, the last thing I want to see is any more state aid powers.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I had thought to myself, “Dear oh dear”; when the noble Lord and I were colleagues in the Conservative Party a generation ago, we would have both been arguing against state aids on the basis that they were always distortionary, and the European Union was a wonderful way of getting away from the completely self-destructive bidding war that all nations are inclined to get into, in terms of providing some sort of subsidy or other for their industries on whatever political or other grounds or the fashionable economic doctrines that might be in vogue at the time.
However, I repeat my main point that we do not need to get into a discussion on the theory of state aids or their substantive costs or risks, because the assumption has always been—and the way that the issue has always worked has been—that European Union member states have held robust discussions between them on these matters. We have never signed up to anything that we did not agree to. All that I and Members on this side of the House want to achieve is for us to continue to be able, when we think that it is in the national interest, to go along with some agreement for new, extended or slightly modified powers. That is all. There is no suggestion that in advance we would necessarily agree to anything of that kind—that would be utterly unrealistic—but we need to maintain flexibility. The noble Lord is a very considerable and successful businessman, and in the conduct of his own business he would not adopt the policy he is now suggesting for the nation. You must never exclude the need to be able to respond to new problems as they arise. That is all we are asking for.
Lord Flight
I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with the basic reason for opposing state aid, as the noble Lord and I did some time ago. My point is simply that the state aid rules have already ended up being interpreted in a fashion that is manifestly not economically sensible. They are damaging the economic interests of this country and, not surprisingly, I would very much like there to be a check on the ability of state aid rules to be yet further misapplied.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, perhaps I may stick to the substance of the amendment. As I have not been privy to the debates in the usual channels, I ask why amendments that are similar in terms of the arguments employed have been de-grouped for sequential consideration. It has resulted in the debate being all over the place and we are spending far longer on it than might have been the case. I know that the Minister will not deal with that issue, but I hope that the usual channels will go away, contemplate whether we can make slightly speedier progress on these matters and perhaps have a debate that is more valuable to the rest of us who sit here and listen attentively.
I should say to the opposition Front Bench that I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on these amendments; and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that he is right that a consensus has prevailed in this country over the single market, competition policy, and so on. I pay tribute to the Conservative Party for having taken us there, but today no party here can say that it is a champion of that consensus to a greater degree than any other party. These are valuable probing amendments.
At this late hour, in order not to detain the House longer, I want the Minister to answer the question that he did not answer on the previous amendment. I believe that any treaty changes made to enhance the ability of the Commission, the European Court of Justice and other bodies to enforce EU rules would fall under the significance condition. My understanding is that where a treaty change merely confers additional powers on an EU body or institution to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on member states, and when this change is deemed not be significant for the UK, a referendum would not be required. In which case, do we really need to have the amendment? If the Minister gave us an answer as to where the significance test would apply—we debated that at length several hours ago—we would know which side of this amendment to be on. It would be most helpful if we could get some clarification on that.
Lord Liddle
The point of these amendments is the reverse of the significance test. We are saying that securing change in these areas—very important changes on the single market or the effectiveness of the European Court of Justice or whatever—could be highly significant, not insignificant, for the UK. However, we would not want to stop British Ministers agreeing to them on the basis that they would fall foul of the referendum test. That is the point.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Perhaps I may ask for the patience of the Committee for a moment so that I may respond on that very valuable clarification. If it were in the UK’s national interest to pursue the options of the changes proposed, would we not, in the event that there had to be a referendum, expect the British Government to fully support the referendum?
Lord Waddington
Surely we are entitled to ask the noble Lord for an explanation as to why the Opposition sought an arrangement whereby the last two amendments were debated separately. The noble Lord has used exactly the same arguments for both amendments and therefore he has wasted a great deal of time. I think that there should be some explanation as to why, when the original grouping put together Amendments 20ZA and 20ZB, we have ended up debating them separately and precisely the same arguments have been advanced by the noble Lord on both amendments.
Lord Risby
My Lords, essentially the amendments deal with the removal of a referendum provision in three areas which are in our vital national interest—something on which we all agree—namely, the single market, EU competition and state aid. Of course, these are areas where the EU should concentrate, particularly the single market, which is indeed in our national interest. However, this is all possible under the existing treaties and, if sensible actions are taken under the existing treaties, there can be no possible objection to this, and the Bill does not prevent this happening. That is the essential difference and I think that there is some misunderstanding. The Bill does not prevent EU action where the treaties allow it. It is only in areas where a judgment would impact on us seriously that a treaty change might be required, and in those circumstances we would come back to the issue of whether or not to have a referendum. In this House we all agree about the importance of the single market. If, for example, there was a proposal concerning the labour market that could have an impact on this country by undoing much of the trade union and employment law reform, that would have an enormous impact not only on this country but on the entire European Union. In those circumstances, it would be absolutely legitimate to consider the possibility of a referendum.
Finally, in a very interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—and I am sorry that he is not here—made the point that so far as he could make out the coalition Government were being entirely pragmatic. All the discussions that I have had with others have indicated that our member state friends—officials and politicians—would agree with that. Quite frankly, it is in the context of trying to defuse the difficulty in this country towards the European Union that this proposal is made. In that context, it is important in very specific circumstances affecting our national interest, including the single market, that an option is available for a referendum, although it does not necessarily have to be used because it is covered under the existing treaties.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I fear that we have been following a number of hypothetical will o’ the wisps around here. We have heard, “It’s possible, it might be the case, we can’t think of an example but at some point perhaps the powers might prove not to be adequate. We haven’t used many of the powers and competences yet; nevertheless we might not have enough”. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—perhaps he even wrote it—of an article in the Telegraph in which David Miliband, our previous Foreign Secretary, said:
“One of the greatest blessings of the Lisbon Treaty is that it brings to an end institutional navel gazing ... the EU [will have] 10 years to prove itself”,
without further treaty change. That is where we are now. The noble Lord is insisting on standing improperly. Although I did not wish to give way, I shall give way to him once.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I could speak to this amendment before the noble Lord sits down, but if he is going to reply to the debate, it might be convenient if he hears what I have to say on this amendment. I think that that is in order.
I oppose this amendment, and I am afraid that I have to go further and say that I am not among those who think that the single market has been an undiluted success for this country. I shall be speaking in much greater detail to that fact under Amendment 41, so I will not detain your Lordships long this evening.
I am also aware that there are dying embers in the Conservative Party—shared by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, no doubt from his time on those Benches—which hold that the single market is one of the Conservative Party’s greatest achievements. I can deal with a few facts briefly to show that the single market has been a disaster for this country. You only have to take the report of the Treasury, Global Europe: full employment Europe, signed by Mr Gordon Brown himself, which estimated that EU overregulation, which comes to us entirely thanks to the single market, costs us some 6 per cent of GDP per annum, or £84 billion a year. It handicaps our exporters, and what we are about to see hitting the City of London from the new supervision bodies coming from Brussels under the single market will clearly be disastrous.
Then there is the very simple point that only 9 per cent of our GDP goes in trade with clients in the European Union; 11 per cent goes to the rest of the world and 80 per cent stays here in the domestic economy. Yet, 91 per cent—everything in the domestic economy that is exported overseas—is controlled by the single market.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I gave way to what I understood was an intervention from the noble Lord. He previously gave no indication that he wished to speak to this amendment. I had certainly not seen him and I was looking directly at him. I think that he is being discourteous.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I did not stand up because I was waiting for my turn. I moved to speak on several occasions. Obviously I am in the hands of your Lordships, but I understand that we are entitled to speak to these amendments in their order on the Marshalled List, and I have rather different points from those of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as I regard the single market’s disadvantages as rather different.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will take his seat. We are not on a deadline tonight but are seeking to carry out the proper debating role of this House. As the noble Lord will know more than most, in Committee he may speak after the Minister, unlike on Report. Therefore, it might be courteous, since the Minister had started to speak, to allow him to continue to give his response. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, may speak after that. My noble friend indicated that he did look around. Indeed, I was at the door of the Chamber at that point, so he was not intending any discourtesy. Perhaps the noble Lord might allow the Minister to complete his speech, because he gave way only on the basis that it was an intervention, and he had not finished speaking himself. Perhaps that is the way to proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will have a full opportunity to speak, as he has on other occasions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I merely wish to say that I wanted to speak to this amendment from the start. It is not my fault if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, did not catch my eye before he stood up. I am always a very well behaved boy in your Lordships’ House, and with the extreme charm with which the Chief Whip has put her request, I shall not continue with my remarks now. But they are important because they prove that the single market has been a disaster for this country. I shall come back to that under Amendment 41, if I may. In the mean time, the Minister can feel free to carry on. I did not realise that we were on a close deadline.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We are not necessarily on a very tight deadline, but it is customary to move towards a close. However, I was speaking. I thought that the noble Lord was trying to intervene and gave way to him as an intervention. We clearly misunderstood where we were.
I was saying that, speaking in another place, David Miliband also said in November 2009:
“The Lisbon Treaty provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework. We expect no change in the foreseeable future, so that the Union will be able to fully concentrate on addressing the concrete challenges ahead”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/09; col. 273.]
I agree with those pragmatic, practical sentences. We all recognise that there are differences of view within all parties about European matters. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, has moved from one party with a very wide range of views on European integration to another, as he well knows. I shall not respond further to his slightly hobnail-booted references to relations within the current coalition.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The great joy for me is that, for the first time in many, many years, I find myself in agreement with those on my Front Bench. I assure noble Lords that that makes a great deal of difference.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I return to where we were on the amendment, as on some of the others that follow. Here we have a Government who are playing a positive and practical part within the EU within its existing, but considerably expanded, competences. I have looked at Articles 102 to 106 and Articles 114 and 116. I totally failed to find the relevance of Article 308, which, in my copy of the treaty, is about the European Investment Bank, but perhaps when we get to debate on Article 41, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will tell us what that is all about.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I was referring to Article 308 as it was under the Nice treaty. Before that it was Article 257 in the original treaty of Rome.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I will not pursue that further.
The question is: does the Bill tie the hands of the British Government against British national interests? That is the fear which the noble Lord appears to have; I have to say that it is an irrational fear. There is a great deal that the British Government can do to pursue our national interests within the European Union within its present competences, and we are doing so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, gave us an early version of her speech on the question of enhanced co-operation before dinner. As it happens, the United Kingdom Government are leading in early enhanced co-operation. The Franco-British treaty puts us very much in the lead on European defence co-operation. It is not what some other members of the European Union would have liked to put in the treaty, which was a commitment to have a European army, but of course they did not know what they meant by having a European army: it is much more practical co-operation on military affairs. That is the way forward, it seems to us.
On the following amendments from the noble Lord, I see nothing in the Bill which cramps the British Government in pursuing practical and effective British interests within the European Union in strengthening the single market. We now know that the single market has not been fully implemented. Some of what was happening in Greece was appalling; I have just been to southern Italy and it was quite easy to see parts of the single market which are not enforced there, but the powers are there. The single market needs to be more effectively enforced. There are clauses in the Lisbon treaty which talk about expanding the single market into services. There are some very tough clauses on state aids and competition law. We have those powers, and we do not need to spend more time chasing constitutional change before we begin effectively to make the European Union work better.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has tried to make a very powerful case for the Government, but actually he is unwittingly misleading the House when he quotes David Miliband as saying that there is no need for any further institutional navel-gazing on the basis of the Lisbon treaty. I would agree with that, although obviously the euro crisis has created a new situation in economic affairs. Broadly speaking, given where he stood in 2009, that is absolutely right, but David Miliband was talking about the Lisbon treaty that contained the simplified revision procedure under Article 48(6) and the passerelles under Article 48(7). He was talking about the package that gave the Union powers but also contained limited flexibility to change those powers in the light of circumstances precisely in order to obviate the need for further major treaty change for a long period ahead.
What this Government are now doing and what this coalition has agreed to do is basically to hamstring the flexibility that the Lisbon treaty contains. That is why the Opposition are urging the Government to think again, because this is where all the requirements for 56 referenda come from. If only you would look at the issue of how to allow more flexibility within the Lisbon treaty, many of us on this side of the House would be satisfied. I shall withdraw the amendment for the moment in the hope that the Government will consider these issues further.