Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of Royal Navy requirements in the context of the military action in Libya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
Before answering my hon. Friend’s question, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Warrant Officer Class 2 Graham Bean of 73 Engineer Regiment (Volunteers) who died on 3 May while serving in Cyprus on Operation Tosca with the United Nations peacekeeping force based in Nicosia. He had a long and successful career in the British Army for over 35 years. Our thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family. Our thoughts are also with the family and friends of the Royal Marine from 42 Commando who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan yesterday. More information will be released shortly after the period of grace requested by his family.
Our assessment of the Royal Navy’s requirements was set out in the strategic defence and security review. Events in Libya have confirmed the review’s recognition of the need to retain naval forces at high readiness for operations.
Miss McIntosh
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the recently fallen; we will remember them.
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the ship’s company of the frigate HMS Cumberland, with whom a number of us were able to stay as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme? Will he take the opportunity to update us on the question of which frigate has replaced HMS Cumberland for the essential duties she has so far performed in assisting off the coast of Libya?
Peter Luff
Speaking as someone who has done two tours of duty with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I know how deep are the bonds of loyalty that can be formed with ships’ companies after such experiences. HMS Cumberland and her crew performed superbly in the initial stages of the Libya operation, evacuating British and other foreign nationals from Benghazi and undertaking enforcement operations in support of UN Security Council resolution 1973. She has now been withdrawn from service and her role off Libya has been taken up by the destroyer, HMS Liverpool.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
While NATO’s airstrikes have been successful in reducing Colonel Gaddafi’s ability to attack his people, he continues to target civilians in clear contravention of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. The UK has 23 aircraft and two naval vessels committed to the NATO-led operation. These continue to provide vital capability in support of UN Security Council resolution 1973.
Grahame M. Morris
I would like to associate myself and my hon. Friends with the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), about those brave service personnel who sadly lost their lives in service of their country.
On the Secretary of State’s answer, in view of concerns expressed, not least by the joint chiefs, about the affordability and sustainability of the UK’s continued military operation in Libya, will he advise us of what further diplomatic efforts are being pursued to find a non-military solution to the current conflict?
Dr Fox
There is a very clear non-military solution to the current conflict: Colonel Gaddafi could stop attacking the civilian population in Libya. Until he does so, the international community will continue the military action, which we believe to be affordable and sustainable at the present time.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share the assessment of Lady Amos that the bombardment of Misrata and the western mountain regions has led to an unacceptable situation in which aid convoys are unable to get the water, medicine and food that the people of these areas need? What further pressure can be put on the Gaddafi regime to stop this intolerable bombing and shelling?
Dr Fox
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. In recent days, we have made it very clear through NATO that we intend to continue to degrade Colonel Gaddafi’s command and control capability, including his intelligence network. The regime needs to understand loud and clear that the international community is very resolute: it will continue its military activity as long as this absolutely unacceptable slaughter of the civilian population continues. I hope that the whole House will also be resolute in sending out a very clear message on that front.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding what the Chief of Defence Staff said over the weekend, our mission in Libya is humanitarian, and is about seeking a ceasefire and not about regime change?
Dr Fox
Security Council resolution 1973 authorised the use of force for three different purposes: enforcement of the arms embargo, enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, and the protection of civilians. Those are the clear delineations of our mission, and all the activities in which we have engaged, including our target sets, have fallen within the requirements of resolution 1973.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Secretary of State is reported to have endorsed, over the weekend, General Richards’s call for an enlargement of the number of targets in Libya to include infrastructure targets. Has he received a legal opinion that that conforms with resolution 1973?
Dr Fox
I confirmed over the weekend that NATO is continually reassessing the target sets within the targeting directive, which itself follows from resolution 1973. We believe that at all times the target-setting has been well within the requirements of that resolution, and I take responsibility for the setting, observation and implementation of targets very seriously indeed.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that we are committed to a bipartisan approach on Libya. I join the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), in his condolences and prayers for the family of one officer, Graham Bean, and the as yet unnamed Royal Marine.
The men and women of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air force have done remarkable work in and around Libya. However, may I ask the Secretary of State about the comment by the First Sea Lord that if operations around Libya were to last longer than six months, a significant “challenge” would be created? Does the Secretary of State agree with that assessment, and what military advice has he received about maintaining the current UK tempo of military activity beyond those six months?
Dr Fox
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support, but, as he is well aware, contingency planning goes on because we do not know how long Colonel Gaddafi will continue his resistance to international opinion and in the face of international law. We will continue to look at the range of contingencies, but we all hope that Colonel Gaddafi will recognise that the game is up either sooner or later—hopefully sooner—so that the cost, in terms not just of money but, more important, of lives, is minimised in the months ahead. We will look at all contingencies, but it is important to recognise that we are resolute and that the work of the international community, whose military leaders met at the weekend, will not cease until the task is properly carried out.
Mr Murphy
I welcome that response, but today’s newspapers report further MOD cuts and the fact that the MOD is undertaking a three-month internal spending review. The Secretary of State says ,“We will look at all contingencies”, but in the light of those reports, the events in Libya and the rest of north Africa, and the further events that are spreading across the middle east, should he not finally agree with Lord Ashdown, General Dannatt, the Army Families Federation and most members of the defence community that now is the time to reopen the rushed and increasingly discredited Government defence review?
Dr Fox
Those who wish us to reopen the strategic defence and security review, and who are looking at the same real world and at the same financial constraints, need to tell us whether they would provide a larger defence budget. If they continue with the same assumptions in the same real world but do not increase the budget, they will see the same outcome because they will be under the same constraints. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will finally tell us whether Labour intends to retain the same defence budget or to reduce the defence budget, because that is the key element in the equation.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
4. What his policy is on the use of defence procurement to support and stimulate advanced manufacturing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
Advanced manufacturing industry in the UK makes such an important contribution to defence and the armed forces. We have recently concluded public consultation on the Green Paper “Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security”, in which we make it clear that the purpose of defence procurement is to deliver the capabilities that the armed forces need, now and in the future. We will set out our future policy on the issue in a White Paper later in the year.
Chi Onwurah
Last month BAE Systems announced 100 job losses at its plant in Scotswood, Newcastle. As well as devastating families, those job losses will reduce our advanced engineering skills base. What specific measures is the Minister taking to ensure that procurement supports skills that are essential to our national infrastructure, and how do they sit with the Government’s policy of buying off the shelf without taking industrial needs into account?
Peter Luff
The hon. Lady tempts me to pre-judge the outcome of my own consultation, which I must not do, but let me say this: I share her passion for advanced manufacturing and I again pay tribute to its role in defence. We are committed to both a vigorous promotion of exports and boosting UK defence companies in the UK, and to boosting the work of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are innovative and bring new ideas and skills to defence. We are also committed to maintaining the science budget, as called for in response to our consultation by all those advanced manufacturing companies of which she spoke. We are doing a lot to help advanced manufacturing, but the hon. Lady will have to be a little more patient and wait until the White Paper is published.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Government spending on defence research and technology is absolutely essential for maintaining the battle-winning edge for our armed forces in 25 years’ time? Does he also agree that if there is a reduction in defence research because of short-term budget pressures, the long-term effect will be very great indeed?
Peter Luff
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I could not agree more. I can confirm what I have said to him in the past: the budget for science and technology will increase in cash terms over the comprehensive spending review period. However, I share his enthusiasm about ensuring that we maintain future capabilities as well. It is very important that the science budget is not simply focused on current operations. It must be forward looking, too, to ensure that we have the capabilities that we need.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern that the Government might be planning to announce an extremely limited definition of what constitutes sovereign capability in their forthcoming White Paper, meaning that in many important sectors the Government will retreat to their default position and, to quote the Government’s Green Paper,
“to buy off-the-shelf where we can”.
Will the Minister assure the House that the White Paper will be an opportunity to set a clear strategy to use defence procurement to support our manufacturing base, in particular the intellectual property here in the United Kingdom, thus recognising the contribution that defence makes to the wider economy?
Peter Luff
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that specific assurance. Defence money is for defence purposes, but I share his enthusiasm for the defence industrial base. I understand exactly what he says. We will be scrupulously honest with the British people and UK defence companies. I am afraid that although the previous defence industrial strategy was immensely popular, it did not have the money to match its promises. We will deliver what we promise.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
5. Whether he has discussed with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the merits of a council tax rebate for members of the armed forces who are serving overseas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government recognise the value of council tax rebates for many members of the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement to the House on this matter later today.
Alun Michael
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. One constituent who raised the question with me was not looking for blanket discretion for all deployments, but said that there was some resentment among those deployed to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq when they found that different local authorities exercised their discretion in different ways. Will the Minister encourage consistency and generosity in this matter?
Mr Robathan
I am delighted to be able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We would encourage consistency. I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will say at 3.30 pm. [Interruption]. I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will say at 3.30 pm. However, if people are in receipt of the deployed welfare package, they get council tax relief, which is paid for by the Ministry of Defence. What local councils do at the moment is up to them. We encourage them to give due discretion where possible and to assist our members deployed on operations overseas.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
6. What discussions on security and defence issues he has had with his counterparts in the US Administration, Pakistan and Afghanistan following the death of Osama bin Laden.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
I regularly discuss a number of security and defence issues with my counterparts in the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The death of Osama bin Laden is a positive development in terms of our counter-terrorism effort, but it does not change our strategy in Afghanistan. We remain committed to our military, diplomatic, and development work to build a stable and secure Afghanistan.
Mr Hanson
The head of the snake may have been removed, but the bombings in Pakistan at the weekend show that there is still considerable al-Qaeda activity in the region. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the Prime Minister’s potential announcement of early withdrawals of troops in the summer is of concern, particularly given the fears expressed publicly by defence staff for the safety of British residents at home and abroad as a result of that policy?
Dr Fox
We are committed to maintaining the level of troops that we need for our main effort in the southern part of Afghanistan. The number of combat troops that we have had in Helmand has been at a consistent level, our force densities have improved and we intend to make no changes to those numbers until we see an improvement in the security situation there.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it not rather depressing that after everything that has happened in Afghanistan and, in particular, to the former Taliban regime there, people in the Taliban have not learned their lesson that al-Qaeda is poison to them? That was shown by the demonstrations against the death of bin Laden on the part of the Pakistani Taliban. If the Taliban want to be part of a settlement, is it not time that they realised how poisonous the al-Qaeda connection has always been?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend makes a truly excellent point. We need to recognise that al-Qaeda involves violent political extremism that will guarantee no country and none of its people’s safety and security. The quicker that those who have previously dallied with the Taliban recognise that that cannot be a route for peace and reconciliation in the long term, the better.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I fully agree that any troop withdrawal should be based on sound military advice and that the lives of our brave servicemen and women, and civilians, should not be put at risk by any kind of premature withdrawal. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will resist the temptation to make any announcements about early withdrawal that may coincide with the visit of President Obama?
Dr Fox
As I have pointed out in the House before, we maintain a core force of some 9,500 troops in Afghanistan. The number has risen to as high as 11,000 over the past year, partly due to temporary surges. It is a normal part of the process in Afghanistan that that number will rise and fall but, as I said, the important element in respect of that number is that we maintain our core commitment to the south of Afghanistan and our combat force there.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
7. When he expects to make a decision on the location of events to mark the 2012 Armed Forces day for the nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Plans for the national event to mark Armed Forces day 2012 are being considered and a decision will be announced as soon as possible. In the meantime, I look forward to this year’s Armed Forces day on Saturday 25 June, including the national event, which will be hosted by Edinburgh.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for all his care and diligence in deciding on the location. Is he able to share with us the criteria that will be used in making that decision?
Mr Robathan
On the subject of honouring our armed forces, I think that the whole House would wish me to remind everyone that today is Albuhera day—the Middlesex day. Today is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Albuhera, and that explains the naming of Middlesex day. The Middlesex Regiment subsequently became known as the Duke of Cambridge’s Own Regiment, which is particularly fitting this year.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s question about Armed Forces day, I can say that there are no set criteria. However, I have heard at great length his pleas on behalf of Plymouth and I shall certainly bear them in mind.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I urge that one criterion might be that the area sends a lot of young men and women into the armed forces? That would enable the Minister, next year or in a future year, to consider using not just the major cities or the major places where people are based, but an area such as the south Wales valleys, which sends a very large number of people into the armed forces—that is, as long as he has not made the wrong decision about 160 Brigade being based in Brecon.
Mr Robathan
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have made no decisions about 160 Brigade. Of course the main national event for Armed Forces day was in Cardiff last year. It is the responsibility of local authorities to deal with the infrastructure and the work involved in the Armed Forces day celebrations. If people in the south Wales valleys say that they will arrange a great event there that could be the national focus, I am sure that we would listen to that sympathetically as well.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the security situation in the middle east.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
Recent events in the middle east have demonstrated that the central finding of the strategic defence and security review—the need for the UK to adopt an adaptable posture with flexible forces—was appropriate. Given the vital importance of the region to the UK’s long-term interests, we will continue to monitor the still evolving situation before drawing conclusions on if and how it could influence the Department’s policies.
Mel Stride
Does my hon. Friend agree that our allies in the Gulf play a vital role in ensuring security and stability in the region and that it is imperative that our Government continue to engage constructively and positively with them, particularly in these uncertain times?
Nick Harvey
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Gulf states are key partners in the battle against international terrorism and more widely. That said, we are concerned at events in some of the Gulf states. We urge all Governments to meet their human rights obligations, to uphold political freedoms and to recognise that those things do not run contrary to security but are in fact integral to longer-term stability. We believe that dialogue is the way to fulfil the aspirations of all, and we urge all sides, including opposition groupings, to engage.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Government, rightly in my view, are calling for Colonel Gaddafi to be referred to the International Criminal Court. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, should be similarly referred because he is killing and torturing just as many people in Syria as Gaddafi is in Libya?
Nick Harvey
I understand that Gaddafi has already been referred to the court and that that decision was taken internationally at the ICC. I entirely see the comparison that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing and it would seem to me that the international forces that reached the conclusions they did about Gaddafi are highly likely to arrive at a similar conclusion.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of equipment provided to the armed forces to counter improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
An impressive range of capabilities is in service to counter the threat from IEDs that our armed forces in Afghanistan face; our personnel are trained and equipped to apply a range of tactics, techniques and procedures. Defeating the threat is a vital part of the counter-insurgency campaign, and the equipment we are fielding against these sordid devices is widely recognised as being better than ever. However, as demonstrated by the weekend’s tragic news, which I reported to the House earlier, we are up against a determined enemy and must continue to invest in this area.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he satisfied that we have sufficient equipment levels in place to train Afghan national forces to counter IEDs and that progress is being made in this area?
Peter Luff
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a gunner who served in Afghanistan two years ago. He certainly knows what he is talking about. I can reassure him that equipping and training the Afghan national security force is a crucial part of NATO’s common counter-IED strategy. It is of course the job of the international security assistance force, which has the lead for training and equipment. I can assure him that the UK comfortably meets its responsibilities in this respect, but it is a challenging task and one to which we are fully committed because it forms the foundation for our eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Will the Minister assure the House that the review and the spending difficulties that the Department has will not affect in any way his commitment to the speed of manufacture, and the number of vehicles manufactured, of the light protected patrol vehicles that are so badly needed in Afghanistan?
Peter Luff
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I hold him in very high regard and personal esteem, and with some affection. I gently remind him that it is not a problem we have but a problem we inherited, and we are dealing with it. I can, though, give him the categorical assurance that he is seeking that those matters will have no impact on the operations in Afghanistan.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to seek the modernisation of NATO.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
17. What steps he is taking to seek the modernisation of NATO.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
The UK is playing a leading role in the push to modernise NATO through the reform of its supporting agencies and improving its financial management and programming. The UK is also a leading proponent of important work to streamline NATO’s command structure. We hope to reach final agreement at a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers next month, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be attending.
James Morris
The role and purpose of NATO has changed radically over the past 20 years. Does the Minister agree that NATO needs to concentrate on reviewing its strategic purpose as well as finding new ways of interacting with other international institutions in a world that is radically different from that of the cold war?
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, but I suggest to him not only that article 5 is absolutely central to NATO’s mission but that since 1989, as Afghanistan, the anti-piracy operations in the Arabian sea and the Libyan operation have shown, NATO has already developed remarkable flexibility and is working with other institutions, most notably the European Union, where we are seeking to ensure there is no duplication.
Graham Evans
Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO remains the cornerstone of the UK’s defence, and will he resist any attempt by the EU to challenge that position?
Mr Howarth
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance on behalf of the entire Government.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that any modernisation of NATO should ensure that those member nations who have the troop numbers and resources, such as Germany, should pull their weight in the same way that we do in NATO operations such as those in Afghanistan and Libya?
Mr Howarth
I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said in response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), a number of NATO countries seek to take advantage of article 5 and the other protections that NATO gives them without divvying up the membership fee. That is certainly something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working on—showing other countries that if they want the protection of NATO, they have to contribute to its funding.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister assure the House that there will be careful analysis of what went wrong in the early days of the Libyan encounter? Ever since the United States seems to have pulled back on its operational activity, we seem to be have been much less effective at defending innocent people in that country.
Mr Howarth
I think that the hon. Gentleman is being slightly churlish. I was extraordinarily impressed by the speed with which NATO responded. After all, there was a United Nations resolution and no mechanism by which it was going to be implemented. It is hugely to NATO’s credit, and particularly to the credit of its Secretary-General, that he and it made those structures available to enable support for the Libyan people to be provided not only by NATO but by many other countries. I am sure there will be a review about how successful everything has been in due course.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the programme of modernisation, which is very welcome, and NATO’s extremely effective and speedy response over Libya, the question of NATO’s transformation is proceeding not nearly fast enough? Does he agree that it would be a pity if the Ministers’ meeting at NATO did not come up with a really substantial reform in that department?
Mr Howarth
As ever, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. He is absolutely right and we are absolutely determined. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be pressing ahead with transformation. We have led the way on this and we are determined not to let the issue lapse because if NATO is not efficient, lean and modern, it will not be able to deliver what we all seek.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
11. When he expects to receive the findings of the independent health needs audit of British nuclear test veterans; and whether he plans to publish a response to the study.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The findings of the health needs audit are expected this summer. The study will document veterans’ self-reported experience of ill health and their experience of health and social care services, and it aims to provide practical, forward-looking recommendations on how health and social care services for this group could be improved. We intend to share the outcome of this work with other relevant areas, such as the Department of Health, and we will publish the report’s findings and any response.
Mr Brine
I thank the Minister very much for that response. Like many Members, I look forward to the Secretary of State’s statement on the armed forces covenant shortly. One could argue that the duty of care it entails is also relevant to Britain’s nuclear test veterans. What action is the Minister able to take after so many years—it has been many years now—properly to recognise the sacrifices of our nuclear test veterans and to bring some much-needed closure to survivors and their families?
Mr Robathan
I think the whole House would join me in paying tribute to those who served in the armed forces in the 1950s. Most of those involved were national servicemen and were doing their duty, as it was explained to them, by witnessing the nuclear explosions. We provide war pensions to anyone who suffers from an ailment that is linked to the service they underwent, such as watching nuclear tests, but it is necessary that we provide pensions and compensation only to those who were harmed by their service.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this is a sad and sorry business? Those people suffered grievously many years ago and successive Governments have prevaricated and obfuscated on the matter. The nuclear test veterans need help, support and compensation, and above all they need an apology from successive Governments for the way they have been treated.
Mr Robathan
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He says that people suffered grievously. Some people are of course ill, and some are ill because of their service. It is important that the Government should look to that. The previous Government did, as we do, through the war pensions system. However, there is no study showing that people who witnessed those nuclear tests have more cases of cancer than their cohort groups. We must base our response and expenditure of taxpayers’ money on evidence, not on emotion.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
12. When he plans to publish the recommendations of his Department’s basing review.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
As I have said before, the Ministry of Defence will make an announcement as soon as we are in a position to do so, and that will be before the summer recess. But as I have also said, this is a complex piece of work and we will take the time necessary to make sure we reach the right conclusions.
Elizabeth Truss
On Friday I attended the disbandment parade of 13 Squadron at RAF Marham, which was a moment of both pride and sadness. Given the additional commitments taken on by the RAF in Libya and the statement by the Chief of the Air Staff that our air force is heavily stretched, will that have an impact on the basing review?
Nick Harvey
That will not have an impact on the basing review, but I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to everybody involved with 13 Squadron, which was involved in the early stages of the operation in Libya and has a proud history going back 96 years, including distinguished service in the second world war and later in the no-fly zone in Iraq and Operation Telic. The name will live on next year when a new squadron of reaper, the remotely piloted aircraft, will take on the number 13, and I am pleased to say that most of the personnel involved have been found other roles elsewhere in the Tornado force.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
At the time of the strategic defence and security review, the Secretary of State told me that the basing review affecting RAF Lossiemouth would be concluded before the end of December 2010. That was put back to the end of February 2011, and we are still waiting. The delays are causing uncertainty and economic damage in Moray and, I am sure, likewise in Fife, Norfolk and elsewhere. Does the Minister agree that the least that service communities should expect is a definitive date and no more delays?
Nick Harvey
As I said a moment ago, this is a complex piece of work. The Army coming home from Germany happens only once, and the future lay-down of the Army and the basing of the British Army for the future is something that we have to get right. It is necessary to take the time to get those decisions right. I understand the impact that waiting for a decision has on local communities, but it is more important that we get this right than that we do it fast. As I said a moment ago, we will make an announcement by the summer recess.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the professionalism and commitment of the men and women who serve at RAF Leuchars, which he saw for himself earlier this year, continue, notwithstanding uncertainty about the future of the base. What view does he take of the kind of speculation that we saw last week, apparently originating from within the House, which appears to suggest that decisions affecting RAF Leuchars have already been taken?
Nick Harvey
I am pleased to hear that the professionalism of those serving at Leuchars, which I saw for myself recently, remains unaffected. There has been some ill-informed and unhelpful speculation in the media. In particular, last week there was a routine meeting to discuss all aspects of defence reform. It was absolutely not the case that there was ever any prospect of decisions being taken at that meeting, nor was there any proposal to that effect on the table. This is important work, and there is more work ongoing. I categorically assure my right hon. and learned Friend that no such decision has been taken, and we will come to the House as soon as we are in a position to do so.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Last week the Chief of the General Staff told the Defence Committee that substantial investment in accommodation and training facilities will be needed if the Government are to be able to meet their challenging target of withdrawing half the troops currently based in Germany by 2015, let alone withdrawing the rest by 2020. What assessment has the Minister made of the cost of this policy and will it come out of the current departmental financial settlement?
Nick Harvey
The Chief of the General Staff was absolutely right to say that the accommodation that the British Army will need must be of the highest standard. What that will cost will depend entirely on the decisions that are taken on where the Army will go and the state of readiness of any facilities into which we might propose to move them. The figures will emerge when we know where we are sending them and what will have to be built in readiness to receive them.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
13. What steps the Government plan to take to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to enshrine the military covenant in law.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
The Prime Minister’s pledge is being fulfilled through the Armed Forces Bill, which recognises the armed forces covenant in statute for the first time. I will make a further announcement to the House shortly.
Mrs Glindon
What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House and members of the armed forces, such as my constituent, 19-year-old Private James Kenny of C company, 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who has recently returned from active service in Afghanistan, that an independent panel will be set up to report on the Government’s performance in relation to the military covenant?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Is not today an important day of justice for the honouring of the armed forces after the disgraceful neglect of the past 10 years?
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
I have not had the misfortune of getting into a lift with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), but I have spent many hours debating the military covenant with him. I was therefore very surprised to learn at the weekend that he has performed not only a U-turn on the matter, but a double U-turn. He had said previously that he did not believe that a veterans ID card was necessary. What does the Secretary of State think?
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
14. What plans his Department has to reinforce troops in Afghanistan over the summer campaigning season.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
Following the increase in troop numbers as a result of the international security assistance force surge in the second half of 2010 and the continuing increase in both the size and capability of the Afghan national security forces, I am confident that there are sufficient forces in Afghanistan to meet the insurgent threat over the coming months. For that reason, there are no plans to increase the UK’s endorsed force levels.
Patrick Mercer
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but there are a considerable number of troops in Afghanistan, a considerable number of forces operating in Libya, and I have no doubt that further military operations will be required in other parts of north Africa. I understand that defence cuts need to be made, but can he assure me that those currently being discussed will not include any further cuts to combat forces?
Nick Harvey
I am not aware of the discussions to which my hon. refers, but I can absolutely assure him that there will be no reductions in the number of front-line fighting troops for the very reasons he gives.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The justification for dismantling improvised explosive devices, rather than blowing them up, is that those who made them can be identified and captured. As this has resulted in the deaths of many of our brave soldiers, should we not alter the policy, particularly now that the prisoners are escaping in such huge numbers?
Nick Harvey
It is certainly not the case that we always go for the option of dismantling IEDs, as some of them are destroyed, but as part of the ongoing effort to counter the IED threat it is absolutely vital that we have an understanding of how they are made and who is making them. It is absolutely essential intelligence to us—to garner that information on occasions—and we have no intention of changing that approach.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
15. What progress has been made on his Department’s consultation on equipment, support and technology for UK defence and security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
My colleagues in the Home Office and I are very pleased with the results of the public consultation, which ended on 31 March, on the recent Green Paper. We used a number of mechanisms, notably conferences, regional visits and a dedicated website, to encourage wide participation, and we received 143 separate written reports from individuals, companies and organisations, as well as more than 200 comments on the website. We are now analysing the information received and will publish a summary of the consultation responses later this year, alongside the planned White Paper.
Paul Uppal
Given the value of the defence sector to our economy, what steps are being taken to ensure that prosperity can continue to flourish, and that the whole UK economy can benefit?
Peter Luff
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Ministers in the Department are committed to the Government’s policy of export-led growth, whereby the Government are making radical steps to ensure that responsible defence exports are actively promoted. This year I have visited India, Japan and Turkey on precisely that mission, and all members of my ministerial team have made similar such visits to ensure that the outcome my hon. Friend rightly seeks is achieved.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
16. What plans he has for the future of service family accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
In the strategic defence and security review published on 19 October last year, we announced that we will undertake a detailed review of our approach to accommodation with the aim of meeting the aspirations of service personnel for affordable and good-quality housing. Work is now under way and we will report in the summer of 2012.
Alison Seabeck
I draw the House’s attention to the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), for reasons that I have put on the record on a number of occasions already this Session.
All the evidence is that constant moving, perhaps every couple of years, between homes and schools for service personnel and their families is extremely destabilising and not good for family life. Has the Minister therefore made any representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government about the impact of the flexible tenure proposal in the Localism Bill, and about the effect that it will have of perpetuating the cycle that such people currently experience?
Mr Robathan
The hon. Lady is quite right: service personnel can be disadvantaged in many ways by the many moves that they make. As it happens, not two hours ago I was at a meeting at the Department for Communities and Local Government with the Housing Minister to discuss that among other matters. Unfortunately, I left before that matter came up on the agenda in order to come to the House, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are looking at the issue very carefully and we did have that conference this lunchtime.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future; that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks; and that we honour the armed forces covenant.
Phil Wilson
Following the First Sea Lord’s comments that he wished he could revisit the Government’s position on the Ark Royal and the Harrier jets, and that if the UK had an aircraft carrier it would be deployed in Libya, will the Minister consider reversing the decision on the Ark Royal and explore ways of closing the carrier strike-capability gap?
Dr Fox
What is important in Libya is the fact that we are able to project our air power in an effective and timely manner, and we are able to do that because we have no problems with basing or with over-flight, which is exactly the analysis that we made in the strategic defence and security review.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
T3. I welcome the historic decision to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law, but what else is being done to ensure that ex-service personnel are not discriminated against, especially when they set up a home?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
My hon. Friend is quite right, and as I said just now we had a meeting at DCLG just a couple of hours ago. We are determined that armed forces personnel, be they serving or just leaving the services, which is often when they want to buy a house, are not discriminated against by mortgage providers or, indeed, by credit reference agencies.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
T2. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that legislation that protects reservists’ employment is red tape, or does he agree with me that scrapping it would jeopardise recruitment and morale? Will he therefore guarantee to protect it?
Dr Fox
I am very grateful to be able to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House personally, and I look forward to the expertise that he will bring to Defence questions. He will be aware that we are undertaking a very detailed review of reservists, not just the number and structure of the reserves, but the framework within which they operate, including for example the issues relating to employment, so that this country can make proper use of our reserves and maximise the benefit that they can bring to the armed forces, as happens already in many other countries.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
T5. Does my right hon. Friend share my recognition of the critical importance of defence diplomacy to UK interests around the world? Will he update the House on what progress he has made on making amends for the decade of Labour neglect in this area?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
I can assure my hon. Friend that since taking office we have set a new and vigorous pace to make up for the deficiencies of the previous Labour Administration. As my 1924 map of the British empire should remind everybody, the United Kingdom enjoys extensive historical ties with a large number of countries, giving us an unrivalled position. It is our policy to build on that strength through defence diplomacy, and we are doing so.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. The original White Paper for the Trident replacement programme estimated a figure of £11 billion to £14 billion in 2006 prices, but in a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), the Minister stated that “the combined cost of the Concept Phase, totalling approximately £900 million, and the Assessment Phase, totalling approximately £3 billion at outturn prices is consistent with the departmental guidance that programmes should spend approximately 15% of the total costs before Main Gate.”It appears that this would put the cost of the whole programme at £26 billion. Will he confirm that that is an accurate projection?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
As I previously explained in an Adjournment debate, all the costs that we are using are entirely consistent with the original projections. I will be delighted to spend some time with the hon. Lady explaining to her in detail exactly why that is the case.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
T6. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me regarding the restructuring of the provision of elementary flying training at RAF Church Fenton. What plans does the MOD have for the future of Church Fenton?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that in order to rebalance flying training in the light of the new requirements, there will be no further intake of elementary flying training students at RAF Church Fenton. That is because the requirement is reduced from 155 to 105 pilots a year, and the last course, which is currently under way, completes in August. I understand that that will create considerable concerns for local people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. No decisions have yet been taken about the future of RAF Church Fenton, although the Yorkshire university air squadron, which incorporates No. 9 Air Experience Flight, will continue to use the station, and it will continue to act as a relief landing ground for RAF Linton-on-Ouse.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
T8. Post the very welcome announcement on the future base porting of the Type 23 frigates, will the Minister—I am sure he will forgive me for not letting the paint dry on this one—tell us at what stage are the strategic discussions about the future of the Type 26?
Mr Gerald Howarth
I was very pleased to confirm, on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), that the seven Type 23s are to remain based at Plymouth. The Type 26 global combat ship is in the assessment phase at the moment, and we are working extremely hard to see whether we can build it in partnership with other nations. I cannot go into too much detail at the moment, because much of it is commercially sensitive, but I can assure the hon. Lady that as part of our defence diplomacy initiative, it appears to be going rather well.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
T9. So often the House focuses on our armed forces in theatre and in conflict, but is it not also important that we celebrate our armed forces at home? I hope that the House will forgive me if I celebrate in particular the work of the armed forces recently at the royal wedding, where they were so brilliantly turned out.
Nick Harvey
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. After the service that so many have given on the front line, including in Afghanistan—some of those involved that day were involved on the front line in Afghanistan—it was very good, with the eyes of the world looking at us, that the contribution of the armed forces was able to be celebrated in that way and that they gave such a good account of themselves with everybody watching.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
T10. Has the Department reflected on the concerns of the Royal British Legion and the other place over the post of chief coroner? If so, what representations has it made to other Departments about the necessity of keeping the post?
Dr Fox
I share the concerns of the Royal British Legion and the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of this issue. I am having ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Justice to determine the best way to ensure that the skills required in this specialist area are available, that access is improved and that the distances that families have to travel to attend are minimised.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Further to oral Question 16, does the Minister understand that soldiers who have returned recently from Afghanistan are living in family accommodation that is not up to the right standards, while across the road, former Army houses have been modernised at a cost of millions of pounds of public money? If the Government can find money for that side of the road, why can they not find it for our soldiers’ families?
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have driven along that particular road and seen the situation. [Interruption.] I hear somebody shouting from a sedentary position, “It’s your Government!” Actually, the houses were built under the last Government, and the houses that have not been done up were not done up under the last Government. We are trying.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the proposition put forward at the weekend by the Scottish National party, that in an independent Scotland, armed forces bases could be shared?
Dr Fox
It is tempting to make light of the nonsensical ideas that tend to come from the Scottish National party, but now that it is in such a strong political position in Scotland, we have to take these issues more seriously. It is extremely worrying that the SNP has previously had a posture that is anti-NATO and anti the nuclear defence of this country. It is time to engage in a serious debate on issues that ought to worry all those who believe in the United Kingdom, and in sound defence for the United Kingdom.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In a television debate on the BBC on 6 April, the Minister for the Armed Forces asserted that this country did not have the capability to fly Harriers off aircraft carriers even before the defence review, and that we had not flown them off aircraft carriers since 2003. The truth is that they flew off Ark Royal as late as November 2010 in difficult sea conditions. I am sure that he did not intend to mislead the British public. Will he put the record straight now?
Nick Harvey
I am happy to correct what I said in that TV interview. I had thought that from the context it was clear that I was talking about flying in combat operations. The 2003 date was the last time that we had flown Harriers off carriers in combat operations. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Harriers continued literally to fly off carriers after that. Indeed, the nation watched the valedictory flights off Ark Royal back in December, as he said. I apologise for any confusion that my remarks may have caused.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will the Minister give an assessment of the financial cost of the conflict in Libya so far? Does he recognise reports which state that if the conflict lasts six months, the cost could reach £1 billion?
Peter Luff
I do not think it will get to that. This is necessarily a complex subject, and I cannot give a straightforward answer. There are costs that would be incurred anyhow by the armed forces operating in Libya. There are additional costs that are specific to the campaign. We would also have to establish the precise value of the assets deployed or used in the campaign. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the House will be informed in the usual way of the precise costs in the winter supplementary estimates.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Will Ministers update the House on the provision of mental health support for our service personnel, in particular those who have returned from theatre? As we know, such problems can take many years to emerge.
Mr Robathan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because we take it very seriously. She will know of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) entitled “Fighting Fit”, which is extremely valuable. We are taking forward its proposals. For example, there is already a helpline for those who have concerns, and I have phoned it to check that it works. We continue to be concerned and are working with Combat Stress to ensure that people who have concerns or who may have mental health problems can raise those issues with the authorities. Along with Combat Stress, we will ensure that they have the best possible care.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
May I tell the Secretary of State that his earlier answer on Libya will cause a great deal of anxiety? Is it now the policy of the British Government, despite the denials, to take Gaddafi out by one means or another and bring about regime change? Would that not be totally outside Security Council resolution 1973?
Dr Fox
The policy of the Government is not regime change, which would be outside resolution 1973. It is Government policy, as it is NATO policy, to do everything possible to protect the civilian population, who would be considerably better off if Colonel Gaddafi and his regime were not there.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
When we were in opposition, we were critical of the former Government for not having enough helicopters. In the SDSR it was confirmed that we needed helicopters and planned to purchase them. Can the Minister confirm that the 14 Chinooks will now be ordered?
Peter Luff
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the position in relation to the Chinooks is exactly as was set out in the SDSR. Indeed, I will be visiting the Boeing production site very shortly to see the production line for myself.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Given today’s reports in The Times, and following Ministers’ responses earlier this afternoon, it appears that the Secretary of State has some stark choices. He can restrict the capacity for British military capability and influence by cutting personnel and equipment still further, or he can secure a better deal from the Treasury. Which option does he prefer?
Dr Fox
It was always clear to those who followed these matters that following the SDSR, there were a number of very important second-order issues to address, such as the basing review, the reserves review and the changes made under the defence reform unit. It is also essential that we put the armed forces’ finances on a firm footing for the years beyond the current spending settlement, which runs from 2014-15 to 2020. That is the exercise upon which we are currently embarked, because we are determined that we will not get the defence budget into the shambles that it was in when we inherited it from Labour.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to welcome the news that India has just put the European Typhoon, made by BAE Systems, on a shortlist of just two for the hugely valuable multi-role combat aircraft tender, one of the biggest defence orders on the horizon anywhere in the world?
Peter Luff
The simple answer is yes. That is an extremely successful outcome, and we are delighted with it. A lot of effort has been expended by the four partner nations. I was at the Bangalore air show myself in February pursuing the cause, and I am delighted by the outcome. We must now pursue the campaign to a successful conclusion.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had about the future servicing and storage of complex weapons systems? In particular, what assurances can he give about the future of Defence Munitions Beith, in Scotland, which stores such systems?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Have Ministers had a chance to consider the imaginative scheme to retain HMS Ark Royal for the nation as a heliport facility in conjunction with the Homes for Heroes project, bearing in mind that this year is the centenary of the first naval aviators being taught to fly and bearing in mind the importance of keeping aircraft carriers in the forefront of our minds until they resume their rightful place in this country’s armoury?
Dr Fox
I doubt whether my hon. Friend, or many other Members, would believe some of the suggestions that we have had for the future use of Ark Royal. Its use as a helipad is one of them, and although I find it particularly attractive in some ways, I am not sure whether the residents where it might be placed would think exactly the same. Its use is subject to a range of issues, not least planning considerations but also a range of financial ones. As ever, however, he makes a welcome and creative contribution to the debate.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it true that the nuclear deterrent renewal will pass its initial gate this week? Why the delay over the past year?
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to anybody leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, because we await with interest and anticipation the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.
Armed Forces Covenant
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the armed forces covenant. The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it. The men and women of the three services, regulars and reservists, whether they are serving today or have done so in the past, their families and those who have lost a loved one in service, all deserve our support and respect. That obligation is encapsulated in the armed forces covenant.
The ties between the nation, its Government, and its armed forces are not the product of rules and regulations, nor of political fashion. They are much deeper than that. They have endured for generations and they go to the heart of our national life. The armed forces covenant therefore does not need to be a long and detailed charter. It should be a simple and timeless statement of the moral obligation that we owe. We are therefore publishing today a new version of the covenant, written for the first time on a tri-service basis.
The covenant is enduring, but it will mean different things at different times. The expectations of today’s servicemen and women are, rightly, different from those of their predecessors. Alongside the covenant we have published guidance on what we believe it means in today’s circumstances. It sets out a framework for how the members of the armed forces community can expect to be treated, and the aspirations and expectations that we believe are implicit in the covenant.
The covenant and the guidance do not, however, describe what the Government are doing to put that into effect. That is why I am also publishing a paper, entitled “The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow”, that sets out the practical measures we are taking to support the covenant. The paper brings together the commitments we have already made with the new measures that I am announcing today.
A number of those measures take forward the ideas of Professor Hew Strachan, who led an independent taskforce on the covenant last year. I should like to record the Government’s thanks—and, I imagine, the Opposition’s thanks—for his extremely valuable work. Today, we are also publishing the Government’s full response to his report.
One of Professor Strachan’s most important recommendations was the introduction of a community covenant. That will strengthen communities and build new links between them, local government and the armed forces. I can today announce that we are allocating up to £30 million over the next four years to support joint projects, at a local level, between the services or veterans groups and the wider community.
The Armed Forces Bill, which the House will shortly have a further opportunity to consider, contains provision for an annual report on the armed forces covenant, which is designed to strengthen this House’s ability to scrutinise how we are fulfilling our obligations. In that way, the existence of the covenant is being recognised in statute for the first time, as promised by the Prime Minister last year.
In deciding how best to recognise the covenant in law, the Government have had to maintain a careful balance. On the one hand, we do not want to see the chain of command undermined or the military permanently involved in human rights cases in the European Courts. On the other, we must ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the wider service community, the armed forces charities and the British public for our armed forces are met.
We believe that a sensible way forward—one that will give the right kind of legal basis to the armed forces covenant for the first time in our history—is to enshrine the principles in law, provide a regular review of the policies that will make them a reality, ensure that Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that review through the annual report, and ensure that the report itself is widely informed, consultative and transparent. I believe that it is right for the Government to be held to account on delivering the principles underpinning the covenant by this House, and not by the European Courts. That is what our approach will ensure.
I want to highlight two important aspects. First, the Government will set out on the face of the Armed Forces Bill the key principles that we believe underpin both the covenant and any report on its implementation. Ensuring that members of the armed forces community do not suffer disadvantage as a result of their service, and that where appropriate they receive special treatment, are at the heart of the armed forces covenant. I can tell the House this afternoon that the Government will bring forward amendments before Third Reading to require the Secretary of State to address those principles in preparing his report to Parliament, and to recognise the unique nature of service life.
Secondly, I made clear to the House on 10 January our commitment to consult stakeholders on the annual report. We intend to consult widely in its preparation, and prior to laying it before the House will give external reference group members from outside Government the opportunity to comment on it. We will also publish any observations alongside it.
We are working with the external reference group to update its terms of reference in line with its significant new role. The Government place great importance on maintaining our dialogue with bodies such as the service families federations and the major service and ex-service charities, which tell us what is happening on the ground, and I pay tribute to the invaluable contribution they make to the welfare of the armed forces community. In particular, I pay tribute to the contribution to this debate of the Royal British Legion, which continues to do such outstanding work in support of our armed forces.
The armed forces covenant is not just about words; it is about actions. The men and women of our armed forces judge us by what we do to improve their lives and those of their families. Since taking office, the coalition Government have taken a series of important measures to rebuild the covenant. I shall mention just some of them: we have doubled the operational allowance; we have included service children in the pupil premium; we have introduced scholarships for the children of bereaved service families; and we have taken action to improve mental health care. These measures are especially impressive when set against the background of the dire economic situation in which the Government must operate as a result of the previous Government’s legacy.
There is much still to do, however. I have always been clear that our commitment to rebuild the covenant is a journey that we are beginning, not something we can do overnight, and I believe that the British people understand that. We are continuing to take action, however, and I am today announcing additional measures that will tackle some of the problems experienced by serving personnel, their families and veterans. I have already mentioned the new community covenant grant scheme. However, we are also setting up a new fund of £3 million per year over and above the pupil premium arrangements to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children. We will also launch a veterans card that will allow access to discounts and privileges.
Furthermore, in helping injured personnel, we will guarantee that veterans suffering serious genital injuries have access to three cycles of IVF, wherever they live. We will also increase the rate of council tax relief for military personnel serving on operations overseas from 25% to 50%. In addition, between now and the summer recess, I expect there to be further announcements that will again underline that this is a priority across the whole of Government, and not just for Defence. Today Ministers are chairing a meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree ways to improve access to housing for our service people. The Health Secretary and I are looking forward to the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on how to improve further the supply of prosthetics for injured personnel. Also, we will consider how to ensure that the guaranteed income payments made under the armed forces compensation scheme are not required to be used to pay for social care provided by the public sector.
The obligation we owe to our service men and women, set against the commitment and sacrifice that they make, is enormous. In the current financial climate we cannot do as much to honour that obligation, or do it as quickly, as we would like, but we can make clear the road on which we are embarked. Our understanding of the covenant will change over time, as will the way in which the Government and society meet it. The framework we have set out today provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that not only the Government but all of society can fully pay the enormous debt they owe to our armed forces, their families and our veterans. I commend it to the House.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for my advance sight of it. I would also like to place on record the Opposition’s appreciation of Professor Strachan and his sterling work.
Today we are reminded of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make in defence of our country. They and their families are in all our hearts. Their actions overseas make Britain’s streets safer, and we not only honour them, but celebrate their immeasurable professionalism and bravery. In that context we support the headline measures announced in today’s statement, which can improve the well-being of service communities.
However, in the military covenant it appears that the Government are doing the right thing for entirely the wrong reason. The Armed Forces Bill is currently going through Parliament, and was meant to be debated just last week. The Government faced concerted pressure in Parliament—along with enormous concern in the country—to amend the Bill and enshrine the military covenant in law. However, at short notice and in the face of almost certain defeat in Parliament, that was delayed so that Ministers could organise this retreat, which they are announcing today.
As someone who has been open in saying that we should have gone further in the past to take the covenant out of the cut and thrust of party politics and put its principles in law, I congratulate all who played a part in the campaign. However, the Secretary of State today finds himself in the peculiar position of announcing a policy that he recently voted against. In February my colleagues and I tabled an Opposition day motion that called for
“establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge”.
The Secretary of State, his Front-Bench team and the entire Cabinet voted against the motion.
The Minister responsible for veterans has been the principal covenant-denier. In February he said in Committee that to “write down” the covenant and
“try to codify it by statute would be, frankly…surprising.”
He continued:
“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.” ––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c.20-21.]
Those were the words of Ministers in February. Although today’s announcement is welcome, it is not an action of conviction by the Government, but an act of submission to the parliamentary arithmetic that was building against them.
In the few minutes that I have, let me turn to the other measures in today’s statement and strike a more bipartisan tone. Many of the announced measures appear to have their roots in the 2008 Command Paper on service personnel. We will want to look at the detail of today’s proposals. Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions and invite him to offer the House, and forces families, direct answers. Can he say what criteria will be used to identify those qualifying for council tax relief, and whether they will be the same as for those receiving the operational allowance? Will those currently serving in Libya or Afghanistan benefit from the policy?
The announcement on concessionary travel is welcome. The Secretary of State will know that the Command Paper announced that the bus concession in England would be extended to include service personnel and veterans under the age of 60 who were seriously injured. Can he share with the House whether his announcement today is the implementation of that policy, or whether it is an entirely new announcement?
On housing, can the Secretary of State say whether today’s announcement is in addition to or supersedes the introduction by the previous Government in January last year of the shared equity armed forces home ownership scheme? How many forces families will benefit from the scheme announced today? He has said that a new veteran’s card will be introduced. We strongly welcome that, but again, the Minister responsible for veterans said in February that
“the Government still have no intention of introducing a veterans card,”
adding:
“I do not think that a veterans ID card is necessary, even in relation to access to commercial discounts.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 17 February 2011; c. 102.]
What role will the veterans card have if it is not to be used for commercial discounts? Will the Secretary of State say who will pay for the card and how much it will cost?
My final specific question is to invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he would consider exempting the seriously injured and war widows from the impact of recent pensions and benefits indexation changes, which will lead to enormous financial loss on the part of those who have given so much to our country. I am sure that the House and the British people would like to know his thoughts on that matter.
I have asked a number of questions in response to direct announcements made today by the Secretary of State. We will support today’s announcement, but we will scrutinise it. We will want to know which of the announcements are genuinely new and involve new investment. However, the Government are entitled to widespread support on setting out to enshrine the military covenant properly in law. If they set out to achieve what they have announced today, the Opposition will strongly support them in that.
Dr Fox
I am grateful for the welcome—the basic welcome—that the right hon. Gentleman has given. Yes, it is perfectly true that the Opposition raised some of the issues in a recent debate—except that they would not define what they meant, nor would they tell us what rights they might create or how they would pay for them, yet they expected us to take them seriously. The reason why we have taken time to produce these reports and responses to detailed work is that we want to get the policies right and do the right thing for our armed forces, their families and their personnel.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the doubling of council tax relief. As I said, this will be 50% for personnel on eligible operations overseas. It will go to all those who currently get the 25% discount, which is a wider definition than that used for the operational allowance, but not to all those serving overseas—for example, in Germany. He also asked about the launching of the veterans card. It will be used to access commercial discounts or privileges, and we will consider how to expand it to include service families. It is linked to the relaunch of the defence discount scheme next year. It is not an ID card, for the reasons that we consistently gave in Committee and in the House.
On indexation, when the change was made from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, none of us in the coalition Government wanted to see anyone in the public sector disadvantaged—but may I remind the Labour party that it left us with a £158 billion deficit, which has to be addressed? We will spend more on debt interest next year than on defence, the Foreign Office and aid put together. That is the scale of the problem, and it is the deficit deniers who are now on the Opposition Benches who put this country at risk. They had 13 years in office, yet they now have the audacity, after 12 months, to tell us that we are doing things at the eleventh hour. No credibility!
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and Professor Strachan on his outstanding work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that members of the armed forces are the only people in the country who face competition between having enough ships, aeroplanes and bullets, and having decent accommodation and health care? What can we do about that competition?
Dr Fox
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, which we have grappled with in our approach to the covenant. The reason why equipment is not in the military covenant today is that the covenant for the welfare of our personnel involves a pact not just between the Government and the armed forces but between the whole nation and the armed forces. That includes local government, communities, charities and private individuals. The provision of the right equipment for our armed forces is a duty of the Government, and it should primarily be seen as the duty of the Government rather than of the wider national community. It is the Government who should properly be held to account for that.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s congratulations to the Royal British Legion are well deserved, because it was its campaign more than anything else that forced this most welcome retreat by the Government. He will know that what wound the Royal British Legion up more than anything else was the attempt to water down the involvement of the reference group in the monitoring system set up under the Command Paper on service personnel. He appears to be saying that that is now to be restored, and that that role will be fully implemented in the proposed reporting mechanism. Can he confirm that there is to be no watering down of the involvement of the reference group—the stakeholders and the service personnel charities, including the Royal British Legion itself—in the ongoing reporting on the covenant?
Dr Fox
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking for clarification on that point, and I can give him this assurance, which, as he knows, I have given the House on a number of occasions. I have wanted to see a maximising of transparency on this, and I have therefore decided that the external reference group will be able to see the Secretary of State’s report in advance and comment on it, and that we will publish those comments and any other representations at the same time as we publish the report of the covenant to Parliament.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I understand my right hon. Friend’s attempt to draw a distinction between Government and community obligation, but is not the Government’s responsibility also a moral one? For that reason, should we not recognise that the Government have a duty not to expose our armed forces to unnecessary risk, always to provide equipment that is fit for purpose, and to ensure that the operations that our men and women are obliged to take part in are always proportionate and legal?
Dr Fox
Legality has to be a foregone conclusion in this House if we are to take our appropriate place in the international family of civilised nations. As to the Government’s duty in sending our armed forces into combat, I would say that they have two clear duties: one is to ensure that we maximise the chance of success of their mission; the second is ensuring the minimum risk to them in carrying out that mission. Both those duties imply that the armed forces must be properly equipped for any task that any Government ever send them to carry out.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement about three cycles of IVF for the injured when they come back. He will know that that is virtually the first thing that the young men who return to the Queen Elizabeth hospital from Afghanistan will ask about. He also mentioned prosthetics. When it comes to rehabilitating soldiers, we are doing things with them—and doing them better—that are not yet happening in the NHS. What work is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that what we learn from the treatment of our veterans can be translated back to the NHS and the wider population?
Dr Fox
The hon. Lady makes two valuable points. As regards the first, on IVF, it is bad enough that we often deny mobility and life chances to individuals, but to deny them the chance of producing another generation is worse, particularly when it is something that we can avoid. We should avoid it, and doing so sends out an important signal about the pastoral care that we are willing to give to our armed forces. Today’s announcement is a key one, which I think will be welcomed across the whole country.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, I think many of us will celebrate the fact that the care we give our armed forces is so much better than others might receive in the NHS that parity is being demanded. That is not a bad position for a country to be in, in terms of the care it gives to service people. The work we are undertaking with the Department of Health will set out to see what lessons the NHS can learn from the treatment of those who have been injured in military action and I believe that that is a very proud moment for the country.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making his statement and on its contents, and Professor Hew Strachan on his excellent work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the “no disadvantage” enjoinder within the military covenant establishes a floor and not a ceiling, and that the men and women of our armed forces will particularly welcome the special provisions that he has announced even more than the commitment to establish the covenant and its principles on a firmer footing, which has so exercised the Opposition?
Dr Fox
May I take this opportunity—I hope on behalf of the whole House—to thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the work he has done, particularly on mental health and prosthetics, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned? I am sure that his words will be much appreciated. It is important to set out these two provisions whereby there is no disadvantage to our armed forces, their families or our veterans in pursuing a military career, and whereby, if necessary, the rest of society accepts that special measures might have to be taken to recompense our armed forces personnel for the risks that they are willing to take for the safety and security of the rest of us.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I have always believed that how people are treated is very important, but that how our armed forces are treated is of paramount importance. The Navy personnel in my constituency are concerned about their future with regard to air traffic control, and also HMS Gannet. What progress has been made on the contract, and will it be placed at Prestwick?
Dr Fox
I am afraid that I cannot make an announcement on that today, although the hon. Gentleman will know that it is part of our wider considerations. I appreciate that the delay brings uncertainty, but it is important to get the wider defence decisions correct overall. As soon as I have any news on HMS Gannet, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman is informed in the first instance.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
On Thursday we had the homecoming parade of the Argylls—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland—who are based in my constituency. I met its last commanding officer, Colonel Richmond, who is at the end of a three-year recovery from a very severe wound to the leg. May I share with the Secretary of State the observation that he made, not on his own behalf but on behalf of others—that it really is crucial that we deliver on the commitment that wounded service personnel, for their subsequent treatment further down the line, do indeed get priority in NHS hospitals?
Dr Fox
If we are to honour the military covenant fully, it is essential for those who are injured in action to receive the acute care that they require—and I think the whole House would acknowledge that the level of acute care given to our armed forces personnel is of a world-beating standard—but there are often complaints about the follow-up care, chronic care, continuity of care and collocation of care that are also essential. We will need to take all those issues into account. Along with the Department of Health, we are trying to establish where we can collocate care so that individuals need not travel to six, seven or even eight places to receive the full range of care that the complexity of their injuries may require, as has happened in recent years.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is aware of the interest in veterans’ affairs taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). He is attending a conference on the subject at present, and was unfortunately unable to be here for the statement.
Many, if not all, of the issues involved in the covenant are devolved, and the re-elected Scottish National party Government have an excellent record of delivering for veterans in Scotland. Given the realities of devolution, why did it not even warrant a mention in the statement?
Dr Fox
When the hon. Gentleman reads the documents, he will see that there is ample mention of it. This involves all forms of government in the United Kingdom. I fully understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman and the interest that he normally shows in these matters. We want to work with the devolved Assemblies to ensure that provision that is based in England today is available to all service personnel, families and veterans throughout the United Kingdom. Individuals who serve under the Crown deserve to be treated equally, and we will want to work very closely with the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments to ensure that equal benefits are received throughout the UK.
One of the problems with the whole concept of putting rights into law is the potential for a constitutional clash between the Westminster Government and the devolved Governments, and we sought to avoid that. There was no basic disagreement with the RBL; it was simply a question of how we could best put what it wanted into law.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I welcome the historic step that the Government are taking today to honour the unique commitment that British service personnel offer our nation. However, may I press the Secretary of State to tell us what steps will be open to service personnel to redress the position when we fall short of the terms of the covenant?
Dr Fox
I hope that there will be no shortfall in our ability to honour the covenant, but the whole point of making the process as transparent as possible is to ensure that any future Government are fully exposed if they do not honour it. We are involving the external reference group to ensure that there is external pressure for that to happen, and to ensure that it is not simply a Whitehall-driven process. Ultimately, it will be for Members of Parliament in the first instance, representing their constituents in the armed forces, to detect whether, in their view, the Government have in any way fallen short of the standards that we have set ourselves today.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
For decades many members of the armed forces have felt betrayed by Governments of all colours, so this is not a party-political issue. I am glad that the Secretary of State is going to take a line from Midlothian council, which has always held priority housing for those who leave the armed forces. I welcome his conversion, and the fact that he has finally taken that need on board. However, may I raise the issue of post-traumatic stress, with which many of us are only just coming to terms? Would it not be helpful for everyone who leaves the armed forces to be given an annual check-up, all the way to the grave? Post-traumatic stress can arise five, 10, 15 or 20 years after the event.
Dr Fox
Again, I note the ingenuity of Members. The hon. Gentleman has raised two very good points.
There are clearly instances of best practice from which we can learn in relation to access to public housing. When it comes to access to the private housing sector, one of the problems is an inability to acquire a mortgage. That applies particularly to those who have served overseas and have been out of the country for some time. We are examining ways of dealing with the problem, and the Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking into it at the moment.
The issue of post-traumatic stress disorder is crucial. One reason why we have introduced routine mental health screening into the medical examinations of those about to leave the armed forces is to try to identify best those who may require additional follow-up. As scientific and medical evidence develops to help us with profiling, we may well be able to have programmes that allow follow-up for a longer time. We are working closely with the United States on building up a profiling picture. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that this may take some years to develop, at least in terms of the symptomatology, so we will need to look at ways of better predicting the effects, and identifying and following up individuals. We might have to identify them, because self-identification in mental illness is notoriously difficult.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I very much welcome the establishment of the military covenant in law. On 6 December, it will be 29 years since 33 soldiers in my company were wounded. We often tend to forget soldiers and servicemen and women who were wounded a long time ago. I hope that the military covenant in law will increase Government responsibility to care for those who were wounded, regardless of which war or conflict they served in.
Dr Fox
I agree with my hon. Friend, who, of course, has considerable experience in this area. First, I would echo the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) about mental health care being one aspect of long-term care. The Government have given a high priority to that, because the invisible wounds of war are just as damaging as those that we can see. I do not put the blame on any one particular Government, but as a society we have been too slow to recognise that. We are increasingly recognising it now, however. Secondly, medical care will improve in certain areas. Prosthetics, for instance, have come a long way. Individuals are having to be reassessed in the NHS, given the new capabilities that prosthetics may bring and the new lease of life that they may give to individuals, including those with long-term injuries relating to service in the armed forces.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Armed forces pensioners are disappointed that the Government have introduced CPI instead of RPI in relation to pension increases. Will the Secretary of State seek to include long-term housing costs as part of the pensioner deal for war widows and badly injured service personnel?
Dr Fox
As I have already said, changes in respect of RPI and CPI apply across the public sector. Many of us would like not to have to make such changes at all—we have no desire to do so—but we were forced to make them because of the financial situation that we inherited. I understand the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it does not matter how much Opposition Members mean it, because there is no money to do the things that they want. Do they propose that we raise more taxes or borrow more money to fill the hole? If the Labour party is serious, it will fulfil what it was asked to do by its own leadership, which is not to make any spending pledges whatsoever, unless agreed by the party’s leadership. So I ask, is the reversal of the CPI/RPI change now Labour policy?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the leadership offered by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. I recognise the contributions by groups such as my local British Legion, which has sought to secure the covenant through its very active campaign. Does the Secretary of State agree that the incorporation of the covenant in law begins to address the gross betrayal of our British forces and their families by the previous Labour Government, who sent troops into war without the right equipment?
Dr Fox
Some of those equipment issues from the past have been well rehearsed in the House and the House has decided where some of the blame lies. It is very important that we try to take today’s announcement in a non-partisan way and to build on it with a national consensus, because the public out there will welcome this irrespective of their politics and, indeed, even if they have no politics at all. The way in which this has been done, the compromise that we have reached on the complex difficulties that we face and the balance that we have tried to obtain will be welcomed by the service charities and the armed forces. I think that the whole country should take pride in the fact that we are, as a nation, putting a covenant between the whole nation and the armed forces into law in this way.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Recalling the second Iraq war and the Helmand incursion, should not the first line of the covenant read, “This Government will never put in deadly peril the lives of our armed services in conflicts that are avoidable or vainglorious”?
Dr Fox
I know well the hon. Gentleman’s reservations about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly about any conflict imaginable in any part of the globe. Our armed forces are primarily there to protect the security of this nation. We are very fortunate that we have people willing to volunteer—every one of them is a volunteer—to put life and limb at risk for our security. Governments do not lightly send our armed forces into combat; they are answerable for their actions in this House of Commons and to the wider electorate. We should be grateful that this country still has those who are willing to make those sacrifices for us.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and look forward, with interest, to reading his proposals for improving the mental welfare services for ex-servicemen in this country. May I just ask him to make an awkward clarification? I am sure that he has an answer to this question. This military covenant strengthening is clearly intended to bring an uplift to the services available to our veterans and this will have to be funded from within the defence budget. Will the extra resources have to be found from within the existing defence budget or can he assure us that they will be provided by the nation as a whole, by the Exchequer?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend, again, makes an important point. Some of the costs will be met directly by the Treasury, for example those relating to council tax relief. Some money, such as the funding above the pupil premium, comes from the funding we earmarked within planning round 11, and some comes from other Departments, for example, the Department of Health. It is very important that we recognise that the military covenant is not just an issue that relates to the Government, the nation and the armed forces; it is also a cross-government effort, which does not begin and end inside the Ministry of Defence.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State clarify something? The council tax relief increase from 25% to 50% applies to second homes where service personnel live in MOD properties or in their first homes where they are living in other properties, but is that mandatory for all local authorities in England or does this apply in England, Wales and Scotland? Would it not be better to make the figure 100%, because it is up to the local authority to make that provision if it wants to, and some local authorities in Wales are now doing that?
Dr Fox
As I said, the increase will go to all those who currently get the 25% discount and they will now be eligible for the 50% rate. I am sure that some councils may wish to go further but, given the current financial environment, I doubt very much that they will be able to do so.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Many of the details of the covenant will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, which is home to more than 10,500 serving armed forces personnel, including Sergeant Gavin Harvey, who two years ago lost substantially his entire lower body in a land mine incident. He is very concerned about the future supply of not only prosthetics, but wheelchairs and mobility aids. Can the Secretary of State assure me that that will be included in the review and can he tell us when we might expect to hear more about that later this year?
Dr Fox
I am aware of the individual mentioned by my hon. Friend. Some extraordinarily severe injuries have been sustained by our armed forces personnel and it is testament to the skill of the medical profession that many of our personnel have been able to survive their injuries. Those of us who have visited Selly Oak, for example, will have marvelled at the medical capabilities and at what they have been able to do. There is, however, another side to this medical skill, which means that more people are able to survive these injuries than previously would have been the case and there are more severe disabilities as a consequence than there would otherwise have been. Part of the work we have been doing not just with prosthetics but with wider health care is to tackle that. This is emerging science and the House must understand that this is cutting-edge medical science. We, along with other countries such as the United States, are pioneering medical techniques to enable those individuals to live as full a life as medical science makes possible.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure it was a slip in the heat of the moment, but in responding to the question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) during Question Time, the Secretary of State neglected to guarantee that reservists would get continuation of employment and that that would not be considered as red tape by the Government. May I give him another opportunity to do so?
Dr Fox
I was not evading the question; I said that it is part of the wider review of reservists. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) is a member of that review and we want to ensure that we consider all the issues relating to reserves—the basing, the functions, the funding, the relationship with the regular forces and so on—including how issues of employment are tackled. We have been very keen to look at the experience in this country and overseas and will make an announcement, I would have thought, before the summer recess.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. With about 2,800 veterans currently in UK prisons, to date support for our armed forces veterans has clearly been inadequate. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that enshrining the covenant in law will give our brave servicemen and women far more support both during and after their service, which will lead to far fewer of our brave veterans winding up in prison?
Dr Fox
As my hon. Friend knows, there is considerable debate about the numbers of the armed forces as a proportion of the prison population. I think we can say that for many of those who end up in prison, particularly those who have been homeless or who have been subject to drug and alcohol problems, it represents a failure of other systems to provide a suitable safety net. As a country, when we consider issues such as mental health, we need to ensure that we do not allow those who are potentially vulnerable to fail to be picked up by the services that might prevent them from ending up in an inappropriate institution such as prison.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I am fortunate to have Combat Stress in my constituency. What funding mechanism will be used to distribute the £30 million and will it be open to charities such as Combat Stress to apply?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Tributes have rightly been given to the Royal British Legion, whose UK headquarters are in my constituency, for its fantastic campaign, which has led us to today. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the implication of his announcement on the covenant is that those leaving active service and leaving the services will be entitled thereafter to housing, if they do not have it, and to prompt and continuing health care, particularly mental health care, from the time that they are discharged?
Dr Fox
We cannot give guarantees on housing because the Government do not make direct provision of housing, but we will want to work with local authorities to ensure that the aspirations set out today are put forward in as practical a way as possible. On health care, I have made the point on innumerable occasions. I am pleased that so many points have been made about mental health care, because 10 years ago they would not have been made in this House of Commons; there is a shifting societal view of it. It is very important that we get timely health care. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), it is important that we try to profile, where we can, those who might be the most vulnerable so that we can give them the closest follow up. As is true in mental health generally, those who suffer from mental health problems might be the last to recognise that it is a problem and therefore be one of the last to present. We must try to ensure that we have a mechanism to identify them rather than depending purely on self-identification.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
As a former soldier, I fully support the military covenant, but does the Secretary of State have any doubts about whether enshrining even the principles in law could lead to bitter disputes in court with devastating consequences for the relationship between Government and the armed services?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend makes an important point that is key to this whole debate. As I said earlier, we had a duty to try to get a balance between, on the one hand, wanting to preserve the chain of command and, on the other, the legitimate interests of the wider service community, charities and the public. We did not, therefore, want to create a set of rights that could have had the armed forces tied up in European courts for ever, which would have been an utterly inappropriate use of their time and funding, but we did want to set out in the law of this land the principles about where there should be no disadvantage and where there should be special care, if required. It will be against those principles that future Secretaries of State for Defence will be judged and I think the balance is appropriate. We have looked at all the legal implications in great detail over a very long time and we believe that this is an appropriate balance to strike.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
As another former serving soldier, may I, too, warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, particularly the very clear message that this is about more than just the MOD? Does he agree that if we are going to make this work, it might be time to review the way in which other Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, manage the way in which they deal with soldiers, veterans and reservists?
Dr Fox
I must tell my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has made it very clear to all my Cabinet colleagues that the military covenant does not apply just to the Ministry of Defence, but is entirely a cross-departmental responsibility. All members of the Government—indeed, all Members of Parliament—have a duty to ensure that what we are putting in place today is applied equally across all parts of the United Kingdom and across all parts of government.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
It is generally accepted that more members of the Falklands campaign committed suicide after that campaign—
Conor Burns
Or may have committed suicide after that campaign than died in active service. Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] These are very serious matters. Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the figures from Combat Stress indicating that further to our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 48,000 veterans may suffer from some form of mental health problem in the years ahead? May I say that his commitment today that the unseen scars of war will be treated as seriously as the physical ones is to be warmly welcomed?
Dr Fox
I used those figures myself in opposition, but may I say to my hon. Friend that there is dubiety about the actual numbers? However, let us cast that aside because the important point is that if any of those people who suffer from mental illness ultimately commit suicide, we have failed them. It is therefore very important to try to identify individuals who could be at risk, because the loss of someone’s life, at their own hand, after they have survived the rigours of combat is a tragedy not just for that individual but collectively for the country.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not wish to denigrate the legal profession as a whole, but does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a certain type of lawyer who specialises in persuading victims to bring court cases that otherwise might not, and indeed ought not, be brought? Is he satisfied that there will be enough safeguards to prevent that sort of abuse from happening as a result of putting into law the military covenant?
Dr Fox
I have a sister who is a doctor and a sister who is a lawyer. My father used to say we had the best of both worlds—the licence to steal and the licence to kill—but I have never taken such caricatures as necessarily being the honest truth. I will not be tempted down the road where my hon. Friend tries to tempt me, except to say that in striking a balance in the legislation, we have sought to minimise the risk of the kind of behaviour that he mentions, while trying to ensure that we honour our responsibilities and give a sound legal basis to the covenant that we are putting forward.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The coalition Government can take pride in the fact that in our first year we have introduced legislation to enshrine in law the armed forces covenant. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for what it has done. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has told us that in Cabinet there is cross-departmental support. With that in mind, will he give me an assurance that the need for funding to improve and modernise the family accommodation of our brave service personnel will be put on the agenda?
Dr Fox
I am grateful to acknowledge the long-running support that my hon. Friend has given on these matters. He will be extremely pleased today that we have managed to achieve what we have. With regard to the speed at which we can make some of the improvements to accommodation, we are limited by budgetary constraints. We will want to go as quickly as we can. We fully recognise, as we have set out, what our responsibilities are. We also have, as I hate to point out, a wider responsibility to be fiscally conservative, to bring our budget back within affordability and to restore the nation’s economy to health, because that gives us the ability in the longer term to make the investments that we all want to see.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
In Harlow recently, we had a special service to remember those fallen since the second world war, particularly in recent years. Their names are inscribed on the memorial. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the military covenant helps facilitate the remembrance of soldiers fallen since the second world war, and that some of the grant that he mentioned is used to help communities put those names on memorials throughout the country?
Dr Fox
I refer my hon. Friend to the community covenant grant that I mentioned. I will want to see whether we can widen the scope of that to include the sort of issue that he mentions. The remembrance of those who have given their lives for the security of this country should not be kept only within the generation in which it occurred. We should constantly remind every generation of it.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
Many thousands of both serving and retired military personnel and their families in my constituency will welcome today’s statement. Among the several thousand service men and women serving at Blandford Camp are a number of soldiers from Commonwealth countries who have enlisted in the British Army. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the military covenant includes soldiers and their families from Commonwealth countries?
Dr Fox
In so far as they have the same rights as anyone else to access public facilities, yes, it will. For some there are complex issues relating to nationality, but as I said, we are setting out today a cross-governmental arrangement. I want to consider some of the complex issues relating to those from Commonwealth countries. In particular, I want to ensure that we fully recognise that those who make the sacrifices share in the benefits.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he indicate his willingness to examine how compensation is paid to members of the armed forces who are injured? Currently, many of those who are badly injured and rightly receive many hundreds of thousands of pounds are at great risk of exploitation when inadequate or no financial advice is available on how to invest that money so that it is available in the years ahead. What relevance has today’s announcement for that?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. I will undertake to have some work begun in the Department to see where we are on that subject. It is obviously crucial for the long-term welfare of those who receive such payments that money is invested in a wise way that can maximise return over the longest period. He raises a crucial point and I will ensure that further work is done. I will report back to the House on that on a future occasion.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the practical measures to give effect to the armed forces covenant. Is he aware that such varied voices as those of the Adjutant-General, the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, the Second Sea Lord and Bryn Parry of Help for Heroes all made it clear in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee that they much prefer a flexible covenant of principles enshrined in law, rather than a set of prescriptive measures that might see our soldiers marching off to court as regularly as they march off to war? Does my right hon. Friend not think that their measured and sensible approach is the right one?
Dr Fox
Indeed I do; that is reflected in the balance we have set out today. There was something of a false debate between the Government and the service charities, especially the Royal British Legion, but they were always very clear that the outcome would be right for our armed forces. It was simply a debate about the best mechanism to achieve that. I think that we have achieved that balance properly in the proposals we have set out today. I hope that it will be widely welcomed by the service charities, which have given a great deal of impetus to the campaign and deserve credit for today’s outcome.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
What the Secretary of State has said today will be welcomed by many, particularly those in the Nelson and district branch of the Royal British Legion, whom he met and discussed the matter with when he last visited Pendle. Of particular concern to many is how the Government can help servicemen and veterans with housing. I was wondering whether he could say more on that today.
Dr Fox
For obvious reasons, I well remember that visit to Pendle. As I have said in response to earlier questions, we are looking at how we can best improve access to housing, in the public sector by looking at best practice across the country in conjunction with local government, and by considering how we can remove some of the impediments that armed forces personnel might face in trying to get on to the housing ladder in the private sector. It is important that they can share in the prosperity of a property-owning democracy.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
We have an unusually high proportion of veterans in the Medway towns, and one of our concerns is that too often they fall between the cracks when it comes to mental health services. I am delighted by what the Secretary of State has said about plans for proactive follow-up for cases of post-traumatic stress disorder; it might help those who might not otherwise present with symptoms. Is there more we can do to work with GPs to ensure that they consider whether someone coming into the surgery might be ex-forces and suffering from PTSD?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend makes a useful point. We have, of course, been trialling our new website and are looking at examinations at the point when personnel leave the armed forces. One issue that I failed to mention and ought to have done is the need to get better information to GPs. I remember practising as a GP and having absolutely no education—[Interruption.] I meant in the specific, not the generic. I remember that when I first worked with the armed forces as a doctor it came as a surprise to me how little specific training I had had on their particular needs. I hope that that is now being redressed by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, because if the doctors do not know what to look for, they are far more likely to miss the problems.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Today has been a great day for parliamentary scrutiny. We had an Armed Forces Bill before Parliament. We had a campaign by the Royal British Legion. We had MPs on both sides of the House concerned about the issue. We had a Secretary of State and a Prime Minister who were willing to listen. This seems to me to be the way forward. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will accept the amendment to the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), or will he bring forward his own amendment?
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State and his ministerial team should be congratulated, as should the Royal British Legion on its role, but, if an authority does not meet its obligations under today’s statement and the subsequent legislation, what consideration has the Secretary of State given to a swift and informal process at the most basic level to ensure consistency throughout the United Kingdom and redress?
Dr Fox
I understand why my hon. Friend makes the point that he does, but first it will be up to the Government to try to persuade the other elements of government—local government and the devolved Governments—to make the same provision as we want to set out in the covenant; and then, ultimately, it will be up to the public, as they are part of the covenant, to ensure that whatever the level of government, it lives up to its promises. I hope that one of the ways in which the British public will honour the covenant is by putting pressure on those who deliver services to ensure that they deliver them fairly, throughout the country and throughout government, for all service personnel, their families and veterans.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the statement and, in particular, the comments on community-related issues. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that local authorities and community groups work with local legions to find appropriate solutions for our veterans?
Dr Fox
Again, that is one of the essential parts of the covenant. It is not just about what government does for the armed forces, but about what the nation does for our armed forces. That applies to central Government, to devolved Government, to local government, to no government at all, to charities and to the private sector. Everybody, including individuals, has a role to play, and I hope that if one thing unifies the House and the country it is that we are making a pact in law, and setting it out today in this House of Commons, between all of the country and the armed forces—something that never again should be broken.
Points of Order
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a recent debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), suggested that one way of solving the problems of Whiston hospital would be a merger with another trust. Given that the obvious trust for a merger is North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, that suggestion has caused widespread concern in my constituency about a possible loss of jobs and services from Warrington hospital. Is there any way in which you, Mr Speaker, can urge a Minister to come to the House and make a statement about their plans for health services in the area? So far, they have failed to address the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) raised about Whiston and are now causing real concern about the future of Warrington hospital.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I fear that she invests me with mystical powers that I do not possess. She is a very experienced and indefatigable Member, who will be well aware of the avenues open to her to pursue such matters—and of which I feel sure she will shortly take advantage.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, the Secretary of State for Defence said in his statement, “I can tell the House this afternoon that the Government will bring forward amendments”. He is completely and utterly delusional, because he was not announcing anything to the House; it was announced in the national newspapers for all and sundry to see on Saturday and on Sunday. Indeed, I understand that the Prime Minister was expressly going to make the announcement on Sunday, only to be beaten to it by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who on the record gave quotations to The Daily Telegraph. I understand that he was given the hairdryer treatment, but is it not time that you, Mr Speaker, gave the hairdryer treatment to Ministers who keep on doing this, week in, week out?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful that the House has had the opportunity to question Ministers on the statement made today. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I saw the newspapers myself over the weekend. I think that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but if a Minister from the Ministry of Defence, possibly the right hon. Gentleman to whom reference has just been made, wishes specifically to respond, he can do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read what was in the newspapers, he will discover that what he has said is not in fact in any way correct.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, for one, certainly do believe you have mystical powers. May I seek your guidance in relation to the next item of business? I think the whole House is aware of the rules relating to sub judice when matters are put before the courts and are under consideration by them. The next item of business could easily become a matter for criminal investigation; indeed I, for one, believe that it should become one. Could you offer any guidance as to whether that imposes a similar constraint on what might be said in the debate on the next item?
Mr Speaker
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is, at this stage, a hypothetical matter, and it would be very unwise for the Speaker to speculate on a hypothetical situation. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so, and I will not. What I would say to him and to the House is that whether or not there are to be police inquiries into any particular matter is not a matter for the Chair. Unless a criminal charge has been brought, the matter is not sub judice. Today is the opportunity for the House to debate any matters covered by the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I hope that he found the response helpful.
Standards and Privileges
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I beg to move,
That this House—
(1) approves the Fifteenth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 1023);
(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 39; and
(3) accordingly suspends Mr David Laws from the service of the House for a period of seven sitting days, beginning on Tuesday 7 June.
It is always regrettable when the House finds it necessary to suspend an hon. Member, as it does today. The facts of the case are set out in detail in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ report to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Chair of that Committee may catch your eye in a moment, Mr Speaker, so I will not rehearse them.
This has been a lengthy inquiry, not least because the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) invited the commissioner to examine every aspect of his claims for additional costs allowance over an eight-year period. The commissioner has completed his inquiry as quickly as is consistent with the need for absolute rigour, and a complete chronology is set out at paragraphs 29 to 34 of his report. On behalf of the House, I would like to express our thanks to the Committee and to the commissioner and his team for their fair, diligent and impartial work in this case, and indeed in other cases. It is clear that the Committee has considered the commissioner’s findings carefully and has taken into account all the circumstances of the case in arriving at its recommendation of a seven-day suspension.
The House will recall press speculation in the days before the report was published. The question of whether this was a result of premature disclosure of the Committee’s report and, if so, by whom, is a matter for the Committee itself to consider, and I understand that the Chair of the Committee has announced an inquiry into this.
It has been the practice of this House to endorse the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and I invite hon. Members to do so this afternoon.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
May I begin by echoing the thanks of the Leader of the House to the Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? The nature of the matters that they had to investigate required a detailed investigation by the commissioner and careful scrutiny by the Committee, and the whole House is grateful to them for their diligence.
The matters under consideration that have led to the motion on today’s Order Paper are extremely serious ones that concern breaches of the rules over the very long term. No one should underestimate their seriousness. The commissioner found that from 2001 the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) submitted lodging agreements that gave a false impression of his relationship with his landlord and of their shared use of successive London properties. The commissioner found that he claimed higher rent for the use of two London properties than was justified either under the terms of the lodging agreement or as a reflection of the arrangement that he had for living with his partner in those properties.
The commissioner also found that the right hon. Gentleman wrongly claimed for building work on the second property that should have been covered by the rent. In addition, he dealt with the separate matter of wrong claims for phone bills, which, as Members who have been here for some time will know, were not claimable under the additional costs allowance.
I think it fair to remind the House that the commissioner reached his conclusions based on the standards expected at the time, and not under a retrospective reinterpretation of the rules. [Interruption.] A Member on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is not right, so perhaps I can clarify the matter for him. Claims for phone bills in Somerset and for a mobile phone were judged by the commissioner not to be claimable under the additional costs allowance, because the ACA related to a London property. Those were the rules at the time.
In considering the report, the Committee made it clear that it agreed with the commissioner that from 2005 onwards the right hon. Gentleman’s main home was, as a matter of fact, in London, not in Somerset. The rules at the time made it clear that any hon. Member who was in doubt about which property they should declare as their main home should have sought advice. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do so.
The Committee endorses many of the commissioner’s conclusions. It makes clear the seriousness of the breaches in agreeing with the commissioner’s conclusion that while the arrangement for the first property may have represented a good deal for the landlord, it did not represent a good or even a reasonable deal for the House. The Committee also makes it clear that the breaches in relation to the second property were even more serious, because the right hon. Gentleman had made a significant financial contribution to the purchase and upgrading of the property.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he was concerned to preserve his privacy. However, it has always been the rule of the House that when personal interests and the public interest conflict, matters should be resolved in favour of the public interest. Sadly, we therefore have to conclude that, because the breaches were serious and took place over a long period, the penalty that the Committee proposes of a suspension from the House is the right one. The Opposition therefore support the motion.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House two questions that arise from the report? First, how does the Committee on Standards and Privileges go about its business to ensure that one judgment is consistent with another? The second question relates to how long it takes for inquiries to be completed in the way that the Leader of the House has described.
On the first question about equity between Members, we are not in a position to know how many Members from the previous Parliament will end up in court. I therefore do not wish to cite examples of Members from the previous Parliament whose record of claiming moneys from the public purse was, on the face of it, pretty appalling. However, so far, some of those Members have not even had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, let alone been the subject of a report of this nature, which is handed into the House for it to comment and vote on. Will the Leader of the House tell us something about how the Committee goes about its work to ensure that in judging one Member it bears in mind the behaviour of and the judgment it has come to on another Member?
My second question relates to the length of time the inquiry has taken. Many Parliaments ago, I was asked to chair the Social Security Committee. One of our tasks was to look at the Maxwell theft of pension funds. We confronted layer upon layer of deceit. We completed our task, made our recommendations, suggested the shape of a new pensions Act, and were invited by the then Secretary of State to shape that pensions Act within a year—less time than it has taken to undertake this inquiry and report back to the House. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House addressed whether the speed, thoroughness and consistency of the commissioner’s work is appropriate.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I will pick up a couple of points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has just made, but I first wish to say something about the leaks that have occurred. There have been two types of leak in connection with the report. First, from Sunday 8 May onward, there has been a steady trickle of comment on the memorandum of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Standards and Privileges Committee, which was, as is customary, sent to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) for his comments as well as to Committee members and to the Attorney-General, whom Standing Orders make our adviser. My first impression was that that comment could well have been based on informed speculation, but I no longer hold that view, because on Wednesday morning the Committee’s recommendation was leaked to the media. We immediately instigated a leak inquiry, and it is not appropriate to say more at this stage, as that inquiry is now ongoing.
I will pick up two issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. One is the length of time taken. He will see from reading the report that it goes far wider than the allegations that were made against the right hon. Member for Yeovil in the media last May, and I suspect that that was one reason for the time taken. However, I say to my right hon. Friend that the timing is wholly in the hands of the commissioner, who reports to the Committee and publishes a memorandum when he is ready to do so. The evidence that he takes is entirely a matter for him.
The other issue that my right hon. Friend has mentioned concerns the comparison of one case with another. I will mention in my speech the circumstances of this particular case and why we have come to the recommendations before the House. I have not commented on the matter before, because I believe it is for the House to judge, not the media or commentators. The extent of reporting of what the commissioner and the Committee would say, and what it would mean for the right hon. Member for Yeovil, has been unfortunate. It meant that the press have perhaps not looked as carefully as they might have done at what we actually said.
The Committee has been attacked from one side for being too severe and from the other for being too soft. It would be complacent to say that we got it about right, but I wish to set out what the report says and why we said it. First, I urge those who say that the Committee has been too severe—many of them are in this House or in another place—to examine what the Committee actually found and the way in which that compares with other breaches.
From 2006 onwards, the arrangements of the right hon. Member for Yeovil were simply and explicitly against the rules, because he rented from a partner. He has said that he did not regard his landlord as his partner for the purposes of the Green Book. In 2007, he gave his landlord £99,000, which was a free gift but which was put towards the purchase of a London property that the two shared. He also contributed to building work. As the report states:
“Mr Laws had made significant financial contributions to the purchase and upgrading of the property. Such commitments are unusual between landlord and tenant, or even between friends. In consequence he should have had no doubt that he and his landlord were ‘partners’ for the purposes of the Green Book.”
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will have seen the volume of appendices to the report, which includes evidence from Mr Laws such as a rental agreement, which states at item 5:
“The Lodger will be responsible for any damages or breakages caused by him/her”.
How could the claim of £2,000 for renovation work be covered by that? There is no other reference in any of the agreements to any contribution that the lodger should make to any major renovations of the property.
Mr Barron
That is true. The commissioner commented on that claim in his memorandum, and it was taken into account when we came to make the recommendations that are before the House.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil was in breach before the financial contributions that I have described, by wrongly claiming that his main home was in Somerset rather than in London. It is clear that he was not the only Member who designated the wrong property. When the pattern of nights spent at two properties were changing, it would be easy to assume that the main property was the one on which a mortgage was held. If that were the main issue in the period up to 2006, it might easily have been put right, but the problem was that the right hon. Gentleman’s conduct was designed to hide his real circumstances, which formed a pattern with his later breach of the rules.
There has been a great deal of press comment on this case, much of it before the Committee reported. It has been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman saved the public money, and that that makes his conduct all right. It is certainly possible that other, proper arrangements might have been more expensive. Clearly, there could have been substantial claims against the Somerset property, but they were not made, so we cannot know precisely what would have been approved. We must judge the arrangements that were actually in place, not arrangements that might have been made. As the report says:
“Mr Laws contends that the payments were lower than they would have been had he claimed on his Somerset home, or made other permissible arrangements. In our view, it is inappropriate to judge whether the claims on property A are appropriate by reference to potential payments on another property, which is not in fact claimed for.”
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Committee has dealt with the false representation allegations—the appropriateness of the penalty, which hon. Members are here to judge, does not matter—but my submission is that it has not dealt adequately with the quantum of claim, other than by saying that the rent was above the market rent and that there were
“contributions towards building repairs and maintenance”.
The Committee and the commissioner did not go into the fact that the rent was up to 50% more than the market rent, or that sums of up to £100 a month were being charged for each of council tax, utilities, parking the car in the driveway, maintenance repairs and the purchase of capital equipment. Why has the Committee not dealt with those sums on aggregate? That is a huge amount of money for a lodger to pay to his landlord.
Mr Barron
My hon. Friend may wish to comment on that further, but I wish to make my comments on behalf of the Committee.
What is clear is that the rents charged to the public purse were excessive, and that charges were made for repairs that would not have been included in any normal rental arrangement. It is impossible to tell exactly how much more was charged than should have been, but that is because of the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for secrecy.
Mr Barron
No—I shall just carry on for a few minutes, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
The commissioner’s report suggests that the public purse was overcharged by between £80 and £270 per month, even in comparison with assured shorthold tenancies. Property advisers considered that the rent in the right hon. Gentleman’s lodging agreement was between £209 and £370 a month higher than the market price.
The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters say that he acted to preserve his privacy. Extensive press briefings suggested that the breach would be somehow less blameworthy if that were the case, but the commissioner expressed his sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee recognised his motivation. However, there were other ways to preserve privacy. He could have refrained from claiming. Alternatively, he could have designated his main home properly, which would have meant that there would be no need to conceal receipts that might have identified his landlord.
The right hon. Gentleman instead took the decision to preserve his privacy by concocting a rent agreement and, wherever possible, claiming below the receipts threshold. He told the commissioner:
“After the receipts threshold changed I reduced my claims below the threshold.”
Ultimately, as the report says, this case is about the fundamental principles of the code of conduct, which says, and has always said:
“Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once…in favour of the public interest.”
As the Committee said:
“We consider the rental agreements submitted between 2003 and 2008 were misleading and designed to conceal the nature of the relationship. They prevented any examination of the arrangements that in fact pertained over the entire period.”
That is why this case is worse than many others in which the commissioner has found there has been a breach of the rules of the additional costs allowance. In many of those cases, the Members concerned had consulted the department of finance and administration, and in some cases both the department and independent valuers, so there was no intention to deceive. In one case, the Member’s circumstances changed, so that arrangements that were expected to be temporary lasted longer than expected.
In contrast, the case before us involved a deliberate attempt to conceal the Member’s real living arrangements that continued for many years. It is clear that he recognised the potential conflict between the public interest and his private interest. By omitting to seek advice, however, he made himself the sole judge of whether that conflict was properly resolved. It was inappropriate for him to be judge and jury in his own case. As the commissioner commented, it can never be acceptable to submit misleading documents to those charged with overseeing public finances. As this case shows, the right hon. Member’s desire for secrecy led him to act in a way that was not compatible with the standards expected of an MP. Whatever the motive, I do not think that is acceptable.
Now I will address the concerns of those who think that we have been too lenient. Since the Committee reported, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has asked the police to investigate. There is a protocol between the police, the commissioner and the Committee providing for liaison between the commissioner and the police, if either of them has concerns. The police will not comment on individual investigations, and the commissioner is also understandably reluctant to comment on such matters, even to the Committee. However, the fact that the commissioner has reported to us suggests the Member’s behaviour is unlikely to have been criminal.
I have already explained why we felt this case was more serious than others, but there were mitigating factors. As we stated in the report:
“Not only has Mr Laws already resigned from the Cabinet, his behaviour since May 2010 has been exemplary. He quickly referred himself to the Commissioner, has already repaid allowances from July 2006 in full, and has cooperated fully with the Commissioner’s investigation. This behaviour has influenced our recommendation.”
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Committee said that the right hon. Member’s behaviour had been exemplary since the matter became public knowledge, and the commissioner himself, in paragraph 324 of his report, stated that it was to his
“considerable and personal credit that, when his living arrangements came to public attention”
he referred himself. Did the Committee calculate what he might have done had it not come to public attention?
Mr Barron
No, it did not.
The repayment was one of the mitigating circumstances. The voluntary payments went further than the circumstances at the time required. The outstanding amount related to rent that might or might not have been over-claimed and not to expenses claims that were wholly wrongly based, as in other cases that sadly have come before the House. As in other cases where Members have over-claimed, we have clawed back the overpayment. Given the uncertainty over what a true comparator should be, we calculated the maximum overpayment, and it was only because it was within the amount that had been paid back, over and above housing claims, that we made no further recommendation.
It has been suggested that recommending that the suspension should begin after the recess is part of a plot to reduce the right hon. Member’s fine. It was not put in, as one of the Sunday papers suggested, by political partisans on the Committee. The Committee considered carefully and decided that a suspension of seven days was appropriate. It would have been arbitrary and unfair to have extended the suspension simply because a recess fell during the period. In 2007, the Committee recommended that George Galloway’s suspension should start after the summer recess for precisely the same reasons. In that case, he got himself named in the House and suspended in the last week of sitting, so he lost his salary for the entire summer recess plus the 18 days that the Committee recommended. In this case, we felt that it would have been wrong to have started the suspension today—if that is what the House agrees—because we knew that we are entering a short recess. It would have been unfair and resulted in a longer suspension than the one recommended in our report. If the motion is agreed to, approximately £1,500 of salary will be withheld as a result of the right hon. Member’s suspension. I recommend the report to the House.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I will not detain the House too long. I realise that we have immensely important business to discuss later, and we should get on to it as soon as possible. However, this matter is not unimportant. Judging from the number of Members seeking to take part in the debate on the report, I fear that it would otherwise have slipped quietly into parliamentary history. We have realised over the past few years just how tainted this House’s reputation has become vis-à-vis not just the conduct of some Members, but how the way in which we deal with them is perceived.
I do not want to go into extreme detail about what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has done—or not. The commissioner has conducted a characteristically scrupulous and systematic investigation of the events, and the Committee and all its members have followed in the same vein. I will not seek to divide the House on the recommendation, which I am sure will be agreed. However, I fear that the way in which the case has been dealt with and the conclusion that the Committee has presented create the danger of emphasising the idea that, superficially at least, there is one rule for some Members of this House and other rules for others. Some are taken before the courts—and, indeed, imprisoned—for their conduct; some get barely a slap across the wrist; and others escape scot-free.
I accept that the speculation around this case is nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman personally, but so much of the comment outside this place—I accept, too, that neither this House nor any Member is responsible for such comment—is about how much time he should serve not before he is brought before the courts or sent to prison, but before he is brought back into the Cabinet. That changes the aspect and the proportion of this case entirely. The report makes it plain that there has been a systematic, calculated and flagrant pattern of behaviour by the right hon. Gentleman, which, describe it as we might—deceit, deception, fraud—amounts to dishonesty. If this House is to rebuild its reputation we need not only procedures that are, to quote an oft-repeated phrase in the report, “above reproach”, but systems that are seen to treat each and every Member of this House in the same fashion. I do not think that we have that at the moment—I do not criticise the report; I am sure that we will pass it and move on—but it is for the authorities and the Committees in this House to ensure that one simple procedure applies to everybody.
As the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), has said, this matter is now under investigation by the police because somebody has referred it. [Interruption.] I am told that he did not say that, in which case, we need to refer it. However, it is equally true that in other cases, the police have not waited for a referral for matters to be investigated, but have taken it upon themselves to investigate whether there was any criminal or corrupt element in Members’ behaviour. Indeed, matters that for a while fell within the purview of the commissioner were passed on, because the police had commissioned investigations into whether criminality and wrongdoing had taken place. There are those who have said that Members found guilty of serious wrongdoing should resign and leave this House, triggering a by-election—so much so, indeed, that the current Deputy Prime Minister said in his first address to the Liberal party conference that he wanted to add a “Derek Conway” clause.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, made a passing reference—it was not, if I remember correctly, an evaluative one—to the police. Of course the hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to make clear to the House his view about the merits or demerits of the report and its recommendations. However, I urge the House to focus on the specifics of this report alone and not to engage in what might be called a Second Reading debate about the differential treatment of particular cases, and we certainly cannot get into a general discussion about whether or when the police are involved.
Jim Dowd
I accept that, Mr Speaker, and I will abide by your ruling. I asked for your guidance before the debate, because I fear that the niceties and technicalities of parliamentary procedure might reduce common sense to zero in this case, and that the public at large will not understand the import of events.
I accept the report, but I still think that we need a procedure that is open and that has clear stages, regardless of whether the matter in question is in the hands of the House authorities, of Members’ Committees or of officials, or of whether it has entered the domain of a public investigation. We have not got the balance right in the report not because of any failing by the Committee, but because our procedures are still ineffective. We have tried to overhaul the expenses system, which was the genesis of this case, but I do not believe that we have got our administrative arrangements right in this House. The Committee continues to do a good job, as does the commissioner, but we must concentrate on creating a system that not only treats everyone fairly and equally but that is seen to do so.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I have concerns about the question that the report raises of consistency in dealing with individual cases. It would be wrong if we did not raise these matters on the Floor of the House, because the concerns—certainly those of Labour Members—about how these reports are dealt with must be addressed if we are to deal with similar issues in the future. I make no criticism of the Committee, the commissioner or anyone else.
The conclusion was reached that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) had behaved in an exemplary fashion since being placed under investigation, but I hope that any Member of this House would behave in that way and co-operate fully in such circumstances. Having spoken to some hon. Members who have been under investigation, I received the impression that they did exactly that.
I have one or two questions about consistency, which is all that I am bothered about. I understand that at least one case went to the Committee with the recommendation that it be referred to the Metropolitan police. What criteria were used to reach that judgment? I do not understand that, and I want to understand, because I am concerned about how these reports are written and how different Members are dealt with. What criteria does the commissioner use when he decides whether a case should go to the Metropolitan police?
Also, how many Members have claimed expenses without submitting receipts up to the £250 limit? I understand that some Members who have been investigated by the Metropolitan police and taken to court have been prosecuted for breaching that rule. How many of them, when found to be in breach of that rule by the commissioner, have been allowed to pay the money back?
Mr Kevan Jones
The report states that Mr Laws stopped claiming when the rules relating to the maximum amount changed. Did my hon. Friend find it strange that the reason he gave for not putting in receipts was to disguise this relationship with his landlord, even though the landlord’s name was on the tenancy agreement?
Clive Efford
I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but if he will forgive me, I do not want to get drawn into the detail of the case against the right hon. Member for Yeovil. The concerns that the report has raised for me are general ones about how we should deal with everyone who comes under investigation, because, let us face it, any of us could come under investigation if someone made a complaint against us, and we would all want to be dealt with under the same rules.
Who has been allowed to pay back money and on what criteria? On what criteria have they been referred to the Metropolitan police, and on what criteria have they been dealt with by the Committee and had a penalty imposed on them, as recommended to us today? Does the fact that Members offer to pay the money back make a difference? This report refers to the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil paid money back, which seems to have been taken in his favour. Have other Members made such offers and, if so, has that affected how they have been dealt with?
I have read the report, and I have highlighted several passages that appear to be inconsistent. I find it difficult to understand, for example, how someone can be a lodger in a house to which they have contributed £100,000 for its purchase and can then state to the Committee that they have no financial interest in that house and that the financial interests of the landlord and the lodger are completely separate. I find that sort of thing very confusing and very inconsistent, and I want to know what criteria are being applied to MPs when these matters come before the commissioner and the Committee. There are serious inconsistencies in what is happening here, and I believe that they are worthy of further investigation.
Question put and agreed to.
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Our security and prosperity in Britain are indivisible from those of other countries. We cannot seal ourselves off from dangers in other countries or prosper fully alone, and it is against our values—as, indeed, it is against our interests—to stand by while conflict and instability develop. That has been shown to be true time and again in the regions that we are debating today.
Britain could not turn a blind eye when Colonel Gaddafi turned his forces against innocent civilians in Libya, shelling crowds of peaceful protesters and even hospitals crammed with victims, and launching a ferocious campaign of arbitrary detentions, torture and summary executions. This is a country on Europe’s southern edge, and a regime that threatened to “exterminate like rats” the people who had risen against it. The Arab League clearly called for help and intervention, which is one of the reasons why we have taken a strong lead in calling for, securing and implementing UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. Other reasons include the effect on Libya’s neighbours and the consequences for migration, terrorism and our own national interest if a pariah state had emerged in north Africa. Our action in Libya has a compelling legal and moral basis, strong regional and international support and a clear objective, and it continues to make progress.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is aware that a great many people view it as very important that this has been a UN-mandated mission from the start. Will he update us on developments within the United Nations to ensure the maximum protection for civilians in Libya and to bring hostilities to the earliest possible end?
Mr Hague
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The fact that we are acting on a United Nations resolution made an enormous difference to the scale of the vote in this House in favour of the action we have taken and, of course, to the maintenance of international support. The UN Secretary-General attended the London conference that I hosted at the end of March and a meeting of the contact group. The UN continues to be represented at those contract groups. The UN special envoy, Mr al-Khatib, visited Tripoli yesterday, and we are waiting to hear what he found on that visit. The UN remains fully engaged and has offered to lead the stabilisation effort that will follow the conflict in Libya; support across the UN for the implementation of the resolutions remains very strong.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There is evidence that NATO’s insistence that Gaddafi be removed is prolonging the civil war, and that civilian casualties are mounting as a result. Would the Foreign Secretary consider asking a third party—someone independent, such as Kofi Annan—to mediate, without preconditions, for the purpose of a desperately needed ceasefire, if this is after all an intervention based on humanitarian need?
Mr Hague
The United Nations envoy to whom I referred is such a third party, and he has just been to Tripoli. Other third parties have made efforts as well, some of them on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend. A high-level African Union delegation visited Tripoli, without the insistence that the Libyan opposition and we have on the departure of Gaddafi, but that did not lead to a successful mediation. Indeed, however one looks at it, it is impossible to see a peaceful or viable future for Libya without the departure of Gaddafi.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the comments made at the weekend by the Chief of the Defence Staff about increasing the number of targets that we can hit, with specific reference to infrastructure? What discussions has he had with NATO colleagues about the apparent change of focus to regime change rather than the protection of civilians?
Mr Hague
I do agree with the comments of the Chief of the Defence Staff, but they did not relate to regime change; they related to implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. It will be evident to the House that over the last few weeks the regime forces have tried to adapt to what we have done to implement the resolutions. They have made themselves look like the forces of the other side, and have fought in a more asymmetric way. In such circumstances it is legitimate for NATO to increase the proportion of targets that are the command and control systems of the regime forces who are harassing and threatening the civilian population. That is what the Chief of the Defence Staff was referring to.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary will, of course, appreciate that there is a desire for conflict resolution that will lead to a democratic opportunity for Libya. Will he accept from one who represents many people from north Africa, and many from the Arab and Muslim world, that the intervention that we made is extremely respected and appreciated by those communities here? They want us to continue to uphold the transformation in the Arab world to more democratic countries, because one of their reasons for being here is their inability to exercise their freedoms fully in the countries from which they have come.
Mr Hague
That is absolutely true. We responded to the call from the Arab League, and I discussed the situation in Cairo two weeks ago with its secretary-general, who remains supportive of what we are doing. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, that is representative of opinion not just across the region but among many people in this country.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
On previous occasions the Foreign Secretary has told us that the Attorney-General is giving advice to the Cabinet. Can he assure us that if there is an increase in the scope and range of the targets that we will hit, that advice will be made available to the House?
Mr Hague
I cannot give an assurance that we will provide a running commentary on legal advice, but I can give the assurance that the Attorney-General is always included in such discussions. He is always included in the decisions about targeting, and indeed in our general discussions about policies. The National Security Council on Libya met earlier today to discuss the increased tempo of the military campaign, and the Attorney-General took part in that discussion. Retaining what we have had from the beginning—a clear legal authority to do what we are doing—is very important. However, although the Government can give it consideration, I cannot undertake to give a running commentary on legal advice.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said that General Richards had been referring to the command and control structure, not the infrastructure. It seems to be agreed that command and control is an acceptable target. However, General Richards said in The Sunday Telegraph that he
“wanted the rules of engagement changed so that direct attacks can be launched against the infrastructure propping up Gaddafi's regime.”
That suggests that he was calling for a change of policy, and I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary could say whether he has a legal opinion that would support that change of policy.
Mr Hague
That would, of course, have to be discussed with our colleagues, partners and other members of NATO, as all targeting is discussed in NATO. But certainly it is our opinion that it comes within the scope of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 that if particular items of infrastructure are particularly supporting the military effort and the regime’s effort to make war against civilians, those would also be legitimate targets.
The Gaddafi regime is now isolated and on the defensive. It has lost control of large swathes of Libya already. The regime’s military capability has been significantly degraded and £12 billion of its assets have been frozen in this country alone. NATO has conducted more than 6,600 sorties and more than 2,600 strike sorties since 31 March, destroying ammunition stores, armoured and other vehicles and surface-to-air missile launchers, while at sea 20 ships are now patrolling the central Mediterranean under NATO command to enforce the arms embargo.
Scores of senior figures have abandoned their positions in the regime, including Ministers, generals, ambassadors, bankers and senior officials. Many of these defectors are actively supporting the opposition national transitional council. We welcome the announcement today by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he has requested judges to issue arrest warrants for Colonel Gaddafi and two other members of the regime wanted for the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians. This should leave the regime in no doubt that crimes will not go unpunished and that the reach of international justice will be long.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I say that in recent weeks the Foreign Secretary has conducted his part of the campaign with exemplary skill and force? As the International Criminal Court seeks the arraignment of Colonel Gaddafi for all the things he has done, what difference is there between those and the terrible cruelty, killings and torture by President Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said in Defence questions an hour ago that he believed that Syria’s President should also be put before the International Criminal Court?
Mr Hague
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for, unusually, paying me a compliment. There are important differences, of course, in the level of international support and concern about Syria. I spoke a moment ago about the importance of our legal and international authority. So far, the Arab League position on Libya has been different from its position on Syria. Our ability to pass a resolution at the United Nations Security Council is very different on Syria from what it is on Libya, so if we believe that it is important to operate with legal and international authority, we must recognise that we are in a different situation in respect of Syria than we are in respect of Libya. I will return to Syria in the course of my remarks.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are worried about what the Chief of the Defence Staff said at the weekend, because he seemed to be implying that in order to resolve a stalemate that we ourselves have created, we should constantly widen the envelope of what we attack? We want a firm assurance that we will attack only military targets that directly target civilians, and that our mission is humanitarian and designed to achieve a ceasefire and peace.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend can certainly be assured that we will stay within the scope of the UN resolution, with legal advice, but he must bear it in mind that as the situation changes, what is targeted and the methods necessary to achieve our objectives will sometimes have to change. It would not be effective to say that we are only ever going to target the same things. Many different parts of the apparatus of the regime in Libya that are engaged in prosecuting a war against its own civilians have not actually been targeted yet.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that there will be no change in the mission—no mission creep? A no-fly zone can be successful in preventing civilians from being massacred—that is why I voted for it—but what would the Government do if it became clear that the air raids have succeeded in preventing that and that Gaddafi is desisting from threatening to massacre whole swathes of his own people, but that he is staying in place? Would we then call off the campaign because the threat of massacre had been reduced to the point that it did not need to concern us any more, or would we say, “As long as Gaddafi is in place, the campaign goes on”? That is where we might find ourselves in legal difficulties?
Mr Hague
Of course it is open to Colonel Gaddafi to comply with resolution 1973, to end violence against civilians and to have a genuine ceasefire. President Obama and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the beginning what he would need to do in order to do that; he would need to disengage from battles in places such as Misrata, to cease using his forces against civilians who try to protest in Tripoli, and so on. So it is open to him to do this. It would certainly not bring to an end the enforcement of a no-fly zone, the arms embargo and so many parts of the UN resolution, but in that situation the position—the need to protect civilians from attack—would be different. However, Colonel Gaddafi does not do this, presumably because if he did he would no longer be able to maintain himself in power, as he relies entirely on force to keep himself in power. That is why the question of his being there and remaining in power is, in practical terms, intimately bound up with resolving the conflict.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Any innocent person listening to the Foreign Secretary’s speech would assume that the whole policy that has been conducted by NATO, with the support of the UK, is one of regime change, and that they are just hiding under this fig leaf of its not being regime change. When does this become regime change in fact? Would he do the same in Bahrain, Syria or any other country? Clearly, that is the direction of travel at the moment.
Mr Hague
Those countries are all in different situations. I wish to discuss those different countries later, but Libya’s is the one case where we are dealing with a clear call from the Arab League and a United Nations Security Council resolution, and that makes it very different from all the other situations that we are dealing with. The hon. Gentleman should support the fact that Britain is acting on that basis, with that international authority. The purposes of our military action are exactly as set out in the resolution but, for the reasons that I have just been explaining, it is hard to see us achieving those objectives, or any peaceful solution being arrived at among the people of Libya, while Colonel Gaddafi remains in power. We have to recognise that, and it is why most of the world, including people across north Africa and in the Arab world, want him to go.
This House and our country should be confident that time is not on the side of Gaddafi; it is on our side, provided that we continue to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure on his regime. The tempo of military operations, which some of my hon. Friends have been asking about, has increased significantly in recent weeks, and we are now targeting not just deployed military assets, but the fixed military command and control facilities which the regime uses to threaten the civilian population. That action is within the constraints of the Security Council resolutions, and we are increasing the regime’s diplomatic and economic isolation at the same time.
At the contact group meeting in Rome on 5 May, which I attended, all members agreed to reject diplomatic emissaries from Tripoli unless the regime shows serious willingness to implement a real ceasefire. We also agreed to explore action to prevent the regime from exporting crude oil and importing refined products for non-humanitarian use, and to clamp down on states and entities supplying arms and mercenaries to the regime. We are also working with our partners to stop satellite or state support for the broadcasting of Libyan state television, and the whole House will welcome the Arab League’s decision yesterday to request a ban on Libyan state-owned TV from broadcasting on the Arabsat satellites. We also welcome the mediation role of the UN special envoy, as I have said.
In parallel with that pressure, we are increasing our support for the Libyan national transitional council, which we regard at this moment as the legitimate representative of the people of Libya. In Rome, the contact group agreed terms of reference for a temporary financial mechanism that will aid the provision of basic services in eastern Libya, as well as efforts to stabilise its economy. The first meeting of the steering board for the mechanism is due to take place today in Doha, and up to $180 million has already been pledged by the Gulf states.
The British Government were also one of the first to provide humanitarian support to Libya, including medical supplies for 30,000 people and basic necessities for more than 100,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will want to expand on this subject when he winds up the debate.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
On the subject of the national transitional council, on a recent visit to the US the Select Committee on Defence was told at a high level that we do not know who the rebels are. Is the Secretary of State confident that it is appropriate to give them official recognition when we do not really know the details of where they are coming from?
Mr Hague
We have not given them official recognition; we recognise states, not Governments. We recognise the state of Libya. We say for now—at this moment—that they are the legitimate representatives, as Gaddafi has lost legitimacy, and we have invited them to open an office but not an embassy here in London. We know a lot about who they are—after all, we have met a lot them. I have met their principal leaders and we have a diplomatic mission in Benghazi that is working with them daily. They have published their vision of a democratic Libya and, as I shall explain, have gone on to set out their own transition plan for Libya, which tells us quite a lot about what they intend.
The hon. Lady brings me naturally to what I was going to say next. Last Thursday, during a visit to London by its chairman Abdul-Jalil, the Prime Minister invited the council to open a mission in London. That will enable closer consultation. We welcome the road map for a democratic transition published by the council. It pledges the establishment of an interim Government after the departure of Gaddafi and a ceasefire—an interim Government including council figures as well as technocratic figures from the regime—the convening of a national congress with balanced representation from across the country, the drafting of a new constitution and internationally supervised parliamentary and presidential elections within six months. Those are laudable objectives that show the right way forward, as proposed by the national council.
The Prime Minister also announced new support for the protection of Libyan civilians, including communications equipment, bullet proof vests and uniforms for the civilian police authorities of the NTC as well as support to improve the public broadcasting capacity. That assistance is designed to help ensure that the NTC administers territory under its control to international standards. In the coming weeks we will also increase our diplomatic presence in Benghazi. We have appointed a permanent special representative to the national transitional council based there, and we are sending development specialists who will form the core of an international team to advise the council on longer-term planning.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Is the Foreign Secretary not glossing over the significance of what the Chief of the Defence Staff said? I think that the Chief of Defence Staff is worried about stalemate. We are doing enough to keep the operation going but not enough to finish it off, and we are turning our backs on the opportunities for negotiation, to the extent that they exist, yet we are not going far enough to finish this. He is worried about war and misery without end as well as ongoing cost and stretch. He is saying something different from the Government, is he not?
Mr Hague
No. I have called at successive meetings of the contact group and in this House for a steady intensification of the military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime. We have always been clear that it would require intensification and the Chief of the Defence Staff is certainly talking about the next stage of that intensification. That is not at variance with what the Government have said. It might contain more detail than what we have said before, but it does not vary from the approach the Government have taken. We have always been clear that such intensification is necessary to avoid a stalemate, but we need diplomatic and economic, as well as military, intensification.
We are doing all we can to implement the UN Security Council resolutions on Libya. We should be fortified by the knowledge that our action has already saved countless people from the risk of death, injury or certain repression. I hope the House will join me in paying tribute to the brave men and women of the armed forces and to British diplomats and aid workers on the ground in Libya. The contact group will meet again in Abu Dhabi in early June, a meeting that I will attend, and I will keep the House closely informed of developments. The Gaddafi regime’s efforts to cling to power are in stark contrast with the largely peaceful transition that has taken place in Libya’s neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia. Tunisia continues to lead the way in the transition to Arab democracy. Despite many complex challenges, a great deal of progress has been made since the revolution in January. A new broad-based interim Government including independent figures and opposition parties has been formed, media censorship has been removed, formerly banned parties have been legalised and an election date has been set. The challenge now is to ensure that reforms are fully implemented and that all arrangements are in place for free and fair elections. I spoke to Tunisia’s Foreign Minister last week to discuss those things. Through our Arab partnership initiative, we are helping to produce the first media code of conduct for Tunisia’s elections, to build domestic observation capacity for Assembly elections in July and to strengthen legislation protecting freedom of expression. Further British support for political and economic reform is being agreed and we are also working at the EU and with other international bodies to look at assistance for Tunisia as part of a broader approach to democratic reform in north Africa.
I visited Cairo at the beginning of the month. Egypt has many challenges to overcome before democratic reform is assured, including the need to stabilise the economy and create confidence for investors. I met senior members of the transitional authorities and representatives from across the spectrum of groups of Egyptian activists who participated in the revolution. Such engagement is vital if we are to understand and influence decisions by such groups in the future. In my meetings with Field Marshal Tantawi and Prime Minister Sharaf, as well as welcoming the progress that has been made so far, I raised Britain’s concerns about the Egyptian authorities’ current use of military courts, rather than civil legal mechanisms, and about the rise of sectarian tensions in Egypt, which is gravely concerning.
Violent clashes between Salafi Muslims and Coptic Christians left up to 15 dead and more than 250 injured in Cairo earlier this month. Peaceful demonstrations about those events were attacked by gunmen on Sunday and 78 people were injured. We condemn that violence and call on both sides to find a peaceful resolution to their differences in the spirit of the unity shown in Tahrir square. The rights of Christian minorities in Egypt and across the middle east must be protected and we welcome the fact that many in Egypt are clearly appalled by those actions. Many in the House will be deeply concerned if we begin to see in Egypt signs of the dreadful attacks against Christians or any other minorities that have taken place in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
None of us should be under any illusion about the scale of the transition still required in Egypt. The success of the Arab spring will largely be judged on what happens in the Arab world’s largest nation. The UK is offering technical assistance ahead of crucial elections in September. Last week, we hosted the Egyptian team who are responsible for the elections and gave them an overview of the electoral process in Britain. We are also discussing what assistance Britain can offer through our Arab partnership initiative to strengthen political participation and the rule of law, including anti-corruption efforts, but the international community must rapidly accelerate its assistance to Egypt.
We are arguing in the European Union, the United Nations, the G8 and international financial institutions for a transformative new relationship with the countries of the middle east and north Africa. We have put forward our proposals in Europe for a reformed neighbourhood policy that offers market access and trade in return for reform, leading eventually to a customs union and free trade area. We hope that the G8 summit in Deauville next week will mark the start of a new approach to the region and to co-ordinated and expanded financial assistance. Offering a new hand of friendship and a new partnership is the right response to the aspirations of the people in the region, but it is also manifestly in our own long-term interests. The response of Europe in particular must be as bold, ambitious and historic in its scale and nature as these events themselves.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I hope that the situation in Yemen will also be raised during those discussions because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a mass demonstration is planned for tomorrow at which thousands and thousands of people will be marching on the presidential palace. Ways in which we can help are through mediation, by trying to persuade the sides to come together, and by giving the financial assistance that is absolutely vital because Yemen is facing a humanitarian problem.
Mr Hague
I shall come to Yemen in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to keep a semblance of order to my remarks, but he is quite right to raise that important issue.
The experiences of Egypt and Tunisia reveal an important lesson from the Arab spring—that an immense economic challenge goes hand in hand with the political opening up of those societies. Two other lessons should act as a warning in the region to those who might be tempted to think that legitimate aspirations can be ignored.
The first is that demands for political and economic freedom will spread more widely and by themselves, not because western nations advocate these things, but because they are the natural aspirations of all people everywhere. The second is that Governments who set their face against reform altogether are doomed to failure. Simply refusing to address legitimate grievances or attempting to stamp them out will fail. Reform is not a threat to stability; it is the guarantor of it over the long term. It is not credible or acceptable for any country in the region to repress now and suggest that reform will only follow later, nor is it sustainable to promise economic reform without steady political development.
This is our message to Syria, alongside our utter condemnation of the violence. Only meaningful reform that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people can provide peace and stability for Syria in the long term. The alternative—ever more violent repression—simply stokes up anger and frustration that will spill over in the future. On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the European Union has already imposed a travel ban and assets freeze on 13 individuals in the Syrian regime, and on Friday we informed the Syrian ambassador to London that if the violence does not stop immediately, the EU will take further measures, including sanctions targeted at the highest levels of the Syrian Government.
Alongside this action in the EU we are seeking a response from the UN Security Council in New York, where we are working to convince others that the Security Council must send an unequivocal message of condemnation of the situation and call for urgent political reform.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary is making a perfectly correct and robust case, but does he agree that the emergence of protest right across the middle east changes the dynamics of the middle east peace process and the mood of the Palestinians, and that we need to ensure that the international community secures a response and that they do not feel that they are stuck in a time warp when things are changing all around them?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend is right. That is changing the dynamics and it is important for all to understand that this increases the urgency of the middle east peace process, rather than meaning that it can be put off. The remaining opportunity to breathe new life into it must now be taken. I shall say more about that in a moment.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to encourage Turkey to take a democratic lead in the region, which would also include ending the persecution of legitimately and democratically elected Kurdish politicians? That would give great succour to Kurdish people in Syria, who are the subject of murderous repression by their own Government.
Mr Hague
Turkey is taking a lead in the region, in particular in trying to persuade the Syrian authorities to go down the route of reform, rather than the route of repression. We very much welcome the highly active role—not yet a successful role, but a highly active role —played by the Turkish Government in that regard. Of course, we look to Turkey, particularly as an aspirant nation for membership of the European Union, always to set a strong example itself.
While condemning so many things that have happened in some countries, we should welcome the fact that in some other countries of the Arab world Governments are setting out plans for reform. In March, the King of Morocco announced a package of reforms, including putting the national human rights body on an independent footing and constitutional changes that will be put to a referendum. Jordan has announced committees on national dialogue and constitutional and economic reform, and we look forward to those reforms being agreed and implemented.
In Yemen, the economic, security and humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. More protesters were killed only last week by Government forces, in violence that the whole House will deplore. The United Kingdom supports the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative to resolve the deadlock, which requires the President to step aside and a new Government to be formed who include members of the Opposition. We are in close contact with the GCC about the progress of negotiations, we have supported those negotiations, and we are in close contact with the United States and our partners in Europe about our wider approach to the country.
Instability in Yemen has serious implications for the terrorist threat from that country, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has demonstrated the intent and capability to attack western targets inside and outside Yemen. Britain and our allies are working around the clock to counter this threat and we will continue to do so. The arguments about the need for reform and dialogue apply to all countries in the region. Although each country is different, we will make the case to all that steps to reverse freedoms and curtail human rights are wrong and counter-productive.
We welcome the announcement in Bahrain that the state of national emergency will be lifted on 1 June and look forward to this commitment being met. We remain very concerned by the restrictions on freedom of speech and the reports of human rights abuses, including the widespread arrest of political activists and the severe charges brought against a number of doctors and nurses by a Bahraini tribunal. The Government of Bahrain must meet their human rights obligations and uphold political freedom, dialogue, equal access to justice and the rule of law. We also call on opposition groups in Bahrain to be prepared to enter into genuine dialogue.
Caroline Lucas
That is very kind; I look forward to making many more interventions on that basis. Does the Secretary of State share the concern that Bahraini opposition activists will not receive fair trials and, if he does, does he think there is a role for the UK mission to send observers to witness those trials?
Mr Hague
We certainly expect and will demand fair trials, and I have discussed that situation with Bahrain’s Foreign Minister in recent weeks, so it is very clear where the UK stands. We will send observers as necessary. Our embassy in Bahrain has been highly active for years in raising human rights concerns there, before the recent trouble, and in maintaining contact with opposition groups and good relations with the Government. We will keep that going.
Serious challenges also remain in Iraq. The formation of a national unity Government between Iraq’s major political blocs remains incomplete, the security situation is fragile and political tensions have risen. In recent months there have been a number of high-profile attacks and targeted assassinations by al-Qaeda and insurgent groups, but we judge the Iraqi security forces to have the necessary capabilities to prevent a wholesale return to violence. With its young democracy, oil reserves and economic potential, Iraq can become an important stabilising influence in the region and a key contributor to global energy security. Compromises must be made to end the stalemate and tackle the many grave problems the country faces.
The Arab spring remains in its early stages, in my view, and has caused uncertainty as well as optimism, but the middle east peace process must not be allowed to become a victim of that uncertainty. Delay leaves a vacuum of leadership which can be exploited by extremists or lead to increased violence. We are deeply concerned by emerging reports that up to 17 people were killed and many more injured over the weekend in violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We call on all parties to exercise restraint and protect civilian life.
The House will join me in paying tribute to the efforts of the UN special envoy, Senator Mitchell, who will step down from that position this week after two years of tireless efforts to restart talks. We believe that the parties must return to direct negotiations as soon as possible, on the basis of clear parameters for a two-state solution. We hope that the announcement of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas will lead to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace. President Abbas has reaffirmed his commitment to a negotiated two-state solution based on 1967 borders. A new Government have yet to be formed, but when that happens we will judge them by their actions and their readiness to work for peace.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Today, when hon. Members from both sides of the House have joined in celebrating the 63rd anniversary of the independence of Israel, will the Foreign Secretary offer an assurance that the Government will not provide any support for organisations such as Hamas, which threatens not only Israel’s independence, but its very existence?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point, will the Foreign Secretary make clear the central importance that the Government place on the Quartet principles and state that no organisation, particularly Hamas in this instance, may genuinely be part of the peace process while it remains committed to Israel’s destruction?
Mr Hague
Securing peace in the middle east must of course be done on the basis of the Quartet principles, which is why we will judge any Palestinian Administration by the conditions I have set out. As I have often said, we look to Hamas to make concrete movement towards the Quartet principles, which remain of central importance.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I have lost count of the number of Foreign Secretaries who have told us that every effort would be made to bring about a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Time and again that promise has been made, and I am sure with every genuine wish that it should be brought about, but it has not been. The situation of the Palestinians remains precisely what it has been since the occupied territories were taken in 1967. Is there any possibility that the United States—to a large extent it is the United States alone that will decide this—will move more than it has done so far, which in fact has not been much?
Mr Hague
It is no discredit to my predecessors that they have worked hard on this, and it would be wrong to desist from doing so just because we have not been successful so far. I believe that President Obama will make a major speech this week on these matters, including the middle east peace process. The United States of course plays a central role in pushing this forward.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Could the Foreign Secretary explain how negotiations can take place and be successful in the new situation of a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which is exceptionally important, if Hamas is to be excluded in some way from peace making? Does he not remember Abba Eban, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, saying that one makes peace by talking to one’s enemies?
Mr Hague
In this situation the interlocutor for Israel remains President Abbas. He insists, I understand, that he is available to negotiate with Israel on the same basis as before, that the Government he has formed will be ready to do that and that Hamas will not have changed the Government’s policy. I hope that a return to negotiations will be possible, notwithstanding all the difficulties the House can see.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for being generous in giving way. On the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), does my right hon. Friend recognise the concern shared by many Members that until Hamas repudiates its stated position, which is that the state of Israel should not exist, it cannot come to the table? Furthermore, does he agree that unilateral declarations of statehood, rather than round-table discussions without conditions, are not the best way forward and that the latter are?
Mr Hague
Negotiations on statehood are certainly the best way forward, but it is when those negotiations get nowhere that discussions about unilateral recognition get going in the world. That has to be recognised by all concerned. Yes, it is of course important for any peace in the future that all concerned recognise Israel’s right to exist, forswear violence and recognise previous agreements.
I am conscious that at this rate of progress mine might be the only speech in this debate and that I am yet to touch on Pakistan and Afghanistan, so I am going to be a little less generous in giving way and I will shorten what I was going to say about Iran.
The same urgency must apply to our efforts to address Iran’s nuclear programme, which remains a vital international issue. Tackling Iranian nuclear proliferation will remain at the centre of our approach to the region. We are seeking to intensify, including through the EU, the impact of existing sanctions in order to slow down Iran’s acquisition of material and finance for its nuclear programme and press the Iranian Government to reconsider their position. The people of the middle east aspire to a better future. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to that future, as are the continued efforts of terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
No country has suffered more from the scourge of terrorism than Pakistan. In the 10 years since 9/11, more than 30,000 of its civilians have been killed and many more maimed or injured, including the 80 people killed in a suicide attack last week. Osama bin Laden’s death is therefore a blow against the forces undermining the Pakistani state and an opportunity for Pakistan, working with Britain and its allies, to redouble the fight against violent extremism. Pakistan should certainly address the many serious questions surrounding bin Laden’s likely support network in Pakistan. We welcome Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement of an investigation, which must be credible and thorough, but it is right that we support the Government of Pakistan in their efforts to defeat terrorism. More than 1 million people of Pakistani origin live in the UK and what happens in Pakistan directly affects us. As we help Pakistan today, we are also investing in our future security. The enhanced strategic dialogue that our Prime Minister launched with Pakistan last month strengthens our co-operation on many shared interests and supports that long-term goal.
We want the people of Pakistan to know that the UK seeks a long-term partnership with Pakistan for generations ahead. British development support is helping to tackle inequalities in Pakistani society, to get more children into school and to build communities that are more resistant to radicalisation. Whatever its concerns about sovereignty, Pakistan should use the opportunity of bin Laden’s death to side unconditionally with all those aiming to defeat al-Qaeda, including Muslim countries. We hope that Pakistan will decide not to turn its back in any way on the west, but to take up the offer of partnership from us and the Americans and to use this moment in order to build long-term strategic partnerships.
Neighbouring Afghanistan remains at the top of the Government’s priorities in foreign affairs.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the very welcome report last week that the Prime Minister intends to make an announcement this month on the repatriation of 450 British troops—a report that gave great hope to the loved ones of those soldiers?
Mr Hague
I am coming on to Afghanistan, and I will talk briefly about troop levels, but I will leave any such announcement for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We have received news in the past 24 hours—the hon. Gentleman’s remarks relate to this topic—of the death of a Royal Marine from 42 Commando Royal Marines, and the whole House will join me in paying tribute to that officer and in expressing our sincere condolences to his family.
Osama bin Laden’s death will not mean the end of the security threat posed by the insurgency, or of the need to build up the capacity of Afghans to take charge of their own affairs. We remain committed to building a stable and secure Afghanistan that is able to prevent international terrorist groups from operating from its territory. Bin Laden’s death presents a clear opportunity for the Taliban to break decisively from al-Qaeda and to participate in a peaceful political process.
I wish to spend the remaining few minutes of my speech—so that others can speak—updating the House on recent developments and on the Government’s overall strategy, treating these remarks as our quarterly report to Parliament on progress in Afghanistan. At the close of this debate, the Secretary of State for International Development will inform the House of development progress.
The next four years in Afghanistan will be decisive. The Prime Minister has made it clear that by 2015 our troops will no longer have a combat role or be there in the numbers they are in now. President Karzai and the international security assistance force coalition have confirmed that, by then, Afghanistan will be in charge of its own security. That process of security transfer is already under way, and President Karzai announced in March the first group of provinces and districts where the transition will begin. Lashkar Gah district in Helmand is in that first group, confirming the progress that we have made in improving security in central Helmand. The National Security Council has approved our strategy that will support this transition over the next four years.
The momentum of the insurgency has been halted and, in many areas, reversed. Afghan and ISAF forces are now working to consolidate gains, which are not yet irreversible, and levels of violence have been relatively low in recent months, although a little higher than in the same period last year. In April there were a number of insurgent attacks, including the barbaric assault on a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif and an attack on the Defence Ministry in Kabul, and there was the escape of a large number of insurgent detainees from prison in Kandahar. Those incidents underline the need to continue pursuing our counter-insurgency strategy and our efforts to build Afghan security capacity, but they should also be seen as of limited wider impact when placed in the context of the campaign. In early May, Taliban leaders announced the start of their spring offensive, and we must therefore be prepared for such attacks to continue.
The UK’s overall military contribution is well over 10,000 troops. In task force Helmand’s area of operation, our focus is on maintaining momentum and retaining the tactical initiative in preparation for the end of the poppy harvest, when Helmand’s fighting-age males, many of whom have in previous years turned to the insurgency for employment, must be encouraged not to do so again. We keep our force levels under constant review, and some reductions this year may be possible, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), dependent upon conditions on the ground and the implementation of the security transition.
If the transition of security responsibilities to the Afghans is to succeed and endure, we have to build up Afghan capacity, and we are making progress on that. Afghan security forces responded capably to the Taliban’s co-ordinated assault on Kandahar city on 7 May. The numbers in the Afghan security forces continue to grow ahead of schedule, but just as important are the improvements being made in their capability and professionalism.
Some 95% of ISAF operations are conducted side by side with Afghan forces, and about 74% of Afghan national army kandaks and 75% of Afghan national police are now rated as effective with advisers or effective with assistance. Eleven out of 12 planned ANA branch schools are now open, teaching the soldiers the skills they will need to move from an infantry-centric force to a more self-supporting organisation.
Literacy rates in the army continue to improve, with 80,000 members of the security forces having now completed a period of literacy training and a further 60,000 in training at any one time. The NATO training mission estimates that in nine months more than half the Afghan security force will have completed basic literacy training, compared with just 15% today.
We continue to work with the Afghan Government and our international partners to support reconciliation in Afghanistan and to make progress towards a political settlement. We want a durable and inclusive settlement that respects the interests and rights of all Afghans. I agree with Secretary Clinton, who said on 18 February that we must intensify our efforts on a political process. We need to take advantage of military and civilian gains to make 2011 a year of reconciliation and transformation in Afghanistan. We will work with anyone who genuinely shares the goal of a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan that is not threatening to its neighbours and who are not threatened by it, and we look to the Bonn conference later this year as an important opportunity for progress.
In all the countries and regions that I have discussed today, we have a strong national interest in both democracy and stability, and our country is playing a major role bilaterally through the European Union, the United Nations and NATO, including in Afghanistan, where we are the second largest contributor of international forces.
This year already stands out as a momentous year in foreign affairs—one that not only gives rise to great optimism about the potential for greater economic and political freedom in a part of the world that has known little of either, but that generates risks to the United Kingdom which we will work to anticipate and address, working with our allies to protect our nation’s interests while standing up for the highest values of our society.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
This debate certainly covers a vast number of countries of interest, but it does not include China, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, is visiting today, as he mentioned in last week’s exchanges. It is also unfortunate that so much other business has been put on today’s agenda, given what is clearly a timely, popular and well-supported debate.
I accept that we are in somewhat uncharted territory, and we recognise the difficulty for the Government of making decisions in response to rapidly changing circumstances, but it is nevertheless necessary that those decisions are taken speedily and coherently and that they are implemented effectively. For Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s performance properly, it is important that the Government share their thinking and the evolution of their doctrine in assessing options and that they ensure a firm grip on delivery.
I know that a considerable number of Members wish to speak, that they have an interest and considerable expertise in the subjects covered by the debate and that there is a time limit, so without more ado I will cover some, although not all, of the countries involved. Inevitably, given the dramatic death of Osama bin Laden, we must start with Afghanistan.
At the outset, let me make it clear that we believe that the allied forces were right to go into Afghanistan in response to 9/11, and that the UN was right to set up ISAF with the following mandate, which we should remind ourselves of today:
“Stressing that all Afghan forces must adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights law, including respect for the rights of women, and under international humanitarian law,
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,
Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority established by the Bonn Agreement”.
That mandate, in its essence, remains relevant today.
The UK took the lead in the initial phase of ISAF, and our forces have played a prominent and—I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise this—distinguished role since then. They show great skill, courage and determination in their operations, and some have made the ultimate sacrifice, including the Royal Marines sergeant mentioned by the Foreign Secretary. Others have suffered serious injuries that will affect their whole lives, as was highlighted in the statement made earlier. Because my constituency is very close to Birmingham, I recently talked to a nurse there who works at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, who described how heartbreaking it is to see these once-fit young men who have desperate injuries but who remain enormously positive and resolute. We owe them a huge debt. The nation must honour the military covenant, and today’s statement is an important step in that process. I also join the Foreign Secretary in his tribute to aid workers in Afghanistan, a number of whom have died in trying to bring help to the people of Afghanistan. They have shown enormous dedication and courage.
We must look to the manner and timing of the handover of the governance of Afghanistan to the Afghan authorities, army and police. One of our key objectives was to prevent al-Qaeda from using Taliban-run Afghanistan as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks around the world. While Osama bin Laden’s death has not finished al-Qaeda, it has certainly dealt it a serious blow. It also confirms previous intelligence suggesting that nearly all of al-Qaeda has left Afghanistan. That probably means that Washington will start phased troop withdrawals in the next couple of months. We must be clear that the process is determined by the situation on the ground, not by the calendar, but also that it will start to happen shortly.
It is clear that intense internal discussions are going on in Washington, and some elements of those discussions are starting to emerge. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, last week described as “fundamentally unsustainable” the US’s current expenditure of $10 billion a month on what he called a massive military operation with no end in sight. He made it clear that he was not advocating a “unilateral precipitous withdrawal”, but that the US ought to be working towards achieving what he described as the “smallest footprint possible”. The ranking Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, who also has huge experience on that committee, reinforced the message, saying:
“The question before us is whether Afghanistan is important enough to justify the lives and massive resources that are being spent there, especially given our nation’s debt crisis.”
The atmosphere in Washington shows that people feel that the death of bin Laden will have a significant effect on the setting of milestones and the pace and slope of the US troop withdrawal.
I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State for International Development will outline, as far as is prudent and possible, our plans in this regard and the considerations that will shape the progress of the draw-down. Will he also, without being definitive, indicate the intended completion date, although we recognise that that will, of its essence, be tentative and might be varied in either direction? We all know that the British public are realistic and resolute, but it is also clear that they now want to see our boys, and increasingly our girls, starting to come home.
Will the Minister indicate what role he sees for the neighbouring powers—obviously Pakistan, but also Iran, Russia, China, India and possibly Turkey, as well as the various “stans”—in this process of a resolution for Afghanistan? They all have significant interests, which are not entirely geopolitical, and many also have kinship with ethnic groups within Afghanistan. However, their interests are not necessarily coincidental and will have to be carefully handled. It is in no one’s interests, neither in the wider world nor in the neighbouring powers, for Afghanistan once again to be a centre of instability and a haven for international terrorism. We need to decide what outcome is desirable and practicable and, together with the United States and the international community, move resolutely towards it.
In that context, what should be the basis of a settlement? First, there should be a new and more inclusive internal political arrangement in which enough Afghan citizens have a stake and the central Government have enough power and legitimacy to protect the country from threats within and without. Secondly, on which the first depends, there should be a new external settlement that commits Afghanistan’s neighbours to respecting its sovereign integrity, as outlined in the UN resolution that I have mentioned, and carries enough force and support to ensure that they abide by that commitment.
In the UN’s words, the internal settlement will require
“a process by which the ex combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income”.
It will then require reconciliation, including ensuring that tribal, ethnic and other groups are represented and recognised. Parliament and parliamentarians should also be recognised and encouraged. Several Members of Parliament participated in the sessions with the group of Afghan parliamentarians who were over here last month and who are developing a vibrant approach to their democracy. That event was extremely welcome, and we congratulate the organisers, but a lot more needs to be done by us and by the international community to sustain the process. As has been self-evident in many exchanges about this in the Chamber, there must also be a sustained drive to cut corruption.
In many ways, we have been looking from the wrong end of the telescope at events in what I will describe, in historical terms, as the north-west frontier region. We are considering events in Pakistan in the light of their impact on Afghanistan, whereas the crucial issue is how Afghanistan will affect Pakistan, which is a country of 160 million people—it is the second largest Muslim country—with a significant military, including nuclear, capability. It is also, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly acknowledged on behalf of Britain, a country that has suffered considerable losses from fundamentalist terrorism, and it continues to do so even in recent days. We need to think very seriously about Pakistan’s concerns and prospects. This is not helped by some of the knee-jerk responses to the death of bin Laden that we have seen in the media, with too many people making facile assertions regarding subjects about which they do not have, and may well never have, the full picture. Idle speculation on this matter is not helpful in forming an effective, considered judgment, and it is certainly not helpful in the internal politics of the region.
I therefore welcome the fact that the United States appears determined to continue to support Pakistan rather than to repeat the mistake that it made following the end of the Soviet invasion by cutting aid substantially and drastically. I note the welcome news in today’s Financial Times that Senator Kerry is about to visit Pakistan. However, there is also a clear obligation on Pakistan, in terms of good governance, to improve its administration, especially in relation to tax collection; to improve educational opportunities, particularly in taking education away from fundamentalist madrassahs and thereby ensuring proper education for its young people; to enable and sustain a more pluralist society; and to engage in dialogue significantly to reduce tension with India, which occupies so much attention and resources in both countries.
Malcolm Bruce
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that commentators in the British press who attack aid support for Pakistan and Afghanistan are missing the point in that if we do not deliver education, hope and livelihoods to those countries, the chances of reducing terrorism and disintegration are lower, not higher?
Mr Spellar
I certainly do. This is an argument that needs to be had right across the world. Recently in Australia, there was a big attack on the aid programme to Indonesia—again, it is substantial—which is designed to ensure proper secular, state-run education, so that youngsters do not only get their education in fundamentalist organisations. It is enormously important that we sustain that programme for the future of that country, the largest Muslim country, as it is for the future of Pakistan, the second largest Muslim country. That is essential not only for the long-term security of the region but for international security. I was encouraged by the comments of the Foreign Secretary on that subject, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will enlarge on them in his response.
Turning to the middle east and north Africa, it has been rightly said that the death of bin Laden was a serious setback for al-Qaeda, but the most telling blow has been the Arab spring, with its demands for democracy and more open societies, and certainly not for al-Qaeda’s dream of a return to mediaeval brutality. We should be realistic about the various elements that are involved in that movement and the possible course of developments.
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his Mansion House speech. I notice that he recycled quite a bit of it in his speech this evening. That is obviously part of the Government’s commitment to be greener. However, the speech bears repetition. As he rightly said:
“Demands for open government, action against corruption and greater political participation will spread by themselves over time, not because Western nations are advocating them but because they are the natural aspirations of all people everywhere.”
In that context, we should recognise that the events in the middle east and north Africa are not isolated. A tide has been sweeping around the world.
In spite of some disappointments, we should reflect on how much progress has been made around the world over the past couple of decades. Most countries in south America have emerged from military dictatorship, are overcoming their ruthless, destructive guerrilla groups and are building a better future. Interestingly, in his famous Chicago speech in 1999, Tony Blair referred to the need for
“more effective ways of resolving crises, like that in Brazil.”
Brazil is now a roaring economic power, and it has just celebrated the election of a new successive social democratic President. The countries of eastern Europe have returned to their European home, having thrown off the shackles of their corrupt, vicious, incompetent communist leaderships and the Warsaw pact. They have willingly joined NATO and the EU. Indonesia, which I mentioned in response to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), is the world’s fourth most populous state and the largest Muslim state. In 10 years, it has gone from being a military-backed dictatorship to being a vibrant democracy with a rapidly expanding economy. It is now a G20 member and an effective partner against terrorism. There has been a seismic, historic shift in the international landscape, and we should recognise and welcome that.
That is why we fully supported and support the Government’s decision to join international partners to enforce United Nations resolutions 1970 and 1973 in Libya. Those who query resolution 1973 and this country’s rapid decision to act must consider how we would have felt, and how the world would have reacted, if Gaddafi’s tanks and death squads had poured into Benghazi over that weekend and killed people, to use his words, “like rats”. In this day and age, that would all have been carried out on 24-hour TV in real time.
While giving support, it is our responsibility, as a Parliament and as an Opposition, to scrutinise carefully the Government’s conduct and effectiveness in fulfilling the task. We need from the Government a clearer and better articulated strategy. Frankly, we need them to explain how their self-imposed cuts to our expeditionary capability will enable them to implement the policy. The article that the Prime Minister wrote with the French and US Presidents in April 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”.
It is incumbent on the Government to be clearer to this House and to the British people about how they propose to bring about such a resolution of this situation, especially in the light of the comments over the weekend.
It was asked earlier, but I think it needs to be asked again, what is meant by “infrastructure targets”. If it means command and control posts within a military structure, I understand that. I think it is arguable—I hope that the Attorney-General would back me—that that is perfectly within the bounds of the UN resolution. If, as some commentators have suggested, it means industrial infrastructure, and particularly electricity infrastructure, we have considerable doubts. Even in Kosovo, which was a major operation, the object was to immobilise the transmission systems not to destroy them, because after military operations are over, there is a need to reconstruct the country. It is difficult to do that without adequate electricity supplies. It is therefore important that we have clarity on what is meant by infrastructure. One meaning is perfectly within the current programme, but otherwise we have considerable questions and doubts.
It has to be clear that there is continuing international and regional support for our strategy. I can see no UN mandate for ground troops to move into Libya, and I think it is fair to say that there is no chance of getting such a mandate at the Security Council and no prospect of regional support. We must recognise that there is little appetite among the British public for such a course of action, and I suspect that the situation is similar in the United States and France.
I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will update the House on the considerable efforts of his Department, with others in the international community, to assist the 750,000 people who are estimated to have crossed from Libya into neighbouring countries, and to get supplies to people in parts of Libya that are under siege from Libyan Government forces. I do not underestimate the task, but we need to know how we are tackling it, because it is substantial and urgent.
What are our realistic options across the middle east and north Africa? Although it is true that we are one of the few countries with the strategic capability to provide meaningful intervention, we must recognise the constraints imposed by our existing commitments elsewhere, the clear problems of overstretch, and the cuts made in the strategic defence and security review, which are increasingly seen as ill advised and outdated. Whatever action we take will be in conjunction with others, and not only our key strategic ally, the United States, but increasingly the EU, or at least key European allies. It has become clear, particularly in the last week or so, that a stretched United States has self-imposed limitations. Our European deliberations will have to consider that, and our response will have to be shaped accordingly. It is true that we could take a position of splendid isolation and say that those issues are nothing to do with us, but developments would continue in north Africa and the middle east. Although we should not overestimate our ability to shape events, we should not underestimate it either.
A key area is to develop capacity for the emerging democratic forces and parties in the countries concerned. It would be tragic if the principal beneficiaries of the new democracies were the remnants of the old dictatorial parties or underground fundamentalist Islamist groups. We should draw on the experience of eastern Europe, where post-communist parties were able to exert disproportionate influence because of their well-developed corrupt networks. I am sure all parties hope that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will play a major role in building capacity for democratic parties.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I am slightly concerned that he may not have learned the lessons of the past, in particular with respect to Iraq, where a thoroughgoing programme of de- Ba’athification stripped out the whole of the middle class and political class, making reconstruction far more difficult than it might have been. Does he not think that we should be cautious about completely stripping out individuals who may have been associated in some small way with an unsavoury old regime?
Mr Spellar
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I fully agree that the de-Ba’athification programme and the disbanding of the Iraqi army contributed substantially to many of Iraq’s problems. I am turning that point around and saying that I do not want the established networks of the old corrupt parties or the well-organised networks of the Islamist groups, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, to have a free field.
What I am talking about is not taking such people out of the structure but ensuring that emerging democratic forces, which by definition have been underground but are not organised in a Leninist fashion, can develop the capacity to compete on an equal playing field. They will then be able to play a proper role and not be outgunned—literally, sometimes, but certainly in finance and capacity —by other parties, which would have a detrimental effect. I am talking about building alternative capacity rather than moving along the route that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is the best prospect for the future of democracy in the countries in question.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Tunisia, there is serious concern about the resurrection of many of the security forces that existed under the Ben Ali regime, which are treating protests and demonstrations with great brutality and great force? They are breaking them up and seem to be trying to suppress the very voices of dissent that brought about the huge changes in February in the first place.
Mr Spellar
We certainly ought to be concerned about that; my hon. Friend highlights another significant concern. Because of the vast array of countries across a wide and diverse region, our debates focus on certain countries. Inevitably, today’s debate will be focused primarily on Afghanistan and Libya, along with maybe one or two other countries. I am concerned that some of the countries that have been making some progress might start to slip off the radar, and it is important that we do not allow that to happen.
We must not allow our level of interest in the countries that are making progress to fall. Development there must be sustained, because there will not just be a steady path towards a democratic society. There will be pitfalls along the way. To make a comparison with eastern Europe again, the involvement of the secret police networks can be a considerable factor in the development of those countries, as I described earlier. We ought to be alert to that problem, but we should also take the positive way and build the capacity of democratic parties so that they can take the best advantage of democratic elections when they come.
I hope that Members of all parties will consider the role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other such bodies can play in building capacity for democratic parties. The Foreign Secretary has announced substantial cuts in the Foreign Office programme—the sum will go down from something like £139 million to £100 million. We did not get details, but we need to know whether the cuts will have an impact on those organisations and their programmes.
In the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, he talked about increasing our presence in a number of missions across the world. Interestingly enough, only one of those, Pakistan, is in the area that we are discussing today. There was, understandably, mention of a reduction in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in none of the other countries concerned did it seem there would be an increase in our local involvement despite the considerable interest that we need to be taking in them. On the face of it, that seems a slightly strange decision, and it would be helpful to have some explanation.
We have to recognise that not all of the liberation of eastern Europe went smoothly. Ethnic tensions rose to the surface, and in one case, Czechoslovakia, were resolved by a—fortunately peaceful—division of the state. Catastrophically, however, in Yugoslavia they led to vicious civil wars, appalling violence and the necessity for NATO intervention. Some states in north Africa and the middle east are fairly homogenous, but others are riven by ethnic differences and, in some cases, considerable and long-standing ethnic feuds. The international community must use all its endeavours to ensure that the outcome of the Arab spring is more like Poland than Yugoslavia. In that context, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Tunisia and hope, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), that we will not focus only on countries where there is conflict. We must also provide assistance to those that are making a more orderly transition.
I shall move on briefly to the middle east and the Israel-Palestine issue. I am sure that everyone in the House and internationally is frustrated by the failure to get engagement in substantive talks leading to the creation of a new Palestinian state, living peacefully side by side with Israel. We echo the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday, which he repeated today, when he expressed Britain’s concern about the violence on the border and the loss of life, and called on all parties to exercise restraint. We should be persuaders for peace, to ensure that Palestinian aspirations can be realised alongside Israel’s equally legitimate desire for a peaceful existence within secure and recognised borders.
Mr Winnick
I certainly do not question Israel’s right to exist—I have made my views about that clear over the years. It was brought into existence by the international community and has as much right to exist as any other state, but not in the occupied territories. How can Israel genuinely say that it wishes to bring about a two-state solution at some stage—not that it has put much emphasis on that—when so much of the occupied territories has had settlements built on it? On what site is the second state, the proposed Palestinian state, going to exist?
Mr Spellar
I say to my hon. Friend and near neighbour that in all the discussions on the middle east, and particularly on Palestine-Israel, there is a danger of what David Ervine of the Progressive Unionist party in Northern Ireland, who went from terrorist activities to a very significant role in the peace process, described as “whataboutery”. I could equally respond to my hon. Friend’s valid points by asking, what about this, that and the other? What about the failure to implement the Camp David accord? What about the terrorist activities?
At the end of the day, the international community and the parties concerned have to get back to the basic fundamental principle of ensuring the establishment of a two-state solution on borders agreed internationally and between the parties, with the states living together in harmony. I cannot put it better than UN Security Council resolution 1850, which said that
“lasting peace can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement, and terror, and the two-State solution”.
I very much hope, as I am sure we all do, that the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington this month will intensify that process and involve a relaunch of the peace initiative by the Obama Administration. I am sure we all look forward to the President’s address on that subject.
Dr Julian Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman is speaking very sensibly on this subject. I have always supported a two-state solution. Does he agree that Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, where there were many settlements, shows that if an agreement for withdrawal could be reached, settlements need not stand in the way?
Mr Spellar
Yes, and I presume that the hon. Gentleman would also have mentioned the fact that the Israeli army enforced those movements under the direction of Sharon. Pointing such things out is important, but it is equally important to get back to the fundamental need for talks and negotiation on the acceptance of a two-state solution. From many of the discussions that there have been, I do not believe that the sides are too far apart on the detail. We therefore look forward to the initiative that we hope the US Administration will take later this month, which we hope all parties will then pursue.
On Syria, we welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about making approaches to the EU and the UN to step up pressure on the regime. At the moment, however, the regime seems well past his “fork in the road”, and I hope that the message is getting through to it clearly.
I am mindful of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and of the numbers who wish to speak in the debate, so I wish to raise only two other issues—and to do so briefly. First, on protecting our security and national interest, and ensuring stability in the region, the Foreign Secretary will be unsurprised if I once again raise the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia. The problem now stretches right round the gulf of Aden and out into the Indian ocean, which has a considerable effect on countries in the region. Nearly 800 seafarers are being held hostage, often in appalling conditions. Some have been brutally murdered. More than 30 ships are being held—some are used as mother ships to extend the pirates’ reach far into the Indian ocean. Ransoms totalling well over $100 million were paid last year, and there are credible reports that the pirates have entered a deal with the al-Shabab organisation in Somalia, which is linked to al-Qaeda, for a percentage of the ransom.
Therefore, in effect, the shipping industry is directly funding terrorism. There has been some response, but I feel that it has been inadequate. I had a helpful response from an Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I was concerned when a Defence Minister told me that there had been no recent change in the rules of engagement. I recognise that there is no easy instant solution, but there is a danger that the crisis will continue to outrun and overwhelm the response. Piracy threatens not only lives but a vital world trade route. Incidentally, the unwillingness of crews and ships to go through the Suez canal and pay dues could have a damaging effect on the income of the emerging Egyptian democracy. Frankly, the Government need to get a grip on that. They must engage with other maritime nations and get commitments for sufficient ships and personnel, but there must also be a step change in the rules of engagement and operational tempo.
To pull those arguments together and put them in a broader context, we do not accept that if we intervene anywhere in the world, we must take action everywhere. Nor do we accept the converse—that if we cannot or will not take action in one country, we should be immobilised elsewhere. That is why the previous Labour Government, when I was a Defence Minister, intervened militarily in Sierra Leone, but were unable to take action against the brutally repressive Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.
I also accept—the Opposition have supported the Government in this respect—that a range of factors must be taken into consideration, and that countries must be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, we would like evidence not only of more coherent planning, but of more rigorous analysis. Around the time of Kosovo both Tony Blair, in his Chicago address, and Kofi Annan, in his Ditchley lecture, extensively developed the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. They might have been controversial, but they helped to create a framework within which policy could be decided, and indeed scrutinised and criticised.
I have not detected the development of such a doctrine in the speeches of the Foreign Secretary, including his speech today. The Opposition support much in his policy, but we require the Government as a whole to get their act together on policy and to be more effective on delivery. In short, we believe that it is time for them to get a grip.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A time limit of eight minutes will be imposed, plus two minutes for injury time. However, I caution Members to frame a six-minute speech in their heads, because that is what they are likely to be allotted by the time they are called.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
In the short time available, I shall concentrate my comments on two matters: first, the conclusions we should draw from bin Laden’s demise, and secondly, the remaining challenges faced by the international community with regard to Libya.
Bin Laden’s demise was of course an historic event. We should not underestimate the significance of the US special forces operation, or of the extraordinary intelligence operation that their achievement represented. The timing of the operation is significant in that it happened right in the middle of the Arab spring. What could better demonstrate the ultimate irrelevance of what al-Qaeda has to offer? There is reason to believe—a massive amount of evidence has emerged from throughout the Arab world—that the lure and attraction of, and the significance of and interest in, al-Qaeda are beginning to wane. Al-Qaeda not only does not feature in the demands of the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrate throughout the Arab world for reform and change, but it has been positively rejected by many as they advance claims for universal values.
However, if we begin to believe that the attraction of al-Qaeda is waning in the Arab world, I caution the House against coming to a similar conclusion with regard to Pakistan. We are in a very different time zone there when it comes to the possibilities of change. Bin Laden may have been of Saudi or Yemeni origin, but we should remember that ultimately the al-Qaeda movement originated in south Asia, not in the Arab world. We also know that that happened in the context of experiences in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is perhaps significant and not irrelevant—I do not want to anticipate events—that the only revenge act so far in response to the assassination of bin Laden has come not from al-Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban, but from the Pakistani Taliban, who feel, and who have expressed sympathy for al-Qaeda and endorsed it.
That is significant for how we see developments in Afghanistan. There is a powerful argument for saying that if our original purpose for going into Afghanistan was the threat of al-Qaeda operating from within the country, that reason is now much less valid than it has been at any time in the past few years. However, the question of the timing and method of our withdrawal from Afghanistan must take into account not just the implications within that country, but to an even greater extent, the possible consequences for the destabilisation of Pakistan. Up to now, we have primarily worried about the consequences of al-Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban using the border as a refuge zone, but in some ways, things are now the other way around. As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, the problem in Pakistan is of far greater significance to the wider stability of the world, and it must be given priority. I hope that that is taken into account.
On Libya, I pay tribute to what has already been achieved. There is no doubt that Benghazi would have experienced an incredible massacre, and that Misrata would have been overthrown by Gaddafi, but for the efforts that have been made. However, those who have warned of the dangers of stalemate pose a real question. Without wanting to criticise the Government—I am aware of the international constraints on what they can do—there is a fundamental inconsistency in arguing that the mission is purely humanitarian at the same time as making it clear that it cannot be completed until we have, in effect, regime change.
The question, therefore, is this: how does one square that circle, and can it be squared in a way that does not breach the UN resolution? Whether we like it or not, that is the framework within which we must operate. As I see it, there are only three ways in which that stalemate can be broken over a reasonable period of time. First, implosion in Tripoli is quite possible. In the past few months, a significant number of leading Gaddafi adherents have defected. It is not impossible or inconceivable—it could happen next week or next month—that many of the senior adherents who remain, including generals and Cabinet Ministers, will simply fade away and disappear. I suspect that even Gaddafi’s immediate family will eventually not wish to share his bunker. Saif al-Islam and some of his colleagues might prefer to be in the south of France rather than the quagmire that Gaddafi’s regime could become.
That is one option, but we cannot count on it, and certainly not in any short time scale. The second option is a very slow process of gradual disintegration of the regime. That might be happening already because of the combined impact of economic sanctions and the fact that the oilfields are primarily in the east of the country, with very little utilisable refining capacity in the west, plus all the other forms of political, diplomatic and other pressure that is being put on the regime. However, by itself, that will not deliver the outcome that we need to bring this matter to a conclusion for many months, and possibly for several years. It is a serious option, but do we want to contemplate that the international action will take that long?
That leads me to the third option. What do we do, and what can we do within the UN resolution, to help the insurgents who are struggling for freedom and the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime? We have had a crucial watershed in the past couple of weeks in how the British and other Governments treat those insurgents. This is perhaps the first debate in which they have not been described as rebels. For many months, that was the description used not just in this country, but elsewhere, but that is no longer the case. The insurgents have been invited to open an office in London, they are being treated as serious politicians, and they are rightly considered to have greater legitimacy than the Gaddafi regime, which I welcome. However, we also know that they do not have the military capability to achieve the result that we all want.
The question is whether that can be achieved within the terms of the UN resolution. If it requires us—I do not complain about this—simply to protect civilians, what happens if there is hand-to-hand fighting in Misrata or Tripoli? It could not be stopped by air power or an international coalition; it could be stopped only by the people on the ground. Only they could protect civilians in such a situation. Therefore, I argue—and I believe that some of the legal advice agrees—that if we could be satisfied that the provision of military assistance to the insurgents would help to protect civilian lives and deal with the threat to civilians in Libya, it would be consistent with the resolution. In those circumstances, that kind of help should be considered. In reality, of course, that sort of help is already being given. The French, the Qataris and several other countries are already providing it, whether or not they acknowledge it publicly.
Were that help to be provided—I am talking about training as well as weapons—two things would happen. First, those around Gaddafi would know that the game was up, and gradually, as the insurgents became more of a disciplined, trained military force, it would become obvious—in their view, as well as in ours—that the regime was finished. Secondly, Misrata and the east of the country would gradually be united under insurgent control, and Gaddafi’s remaining power would be so restricted as to be insignificant. That is the real challenge, not just for the British Government, but for the international community, and I believe that we can respond to this situation positively within the terms of the UN resolution.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am glad that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Iraq, because it is seldom mentioned now, and needs to be mentioned far more often. I have three recent Amnesty reports on Iraq that are well worth reading, because they point out some of the deficiencies in the Iraq that we have left behind. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, emboldened by the successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, have taken to the streets since early February to protest against the chronic lack of basic services, rising prices, mass unemployment and endemic corruption, and to demand greater civil and political rights. Unfortunately, the security forces have frequently responded with excessive force, using live ammunition, sound bombs and other weapons forcibly to disperse peaceful protesters, particularly during what the Iraqis called the “day of rage” on 25 February, when demonstrations were held across Iraq. At least 20 people were killed, many of those arrested say that they were tortured or ill-treated, and journalists trying to cover the protests, as well as political activists, have been targeted for attack or threats.
I obviously have a particular interest in this subject because, for seven years, I was special envoy on human rights to Iraq for the previous two Prime Ministers. I therefore have an ongoing interest in the development of human rights there. During this “day of rage”, protesters used violence, mainly by throwing stones at members of the security forces or public buildings, and on rare occasions by setting fire to public buildings, and as a result members of the security forces have also been injured. On 30 March, in a belated but welcome development, the Iraqi authorities announced that their security forces were under orders not to use firearms against demonstrators except where necessary for self-defence.
Up to now, the Iraqi authorities, in both Baghdad and Kurdistan, have sought to crack down on peaceful protesters. That obviously has to change. As Amnesty wrote:
“They should be cracking down on the use of excessive force and torture by their own largely unaccountable security forces, not on the right of people to peacefully protest. The Iraqi authorities should be upholding the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, including the right to protest, not trying to suppress them. It is high time to do so…Torture and other ill-treatment were widespread in Iraq before the US-led invasion in 2003”,
of which we were part,
“and continued in prisons and detention facilities controlled by coalition forces and the new Iraqi governments. Since 2004, suspects held in Iraqi custody have been systematically tortured and dozens of detainees have died as a result.”
In my seven years as special envoy, I continually visited prisons and detention centres and spoke on many occasions to the Iraqi human rights Minister, to whom I pay tribute, because she has a difficult job but has not had enough support.
Amnesty also wrote that
“US forces handed over tens of thousands of prisoners to Iraqi custody between early 2009 and July 2010 without any guarantees that they will be protected.”
I argued constantly in this Chamber that they should not have been handed over to the Iraqis, because they did not have the capacity to deal with the thousands of detainees they were expected to hold. Amnesty also wrote that
“there is every likelihood that torture and ill-treatment will remain widespread. Such abuses have a devastating impact on the victims not just when they are being tortured or ill-treated, but often for years afterwards…Urgent action is needed to end the pattern of abuse and to help the victims and their families.”
I received an e-mail from an American working in Iraq. His name is Tom Cruise—not the actor Tom Cruise—and he is the former senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence directorate of human rights. He came to see me several times in the Baghdad embassy because of his great concern about an Iraqi prisoner killed while in detention. He wrote to me in February saying that he was still trying
“to bring attention to the disturbing torture and murder of detainee Adnan in…the former Iraqi 2/3/6 brigade which was run by BG Nasser who is now the Commander of the Iraqi 2nd DIV in Mosul.”
He was tortured and murdered, and the person responsible was known to everybody. His name is Lieutenant Nabil Rahman Ali Mosa al-Yasseri. After eight months of intensive investigation by the FBI, he was located and arrested in al-Hillah. He was held for a mere 10 weeks, and then suddenly he departed. He was helped to escape. Tom Cruise wrote:
“I hope this communication can serve to bring the necessary attention to resurrect this matter and initiate further judicial action so the world can see that Iraq respects human rights and it is important for all and especially for Adnan Awad Mohammed Thaib Al-Jumaila and his family.”
Our embassy has raised this matter with the Iraqi President, Deputy President, Prime Minister and many others in Iraq, but with no results. Obviously, I think that the UK Government can play an important role in putting pressure on the Iraqi authorities to ensure that detainees are either released or brought promptly to trial on recognisable criminal charges, with full and fair trial rights and without recourse to the death penalty. We have invested too much—in money and blood—in the country to allow this abuse of human rights to continue in Iraq.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is a Foreign Affairs Committee member.
In my judgment, we made the right decision in March to establish a no-fly zone. At the time, there were concerns about a stalemate and about setting a precedent, but we had a UN resolution and a request from the Arab League to support us and to quell our doubts. The question was whether to intervene or not to intervene, and we chose the lesser of two evils to save Benghazi. As a result, there has been no slaughter in Benghazi, and to that extent it has been a success. We do have a stalemate, however. The question now is how to break the stalemate.
The UN resolution has been widely interpreted. We had the rather unexpected remarks over the weekend of General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who has called for a change in the rules of engagement to enable NATO to attack infrastructure to oust Gaddafi. There is a clear difference in our policy between our military and our political objectives. Our military objectives are humanitarian—in that, we are backed up by a United Nations resolution—whereas our political objective, which is not backed by the UN, is to remove Gaddafi. I think that General Richards has come pretty darn close to the latter course of action, touching on the political objectives. As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, regime change was set out by Tony Blair in his Chicago speech. I do not support that speech—I do not believe in regime change, and I reject the notions that he set out—but there is a difference between wanting regime change and using military force to achieve it, and General Richards is close to that concept.
The question that I would put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is whether General Richards was authorised to make that speech. Is there a legal opinion that says that targeting infrastructure is legal? Can he say what General Richards meant by infrastructure? Was he talking about refineries and power stations? If so, then in my opinion that would not be legal. Going down that road would need an amendment to Security Council resolution 1973 and, of course, a further resolution of this House, which adopted it. Such a policy would also be divisive within NATO. Furthermore, it is not in Libya’s interest to wipe out its economy by attacking the refineries and power stations. When we come to help rebuild that country, we will need that infrastructure—that was one of the mistakes that we made in Iraq. We may be critical in the House of Commons about what is happening in Libya, but it is our reputation and the perception of the Arab world that counts.
So what is the exit strategy? Having achieved the military objective, how will the Government achieve their political objective? There is a big gap between the two concepts. There is nothing wrong with the no-fly zone, the economic sanctions and the hope that a lucky hit on a command and control centre will destroy Gaddafi, but we need to send clear messages to the regime around him. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of an amnesty. Why not suggest an amnesty for those around Gaddafi who abandon him and co-operate in bringing him down? It is not beyond the realms of credibility to start talks between the regime and the rebels. We do it where the IRA is concerned and we are proposing to do it in Afghanistan, so why not in Libya?
Let me touch briefly on the Government’s decision to cut the World Service and the Arabic service that it broadcasts. We need soft power to help us in this situation. Cutting the World Service at this point is a mistake.
What is happening in Syria is wholly unacceptable, but the army is solidly behind President Assad. He had a choice, between reform and oppression, and he chose repression, so why do we not have a no-fly zone there? The difference is that we have neither a request from the Arab League nor a UN resolution. I regret the Arab League’s inconsistency and silence on Syria. I have no doubt that it is silent because no one wants the next domino to fall—that is the Arab League’s reservation—but it is still regrettable that it remains silent.
The death of Osama bin Laden represents an opportunity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Foreign Affairs Committee calls for talks in Afghanistan, and I believe that there is a momentum there that can be built on. However, we have to rebuild the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Pakistan is a key player. It is a nuclear power and will be involved in any settlement negotiations in Afghanistan. Pakistan is clearly shaken by the death of Osama bin Laden. When the Foreign Affairs Committee went there last October, I was quite shaken by the level of hostility expressed by people in the Pakistan Administration towards the United States. Patching up the relationship will not be smooth, but Britain has a unique role to play. It is the one country in the world that is trusted by both the United States and Pakistan, and it is not beyond the realms of credibility to try to broker talks. Indeed, may I venture to suggest that we could broker talks between the two here in London?
This is a busy time in foreign affairs. I conclude by paying tribute to the Foreign Office. It is having to address action on two fronts, with the usual consular challenges all around. It has a trade policy that it is desperately trying to promote, and it is also dealing with more than its fair share of natural disasters. We have the middle east situation to deal with and, of course, the latest developments in Israel and Palestine. The Foreign Office faces a challenging situation, but in all this it has the full support of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will of course engage in constructive criticism of the Foreign Office, but we want it and Britain to succeed. As a diplomatic organisation the Foreign Office is the envy of the world. Let us try to keep it that way.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Three months ago it seemed that the Arab spring in north Africa and the middle east might bring democracy to widespread areas of the region. Tunisia made major changes with its jasmine revolution, and Egypt rid itself of the Mubarak regime, even though the aftermath rumbles on. Now, however, the situation seems far less promising. Syria, Bahrain and Yemen continue to suppress the movements for democracy, with continuing serious loss of life inflicted by brutal regimes.
In Libya, not only has the situation reached deadlock, but misgivings must be aroused by NATO’s lack of political direction. UN Security Council resolution 1973 was right and necessary. There is no doubt that the implementation of the no-fly zone has saved very many lives. However, NATO now appears to be stuck, turning to regime-change policies, which are in no way authorised by the resolution. Loathsome though Gaddafi may be, attacks on his compound, apparently targeting him personally, are unacceptable, and it is deplorable that members of his family have been killed. There is no way in which the Security Council has authorised political assassination. It is essential that there should be a clear line of political control, linked to discernible political objectives. The resolution would otherwise never have been nodded through by Russia and China. It is a matter of concern that over the weekend General Sir David Richards tried to state political objectives that are not within his remit. Our brave armed forces are there to carry out objectives decided politically. It is not their leaders’ role to make or urge political policies.
Political assassination appears to be becoming the flavour of the month. I shed no tears for Osama bin Laden, a monster who was responsible for this century’s most lurid atrocity, but for Barack Obama to violate another country’s sovereignty by sending in an assassination squad must arouse deep concern, especially as the White House has made so many conflicting statements that it is impossible to know what really happened in Abbottabad. Was bin Laden armed, and did he seek to resist with arms, thus provoking the Americans to kill him? Did he try to use women as human shields, or was he unarmed? Was any real attempt made to take him alive and put him on trial for his crimes? The White House's handling of the situation has turned a killing into reality TV. There is also a lethal aftermath: 80 innocent Pakistanis were killed by the Taliban at the weekend in what they say was a revenge attack, with a threat of more to come. Did the Americans think this through before they acted?
This latest episode confirms—to me, at any rate—that Obama is simply a sanctimonious version of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. An example is his breaking his pledge to shut down the Guantanamo Bay illegal torture camp. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser, has said of Obama: he does not strategise; he sermonises. Nowhere has Obama’s failure been more damaging than in his handling of—or inability to handle—the Israel-Palestine stand-off. On 4 June 2009, he made a ponderous speech in Cairo that was supposed to launch a successful peace initiative. Now, two years later, not only has there been no such initiative but his envoy has packed it in and the situation has become threateningly worse. We are told that the President is going to say something more, quite soon. He will be praised for his oratory, but will it have any practical, useful or helpful consequences?
This past weekend, Israeli soldiers slaughtered 14 more Palestinian protesters. Last week, they murdered a Palestinian teenager on the west bank. Their brutal treatment of peaceful protesters with rubber bullets, tear gas, the spraying of sewage and the manhandling of women and children would be the object of condemnation if inflicted by any other country. The way in which Israeli soldiers maltreat Palestinians is appalling. A Palestinian contact of mine e-mailed me at the weekend with this description of what happened on Friday:
“In Nabi Saleh where I was, the soldiers attacked the men and women with extreme cruelty, although our demonstration was extremely peaceful. We had at least 24 injuries, without counting injuries with pepper spray. They were shooting the gas canisters right at us, aiming at our bodies. One American citizen was shot with a canister on his head. I was standing right to him and I saw the soldier aiming at him. The man is fine now, but he lost part of his scalp.”
I cannot fault the way in which our Government have reacted to this situation, and I particularly commend the Secretary of State for International Development for the way in which his Department has done everything possible to assist those affected. In the end, however, only the United States can exert the necessary pressure to make Israel see sense. The Palestinians are an oppressed people, and the Israelis will never know peace and security until there is a two-state solution. How long, O Lord, how long?
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
As befits my role as Chair of the International Development Select Committee, I will concentrate on the development aspects of this wide-ranging debate. In the context of Libya, I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) about the Department’s prompt response to the emerging crisis in north Africa, and especially to the evacuation of people fleeing the violence of the conflict. I also commend the non-governmental organisations that are operating in difficult conditions, often under fire, to provide medical relief, assistance and support to those beleaguered people.
We all recognise the capacity of the Department to respond to these situations, and the way in which it has done so is extremely welcome, although I think that the Secretary of State would agree that Libya is not a prime target for our aid programme and budget, and nor should it be. Clearly, reconstruction should be carried out within the country’s own resources, but in regard to the first and immediate response, it is good to know that we can respond as well as we have done. In passing I would point out that, as and when we get a resolution that enables Libya to start its reconstruction, the prime investment should come from within its own resources and those of its Arab League neighbours, although we will want to have a constructive engagement if, as we hope, a more benign regime emerges from the conflict.
As far as the rest of the middle east is concerned, one area of interest is the role of the European Union’s external relations strategy. It has focused on the neighbourhood to the east of Europe, which does not have quite the same affinity but which has nevertheless been pursuing a Mediterranean policy. I hope that our Government will encourage the EU to shift the emphasis of its neighbourhood policy towards north Africa a little, rather than seeking to draw down more of the development budget from the UK. It is a matter of some embarrassment that the money we pay into the central budget of the EU goes into a neighbourhood policy that is classified as overseas development assistance, the prime beneficiary of which is Turkey. There is nothing wrong with encouraging Turkey to join the European Union, but it is a little disappointing that that overseas development assistance, which the UK would prefer to go to the poorest people in the poorest countries, is going to those who have the capacity to address their own problems. I hope that the UK has a degree of authority to assert in this instance. Given that we will be the first G20 country to achieve a 0.7% commitment on overseas development assistance by 2013, I think that we are entitled to say to other members of the European Union, which will not have achieved that, that they should not be diverting their aid away from where it could be most effectively targeted.
I intervened on the Foreign Secretary about the middle east peace process. We will be giving £343 million to the occupied Palestinian territories over the lifetime of this Parliament, which is a tragedy because we would not have to give anything if a proper peace process were in place. The area is not incapable of economic activity; it is prevented from being economically active by the frozen conflict. We should use whatever influence we have through the Quartet—I accept that the United States is the dominant influence—to point out to Israel that if it responds to the protests of the frustrated Palestinians in the way that Syria has responded to its protesters, the international community has a responsibility to put pressure on Israel to behave differently, even if we have no ability to intervene in Syria. We must point out that, if Israel does not unblock the peace process now, it could make matters much worse in the short to medium term and that it is really missing an opportunity.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are totally interlinked. The irony is that it looks as though we have more possibility of achieving stability in Afghanistan, difficult though that might be, than we do in Pakistan. It is instructive to take on board the fact that we are committing £2.1 billion of UK overseas development assistance over the course of this Parliament to Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. We must ensure that people understand why we are doing that. The military engagement in Afghanistan understandably gets all the attention, because our soldiers—male and female—are losing their lives in that operation. At the end of the day, however, it is our ability to deliver real improvements in the quality of life, education, health and livelihoods in Afghanistan that will have the most chance of giving people a sense that our engagement has validity and that we are on their side rather than against them.
The same applies, perhaps even more, in Pakistan. I know that the Secretary of State has placed particular emphasis on visiting that country and ensuring that our aid has precisely that effect. Pakistan has a huge, young and very suggestible population who are open to persuasion to take up extreme political positions. The best way to address that—although the outcome is not guaranteed—is to give people access to things that will give them a stake in the future and make them less inclined to join the terrorist activity to which they might otherwise be recruited.
I want to summarise the complicated developments taking place all over the world. Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union took place with unexpected suddenness, so did the onset of what is being called the Arab spring. Looking back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can see that we failed to hold Russia to a path of pluralism, democracy and human rights, but we were able to offer its satellites the opportunity to break away from the Soviet Union, achieve democracy and join NATO and the European Union. We cannot do quite the same for the Arab states, but we should hold out a hand of friendship and encouragement. To the extent that they can move towards pluralism, democracy and human rights, they will find willing partners to engage with in Europe.
We must not underestimate the fact that the Iraq war incensed middle eastern and Arab opinion. It also distracted us from the legitimate tasks in Afghanistan, took our eyes off Pakistan and, in many ways, damaged the legitimacy of the democratic world when engaging in these issues. We need to tread more softly if we are to build trust and respect that can open the way for economic development and poverty reduction, and expand the numbers and proportion of people in all those countries who have a stake in peace, transparency and the rule of law. We need to be a little more humble and a little less arrogant, and we need to use our soft power development funding in ways that build trust and confidence where our foreign policy has not always achieved the same result.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
As we approach the sixth anniversary of 7/7 and the 10th anniversary of 9/11, my thoughts turn to the lives so tragically lost. It is clear that the war on terror is the battle of our era—a struggle to rid perceptions and ethics, ideology and religion of extremism and its deadly inevitability.
I find it hard to rejoice at the death of any man, even that of Osama bin Laden. I hope that his death is the beginning of the end for al-Qaeda—I accept that it might not be—but we must not be naive of history: no individual is irreplaceable; the war, the fight and the danger are far from over. However, bin Laden’s death provides us with an opportunity which, if seized, could lead to real progress in the fight against extremist violence, especially on the two key fronts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. There could be no better tribute to bin Laden’s victims than to use his death for lasting good.
In this war, our relationship with Pakistan is perhaps the most crucial. One immediate impact of the raid on Abbottabad has been to put that country under pressure as never before. One well-informed observer in Pakistan told me over the weekend that the country feels like it is in anaphylactic shock, while some in my constituency called for us to review our co-operation and aid in the light of the perception that Pakistan was complicit in harbouring the world’s most wanted man.
I doubt whether we will ever know the hard facts about what the Government of Pakistan knew or did not know about bin Laden’s whereabouts. It should be investigated, but what is most important is the bigger question of our overall longer-term relationship with Pakistan. There are clearly severe problems that need to be resolved and changes that can and must be made. We need urgently to find new ways to do that, but there is an overriding mutual interest in making the relationship work. I think that the basic outline of how to achieve that is clear.
Pakistan has legitimate concerns about sovereignty and its own security. Those concerns can be addressed, but in exchange, the Pakistanis cannot pursue those interests in a way that directly undermines stability in Afghanistan and harbours extremism at home or abroad. I believe that the crisis that has followed the killing of bin Laden provides a real opportunity for ourselves and the Pakistanis to reflect on how we refine our relationship to suit our shared interests. It is an opportunity we must take; indeed, we have to take it and we have to get it right. The consequences of failure—for ourselves and for the Pakistanis alike—are too dangerous to contemplate.
The UK's interest in a stable, democratic and peaceful Pakistan is clear. The country faces serious challenges and internal divisions. Those are very real: they include rising political tensions, unrest in the tribal areas, insecurity on its borders and more violent extremist groups than any other nation in the world. As with the wider middle east and north Africa as well as Afghanistan, the UK will feel the effects of state failure in Pakistan all too directly. The path used to import its product—whether it be drugs, the hateful rhetoric of extremism or the suicide bomber—is well trodden. We should also not forget how many of Pakistan’s people have died as a result of terrorism or in their fight to contain it. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Pakistan collapsing into internal strife or war with its neighbours is a nightmare. Now, more than ever, Pakistanis need us to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is great to say that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan and that we should respect its security interests, but what exactly does the hon. Gentleman mean? Does he mean recognise the Durand line or the boundaries with Kashmir? What security interests is he talking about; what concessions is he proposing?
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It neatly brings me on to the points I am about to cover.
What I believe is that we and our allies must work closely with Pakistan and that we must address its fears about its relationships with Afghanistan, India, other neighbours—and, crucially, as already mentioned, with the United States. We must do that in a way that acknowledges the particular challenges that the country faces. We must work together to find ways to tackle extremist groups without overly infringing on Pakistani sovereignty. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has made a good point, but the time constraints mean that I will not be able to go into detail now on the questions he asked. I would say, however, that in order to refine UK-Pakistan relations, we must find the balance between respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty and the eradication of Islamist extremist networks operating from Pakistan. The threat to both of us from the unchecked rise of extremism is too great to ignore. Perhaps most immediately, Pakistan can play a decisive role in reaching a fair and lasting peace in Afghanistan.
We are at an important crossroads in our relationship with Pakistan. The death of the head of al-Qaeda is significant, but we must remain engaged: this is a fight for the long term and we must leave those who would attack us in no doubt that we have the stomach for it. We should not stick blindly, however, to the path we have followed up to now. There are real dangers in our current position, but there are also real opportunities. We must be ready to seize them if we are to achieve the peace we all desire.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
In January this year, I had the privilege to visit Pakistan with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. We all know that the danger with such visits is that we travel fast, meet a few people and come back as instant experts. I am aware that many Members know much more about the subject than me, but I feel completely confident in saying what I am about to say.
Sadly, it has recently become fashionable to criticise Pakistan—to criticise the amount of aid that we give it and to criticise it for being lukewarm in its reaction to the terror threat. The point has been made this evening on a number of occasions that Pakistan has invested more blood and treasure than any other country in the world in the fight against terrorism. We met the Pakistan Minister for Minorities, Dr Shahbaz Bhatti on 24 January; a fortnight later, Dr Bhatti was dead—murdered because of his Christianity and, more particularly, I think, because of his commitment to the cause of moderation. If such people are not to have died in vain, we have to ensure that we stand behind Pakistan and offer such assistance as we can.
The country has changed its constitution. There will be a shift of power from federal government to the regions. The point has also been made that it is a young country in respect of its population—it is one of the few countries in the world with more young people than old people. The young people we met were hugely enthusiastic for their future, but they were also hopelessly disorganised. In the regions, the democratic processes and the infrastructure are lamentable.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is hugely committed to the cause of education in Pakistan, but we need to go one step further and strengthen the democratic infrastructure, perhaps through institutions such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, so as to enable the transfer of power from the federal government to the regions without extremism taking over. We will report to the Minister next Monday, and we will make those points then, but I want to make them to my right hon. Friend here tonight and to put them on the record.
I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary Tunisia group. The Arab spring, as it is now called, actually began in midwinter with the jasmine revolution in Tunisia. Since then, the introduction of an interim Government has led to the creation of an election commission, which has set in train the processes for the democratic elections that we hope and believe— despite some misgivings—will still be held on 24 July. I say “despite some misgivings”, because the task is herculean. In the time available, the commission must try to create a register and an identification process, and it must try to work out the detail of the election itself. It must establish whether the election will be held in constituency terms or nationally on a proportional-representation basis. As things stand, some 60 parties will be entering the election, which will create huge problems in itself.
The choice, however, is between action now and delay. Delay will lead to further unrest and further confusion. The consensus seems to be that it is right to move ahead, accepting the fact that the election will probably be ragged around the edges. Those of us who have worked as international election observers know only too well that in developing countries there must be an acceptance of some degree of imperfection. If we judge on the basis of our own methods, perhaps we should not look too closely at the dust in other people’s eyes.
The important part of the process will be what follows the election. The Government who are elected will again be an interim Government, but they will have been elected. They will be charged with the duty of creating a constitution that will then be taken back to the people for a further election, and only then will the real process of reconstruction start. However, that should not gainsay the fact that Tunisia is, at this moment, open for business. What it needs more than anything else is economic development and investment. The tourism industry is on its knees, but the country is safe and able to receive visitors.
The other problem that Tunisia has with Europe is that Europe will not take its agricultural goods, which has implications for rural jobs. It is not good enough for France and Italy to complain about the number of migrants from north African countries, while closing their doors to the produce that those countries, especially Tunisia, need to sell in order to create the jobs that will keep migrant workers at home and enable them to grow their own economies.
The abandoning of the Schengen agreement by France and Italy should come as no surprise to any Member, but it would behove, in particular, the southern states of the European Union to try to create real opportunities, rather than investing cash in programmes that may or may not lead to jobs in the longer term. They should immediately consider the possibility of bringing Tunisia into a customs union, so that it can look to Europe legitimately and play a real part in the development of the Arab spring and of democracy.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and, in particular, to follow so many hon. Members with great expertise in the matters that we are discussing. I do not claim to have such expertise, but it is important to put on record some of my concerns and those conveyed to me by constituents, including women—I note in passing that I am now the only female Member in the Chamber.
It is important for us to debate a situation that continues to develop on a daily basis in Libya, as well as wider issues relating to the middle east and north Africa. There are far too many of those issues for me to be able to cover them in a short speech, so I shall focus on matters involving Libya.
Like many other Members, I thought long and hard before deciding to support the Government in their Libya mission. I am not naturally inclined towards armed interventions, and many of my constituents expressed concern about what such an intervention would lead to, but—albeit with a heavy heart—I felt it necessary for us to enforce UN security resolution 1973 in view of the rapid deterioration towards a one-sided armed conflict and the humanitarian crisis that was likely to follow, particularly given the number of non-military casualties.
I have no doubt that the British forces have performed their role in an exemplary and professional fashion, as they always do, and that they have contributed significantly to the protection of the civilian population. As we have already heard, however, the challenge now is to define our future role and establish at what stage we will feel able to withdraw. Regretfully, I have to say that there currently seems to be a lack of strategic direction. In recent weeks, the Government appear to have made tactical and operational decisions that begin to depart from the original mandate of protecting civilians. The Government’s decision to provide telecommunications, body armour and a number of military advisers seems to me, and to many of my constituents, to have more to do with a military situation developing on the ground in Libya than with simply enforcing the resolution. I also regret having to express the view that the Government have failed to communicate to the public, and indeed to Parliament, the exact role of those people in a developing situation. For how long will they be deployed, and how does their role relate to the wider remit of protecting civilians? Those questions remain unanswered.
It seems that none of the measures represents a breach of the mandate provided by the United Nations and approved by the House, but they suggest a move towards measures that are beyond what I expected in supporting the Government when we debated the issue. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Secretary of State for International Development will identify some specific issues and make the case for the strategic role of the advisers in resolving the crisis. Specifically, the advisers are there as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s assertion to the House on 26 April that
“it is impossible to see a way of securing the full implementation of the UN Security Council resolution while Colonel Gaddafi remains.” —[Official Report, 26 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 40.]
A number of Members have commented on that statement. Is the mission now to remove Gaddafi at all costs, rather than simply to ensure the protection of civilians? If the Foreign Secretary’s statement is informing strategic military decisions, the Government must be absolutely clear and up front. That is vital in the context of some of the comments made today about a possible move towards identifying different targets.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady appreciate the distinction between the wishes of the British Government, in terms of someone who is now wanted by the International Criminal Court, and what the UN resolution sanctions in terms of the military mission by the international community? Those are two different things.
Cathy Jamieson
Of course they are two different things, but I have worries, which were identified at the outset of the process, about where we will end up and about the possibility of mission creep. It is important for the Government to continue to report back to those of us who, while supporting the Government, had and still have concerns.
There may also be a danger that as the conflict has continued, many of us—including the wider public—have become used to seeing images of it on our TV screens. Fewer column inches may have been devoted to reporting the details in the press, causing people to become immune to the process. That is why, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has implied, it is vital for the House to have an opportunity to hear from Ministers regularly, and to be allowed a further vote if measures beyond those outlined in resolution 1973 are considered at any stage. Understandably, the military situation and western involvement in Libya have become the focus of media attention and therefore of public debate, but in the wider region there is also a whole range of other, non-military options, which I hope the Government will support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
It is important that wherever we are involved in trying to resolve conflict, we support universal suffrage and the democratic process, which is especially the case in countries that are on the brink of a bright new future. It is reassuring that the UK is at the forefront of pressing for European Union action, and that an agreement has been reached on an arms embargo and the revocation of the association agreement that had been put in place with Syria.
My final point is about the ability of the UK to offer continued commitment to the aims of resolution 1973. The Select Committee on Defence asked whether the UK will remain a full-spectrum force capable of deploying all aspects of military power across the world, and the chiefs of all three services—the British Army, Navy and Air Force—answered no. However, that view seemed to be contradicted by many senior UK officials, such as Britain’s ambassador to the US, who maintained that the UK has emerged from the recent strategic defence review and the ensuing round of spending cuts announced by the Prime Minister in October as a full-spectrum military power. It is important that we understand what effect the cuts are going to have, and what their implications will be for our work in all the areas where we are currently involved.
In conclusion, I make the following plea. While British troops remain deployed in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is vital that our armed forces are not stretched to breaking point. It is also important that we continue to give humanitarian aid, and I hope that that becomes the focus of our work. I urge the Government to ensure that the focus is on bringing peace in all areas of conflict where we are involved, supporting humanitarian aid and, importantly, returning our armed forces safely to the UK as soon as possible.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
In the House on 21 March, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the current violence in north Africa and the middle east:
“I agree with the hon. Lady that there will be lessons to learn from the conflict for the future.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 707.]
I want to focus on one area where I believe that there is a very important lesson to be learned—arms export policy. That question arises because in the two years prior to the Arab spring, under both the current and previous Governments, arms export licences for weapons that can be used for internal repression were granted on an extremely wide scale throughout north Africa and the middle east, and those export licence approvals have been shown to have been grievously mistaken.
The policy was clearly stated on 18 February by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt):
“The longstanding British position is clear. We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts or”—
this is the key policy statement—
“which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”
The recent Committees on Arms Export Controls report sets out quarter by quarter since the beginning of 2009 the details of the arms export licences that were approved in each period. That shows, for example, sub-machine-guns and sniper rifles to Bahrain, and components for semi-automatic pistols and sub-machine-guns, artillery computers, combat shotguns, intelligence equipment and small arms ammunition to Libya. Since the publication of that report, the latest quarterly report has been published, taking us up to the last quarter of 2010—in other words, to a matter of two or three weeks before the start of the Arab spring. It shows that even in that period we were exporting equipment for sniper rifles to Bahrain and components for combat aircraft, military equipment for initiating explosives and weapon night-sights to Libya.
If one Government statement reflects the over-optimism that has afflicted both the current and the previous Governments about the risks that are run in exporting certain types of weapons to authoritarian regimes, it is to be found in the 2008 annual report on strategic arms exports. There was a case study of a licence application for armoured personnel carriers for Libya, which concluded:
“There remain wider human rights risks in Libya, but it was judged very unlikely that these vehicles would be used to carry out abuses. As a result it was concluded, with reference to the Consolidated Criteria, that there was not a clear risk that these vehicles would be used for internal repression and the licence was approved.”
I think that conclusion was symptomatic of the policy followed by both Governments.
Martin Horwood
I strongly support many of the points that my right hon. Friend is making, and it is absolutely proper to raise this issue. However, we both welcome the fact that the current Government have revoked more than 150 such arms licences granted by the Labour Government, and we both welcome the fact that this Government are currently actively reviewing the whole policy of arms exports.
Sir John Stanley
That anticipates the point that I am about to make.
Britain was, of course, by no means the only country to engage in this degree of over-optimism and, as has been said, the Government have sought to retrieve the position. First, they have announced the revocation of a substantial number of arms export licences. Indeed, according to the latest figures, between 27 January and 9 March this year more than 150 previously granted arms export licences were revoked. That serves to highlight the scale of the previous misjudgment.
Why, however, are those revocations limited to just four countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain? Why have there been no revocations of arms exports to Syria, for example? Why, too, have there been no revocations of arms exports to Saudi Arabia, whose British-made armoured personnel carriers have rolled into Bahrain and are therefore complicit, as it were, in the appalling abuses of human rights there? Of course, I understand that Saudi Arabia is big money, is big oil, and is useful intelligence, but can the Government really justify such a blatant degree of inconsistency in their revocations policy?
Secondly, I greatly welcome the review of arms export licences, but it has been initiated only in relation to north Africa and the middle east, while recent events also suggest that there are serious questions to be raised about arms export licence policy for weapons that can be used for internal repression in relation to authoritarian regimes worldwide. Sadly, authoritarian regimes extend from the boundaries of the European Union to the very furthest east. There are too many authoritarian regimes in Africa and some in central and south America. The current review should therefore be extended to cover authoritarian regimes worldwide. The Committees on Arms Export Controls has recommended that, and I earnestly hope that the Government will accept that recommendation and the other recommendations in our report.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). He and I have served together on the Committees on Arms Export Controls and on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for many years, and he speaks a great deal of sense on arms exports issues.
Somebody once said, in the context of British politics, “You can be in office and not in power.” That situation clearly applies in a number of countries around the world, but I wish to focus my remarks, as others have done, on what is happening in Pakistan. The fact that Osama Bin Laden apparently lived in Abbottabad with food and access to information, although not to the internet, and was somehow protected, is a matter of deep concern, but I have no doubt that the Government of President Zardari had no knowledge that that was the case. The question for us, which is highlighted in a very good book that came out this week, “Pakistan: A Hard Country” by Anatol Lieven, is about the relationship between the civil society and the political society in Pakistan and the military and intelligence elite that has run that state.
Anatol Lieven says that:
“the Pakistani national security state…was born chiefly out of fear of, and hostility to, India. This is felt most strongly in the military and, in the ISI, it is a raging monomania.”
That sums up the problem. According to an opinion poll of about two years ago, 85% of the Pakistani population want better relations with India. We find the same thing when we speak to people in the British-Pakistani and British-Indian community—many of whom, including many of my constituents, have roots in the divided Punjab—and when we go, as I did with the Foreign Affairs Committee five years ago, by road from Amritsar to Lahore, through the Wagah crossing. If we leave aside the symbolism of the soldiers on both sides at the ceremony, we also find the interesting sight of the bearers, who, on the one side, carry sacks of onions on their heads for about a mile and half and, on the other side, carry boxes of dried fruit. This is an international border where people cannot trade by means of vehicles passing through; everything has to be unloaded and then loaded again.
Economic co-operation between India and Pakistan would be of great benefit to both countries, especially in dealing with Pakistan’s problems arising from its rapidly growing population: it has 180 million people, and that is on the way to becoming 300 million or 350 million. Massive difficulties are also caused by the fact that a disproportionate amount of money in Pakistan is taken up by the national security structure, and because the obsession with India means that it is a state that has in the past, through its Inter-Services Intelligence, sponsored terrorist organisations and insurgent groups in both Afghanistan and India. The democratic and secular forces—the people, including the late Shahbaz Bhatti, to whom reference has been made, who believe in women’s rights and in protecting minorities, and who stand up for ethical values and global values of human rights—are besieged now in Pakistan because of the international context.
The Pakistani Government and Pakistani politicians can rightly point out that many of the problems they face arise because of the misguided interventions of 25 and 30 years ago, which led to the situation in Afghanistan, where the groups that evolved into the Taliban were developed. However, there was also a Pakistani hand in some of that; they got the money from the United States—from the CIA—it was pushed through the ISI and it went through to people such as Mr Hekmatyar, to what is now the Haqqani network in Afghanistan, and to the Taliban.
That worm has turned, and the Pakistani state faces enormous threats from those organisations, but it also has its own resilience and ability to fight back. In my opinion, it is good news that Osama Bin Laden was killed and is dead, and however critical we might be of the fact that he was in Pakistan, we need to make an assessment and take a clear view. The Government of Pakistan were not shielding that man, nor were the Pakistani people. That was done by certain rogue elements within their society, and it would be completely wrong to do what some in the United States Congress are calling for and punish Pakistan by cutting off economic assistance and ending co-operation.
What Pakistan needs today is our solidarity against the terrorist threat it faces. Its secular politicians need our support and encouragement to rebuild the dialogue with India, to resolve the difficulties over Kashmir and to co-operate against the common threats of terrorism which both those countries are facing. That is not going to be easy—the history and the fact that the pain is so deep on both sides means that it will be very difficult—but the alternative is to play into the hands of the extremist groups that wish to foster a failed state, further conflict and terrorism. That will not only be destructive to all the values of Pakistan and India, but it will blow back into this country because people here have family roots in that part of the world. We owe it to them, as well as to ourselves, to work in co-operation with Pakistan at this time of great difficulty.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I agreed with almost everything he said. I agreed with the main thrust of it, and with his point about the essential need for our continued involvement in Pakistan in terms of providing aid and support. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for his concentration on the issue of education in Pakistan. A country that spends only 2% of its gross domestic product on education is one that must cause considerable concern to the rest of the world, as it is doing now.
I declare my interest as the chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I wish to say two things, which may take me a little time. First, it has become increasingly clear over the past six months that the middle eastern problem is not Israel. When Osama bin Laden was killed a few weeks ago, an important article by Robert Fisk appeared in The Independent, in which he made the point that al-Qaeda’s irrelevance has been shown by the fact that the Arab spring was demanding not more Islamic fundamentalism, but freedoms. It is just as important to note that the Arab spring has not been demanding a change in Palestine, essential though that change is; the Arab spring has been demanding the sort of freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rule of law—that are provided and embodied in Israel. My main initial point about Israel is that it is not the middle eastern problem; the autocratic regimes that have been surrounding Israel are the problem.
The second issue—it looks as though I shall have plenty of time to finish within my eight minutes—is the rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah. I would like to ask what it means. If it means that Hamas and Fatah will be united on the Fatah way of looking at things—the renunciation of violence, the recognition of Israel, the agreement to maintain and honour previous agreements—it will be a very good thing indeed. If, however, it means that they will be united on the Hamas view of things, that is entirely different. We know about Hamas. In the last month alone more than 120 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, some with 40 km in range. There have been rockets and mortars, and a guided anti-tank missile hit a school bus in Israel and killed a 16-year-old schoolboy. Terrorism sponsored by, perpetrated by and supported by Hamas has killed more than 500 people in Israel since the beginning of 2003.
If the new Hamas-Fatah organisation follows the Fatah line I will be utterly delighted. That would mean that we could negotiate with Hamas again and that Israel would have a useful negotiating partner, because all these things must be achieved by negotiation and cannot be achieved by force or unilateralism. If, however, the new united organisation follows the Hamas line, the reconciliation will be either meaningless or significantly worse. This is not a various shades of grey issue, but a black and white one.
Mike Gapes
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the important consequences of this agreement is that it allows a programme to go forward for democratic elections, hopefully at the end of this year or the beginning of next, that will then allow the Palestinian people as a whole to elect a new Parliament and a new President? That is vital if we are to get serious negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr Arbuthnot
I agree that that is very important. I asked the Prime Minister a month or so ago whether he was concerned that when the President of the Palestinian Authority called for elections, Hamas immediately rejected that—Hamas having been a democratically elected organisation that renounced democracy once its mandate had expired. I agree, however, that the notion of bringing democracy back to Hamas would be a welcome change.
Unfortunately, I think there is a risk that in the British Foreign Office the view is that this is a matter of shades of grey as opposed to black and white. For Israel it is not a matter of shades of grey. Israel has been struggling to secure itself and just to exist. When it comes to murdering schoolchildren, which Hamas went in for, that cannot be regarded as shades of grey.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that things such as the killing of 13 people at Qalandiya crossing yesterday by Israeli forces, the continued expansion of settlements and the taking over of Silwan in East Jerusalem need to change in Israel if there is to be any hope of some longer-term peace agreement?
Mr Arbuthnot
I agree about the settlements, and I have said so in a speech in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman heard me say that in the last speech I made about Israel. As for what happened at the crossing, I think the Government are right to call for restraint on all sides. There seems to me to be something very convenient about Israel moving in to the headlines as soon as there were clashes on the border of Syria and Lebanon. I am profoundly suspicious about what was behind those clashes.
At a time when the Arab spring is showing that the Arab people are desperate for freedoms, now is not the time for the United Kingdom or the international community to abandon the Quartet’s principles. They must demand that Hamas should renounce violence, recognise the state of Israel and honour the previous agreements.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) with much interest, but there have been many civilian casualties on both sides and innocent people have been killed; indeed, that happened over the weekend, as many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said. What is required is a genuine peace settlement.
I was not going to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire provoked me. There are only two Members in the House who were here in 1967, when the war took place, and I am one of the two. I expressed my point of view on the situation at the time. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not a question of Israel now fighting for its very existence, but of the absolute refusal of Israel to come to any genuine agreement for a viable and independent Palestinian state. The Israeli settlements that have been built on the west bank surely demonstrate a lack of commitment on the part of Israel to what the international community—including, of course, the United Kingdom—would like to see: a two-state solution.
We can disagree about Hamas and the rest. Obviously, what Hamas stands for, being basically an Islamic fundamentalist concept, to say the least, is totally alien to everything I believe in. That goes without saying, but in negotiations one deals with one’s enemy. After all, if anyone is says that it is impossible to reach agreement with Hamas, we know that the IRA argued for years that there could be absolutely no solution in Northern Ireland until Britain decided to leave, yet a very different situation emerged. Those who, like the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire, take the Israeli point of view very strongly would do far more good if they could pressurise Israel to recognise that there needs to be a wide-ranging agreement.
If it was right, in the circumstances of the extermination of millions of people, for Israel to be created by the international community in 1947 and 1948, let us not forget for one moment the tremendous injustice that was done to the Palestinians as a result. The Palestinians were not responsible for what happened to the Jewish people during the second world war.
I now turn to the question of Libya. I made it clear in my speech on 21 March, in the previous debate on Libya, that I could not support the Government. I hesitated about voting against the motion, and in fact I abstained. I had hesitations during that debate, not because I did not want to see humanitarian action taken—obviously, I wanted help to be given to civilians in Libya who could be at the mercy of Gaddafi; that goes without saying—but I had the feeling that resolution 1973 would in practice result in an attempt at regime change. All that has occurred in more recent weeks, since that debate, has persuaded me that in spite all the denials we heard today from the Foreign Secretary and the rest, at the end of it all what is required is that Gaddafi should abdicate, that there should be regime change and that, if necessary, Gaddafi could be the subject of an assassination attempt.
I am no apologist for Gaddafi; heaven forbid. I have opposed the regime ever since he took power 32 years ago, as it was obviously based on tyranny and was much involved in international terrorism, as we know. Why on earth should I in any circumstances wish to defend or justify such a regime? But international law does not permit regime change or the assassination of a leader. The remarks of the Army chief, General Richards, over the weekend are bound to cause added worry. What will happen is an escalation of what has been occurring in the air strikes of the past fortnight or so. It is interesting that so many of the Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in this debate, most of whom voted with the Government on 21 March, have expressed the same reservations and concern about what is happening in Libya that I am expressing now.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made a very good speech about the selling of arms to authoritarian states. There was hardly a word he said, even in his criticism of the previous Government, with which I could disagree. As he pointed out, it is interesting to note that however despicable the Gaddafi regime has been, Britain was selling arms to it right up to the moment before the demonstrations when opposition emerged in Libya. Why did we do that, and why do we sell arms to other states that are based on tyranny? Syria, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a good example of that. I certainly hope that there will be far greater concern about that in future, and that more attempts will be made to ensure that Britain is not involved in selling arms to countries such as Gaddafi’s Libya.
Turkey has put forward certain proposals regarding Libya that I should have thought it would be useful to try. It has urged an immediate ceasefire and has emphasised the need to start a political process leading to Gaddafi’s leaving office. The Government say that there is no wish on Gaddafi’s part to engage in a genuine ceasefire, but let us test that; let us see. Let us use Turkey’s proposals, which seem worth trying at least, and in so doing save lives.
Had there been time I would also have discussed Afghanistan and the wish to end as soon as possible the use of British military forces there. In the absence of time, I will simply say again to the Government that although they received support from the overwhelming majority on 21 March, that majority did not support regime change, and that resolution 1973 should not be used for that purpose.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who can always be relied on to make a thoughtful contribution.
In 1961, a young man, Abdul-Ghani, left his poverty-stricken village in Punjab, Pakistan, for England. He had heard that the mother country, as England was still known at that time, had plenty of jobs, so he decided to try his luck. Like many young Pakistanis arriving in Britain at that time, Abdul-Ghani planned to stay in England for only a few years—just long enough to earn enough money to send back to his siblings so that they could have the education that he never had. He also intended to return home because he loved his homeland. He remembered how, at the age of nine, he had been part of the largest population exchange in history, in which more than 15 million Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs had tried to find safety in their newly born nation states. To this day, he will never forget the stench of death and the heart-wrenching human misery that he witnessed.
In the early 1960s, many young Pakistanis such as Abdul-Ghani still harboured huge hopes for their country. They believed in the vision of Pakistan’s founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted a democratic, secular, modern state. As the years passed, Abdul-Ghani, who was by then a very proud bus driver in Rochdale, sadly came to realise that he would not be going back to Pakistan because the country was moving backwards. He gave up on his dreams of returning home and decided that he and his future family would be wise to make their permanent home in England. It is because of that decision that I am able to stand before the House and contribute to this important debate.
By the 1960s, it was already clear that the ruling bargain in Pakistan had changed. Gone was the dream of a tolerant, democratic and secular nation. In sharp contrast to the situation in neighbouring India, the rules of the game in Pakistan were being set by the Pakistani army. The army allowed the pretence of civilian rule, but everyone knew that it called all the shots. Each year, the army granted itself nearly 25% of the national budget and justified its rule on the grounds that Pakistan needed to confront its real enemy—India. Despite the very real challenges of widespread poverty and illiteracy, with enlightened leadership Pakistan could have taken the path to greater prosperity. That is not just a dream: many Muslim-majority countries have achieved that, including Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia. Virtually every leader of Pakistan has failed his people, choosing self-interest over the national interest. They have all too often obscured their own incompetence and deceit by blaming every failure on an external, exaggerated threat. In much the same way, many Arab rulers love to blame Israel for all their problems.
I was saddened but not surprised that bin Laden was found to be living in Pakistan. Let us be clear. He was not just living in Pakistan: he was a stone’s throw away from the national military academy and just a two-hour drive from Islamabad. I have no doubt that it was just and strategically right for the US to kill bin Laden, and although I do not think that the Pakistani Government were involved in any way or were complicit as a whole, I find it very hard to believe that there were not elements of the Pakistani military intelligence services and some Government officials providing him with safe harbour. To suggest otherwise is frankly laughable. That is why there is no way that Britain’s relationship with Pakistan can remain the same.
When the Prime Minister visited Pakistan last year, he was right to say that Pakistan looked “both ways” when it came to terrorism. He was also right when he told the House very recently that we cannot afford to turn our back on Pakistan. If we did, the threat to Britain from the emergence of a nuclear-armed failed state in one of the world’s most volatile regions would be far too great. It is in neither Britain’s interest nor Pakistan’s for relations to become more adversarial, but Pakistan’s strategy of being both a friend and an adversary is no longer tenable. That is why we need to take a harder line on Pakistan and demand a lot more in return for our assistance, aid and friendship. The UK and the US should formally present to Pakistan’s leaders any information they have about Pakistani complicity in shielding bin Laden and should demand tough and immediate action. We should demand that Pakistan uproots insurgent sanctuaries, shuts down factories that produce bombs that kill our soldiers, and hunts down leading terrorists who are still at large.
We also need to start reducing our dependence on Pakistan. First, the international security assistance force should find an alternative to the supply lines that run through Pakistan to Afghanistan, and we should expand alternative supply routes through Azerbaijan and other countries in central Asia. Secondly, NATO and Afghanistan should reach agreement on a longer-term settlement allowing for a small but lasting military presence in Afghanistan. That capability could be indispensible in preventing some of the worst-case scenarios involving Pakistan and its nuclear weapons.
When it comes to helping Pakistan, our No. 1 focus should be on promoting commerce and education, as they are the only tools to help ordinary, long-suffering Pakistanis to climb out of poverty. Our message should not be that we are abandoning Pakistan, but that we will help Pakistan fight its true enemies—ignorance, illiteracy, corrupt elites and religious conflict. Although the killing of bin Laden was an important success, a greater achievement would be to transform UK-Pakistani relations into a true partnership that fights terrorism and helps ordinary Pakistanis.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate and the commitment from the Foreign Secretary that there will be regular reports to the House on the situation in Afghanistan and Libya.
The uprisings across the whole Arab world are momentous in historical terms and in many ways are a continuation of the uprisings of the 1950s, which were eventually mired in corruption and autocracy in almost every country. What we see now on the streets of so many Arab countries is a thirst for accountable government, economic sustainability and, above all, political freedoms. These developments are to be wholly welcomed, but they are not without their problems. The forces of the state that have sustained dictators in power for a very long time are hitting back in a real and quick way.
I pointed out in an intervention what was happening in Tunisia, where protesters are being fairly brutally prevented from making their views known. In the same way, progress in Egypt is up and down. Elements of the old regime constantly pop up and try to prevent industrial action by legitimate trade unions and to control society, just as the Mubarak regime did for a very long time. There should be understanding and solidarity.
While visiting Tunisia earlier this year, I recall talking to a group of young people in the central square in Tunis. It was when the protests were beginning in Libya, and I asked them whether they wanted any outside help. They said no, they did not. Historically, they had had quite enough of French colonialism, and they felt that people in the neighbouring countries had had quite enough of Italian and British colonialism. They wanted to do it themselves.
Proposing the intervention in Libya and support for the UN resolution, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that that was humanitarian; that it would create a no-fly zone; that it was designed to protect lives; and that it would be within the terms of international law. Listen to his speech today, follow the mood music, follow the statements made by NATO and all the others, and it is clear that the whole intervention is about regime change and occupation. The rush to provide facilities and support for the transitional council, which has renamed itself after its members were called “rebels” for a long time, suggests to me that we are in fact involved in a civil war.
I am not here, any more than my Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is, to defend the human rights abuses of the Gaddafi regime. I just feel that we have involved ourselves in a civil war, that there are ulterior motives relating to oil and future markets, and that a macabre demonstration is taking place to show the power of various defence systems and strike aircraft.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend had the wisdom to vote against this ill-fated intervention. Does he agree that it is concerning that we are sending so-called advisers to the region? In other interventions of this kind, where advisers go, troops cannot be far behind.
Jeremy Corbyn
The parallel is Vietnam 1963, when several thousand CIA advisers descended on that country. That eventually turned out to be 500,000 US troops, 100,000 of whom died there. A million Vietnamese also died in that conflict. We should be slightly more careful, more sanguine and less gung-ho about the process.
Turkey has tried to bring about a peace process, as has the African Union, but what hope is there for a peace process and a diplomatic settlement if the language coming from NATO and others is, “We are going to win this conflict”? That is the subtext.
Paul Flynn
It is an extremely rare event when I disagree with my hon. Friend on this subject, but does he understand the predicament of many of us in the House when that vote was taken on whether we should intervene? If we did not intervene, we were leaving the people of Benghazi defenceless against the bloodthirsty threats of Gaddafi.
Jeremy Corbyn
I have no doubt that the forces of the Gaddafi regime were being very brutal to people in Benghazi, just as the forces in Tunisia and Egypt were brutal to people in those countries. If the west was serious about bringing about a diplomatic solution in Libya, the Secretary-General of the UN and Heads of State would have gone there and there would have been a real effort, but the subtext the whole time, by Sarkozy particularly, was that they wanted military intervention and a no-fly zone. I voted against it because I do not believe that the intervention was as high-minded as my hon. Friend suggests it may have been, and many Members who voted for the motion on that day are having some doubts about what went on on that occasion.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will not give way any more as I have had my allotted injury time, if the House understands what I mean.
I want to mention two other topics. I believe that there are double standards at work. The west has intervened in Libya, where there are large amounts of oil and where, under Tony Blair, a deal was done with the Government and arms were sold. They were being sold right up to the point when NATO was preparing to go in there. Interestingly, the arms sales there and in every other country in the region are, yes, planes, missiles and radar systems, but in every case they include anti-personnel equipment for crowd control, to deal with civil disorder and control populations.
That is what is now happening in Bahrain, with the support of Saudi Arabia. Other Members have drawn attention to what is going on there. I was with the Bahraini opposition groups in London last week. I first met Bahraini opposition groups at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen in 1986, when they were complaining about British support for the regime, the suspension of the constitution and the lack of democracy in Bahrain. That has not stopped this country doing a lot of business with Bahrain. It has not stopped arms exports and oil imports from Bahrain. I would like condemnation of the violence of the Bahrain and the Saudi regimes equal to the condemnation of the Libyan regime and, rightly, of the Syrian regime for what it is doing.
My last point concerns Palestine. Yesterday, on the anniversary of Nakba, the day on which the Palestinian people were driven out of what is now the state of Israel to become that vast diaspora, was the occasion for demonstrations outside the Kalandia crossing. Thirteen Palestinians were shot dead. Last year or the year before, Operation Cast Lead over Gaza brought about the deaths of nearly 1,500 people in that bombardment. Routine operations by Israeli forces over Gaza result in deaths. Rocket attacks and suicide attacks also result in deaths.
However, there seems almost to be an approval of Israel and its perceptions of its own security needs to the exclusion of all understanding of just how brutal the regime has been towards Palestinians. If someone tries to travel through the west bank and sees the settlements, the settler-only roads, the checkpoints and the abuse that Palestinians receive every day from Israeli border guards, they will understand why people feel so angry. They will see the walls being built, the wells being taken away and the opportunity for economic life being removed. The people in Gaza are living in an open prison and young people are growing up living their lives vicariously through TV and computer screens because they cannot work and they cannot travel—they cannot do anything. They get very angry. There must be a recognition of the rights and needs of Palestinian people.
Likewise, the huge Palestinian diaspora, largely living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, but also all over the world, feels very angry. On a visit to Lebanon earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who led the delegation, and I met an old man living in Shatila refugee camp—hon. Members will remember the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. A man in his mid-80s could remember with absolute precision every tree, house and well of his Palestinian village, which he was driven out of when the state of Israel was established. Is he determined to go back? Yes. Does he think he has a right to go back? Absolutely. Do the people in that camp think they have a right to return? They absolutely do. This anger among Palestinian people is a cause that will go on for a very long time.
The result of 1948 might have been seen as a reasonable diplomatic solution to the massive and awful experience that Jewish people experienced before and during the second world war, but the residue of the ill-treatment of the Palestinian people lives on. The state of Palestine needs to be supported and the Palestinian people need to be recognised. If we do not do so, the cause will go on for a very long time. We cannot just sell arms to Israel and pretend that what is happening to the Palestinians is nothing to do with us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am concerned that everyone who wishes to speak in the debate should get in. The only way we can do that is by reducing the time limit on speeches to six minutes, in fairness to Members who have been waiting.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is just my luck to have the axe fall as I rise.
Nick Boles
I am not so sure about that. Nevertheless, it is fortuitous that I find myself following the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), whose speech I listened to with great interest, because I hope to shed some other light on the situation. I should start by declaring two interests. First, I do some work with the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I very recently tied the knot with my Israeli partner.
I am afraid that it is with sadness, but not surprise, that I find myself speaking a day after another depressing turn in the wheel of futility and violence that characterises the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. All Members of the House—from the hon. Member for Islington North, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) to all Government Members—want to help them break out of this morbid cycle, but we will do so, as the hon. Member for Islington North said, only if we understand the fears and motivations of all parties in the dispute and grasp the way they perceive their situation, not how we perceive it.
Other hon. Members are more qualified than I am to shed light on the Palestinian point of view—the hon. Gentleman has done so, as I hope and trust will other hon. Members. I want to try to contribute a little understanding of the Israeli point of view. I will start by asking the House a question. Why is it that young Israeli men and women, such as my partner, are willing to do three years’ military service at a time when young men and women in Britain are working, studying, travelling and having fun? They are not compelled to do so, as they can choose a civilian form of service. It is not possible to say that Israel is some latter-day militaristic Prussia. Anyone who has been to Israel will have to testify to the fact that Israelis are a remarkably individualistic, even hedonistic, bunch of people. It is not even possible to say that somehow they are all brainwashed into thinking that this is something they must do. Israeli politics is one of the most disputatious and argumentative politics one can find, and there are many groups in Israeli politics preaching peace and arguing for a change in the pattern.
So why are they doing it? The reason is simple. There is nothing more important for my partner and people of his age, and for his parents and grandparents, than the security of the state of Israel because it is the first place in 2,000 years that Jews have been able to call home. The key to understanding Israel’s actions is this: what will it mean for their perceptions of their long-term security? In this place, such an obsession with security may seem overblown, but we are an island, we have water all around us, we have been here for thousands of years, and I remember that about 70 years ago we seemed to take threats to that security pretty seriously indeed.
Mr Winnick
The hon. Gentleman, although I disagree with him, is making the most interesting speech. I now understand the personal factor involved, but there is no criticism in what I have just said. Is not the best security for Israel—I have already indicated my support for Israel as a state, pre-1967 borders—to find and be willing to reach an accommodation with the Palestinian people, who are not going to go away?
Nick Boles
I am very grateful for that intervention, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman and share his analysis. The vast majority of Israeli people also think that a two-state solution is the long-term source of their security, but they will grasp it only if there are guarantees that that state will not threaten the long-term security of Israel.
It is not unreasonable to ask for that when only five years ago Israel withdrew from Gaza and Gaza immediately fell into the hands of an organisation that is directly sponsored by Iran and wants to wipe Israel from the map. It is not unreasonable when Lebanon’s Government have been brought down and the new Prime Minister has been put in place by an organisation whose leader only yesterday said that we need to drive Israel into the sea, and that no treaties, no borders, no agreements will stop that happening. It is not unreasonable for the Israeli people to have that expectation. I wish that they might be willing to make more of a risk, but my wishes, and our wishes, carry no weight.
We must provide guarantees of security, which means, first, that the Palestinian state cannot have a military force, because if it does there will be no agreement, ever, not in our lifetime, our children’s or our grandchildren’s; secondly, that the neighbours of Israel will have to agree to recognise the existence and legitimacy of the state of Israel; and thirdly, that we in Europe and America will have to provide the kind of security guarantees that we have provided each other over the past 60 years.
That, in my honest judgment, is the only way in which we will bring the Israeli people to a table where we will be asking them to make an enormous compromise for their security. It is a compromise that, I agree, is necessary and vital to the interests of the Palestinian people and the interests of justice, but if we want to achieve a result we have to recognise what it will take, and deal with that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and may I offer the congratulations of the House on his recent civil partnership? I am disappointed that he did not invite me to the event: after all, we share offices in Norman Shaw North and Leicester is not that far from Grantham—I would have made the journey.
I say to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) that I am glad, as I think is the whole House, that Abdul Ghani decided to stay in Britain rather than go back to Pakistan. The hon. Gentleman made a forceful and important contribution, and throughout the entire year of his being a Member I am sure his constituents have been extraordinarily proud of his contribution.
I always use opportunities such as this to talk about Yemen, and I make no apology to the House for doing so. I was born in that country and chair the all-party group on Yemen. I always start my contributions to such debates by saying that Yemen is in crisis, but it really is in crisis. There is a deep humanitarian crisis affecting Yemen. Some 40% of the country live on under £1.25 a day, one third of its people are unemployed and 7 million literally cannot find anything to eat each day. The situation that led to the uprising has caused the displacement of 330,000 people in the north of the country. As a matter of urgency, therefore, we need to continue the work that was started under the previous Government, through the Friends of Yemen procedure, and to give Yemen the support that it needs.
I am delighted to see the Secretary of State for International Development here today. I have known him for 35 years, and he is responsible for giving me my first political speech when he presided over the debating society that we both belonged to; he probably regrets it now. In the work that he has done, he has been an outstanding International Development Secretary. I know that there are many countries and that the budget is limited, but it is very important to focus on Yemen, which is one of the poorest countries on earth. It does not have the political capacity to punch above its weight as other countries have done, and it does not have the focus of the international community. That is why it is important that we should give it as much help as we can.
On the political side, tomorrow there will be a mass demonstration in Sana’a, and the predictions are that even more people will die unless there is restraint on all sides. So far, 170 people have been killed in the uprising. When I spoke in an Adjournment debate on Yemen a few weeks ago, I believed that we were near a solution, and I think that that was the Foreign Secretary’s view as well. The Gulf Co-operation Council had negotiated an agreement with President Ali Abdullah Saleh that he would stand down in 30 days. That agreement was also adhered to by the opposition. Everyone agreed that there was a process for the resignation of the President, with all the dignity of a person who has occupied that post for 32 years, and that a new Government would take over. This did not happen. It is vital that we provide not only humanitarian relief but political support. I have urged on the Government and the Prime Minister the need to appoint an envoy who will be able to bring all sides together; it could be an EU envoy or someone from the United Nations. After all, we are proposing to do this in other countries. I believe that Yemen can be saved from civil war if we are able to provide that political support.
Why is it in our interests to support Yemen? Why do we want to keep the country as one? The reason is the power that al-Qaeda has in Yemen. A lot of reference has been made to the death of Osama bin Laden, but the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Anwar al-Awlaki, is still in Yemen. Though born in the United States, he is of Yemeni descent. According to the Pentagon, he is more dangerous, as a person, than Osama bin Laden was. It is therefore in our interests to ensure that the country remains stable and united, that humanitarian support is given, and that the security situation in that whole area is not infected by the break-up of this impoverished country.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I am going to talk about Israel and the middle east and, more substantially, about the dangers posed to regional and international security by a nuclear-armed Iran.
I will not reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), but I am wary of the rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah given that the aim of many individuals in those organisations is to move towards unilateral and incremental recognition of Palestinian statehood rather than the alternative—a round-table debate and discussion among all parties, including the United Nations and the European Union, towards a negotiated settlement, which would mean a two-state solution that is viable and sustainable in terms of the creation of a Palestinian state.
It is very important that we support the courageous stand of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in his efforts, because Hamas has consistently repudiated the Quartet principles, including the recognition of Israel, the renunciation of violence, and the acceptance of all previous agreements. Indeed, it has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Just last month, after the signing of the agreement, the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, said:
“The only battle of the Palestinians is against Israel.”
I see ominous developments in the mixing of the Hamas forces—with their terrorist activists—and the police service of the Palestinian Authority, which is controlled by Fatah. That is the political context in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must reiterate the Prime Minister’s undertaking to the Community Security Trust that we must continue the dialogue with all parties and that:
“The alternative to compromise is that moderates will always lose out.”
Iran is a state that espouses a jihadist, anti-Semitic, militant theology. It is a leading sponsor of state terrorism across the middle east. Furthermore, it wishes to challenge the United States and undermine the historic undertaking of the Baghdad pact of the 1950s, through which the United States sought to support moderate Arab states. There is no doubt that the Iranian regime not only sees itself as the pre-eminent regional power seeking hegemony in the middle east, but is developing a supra-conventional nuclear missile capacity to consolidate that hegemony and become a rival to the United States in global terms.
Iran is close to weaponised nuclear capability, and to being able to move, via a breakout position, from the conversion of low-enriched uranium to high-enriched uranium at the minimum 90% level. Once the regime has achieved that, weaponisation can be achieved relatively simply. Much of that has been achieved with the help of North Korea, which has provided enrichment technology and, for hard currency, highly sophisticated centrifuges from its large, modern uranium enrichment plant at Yongbyon.
The Obama Administration are committed to this issue and have adopted a policy of sanctions, particularly through UN Security Council resolution 1929 of June 2010, and active diplomacy and engagement. The problem, as ever, is a lack of consensus in the United Nations—the P5 plus Germany—and the European Union. The next step must be the consideration of more draconian and targeted sanctions. I concede that diplomatic engagement will assist reformists in Iran such as Khatami, Rafsanjani and the fledgling green movement, but we cannot rule out the chance that military action may be necessary. Make no mistake, within two years it will be possible for Iran’s Sejil 2 multi-stage solid propellant missiles to travel a range of 3,000 km, which would reach most of continental Europe. Iran is well advanced in uranium enrichment, weaponisation and ballistic missile development.
A nuclear Iran would destroy the policy objective of global non-proliferation and semi-permanently destabilise the middle east, with countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and smaller Arab states seeking nuclear parity. That argument is enunciated in a report entitled “Global Trends 2025” by the National Intelligence Council. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran presents a clear and present danger to Israel and to regional stability, and it is too great a risk. The European Union, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency must rise to the challenge of preventing that prospect from coming to fruition.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
As the proud son of a soldier who was grievously injured on a battlefield and later cheated out of his pension by an ungrateful Government, giving him a sense of grievance and injustice that he took to his early grave at the age of 43, I do not need any instructions on the need for a military covenant from the Government. However, I believe that the military covenant should have as its first sentence the obligations of the Government, and it should read that they guarantee never to send our armed forces into conflict for causes that are avoidable or vainglorious. Earlier, I was accused of being a pacifist for suggesting that, but I point out that I have supported with my vote or voice all the conflicts and military interventions in which we have been involved over the past 24 years, except for two. Those were the ones that conflicted with what I hope will be the first line of the covenant: the second Iraq war and our intervention in Helmand province in 2006.
In the case of the Iraq war, Labour Members were bribed, bullied and bamboozled with a three-line Whip into voting for the war. To the great credit of 139 of us, we resisted that. In the case of Helmand, in March 2006 the total number of British soldiers who had died in Afghanistan, after five years there, was seven, only two of whom had died in conflict. It was said that to go into Helmand was to stir up a hornet’s nest, and it was compared with the futility of the charge of the Light Brigade. We have now lost not two but 365 of our brave soldiers, and I believe we have achieved very little for that. We are perhaps coming to consider why we went in there.
I wish to mention some points that give reason for optimism. On a point of order last Thursday I mentioned a story in The Daily Telegraph that gave us some hope, and I raised it again with the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. It stated that a decision was going to be taken within a matter of days that would bring 450 of our troops home from Afghanistan. As a result of that point of order, I had a stream of messages from wives, grandfathers and other relatives of soldiers out there saying, “For goodness’ sake, keep asking this question. Keep putting pressure on.” The character of the conflict in Afghanistan at the moment is such that they do not feel that the risk that their loved ones are taking is justified. There is good reason for that.
Will the Government please learn the lesson? We have never asked the Taliban why they are killing our soldiers. It is always easier to go on repeating the old lies than to reveal the new truth. We need to know why they are killing our soldiers—is it because, when they have killed them all, they want to come over to London and Newport to blow up people on our streets? Or is it because we are there as the ferengi, the foreigners, and it is their sacred religious duty to kill our troops in the same way that their fathers did the Russians, and as their great-grandfathers and all the previous generations have done? The great lesson of the recent actions is that the number of deaths that we have suffered has gone down greatly, not because the Taliban are slightly less wicked than they were, but because we are not in the north of Helmand. The sooner we make our exit, the better.
Another serious point is that as the rate of deaths has gone down, an increasing proportion of them have been among the immensely brave people who dismantle improvised explosive devices. The justification for taking the great risk of dismantling them rather than blowing them up, which would of course be perfectly safe, is to capture the members of the Taliban who constructed the IEDs. Details can be found such as fingerprints and so on, so that the Taliban who made them can be captured and put in prison. We know what happened recently—500 prisoners escaped. Those who risked their lives to ensure that those Taliban bomb makers were put in prison will now question whether their sacrifice was necessary. I urge the Government to re-examine their tactic and, instead of risking more lives by dangerously dismantling IEDs to capture Taliban who are detained for a very short time, to consider blowing up the IEDs.
I am hoping that there is a truth in what the Foreign Secretary expressed today, and that President Obama and the Prime Minister make a statement on making a start on the only sensible thing that we can do: bringing our people home. The question by which the Government should be haunted is the one that troubled Senator Kerry in Vietnam in 1971: who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a mistake?
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who is not in the Chamber. I learned tonight that the hon. Member for Walsall North entered the House before I was born, but if the clarity and passion of his speech is anything to go by, he will almost certainly still be here long after I am dead. He spoke about Libya, which I shall speak about, but from a different point of view— I do not share his outlook.
Since the insurgents began their campaign against Gaddafi some three months ago, they have scored a remarkable victory, in as much as they have built around themselves a tremendous international coalition. Something like 17 countries are contributing to the Libya campaign, and many more provide overflight rights, yet that military capability, which has undoubtedly reduced the opportunity for Gaddafi to strike against civilians with his tanks and heavy weaponry and stopped his using air power against them, has not removed him. While he is still there, he presents a terrible threat to civilians, as he has rather chillingly said. Anybody who calls their people “rats” cannot
“live in the hearts of millions”
other than as a feared and loathed object.
We have reduced Gaddafi’s military capability by something like a third, but that means that two thirds of it remains. His ability to strike at the insurgents is greater than their ability to defend themselves. As long as that position obtains, he will go on fighting. There was a striking piece the other day in The New York Times on the hidden workshops of Misrata, which describes the insurgents’ position. Men who a few months ago were welders or electricians now run makeshift military workshops, putting armour plating on pick-ups, cannibalising captured machine guns and building do-it-yourself rocket-propelled grenades. They do not have munitions know-how or the tools with which to do the job. They scrape explosives out of shell canisters to reuse, because they do not have supplies. They have nothing other than what they make themselves or that they capture from Gaddafi.
Is it therefore any wonder that the insurgents’ battle is desperate, bloody and very slow? That is why I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that we need to move to bring the conflict to a conclusion. If we have a stalemate in Libya, and a failed state, torn in two, with factions fighting one another, we risk a Somalia-type situation. We also risk people in this country becoming tired and bored with a drawn-out campaign. We therefore need to take on board what General Richards, who is a thoughtful man, has said, and acknowledge what the Foreign Secretary has said on intensifying our military, diplomatic and economic campaign to remove Gaddafi from power. A few men in workshops—a few enterprising rebels—are not enough to do the job that needs to be done.
If we cannot, within the bounds of UN Security Council resolution 1973, put boots on the ground—I agree that we should not do that—or give military matériel directly to the insurgents, it seems to me that we can at least release frozen Libyan assets to the national transitional council. We have effectively recognised it; it has its own defence minister; and Baroness Ashton has set up her EU legation in Benghazi. Hundreds of millions of dinars are locked in this country and should be released to the NTC for it to spend as it wishes, whether on utilities in Benghazi to look after its people or, if it wishes, on the military campaign against Gaddafi.
The balance is already tipping in favour of the insurgents, but it is taking a long time and needs to be tipped more quickly. In Misrata, we have a refugee crisis. There are electricity cuts, and oil, food and medical supplies are running out. We have seen people migrating from Libya, causing friction on the country’s borders and friction between Italy and France. If we are to raise the siege of these cities, if we are to stem the migration from Libya and if we are to demonstrate to people at home that we can prosecute a compassionate and successful war to a quick conclusion, we need to move to remove Gaddafi, either through allied effort or by giving the Libyans the means to do so themselves. The status quo is not an option.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
When the tragedy of 11 September occurred, I was working for the United Nations mission in Kosovo. I was in the region of Mitrovica, which is divided by a bridge. Across the bridge, I could see Serbian Orthodox Christians burning American flags in jubilation at the events unfolding in America. On 2 May, I saw similar signs of jubilation in America after the death of Osama bin Laden. It is important not to confuse the desire for retribution with the desire to defeat an enemy. Because terrorism partakes of both crime and war, it is perfectly natural, and perhaps legitimate, to have both these attitudes towards Osama bin Laden—to think that we had to disable him, and to think that he deserved to die. However, Milosevic, who killed 100,000 Bosnians, was tried at The Hague.
His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, has said:
“I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances”.
It is deeply troubling if we are moving to a global assassination policy for our enemies. Surely, the norm must be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest and trial. Such a trial would have had the benefit of laying out before the world the evil of terrorism. It would have peeled away the mystique of bin Laden and shown al-Qaeda to be banal and ridiculous.
In recent weeks, a blizzard of questions and fingers have been pointed at the legitimacy of Pakistan as an ally. I was disappointed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who seemed to suggest that more questions should be asked of Pakistan, although I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Pakistan’s commitment to the international coalition against terrorism since 9/11. Pakistan has become the victim of an almost daily onslaught of suicide bombings in the very heart of its country. Just yesterday a suicide bomb killed 18 people. The US-led drone attacks continue to take civilian lives, resulting in a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Pakistan’s efforts since 2002 have cost it 30,000 civilian casualties, 5,000 security personnel casualties, and the devastation of property and infrastructure. Over the past nine years, its economy has borne the loss of more than $35 billion. The war on terror and the rehabilitation of internally displaced people has consumed a huge amount of the Government’s financial resources and halted economic growth. Unemployment is high, which is triggering other social problems and putting pressures on successive Governments.
The obligation to focus on security has contributed to a continuing failure to invest in key areas of public provision, such as education and health, and assisted the military and intelligence sectors in retaining power and influence in Pakistan’s political system. There may be some rogue elements in Inter-Services Intelligence, but to tarnish the whole of the ISI, the army and the Government of Pakistan by suggesting that they are not trustworthy is an insult to the people of Pakistan, including the civilian population, who suffer on a daily basis from atrocities that those of us sitting in this country cannot even imagine.
Many have mentioned the aid given to Pakistan over the past 12 years, which amounts to about $10 billion. However, the USA has spent $146 billion on this war on terror. In terms of loss—and, indeed, the near-destruction of Pakistan—$10 billion is chickenfeed. It does not even start to compensate Pakistan for the breadth of destruction that it has suffered. Let us remember that until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan—then we had 11 September—Pakistan had no quarrels or squabbles with Afghanistan. It got involved in the war in Afghanistan only because historically it was a US ally. Therefore, it is completely wrong for everyone to start pointing the finger at Pakistan, a country that is suffering the most.
Nick Boles
I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech so much that I want to give her a bit of injury time. Will she please continue?
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
I was also a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about Pakistan’s supposedly imagined problems with India. At the end of the day, each nation state is interested in its own interests. However, when two countries have gone to war on two occasions, as Pakistan and India have, when India supported the breakaway of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh, and when every year it releases flood waters from dams, causing flooding in Pakistan, it is naive to say that Pakistan’s perceived security problem is an apparition. Rather, it is real. Indeed, Bishop Nazir-Ali, who is not normally pro-Pakistan, touched on Pakistan’s security in an article last week.
In all these wars that are taking place across the world, we lost the plot in the graveyard of empires, turning the hunt for the now largely irrelevant inventor of global jihad into a war against tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents who have little interest in al-Qaeda, but much enthusiasm for driving western armies out of their country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to the ferengi, and that is exactly what is going on. The fact is that we are interfering in Afghanistan, while Pakistan, as an ally of the west, is having to pay the price for our war on terror.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I want to take this opportunity to make some observations about the situation in Libya and Syria, and to address the wider issue of British foreign policy in that rapidly changing part of the world. Our foreign policy is perhaps seen as one of intervening when we can, but not always where we should. There is a perception that the moral component of our motivation or justification for intervention does not always seem to apply everywhere with the same degree of seriousness. When it comes to that part of the world, I do not see an appetite in either this House or the country at large to seek out theatres of war. However, I seek to discern some consistency, even if the consistent application of principles will not mean that the same action is taken in every country.
Back on 21 March, I supported the implementation of the no-fly zone, which seemed entirely appropriate, not simply from the perspective of seeking to prevent mass slaughter in Benghazi, but on the understanding that all diplomatic efforts and avenues had been exhausted. Walking away when an evil tyrant was about to murder his own people would have been an abdication of responsibility by the international community. At the same time, however, I listened to the many excellent speeches in the Chamber, and the many warnings, especially from some of those hon. Members who are present this evening, who feared that the solution would not be quick and easy. Sure enough, it has proved not to be.
I am slightly concerned about the way in which the debate has unfolded over the past eight weeks. Nowhere in the UN Security Council resolution does it prescribe a time frame. There was a great expectation that the operation would all be over immediately and that everything would be fine, but that was never my expectation when I voted for the no-fly zone on 21 March. Across the House, however, there seems to be a great need to bring the operation to a close, as though the international community’s other weapons—diplomacy, economic sanctions and exerting our influence over what other countries in the region do—will have no effect. I was never tempted to assume that Gaddafi would quickly emigrate to Venezuela, or that his iron grip on his media would somehow dissipate overnight. It is true that he enjoys widespread support in Tripoli today, but there are horrendous things happening in Misrata. This is a moving situation, despite the notion that the world somehow stopped on 21 March.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. All wars have to end with some kind of political settlement and some kind of deal. Does he think that it might not be the west that brings about such a settlement, and that an effective diplomatic intervention from the African Union, the Arab League, the Turkish Government or someone else would be more likely to stop the bloodshed and bring about some form of peace?
John Glen
Quite possibly; that is my point. Given recent events, I believe that the notion that we can bring the situation in Libya to a neat, precise conclusion by the extension of targets will prove erroneous.
These operations have significant implications for our armed forces. Last week, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, interviewed the heads of the three services. It was quite clear, when we read between the half-answers and the attempts not to address the issue directly, that all the services are under massive strain. It will be an abdication of responsibility if the Government do not address that point and allocate appropriate resources. I was very concerned to hear that there is to be a review of defence expenditure over the next three months, as we try to squeeze out more resources. Concern was expressed following the strategic defence and security review about putting off decisions on expenditure until future years.
We need to deal with the reality, and a number of scenarios could evolve. We could find ourselves in a perpetual stalemate. Alternatively, we could have a little more humility about the way in which this awful situation could be resolved, and realise that it will not happen very quickly. We must realise that a change in regime achieved by the rising up of internal forces against Gaddafi is hardly likely to happen in just a few weeks or months, given the grip that he has had on his country over so many years. It is necessary for us to maintain the current posture and continue to develop diplomatic pressure and the role of the regional players. Yes, it is messy and uncomfortable, but it is right to hold the line and to continue to strengthen and broaden the base of support. We must continue to show resolve and to provide as much support as possible. It is also clear that going down the route of putting boots on the ground is never going to be acceptable in the current environment. We acted on the basis of stopping an evil man murdering his people. We may find the process since then rather uncomfortable, but it is not one from which we can pull away.
Some parallels have been drawn with Syria. There, we have seen numerous efforts taken to impose travel bans, to freeze assets, to provide medical supplies and so forth. There, too, the answer is diplomacy and securing concessions one by one rather than necessarily threatening military action. The reality is that each country in the region is different, which means we cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy; we need the slow, sober, determined, persistent and measured policy that this Government are undertaking. We need to recognise that we do not have the right or the means to solve this problem overnight.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Before going any further, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on what I thought was an important and brave speech. I am going to touch briefly on the Israel-Palestine question, on Afghanistan and then, of course, Libya.
On the Israel-Palestine question, I cannot add much to what many others have said, but let me say this. I have heard Conservative Members say that we do not understand the Israelis’ wish for security. I was a Member of this House at the end of the ’80s, when an IRA bombing campaign on the mainland was still happening and I remember Mrs Thatcher being blown up in the Grand hotel in Brighton. I also heard the Canary Wharf bomb going off from my kitchen in the east end of London, so do not tell those of us who lived through that era that we do not take security issues seriously.
The proposition was put forward that Israel wants all these triple locks, guarantees and so forth before it will move forward. What triple lock guarantees did John Hume of the Social Democratic and Labour party have before he opened the first tentative negotiations with the IRA back in the ’80s? What triple lock guarantees did Nelson Mandela have when he was in prison and first opened overtures to the apartheid regime? The truth is that in the most bloody, difficult and seemingly intractable situations that we have seen in my lifetime, people have had to be prepared to go forward without the triple lock guarantees about which some Members have spoken, but with a will to bring about peace. As long as Israel believes that it has the unconditional support of the United States and Britain, it will continue to shelter behind the notion of triple lock guarantees.
Nick Boles
I accept what the hon. Lady says, but does she accept that there was no question in the Irish situation of the people of this country being driven out of this country by those in the IRA who were fighting us? They wanted us to get out of what they perceived as their country; they were not trying to deny our right to be here. The fundamental situation faced by Israel is that some, though not all, of its neighbours believe that Israel should not exist and that all its people should be driven into the sea. That poses a security risk of a quite different quality.
Ms Abbott
The hon. Gentleman should speak to some of my friends in the Democratic Unionist party about how they perceived their security as part of Britain in the ’80s.
Let me move on and deal with Afghanistan. I have been fortunate enough to visit Afghanistan and to meet, talk and stay with our troops there. I was very struck by the bravery of our ordinary soldiers. Not many people realise that the level of mutilations—not just death—is far higher in Afghanistan than anywhere else our armed forces have been sent since the second world war. In talking to ordinary troops—which Ministers and shadow Defence Ministers do not necessarily do—I found that those who had been on two or three tours of duty said that they were regarded as liberators on their first tour, but were now regarded as an occupying force. Members who are familiar with our history will know that no British occupying force has won a war in Afghanistan since the 19th century. [Hon. Members: “We didn’t win that one, either.”] No, we did not. The idea that there is a military solution to what is going on in Afghanistan has a basis in history, but no basis in fact.
When my party was in government Ministers often presented, as Ministers do now, the notion that we were waiting for the Afghan police and armed forces to be ready to take over, but if we wait for that we will still be there in a hundred years. We must act decisively and stop making the mistake that we made with, for instance, the south Vietnamese: the mistake of propping up a regime that needs not to be propped up, but to face reality.
It seems to me that the best thing we could do for our brave soldiers who have lost their lives and limbs fighting this war is to use the occasion of the elimination of bin Laden—whatever we think of the circumstances—to do what we should have done before, and withdraw from Afghanistan. Let us by all means give that country support with development and nation-building, but let us stand back and withdraw from military intervention that history tells us is doomed.
I voted for the intervention in Libya, but I did so with a heavy heart. I was present for the debate—because I think that one should take part in debates on such important occasions—and I was persuaded that unless we intervened as the Government suggested, the civilians of Benghazi would meet a horrible fate. However, a number of developments in Libya since then have been extremely disappointing. For instance, where is the Arab League? I was in the Chamber when we were promised that we would have its support, and that we would be fighting alongside Arab troops. Where are they? We have sold those people billions of pounds-worth of arms. What has happened to the arms, the aeroplanes and the armaments? Where are they? This has the look and the feel of a straightforward western bombardment of a north African country, and I must tell the House that that is not sustainable politics. Where is the Arab League, and how can it be persuaded to shoulder its responsibility in relation to Libya?
I am also concerned about the sending in of advisers. Where advisers go, can troops be far behind? As one who sat through the entire debate on Libya, I am clear about the fact that there is no will in the House to become involved in a land war in north Africa, and as it happens, I do not believe that there is a will among the British public—Labour, Conservative and all points between—to become involved in such a war. I sincerely hope that we shall not see a further escalation of the Libyan intervention without returning to the House for a full debate.
Was it Walpole who said, “They are ringing the bells today, but tomorrow they will be wringing their hands”? I believe that unless we adopt a more decisive approach to what is happening in Afghanistan and do not simply allow ourselves to be sucked in, the British public—however much they appreciated the humanitarian impulse that led us into Libya—will be wringing their hands tomorrow.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I agreed with some of her analysis, although by no means all of it.
As we meet here tonight, civilians in Libya continue to become victims of a brutal regime that is showing no humanity in its efforts to impose its will on the Libyan people. The contrast between the cowardice of Gaddafi and the courage of his people could not be greater. While he continues to hide behind mercenaries and soak himself in delusional rhetoric in his compound, the vast majority of the Libyan people are standing in hope, in the open, and poorly armed, against him. Like all tyrants, he has lost his grip on reality. He is alone, and lost in his own propaganda.
When I look at the faces of the men and women fighting Gaddafi, I see a yearning for freedom and a grasping for dignity, pride and self-determination. All those are the antithesis of what Gaddafi represents. The only person he is fooling with his insane rhetoric is himself. He is hated by his people, he has lost legitimacy, he is shortly to become a wanted war criminal, and it is now a question of when, not if, he must go.
Against that backdrop, I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces who continue to execute the tasks set by the Government with the professionalism that we have come to expect from the best armed forces in the world. I remain in awe of their selfless determination and courage. In putting themselves in harm’s way to protect innocent people, they are standing up for the very best traditions of our nation, and they should rightly be proud of the work they are doing on behalf of their country.
Unlike the hon. Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I remain convinced of the legitimacy of the steps the international community is taking. We could not have stood by and watched Benghazi entered by Gaddafi’s murderous thugs. We could not have watched from the sidelines and merely grimaced at the slaughter that would inevitably have followed.
I fear that we are witnessing Syria begin the slide into the same violence and bloodshed that we have seen so dramatically in Libya. The United Nations estimates that over the last two months about 700 innocent civilians have been killed and hundreds more detained by the Syrian security services. We have seen their cities shelled by tanks, and troops conduct house-to-house searches to arrest and intimidate protesters. In Syria, as in the early days in Libya, people are standing up unarmed, with only an idea to inspire them: the idea of freedom, which we in this country all too often take for granted. The reality is that the only long-term solution for the Syrian regime is one that regains the consent of the Syrian people. Failure to reach out to a political solution will only result in Syria descending into further turmoil and bloodshed. The international community must do all it can to impress that on the Syrian regime.
President Assad is at a crossroads. He can either respond to the demands of his people or he can continue his efforts to repress them, but only one course of action will leave his regime with security and legitimacy. If he chooses repression over reform, I believe he will ultimately be swept from power. I therefore welcome the steps the Government have taken to put pressure on the Syrian regime, but I ask the Secretary of State to say in his winding-up speech whether the discussions with the Syrian ambassador touched on rights of access to that country for the foreign media, and what the Syrian representative told him about the national dialogue proposed by that country’s President.
The events of the last few months in north Africa and across the middle east highlight the urgent need to review our arms export regime, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made clear. People across the middle east and north Africa have displayed true courage in standing up against oppressive regimes that have used the most modern equipment and munitions to try to break their will. It is difficult for any of us in this House to stomach the idea that British-made equipment may have been used against these courageous people.
Of course it is right for the UK to play an active part in the international negotiations that have recently started at the United Nations aimed at securing a global arms trade treaty, but we must not lose sight of the choices that we ourselves can make to tighten our export regime. That is why I welcome both the Foreign Secretary’s review of British arms export controls announced last month and the fact that the Government have revoked more than 150 export licences in recent weeks—but we can, and we must, go further. We need to tighten controls on both exports and re-exports, and we need to make sure that we put human rights at the heart of our consideration of which countries we should export to. When will the Foreign Secretary’s arms export review be published, and will it be brought before the House for debate?
It should now be crystal clear that the long-term interests of this country will always be best found in standing next to the people who seek freedom, and against the regimes that would simply impose their will. This strategic reality needs to be reflected in all corners of our Government and in all parts of the United Kingdom’s global posture.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Today’s debate is profoundly important and comes at a critical time. I thank the Secretary of State for providing Government time for it in order to consider the issues facing the people of the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as our military, political and humanitarian response to the multiple crises in those crucial parts of the world.
Following the earlier debate on the military covenant, it is right that we pay tribute to the brave servicemen and women who are engaged in protecting civilians in Libya under UN resolution 1973, as well as to our troops in Afghanistan. In particular, I wish to join others in paying tribute to Nigel Dean Mead, from 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed in Helmand province yesterday. We remember the continued price paid by innocent people whose lives have been taken in terrorist attacks around the world, most recently in Morocco and, last week, in Pakistan. I also wish to reiterate Labour Members’ grave concern about the killing of protesters by Israeli soldiers on the Syrian-Israeli border and about the injuries of civilians in the Palestinian territories. We join the Foreign Secretary in reaffirming calls for restraint on both sides.
A common theme that has arisen from events in Tunisia and Egypt, and the current situations in Libya and Syria, has been the way in which citizens have responded to the abuse of power by, and the lack of legitimacy in, their Governments. People have taken to the streets in their millions to bring about badly needed change. Few could have imagined just how much a few short months would change the world, as the self-immolation of one man led to a chain of unstoppable events around the Arab world. Tunisia will hold its first elections to a new Assembly in July, Egypt will go to the polls in September, and we are seeing rapid change in a number of other countries.
However, it is also vital to pay closer attention to the need to tackle global inequality and economic inequality, given the situation in those middle-income countries. Many of the international financial institutions did not foresee what was about to happen in these countries, which did not have significant levels of poverty but did have great inequality. The historical failure of their Governments to deliver political and human rights opportunities, and economic growth, continues to fuel the protests, and this country has a crucial role to play in supporting the people of those countries.
For many, these events have been a cry for freedom, democracy and transparency after decades of repression and abuse of power by those in positions of authority and responsibility; they have been about the need to be treated with dignity and fairness, and the opportunity to have jobs and decent chances in life. The international community must do everything possible to help realise those aspirations and ensure that the brave people of those countries genuinely have the best chance for a better future.
Excellent speeches have been made by many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in which they have highlighted their great insight, expertise, conviction and passion for the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke with great passion and expertise about the need to support Yemen, about the threat from terrorism and about the many challenges facing that country, including the need to tackle poverty. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) spoke of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke of the importance of the EU providing support for the middle east in its pursuit of democracy and human rights. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) raised concerns about the UK Government’s export licences for arms to the middle east.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) spoke with great passion about Britain’s relationship with Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) highlighted the many challenges faced by Pakistan and the loss of thousands of civilian lives in terror attacks, including the one last week. It is vital that we continue to work closely with Pakistan despite the challenges and some of the criticisms. We must recognise, as many have in the House today, the importance of working with Pakistan, maintaining our alliances and ensuring that the terror threat is overcome.
Many Members have spoken with great expertise and passion about the situation in Libya and the middle east and, in particular, their concerns about the UN resolution, which we support, the dangers of scope creep and the parameters within which the resolution is implemented. Clearly, there are great concerns about stalemate, as highlighted by a number of Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway).
Let me turn to a recent tragedy involving migrants. The Government rightly supported the International Organisation for Migration, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will have been deeply concerned about reports last week that a boat full of migrants, including young children, died after their distress calls were not acted on. Only 11 survived. Will the Government clarify whether British forces intercepted any such distress messages, and say that they will co-operate with any international investigation?
As has been touched on by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Croydon South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), in the light of the recent comments made by the Chief of the Defence Staff about upping the ante, may we also have an assurance that the House will be consulted before any significant change is made to targeting policy in Libya? Given the concerns expressed by Baroness Amos, will the Secretary of State assure us that a thorough assessment will be made of the humanitarian impact if military action is stepped up? In particular, if power, water and fuel cuts are made, as reported in some of the press, there are grave concerns about a humanitarian catastrophe. That contradicts the very reason why we are there: our military action is designed to protect civilians. There are also concerns about access for medical personnel, and we would appreciate an update on whether we are providing additional support to get medical personnel into Libya.
At a meeting today with Michelle Bachelet, the head of UN Women, the shadow Secretary of State for International Development and I discussed the concerns about sexual violence faced by women. May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the British Government will ensure that every effort is made to provide security and safety for women in conflict, not just in Libya but in other parts of the world? As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), drawing on her experiences in Iraq, human rights, particularly those of women, are crucial and are often left out of major discussions and political negotiations on matters of conflict.
Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members raised concerns about what is happening in Syria. We, like the Government, denounce the appalling violence that the Government of Syria are using against their own people. We recognise the complexity and difficulty of the situation and we call on the Government to do everything possible to ensure that every pressure is put on the Government of Syria to bring an end to the violence against their people, who are out protesting. Will the Secretary of State for International Development, in his summing up, update the House on his assessment of the situation on Syria’s borders, and tell us whether large numbers of civilians are starting to leave that country?
On the situation in the middle east, many right hon. and hon. Members spoke passionately about the situation in Israel and Palestine and the need for a lasting peaceful settlement, with many highlighting the deaths of Palestinians over the weekend and the security concerns of Israel. We heard speeches from both sides of the argument: my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke with great expertise about the plight of the people of Palestine, and others spoke of concerns about the security issues facing the Israeli people. It is clear that we desperately need a lasting settlement in the middle east, and we urge the Government to do everything possible to keep the pressure on the US and on the Israeli and Palestinian Governments to resume negotiations as soon as possible.
I now want to address issues concerning Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly the political settlement in Afghanistan and the great concern about the exclusion of women from those negotiations. That concern has been raised a number of times in our discussions with politicians in Afghanistan, and we very much hope that the UK Government will do everything possible to make sure that women have a strong voice in the peace process, including in discussions about the role of the Taliban. There are particular fears about the violation of women’s human rights in Afghanistan, and we must do everything possible to ensure that those rights are not neglected—not just in Afghanistan but in Libya, Egypt and the many other countries in the middle east that currently face such challenges.
In conclusion, I reiterate how vital it is for the House to debate this important issue and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the opportunity to do so. I hope that in his summing up the Secretary of State for International Development will shed light on the many issues that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that he will address some of the questions that have not yet been answered, particularly about the widening scope of the UN resolution and about the humanitarian situation in Libya and other countries. I also hope that he will ensure that Britain provides the support needed not only to bring an end to the violence in countries such as Libya, but to ensure that the aspirations and hopes of the people who have been out on the streets demonstrating over recent months are realised.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
This has been an important, timely and wide-ranging debate—a huge mouthful of a debate with a number of very fine speeches, not least from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who speaks for the Opposition. I will address the issue of Libya at the end of my remarks and I will write to hon. Members if I do not cover the issues that they raised.
Let me start with a view of the discussion on the middle east. The transition sweeping the middle east is an historic opportunity for the region, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The Government are working to ensure that the international community rises to the challenge in its support for countries that embark on change. It is in our interests to ensure that those transitions succeed, but significant challenges must be addressed before lasting stability can be achieved. In particular, there must be the political and economic reforms that will support sustainable growth and facilitate the transition to a freer, fairer and more inclusive society. Britain is pushing the international institutions to play a leading role in galvanising support for that process, including by meeting the significant financial needs. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), said, the role of the European Union is critical. We are pressing for the restructuring of European neighbourhood funding for the region to ensure that it backs strong commitments to political and economic reform and to make it easier for countries in the region to trade with Europe. We also plan to fund a “know-how” facility to provide immediate access to expertise on economic reform. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) raised that issue. The facility will be closely linked to the efforts and expertise of the international financial institutions.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the European Union has a huge and critical role to play. The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the expansion of the Foreign Office footprint, but said that it was not expanding in the middle east. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already represented in all the countries that we are discussing today, and more widely. The mission to Benghazi is an example of the expansion of the Foreign Office in a timely and sensible way.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) spoke with his usual expertise about Tunisia. He spoke wisely about elections and in particular about the importance of opening up markets. The difficult but important subject of the international arms trade was raised by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I emphasise that there are high British standards for this trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out in an excellent intervention. In the end the answer is for the international community to accept the need for an international arms trade treaty.
On the occupied Palestinian territories, the wave of democratic movements that we are witnessing represents a unique opportunity to take forward the middle east peace process. The violence over the weekend at Israel’s borders underlines the urgency of making progress. With British support, the Palestinian Authority has developed its institutions to the point where the International Monetary Fund, the UN and the World Bank have recognised them as technically ready for statehood. To achieve a two-state solution it is important that this work continues. The recent announcement of a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a step in the right direction if it leads to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace—a point set out eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot).
We heard disparate but firmly held views across the Chamber this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was characteristically forthright, and I thank him for his kind comments about my Department. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), on whose civil partnership the whole House will wish to congratulate him, from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who entered the House on the same day as I did and whose views have not changed one jot in the past 24 years, from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) in a fine speech, and from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who touched on Israel in a wide-ranging speech. Everyone was united in the absolute requirement to make progress and to take advantage of the changed circumstances, which were eloquently described.
Mr Mitchell
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment, I turn now to Yemen. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) warned of the continuing crisis. I will consider carefully some of his wider comments. With reference to Yemen, I am concerned that alongside the current political impasse, we are seeing an escalating economic crisis. In particular we are seeing increasing reports of fuel shortages and rises in food prices. Any further deterioration in the economy could prompt a much broader humanitarian crisis, not least because without fuel, much of Yemen cannot be provided with water.
The British Government are working with aid agencies to ensure that they can respond to humanitarian needs in Yemen, and I can announce today that we will be committing additional support to UNICEF and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs under the United Nations humanitarian response plan for Yemen. Through this support we will prevent 11,000 children under five from dying of malnutrition, vaccinate 54,000 children against measles, saving lives and preventing blindness, deafness and brain damage in over 2,000 children, and ensure that agencies have rapid access to funds if Yemen tips into a humanitarian crisis.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I have even greater concerns about the situation in Syria. The current ongoing human rights abuses and lack of access for humanitarian organisations is particularly worrying. If organisations are to compile an accurate picture of need, sustained unhindered humanitarian access is essential. I call on the Syrian Government to allow United Nations humanitarian organisations unfettered access to undertake assessments of the situation across Syria without delay. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the EU will insist that the violence must stop or additional measures will be taken, and I note that there was strong support across the House for that stance.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) mentioned the importance of international press and humanitarian access in Syria, but I can offer nothing for his or anyone else’s comfort on that point tonight. Finally, with regard to the sensible comments made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, we are watching the humanitarian situation on the borders with great care. I discussed that matter a few days ago with Jakob Kellenberger, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Pakistan, which has been mentioned a great deal in the debate, remains a top priority for the Government. It can meet its enormous potential only if it works to stabilise its economy in the short term and to educate and develop opportunities for its rapidly expanding population in the longer term. A stable and prosperous Pakistan that can meet the needs of its people will benefit regional and global stability and security.
Britain will therefore support Pakistan in achieving this end. As the Prime Minister announced last month, our aim is to help Pakistan to get 4 million children into school, out of a population of 17 million who do not go to school. Pakistan could become Britain’s largest country development programme, but only if we see commitment and progress on reform from its Government, including a fairer approach to taxing its elite.
The people of Pakistan have suffered grievously from terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, many thousands of civilians have been killed and many more maimed or injured. The right hon. Member for Warley made the same point. Osama bin Laden was no friend to the people of Pakistan; all he brought was a nihilistic message of death and destruction. His death, however, presents an opportunity for a brighter future in Pakistan and the region. Pakistan can make greater strides in its fight against extremism and the way is now clear for the Taliban to make a decisive break from al-Qaeda and join the Afghan political process. The choice is theirs. Peace and security can be improved for Afghan and Pakistan civilians on both sides of their border.
To grasp this opportunity, Pakistan needs to make a clean break with the past. There are serious questions to be answered on bin Laden’s support network in Pakistan, and we welcome Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement of an investigation into the matter. Nevertheless, it is right that we remain steadfast in our support for Pakistan as its democratically elected Government continue their fight against terrorism.
Pakistan matters to us. In an increasingly interconnected world, the UK cannot simply look on from the sidelines. More than 1 million people of Pakistani origin live in this country. We have a long, close and historic relationship with Pakistan. What happens there directly affects us. There is no serious alternative to our continued engagement with Pakistan. Neither the region, nor we, would be safer by leaving a nuclear power that is in danger of extremism and instability to its fate, a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) made in an interesting and thoughtful speech.
Our engagement with Pakistan must therefore be both long term and strategic. Increasing access to high-quality education and developing greater economic opportunities will improve the lives of the Pakistani people and help strengthen resilience to terrorism. A stable and prosperous Pakistan that can meet the needs of its people will not only benefit regional stability and security, but directly benefit our own security.
On Afghanistan, the Chair of the International Development Committee noted that we should not concentrate only on military aspects, important though they are, and I join the whole House in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead, who recently lost his life. Although the next four years will be critical, 2015 will not be the end of the story. This is why Britain has made a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. It is unrealistic to expect the Afghan Government to become perfect in such a relatively short time, but they must be strong enough to secure the support of their people and defend themselves. To achieve these objectives, the Department for International Development is focusing on three development aims: supporting stability in insecure areas, stimulating growth and building the capability of the Afghan Government to deliver basic services.
I was able to see for myself the very real impact that aid is having on stability when I recently visited Helmand. British assistance has helped to train more than 2,000 policemen and women, built 12 checkpoints, with 16 more in construction, and laid more than 80 km of roads, giving local farmers the access to markets that they badly need.
At the same time, we are helping people to develop the skills that they need to improve their lives. We are developing plans to provide vocational training for 45,000 people, and that will include funding Turquoise Mountain to equip almost 200 men and women with traditional skills and crafts.
Although there is evidence of progress, the scale of Afghanistan’s challenge remains considerable, as the recent disgraceful events relating to the Kabul Bank have illustrated. We are working closely with the International Monetary Fund and the Government of Afghanistan to address the very serious issues that have arisen. They are undoubtedly a setback, but I can reassure the House that we have wasted no time in taking steps to protect British taxpayers’ money.
On the wider economic front, Afghanistan is making good progress. With British support, it has achieved 20% growth in revenue each year since 2002, and economic growth averaged 9% between 2002 and 2010.
The mining sector will be absolutely critical to future growth. I met Minister Shahrani in March and was encouraged to hear about the reforms that he is making—reforms that Britain is supporting. He also told me of his success in letting a number of mining concessions, and the details of the 108 contracts on the departmental website are also welcome evidence of its commitment to transparency and accountability.
Decades of conflict have inevitably left Afghanistan’s civil service ill equipped to do its job. During my visit, I announced funding for the Government-led civilian technical assistance programme, which will provide international and regional expertise to support local and national Government as we train the next generation of Afghan civil servants.
On Libya, I pay tribute to the thoughtful and important speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and for Salisbury (John Glen), and to the interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I wish to address directly one of the points that the right hon. Member for Warley made in his opening remarks.
Britain made two important decisions on humanitarian issues early on in the conflict. First, we gave very strong support to the weight of migrant workers moving across the borders into Tunisia and Egypt, and as a result of that support from Britain and others almost 800,000 migrant workers have crossed those borders and tonight fewer than 10,000 are caught on them. That help has prevented a logistical crisis from turning into a humanitarian emergency.
Our second key decision was to announce that we would finance the rescue of 5,000 poor migrant workers who have been caught out on the portside in Misrata and subject to shelling and other attacks in recent weeks. Britain has been able to lift some 4,000 of them out of Misrata, and the final boat to remove the last 1,000 should go in any day now. The House will be aware that Misrata is no longer in Gaddafi’s hands but has been completely taken over by the interim transitional national council.
In addition to that, we are also working closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Medical Corps to supply medicines, 30 tonnes of which were recently delivered by boat to Misrata, and to support 100,000 internally displaced persons as well as 3,000 walking wounded.
We will shortly deploy a stabilisation response team, including some 10 stabilisation experts and 20 support and protection officials, to join together with the United States, Italy and the European Union. That team will work on infrastructure demands, basic services, justice, security and a political plan, all of which will be necessary following the ceasing of the conflict and as part of an early recovery.
We will of course work closely with the United Nations. When I saw Michelle Bachelet this morning, I had a chance to discuss with her the very matter that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised. All of us believe that the plan that is worked up must be run by the United Nations, owned by the Libyans and supported by the region, the European Union and the international financial institutions.
All of us in the Chamber can draw inspiration from the way in which democracy is beginning to flower throughout the middle east. The Arab spring marks a truly historic moment not only for the middle east itself, but for us here in the United Kingdom. Our own peace and prosperity depend on the stability of the region and on the rights and freedoms that it espouses. Yes, there are challenges, and we will rise to them. The international community—
Business without Debate
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I inquire whether a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has any intention of coming to the House to explain and answer questions on the written statement that was issued on Friday about performing wild animals in circuses. Following a consultation started by the previous Government, there had been an expectation that the coalition Government would bring in a ban on exotic animals in circuses. There is now a written statement saying that the Government are not going to do that. I hope you will agree, Mr Speaker, that a Minister should come to the House and explain why that is the case.
Mr Speaker
I have received no indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement. I am aware of the close interest in the subject that the hon. Gentleman has long expressed. In view of his 14 years’ experience in the House, he will be well aware of ways in which he can continue to pursue this matter, and I trust that he will.
Farming (Droughts)
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting this debate. I also thank the many hon. Members who have said that they will be present, one or two of whom may intervene during the debate.
This spring has been very dry; March was the driest in 50 years. Suffolk has suffered having had just 13% of its average rainfall across the entire county. Until this weekend, no rain had fallen in my constituency since February; that indicates the general dryness of what we have been suffering. My constituency has a mixture of clay fields, which have been able to absorb some water over the winter, and, predominantly, sand fields, on which a significant amount of agriculture relies.
I recognise that the consumer will probably do okay out of all this, because there is no prospect of a hosepipe ban in my part of England, and I understand that that is equally unlikely in other parts of the country. I also recognise that some farmers welcome these temperatures and are not worried about the lack of rain, because it is producing bumper crops of fruits and similar produce.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
If this drought continues, it will affect not only those in rural constituencies but the pocket of every constituent of every Member of this House in six months to a year’s time. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is therefore extraordinary that there is no Opposition Member, shadow Minister or shadow Whip in the House—in fact, nobody on the Opposition Benches at all?
Dr Coffey
I share my hon. and learned Friend’s great concern. More than 10 of us are in the House, which is unusual for an Adjournment debate. Hon. Friends present represent rural constituencies and urban constituencies. Given that some of our colleagues from across the way claim to represent rural areas, their farmers and constituents will be disappointed.
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that this situation will come to impact on every single person in this country. One of the challenges that our farmers face is that irrigation is needed to meet the quality standards that our supermarkets demand for what they will sell on their shelves. This is also about the price that we are prepared to pay for our food. There is an impact not just on the price of a potato or an onion, but on the feed for our livestock because of a lack of forage and hay, which will have repercussions next winter. We will all pay a heavy price for that.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend might be surprised to hear a Member from west Wales complaining about the lack of rain, but does she agree that her point about feed price will have a significant downstream effect on dairy producers, who are beginning to realise that their industry will be affected in six to eight months’ time?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend are right to recognise that this issue will impact on everyone. If our countrymen are happy to see greater imports, perhaps we will be protected from the price surges, but I believe that given the choice most people in this country would prefer to buy British, so we must do something as a consequence.
As I said, this issue does not affect all farmers or all counties across the country, but it does impact on the bread basket of our fair land. In my constituency, spraying has started early. Irrigation has long been part of the agriculture of Suffolk Coastal, which has a similar climate to north Africa. We have imported technologies from Morocco, Israel and similar places in recognition of the fact that we have one of the driest areas, although I recognise that one of my colleagues believes that his area is drier. This issue is impacting not just on agriculture, but on wildlife. Landguard nature reserve near Felixstowe is facing similar troubles and the lack of water is having an impact on biodiversity.
I will come on to the realities affecting farmers in my part of the world. The people who abstract came together in 1997 to form the East Suffolk Water Abstractors Group. They work with the Environment Agency to abstract correctly and appropriately to balance the needs of different water users. Most people have a quota for the year. Some people have taken a gamble by starting to spray early compared with previous seasons. They are concerned that they might be restricted later in the season. Thus far, the Environment Agency has not shown the flexibility that it did in 2009, when it allowed people to abstract later. I recognise that the Environment Agency has been proactive on this front and is working with farmers and other people to manage the situation. I pay tribute to it, because it is difficult to strike the right balance. However, there is no question but that people in my constituency are worried about the potential lack of water for their crops.
Some people abstract from ground water. Thus far, the aquifers are coping, but there is genuine concern about what will be available later in the summer and in the early autumn if there is no further rainfall. The situation is more worrying for people who abstract from the rivers. This matter has been referred to by other Members who are worried about the impact on biodiversity. I believe that we should be more worried about the impact on food and agriculture. Frankly, other things can be cosmetic and temporary, whereas if farming is wiped out in certain areas of our country, it will greatly disadvantage food security.
What is the risk to rivers? In my constituency, the Blyth is running very slowly. Other parties, such as the internal drainage boards and the water companies, sometimes help by pumping water out to increase the flow. However, some of the farmers in my constituency are facing the reality that, by the end of next month, they may no longer be able to abstract at all. That is particularly worrying. Will the Minister say what co-ordinated action is being taken by the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards, water companies and farmers to understand how we can ensure that abstraction can continue?
I recognise that back in 2006, the last time we had a particularly dry summer, there was some voluntary activity that worked very well. People ended up abstracting every other day, and they managed to cope through that summer. I am keen to ensure that there is similar preparation in future.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I inform the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising farmer.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the world is a much more precarious place with regard to food than it has been for many years? Our world reserves are much lower than they have been, and countries such as China are importing much more maize and wheat than they ever used to. A shortage of production in this country for this harvest is therefore likely to have a much greater effect on household bills than it has in the past. Will she join me in urging the Government to adopt every flexible measure that they can, particularly in relation to water?
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that correct point. In my view, water is the new oil, and we need to ensure that we are careful with it where we can be. We have already seen cases of commodity prices spiking thanks to demand from the far east, particularly China, and we have felt the consequences. I agree that we need to be able to feed ourselves as best we can and not be subject to unnecessary spikes.
The rural development programme has given some priority to the management of resources such as water. In my constituency, the East of England Development Agency has undertaken some relevant projects. I do not have the details, but I am led to believe that 100,000 cubic metres of new storage facility will be made available in the summer. I would like the Minister to give us an understanding of the influence that he could have in helping the future programme of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the existing programmes that are under the auspices of development agencies, to address the real need that exists. I understand that licences need to be made more flexible so that more water can be harvested in the winter, and that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 changed the parameters so that those harvesting 10,000 cubic metres took on a significantly greater regulatory burden. What can we do to remove that burden and encourage co-operative reservoirs?
I will put in a bid for my area. A tiny part of my constituency managed to get in on the Leader programme, and I know that Suffolk is one of the pilot counties for the “Total Environment” scheme. I hope that we will be able to move forward after 2013 and allow Suffolk to form more co-operatives, so that funding can be diverted towards water storage. That would be good for farmers, for consumers and for the environment, and I am sure the Minister will put his mind to it.
I know that the farming community has great confidence in our Minister. He is a Suffolk man who was born in my constituency, and he was a farmer. [Interruption.] He still is a farmer—I apologise. I was not fully cognisant of that. The industry is looking for flexibility for the Environment Agency and for local farmers and stakeholders, and on that point I am more than confident in handing over to him.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her initiative in calling for the debate and persuading you, Mr Speaker, to grant her this opportunity. It allows us to focus on an issue that is becoming of increasing importance every day not only to farmers but, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has pointed out, to the rest of the general public.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal has rightly said, she represents the area where I was born and grew up, so I have a particular affinity for her constituents and understand the problems that they face.
In the title of the debate on the Order Paper, my hon. Friend uses the words “potential drought”. I asked the Environment Agency earlier today what the definition of a drought is, and I was told that there are a number of definitions, none of which yet fit. Nevertheless, most people in the countryside and most farmers would argue that we are in a difficult situation, which has been described to me as “an intense dry spell”. My hon. Friend spoke of the rainfall in Suffolk, but nationally, we have received only 61% of normal rainfall over the past three months, and in April we received only 24% of that average.
Soil moisture is at a level more usual at the start of June. Despite that, reservoirs are mostly at near-normal levels, but as my hon. Friend has rightly said, rivers are experiencing exceptionally low flows, which I shall come back to. Those low river levels are beginning to impact on farmers who rely on water abstraction to irrigate their crops, but they are also beginning to cause environmental damage and to have an impact on canals and waterways, as my hon. Friend has said.
So far, the dry spell has meant mixed fortunes for farmers. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, this has been a good season in parts of the country where they grow a lot of fruit. The weather has improved pollination rates, and we are getting English strawberries earlier than ever. It is not all bad news, but as she has said, and as I know from my constituency, crops on light and medium land are badly affected.
At Question Time last week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the House that she would this week convene a water meeting with water companies and with farming and environment groups to ensure that we are properly prepared for prolonged dry conditions. That meeting took place today, and I am happy that I coincidentally have this opportunity to inform my hon. Friend and the House of some of the outcomes.
My hon. Friend has referred to 1976. The situation is very bad in our part of England—the east of England—but it is not yet a repetition of 1976, which has gone down in the annals of history as probably the worst ever event for farmers. I add that in the past three years, EEDA, to which my hon. Friend has referred, has assisted in the construction of some 26 farm reservoirs, of which there were very few back in 1976. At today’s meeting, we were told by farmers’ representatives that the latest estimate was for a 12% reduction in cereal yields, although that hides a massive range—some estimates suggest that some farmers will experience a 50% reduction.
The impact on the horticulture sector, in both fruit and vegetables, is much more variable. As I have said, top fruit and soft fruit have generally benefited, whereas vegetable production has needed irrigation much earlier in the season than usual, as my hon. Friend has rightly said. That means that growers who have a limited amount of water to use, whether from a reservoir or abstraction rights, must think about rationing their usage.
The picture on livestock farms is one of concern—mainly about costs, particularly following a prolonged winter—but it is not yet one of panic, although I stress that we are only in the middle of May. In the dairy sector, the National Farmers Union advice is that the dry weather has brought forward the grass silage harvest, and boosted grass-sugar and energy levels, which has benefited those in good grass-growing regions.
Further east, back in our part of the world, and in the drier parts of the country, the dry spring will mean that there is less grass to cut or to graze cows on this spring. For all areas, re-growth will be stunted if there is a prolonged dry period. At a time when concentrate feed is very expensive, as my hon. Friend has said, reduced forage crop yields could mean substantially increased costs to farmers throughout the rest of this year. It is also worth mentioning that a poor cereal harvest—cereal farmers are experiencing very short straw—will mean a shortage of straw, much of which is exported for livestock from the east to the west of the country.
As my hon. Friend has said, it is clear that the main problem is for farmers who do not have reservoirs, who do not abstract from groundwater and who abstract from our rivers. Farmers have to compete for those abstraction rights with water companies, which abstract for human consumption, and with other industries. Overall, therefore, there are diminishing supplies. At this morning’s meeting, we felt this was an issue of great importance, and I can tell the House that we will be arranging a further meeting shortly specifically to consider the competing priorities for abstraction.
I emphasise that all Ministers in the Department recognise that, as my hon. Friend has said, both yield and quality of produce are affected by water supply. We do not wish to see farmers restricted unnecessarily, but obviously none of us can guarantee that those restrictions will not be required. I was not aware that, as she has suggested, farmers already believe that they will be restricted by the end of this month. I will consider that point tomorrow. However, the Environment Agency assured us today that it is trying to work with farmers to minimise the consequences. The point was raised—this is very relevant in today’s world—about allowing farmers with reservoirs to top them up during any summer surges. As we have seen over the past few years, we get horrendous summer storms. In a draught, there can suddenly be torrential storms, and it seems sensible that on those occasions, when there is a surge in the river, they could be used to top up reservoirs. That will be looked at.
Irrigation is not the only problem, of course. Farmers, particularly in my hon. Friend’s area—I know it very well—which has large areas of light-land forestry and heath land, are concerned about the potential impact of fire during this dry period. We will continue to work closely with those on the ground to warn the public, wherever possible, of the risks of fire in those circumstances. As she has mentioned, however, there are also the problems facing habitats in wet areas resulting from water drying up.
Taking a longer perspective, last week the Secretary of State published a Command Paper setting out the strong economic, social and environmental case for ensuring that our infrastructure is resilient enough to cope with the effects of climate change. Who can tell whether today’s circumstances are the result of climate change? None of us can. None the less, the document pays particular regard to water infrastructure, which will need to cope, we believe, with hotter and drier summers, more extreme weather events and changing precipitation patterns in the years to come.
As my hon. Friend has said, water may well be today’s oil—or tomorrow’s oil at any rate—so to help realise the Government’s vision of a well-adapted infrastructure network that can continue to support our economy, our infrastructure operators have been instructed to prepare climate risk assessments under the Climate Change Act 2008. My noble Friend Lord Henley will publish those assessments from water companies this Friday.
It is clear from what my hon. Friend and I have said that rights of water abstraction are a major issue for farmers. Work is going ahead, in consultation with farmers and a wide range of stakeholders, on the water White Paper, which we have already announced and hope to publish this autumn. We are considering whether to reform the water abstraction regime to facilitate investment, not least in reservoirs, and to respond to increased variability and the reduced availability of water owing to climate change. Of key interest to farmers will be the potential in such reform to increase the regulatory certainty in the abstraction regime in order to help farmers invest in storage.
My hon. Friend has asked me about the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the regulations on reservoirs of more than 10,000 cubic metres. She is right that the Act allows the extension of the Reservoirs Act 1975 to those reservoirs in the 10,000 cubic metres to 25,000 cubic metres capacity range. Reservoirs that pose negligible risks to public safety will not be regulated. Many farm irrigation reservoirs are remote from built-up areas and are of low-embankment height, and that includes reservoirs currently regulated under the 1975 Act. I hope that goes some way to allaying her concerns.
While I am talking about reservoirs, perhaps I should respond to my hon. Friend’s point about the rural development programme for England, through which, as she has rightly said, our development agency has assisted the 26 reservoirs to which I have referred. Even though regional development agencies will cease to exist—many are being phased out now—I assure her that the rural development programme for England, which we are bringing back in house at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will continue. I am not going to make light of the point that finances are obviously tight, and there have been some—I hope relatively small—reductions in the amount of money available. However, the overall programme and the assistance under it will remain in place for the rest of the programme.
Of key interest to farmers will be regulatory certainty. We are working closely with our farmers to develop that reform. In our approach to the White Paper, we are also considering a package of shorter-term measures to facilitate trading in abstraction licences, which should assist farmers managing their water use efficiently. It may surprise my hon. Friend to know—indeed, it surprised me—that there are farmers with abstraction licences who do not use them. Indeed, I discovered that there was one close to my home only over the weekend—the farmer is now thinking about using it. That is the situation, so the ability to trade licences would be a step forward.
We are also funding research into a wide range of issues, including investigating ways to improve water use. My hon. Friend referred several times to the use of spray irrigation, which is by far the commonest form of irrigation, although most people would accept that it probably wastes the most water. It is worth pointing out that those who use trickle irrigation are not subject to abstraction licences, so the more that we can do to improve water usage for irrigation—with more effective and perhaps novel strategies—the better. We are also investing in research that aims to anticipate the effects of climate change, so that we can be more accurate in helping people find the best ways to adapt. There is obviously also an issue when it comes to developing new and sustainable ways of providing livestock with sources of potable water, including novel methods for harvesting, storing and delivering water from rainfall, as well as from traditional sources such as rivers and streams.
Finally, if I may say so, I am really pleased that my hon. Friend proposed this debate. Indeed, it is also novel to see so many hon. Friends present, which shows the level of interest in this issue, which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is a common subject of discussion among farmers, as I expect that you find in your constituency too, Mr Speaker. The weather has always been a subject of conversation, but this year more than ever, because farmers are understandably concerned. We do not know what the next few weeks hold. The Met Office forecast for the rest of May is not very encouraging for those who want rainfall, but beyond that none of us is prepared to speculate, least of all me. However, I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that we take the issue seriously. Today’s meeting was really a stock-taking exercise to establish what the situation is, so that we can be in a better position to react, within the realms of feasibility for any Government. I assure her that I am not about to become the Minister for drought and that I will not do a rain dance or anything like that. However, I hope that I have assured her that we are concerned and are doing all that we can to free up the system and ensure that her farmers and mine, along with those in other affected parts of the country, are able to produce the best crops that they can in difficult circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
Modern Workplaces Consultation
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Today the Government have launched a consultation on plans to modernise employment practices in the UK, making them more flexible, more family-friendly and fitter for the 21st century. The modern workplaces consultation proposes changes to employment law that will give employers and employees alike greater choice and flexibility, making it easier for parents to balance domestic and professional responsibilities and helping employers to recruit and retain skilled people.
The proposals cover four main areas:
A new system of flexible parental leave. The consultation seeks views on replacing the current, rigid system of maternity and paternity leave with new arrangements that will allow mothers and fathers to share leave, encouraging shared parenting while enabling both parents to retain their attachment to the workplace. We also propose giving parents and employers much greater choice over exactly how and when leave is taken, enabling them to agree arrangements that suit them both;
Extending the right to request flexible working to all employees. This will spread the benefits that flexible working can bring to all parts of the society and economy. It will give businesses access to a wider pool of skills and talents, improve recruitment and retention rates, and increase staff morale and productivity;
Changes to the working time regulations as a result of Court of Justice of the European Union cases about the interaction of annual leave with other types of leave; and
Requiring employers who lose an employment tribunal case on equal pay to carry out a pay audit.
Taken together, these measures will deliver on several important commitments in the coalition agreement. We will introduce the changes in a way that maximises flexibility for both employers and employees, providing the necessary framework for a competitive business environment and economic growth, without compromising fairness.
The consultation is the latest step in the Government’s comprehensive review of employment law, on which the next steps were announced last week. We want to make it easier for businesses to employ people, but also for people to balance work and family commitments.
Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the House Libraries.
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I am pleased to announce that having considered the response to the Treasury’s targeted consultation on the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill, the Government have decided to take forward the proposed reforms, when parliamentary time permits.
These reforms are based on the recommendations made by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in their 2009 report “Consumer Insurance Law: Pre-Contract Disclosure and Misrepresentation” (Law Com 319/Scot Law Com 219).
The Bill will replace the requirement for consumers to volunteer information about everything which a “prudent insurer” would consider relevant with the requirement that insurers ask particular questions to obtain specific information about the customer. The current law and regulations on information disclosure are complex, and this Bill will provide protection for consumers and reduce costs for industry.
The Bill is the result of lengthy consultation and has broad-based support from industry and consumer groups. The Bill will be subject to minor modifications to meet concerns raised during the consultation.
A summary of the responses to the consultation, and the Government’s response, has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Equitable Life Scheme Design Document
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Treasury has today published the Equitable Life payment scheme design document.
The publication of the design document is a key step towards delivering the Government’s pledge of May 2010 to
“implement the parliamentary and health service ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure”.
The document sets out the detail of the scheme design, including:
the scheme rules;
the scheme administration and timetable;
the methodology behind loss and payment calculations;
the scheme’s approach to making payments;
the details of the queries and complaints procedure; and
the plans for communicating with policyholders.
Fairness, transparency and simplicity have been the guiding principles behind the Government’s approach to designing the scheme. The final design reflects these principles, as well as the actuarial analysis carried out by Towers Watson, the evidence and arguments received in response to the Government’s call for representations following the publication of Sir John Chadwick’s advice, and the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Equitable Life payments.
The scheme also reflects previous announcements that with-profits annuity policyholders will have their losses covered in full, and that scheme payments will be free of tax and will not affect eligibility for tax credits.
The Government have previously stated their ambition to make the first scheme payments by the middle of this year. They remain on track to do so, with plans to make the first payments before the end of June. Policyholders will not need to do anything to claim their payments—the scheme has policyholders’ details from Equitable Life and the Prudential and will contact policyholders in the first instance.
Copies of the paper are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available via the Treasury website.
Council of Europe: 121st Annual Ministerial Meeting: Istanbul, 10-11 May 2011
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I represented the United Kingdom at the 121st annual ministerial meeting of the Council of Europe in Istanbul on 10 and 11 May 2011.
The Turkish and Ukrainian chairmanships issued a declaration covering a statement in their joint names. This statement reaffirmed the Council of Europe’s role in protecting and promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law across the whole European continent and beyond; respect for and recognition of the political commitments and legally binding instruments to which all 47 member states are committed; and the urgent need to continue the current process of reform of the organisation.
I reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Council of Europe and its aims. I paid tribute to the reform work done so far under Secretary-General Jagland but noted that much more needed to be done. I gave notice that the forthcoming United Kingdom chairmanship would continue to support Mr Jagland’s reform programme while seeking to advance a programme of work under the theme of promoting and protecting human rights. A key priority of our chairmanship would be to drive forward the ongoing process of reform of the European Court of Human Rights, building on the agreements reached at the high-level conferences at Interlaken in February 2010 and at Izmir in April 2011.
At the end of the meeting, Turkey handed over the rotating six-month chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to Ukraine. The United Kingdom will succeed Ukraine as Chair of the Committee of Ministers on 7 November 2011 and hand over the Chairmanship to Albania on 14 May 2012. Each country will have its own set of chairmanship priorities, but the Ukrainians, the Albanians and we have agreed in addition that our three successive chairmanships from May 2011 to November 2012 will include certain shared priorities. These cover reform of the organisation; reform of the European Court of Human Rights; and raising the efficiency of Council of Europe work on local and regional democracy.
While in Istanbul, I also held separate talks with a number of key Council of Europe and bilateral colleagues. These included the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Mr Thorbjom Jagland; the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg; the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mr Alexander Grushko; the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Turkey, Mr Ahmet Davutoglu; the Minister for EU Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Mr Egemen Bagis; and the Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Sven Alkalaj.
I am placing a copy of the joint Turkish/Ukrainian statement, and of the UK statement, in the Library of the House. The latter document has already been published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Operation Gird
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to be able to announce that David Anderson QC has completed his report on the review of operation GIRD—the investigation of an alleged plot targeting the Papal visit of September last year. The report will be placed in the Library of the House and copies win also be available from the Vote Office.
I am grateful to David Anderson for his detailed report—his first as independent reviewer for terrorism legislation. I am also pleased that he finds that the police exercised the powers afforded them under the Terrorism Act 2000 lawfully and appropriately in seeking to prevent what they had reasonably suspected was a potential terrorist plot.
I welcome both his finding and his recommendations and intend to publish the Government’s full response shortly.
Sale of Trust Ports
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am today launching a consultation on the criteria that the Government consider particularly relevant to the consideration of the appropriateness of sale of a major trust port1 in England or Wales under the Ports Act 1991.
During the consultation period, which will run for six weeks until 27 June 2011, I am seeking the views of interested parties on the following criteria, which I propose to adopt in place of those set out in the written ministerial statement on the sale of trust ports of 25 January 2010, Official Report, column 44WS.
In view of this consultation, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to suspend her consideration of the application for a transfer of the port undertaking made by Dover Harbour Board under the Ports Act 1991 until I announce a decision on the proposed criteria.
The Proposed Criteria
The following criteria are those which the Government consider particularly relevant when considering an application under the Ports Act 1991 for the sale of a major trust port in England or Wales. This covers the consideration of any proposal for a transfer scheme submitted under section 9 or 10 of the 1991 Act, together with the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions in respect of the subsequent sale of the port to which the scheme relates. The Secretary of State also intends to have particular regard to the policy considerations set out below before making a transfer scheme himself under section 12 of the 1991 Act or subsequently approving the sale of a port to which his scheme relates.
Community participation
The Secretary of State will not approve an application for the sale of a trust port under the 1991 Act unless the sale is considered likely to deliver an ongoing and significant level of community participation in the port. Such participation could take a variety of forms, but must include the ability to influence the port’s long-term development and may include the right to receive a share in the profits of the port, or the future increase in its value. It does not necessarily require a community role in the operation of the port.
Future Development of the Port
The Secretary of State will not approve an application unless the sale is considered likely to deliver an ownership model with the capability and access to capital to meet future investment needs.
Fair price
The Secretary of State will not approve an application unless the sale is considered likely to represent good value for money, having regard not only to Exchequer proceeds and market conditions, but also to other benefits including those to the community and the wider economy.
Fair competition
The Secretary of State will not approve an application that is likely to deliver an ownership model which results in unsatisfactory levels of competition in the relevant sector.
Transport networks
It is highly desirable for an application to be likely to deliver an ownership model which will cause the port to be operated so as to contribute to reliable and efficient transport networks.
Sale process
It is highly desirable that the sale should be conducted in such a way as to give all bona fide prospective purchasers a fair and equitable opportunity to participate.
Employee involvement
It is desirable for an application to be likely to deliver port employee participation in the ownership of the port, such as the right to receive equity shares or a share in its future success2.
1For the purposes of the Act, a “major trust port” is a trust port with an annual turnover above a certain limit (currently £7.6 million). In England and Wales this currently includes Dover, Tyne, Milford Haven, Shoreham, Poole, Harwich Haven and the Port of London Authority (though the latter is excluded from provisions on privatisation contained in the Act).
2This is without prejudice to the Ports Act 1991 section 5(3) requirement to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to managers or other persons employed by the port company etc.
Broadcasting: Product Placement
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the uses to which the revenue received from product placement will be put by commercial broadcasters.
Baroness Rawlings
UK legislation does now allow for the placing of references to products, services or trade marks in television programmes in return for payment. However, most importantly, the use of any product placement revenues is a matter for individual commercial broadcasters.
Baroness Benjamin
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. I am sure she is aware that the BBC is now almost the sole provider of UK children’s television productions, and that, across the 30 channels, only 1 per cent of children’s programmes are made here in the UK. I am sure she is also aware that the commercial broadcasters use the restrictions on advertising during children’s programmes as a reason to stop commissioning children’s programmes, because of the loss of revenue. With product placement in mind, will the Minister consider encouraging the commercial broadcasters to take up their public service responsibility to children and to use some of the revenue from product placement to start commissioning children’s programmes once again?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her enthusiasm on this subject. Her enthusiasm keeps the subject regularly on the agenda, for which we are very grateful. The Government understand the importance of children’s television and will carefully consider relevant responses to the forthcoming review of the communications sector. However, the Government are not seeking to impose any additional regulatory burdens on broadcasters. The decision on how to spend the revenue from placement is entirely in the hands of Ofcom.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Can the Minister tell me how, or if, the public will be notified of product placement? Will they be aware that the television programme they are watching has a specific product placement element in it? Will there be a notification?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for that question. Following Ofcom’s introduction in 2011 of new rules for product placement on television, a large double P logo must appear on the screen for a minimum of three seconds at the start and the end of any programmes. The logo must also appear at the return of the programme following any advertising breaks.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, as the Minister will know, it is very much early days in the application of the new product placement rules. However, can she assure the House that the department will work very closely with Ofcom to ensure that children’s television remains solidly safeguarded from any creep towards the exploitation that product placement might entail?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We believe that it is right to be cautious initially so as not to alienate viewers, and special safeguards have been put in place on what may be promoted in this way. Some, such as restrictions on product placement of alcohol and prescription medicines, are set out in European law, and some in the UK regulations—such as the restrictions on foods high in fat, salt and sugar, which largely match the current advertising restrictions.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, following the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and given that we already have product placement, can we also encourage the feeding in of some of these resources to the production of quality radio for children? Surely this should be a particularly important area, not least because the BBC seems to be reneging somewhat on its commitment to quality radio programmes for children.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Baroness has a good point. Although it is up to Ofcom to assess whether broadcasters are meeting their obligations on children’s television, which includes the wireless, we also look to the broadcasters to consider allocating perhaps a percentage of their product-placement income to areas such as the Open University and libraries, to encourage more reading.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
Following the children’s television theme, I should point out that there are other potential sources of income—and I apologise in advance for using an acronym. If the CRR is abolished in the next Communications Act, ITV has undertaken to put extra money into British content. Does my noble friend agree that this undertaking should specifically include children’s programmes?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, we are very much aware of the possibility of more money going to children’s programmes. As I said, however, it is a matter for Ofcom.
Lord Borrie
Will the Minister consider asking Ofcom to specify a quota for children’s programmes? It could, of course, be updated from time to time. It would also ensure, in the public interest, that there is a sufficiency of children’s programmes. I think that that is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would like to see.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would like to have more programmes for children, and more money going into those programmes. However, Ofcom is independent and it would be wrong if we started to try to influence it in any way.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, what clout does Ofcom have against transgressors in this particular area?
Baroness Rawlings
I am afraid that I cannot remember the details of Ofcom’s regulatory process for people who transgress in this area.
Lord Christopher
My Lords, is it satisfactory simply to brush so much aside by saying, “This is a responsibility of Ofcom”? The broadcasting companies must have signed a contract, and if that contract had been satisfactory it would have included provision for an appropriate contribution to children’s programmes. Would the noble Baroness be good enough to enquire of Ofcom whether it is satisfied that these companies are fulfilling their contracts?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the last Government created Ofcom as an independent regulator. As I think I said earlier, as much as we would like to encourage various different programmes and practices, Ofcom is an independent body.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the Welsh television channel S4C has an enviable record in the production of children’s programmes. Although the Government have no massive powers in this area, will they encourage the translation of more of those Welsh television programmes into the English language?
Baroness Rawlings
I am sure that the Government would love to be able to do that, and no doubt we can suggest something. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Roberts could write to them to suggest it.
EU: Budget
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vinson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their programme of public sector savings, whether they will approve proposals to increase over the next three years the United Kingdom’s current net contribution of £8 billion to the European Union budget.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the UK cannot act unilaterally and is required to make its contributions to the EU budget under obligations imposed by the treaties. However, the Government are very concerned about the UK’s growing net contributions and are working hard to reduce them within the constraints of the 2007-13 financial perspective agreed in December 2005. According to the latest forecast, the UK’s net contributions will rise from £4.7 billion in 2009-10 to £8.9 billion in 2014-15.
Lord Vinson
I thank my noble friend for his carefully considered reply which is, I appreciate, configured by the limitations to his powers. However, does it really make sense to continue to pour billions of pounds into the economies of other EU countries, to bring fantastic infrastructure improvements to Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, while here at home our infrastructure is in decay? Could we at least contemplate at some stage diverting those funds into our economy, which at this stage would be a classical contracyclical investment, not only bringing great strength to our economy and improving our infrastructure but creating, allowing for the multiplier effect, at least 250,000 new jobs just when they are needed? Surely we should put the interests of our unemployed first.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I completely agree with the need to invest in infrastructure in this country, which is why we launched the first ever national infrastructure plan last autumn, at the beginning of our suite of pro-growth policies. Approximately £40 billion to £50 billion will be invested in the UK's infrastructure each year over the next five years. As to the European budget, it is quite right that we should make our contribution; but it is completely wrong that the previous Government gave away a significant part of the UK's rebate. The European Commission's figures show that in this year alone, the amount of rebate given away by the previous Government in 2005 will cost us £1.98 billion. As the result of the action that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor took in reducing by half the increase this year, we clawed back £350 million at the December decision. That is the scale of the challenge we face.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, would the Minister care to remind us of the size of the EU budget as a percentage of the gross product of the whole of the EU? Will he confirm that the percentage is roughly the same as it has been for some years?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there are various ways of peeling that onion, but there is indeed a maximum limit of 1.3 per cent, or thereabouts, of European GNI, and a sub-limit in the current financial perspective of about 1 per cent of European GNI. However, those numbers leave considerable latitude for headroom, and the regrettable fact is that that permits the annual budget to go up, if we do not restrain it, by more than inflation year-on-year. Regrettably, there is not enough constraint on total expenditure and it can rise if we are not vigilantly on the case, as this Government are.
Lord Newby
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in promoting growth across the EU, even more important than the EU budget is the completion of the single market? What are the Government doing to promote the completion of the single market, particularly in services?
Lord Sassoon
I am very grateful to my noble friend. Of course, we discussed some of the structural reform issues in a debate in the Chamber last Thursday. I can reiterate and confirm that the Government are working very hard indeed to be an active supporter of the whole 2020 structural reform programme. Completing the single market is perhaps the most critical component of that, and the Government are pushing very hard for that to happen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, in the light of the huge increases in our net contribution, which will continue, is it not time that we had a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the EU; or, perhaps better still, a referendum on whether we should remain in it?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the analysis is carried out periodically by the Treasury. Reviews of the independent analysis of the benefits of our membership are available on the Treasury website. Europe accounts for 40 to 50 per cent of our exports. It is critical that we play a constructive part in Europe and that we work on factors such as those referred to by my noble friend Lord Newby to make sure that the market works better and that the UK takes full advantage of it.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, this is inevitably an extremely difficult issue at a time of stringency, but does the Minister agree that the rise in our contribution agreed in the 2005 budget deal was intended principally to meet this country’s commitment to enlargement and the increase in the structural funds that went with it? Does he also agree that, if we had not made that agreement, Poland and other new member states with living standards of a third or 40 per cent of ours would have ended up contributing to the British rebate? As for the unfairness in our contributions, does he accept that at the end of this financial period the UK net contribution will be on a par with that of France and Italy—member states of similar size and wealth?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I do not begin to accept any of that analysis. In 2005, the Prime Minister, evidently without consulting his Chancellor, gave away in the rebate a total of €10.5 billion over the current financial perspective period. What the UK got in return is a complete mystery to me. We were promised some leverage in fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy and we got nothing. This Government will not see a repeat of that.
Parliament: Elected House of Lords
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kakkar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to secure the primacy of the House of Commons if the House of Lords is replaced by an elected Chamber.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, an important part of the plans for reform of this House is the continued primacy of the House of Commons. The Government are clear that the role of this House is, and should continue to be, to complement the other place.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for his reply, which I think to an extent recognises the considerable anxiety not only among Members of your Lordships’ House but among members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place about the failure to address adequately the question of primacy of the other place. We all await with eager anticipation the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister and his draft Bill to determine whether they provide further insights into this important constitutional issue. However, I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the profound constitutional implications that attend abolition of your Lordships’ House and its replacement with an elected second Chamber require that any proposals that come forward enjoy genuine confidence. In this regard, will the noble Lord confirm that there will be a free vote on the Bill in both your Lordships’ House and the other place?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I join the noble Lord and, I expect, many others in eagerly anticipating the announcement that will be made shortly by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. With regard to understanding the profound implications of any change that might take place, again I agree with the noble Lord: they would be profound if this House became a wholly elected body, as I think is well understood by those who propose such a change. We would decide the issue of a free vote when we came to a final conclusion about what would appear in a Bill, if any, and when it would be presented to both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I remind the Leader of the House of the conclusion of the Cunningham committee that, should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the Lords, the conventions between the two Houses would have to be examined again. Can the noble Lord assure me that if, as we understand will be the case, a Joint Committee is set up, it will be charged with looking at the conventions between the two Houses?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is proposed that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses—an authoritative body of senior parliamentarians who would meet and examine the White Paper and the draft Bill. They could look at any aspects of them, which might include the conclusions of the Cunningham committee. My own view is that in the long term, if the composition of this House were to change, the conventions might change between this House and another place but there is no reason why they should. That will be up to decisions taken by the Members of either House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will my noble friend take this opportunity to denounce the ludicrous reports that have appeared in the press that the size of this Chamber could be reduced by holding some kind of lottery? Is that not insulting to this Chamber and to its Members?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I dare say that I ought to say I cannot pre-empt a statement from my right honourable friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, but on this occasion I am prepared to confirm that it is an absurd suggestion and will not appear in the White Paper.
Lord Grocott
Have the Government, whichever part of the coalition, still not picked up the overwhelming voice of the British people as expressed in the referendum a week last Thursday, which showed by a majority of between two-thirds and three-quarters that the British people do not want expenditure, time and energy spent on fancy constitutional change, even if they are being proposed relentlessly by such an important and significant figure as the Deputy Prime Minister? Can I suggest something very helpful to the Government? They would save two precious commodities—time and money—if they did not go any further with these proposals.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always useful and helpful to have some advice from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was a Member of the Government who published several White Papers on this subject in their period in office. We hope to publish only one.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the Minister accept that even if there were to be no formal change in the powers of this House, in practice a wholly or largely elected House would find it very difficult to show the sensitive respect for the primacy of the House of Commons that this Chamber does with, from time to time, a few justifiable aberrations?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is a good point that a wholly elected House may well wish to use the powers of this House in a more assertive way and no doubt that is one of the issues a Joint Committee would wish to look at.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, did my noble friend see the statement by Mr Hilary Benn last week that the Labour Party is now committed to a 100 per cent elected House and that nothing less will do? Does he agree that the balance of responsibility and power between the two Houses will inevitably be affected by the number of people elected to this House and does he therefore think that the primacy of the Commons should be reflected in the draft Bill by at least keeping in the option of 80 per cent elected?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. Different Members of either House will feel differently about the role of primacy of the House of Commons depending on what proportion of this House were to be elected. I noted too, as he did, that the shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Hilary Benn, said that the Labour Party was now entirely in favour of a 100 per cent elected House.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, might I press the Leader of the House a little further on the point raised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition? The noble Lord said in relation to the Cunningham committee report that the issues round the conventions “might” be revisited. I remind him that the Cunningham committee report was accepted by both Houses unanimously and was unequivocal in saying that the conventions must be revisited.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I would have to refresh my mind on the conclusions of the Cunningham committee, but I do not think that it was an absolute requirement that the conventions must be revisited. The committee stated that if this House were to be substantially reformed, that could have an effect on the conventions, which should be re-examined at that stage. I see no difficulty in that.
Palestine
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the proposed Palestinian statehood declaration, which is planned to be placed before the United Nations General Assembly in September.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we see negotiations towards a two-state solution as the only way to meet the national aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians and lead to a sovereign, viable and contiguous Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside a safe and secure Israel and their other neighbours in the region.
The UK is fully committed to supporting the Fayyad plan and helping build the institutions of a future Palestinian state, but a negotiated solution remains the only result that will actually bring peace and justice to the Palestinian people. We call on the parties to return urgently to negotiations.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he think that the agreement signed by Fatah and Hamas is a step in the right direction for the attainment of statehood? Does he also feel that the work done by the Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, in building the Palestinian institutions and economy has created the apparatus of a state, and that these achievements need to be recognised?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course this step is not yet fully consummated, but we want to see the formation of a Government who reject violence. If Hamas is to be part of that Government, it must reject violence; that is our position. If that were to go forward on the basis of the rejection of violence, we would see that as a good basis for building further hopes and moves towards serious negotiation. The Fayyad plan, as I have said, is something that we support. It takes us in the right direction towards building Palestinian statehood and getting the negotiations going again, which is central and crucial.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Would the Minister not agree that the tragic events of the weekend on the Syrian, Lebanese and Gazan border are just a taster of what we are in for as long as the vacuum in negotiations continues, and that the situation could get very much worse, given the instability in a number of Arab countries and the possibility that new Governments will be very sensitive to the views of radicals? Will he say what steps the Government are taking to urge the US President, who is to make an important speech on this matter in the next few days, to do something serious with the partners in the quartet to revive the peace process?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We are urging our allies and friends, including the United States, at all times. However, perhaps the noble Lord will recognise that a clear development in the region is the increasing determination of the surrounding Arab states to play for once a more forward part in these developments. Obviously we are deeply concerned by the events at the weekend, but if one can stand back from such horrors for a moment, it seems that they reinforce the urgent need for the Israeli Government and authorities to begin to move in a positive direction in a very fluid overall situation in the Middle East.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a premature declaration of a Palestinian state might destabilise the region rather than contribute to the emergence of a stable two-state solution?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The right reverend Prelate is right; it might do so. Of course one understands why there is a desire to move forward in this direction, but our position is that statehood must be built through the pattern of a negotiation that must be resumed, and that pressure should be put on both the Israeli side and on a peace-aiming, violence-rejecting Palestinian Government to move forward on that basis.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Is there any evidence of Hamas rejecting its present declaration about the death of Israel? As long as that continues, is it not a complete response to the present situation? Hamas must withdraw from its present declaration.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I understand what the noble Lord is saying; I think we all do. However, our attitude and approach to Hamas will change when there is proof that Hamas has changed, and that proof is not yet visible.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, while I welcome the slight change of tone I think I detect in my noble friend’s remarks about Hamas, will he confirm to the House that Britain now does not require Hamas to recognise Israel as a precondition of negotiations, but that it naturally expects that to come before the end of negotiations?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We want it to be part of the negotiations and part of the recognition of the quartet principles. My noble friend talks about a changing tone. We all have to realise that the whole situation throughout the Middle East is changing. The foreign policy of Egypt towards Gaza is changing, and the Syrian situation is highly fluid. All around there is enormous change, and there is tragedy as well, as we have seen over the weekend. In these circumstances, we have to retain a very agile and clear view of where we stand and where we want to go.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, does the Minister feel that the alliance between the PLO and Hamas, an organisation that is filled with terrorists and that has vowed the destruction of Israel, will help in the acceptance of a Palestinian state or hinder it?
Lord Howell of Guildford
It would help only if it produces a Government dedicated as a partnership for peace to negotiation. We are not there yet. The implication of the noble Lord’s question is quite right: until we move to that point, it will not help; when we are at that point, it will help.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:59 - Division on Amendment 20A. - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 20A disagreed.
Lord Howarth of Newport
“Early parliamentary general elections
(1) An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
(a) the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (2), and(b) if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).(2) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) is—
“That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”(3) An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a) the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and (b) the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).(4) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”(5) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”(6) Subsection (7) applies for the purposes of the Timetable in rule 1 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(7) If a parliamentary general election is to take place as provided for by subsection (1) or (3), the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (and, accordingly, the appointed day replaces the day which would otherwise have been the polling day for the next election determined under section 1).”
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the new clause inserted by Amendment 20 would replace the existing Clause 2. It is focused on three purposes. It removes from the Bill as received from the other place ambiguities and vagueness about what is a Motion of no confidence and what is a Motion of confidence. It protects the Speaker of the House of Commons by removing him from the process of determining what is a Motion of no confidence or a Motion of confidence, and it improves the protection of parliamentary privilege. I see it as an exercise in damage limitation.
This new clause, unlike other new clauses tabled by noble Lords to replace Clause 2, makes no other changes to the Bill. It would do nothing to thwart the essential purposes of the Government in the Bill. It retains the two-thirds provision and the 14-days provision which the Government want. I have made plain in other debates that I do not like these provisions and, indeed, I think the whole undertaking of this Bill to establish fixed-term Parliaments is a bad idea, but in this House, presented with the will of the House of Commons, those of us who do not like it have, I fear, to accept that it is a bad idea whose time has come.
If the House accepts the new clause unamended, the legislation will, I submit, provide for the principles that the Minister told us in Committee the Government wish to establish. He said that,
“within a context of having a fixed term, there should nevertheless be a mechanism to trigger an early election if there has been deadlock in the other place, if a Government lose confidence, and if no Government can be formed who maintain confidence. There is an argument for having consensus about Dissolution and proper provision being made for it, as well as for trying to minimise the potential for abuse of the trigger on the part of the Executive and to get clarity as to what constitutes a vote of confidence. There may well be circumstances in which a vote of no confidence does not necessarily have to trigger a general election. How do we clarify those circumstances in a way which is acceptable? These are the general principles and issues which I want to put flesh on”.—[Official Report, 29/3/11; col. 1215.]
I believe that this new clause is also consistent with the conclusions of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister and his colleague Mr Harper for meeting me and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Lord, Lord Martin and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who have put their names to the new clause. Of course, I have drawn enormous encouragement from their doing so. The Minister was characteristically courteous and constructive at the meeting. In light of our productive discussion, the new clause we originally tabled was somewhat redrafted and improved. I was delighted when the Minister added his own name to the new clause.
Clause 2(2) as drafted—concerning Motions of no confidence and Motions of confidence—contains problematic ambiguities and vaguenesses. These were helpfully described by Dr Anne Twomey in her written evidence to your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, at paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 on page 152 of the compendium of written evidence. Such ambiguities do not matter where constitutional procedures are not statutorily prescribed. Indeed, they may be beneficial as they allow the determination of who is to be the Government to happen in response to fluctuating political realities. But in a statutory system, they are dangerous, creating a combination of uncertainty and inflexibility.
To the observations made by Dr Twomey, I would add that there is a further crucial vagueness in Clause 2 as drafted, in that there is no legal definition either already in existence or provided by the Bill as to what is a Motion of confidence or no confidence. The reason why this is so crucial and dangerous is that, as the Bill stands, it could in some circumstances lay the onus of interpretation, and therefore of decision as to the fate of the Government and whether there is to be a general election, on the Speaker. Although in some instances it would be entirely clear from the wording of the Motion that the vote was a confidence or no confidence vote, it would by no means necessarily be so. As the invaluable brief from the Library of the House of Commons says:
“Yet, despite their central importance, there is no certainty about the rules on the form and applicability of confidence motions in the UK Parliament, as it is established by convention rather than by statute or standing order of the House … There is no standard formulation for confidence motions”.
Motions may be regarded as Motions of censure or confidence according to particular circumstances. A Motion to reduce a Minister’s salary was regarded as a confidence Motion in 1895. Motions in two debates on Suez in 1956 were regarded by the House of Commons as confidence Motions, though neither the substantive Motions nor the amendments were formulated as Motions of no confidence or Motions of confidence. In 1976, an adjournment Motion was treated as a confidence Motion following the defeat of the Government on their public expenditure White Paper. In 2003, Mr Blair made clear only after the debate and the vote that he regarded the vote on the Iraq war as a confidence vote. It is very hard to see how the Speaker could possibly have issued a certificate in some of these situations.
Under our existing arrangements, it is for the Prime Minister and the House of Commons to judge whether a Motion is a matter of confidence. Under the system that the Government have hitherto proposed, it would be for the Speaker. This, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, explained to us compellingly in Committee, would be a major extension of the Speaker’s role and could be a very dangerous one. It could politicise the role of the Speaker, requiring the Speaker to decide a supremely contentious, vexed and fraught political issue. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Martin, described the vicious pressures that could be expected to be brought to bear on the Speaker in such circumstances. If the Speaker were perceived to have taken sides, his reputation as a servant of the whole House and his reputation for impartiality and integrity could hardly survive. Not only would the reputation of the individual Speaker suffer, but at a time when we all desperately want to see the reputation of Parliament regained, it would also affect the very office of the Speaker, which personifies the institution of the Commons. The new clause therefore omits the requirement for the Speaker to issue certificates. I am very pleased to see that none of the amendments now on the Marshalled List relating to Clause 2 seeks to preserve the requirement for the Speaker to issue certificates.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the circumstances in which there can be an early general election is the outstanding critical issue in the Bill. If one looks at this problem, one sees yet further evidence of the Bill not having been thought out. I shall identify what appeared in Committee to be the three main problems with Clause 2.
The first was the involvement of the Speaker. We were privileged to hear speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, both of whom made it clear, pretty well beyond argument, that the involvement of the Speaker was entirely wrong. The amendment which my noble friend Lord Howarth has put down along with the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would get rid of the involvement of the Speaker. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has supported that. There appears, therefore, no longer to be an issue in relation to the involvement of the Speaker. I support my noble friend Lord Howarth in expressing gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for achieving that. It is typical of the way in which he has conducted himself in relation to this matter.
The second issue was the lack of a satisfactory definition of a vote of no confidence, as referred to in Clause 2(2). That had two separate aspects to it. First, you could not tell what was meant by a Motion of no confidence. Did it include anything that would be understood to mean a Motion of no confidence, or did it mean only something that said, “This House has no confidence in the Government”? That first bit of the problem has been solved by the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howarth because it makes it clear that the only sort of Motion of no confidence that would trigger an early general election is one that says, “This House has no confidence in the Government”. The amendment is good in that respect. However, it does not deal with the other problem in relation to Motions of no confidence; namely, that there are many Motions that could be passed by the House of Commons that would indicate that it had no confidence in the Government.
The first and most obvious is the House failing to pass a Motion of confidence in the Government. For example, Mr Major’s Government were defeated on Maastricht. They then put down a Motion of confidence in themselves. Had Mr Major’s Government then been defeated on the Motion of confidence in the House of Commons—which they were not—there could not have been a general election at that point, because the only possible trigger for a general election would have been a Motion of no confidence and not a failed Motion of confidence. After Mr Major’s Government had failed to win the Motion of confidence, the Opposition would then have had to put down a Motion of no confidence in the Government. If that had been won by the Opposition—that is, if a Motion of no confidence in the Government had been passed—that still would not be the end of it under this Bill, because there would then be a 14-day period in which either the existing Government of Mr Major could have sought to put together a majority to survive or an alternative Government could have emerged. So if the facts are taken and applied to an historical example, it produces a rather unsatisfactory result.
There are three other shots on the Marshalled List at how you deal with a Motion of no confidence. First, there is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He defines a Motion of no confidence as being either a vote of no confidence in the Government or a negatived vote of confidence; that is, the Government have put down a vote of confidence in themselves and it has been defeated by the House of Commons. The noble Lord then includes the 14-day period after that. It is in some ways better than a simple Motion of no confidence but it still keeps in the 14-day period. The noble Lord introduces another innovation in that his amendment allows for a general election if the Prime Minister resigns and a period of 60 days goes by in which no alternative Government emerge. The problem with that is that if you have a majority and you want to have a general election at any time, you simply resign, sit out the 60 days and then have a general election. That would be contrary to the purposes of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill and very unsatisfactory.
The next alternative is in the amendment put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Hamilton of Epsom. The difference between that amendment and the other amendments is that it seeks to define a vote of no confidence as including not passing the Second or Third Reading of a Finance Bill or the passing of a Motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. That is a third definition which also keeps in the 14 days. Or am I wrong about that? It does not keep in the 14 days.
Lord Cormack
My reference to 14 days relates to an entirely different matter, as I shall seek to explain.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, defines a Motion of no confidence as being either a Motion of no confidence or the defeat of a Finance Bill and gets rid of the 14 days.
The final definition—which is in every single respect perfect—has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. It states basically that if there is a vote of no confidence there has to be a general election, and that a vote of no confidence occurs where the Queen’s Speech is defeated, a Motion of no confidence is passed, a Motion of confidence is negatived or the Prime Minister has indicated in advance that a particular vote is to be regarded as a vote of no confidence and that vote is defeated. The best example of that is when Mr Wilson was Prime Minister in 1976 and his public expenditure estimates were defeated one evening in the House of Commons, which was obviously a critical matter for his Government. He was keen to establish that the Commons had confidence in his Government and so he announced in advance that the next day’s Motion on the adjournment would be a Motion of confidence. That was treated by Parliament as a Motion of confidence in the Government; it went in favour of the Government and he survived.
What should the House do in the context of this galaxy of opportunities that has now been offered to it? I respectfully suggest that the House should do the following: respect the work that has been done by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Howarth and build on it; and knock out the 14 days, which is a total waste of time and contrary to what the House of Commons would do. No one supported it during the course of debate. The way to achieve that is to amend the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and her colleagues and knock out the 14 days.
The one circumstance in which 14 days would be worth while is where a Government are formed after a general election and then immediately fail to get the confidence of the House of Commons. It would not be right to force a general election at that time. Everyone will remember the one example of that where Mr Baldwin headed the biggest single party after the election in 1923, Labour came second and the Liberals came third. The Conservatives under Baldwin produced a King’s Speech that was defeated the first time round and Labour was then given the opportunity to form its first Administration. That was a wholly appropriate working of the constitution.
Lord Morgan
On the Baldwin point, it is quite important to know that in 1924 there was, as it were, an understood majority in waiting. It was not a random resignation by Baldwin. Therefore, it was clear what the outcome would be.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I completely agree with that but it does not change the basic principle that if the first party after a general election cannot form an Administration it should go to the next person most suitable to do it. That should be regarded as an exception.
What I would recommend to the House and what my party is going to do is to vote in favour of my amendments to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howarth. Those amendments have the effect of knocking out the reference to 14 days but leaving in the option of discussing whether there should be a new Government if the Government are in the Baldwin situation whereby they have never gained the confidence of the House of Commons. It is not perfect and lacks the beauty and comprehensiveness of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. But it is a sensible, clear way in which to deal with the three problems—first, by knocking out the references to the Speaker and to 14 days and by at least giving us certainty about what is meant by a Motion of no confidence. For those reasons, that is the position of my party. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, we have made real progress. When the Bill was presented to this House on 1 March, there was a consensus across the House that it was very unsatisfactory legislation, that it had been very badly and in some respects carelessly drafted and that it was the duty of this House to try to make it better. During our Committee stage, we had some fascinating debates and we have, I believe, begun to make it better. That is signified by the presence of the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness on the amendment, which was very eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. The amendment has very significant support from some very distinguished Cross Benchers, including particularly two former Speakers of the House of Commons. So I am extremely glad that the last state is better than the first.
I have always been worried throughout my time in Parliament about the incomprehensibility of legislation to those who sent us to Parliament. It is my belief that legislation should be understandable to the ordinary, intelligent and well informed voter—and there are far more ordinary, intelligent and well informed voters than many would give credit for, as was made clear in the referendum that took place not so long ago. I have tried very hard in the amendments that I have tabled, first, to try to make this Bill more understandable and, secondly, in the third version of my amendment that is on the Marshalled List today, to try to reflect some of the understandable criticisms levelled at my original amendment in Committee. That in itself illustrates the general wisdom of this House, which will normally leave votes until Report. What I have tried to do in the amendment today is to heed what was said in the lengthy, fascinating and well informed debate that we had in Committee. Above all I have taken out, as have others, the reference to the Speaker of the House of Commons. The more we thought about and debated that, the clearer it became that it was neither necessary nor desirable so it does not feature in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, nor indeed in any of the others. That in itself is a significant step forward.
However, I also tried to reflect the requests which came, particularly from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that the definition of a vote of confidence should be clearer and simpler. In my first amendment, I had a number of definitions not dissimilar from those listed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. I am the first to admit readily that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is correct in saying that none of us has got it absolutely right; there is no perfection in these matters. I also pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, whom I have met on a number of occasions and who has been extremely anxious both to listen and discuss and to try and improve the Bill.
Having said that I will refer briefly, if I may, to the amendment in my name, which has the wonderful designation of Amendment 22ZA and which attempts to make the law a little more understandable. This amendment has been supported by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and I am most grateful for that. It says that an,
“early parliamentary general election shall take place if … the House of Commons passes, by a two-thirds majority”,
of those voting,
“a resolution ‘That there shall be an early general election’.”
Frankly, I did not like the existing provision in the Bill that it should be two-thirds of the membership of the House. As it is bound to be a big vote, I can think how very unsatisfactory it would be if, because of some major problem with the weather or some accident in London that delayed Members getting to the House, there were a clear two-thirds majority in that big vote that was not quite two-thirds of those elected to the House—“including vacant seats”, as in the Bill—so I have made it a two-thirds majority of those voting.
My amendment also says—this is where my 14 days comes in—that,
“if the Prime Minister tenders the resignation of Her Majesty’s Government and within 14 days no new Prime Minister has accepted Her Majesty’s invitation to form a government”,
there will be an early general election. That is not a prescriptive 14 days. There need not be more than 14 hours. It might happen extremely quickly but it cannot drag on because across the House, at Second Reading and in Committee, there was almost universal distaste for long periods of bartering and horse-trading. There were many amusing references to what the Whips might get up to in another place—I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, a distinguished former Chief Whip, indicate assent at this point—to try to reverse a vote that had taken place, so my amendment says that if there is a vote of no confidence, that should be sufficient to trigger a general election.
We have debated this extensively at Second Reading and in Committee. Many of us have cited the famous example of Lord Callaghan who, as Mr James Callaghan, the Prime Minister, resigned in March 1979 immediately upon being defeated in a vote of no confidence in that House. His exceptionally dignified words on that occasion have been quoted in this Chamber more than once. He said that the House of Commons had spoken and it was now for the country to decide. It is really that Callaghan principle that I have tried to translate into my attempt at a new clause: if the House of Commons passes a Motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, the Prime Minister shall forthwith submit to Her Majesty a request for a proclamation to dissolve Parliament and provide for a general election.
Then I have sought to give a simpler definition of a vote of no confidence, falling short of the number of definitions that I had in my first amendment in Committee and of the list provided for the House today by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, but saying that if the House denies a Second or Third Reading to a Finance Bill, that is clearly an expression of no confidence in the Government of the day because the whole purpose of voting supply is fundamental to the governing of our country. I also said that if a Motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, tabled by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, is passed, no matter whether the majority is one, as it was in 1979, or 101, that is it.
I suggest that, although the amendment is not perfect, it is a reasonable attempt to put into understandable language the provisions that could trigger a general election, allowing for more than just the vote of no confidence but clearly defining it. As I have said to the Minister on more than one occasion, when one tries to codify convention it is exceptionally difficult. I say again, as I have said before, that I would rather that we were not having to engage in this exercise but the Commons has decreed it and we must try, according to our rights and our duties, to make the Bill better. I suggest that the proposed new clause would make it better than what exists already.
Of course, if the House decided to approve the proposed new clause that has been supported by the Minister, either amended or unamended, there would be no opportunity to test the opinion of the House on this alternative. I will hold my fire on any votes that might take place beforehand to see whether we have the opportunity to vote on this one. Whatever happens today, though, I feel extremely pleased that the Minister has listened carefully and there is going to be an improvement in the Bill, in whatever precise form it leaves this Chamber today. We now have to let the debate follow its course and see what happens. As I sit down, I commend to your Lordships the idea of having a clause that is as understandable and comprehensive as can reasonably be expected.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me. I have to chair a committee upstairs at 4 pm so I rise perhaps a little prematurely to commend to your Lordships my Amendment 22ZB. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has already described what the amendment is intended to do; I do not need to repeat that, as he did so better than I could do myself. It loses the Speaker and the 14 days. It lays down precisely what is to happen if there is a vote of no confidence, and lays upon the Prime Minister the first duty to seek a dissolution of Parliament in the event of a vote of no confidence being passed. It defines with clarity what shall be regarded as a vote of no confidence for the purpose of triggering that Motion. That seems to be clear, simple and practicable. I strongly commend it to your Lordships as a way of resolving these problems in a simple and clear way and establishing a sensible procedure for the duration of the Bill if it becomes an Act.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I raise one question with my noble friend about his amendment. Under subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause, the Prime Minister would be bound to submit to Her Majesty a request for a proclamation leading to a general election if the Queen’s Speech had been rejected. Would not that go against what happened in 1924, when there was indeed a defeat on the Queen’s Speech, but one which had been expected, and an alternative Government was then appointed? Would it not be regrettable to make it inevitable that there should be a general election in a circumstance such as that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Let me assist by saying that I think that the noble Lord is right. To add another prong to that argument, we have tabled an amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, which covers that precise position.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, my thought was that that sort of situation would be covered by the fact that the Prime Minister would be submitting a request for a Dissolution to Her Majesty. In all normal circumstances, of course, Her Majesty could act upon such a request. However, there could be circumstances in which Her Majesty might wish to say, “Before accepting this request, I wish to consider whether a Dissolution is the right course of action to pursue at this time”. She could then have consultations with political leaders to find out whether that is the case.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, it is a delight to follow a former chancellor of the University of Hull. I speak to my own Amendment 21, and also to all amendments in this group.
My starting point, like other noble Lords, is that all the amendments are an improvement on Clause 2. The clause seeks to translate a convention into statute, which is extremely difficult to do as my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned, and is for that reason very rarely attempted. The Government rest on the confidence of the House of Commons. If that is withdrawn, the Prime Minister by convention has the option of resigning or seeking the Dissolution of Parliament. The circumstances in which the Commons can demonstrate a lack of confidence are varied, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thornton, has quite clearly adumbrated.
As we have heard, Clause 2 seeks to maintain these conditions but, in so doing, requires the Speaker of the House of Commons to be custodian of our present understandings of the convention. As we heard in Committee, that puts the Speaker in an untenable situation, having to make a decision that may be highly contentious politically, potentially sealing the fate of the Government.
The alternative, therefore, is to move away from flexibility to certainty or some degree of certainty. All these amendments, as we have heard, seek to do that. The one that comes closest to maintaining the current conventions is Amendment 22ZB of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, in that it retains the power for the Prime Minister to designate any Motion as one on which defeat will be treated as a matter of confidence. The others are more restrictive.
It strikes me that there are four, not necessarily compatible, criteria by which we can assess the amendments before us. First, to what extent do they retain the existing conventions? As I have said, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, comes closest, putting flesh on the bones of what Clause 2 seeks to achieve. If we wish to retain the flexibility of existing arrangements, that is the most desirable amendment. It does not replicate precisely the existing convention, as it precludes the option of resignation as an alternative to the Dissolution of Parliament, though in that respect it follows what has been recent practice.
My amendment is a close second in two respects. First, like Amendment 22ZB, it retains the capacity of the Prime Minister to move that the House has confidence in the Government. This enables the Government to seek the confidence of the House in the event of uncertainty, such as, for instance, following the loss of a vote on a major item of Government policy. Secondly, in the event of the House withdrawing its confidence in the Government, it retains the option, unlike Amendment 22ZB but in common with the other amendments, for an alternative Government to be formed without the need for an election.
As we have heard, all the amendments bar Amendment 22ZB include the 14-day provision. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in his amendment seeks to remove that provision. I was not quite clear as to why, and certainly was not persuaded by the arguments he adduced in favour of removing that provision. If you remove it you create a problem, which he recognises by the tabling of Amendment 20C, which essentially corrects the problem created by his Amendment 20A, for which I do not see a particularly strong case in any event.
Secondly, do the amendments meet a test of certainty? In other words, are the conditions under which the Government are deemed to have lost the confidence of the House clear beyond peradventure? The existing clause clearly fails the test. All the amendments before us come close to meeting the test. As far as I can see, Amendments 20, 21 and 22ZA are sufficiently clear as not to require adjudication, thus eliminating the mischief inherent in the existing provisions of the clause. The only possible ambiguity in Amendment 22ZB rests in subsection (2)(d) in the form of the declaration made by the Prime Minister. Is it to be in writing and laid before the House? Is it to be made in advance of the vote on the Motion or before the Motion is debated?
Thirdly, do they cover all eventualities? The amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Armstrong, do not address what happens if the Government resign without having lost a Motion of confidence or an early election Motion being passed by a two-thirds majority. This is what may be called the Belgian question. If a Government fall apart and the Prime Minister tenders the resignation of the Government but under conditions where the Opposition are not ready for an election and cannot realistically form an Administration, what happens? The Bill makes no provision for such an eventuality. Subsection (3) of my amendment seeks to cover such a situation, as does my noble friend Lord Cormack in subsection (1)(b) of his amendment. My amendment provides that if, after 60 days, no Government have been formed an election shall take place. My noble friend provides a 14-day limit. I prescribe a substantial time to limit the opportunity for exploitation. A lot can happen in 60 days. However, for the moment, my argument is that we need to cover such an eventuality.
I appreciate the argument that has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who argued that such a situation is so unlikely that the provision is likely never to be invoked. The same argument can be advanced in respect of the provision for an early election Motion. The circumstances in which one is likely to need and be able to mobilise a two-thirds majority or a unanimous vote are likely to be extremely rare. However, neither situation is impossible. It is possible for the House of Commons to fail to agree on any option, as happened in 2003 in the votes on the various options for the future of this House. It may, therefore, be desirable to cover all eventualities. In terms of covering all eventualities, subsection (1)(a) of Amendment 22ZA presupposes that the Motion will be passed on a Division. Subsection (1) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, originally did likewise, but has now been changed to cover such a Motion being passed without a Division.
The amendments to Amendments 20 and 22ZB, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, seek to cover the situation following the meeting of a new Parliament and the Government’s losing a vote of confidence. I can see why his Amendment 22ZD is desirable but, as I have said, I cannot see the argument for why his earlier amendment is required.
Fourthly, do the amendments limit or eliminate the opportunity for the Government to engineer an early Dissolution for their political benefit? The purpose of the Bill, as we have heard, is to ensure that there are fixed terms and that there is an early Dissolution only in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances do not include enabling the Government to trigger an election at a time that is politically beneficial. If they did, it would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill. I know that, as the noble and learned Lord has said, he would find that quite attractive.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does the noble Lord recognise that there could be a legitimate concern since he provides that an early general election is also to take place if, on a specified date, the House of Commons has negatived a Motion that this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government? Does that not provide too tempting an avenue for the Prime Minister to contrive a vote of confidence, and to contrive to lose it? The noble Lord spoke earlier of the need to avoid exploitation; this is trying to do that.
Lord Norton of Louth
The noble Lord anticipates what I am coming on to. That is what I want to deal with. That is my whole point about this question. I know that some noble Lords would find it attractive if we undermined the Bill in this respect. However, if we proceed on the basis of what the Bill seeks to achieve, we need to identify any provision that could be exploited by the Government. The amendment that comes closest to being foolproof in this respect is Amendment 20 in that, apart from an early election Motion, the only way to trigger an election is through the House passing a Motion of no confidence in the Government. As the noble Lord touched on, there is no provision for the Government to move a Motion of confidence and then invite their own supporters to vote against it, as has happened in Germany and could, as he says, happen under my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.
A Government could also trigger an election under Amendment 22ZB by the Prime Minister declaring any Motion one of confidence and ensuring that government MPs voted against it or stayed away to ensure that it was defeated. However, Amendment 20 is not completely foolproof. There is no restriction on who can table a Motion of no confidence. It could be tabled by a government Back-Bencher, possibly at the behest of the Prime Minister, thus enabling the Government to engineer their own defeat. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack provides that a Motion of no confidence may be moved only by the Leader of the Opposition. That may be deemed unduly restrictive, but it prevents the provision being used by the Government for their own benefit—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned.
However, although my noble friend’s amendment deals with what some may see as a loophole, it introduces a loophole of its own. Under subsection (1)(b), a Prime Minister could simply resign, and, if the Opposition take over, move a vote of no confidence—the outgoing Prime Minister presumably assuming the mantle of Leader of the Opposition—or deny them the opportunity to govern by voting down whatever they bring forward.
In short, each amendment has its merits, though none is ideal in terms of the criteria that I have adumbrated. That is more or less bound to be the case given that the criteria are not necessarily compatible. We are moving away from seeking to retain the existing conventions in favour of greater certainty.
My amendment seeks to provide for all, or at least more, eventualities than that covered by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and to enable the Government to seek the confidence of the House. As I say, I appreciate that may be open to abuse by a Prime Minister, but the risk has to be offset against the value of retaining the existing practice.
I commend my amendment to the House but do so in the recognition that the ideal may not be one of these amendments but one drawn from what is before us. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, to which my noble and learned friend the Minister has added his name, is certainly a massive improvement on what is in the Bill. We may be able to tweak it further, but our deliberations on the clause show what can be achieved through debate and constructive discourse. If we are not quite there, we are very close.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, it may assist the House if I clarify the procedural position once more as I think that a little confusion may have arisen. I make it clear that although we are having a debate on all the potential alternative new clauses, some of them with and some without amendment, they are alternatives and no issue of pre-emption arises. Therefore, it is possible for the House to take a series of decisions about individual amendments as they arise in the schedule. Some noble Lords may not have been certain about their alternatives after a decision had been taken on the first proposed new clause. I hope that might be of some assistance.
Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, having heard that, I hope that I am now in order in rising to support the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.
I begin by making the point that the removal of the Speaker’s certificate as a requisite for calling an early general election certainly meets my principal objection to the original wording in Clause 2. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the Government for accepting the need to safeguard the non-partisan position of the Speaker in their proposed legislation. I think that the noble and learned Lord realises that I should have liked them to have gone a little further on this clause, but I would not push my luck in such circumstances, and I am thankful for small mercies.
I hope that all parties in the other place will take the opportunity, when the Bill returns to the Commons, to place on record the importance of a Speaker’s independence and never again put it at risk, as did the original clause. It gives me particular satisfaction to know that some of us were able to use our membership of this House to help remove a defect in the Bill that, to put it perfectly bluntly, should have been corrected in the other place—the elected Chamber. It proves, yet again, the indispensible role that your Lordships play in the legislative process, particularly in constitutional matters.
We have talked about perfection, and I regret that the amendment is not as precise or as perfect as I would wish. That is life. However, when considered along with other amendments, it is a reasonable way forward and we can make the best of what I regard as a poor and unnecessary item of legislation.
I wish to place my view on record in relation to the leeway, or what I call the 14-day cooling-off period, following a vote of no confidence, to give time to the Executive to cobble together and approve a new Government. That requirement in the Bill strikes at the very roots of my belief in the way our democracy works. For reasons that we all understand, we have a coalition Government who govern on the basis of a two-party agreement. I have no quarrel with that. I accept the need for coalitions when no party has an overall majority. Nor am I opposed to the principle of self-preservation—I practise it myself. However, if the Government were to lose the confidence of the Commons, this legislation would allow a different coalition, a coalition mark II, to replace it after 14 days of hard bargaining, wheeler-dealing or horse trading—call it what you want—without reference to the electorate by calling an election. That is wrong.
In that event, the Bill would be seen as the “elections avoidance Act”—and rightly so. Some might call it a “fixed Parliaments Act”—using “fixed” in its pejorative sense. I confess to belonging to the school of democrats who believe in the unfettered right of the Commons to send a Government packing, as it did in 1979, and in the integrity of the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to say what he would do. I also believe in the sovereign right of the people of this country to elect their Governments at elections. I maintain that these two rights are not incompatible and we should not tamper with them. They have served us well and are the basis of our parliamentary democracy.
This time, the Commons is the target of the constitutional meddlers. However, proposals for the abolition of this House will soon be put before us. The bottom line of my concern now is that the legislation restricts the traditional freedom of the elected Chamber to get rid of a failed Government and for a Prime Minister to go to the country to seek a mandate. Snap elections have become a derogatory term in some quarters. Many countries that I know are under the yoke of dictators and would love to hold a snap election. I would rather have a snap election at any time than a Parliament that is well and truly fixed in the way that many are and in the manner now proposed by this coalition.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to people who have a great deal more experience and expertise in this matter than I, and I think that we are gradually moving towards a very sensible conclusion. On all sides of the House, we need to express our thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, whose personal intervention has moved us in a sensible direction. That is evidence, contrary to what was being said at earlier stages of the consideration of the Bill, that the Government are listening to your Lordships' House and have moved.
However, it is equally true, and I commend it for this, that the coalition has not been prepared to accept wrecking tactics which would undo what is, after all, a Bill which came to your Lordships' House from the other place, which, as we have already heard this afternoon, we all regard as retaining primacy in our parliamentary system. I very much welcome the constructive dialogue that has taken place during the interval between different stages of the Bill. One of the most important points that has arisen since we were discussing this last week is an emphasis on simplicity. Several colleagues on all sides of the House said that that is an important part of how we can improve legislation. Frankly, on that ground alone, the Government may well be fully justified in seeking to reverse the amendment passed on such a narrow majority last week, because it adds a whole new layer of unnecessary complexity.
By contrast, Amendment 20 has clearly benefited from the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin—two distinguished former Speakers—among others. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, was generous in saying that it seems to meet many of his criteria. I think that his phrase was that it was the nearest to being completely foolproof of the amendments before us. The simplification of Clause 2 also certainly meets the major anxieties that my noble friends Lord Rennard, Lord Marks and I had over the rather cumbersome process originally set out.
At this point, it is important to emphasise that the sole purpose of the legislation is to give new responsibility, new power to Parliament, rather than to reinforce the current opportunity of the Prime Minister of the day—who is, after all, a party leader; we should never forget that—to pick and choose the most favourable date for an election for his or her party. There was some confusion last week on that point. By legislating for a parliamentary safety valve to enable an early election to take place within the normal five-year period, the Government are right to insist that that must be on the basis of cross-party support in the House of Commons. We should not revert to a No. 10 partisan fix.
It is important for us all to recall that we do not elect Governments in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, perhaps led us slightly astray on that point. We elect Parliament, which then gives or takes away confidence from an Administration. Therefore, the simple decision of the head of a Government that he or she can no longer continue personally to lead a Government is not the critical issue. The critical issue is: what is the decision of our Parliament and, in this case, the primary House, the House of Commons?
Last week, there was some anxiety—some amusement, in fact—about the special circumstances of October 1974 and May 1979 and the fact that such circumstances might not provide a proper opportunity for an early general election and for the people to speak. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his place; he should be reassured. If the Bill had reached the statute book then, I am convinced that an early general election would almost certainly have been triggered by the House of Commons in those circumstances. He would have been elected and I would have been unelected. I think that the Bill proves able to deal with the circumstances we were discussing last week.
Lord Grocott
I was not intending to speak but it is just too tempting. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks that a key determinant of our constitutional arrangements should be simplicity and simple solutions. That is slightly ironic coming from someone who spent several months arguing for the alternative vote system but that is now behind us. I merely put it to him: is not the simplest proposition of the lot for Governments who have lost the confidence of the House of Commons by a majority of one—a simple majority—to go immediately to the country without this 14-day formulation?
Lord Tyler
No, my Lords; I think that that is over-simple. It does not give the House of Commons a proper, responsible role and I think that there would be circumstances in which it certainly would not be appropriate.
Lord Cormack
Would not the circumstances where it would not be appropriate, to which my noble friend has just referred, almost certainly be coalition circumstances? Is not the real fear of many of us that the Bill has been designed to perpetuate the opportunity of coalition? Would not the public have the right to feel cheated if, as I devoutly hope does not happen, the present coalition collapsed and the leaders of the Liberal Democrat Party and the Labour Party sought to form a pact and a Government—a Government who would certainly not have commanded the support of the majority of the country last year? Do we not have to bear that in mind? Has not this been devised in a coalition climate to perpetuate a coalition climate?
Lord Tyler
I can only say to my noble friend that I was advancing the case for precisely this legislation long before there was ever the possibility of a coalition. It is extremely important to come back to my absolute core principle that the arithmetic of the House of Commons should be of issue. If, for example, the circumstances to which my noble friend refers occurred and there were in the House of Commons a solid majority for a change of Government in the midst of the present economic crisis, in order for that change of Government to take place without a general election it would be the House of Commons that decided whether the Government had the confidence to continue. Therefore, I do not think that that circumstance is an appropriate or proper reason for changing Amendment 20, which I think would be a useful amendment to the Bill.
The Bill recognises that, if it were acceptable or even necessary to call an early general election, the final decision should be left to Parliament and not to the individual whim of one party leader who happened to occupy No. 10. Even if there were not near unanimity among MPs, the safeguards in the Bill would ensure that, in the circumstances I have described, a vote of no confidence would lead to an early poll once it became clear that no alternative Government could be established and enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Amendment 20 deals very well with this problem. It deals with the questions that were raised last week, although clearly some people on that occasion and now might say, “Well, we know what a Motion of no confidence looks like when we see it”. Frankly, I think that the amendment deals with the problem of definition rather better than that.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Forsyth who made the point that in almost all the circumstances that have been described—defeat on a Finance Bill or some big issue of that sort—the leader of the Opposition would be likely immediately to table a Motion of no confidence in the Government. Therefore, to some extent, the suggestions that have come from other parts of the House may be superfluous. I and my colleagues tabled a probing amendment suggesting that such a Motion should always be in the name of the leader of the Opposition, which would reflect that point, but in the real world that will almost always be the person who tables the Motion.
The Government have moved substantially and my noble friend has put his name to Amendment 20. I think that the very serious problems enunciated earlier by previous Speakers of the other place have been dealt with, and removing the Speaker from a potentially very invidious position is very important.
I turn to the other amendments briefly because I suspect that they are not going to be pursued with quite the same enthusiasm as Amendment 20. The amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Hamilton seems largely to enshrine the status quo. However, I do not think that the status quo is acceptable, as it involves all sorts of problems. I suggest that under their amendment a Prime Minister, instead of simply going to the Palace, as now, could engineer a vote of no confidence and therefore cut and run for an early election, which would destroy one of the major objectives of the Bill.
The proposal maintains the unfair partisan advantage conferred on one party leader as opposed to another. It is remarkable that when faced with the prospect of the first Prime Minister in history prepared to give up this important power to Parliament there seem to be some people in your Lordships’ House who say, “We do not want to be given this power. We would rather you kept it, Prime Minister. We do not want the responsibility”. I think that that would be a retrograde step.
The issue is also present in Amendment 22ZB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who has explained why he is not able to be here. Amendment 22ZB contains an extraordinary provision that any vote deemed a vote of no confidence by the Prime Minister, and party leader, should be a vote of no confidence. Rightly, the Bill and, indeed, Amendment 20 seek to avoid that. Those in your Lordships’ House who lived through the Maastricht debates in the other place, particularly former Conservative MPs, will remember the pressure that was brought to bear night after night by the Whips threatening that it could be deemed a Motion of confidence that could bring the Government down and trigger an immediate general election. MPs should have the capacity to vote down the details of legislation they disapprove of without being pressurised by a Government trying to force them to take a view that is not truly theirs. I fear that Amendment 22ZB could be defective for that reason, if for no other.
There is a definite problem with that amendment since it might well be open to judicial challenge. The judicial challenge to the role of the Speaker would be very difficult but when the head of the Executive takes a decision, I think a judicial review might well be a prospect that we would have to face. I mentioned that in Committee previously and a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, who are much more learned in the literal sense than me, seemed to agree with that. There is also an implication for Clause 3 and the issue of how a Dissolution should take place in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.
I am slightly baffled by the amendments in the name of Members of the Labour Party and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I may just be being stupid but it seems to me that perhaps quite a major constitutional change is in prospect. The burden of their amendments seems to be that when a Government are newly elected—or, strictly, a Parliament—some special mechanism should be introduced in the days following the election.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I can assure the noble Lord that he is not being stupid. It is my failure for not explaining it adequately. Where there has just been a general election and a Government do not obtain the confidence of the House, the right course in those special circumstances, as in the case of Mr Baldwin in 1923, is that what the electorate may well have wanted from the election is somebody other than, as it were, Mr Baldwin. That is why those amendments are there.
Lord Tyler
That is a very interesting point and I shall contemplate it.
I come to another point. It would seem that the noble and learned Lord has a problem with the two-week thought process—the cooling off period that the noble Baroness referred to. I would like to know whether he stands by the statement by Mr Christopher Bryant in the other House, who said:
“We quite like the provision for two weeks—it seems sensible if an alternative coalition or Government could be formed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/10; col. 361.]
He also said:
“The Government—I think rightly—want to say that after a motion of no confidence, there could be two weeks during which the House could, if it wanted, pass a motion of confidence in either the same Government, presumably, or another Government, with either the same Prime Minister or a different Prime Minister, with a different set of ministerial colleagues”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/10; col. 359.]
That flexibility was very admirable and a great deal more supportive, if I may say so, of the Government’s position than would be implied by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has said. It may be that he or one of his noble friends may wish to come back and say whether Mr Bryant was misled, or whether I was misled by that interpretation.
Amendments 20C and 22ZD have so many negatives that I am in something of a spin, even after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained them to me. If the intention is to make a major change in the circumstances immediately following an election, there is a good case for that: it is a very attractive proposition. The fact that the leader of the party who seeks to form an Administration should bring both the Administration and his or her programme to the House of Commons for it to be endorsed at the outset of a Parliament would emphasise that we are not electing a Government but a House of Commons, which in turn gives responsibility and power to a Government. However, it may be rather too late in the passage of this Bill to introduce changes of that scale and radical intent.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, as usual gave us a very interesting attempt to define and pin down the issues, but I think that he conceded that Amendment 20 may be the right way ahead.
We have made huge progress. As others have said, this is very much to the credit of my noble and learned friend, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. Again, it illustrates some very important points that we should all take account of. First and foremost, we have maintained intact the principle of the Bill that was sent to us by the other House. Secondly, if we pass the amendment and introduce a new Clause 2, that will remove any possibility of any weakening of the neutrality of Speakers of the House of Commons. That is obviously desirable. Thirdly, it still removes an important extra power from Prime Ministers and their Whips simply to decide that an issue of detailed policy is a matter of confidence. All three of these achievements are truly welcome. I hope that the House will support Amendment 20.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, the House has been very generous in its consideration of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which I have the privilege to chair. However, one aspect of our report has received scant attention, although the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to it briefly. That is the question, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, of government manipulation of the no-confidence process.
Having looked at all the amendments that have been tabled, I recognise, as do all noble Lords, that they are a vast improvement on what we were considering last week. However, it does not seem to me that these problems are met. I refer the House to the discussions that the committee had on this point with the Deputy Prime Minister. He accepted that it was not possible to exclude the possibility that the Government could manipulate Motions to this effect, but went on to say that,
“if a Government sought to do that it would be so transparent and so self-evidently grubby and self-serving that it would not do that Government any good at all”.
He assumed that if a Government manipulated the process in that way, they would be punished. However, the committee held evidence that suggested that international experience does not necessarily confirm that impression. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, referred to examples from both Canada and Germany of occasions where Governments achieved precisely that purpose by manipulating votes of no confidence in themselves. Our evidence suggested that scrutiny of those decisions and subsequent elections that happened as a result of them did not necessarily produce an electorate who thought that this was, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, so “self-evidently grubby” that the Government should be punished. In both the most recent cases, in 2005 and 2008, in Germany and Canada, the Governments who behaved in this way were re-elected.
The House may feel that this is too small a point to consider at this stage of proceedings. However, if we are in the business, as everybody has suggested, of improving the amendments that were before us and putting into statute something that we have always understood in this country and in the history of Parliament to be a matter of conventions, we need to be very careful about this matter.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I support—along with everyone else—Amendment 20 and a new Clause 2. I put on record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and to Mr Mark Harper, the Minister in charge in the other place. We said in Committee that we would like to meet the Minister, and it was good of him to meet us. I also put on record the great work done by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. In these situations, there is always someone who has to do the phoning, the texting and the e-mails, and it was the noble Lord. I am very grateful to him for keeping me and my colleagues fully informed.
I am glad that the pressure has been taken away from the Speaker. Things have changed, and if the certificate has to be issued by the Speaker—unless we pass this amendment, it will have to be—there is the new dimension. When there was a majority Government, the Speaker would have to look at what the Prime Minister said. If the Prime Minister said, “I consider this vote on the Floor of the House to be a vote of confidence in me”, he would be one person alone that the Speaker would have to look to. However, where we have a coalition, the Speaker would have to look not only to the Prime Minister, but to the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Deputy Prime Minister said that he considered a forthcoming vote to be a vote of no confidence, the Speaker would have to look at that. I am glad that that pressure will be taken away because there is no doubt that things have changed as far as Speakers are concerned.
I had great affection for the late Edward Heath. He used to come and see me up in Speaker’s House. We would have tea and a chat about old times. He used to reminisce about when he was Chief Whip. I thought that I had better ask him about my situation. I said: “The government Chief Whip comes to see me on a weekly basis, as does the opposition Chief Whip, and every second week the Liberal party Chief Whip comes. Did you have that in your day?”. He said: “We didn’t bother the Speaker. The Speaker was too busy for those things”. That indicated that a change took place between the 1960s and today so that Whips now come to see the Speaker on a weekly basis. I can tell noble Lords that they were always moaning. They were never happy. They were like constituents at tenants’ association meetings. You always knew that they would have a complaint. At least, if the government Chief Whip was happy, you could bet your boots that there was something wrong with the opposition Chief Whip. All these pressures have been taken away by what we have before us, and I am very pleased about that.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation after so many distinguished noble Lords. The first thing I want to do is to thank, like so many other noble Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness for his care, consideration and courtesy in dealing with various issues that I have raised with him. I have been able to support the Bill because of the two great principles of certainty and stability which it enshrines, but there is a third leg of that constitutional stool, which is simplicity, as my noble friend Lord Cormack, pointed out earlier.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, explained, there is a problem with the 14-day cooling-off period. It is in danger of failing those three fundamental principles. Let me briefly take the example of 1977-79, which some of us remember so well. Those years showed the best and worst of our current system. The best was that it allowed sufficient flexibility for the formation of the Lib-Lab pact—before my noble friends begin to swoon in surprise, I emphasise that I do not hold the Lib-Lab pact as the best example of government, or even a good example of government, merely a flexible example.
How flexible our current system was became even clearer after that when the Liberals withdrew and everyone from Bill Brewer to Uncle Tom Cobbleigh got in on the act. That was the worst of the current system. Deals were done—not just with the Liberal Party, but with Ulster Unionists, Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists and even Irish republicans. Goodness’ knows what would have happened if UKIP had been present there. Offers and inducements were made, from extra parliamentary seats to expensive pipelines to promises on devolution—even, I understand, to the occasional odd bottle of Scotch. The only reason why some of us can smile about it is because it was so very long ago.
The country was rescued from that misery by a vote of no confidence. Every man and woman in the other place that night understood precisely what that vote entailed. If the Government lost, they would fall. The stakes were extraordinarily high: so high that some Members clambered from their sick beds to get into ambulances and make that long haul to New Palace Yard—simply in order to be nodded through. A few, I believe, put their lives on the line simply in order to do that duty. How could we countenance a system which, after such an effort and such a sacrifice, responded by saying, “Thank you, but now you have another 14 days to cool off, to change your mind”? Fourteen days of dodgy deals, 14 days of pipelines and parliamentary fixes, 14 days to deny the electorate their right to decide—and every bit of it enshrined in law. Far from the Prime Minister giving up his powers to Parliament—
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, the convention is that if the Government lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister has the option of either requesting a Dissolution or resigning. Callaghan did not have to go to the palace: he could have chosen to resign.
Lord Dobbs
Yes, indeed. I shall try to deal with that issue in a second.
Far from the Prime Minister giving up his powers to Parliament and the people in these provisions, he would be handing them over to party bosses operating in back rooms. I have been there and I have been one of them, and I doubt if things would become any more fragrant simply because those back rooms are no longer filled with smoke. Let us go back to something like 1979. Imagine the haggling: “No, I won’t vote for you, Jim, because if I help defeat you on this no-confidence Motion, I will be able to squeeze even more out of you tomorrow”.
A no-confidence Motion should be more than simply a hand at poker, with players raising the stakes both before and after the vote. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I fear that Clause 2 as drafted would allow just that—with the players pleading that haggling is precisely what the law allows, precisely what the law approves of. Fourteen days of it: crisis, what crisis? But that is not what anyone here wants, so I urge my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace to look at this yet again. If he feels he must codify this matter of no-confidence Motions, he should ensure that this part of the Bill is made more clear. I am not against safety valves, not against 14 days in all circumstances. But 14 days should not be so inflexible that it becomes a charter for chaos and an excuse for political fixes. What we do today in good faith must not become an excuse for excess at some future date.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—not just for their contributions to the debate on the Floor of your Lordships’ Chamber today but for all their comments and amendments, which have reflected a view to try to find a way forward. As I indicated originally at Second Reading, and certainly in Committee, the Government were willing to listen to the views of your Lordships’ House. In the debate on Second Reading, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who mentioned that you could have absolutely rigid fixed terms or the complete flexibility that we have at the moment. The rigid fixed term brings its own set of difficulties, but if you are going to have something less rigid, you have to have the mechanisms in place to provide for an early election. That is what we grappled with during our deliberations in Committee and has been reflected in our debate today.
Amendment 20 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, with the support of the noble Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It sets out an alternative version of Clause 2 and addresses a number of issues of concern, not least the Speaker’s certificate and the certainty of the wording of a Motion of no confidence, both of which were raised in Committee. I am particularly grateful for the constructive way forward that has been devised by those who I know do not like the idea of fixed-term Parliaments but who nevertheless have accepted that the role of this House is to improve and revise and to bring forward amendments in that spirit. I was pleased to be able to consult not only the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Pannick, but particularly with the two former Speakers. This House has had the advantage of having their experience related to us both in Committee and in the debate this afternoon. On that basis, I have been willing to add my name in support of the amendment on behalf of the Government.
The amendment would retain the two triggers for an early general election and has clarified what a Motion of no confidence should say, and in that regard would not require a Speaker’s certificate. There was also a suggestion in an earlier iteration of the amendment that perhaps there should be some reference to the journal. Having considered it, we did not think that was appropriate either because it might then reflect other things in the journal that would be somewhat undermined by making it specific in this one. I think that that consultation bore fruit. We certainly have no desire to draw the Speaker of the House of Commons into political controversy, and therefore, given that the architecture for an early election is drawn up with a degree of certainty with no need of a Speaker’s certificate, the Government are willing to support the amendment.
I will come back to the amendments to this amendment that were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because they raise issues that were raised by other noble Lords, but first it is important that I should address the points made by noble Lords in speaking to their amendments in the group.
Amendment 21, tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton, again would provide an alternative version of Clause 2 and retains some of the basic architecture. It sets out a mechanism to allow for an early general election in the event of a two-thirds majority on a Motion, and one to provide for an early election in the event that the Government lose the confidence of the other place and no Government who hold the confidence of the House are formed within 14 days. Having listened to the concerns expressed in this House, it is clear that there is a certain shared sense of the direction in which we have been moving. However, my noble friend seeks to provide that the failure to pass a Motion of confidence in the Government—an important distinction—should have the same effect as passing a Motion of no confidence.
Following on the specific points made about this in the Constitution Committee’s report, we certainly did reflect on this long and hard. The reason why we came down against it in the end has been anticipated by my noble friend. It is that one of the objectives is to try to minimise the opportunity for manipulation. I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has indicated the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted, that there is no way this is going to be foolproof, but there are some things you can do to make it more difficult. We have reached the judgment that a Motion of confidence would be easier for the Government of the day to table and then have voted down than for the Government to lose a Motion of no confidence. The noble Baroness also mentioned Germany in 2005. The position there was that there was a general consensus for an election but that they did not have a trigger mechanism to do so. However, we do provide for it where there is consensus for a Dissolution that is supported by a two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Norton wishes to add a third mechanism leading to an early general election. Where a Prime Minister felt unable to continue in government, his or her resignation could bring about an early election. The Bill does not prevent a Prime Minister from resigning or tendering a resignation on behalf of the Government, but, under the Bill as it stands, an early election would not follow automatically. As I have indicated, should there be a consensus that an early election should take place, the Bill provides for this under a two-thirds Dissolution vote. However, if there is no consensus, the alternative provision—for a no-confidence vote followed by a period of 14 days’ government formation—prevents a situation in which a Government stagger on without the confidence of the House.
My noble friend has suggested a government formation period of 60 days following the Prime Minister tendering the resignation of the Government. That could undermine the principle of fixed-term Parliaments by allowing the Prime Minister to trigger the government formation period at any stage in the Parliament. If one is looking at ways of minimising the opportunity for manipulation, that is one reason why we would not wish to go down that road. I also believe that 60 days is too long a period for there to be no effective Government in place. I hope that on reflection my noble friend will not—I think he indicated that he had some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—press his amendment.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack and supported by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom is a further variation that suggests the exact wording of the Dissolution Motion and frames the 14-day government formation period in a different way from that proposed in the Bill. It provides for two scenarios that would determine a Motion of no confidence. Where a no-confidence Motion is passed in those circumstances, the Prime Minister must request Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament.
There may be circumstances in which, within a fixed-term period, a viable, legitimate Government may be formed from the composition of the House after a no-confidence Motion. As my noble friend Lord Tyler reminded us, it is Parliament that is fixed; it is not the Government who are intended to be fixed by the legislation. The Government can exist only if they enjoy the confidence of the other place. That is why Clause 2 provides for a vote of no confidence to trigger a period of 14 days for possible government formation. If the Government have not been able to secure the confidence of the House of Commons, Parliament will be dissolved. At present, the Prime Minister decides whether, after the loss of confidence, to ask Her Majesty for Dissolution, as in 1979, or, as my noble friend Lord Norton pointed out, to resign, thereby creating the opportunity for another Government to be formed from the existing House, as in 1924.
Lord Cormack
I know that the Minister is trying very hard, but some of us remain very concerned about this 14-day haggle period, as I would call it. Would he be prepared to insert at Third Reading, “a maximum of 14 days”?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not sure that it is necessary to insert “maximum”. Perhaps I can assure my noble friend that 14 days is a limit; it is not an expectation or a requirement. Let us take as an example the situation in 1979, after Mr James Callaghan was defeated on that famous evening in March. If, rather than saying, under existing constitutional arrangements, that he was going to the Queen to seek Dissolution and take his case to the country, he had said that he would table a Motion for Dissolution the following day and that if it was supported, as inevitably it would have been, by both parties and had two-thirds of Members voting for it, there would have been no need to wait for 14 days before the election took place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, looks perplexed by that. Mr Callaghan could have tabled a Motion for Dissolution the following day and two-thirds of Members could have agreed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In these circumstances, yes. Had this Bill been in place, that could have happened. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend Lord Cormack that 14 days is a maximum, but if there is consensus in the House that there should be an immediate election, it would be possible the following day for a Motion commanding the support of two-thirds of Members for an early election to be passed and there would be no need to wait for 14 days. I hope that is clear. It is an important point that perhaps has not always been fully appreciated; there may have been an impression that after every Motion of no confidence there would have to be a period of 14 days before there could be an election.
The proposed new power in the amendment for the other place to vote explicitly for an early Dissolution deals with the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to move directly to a Dissolution and a general election, as I have said, and there may be other circumstances. There has been some suggestion that the situation in 1951 could have led to that happening.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, it has been a very important debate. It is absolutely clear what the critical issue is in the debate—the 14 days. As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, expressed our constitution exactly accurately when she said that the Commons should be able to boot out the Government and the electorate should then determine who should be the Government. Under what this Bill proposes—the 14 days—when the Commons told Mr James Callaghan that he had to go to the country he could have said, although of course he did not, “Hold on a minute, I’ll see if I can get some Ulster Unionist support or some support from these rebels and see if I can hold on for a few more months”. That would have been absolutely contrary to the basic principles of our constitution which the noble and learned Lord says he wants to reflect in this new Bill.
The genesis of this Bill, if we believe Mr Nicholas Clegg—and we do believe him on this—came from his wanting to increase confidence in politicians and in Parliament. He said that one way in which it could be done would be by the public having more control over politicians. It is hard to imagine anything undermining confidence in politicians more than a situation such as the one at the beginning of 1979 when the Government were defeated, which has been described, and the Government then seeking to put together something to allow them to hold on between March and October 1979. That would, I suspect, have made the public feel that the politicians wished to hold on to power for longer. Not only does that 14-day period mean that that would be possible; it requires, in effect, that that period should be gone through.
We on the Labour side have had no part to play in putting together the variety of amendments that have been put down. I have discussed them with various people but they have, in effect, been tabled in relation to the individual views of the House. Yes, we were not so worried in the Commons about the 14 days, but we had not had the benefit of a Committee stage on the Bill in which where there was real focus on those issues. Because I detect quite a strong feeling around the House against the 14 days, the only way in which it can go wrong this afternoon is if by not choosing our amendments carefully we end up with the Government getting their way without the 14 days being there. I respectfully advise Members of the House, as I will advise my own group, to vote for my amendments, because they will ensure that the 14 days goes—except in relation to a Government who have never obtained the confidence of the House of Commons. If the 14 days is removed, I can see real force in the Government's amendment. It gets rid of the Speaker and creates some certainty about what a Motion of no confidence is, so that many of the problems will have been resolved.
If the proposed new clause were put in, as amended with my provision, the House would then be asked to vote on adding in more clauses. If the new clauses proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth, Lord Armstrong and Lord Cormack, were put in, we could have more than one Clause 2 at that point—an unusual result, it seems to me, but one that appears to be possible in the light of what the Lord Speaker said. That is what the House authorities are saying, but that result would seem to be possible only on the basis that, at Third Reading, we would have to make a choice between the various Clause 2s that were in. However, I recommend simplicity to the House: do not get us into that complication but vote for the amendment to get rid of the 14 days, which is the first vote that will be had. Then we can all comfortably rally around Amendment 20.
Armed Forces Covenant
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Armed Forces covenant, which is being published today along with other important documents on how we are taking forward our pledge to rebuild the covenant.
The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it. The men and women of the three services—regulars and reservists, whether they are serving today or have done so in the past—their families and those who have lost a loved one in service all deserve our support and respect. That obligation is encapsulated in the Armed Forces covenant. The ties between the nation, its Government and its Armed Forces are not the product of rules and regulations, or of political fashion. They are much deeper than that. They have endured for generations and they go to the heart of our national life. So the Armed Forces covenant does not need to be a long and detailed charter. It should be a simple and timeless statement of the moral obligation that we owe. We are therefore publishing today a new version of the covenant, written for the first time on a tri-service basis.
The covenant is enduring but it will mean different things at different times. The expectations of today’s service men and women are rightly different from their predecessors. Alongside the covenant, we have published guidance on what we believe it means in today’s circumstances. It sets out a framework for how the members of the Armed Forces community can expect to be treated, and the aspirations and expectations that we believe are implicit in the covenant.
The covenant and the guidance do not, however, describe what the Government are doing to put this into effect. That is why I am also publishing a paper entitled The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, which sets out the practical measures we are taking to support the covenant. It brings together the commitments we have already made with the new measures that I am announcing today.
A number of these measures take forward the ideas of Professor Hew Strachan, who led an independent task force on the covenant last year at the request of the Prime Minister. His report was published on 8 December, and I would like to record the Government’s thanks for the extremely valuable work that he did. We are today publishing the Government’s full response to this report.
One of Professor Strachan’s most important recommendations was the introduction of a community covenant. This will strengthen communities and build new links between them, local government and the Armed Forces. We expect it to be launched next month, but I can today announce that we are allocating up to £30 million over the next four years to support joint projects at a local level between the services or veterans’ groups and the wider community.
I will now turn to the matter of the Armed Forces Bill, which the House will shortly have a further opportunity to consider. This contains provision for an annual report on the Armed Forces covenant, which is designed to strengthen this House’s ability to scrutinise how we are fulfilling our obligations. In this way, the existence of the covenant is being recognised in statute for the first time, as promised by the Prime Minister last year.
In deciding how best to recognise the covenant in law, the Government have had to maintain a careful balance. On the one hand, we do not want to see the chain of command undermined or the military permanently involved in human rights cases in the European courts. On the other, we must ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the wider service community, the Armed Forces charities and the British public for our Armed Forces are met.
We believe that a sensible way forward that will give the right kind of legal basis to the Armed Forces covenant for the first time in our history is to enshrine the principles in law, provide a regular review of the policies that will make them a reality, ensure that Parliament has a chance to scrutinise this review through the annual report, and that the report itself is widely informed, consultative and transparent. I believe it is right that the Government are held to account on delivering the principles underpinning the covenant by this House, and not by the European courts. That is what our approach will ensure.
I want to highlight two important aspects. First, the Government will set out on the face of the Bill the key principles we believe underpin both the covenant and any report on its implementation. Ensuring that members of the Armed Forces community do not suffer disadvantage as a result of their service, and that where appropriate they receive special treatment, are at the heart of the Armed Forces covenant. I can tell the House this afternoon that the Government will bring forward amendments, before the Third Reading of the Bill, to require the Secretary of State to address those principles in preparing his report to Parliament and to recognise the unique nature of service life.
Secondly, the Government have always been clear to the House on their commitment to consult stakeholders on the annual report. First, we intend to consult widely in the preparation of the report—internally through the chain of command, and with external stakeholders. We will be actively interested in evidence about how the whole range of public bodies is performing, not just Whitehall departments. Secondly, before laying the report before the House, we will give the members of the external reference group from outside Government an opportunity to comment on the report, and we will publish any observations alongside it.
We are working with the external reference group to update its terms of reference in line with its significant new role. The Government place great importance on maintaining our dialogue with bodies such as the service families federations and the major service and ex-service charities in telling us what is happening on the ground, and I should like to pay tribute today to the invaluable contribution they make to the welfare of the Armed Forces community. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the contribution to this debate of the Royal British Legion, which continues to do such outstanding work in support of our Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces covenant is not just about words, it is about actions. The men and women of our Armed Forces judge us by what we do to improve their lives and those of their families. Since taking office, this Government have taken a series of important measures to rebuild the covenant. Let me mention some of them. We have doubled operational allowance; we have included service children within the pupil premium; we have introduced scholarships for the children of bereaved service families; and we have taken action to improve mental health care.
These measures are especially impressive when set against the background of the dire economic situation in which this Government must operate. There is much still to do. I have always been clear that our commitment to rebuild the covenant is a journey we are beginning, not something we can do overnight. And I believe our people understand that.
But we are continuing to take action. I am today announcing additional measures that will tackle some of the problems experienced by service personnel, families and veterans. I have already mentioned the new community covenant grant scheme. We are also setting up a new fund of £3 million per year, over and above the pupil premium arrangements, to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children. We will launch a veteran’s card that will allow access to discounts and privileges. In helping injured personnel, we will guarantee that veterans suffering serious genital injuries have access to three cycles of IVF, wherever they live. We will increase from 25 per cent to 50 per cent the rate of council tax relief for military personnel serving on operations overseas.
In addition, between now and the Summer Recess, I expect there to be further announcements, which again underline that this is a priority across the whole of government, and not just defence. Today, Ministers are chairing a meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree ways to improve access to housing for our people. My right honourable friend the Health Secretary and I are looking forward to the report from my honourable friend the Member for South West Wiltshire on how to further improve the supply of prosthetics for injured personnel. We will consider how to ensure that guaranteed income payments made under the AFCS are not required to be used to pay for social care provided by the public sector.
The obligation we owe to our service men and women, set against the commitment and sacrifice which they make, is enormous. In the current financial climate, we are not able to do as much to honour that obligation, or to do it as quickly, as we would like, but we can make clear the road on which are embarked.
Our understanding of the covenant will change over time, as will the way in which government and society meet it. The framework we have set out today provides the flexibility we need so that not only the Government but all of society can fully pay the enormous debt we owe our Armed Forces, their families and our veterans. I commend it to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence and for the advance copies of the three reports on the Armed Forces covenant and the Statement itself. We of course endorse the Minister’s comments on the support and respect that our Armed Forces merit and deserve from all of us. We welcome today’s Statement and will examine the details closely, including the amendments to the Armed Forces Bill which the Government propose to bring forward.
The Statement represents a U-turn in policy and in intention; one that we welcome. In June last year, the Prime Minister said on “Ark Royal” that a new military covenant would be, as he put it,
“written into the law of the land”.
“Ark Royal” has since been decommissioned and, until today, it looked as though the Government were determined that the Prime Minister’s pledge on the military covenant would suffer the same fate. The Government brought forward proposals which would reference the covenant in law but without a formal definition. The Royal British Legion said that it was “nonsense” to suggest that that would deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge. The Royal British Legion, the public, the media and Members from all sides of both Houses of Parliament have been pressing for amendments to be made to the Armed Forces Bill currently in the other place to honour the pledge and enshrine the military covenant in law.
In February, amendments were tabled in the other place to the Armed Forces Bill which called for a statutory instrument to establish a “written military covenant”. They were voted down by the Government. In mid-March, the Prime Minister said that the proposals in the Armed Forces Bill were the “right thing to do”, at the same time as the Royal British Legion said that the proposals were “completely counter” to his original pledge.
The Armed Forces Bill has now been delayed for the major rethink which the Government announced in Parliament today, after first announcing it in the media over the weekend. We do not have to look far to find the reason for the welcome U-turn: the likelihood of defeat in the other place and the certainty of defeat in your Lordships’ House. The Government are not changing their policy because they want to but because they have to. If that is to be disputed, why has the Armed Forces Bill been delayed? I had been asked for a day for Second Reading, and had agreed it, only for it to be postponed. Why have the Government been speaking and voting against implementing the clear pledge given by the Prime Minister on board “Ark Royal”?
In recent months we have seen pensions for injured soldiers and war widows cut; we have seen allowances cut; we have seen warrant officers sacked by e-mail and announcements of redundancies leaked to national newspapers; and we have seen the pay of service personnel frozen. We hope that today’s Statement is the start of a fresh approach to how this Government support our Armed Forces, although I acknowledge the commitment that the Minister has shown, does show and, I know, will continue to show to our Armed Forces.
The covenant is made in recognition of the fact that a career in the Armed Forces differs from all others. It recognises that service personnel agree to sacrifice certain civil liberties and to follow orders, including to place themselves in harm’s way in defence of others. In return, the nation recognises its obligations and helps, supports and rewards those in the Armed Forces. As the Minister put it in repeating the Statement:
“The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it … That obligation is encapsulated in the Armed Forces covenant”.
In his foreword to the report, The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, to which the Statement referred, the Secretary of State for Defence also acknowledges the steps taken by the previous Administration.
The Government will now set out in the Bill the key principles which they consider underpin both the covenant and any report on its implementation. With that objective in mind, the Government will bring forward amendments before the Bill’s Third Reading in the other place. Can the Minister confirm that that means that the Government will not be accepting the amendments tabled by Mr Philip Hollobone MP in the other place, which were supported by the opposition Benches there, as well as by a number of Members on the government Benches?
Is it the Government’s intention to seek to draw up the amendments they are bringing forward on a cross-party basis and in discussion with the Royal British Legion and forces’ families? In the light of the strength of feeling that the Government have caused through their lack of enthusiasm until now for delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge, it is surely vital that they do their utmost to make sure that there is now agreement across the board on this vital issue so that the covenant is taken out of the cut and thrust of party politics.
The Statement referred to the introduction of a community covenant, which was one of Professor Strachan’s recommendations. The amount allocated is £30 million over the next four years. Can the Minister say a bit more about the kind of joint projects at a local level that the Government have in mind?
The Statement also referred to a new fund of £3 million per year to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children. Is this all additional money which does not come in whole or in part from any existing funding programmes for children of members of the Armed Forces? How many service children do the Government envisage that this money, over and above the pupil premium arrangements, will in reality be able to support in a meaningful way?
The Government’s report entitled The Armed Forces Covenant, made available with the Statement, refers on page 11 to what the Government “will consider” in relation to measures to minimise the social and economic impact of military life and to enable equality of outcome with other citizens, as well as special treatment for the injured and bereaved. The use of the words “will consider” might seem to some a bit weak and vague. Why would the Minister disagree with that view?
The Statement outlined a number of measures, at least some of which appear also to have been the previous Government’s policies, as set out in 2008 in the first cross-government strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel and in the 2009 Green Paper, which proposed innovative policies to improve welfare. Can the Minister confirm the total amount of new investment that will be provided to implement the proposals to which he referred in the Statement? Will he also confirm that all this is new investment and is not to be found from within existing resources, and that it is not already contained in whole or in part in any existing programmes announced by this or the previous Government? I also ask that in the context of indications that further cuts may be made by the Government in Ministry of Defence expenditure.
In conclusion, we will support the Government when they do the right thing. In setting out to enshrine the covenant in law, the Government are entitled to the support of the Opposition, and, if they do it properly, that is what they will have. Our Armed Forces and their families would expect us to come together and to work to make a success of this important announcement.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his general support for the Statement. I start by welcoming him to the Dispatch Box in his new position as shadow Defence Minister in this House and I very much look forward to working with him. Defence is such an important issue that I wish to be as open as I am able to be in sharing information with him.
The House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who did a very good job of keeping me on my toes. The noble Lord was in his party’s defence team for a number of years and, picking up one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made, I acknowledge the steps taken by the previous Administration on the military covenant issue. I know that this matter was close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether this is a U-turn. It is not. The steps that we are taking in enshrining the principles of the covenant in law fulfil the pledge made by the Prime Minister last summer. This coalition listens and we are very grateful for the work and advice of the Royal British Legion. Significantly, the covenant is being recognised in statute for the first time and it is right that the Third Reading of the Bill should take place after publication of the Armed Forces covenant to allow informed debate.
I may not be able to answer all the noble Lord’s questions and, if I do not, I shall certainly write to him. He asked me to explain a bit about the community covenant. The scheme aims to encourage public service providers, the private sector and the voluntary and community sectors to volunteer support to their local Armed Forces community. The nature of the support offered will depend on the needs of the local community but it could take the form of, for example, free access to leisure facilities, discounts in shops and restaurants, or special provisions in local service delivery, such as additional support in accessing public services. The community covenant is intended to be a two-way arrangement, and we will actively encourage the local Armed Forces population in their area to offer support to their local community. This might include participation in open days, school visits or helping with community projects, and it will be determined by the needs of the local area. The community covenant is about integrating service life into the local community and improving engagement between the local service population and other members of the community.
The noble Lord asked about the pupil premium for service children. I can confirm an additional fund of £3 million a year to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children, including the children of reservists. Many schools run into problems because their pupils have to move quickly with their parents or a new batch suddenly arrives and this can be very disruptive. We understand that up to 36,000 children in England alone will benefit from this.
Finally, I have placed 150 copies of these publications in the Printed Paper Office. I accept that there is a lot to absorb in them and accordingly I am very happy to organise a briefing on the Armed Forces covenant for those Peers who would be interested and my office is in touch with the relevant officials to identify suitable dates. This will enable Peers to digest these publications fully and they will then have the opportunity to ask me or the relevant experts questions.
Lord Craig of Radley
I thank the noble Lord very much for repeating the Statement and I look forward to reading the documents he has talked about. A number of the areas of support mentioned in the Statement for Armed Forces personnel, veterans and families deal with health, education and local government support. These are devolved Administration responsibilities. Can the Minister explain how the Government are going to ensure that all the devolved Administrations march in step and that there is no possibility of some postcode lottery in the treatment of individuals by separate Administrations?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, as always, raises a very important issue. Much of what is contained in the document is UK-wide but where matters are devolved, such as education and healthcare, which the noble and gallant Lord mentioned, the devolved Governments are taking forward a number of measures to support the Armed Forces community which reflect the different legislative landscape and the way in which their public services are delivered. It is for them to publicise the measures they are taking. We will work with their respective new Governments to get the best outcome for the Armed Forces community.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I welcome the Statement but it is worth reflecting that during the time I was the responsible Secretary of State I never heard the phrase “military covenant” used at all. During that time it was accepted, and understood by all who were involved, that we had a responsibility to care for our servicemen. I appreciate that it is the first time the opposition spokesman on defence has spoken, but I found it rather difficult to contain my normal calm self when I heard him complaining about why we were not spending more money on certain aspects of the covenant. How much more we could do if we had not inherited the biggest defence deficit in modern times—£30 billion. Even the papers today make clear the problems we face.
There is heightened public concern because of the campaigns and activities in which we are involved at the present time. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan is coming a legacy that will require enormous attention, considerable expense and priority consideration in housing and health. I welcome the statements made by my noble friend, particularly about housing as there is a distressing number of homeless ex-servicemen and a number who are severely handicapped and homeless. However, the issue is not just the housing of ex-servicemen. We are told that if efficiency improvements provide the resource, something will be done about serious problems in existing service housing, which certainly ought to have the priority in any official covenant. Covenants are fine, enshrined in law is fine, but it is the actions that are taken and the care that is given that matter above anything else.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point and I am certainly not at all happy to be a Minister in this very difficult financial environment. Honouring the covenant does not necessarily mean having to spend large amounts of money. Ensuring that service personnel, their families and veterans are treated fairly can often be about adapting existing policies where the particular needs of the service community have not previously been taken account of. Many of the commitments in the covenant are being led by other government departments and will not rely on the defence budget.
My noble friend made a very good point about the homeless. We take the issue of former personnel who find themselves without a home very seriously. Research carried out specifically in London shows that the proportion of veterans among the homeless population has fallen dramatically over the last 10 years.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I greatly welcome the Statement and look forward to many of its proposals becoming law. I want to ask the Minister about our 5.5 million veterans, many of whom feel that when they take off their uniform Britain forgets them. Can the Minister tell us precisely what benefits veterans will get from the veterans’ card? Further, as there are so many veterans’ charities—doing wonderful work that perhaps we as a country ought to be doing—many veterans do not know where to turn when they are in difficulty. What progress has been made by Veterans UK in its ambition to become the number one point of contact for ex-service men and women who need help?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the veterans’ card which I understand will be launched next year to access commercial discounts or privileges and to consider how this could be expanded to include service families. Anyone who served in the Armed Forces will be entitled to have this veterans’ card—so a lot of Members of this House can apply to get the card. The card will be sponsored and paid for by retailers. Nothing will come out of the defence budget. I understand that some retailers are going to offer discounts of up to 50 per cent. I know of a particular pizza chain which is prepared to offer up to 50 per cent off throughout the country. If any noble Lord would like to come and discuss it afterwards, I can reveal the name of the chain.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, today’s Statement said:
“The Armed Forces covenant is not just about words, it is about actions”.
However, most of today’s Statement is very much long on words and generalities and rather short on specifics, and falls considerably short of the weekend’s spin and hype. Nevertheless, there are a number of steps in the right direction. I want to ask my noble friend two specific questions. First, regarding the £3 million over and above the pupil premium to support state schools, he mentioned that 36,000 pupils are likely to benefit. How is this likely to be allocated? Is it going to be so much per head for service children or will schools have to bid for the allocation? Secondly, policy option five on page 32 of the Strachan report talks of encouraging Olympic involvement. Can my noble friend say anything about the involvement of service personnel, such as veterans and those who are wounded, in the coming Olympics and whether there is going to be any priority allocation of tickets? Overall, we need time to study these reports and I very much look forward to the Armed Forces Bill coming to this House when we can have a full and proper debate on the covenant.
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank my noble friend for his questions. It is the intention that the pupil premium for service children in state schools will cover the whole of the UK so it is broader than the pupil premium. I will have to write to my noble friend regarding how schools will bid for this.
I was looking through these different publications earlier and saw in one of them a chapter on the Armed Forces’ help for the Olympics. I will have a word with the noble Lord afterwards and point it out to him.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which has much in it to be welcomed. However, is not a key point of enshrining a requirement in law that there should be a remedy if the requirement is not met? In this case, the remedy seems to be that Ministers will have to explain themselves in Parliament. However, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, many issues that have caused such problems for our service families over the years are outwith the control of the Ministry of Defence. I refer, for example, to their inability to get access to dental services, to their having no choice of schooling for their children, and to their losing their place on NHS waiting lists when they move with their spouses. Given that fact, and accepting that devolved authorities are a different and difficult case to which we may wish to return, and given the particular nature of the remedy in this case, will the Minister say whether the Secretaries of State for the relevant departments—for example, health and education—will be held to account in Parliament at the time of the annual report, rather than just the Secretary of State for Defence?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. I very much hope that they will be held to account when the annual report comes out. This will cover deficiencies in any of the departments, so I hope that they will be named and shamed.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, will my noble friend elaborate on the health arrangements when injured servicemen have to go into civilian life? At present there is often a horrible gap in provision.
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank my noble friend for that question. Again, the issue is covered in one of these publications. We are giving a lot of thought to it and I will write to her on that issue.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I very much welcome the decision to have this covenant. However, is the noble Lord aware how complex this is going to get? I will give an example that has been touched on already. One of the main problems is service personnel who have been in the services for a long time, who have seen armed conflict and who come out and find it very difficult to settle. It is a question not just of housing. Consequent rates of suicide, attempted suicide, hospital admissions and prison admissions are all extraordinarily high, as the Minister knows. We ought to discuss—perhaps when we get into the detail of the Bill—whether there is not a more sophisticated role for Armed Forces charities, which could have some of the work outsourced to them. Ex-service personnel will often relate better to them than to local or national government institutions.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We always work very closely with service charities. One area that was raised by the noble and gallant Lord was that of veterans and mental health, where we work very closely with the charity Combat Stress, and with the NHS, to explore and develop appropriate models of care and support. We recently launched a 24-hour mental health helpline, run by the charity Rethink on behalf of Combat Stress, which is funded through the NHS.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
In his Statement, the Minister referred to the loss of a loved one. Will he confirm that the Government remain committed to improving the coronial system so that families are not traumatised by delayed or improperly conducted inquests, and that the principles outlined in the Coroners and Justice Act will continue, even though the exact structure is under discussion? Will the Minister confirm also that the voices of those representing people who have been bereaved through military conflict will be embedded in those reforms and will be considered; and that, should the conduct of an inquest be inadequate, there will be recourse through the local authority ombudsman?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we take the issue of coroners very seriously. I cannot today give the noble Baroness the confirmation that she wants. Discussions are going on as we speak between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice on this issue, and the response will be apparent very soon.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My noble friend will recall that I wrote to his right honourable friend Mr Fox about veterans' courts, and the possibility that we could introduce them in this country in the way that they have been in certain states of the United States of America. They are courts to which veterans could apply to be heard if they get into trouble with the civil authorities. I note that the last page of the Government's response, under Annex D, “Further research required”, states:
“Possible areas for further exploration include … The profile of the service community in prison: length of service, family background, age, etc”.
Does the Minister agree that the problems of veterans in prison should be pushed up the agenda rather than onto the back page of the report, and that their interests should be seriously considered by the Government?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very important question. I have not seen a copy of the letter that he sent to my right honourable friend, but I will make a point of seeking it out. The issue of veterans in prison is one that we take very seriously. We are in touch with the Home Office about that and I would welcome further discussions with my noble friend on this very important issue.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Will my noble friend say how veterans will be informed about their benefits and privileges under the veterans’ card that will be issued? Will this be done through service charities or by the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank my noble friend for that question. We have not come to a final decision. The card will not be launched until next year. It will probably be launched by the Ministry of Defence, although it will be paid for by the retailers. At this stage I cannot provide my noble friend with the answer that he wants.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the language of “covenant” is interesting because it is both religious and legal in its history. Tying down what the covenant means is crucial. The language of the scope of the covenant is in the subjunctive: all these things “should” happen, not “must” or “will” happen. What independent monitoring of the working of the covenant is envisaged beyond reporting by a Minister to Parliament?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, that is where the external reference group comes in. It brings together representatives from across Whitehall, key service charities such as the Royal British Legion and SSAFA, the three Families Federations and representatives from the academic world. It delivers an independent judgment on the Government's efforts in supporting the Armed Forces community. I mentioned earlier Professor Hew Strachan, who is a member of the ERG which is chaired by Chris Wormald from the Cabinet Office.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement today. I agree that he has shown great support for the Armed Forces, and I know that he has found it very difficult. When I fought in the Falklands, in my naivete I felt that in the final analysis my country would look after my wife and children if things went wrong. I did not believe that a covenant was necessary. I am generally pleased that there is a covenant, but I will not be sure until I read the detail.
What I did know in the Falklands was that the capability of the weapons systems, and the sheer number of units involved, were more important to me than almost anything else. The document states that all Governments have no higher duty than defence of the realm. I do not believe that in terms of funding over the past year, the MoD has taken the top priority for spending. Will the Minister confirm that bearing in mind articles such as that today in the Times, and the fact that more money is being looked for, defence will now take the top priority among all departments for spending?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we will certainly keep all the other departments up to speed on this. As the noble Lord said, for years Governments have talked of supporting the military, tending to focus largely on what it spends on equipment. I can assure the House that the Armed Forces covenant is about our obligations as a society to our military personnel.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister today. It is a pity that it had to go through a process in the Commons whereby the Government did a U-turn. It would have been much better not to have put themselves in that position from the beginning.
There are three documents. We have not had much time to read them, but I welcome the Statement. In many respect, the documents raise more questions than they answer. The Minister referred to the Armed Forces Bill, and we will discuss that in depth in this House, but my concern is that the content of the covenant is worthy of a full and analytical discussion in this House, quite apart from the Bill. Knowing how committed the Minister is to the welfare of our personnel, I invite him to agree with me that it would be appropriate to discuss the documents we have been presented with today in a proper debate in this House in advance of the Armed Forces Bill coming before us.
Lord Astor of Hever
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, and I will certainly take it up with the usual channels. These are very complicated publications, and there is an awful lot to absorb. That probably cannot be done just by a briefing in this House or in the Ministry of Defence, so I am very happy to consider that.
On the timing, Members of another place will have an opportunity to debate the Armed Forces Bill in the Committee of the Whole House on 14 June, and the Third Reading will be on 16 June.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
Lord Grocott
My Lords, Amendment 22A is grouped with Amendment 23, but I do not intend to move Amendment 23, which is about the relationships between the two Houses, in advance of the publication of the House of Lords reform White Paper. I understand that we will be getting it tomorrow, so having a discussion today is rather pointless.
Amendment 22A refers to the need for major constitutional issues to be ratified by referendum. I am acutely aware that the idea of a referendum at all is not too popular at the moment. I was not very keen on the last one, but I am now that I know the result. I know that my justification for raising this was that a real-world event of some significance occurred between Committee and Report on the Bill. This is a constitutional Bill of some significance, and in between the two stages a very important event took place: the referendum on first past the post versus the alternative vote. It is absolutely right and proper that when the first referendum in 40-odd years has taken place, it should be considered.
I am pretty surprised that there has been no official statement on the result of the referendum to either House, as far as I know. There certainly has been no statement to this House, and I do not think there has been one to the other House either. I fear that I know the reason. Perhaps the Minister can give me a more principled reason than this, but I fear that it is in both sides of the Government’s interest to pretend that the referendum has not happened. The Liberal Democrats obviously do not want to be reminded of the result, and the Conservatives, who may be muttering beneath their breath and punching the air silently, if it is possible to do that, may none the less feel that they had better not say too much about it at the moment because it might upset their coalition partners. I do not have either of those inhibitions. I am very happy to talk about the referendum and its significance for this legislation. I want to make sure that I remain in order.
I have to add, in parenthesis, that there is almost a conspiracy of silence among the media on this referendum. I think of two newspapers in particular—the Guardian and the Independent—which set great store by the referendum and campaigned for a yes vote. I am sure we would have had no end of in-depth analysis if there had been a yes vote, but as far as I can discover, although I cannot claim to read both papers in detail every day, there has been virtually no reference to the outcome of the referendum. There is a kind of a news blackout on discussing it. I do not intend to discuss it at length.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I can hardly believe what I am hearing. In the referendum, the Labour Party was split. I am not sure whether it was split down the middle or at some other juncture, but it was clearly severely split, with its leader going one way and a lot of other people, including the noble Lord, another. Can he tell us what his Front Bench would have said had there been a statement?
Lord Grocott
I am responsible for all sorts of things, but I am happy to say that, by my choice—who knows what might have happened now—I retired from the Front Bench. One reason why I wanted to retire from the Front Bench was to have the sheer joy of discussing these constitutional issues without any inhibition.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What the Front Bench would have said is that we accept the will of the people.
Lord Grocott
That is absolutely right. Just to correct a mathematical point, the Labour Party was not split down the middle. There was a majority of Labour MPs and Peers, a huge majority of Labour councillors and, so far as we know, activists and a colossal majority among voters. I see my noble friend Lord Reid in his place. He took an identical view to me and many other members of the Labour Party on the issue.
If the intervention was intended to embarrass, it has merely prolonged my remarks and enabled me to put the record straight on what the Labour Party did in practice in a referendum. The commitment of the Labour Party was to hold a referendum, not to tell people what to do, although I must admit that some of us in the Labour Party tried to influence the outcome. There has been a news blackout on this referendum, and I think I have explained the reason why.
The obvious question to ask is: what is the significance of this reference to the referendum in the Bill before the House? I think it is very significant indeed. The first point is to remind everyone of the colossal majority, by any reasonable expectations, in the referendum. It was passed in every voting district in the United Kingdom except, I think, seven. In most of the polling districts, between two-thirds and three-quarters of those asked said they did not want any change. I draw at least a couple of lessons from that that are significant to this Bill. It tells us pretty clearly that the public have very little appetite for major constitutional change. Many of us have argued that time and again in vain. Some of us did so through long periods of the night and were much criticised for it. We tried to point out to the Government and others that the public were just not raising these issues. There was no appetite for them whatever. If anyone is in any doubt that should a referendum be held, let us say, on fixed-term Parliaments—which of course reduce the power of the public; I will come to that in a moment—I have very little doubt that the outcome in that referendum would be similar to the outcome in the referendum that we have recently held.
The other thing I want to mention is something that I might be able to convince the House on. The outcome gives the lie to the oft repeated—in fact, ad nauseam repeated—comment, particularly by the Deputy Prime Minister, although others are guilty as well, that somehow or other we have a broken constitution, a broken politics, in this country. I have heard that word “broken” time and time again. One or two people who take close interest in these issues might be able to repeat that. I do not see any evidence, certainly not based on the result of that referendum, that that is what the people of this country think. They make all sorts of criticisms about politicians and politics, which is a healthy thing to do, but when it comes to the basic democratic construction of our constitution, the public’s involvement in it, their ability to speak to and canvass their Members of Parliament, their ability to participate in elections and the freedom with which any conceivable opinion can be expressed, this country’s constitution, far from being broken, works remarkably well in comparison with—I would go so far as to say any country in the world—certainly the vast majority of countries in the world.
Please may I urge a little rethink, particularly on the part of the Liberal Democrats, on this constantly repeated phrase about a broken constitution? It does this country no favours—obviously—and it happens not to be true in the eyes of the electorate. If there were a broken constitution, my word, you could rest assured that the members of the public who constantly canvass their MPs—write to them, e-mail them, visit them at their constituency offices and so on—would be letting their Members of Parliament know. If any former MP is going to stand up and tell me now that the public are deeply concerned about broken aspects of the constitution, please do so and I will readily give way, but that is not my experience.
I know there is no great mood in the House to set forth on another referendum, but, as I said, this is the only basis on which I could introduce this subject, which was also raised in Committee. I ask the Minister on what basis, if any, he thinks the public want this huge change to their constitution. When he answers that question, I would like him to confirm—he owes it to this House, as this has been raised on many occasions, but we have not yet, as far as I can recall, and I have been here most of the time, had a clear answer to this question—that if this Bill passes in the way the Government want, there will be fewer general elections in this country; the public will be consulted less frequently. I regard that as a step backwards. We all know about problems with turnout, and I do not want to overstate my case, but I find a general election day as an awe-inspiring event if you think about it—I do not normally think about it in these terms because I am so busy. We have had all the opinion polls and all the chatter, and then there is a curious calm on election day when the public decide, and we never quite know what they are going to decide or the basis on which they make their decision.
If this Government are proposing, as they are, that there will be fewer general elections in the future—my calculation is that there would have been three fewer since the Second World War—could they at least acknowledge that this is the case and that they are going into this with their eyes wide open? It is very important that they do. I would like the Minister to tell us what the evidence is that the public want this change. Do they know the significance of what the Government are proposing? Furthermore, given that again we are being repeatedly told that all these constitutional changes are part of a coherent whole—the Bill we just considered, this Bill and the one that is coming down the track on House of Lords reform—I really would like to know what criteria the Government use to determine whether a constitutional Bill is of sufficient significance to be put to the people in a referendum. When I asked the Minister that in Committee, although he is a very honest man and good at dealing with this Bill he did not give a particularly straightforward answer. He said:
“The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked my noble friend Lord McNally which issues would be submitted to a referendum, and my noble friend replied: ‘the Government believe that Parliament should judge which issues are the subject of a national referendum’… Indeed, it will be possible for Parliament to make that judgment on any legislation”.—[Official Report, 15/3/11; col. 193.]
It is not a very straightforward answer, let us be absolutely honest, to say that Parliament will judge when there is a heavy Whip—we all know perfectly well that this recent referendum would never have gone through the House of Commons on a free vote. That applies to the other half of that Bill, which increased the size of constituencies, so may we please have other criteria, aside from saying that it has to go through Parliament? Of course legislation has to go through Parliament. I want to know the basis on which the Government decide whether major constitutional Bills such as this one or the House of Lords reform Bill should be subject to referendums. What made the proposed change in the voting system subject to a referendum but, unless the Government have had second thoughts, not these other constitutional Bills? I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, not for the first time the noble lord, Lord Grocott, has entertained the House with some good, robust constitutional common sense. I would just gently rebuke him. I am glad he has decided not to press Amendment 23, because he above all people must realise that the phrase “elected House of Lords” is a contradiction in terms. One cannot have an elected House of Lords; what the Government are, I believe, about to propose—and our suspense will be at an end tomorrow, I am told—is the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a totally different sort of second Chamber. It behoves all of us in this place to recognise that reality and then to debate it on its merits or, as I believe, lack of them. We cannot allow ourselves to be deluded into talking about House of Lords reform when in fact we are going to debate House of Lords abolition. I am glad, therefore, that he is not going to move that amendment.
As to the amendment that he has moved, I am not sure how he could expect the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement on the referendum. It is very difficult to make a statement when your face is covered in egg, and very difficult for the Prime Minister to make a statement when all he could do was echo a predecessor and say, “Rejoice, rejoice”. We know why there was no statement, but we are all glad at the result.
The noble Lord has placed before your Lordships’ House one very important question which it is important that my noble friend the Minister should seek to answer and which, for all his sensitivity, charm and many other qualities—and I do not say that in any sense facetiously—he has failed adequately to address until now. What are the criteria to determine a referendum? It cannot merely be what Parliament decides, because that means what is convenient for the Government of the day. Do not let us again delude ourselves into believing all the fine rhetoric surrounding this Bill. The Executive in our country are drawn from the legislature, and I do not object to that at all; I never have. It is the Executive who are the driving machine in all this. I personally do not like referenda, but they are in the system now. If our constitution, of which the noble Lord has spoken both eloquently and accurately, is to be safeguarded for future generations, it is important that we establish a principle that on major constitutional issues such as devolution, our continued membership in 1975 of the Common Market, as it then was, or the future of either or both of our Houses of Parliament, there should be the opportunity for the people, untrammelled by other considerations that inevitably crowd upon them during a general election, to be able to decide.
I hope that all those in government at the moment will reflect on that as we approach detailed debates in coming days, weeks, months and, I trust, years and determine what at the end of all that debate should happen. It is very important that we have a clear and coherent answer to that. It is unreasonable for us to suggest that my noble friend the Minister could give a comprehensive answer this evening. Of course he cannot—he has to consult his ministerial colleagues and superiors—but he can at least tell us that he has heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and that he recognises that there has to be an intellectually defensible set of criteria that determines what a major constitutional issue is and what it is not, and when there should be a referendum and when there should not.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I am not implying that there should be a referendum on the Bill now before us, but I congratulate him on ingeniously using this opportunity to bring up a very important issue that gives us all a chance to reflect on it as we move towards an issue that truly will affect not only the future of this House but the future balance and stability of our constitution as a whole: the constitution about which the noble Lord spoke with such quiet passion and eloquence. Let us see what my noble and learned friend has to say before we end the Report stage of what is not the most glorious constitutional measure this House has been asked to consider.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Lord on his amendment. I do not think that the constitution, or even our politics, is broken, but a certain amount of damage has been done. In my lifetime I have seen a tendency for participation rates in voting to fall, along with an increasing sense of weariness with modern politics and disrespect for politicians. I am on the record as saying, when the Constitution Committee published a report on referendums last year, that there is a place for them in building confidence. Interestingly, the participation rate in the recent referendum was really rather encouraging. It was higher than we thought it would be in the lead-up to it. A cautious but proper rediscovery of the place for referendums has a part in rebuilding political life in this country.
More substantially, I should like to try a thought experiment on your Lordships. Let us imagine that we had a Bill before us that proposed to extend the life of a Parliament from a normal term of five years to six years. Would we think that that required a referendum? We would probably think that it did because it would extend the maximum term from five years to six, but in practice we are going to extend the length of Parliaments by an average of about a year. Why is this not an issue on which there should be a referendum?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I agree entirely with those who have just spoken that it would be helpful to the House—indeed, I think it is a necessity—that some clear principles should be articulated as to when a referendum would be appropriate. I understand the case for referenda on major constitutional issues. After all, the constitution is the property of the people and not of us as parliamentarians. If significant aspects of it are to be changed, there is a strong case for saying that they should be changed only with the permission of the people. However, I invite the House to consider the proposition that every significant constitutional change that we have seen over the last several decades has diminished the centrality of Parliament in our constitution. Whether it has been accession to the European Union, devolution or the development of the practice of holding referenda, we can see in all these instances that the capacity of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to take the major decisions that the people of the United Kingdom elected it to take has diminished. So before we express enthusiasm for the proliferation of referenda—perhaps no noble Lord wants to see their proliferation, although we should note that the European Union Bill seems to offer the scope for at least 57 varieties of them—we should consider what this may mean for the centrality and the character of Parliament in our national life.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to speculate on the nature and the circumstances that might make it imperative to hold a referendum. It is unreasonable to expect the Minister to respond in definitive terms, and I do not think that we would necessarily push for that tonight; but it is reasonable to expect two things. The first is that the Minister, who as noble Lords have said has been more than reasonable in his attempts to respond to and clarify some of these issues, should attempt to answer the point. Secondly, he should consider some of the criteria that might compel a referendum on subjects the nature of which we are now discussing. He might like to consider, for instance, that one of the elements that would compel a referendum would be on subjects that are closely related to those which have recently been the subject of a referendum, and when the course being proposed by the Government would, in effect, alter that decision of the people in some incidental fashion.
Hypothetically, the people could resoundingly decide to reaffirm first past the post as an electoral system. If there was then any suggestion of a move by either Chamber of Parliament to reject it, obviously that could not be done, especially in the wake of an overwhelming decision to reject the system of alternative vote. If any attempt was made by either Chamber of this House to change that decision, perhaps by putting it through Parliament itself, it would be an outrage. If it was good enough to do it by referendum in the first place, it is good enough to do it in the second place. It is no argument to say, “We did not like the result the first time around, and so we will change the system”. That is partly why the alternative vote was rejected. Therefore one of the criteria might be that there has been a recent vote on a subject.
A second criterion might be that something was a fundamental part of the British constitution, such as the voting system itself. It would appear from past experience that that requires a referendum. That might be the second criterion which a priori we would suggest would require the people to be consulted. A third criterion might be a fundamental change in the constitutional arrangements for the governance of the United Kingdom, such as the abolition of one of the two Houses of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we might speculate that we will have a proposal before us not for the reform of the House of Lords, but effectively to abolish it and replace it with a senate. I leave aside the substantial arguments as to whether this is taking place in the context of, whether intentionally or otherwise, the other House having been denigrated. I merely point out that abolishing a House of Parliament would be a major and fundamental constitutional change and therefore might be a subject for the Minister to consider as one of the criteria I have mentioned.
A fourth criterion would be the complete and fundamental diminution of the powers of one of the Houses of Parliament. I speculate again that if, for instance, we were to create a senate whose representatives were elected by, say, proportional representation, that would hugely diminish the powers, status and role of the other place. That is because the other House is only powerful relative to the second House of Parliament under the British constitution by virtue of the fact that the latter is constrained to scrutiny. If the second House were to add democratic legitimacy to its perceived wisdom and maturity, especially using a system that some people claim is more democratic than first past the post, that could not but diminish the powers of the House of Commons.
Finally, if each one of these criteria was an a priori reason for holding a referendum, we must conclude that any move to bring forward measures to change our constitution that included all the criteria—an electoral system that had already been put to the people, a proposal to abolish a House of Parliament and diminish the rights of the other House by the restoration of a new second House—would mean that they would be compelled to include in any legislative proposals an assurance that there would be referendum on them all. I shall give way to my noble friend.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to my noble friend. Would he not agree that the power of another place would be even further diminished if those elected to a second Chamber were on a 15 or 20-year term, were not eligible for re-election and were therefore not accountable to anybody?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Well, of course, my noble friend is speculating. It is hard to believe that the other Chamber would bring forward proposals for the creation of a second House which would so hugely diminish its own powers by bringing in a new electoral system that would then be claimed in the second House to be more legitimate than that in the first; and for a period that was three times as long; for a House that was already widely recognised as being greater in its maturity and wisdom. That would be the greatest case ever of turkeys voting for Christmas.
Should such a proposal come forward, I think that many people in the House of Commons would be very reluctant to diminish their own position, particularly since they have just seen a campaign launched for changing the British constitution—this was the yes to AV campaign—on the basis that MPs were all lazy, cowardly laggards. I think that such a proposal would not be met with universal approval in the House of Commons. I say merely that, if by some mental aberration of that House, such proposals were brought forward and were to concern not only a subject for which one of the criteria had already been put to a referendum—that is, the voting system, which is elemental to the British constitution—but also the abolition of one of the Houses of Parliament and the diminution of the other, each of these individually would be reason for having a referendum. Taken together, there would be an absolutely compelling case for it. I am sure that the Minister in his straightforward fashion, and given that he is a man known for his neutral and objective position in all these matters, will be able to put this to his colleagues, up to and including the leader of his own party, bring it back and reassure us all on it.
Lord Deben
Is it not a common feature of the four examples that the noble Lord has suggested that a referendum can be argued for only when it changes the basis upon which those who would otherwise vote for it have been elected? I am personally opposed to referenda in all circumstances, but it could be argued that it is improper for people who are elected on one basis to make huge changes in their own interest and present that to the people. The four examples that he used have that commonality. Would it not be a good thing for Governments, oppositions and coalitions to think carefully before they bring before the Houses of Parliament such changes without a referendum built within them?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. There is one condition and qualification which the Minister could bring forward as an objection. He could say, for instance, that it would be entirely unreasonable for us to ask the Government to give a commitment to a referendum on such a subject unless they knew the precise details of the referendum, of the question to be put and so on. That would be a cast-iron argument were it not for the fact that the Government have already rushed to the television studios to assure us that they would willingly accept a referendum on the Scottish question were it put, without knowing the wording, the timing or the conditions of it. So that objection would entirely fall.
I am trying to be helpful to the Minister tonight, not by laying down demands for a definition but by suggesting that there might be criteria which he would like to consider before he comes back to the House. Whether it is a White Paper that we have to expect or a grey paper—perhaps by tomorrow morning it will merely be an essay on the British constitution that is being proposed—and whatever the form of the coalition agreement’s operational eminences which exude from discussions in Cabinet, I hope that he will be able to come back and tell us that it is such an important subject that we will all get the chance to vote again, because we so enjoyed the last referendum.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, the key point has been made, but not yet by me. I want to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. Many of the measures being brought before us are premised on the assumption that our political system is broken. Like the noble Lord, I do not accept that it is and there is empirical evidence for showing that the people do not accept it. I accept that there is a crisis of confidence, but it is a crisis of confidence not in institutions but in politicians. There is a danger of displacement taking place here, of saying, “Well, it is not us, it’s the system. We’ll change the system”. There are problems in that, so I accept the premise on which the noble Lord is proceeding.
My fear is that we may get ourselves into a situation where people do think that the system is broken if we keep messing about with it and making disparate changes without any clear rationale for them, rather than individual changes. If the Government start having a referendum on one issue which they feel for whatever reason there should be a referendum on, but then deny it on another issue which people think is important and there should be a referendum on, they will create problems in terms of how people view the system and how it is being operated.
I have always argued against referendums because I have an objection on principle to them; the Government’s problem is that they do not. When they start holding them, they need to have a clear rationale for those occasions when they are clearly appropriate and those when they are not. Otherwise, we create a problem of delegitimising issues, with people thinking, “Well, this is really important, but we’re not going to accept it unless it’s subject to a referendum. Why can the Government have a referendum on A, when we attach real importance to B and we’ve not been given a say on the issue?”. To cope with that, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, indicated, you need a very clear framework which is transparent and explained to people, so that they know the basis on which the Government are proceeding. You cannot do it on an ad hoc basis. You need clearly to adumbrate the overarching framework or, if necessary, come up with those issues which clearly fall within the framework of necessitating a referendum.
The Constitution Committee of which I am member, as is the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, produced its report on referendums and tried to identify those areas so that we could at least get agreement on them. The Government need to think about what framework they are using for promoting referendums. They cannot do it on simply an ad hoc basis, saying that it is up to Parliament, because Government bring the Bill before Parliament. We need to know why they are doing that, and that they are doing it on the basis of principle rather than political desirability. The more politicians do the latter, the more we run the danger of people starting to worry about what the Government are doing and their trust being lost. It is essential that we maintain that trust. If the crisis of confidence is in politicians, it is up to us to get it right.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has served a very valuable purpose, because he has identified with precision one of the main defects in this Bill and so many of the proposals for constitutional change that have been brought forward by this Government and are still to be brought forward.
The essential point surely about constitutional principles is that they are intended to be neutral; they are intended to be objective criteria by which we and the people judge the propriety of the conduct of government. They do so by convention, by practice and, if change is proposed, they do so by public consultation, by pre-legislative scrutiny and by an attempt to achieve consensus. The Government’s inability to identify when a referendum is appropriate—the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked the Minister to explain the Government’s position on this in Committee and the Minister was unable to do so—is a manifestation of constitutional reform and change that is being proposed on an ad hoc basis; it is being proposed if and in so far as it is politically convenient for the coalition to do so.
Constitutional change cannot command public respect when the public perceive politicians as using constitutional means such as a referendum—means which are designed to control politicians—as a way of holding a coalition together. One has to do better than that. One has to identify a principled basis for using or not using a referendum. To bring forward constitutional change in this way—without public consultation and without any attempt to identify and then to apply objective, coherent principles on matters such as referendums—leads inevitably not only to poorly drafted, inadequate legislation but guarantees that the legislation, when enacted, will not command public understanding, far less public respect, and ensures that the legislation will remain on the statute book only in the short term.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, having rashly intervened on the spur of the moment earlier I decided that I had better stay until the end of debate in line with the conventions. I am very glad that I did because, in an old-fashioned phrase, it has been worth a guinea a minute. I shall associate myself later with some of the latter speeches but, first, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—who thought that I was trying to embarrass him—that I was congratulating him on his sheer effrontery. I am not sure that the same is not true about the latter part of his remarks about Governments tampering with the constitution with no overall aim because, frankly, this is not the first Government that this charge could be levelled at—and he was a member of the last. However, on the latter point I am in complete agreement with him.
I wish to pick up on the comments of my noble friend Lord Norton, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and, not least, the noble Lord, Lord Reid—who made one of the most excellent speeches we have heard in these proceedings—on House of Lords reform. I agree with every word they said. As a coalition loyalist—well, mostly—I hope my colleagues will stop this messing about with the constitution. They have not got an architect drawing up what they want to get out of it, a great deal of it looks as though it has not been thought through and it does not reflect the basic fact that we have a constitution which, by and large, has served the country well and continues to do so, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and which was implicit in other speeches.
Having made those troublesome remarks—I saw my Whip looking at me and wondering whether I really had told him that I would be docile and loyalist this week—I assure my noble friend on the Front Bench that I will be good on this Bill. However, I am not promising that if we go on getting this kind of stuff.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I apologise to the House for missing the first few minutes of this debate. However, fortunately, I have heard enough of what has been said since to be provoked into speaking.
Throughout the whole of my parliamentary career in another place I had a passionate feeling that Edmund Burke was right—that Members of Parliament were representatives not delegates—and that there was a danger that the use of a referendum could undermine that basic principle. I therefore have a word of caution about what has been said today, although I agree wholeheartedly with everything that my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Reid, have said. However, one or two caveats ought to be made, particularly in the light of the recent referendum where the result was rather good. Having said that, it was also in some ways—particularly in London—rather surprising. None the less, if there is any contemplation of future referendums, it is very important to write in provisions both in regard to turnout and majority, and that it ought not to be mandatory in the sense that after the result has been declared it does not come back to Parliament. It is very important that that should be so.
To whatever extent one can limit the range of referendums—I much prefer “referendums” to “referenda”; it is the gerund—we should make sure that the line is clearly drawn. To say, “We will have referendums only on constitutional matters”, will not, I suspect, satisfy one’s constituents. I always explained to my constituents that I was not concerned with what a majority of them might think. I would take account what a majority of them thought but would then take into account the debates which took place in the House of Commons and various other arguments I might hear. Constitutional issue or not, it is still the case that one needs to take other matters into account and not only what a simple majority of the population believes. I have considerable qualms about this.
If you asked what referendums the public would really like to have, I have no doubt that, despite the enormous change in social issues over the past half a century, it is still the case that they would like a referendum on capital punishment—and I have little doubt which way such a referendum would go. Therefore we must be very hesitant about going down the route proposed today. However important the individual issue may be—and to some extent we have mixed up the issue of House of Lords reform—we should consider very carefully the idea of spreading referendums wider and wider.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, characteristically, my noble friend Lord Grocott has proposed an amendment which has caught the interest and imagination of the House. This has been a very good debate—almost the best in relation to the Bill. I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Grocott has said. My noble friend Lord Reid made a brilliant speech, which indicated what a loss to the leadership of both the nation and the Labour Party he is. I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Newton, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Pannick, have said. I think it is important to indicate why we are here. The way that you can change the constitution in this country is simply by an Act of Parliament. By and large, Parliament has been responsible in changing the constitution. Let us take, for example, our attempts to change the role of the Lord Chancellor, which got very short shrift from the House of Lords; there was a two-year delay, and it was substantially changed. The experience of the last 12 months in relation to constitutional reform has indicated a fundamental change in how constitutional reform is looked at by Parliament.
This is the second of three Bills in a suite of parliamentary reform. The first Bill reduced the number of Members of Parliament, which had not been done by Parliament by almost 100 years, because it was thought that it should be dealt with by an independent group. It proposed and passed a referendum on AV, which no political party wanted—save, possibly, the Liberal Democrats, faute de mieux—and the public did not want. That change was not introduced on the basis that people thought that it was the right thing to do for the constitution; it was introduced as a result of a deal done between two political parties. Parliament passed it, so Parliament in effect was willing to give approval to something that was not in the interests of the country, necessarily, but reflected what two political parties wanted. The reason Parliament did that, inevitably, was that unusually, because of the coalition, those two political parties controlled both the Commons and at that stage the Lords.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will want to complete the picture and remind the House that the proposal for a referendum on AV was also in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. He seems to have ignored that fact.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord noticed, but we lost the election. In a sense, I would not have been able to say that we would have had much credibility in putting that forward as the losing party—but you might think that that illustrates my point. The AV referendum was defeated, and the party that proposed it was defeated; the Liberal Democrats did not propose it and the Tories did not propose it. Because of the deal that was done and because of the influence that the coalition has on both Houses of Parliament, it is possible for such a constitutional change to get through both Houses of Parliament. An even more interesting point is that I do not think, although the noble and learned Lord will know better than I, that the AV constitutional change—if we ignore the referendum result for the moment—would have actually passed through Parliament; the only way that an attempt could be made to get it on to the statute book was by using the referendum route. The Conservatives would not have voted for it and half of my party would not have voted for it; all the Liberal Democrats would have voted for it, but I do not think that that constitutes a majority.
Most countries have some sort of entrenched or embedded position to protect the constitution, because most countries believe that if their constitution is working it should be more difficult to change it than other provisions. The heart of our constitution is in our democratic arrangements, such as how long Parliaments last, how we elect Members of Parliament, how we determine what the constituencies are and how many constituencies there are. All those arrangements have been fundamentally changed by the first two Bills, except that the AV referendum was defeated. The significance of the defeat in the AV referendum is that it indicates that the public are not interested in, or particularly keen on, a particular change in those particular systems. Before this series of Bills was introduced, my inclination would have been to be more trusting of Parliament to stop changes that go to the heart of the constitution and do not have popular support. Inevitably, in the light of what the coalition has done, one’s faith in Parliament’s ability to resist, because of the coalition, goes down.
The importance of what my noble friend Lord Grocott is proposing in this amendment, which I doubt he will push to a vote—but it is an incredibly important debate to have—is that, if parliamentarians are prepared to play with the constitution in the way that the coalition has done, as simply a counter to be given away in order to get into power, Parliament needs to look at how you protect the constitution against backroom deals in smoke-filled rooms. I am not aiming that particularly at the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives; I am saying what the consequence is of coalitions.
I end with a reference to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I do not know whether noble Lords remember the excellent contribution that he made to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but he was an enthusiast for all of it. I happened to read in my Observer after the AV thing was lost, where the noble Lord said words to the effect that, “Now the AV vote has been lost, I should remind the Conservatives that there still yet needs to be a vote on the new constituencies that are being drawn”. I took that to mean that it was all basically politics that was going on, that it as just a deal that was done, and that if the Liberal Democrats did not get AV they might look askance at what they had previously said was a major constitutional change. I understand why constitutional change. I understand why the noble Lord did it, but does that not suggest that we need to build in a few more protections in relation to major constitutional change? It would appear that this House, which has previously been good at stopping major constitutional change, is now faced with a coalition that has not viewed constitutional change with the same degree of responsibility as previous Governments.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. He is absolutely right that from time to time we did propose constitutional changes, but we got drawn up short by Parliament. That has not happened with this suite of constitutional measures. That is what my noble friend Lord Grocott is saying needs very careful thought. It might not be a referendum that is needed, but something is certainly needed to give a bit of strength to Parliament to resist the possibly politically motivated constitutional changes that the coalition has brought forward—as opposed to in the national interest.
Lord Tyler
I wonder whether in the course of his rewriting of history, the noble and learned Lord could just indicate which proposals for changing our constitution during 13 years of Labour Government, many of which he himself was responsible for, he ever suggested should be put to the public in the form of a referendum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Mayor of London—those are the ones that come to mind immediately.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I was out of the Chamber so I did not speak, but in the light of the noble and learned Lord’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will he comment on the fact that the three referendums that he described were all done one after another—and one had the sense that the policy was being made up as they went along. Only when those three had been done were we allowed a referendum Bill itself.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think that the referendums Bill came between those on Scotland and Wales and the London Mayor, but I may be wrong about that. However, I agree with the underlying thrust of the question. Once we started on the route of referendums we realised that we needed some principles, but those principles guided only the process for a referendum; they did not determine when there should be a referendum and when there should not. Maybe it is that issue that we now need to move on to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, may I draw to the House’s attention that there was also a referendum in Northern Ireland?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Thank you very much indeed for that. I also draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that there was also the referendum on a north-east regional assembly. No doubt before I leave the room there will be 53 other referendums that I shall refer to.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
First, my Lords, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said, we owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for moving his amendment and stimulating an interesting and thought-provoking debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that he was not going to move or speak to his Amendment 23 regarding your Lordships’ House. Although he did not, it was certainly the subtext of a number of the contributions—and sometimes not even the subtext, as the clever speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, indicated. When I listened to what he was inviting me to do or not to do, phrases such as “Greeks bearing gifts” seemed to come to mind from time to time. However, there will be ample opportunity to reflect on the issues in relation to the future of your Lordships’ House over many weeks and months to come.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
The Minister appeared to me to indicate that were part of the United Kingdom to secede, that should be the subject of a national referendum. Did I misunderstand him?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, if I might clarify I think I said that that was one suggestion put forward by the Constitution Committee. It said that that might be one of the occasions that would trigger a referendum but it is certainly not the policy of this Government to have a referendum on Scottish independence. The Prime Minister has made it clear that that would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Let me make that point very clear: it was one of the cases suggested by the Constitution Committee as, possibly, reaching that threshold. This illustrates the point that these are inevitably subjective issues. Any Government who wished to make a distinction about fundamental significance would find that that could vary from Government to Government. However, I undertake that the comments made by your Lordships will be fed back, and I am sure that there will be other occasions when the issue of referendums is discussed. A number of colleagues who talked generally about referendums did not necessarily think that the subject of fixed-term Parliaments lent itself to a referendum. Against that background, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am not just being polite when I say that I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short—well, not so short—debate. I was straightforward with the House in saying that I was introducing the amendment not with a view to the House reaching a decision on it, but because I felt that it was important that the House should have an opportunity to reflect on the fact that a major referendum had taken place on a major constitutional issue and that lessons could be learnt.
Many people have contributed; there have been nine contributions. The Minister said at the end, as I was going to ask him to do, that he would take the views that had been expressed back to his colleagues. Normally it is mere politeness to say that but I really would recommend him to do so; he does not have to include my remarks, but if he includes the other nine contributions in the evidence that he takes back to his colleagues, it might even make them think again about this whole, not overly related programme of constitutional reform on which the Government seem to have embarked.
The contributions were terrific. It is impossible to summarise them, although it is fair to say that there was widespread concern about the way in which these constitutional changes are being taken through Parliament without in all or any cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, proper pre-legislative scrutiny, proper consultation with the public or any proper attempt to get widespread agreement before any move is made. I hope that some lessons have been learnt from that.
I have to respond particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who chided the previous Labour Government for the various constitutional changes that we made. I am not sure that I need quite the same defence that I was preparing; I was amazed when it was pointed out how many referenda that there had been on various aspects of the previous Labour Government’s constitutional reforms. I say to him that it is a different situation when a Government are returned with the clearest possible manifesto commitment—in Scotland and Wales particularly, there is absolute clarity about the commitment there—and a large majority.
I can tell the noble Lord, in the privacy of this meeting, that there were some constitutional changes that we could seriously have done without; I mention in passing the decision to change the electoral system for the European Parliament from first past the post to proportional representation. I am even more convinced now that, had that been put to the public rather than unilaterally decided by Parliament, we should have a splendid first past the post system for the European elections as well.
Lord Grocott
Encouraged by that response, I might bring forward a Bill to provide for just that.
There are various other contributions that I really ought to refer to. I must respond to what the Minister said. On public support for the proposal, he needs to be cautious about relying on opinion polls on what the people think about constitutional change. If my memory is not mistaken, there were large majorities in opinion polls—how they were determined, I am not quite sure—in favour of a change in the voting system. We were repeatedly assured by the Liberal Democrats but we, the politicians in all parties, particularly the Conservative and Labour parties, were convinced that the public did not particularly want a change in the voting system. What the sampling of the pollsters was I am not sure, but be wary of that as a basis for making constitutional change.
Once again, the Minister evaded the question—I suppose he has to—about actually confirming that the Bill will mean that the electorate, the people of this country, are consulted less frequently in general elections. There will be fewer general elections as a result of the Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester put it brilliantly, if I may so: if we were going to change the interval between elections from five years to six, of course the public would need to be consulted on that, whereas we should be under no illusion whatever that the Bill increases the period between elections on average from four years to five. That is the seriousness of what is being suggested.
Lord Pannick
“(4) Sections 2, 3 and 6(3) shall have effect only until the first meeting of the new Parliament after the next parliamentary general election, but that Parliament or any subsequent Parliament may bring those sections back into force for the Parliament’s own duration and until the first meeting of the following Parliament if a resolution to that effect is approved by each House of the Parliament in question.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Amendment 25 is clearly linked as a package to the suite of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke to on Report on the first day. While it is not strictly consequential, the Government nevertheless believe that it would be unnecessary to divide the House on this, triggering a Division. However, we have made our position clear that we did not support the amendment, and we reserve our right to return to the issue at a later stage.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
That this House regrets that changes to the rules relating to the victims of domestic violence in the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 908) remove the protection granted by the Rules to some victims who may therefore be forced to remain in the abusive relationships on which their immigration status depends.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, this is the second time in a week that we have debated a statement of changes in the Immigration Rules only after they have come into force. The changes in this statement, correcting the drafting errors in HC 863, which your Lordships debated last week, came into effect on 6 April, and the rest of the changes that we are now debating came into effect on 21 April. Therefore, if the Government accept any criticisms of these changes, they would obviously have to be dealt with in a further statement at some point in the future when the faulty provisions had already been in effect for some time. This must have been the reason for the convention that changes are laid before Parliament at least 21 days before they come into force. That gives time for errors, or rules that are deemed to be wrongful by the House, to be corrected by a further statement. I am sorry that our Government should assume that, whatever we may say about this statement this evening, it will not be of sufficient weight to require any change in the wording. The 21-day convention should be respected and I hope that the Minister will confirm that what has happened in this and last week’s statement will not set a new precedent.
The statement has come in for even more severe criticism from the Merits Committee than last week’s. There is no impact assessment when the Government’s own impact assessment guidance says that one must be formally produced and published when a proposal enters Parliament. I read that as being the date on which the proposal is laid before Parliament which, in this case, was 31 March. Since the impact assessment is a continuous process, as the guidance emphasises, the excuse that it has been waiting for the approval of the Regulatory Policy Committee is unacceptable. An interim IA should have been published on 31 March and replaced by a final IA in time for this debate. I ask my noble friend to agree that this is the practice that will be adhered to without fail on all future statements of changes to the Immigration Rules. It simply is not good enough to say, as my noble friend Lord Attlee did in his letter of 26 April dealing with matters raised when we discussed the fees regulations on 29 March, that:
“We will publish an impact assessment of the Tier 4 changes in due course”.
The Merits Committee points out that the code of practice on consultation provides that, in normal circumstances, consultation should normally last for a minimum of 12 weeks, and that where the period of consultation extends over a holiday period—such as the Christmas and New Year breaks, as this one did—consideration should be given to a longer period for consultation. This consultation ran from 7 December 2010 to 31 January 2011, allowing only eight weeks for stakeholders to respond. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions the consultation in one short paragraph, but without explaining why the normal period was cut by a third in circumstances that would be expected to command an increase.
The questionnaire featured 19 questions, most of which required a simple yes, no or don’t know answer. This provided a useful picture of the extent to which respondents agreed with the proposals. However, there were six questions asking respondents to elucidate the first response or to offer alternative proposals and, as the Merits Committee says, there is no analysis of these replies. On the whole, respondents agreed with the Government’s proposals, two exceptions being the requirement that a student should return home to apply, and further restriction on a student’s right to work. Most respondents disagreed with the proposal on the minimum level of study offered for standard sponsor licence holders. Can my noble friend say how the responses are reflected in the final shape of the changes, and will she provide written answers to the questions in paragraph 27 of the Merits Committee report?
I now turn to the major problem with this statement, to which the Motion refers: that it removes the protection afforded by the rules to some victims of domestic violence who may therefore be forced to remain in the abusive relationships on which their immigration status depends. Paragraph 289A provides that, during the probationary period, an immigrant’s spouse or civil partner who is the victim of domestic violence may be granted indefinite leave to remain if she can establish that the relationship has broken down as a result of domestic violence. However, this statement says that she must also be free of unspent convictions within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. According to the Immigration Minister’s letter to the chairman of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association of 4 April, the number of people admitted under paragraph 289A is about 700 a year, and he added that the vast majority of these have no criminal convictions. I will come on to that point later.
The Secretary of State, Theresa May MP, has repeatedly affirmed that she wants to end all forms of violence against women and girls, and on International Women’s Day she published an action plan for the purpose, which met with universal approbation. This statement is incompatible with the Secretary of State’s approach, because it will lead to women being trapped in abusive relationships, as I believe that officials have already acknowledged. Their argument is that the number of cases is likely to be small and can be dealt with by considering whether settlement should be granted outside the rules.
Relying on the UKBA to identify cases that are eligible for a discretionary grant of ILR outside the rules is unsatisfactory in the light of the appalling record of bad decisions under the domestic violence rule. The NGO Rights of Women established that, in the six quarters from April 2009 to September 2010—the latest available figures—the proportion of refusals under the domestic violence rule that were overturned on appeal varied between 61 and 69 per cent. It says:
“The fact that applicants in domestic violence rule cases are so much more likely to be successful on appeal than applicants challenging other immigration law decisions indicates a problem with the UKBA’s understanding of domestic violence and how it applies the rule”.
I put it differently. The culture of disbelief concerning violence against women has obviously infected the UKBA to such an extent that it would not be safe to leave it to decide when to grant settlement to a person who has committed a minor offence, or even a major offence, arising from an abusive relationship.
We accept that the number of people who are likely to be affected is small, and we now know from the Home Secretary's letter to Rights of Women, which was sent at 1 pm this afternoon, in reply to the 106 organisations which oppose this provision, that there has not been a single case under rule 289A where the applicant had an unspent conviction. However, as the Government declare in their call to end violence against women and girls, no level of violence against women and girls is acceptable. We suggest that the default solution should be to disregard their convictions. In the case of a particularly serious crime, the Secretary of State already has the power to refuse an application for leave to remain on the grounds of,
“the undesirability of permitting the person concerned to remain in the United Kingdom in the light of his character, conduct or associations or the fact that he represents a threat to national security”.
That comes from rule 322A, which is quoted in the Home Secretary’s letter.
In any case, a victim who has an unspent conviction is likely to be deterred from applying for settlement because she has no guarantee that sympathetic consideration will be given to a discretionary grant of settlement on the grounds that the offence which led to her unspent conviction was related to the abusive relationship. Examples were given in the letter to the Secretary of State from 106 NGOs working on this issue. I understand that Home Office officials appeared to accept the NGOs’ submission that some women may not come forward because they will fear that the mandatory requirement to refuse an applicant who is otherwise qualified under rule 289A is likely to be applied to them, whatever may be said in the guidance.
Officials also agree that there is an incompatibility between the unspent convictions requirement and the Government’s absolute commitment to end violence against women and girls. That is why the matter was put to the Home Secretary after the meeting between lead NGOs and officials on 20 April. The Home Secretary now says that it is accepted that the two commitments are very delicately balanced and that the key is to allow for a woman to separate her life from her abusive husband. No doubt the NGOs will take up the offer to help develop guidance to staff who consider the applications under the domestic violence rule faute de mieux. However, they will do so with great concern that their unanimous advice to start from an unblemished rule on domestic violence has been ignored. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I shall speak to my Motion, which,
“regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have not made sufficient information available to judge whether the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 908) is likely to achieve its policy objectives”.
In speaking to this general debate on the two Motions, I say first that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raises some very important points about the effect of the changes on survivors of domestic violence and the negative impact on the Government’s commitment to end violence against women and girls. In particular, there is an inconsistency, as he pointed out, between the Home Secretary’s statement on domestic violence and the consequences of this statement of changes. Even if the number of cases is likely to be small, there is clearly a matter of principle to be discussed here.
My own Motion arises from concerns that a statement of changes has been laid without an impact assessment. As a result of this lack of information, the Merits Committee has drawn the statement of changes,
“to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House and may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives”.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already referred to this point and I want to emphasise the points that he made.
Clearly, there are several important questions that remain to be answered, and the Merits Committee has identified eight or nine of them. I will not read through its list of questions—I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is well able to answer them—but there are two or three that I would highlight. First, will the changes contribute to reducing abuse of the student immigration system? Secondly, what will be the costs and benefits of the changes for the education sector? We have debated at Oral Questions and on Statements on several occasions over the past few months the impact that this is likely to have on the education sector. The noble Baroness will be aware that the Opposition’s concerns have very much focused on the unintended consequences for several of our educational institutions. I should be glad of some further information about this.
A third specific question for the noble Baroness is what impact the changes will have on the UK economy. When these proposals were first set out by the Government some months ago, we understood that several countries were gleeful at the thought that students who would have come to the UK would now go to those other countries. We are in a competitive situation. We are talking about the kind of students that we need to attract to our country.
The noble Baroness will probably be aware that I have a background in the health service. There is clear evidence that overseas students who come to our medical schools and go back to their own countries continue to maintain important links with the UK, which has had real benefits for the stimulation and sharing of medical knowledge, and the ability of British companies to sell their goods to other medical systems. I am very concerned that these changes could impact on the ability of our country to do business with other countries, and about the more general economic impact that that will have.
We then come to the core of the concern. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“A draft Impact Assessment of the changes to Tier 4 has been prepared, however it is awaiting final clearance by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The Impact Assessment will be published in due course, once it has been finalised”.
We now know from a further report by the Merits Committee that,
“The UK Border Agency … has now confirmed that they do not intend to publish the IA until June”.
The statement of changes came into effect on 21 April. We were given it without the impact assessment, which we are now not to have until June. The Merits Committee considers this approach “highly regrettable”. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that it is quite unacceptable. I agree. I am sure the Regulatory Policy Committee is a very august body, to which I defer and pay due acknowledgement. However, it takes the biscuit that this committee has to deliberate for months before Parliament is allowed to see the initial work on the impact assessment. This is unacceptable.
I say to the noble Baroness, whom we are all delighted to see in her place, that the Home Office has previous form in this area. Indeed, on 3 May we debated the statement of changes in Immigration Rules HC 863. The Government were rightly criticised for not publishing a comprehensive explanation of the findings of the consultation on that statement. These debates are valuable. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to provide some assurance that the points are taken to heart by her department, and that when there are future statements rather more information will be given.
The previous time we debated this, I am afraid I went down the cul-de-sac of discussing statutory instruments and House of Lords reform. I certainly do not expect the noble Baroness to respond to me if I go down that route again. I do not intend to push this to the vote and I doubt the noble Lord does either. However, it will be a pity if tomorrow, in the Statement, the draft Bill and the White Paper, very little is said about the powers of a reformed second Chamber. One of the reasons why I am a little doubtful as to whether the Government’s House of Lords reform proposals will make considerable progress is the failure to tackle the issue of powers. I have no doubt that, were this House to be 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected, the noble Lord and I would not hesitate to put this to the vote tonight. We would certainly feel that we had the legitimacy to do so. I do not expect the noble Baroness to join me in that debate. However, the day before we get the Statement, it is irresistible. I am glad to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Avebury in his comprehensive introduction to our reasons for raising this matter tonight—the problems that we envisage in the changes and their impact, particularly on women who may suffer through domestic violence. I shall confine my remarks to that and I will not keep the House too long.
I welcome the Government’s announcement that, from 1 April next year, women on spouse visas who experience domestic violence will be able to access mainstream welfare benefits for a short time while their application for indefinite leave to remain is decided by the UK Border Agency. This is extremely positive. It is in line with the Call to End Violence against Women and Girls action plan launched by the right honourable Home Secretary a few months ago. It included a commitment to finding long-term solutions to support those who have had no recourse to public funds. As we have heard, last week she restated her commitment that domestic violence must be taken seriously. However, my big concern about the statement of changes is, as set out by noble friend Lord Avebury, about the impact and, indeed, the unintended consequences of these changes as they apply to women in abusive relationships. We fear that those women may not come forward as a result of these changes. We know that women in abusive relationships are vulnerable—that is a given—and often do not come forward for a considerable length of time. Those women already live here and are British, but imagine women in these circumstances for whom their immigration status is an additional factor. They are even more vulnerable and subject to abuse.
We know that half the women in UK prisons say that they have suffered domestic violence. We also know that perpetrators of domestic violence often make false allegations about the victims of abuse to the police, which can result in criminal proceedings and possibly a conviction. The convictions cited could be for minor offences. I will give an example. As I mentioned in the debate we had some time ago on International Women’s Day, I set up the first domestic violence project for women with a Turkish and Kurdish background in Hackney and Islington nearly 20 years ago. I saw the full range of abuse suffered by the women whom we helped, in all its horrors. Many of these women were often too scared to come forward and get help because of threats from other family members and for fear of being ostracised by their immediate community if they reported their abusive partner to the police. For example, a woman may be trapped at home looking after her children and be totally reliant financially on her partner. He could refuse to give her money to buy food. I know that such cases have happened. I have dealt with a similar case where, in these terrible circumstances, a woman who took food from a shop—she stole food to feed herself and her children in a quite desperate situation—went on to receive a conviction for shoplifting. These already vulnerable women would be further disadvantaged if a minor caution or conviction, such as the failure to have a valid TV licence, became a deterrent to seeking help. I have dealt with a lot of these heart-rending cases. One involved a woman who finally found the courage to report her violent partner to the police only to be murdered on the streets of Hackney after he had been let out on bail the next day, without her being informed.
The UK Border Agency has said that it will continue to provide leave when needed to help protect women and girls. However, there remain huge concerns that this is insufficient, and that the rules will deter women from coming forward. We have already heard about the quality of some of the decisions taken by the UK Border Agency, and this is another big factor. In light of this, the wider context and the evidence that we are hearing and know about on the ground, I would ask my noble friend the Minister to reconsider this issue and to take it back. It does, and will, affect a relatively small number of women who are victims of domestic violence, but surely protecting all women must be our paramount concern.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hunt, for the opportunity to debate these Motions. A large number of points have been raised and I will do my best to deal with the issues to which they give rise.
The Motions before us deal with two distinct subjects: changes to the rules relating to domestic violence, which were addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury: and changes to tier 4 of the points-based system, which are covered by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Both noble Lords raised matters of progress on the part of the Home Office and the way in which we have made information available. I hope to deal with that point, which applies to both the noble Lords’ Motions. I will deal with the Motions in turn, starting with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Domestic violence is an important issue. The noble Lord is quite right to say that it is an area where the Government are only too well aware that we need to balance two equally important principles: first, that residence in the UK is a privilege reserved for those who can make a positive contribution to the UK and abide by its rules; and, secondly, that victims of domestic violence should be protected. We, of course, attach great importance to that.
As has been mentioned, the Home Secretary has made clear the Government’s and her own personal commitment to tackling violence against women in all its forms. Tackling domestic violence is an important part of the overall strategy and we have made clear our commitment to supporting and protecting its victims. Every year approximately 1,200 people, who had come to this country to marry, apply to the UK Border Agency for indefinite leave to remain following incidents of domestic violence, so it is not such a small problem after all. The UK Border Agency gives priority to these domestic violence cases, which are dealt with proactively by specialist case workers. Improvements in the process have ensured that decisions are made quickly and fairly. Currently, more than 62 per cent of domestic violence applications are decided within 20 days. In 2010, leave was granted in 67 per cent of cases.
As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, some applicants face a particular problem because they are destitute and have no recourse to public funds. When I was first presented with this brief, I too had a lot of questions for officials, particularly around what constituted a minor crime. I share her concern that we have to make sure that we get this right. She gave examples of offences such as shoplifting and the non-payment of TV licences. The Government have recognised the risk that women in this position might feel trapped in an abusive relationship. Because of this we have continued to fund the Sojourner Project to provide refuge places for these vulnerable victims. In just over one year of operation, the project has provided vital support to 725 women and more than 420 children. However, Sojourner is not a long-term, sustainable solution, so we have announced that after April 2012 women on spousal visas in need of refuge places will be able to access welfare benefits while their claim for indefinite leave to remain in the UK is considered. This is a major step—it has been welcomed—in ensuring that this vulnerable group remains protected and safe from abuse. Therefore, I hope that I can reassure the House that the Government’s commitment to safeguarding victims of domestic violence, whatever the changes being made in legislation, is a high priority.
I turn now to the changes the Government have recently made to the settlement rules. Having looked at them as a new Minister and asked a lot of questions, I do not believe that these changes are incompatible with the commitment that we have given to protecting women and girls in abusive relationships. The Home Secretary’s Statement in November 2010 made it clear that there must be an end to the link between temporary and permanent migration. We must be clear that settlement is not automatic—rather, as I have said, it is a privilege to be awarded only to those who abide by the laws of the country. The UK Border Agency has always taken into account the character and conduct of applicants for settlement and other categories of leave. The rules have always provided that leave will “normally be refused” if it is undesirable to permit the individual to remain because of their character, conduct or associations, so in that respect the changes serve to give more certainty to applicants. I take on board what the noble Baroness said about women’s reluctance to come forward. It is a very difficult area, but I hope that this measure will provide more clarity.
The new settlement rules mean that the UK Border Agency will be taking a more objective view about what type of offending should lead to a refusal. That should help where there are areas of uncertainty. They provide a more direct response to the sentences imposed by the criminal justice system. Set against this are the difficult and vulnerable circumstances of women and girls in abusive relationships. We need to get that balance absolutely right and to support them against the equally clear requirement for applicants for settlement to be free of convictions.
In cases where we have a moral duty to protect a victim of domestic violence, I can assure your Lordships that there would be no question of requiring them to leave the UK or to remain in an abusive relationship because of a minor conviction. For example, I would not expect the non-payment of a television licence to be regarded as a major matter of criminalisation. If such a case had arisen previously, the applicant’s behaviour would have been considered under the character test, and there would have been no certainty that settlement would have been granted under the previous rules. As now, the agency would have considered whether to exercise discretion outside the rules. That provision is not being removed.
As to the arguments that the introduction of this new rule introduces or increases the likelihood that a victim of domestic violence would not come forward, I believe that the rules are now much clearer. I hope that the noble Baroness may wish to discuss this matter with me further, and perhaps we may take a closer look at the clarity that the changes should bring. For the reasons I have outlined, I am not persuaded that there is a high risk, or one that we cannot take action to mitigate. I do not doubt that reluctance to come forward exists for many reasons—for example, a mistrust of authorities or the control being exerted by an abusive partner, as the noble Baroness mentioned, but we should not respond to that risk by condoning criminality by domestic violence applicants. It is a question of the balance that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
That underlines why the work of corporate partners such as Eaves, which runs the Sojourner Project, and others such as the Southall Black Sisters and Rights of Women is so important. I have seen correspondence and I know that their views are being listened to. We welcome and support the invaluable assistance to victims of domestic violence offered by such groups, and will continue to work with them, in particular to ensure that everyone involved is clear that the UK Border Agency will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to all the facts in any application affected by the rule change. The individual and the circumstances surrounding them will still be important.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked for a written response to paragraph 27 of the Merits Committee report. I am very happy to do that and I will of course write to him.
I turn now to the Motion of Regret in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The issue at hand is whether the Government should have published a more comprehensive analysis of the outcome of the student consultation. The noble Lord referred in particular to the 29th Report of the Merits Committee, which states:
“The Statement has been laid without an Impact Assessment—the Explanatory Memorandum … says that one has been prepared but is awaiting final clearance by the Regulatory Policy Committee. There are also significant gaps in the analysis of the consultation responses”.
Your Lordships will recall—and it has already been mentioned—that there was a debate on similar issues in this House on 3 May in the context of the debate on the consultation on limiting economic migration. The statement of changes relating to the student consultation predates that debate and it is therefore unsurprising that the Merits Committee’s reports on the two consultations raised similar issues. However, I should reiterate what my predecessor said during that debate. We are quite clear that it is right and proper to provide the Merits Committee with the information that is necessary for it to do its job. I give my assurance to the House that in future that will be the case.
The issue having been raised, however, it would be remiss of me not to put this again in the context of previous practice in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Home Office has form in this matter. I gently remind him that that form predates the current Government. While it is generally accepted as good practice, there is no legal obligation on the UK Border Agency to consult on changes to the Immigration Rules, because that does not involve primary legislation.
In March 2010, the previous Government made significant changes to tier 4, the student route, without a formal public consultation. Despite taking the views of key partners, they did not publish any formal explanation of findings. Similarly, in March 2006, following consultation, the previous Government published their policy for a points-based system, but did not publish the 517 consultation responses they had received.
I am satisfied that this Government have gone to great lengths to seek the views of the public and the sector, and to take account of these views in developing our final policy. On 23 November, the Home Secretary informed Parliament that she intended to hold a public consultation on reforming the student visa system. As has already been pointed out, this process began on 7 December 2010, when the Home Secretary announced our proposals and the consultation paper was published. The consultation ran until 31 January 2011, shorter than the standard 12 weeks, in order to announce decisions at a time that would allow the sector and students to plan for the following academic year. Our consultation received more than 30,000 responses—10 times as many as the consultation on economic routes—and officials spoke to representatives of no fewer than 200 institutions during the consultation period. On 22 March, the Home Secretary made a full Statement in the other place setting out the detail of the Government’s decisions and the public reaction and data that had informed those decisions. On 31 April, we published a detailed statement of intent describing the full policy package, and laid changes to the Immigration Rules to implement the first changes resulting from the consultation.
However, the brief window between the closure of the consultation and the announcement of policy meant that at the time that the statement of changes was issued, further work was necessary to ensure that the impact assessment was of high quality and accurate. Work continues and I can confirm that the impact assessment will be published when the next changes are made to the Immigration Rules in June—next month. The Minister for Immigration has confirmed that the impact of these changes will be a reduction in the number of main applicant visas in the order of 70,000, along with a reduction of about 20,000 in the number of dependants. It is true that, like the previous Government, we have not simply published every consultation response. We published a summary of the 30,000 responses to all the questions asked and answered in the consultation. We also indicated the level of support in relation to every response. We felt that this was helpful information for Parliament and interested parties to have.
The Government code of practice on consultation states:
“Following a consultation exercise, the Government should provide a summary of who responded … and a summary of the views expressed”.
I hope noble Lords would agree that that is what has happened. Consideration should be given to publishing the individual responses received but, in this instance, the volume of responses made that impractical. The level of response demonstrates a high level of public engagement with the policy development process, and the changes we have made to our final policy show that we have genuinely listened to and taken account of the views expressed.
We have received positive feedback from the university sector. Perhaps I may now pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the economic impact. Universities UK said the reforms,
“will allow British universities to remain at the forefront of international student recruitment”.
It is also the case that we will close tier-1 post-study work after 2012, but the brightest and best graduates will still be able to move into skilled sponsored employment through tier 2. The Government recognise the important contribution that international students make to the UK’s economy and to making our education system one of the best in the world. The Government’s aim is not to stop genuine students coming here, with all the implications that that would have for the wider economy, but to eliminate abuse and to focus on the high-quality and high-value sectors.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I gently invite the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Avebury, who have tabled these Motions of Regret, to consider not pressing them.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Baroness for her careful reply and for answering some of the questions put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and me. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for saying that domestic violence is a matter of principle, not of numbers. That is the way that we have always looked at it. It does not matter whether there is only one case, or even none. That still means not that women in abusive relationships were not deterred by the previous set of rules but that they will be more deterred by a mandatory penalty imposed as a result of any convictions.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will give us a written answer to the eight questions posed by the Merits Committee, two of which were dealt with in more detail by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He was asking, in particular, about the economic impact of the changes, as did the Merits Committee in the third of its questions. The noble Baroness told us that there will be 70,000 fewer applications as a result of the changes, but she did not then go on to say what the impact of that will be on the economy of the country. Obviously, if there are 70,000 fewer applicants, that means less money coming into universities at a time when they are facing serious cuts to the money that they receive.
Baroness Browning
I am happy to confirm that the brightest and best students, who have the greatest contribution to make to the UK and our economy, will continue to be welcomed under the student route, but the scheme is looking at the brightest and best, as opposed to the number hitherto.
Lord Avebury
I think that the noble Baroness is talking about tier 1. We have no objection to the changes made to tier 1. The changes are all to tier 4, are they not? That is where the loss of the 70,000 students will arise, as I understand it.
I am also grateful to my noble friend and the Government for the changes that they have made to allow persons who are waiting for a decision on their application to remain as a result of being in an abusive relationship to claim benefits. We should be very grateful to the Government for that. However, at the end of the day, there is a threat to women in abusive relationships which will deter people from applying.
That was the unanimous conclusion of the 106 organisations which signed the letter, including Rights of Women, to whom the Home Secretary has now replied. I suggest to my noble friend that whatever other discussions she holds as a result of this debate, it will be useful if Ministers would agree to meet a delegation from a representative sample of the 106 organisations, so that she can explain, as she has done to the House today, what is the Government’s thinking on those issues, and perhaps take away with her any further suggestions that they may make. Of course, they will take part in discussion on the guidance but, as I said, the guidance is not necessarily the end of the story. In the past, we have had guidance which appeared perfectly satisfactory on paper, but which has resulted in adverse conduct by the UK Border Agency. The noble Baroness did not quite take the point that I made about the large number of cases of applications which are overturned on appeal, which indicates a systemic disorder within the UKBA in dealing with domestic violence cases.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have not made sufficient information available to judge whether the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 908) is likely to achieve its policy objectives.
European Union Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I oppose the Motion on the basis that it is completely unfair to bring on a major Bill at 8.05 pm, when, presumably, the House is to rise at 10 pm tonight. This is supposed to be the fifth day of consideration on the Bill. It is certainly not the fifth day, although it is a fifth of a day. That is unseemly and unfair to all noble Lords who have taken part in discussion on the Bill so far and who wish to do so at a proper hour in future.
We were given notice that the Bill would be considered again today only on Thursday. Until then, I think that everyone who was interested in the Bill had the impression that the next consideration would be tomorrow, instead of which it is coming on at 8.05, after Report of a major Bill and the previous debate. Frankly, that is not good enough. It is treating this House with contempt.
That is exacerbated because, as I understand it, there has been virtually no consultation with those who have been concerned with the Bill. The usual channels have just said, “Oh well, we'll give it a run on Monday. Never mind the arrangements that people might have made to do other things. We will put it on. No one will object”. I am objecting now, and objecting strongly.
I was unable to be here on Thursday. When I saw this appear on the business, I made inquiries about what time it was likely to come on. I was told that it would be at 6 pm. Even on the basis of information available on Thursday, we have lost a further two hours. To embark on a Bill now with major amendments is unbecoming to the Government and the usual channels. As I said, there has been complete disregard of the convenience of noble Lords who wish to speak to the Bill.
It is not as if there is an urgency about the Bill. We do not need the Bill tomorrow or next month; we do not need it next year. The Government have said that we do not need it in this Parliament, because none of its provisions will be operative in this Parliament. What on earth are we doing here at 8.10 pm embarking on the so-called fifth day of an important Bill? It is completely wrong and the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Of course, the situation is even worse than that. Tomorrow, when we will embark on the Bill again, another major Bill will be debated before it—the Postal Services Bill, and God knows how long that will go on for. I shall almost be tempted to speak on it myself so that we talk out tomorrow’s discussion on this Bill.
Therefore, tomorrow we will have only half a day, if that, to spend on the Bill. The Committee is being cheated of the time that it was promised, which I believe was six days. Bearing in mind the time that we lost on previous days, we will certainly not have anything like six days. In any event, as this Session goes on until next May, why on earth do we want to start debating a Bill at this time of night? I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to take the Bill into Committee tonight and agree to oppose the Motion before us.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I cannot recall an occasion yet when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I have been in complete accord but we are this evening. I share the view that it is absolutely extraordinary that most of us should have stood by ready to start debating this Bill at 6 pm only to find that it has started, even with a few minutes’ intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, way past 8 pm. I do not believe that that is helpful to the government Front Bench, let alone to both parties opposite or, indeed, to us. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at any length, because he made the point very forcefully. It is extremely hard to understand what is so pressing as to mean that we should discuss absolutely critical issues about constitutional arrangements between our Parliament and Europe on this type of timescale. We are shoe-horning it—that is the only way that I can describe it—into tiny pockets of time very late in the day with the prospect of holding debates extremely late at night, when we all know that proper justice is not done to the matters that we need to discuss.
I take the Bill very seriously, just as the House took the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill seriously this afternoon. They are big constitutional issues by any standard. As I said, I take this Bill very seriously, although I have a very different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for example, on a number of its provisions. However, that is neither here nor there. We either take it seriously or we do not. I think that we are being asked to perform a serious job in a trivialised way and I cannot believe that the House will find that acceptable. I hope that the Front Bench opposite will have a credible answer and a credible timetable.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House for a minute or two to comment on the speeches that noble Lords have just made. As we understand it, it is the operations of the usual channels that have resulted in such peculiar anomalies—if I may call them that—in the conduct of the Bill. On the previous two days in Committee, we had extraordinary groupings. I know that Members on the Cross Benches were as perplexed as we were about how those groupings had been determined, and there was consensus across the House that they had not worked very well.
We were then told last Thursday that there was going to be an additional day in Committee—today. In other words, if the House had not sat on Friday, we would not even have had one working day’s notice. It was simply a coincidence that the House sat on Friday and that we therefore had one working day’s notice. We were led to believe that that was agreed among the usual channels and that in fact the opposition Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, had requested the extra day today. However, from the tone of the debate, it sounds as though that may not have been the case.
I hope that my noble friends on the government Front Bench will bear in mind that, if we are to have serious scrutiny on the Bill, as we all want, and time to prepare seriously for that serious scrutiny, we require slightly more notice than we were given on this occasion, and we require slightly more attention to be paid to the way in which the Bill has been conducted to date.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I concur with everything that has been said by the three previous speakers—an unusual event in itself, I think. Perhaps I may press the Government on a rumour that another so-called day in Committee may be offered next Wednesday, 25 May, when the President of the United States will be paying a visit. I cannot believe that that is a suitable time to hold another half-day or whatever on the Bill, and I look forward to the Government’s reply.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, all noble Lords know that business is organised by the usual channels. I agree that the House is working very hard at present and I can think of few noble Lords who work harder than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. However, we have plenty of time to undertake valuable work on the Bill. In fact, we still have an hour and three-quarters, and it is not an unusual time of day to be considering such legislation. I do not believe that the House or the general public would understand if we went home an hour and 45 minutes early, especially if they worked out the cost of doing so. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will agree to go into Committee.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
We have an hour and three-quarters. Is this to be considered a day of Committee?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I very much doubt that the usual channels would consider an hour and three-quarters to be a whole day. However, I shall pass on noble Lords’ views to my noble friend the Chief Whip, who is not too far from me, and I am sure that she will take that into consideration in her discussions with the usual channels. However, I strongly suggest that we go into Committee on the Bill.
Lord Liddle
“(4) The referendum condition is that—
(a) a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament publishes a report containing a recommendation about whether it is necessary for a referendum to be held in respect of a draft decision; and(b) the joint committee’s recommendation is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4A) If both Houses—
(a) agree a referendum is necessary, a referendum shall be held; or(b) agree that a referendum is unnecessary, the referendum condition shall be satisfied without a referendum being held.(4B) If a referendum is held, the majority of those voting in the referendum must be in favour of the approval of the draft decision before a Minister of the Crown may vote in favour of it.”
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 39B. These are probing amendments. We are not saying they are perfectly drafted but they are an attempt, as always from this side of the House, to be helpful to the Government. They are an attempt to substitute a parliamentary process for the Government’s attempt to define in the Bill every single circumstance and change of rule to which their referendum lock would apply. Instead of trying to define all the circumstances in the Bill, these amendments propose a parliamentary process by which the issues would be determined on a case-by-case basis. They represent a new subsection (4) to Clause 6. We put forward two options, which I will explain in a moment.
The basic difficulty with the Government’s approach to this Bill is that it requires an extraordinarily long list of issues to be codified in legislation that are subject to the so-called referendum lock. Heinz talked about its 57 varieties. This Bill has 56 varieties, we count, of referendum lock. These are not just major new treaties. It has become clear in our consideration of the Bill that a lot of changes within existing treaties would be subject to this lock.
The Bill allows Ministers but not Parliament some very limited discretion to decide that the referendum lock does not apply in limited circumstances that we have debated in our earlier sessions: the exemption clause under which Ministers can decide that the matter does not affect Britain or is simply a codification of existing treaties; and the significance clause, which is very narrowly applied to paragraphs (i) and (j) of Clause 4(1).
A better form of exercising discretion and judging whether a referendum is required would be to put the matter in the hands of Parliament and not in the hands of the Government. In these amendments we sketch out two possible ways of doing this. Amendment 39A suggests the establishment of,
“a joint committee of both Houses”.
This was proposed in roughly similar terms by the Opposition in the other place. Amendment 39B, which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and I think is a more interesting amendment, proposes the establishment of “an independent review committee”, which would advise Parliament on what matters it regarded as requiring a referendum. We can all envisage what the composition of such an independent review committee would be. It would definitely contain constitutional lawyers, judges and constitutional experts such as the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield—they are plentiful in our House. It might contain a business person, a trade unionist, a representative of civil society and people from the nations and regions of Britain. Its purpose would be to advise Parliament on whether, in the particular circumstances that arise, a referendum would be a proportionate way of dealing with the issue in question. It would be given criteria such as whether it was a significant issue, an urgent issue that had to be dealt with in a short period, or an issue of national interest that required to be carried through swiftly.
These issues would be discussed by the independent review committee, which would advise both Houses of Parliament on whether a referendum was justified. This idea is in keeping with the spirit of the Lords Constitution Committee’s recommendations in its report on referenda. It stated that referenda should be confined to fundamental constitutional issues, but acknowledged the difficulty of defining in a full list what those issues were. At the end of its list of recommendations, the committee stated:
“This is not a definitive list of fundamental constitutional issues, nor is it intended to be”.
It seems that it is a very difficult thing to decide in advance. Therefore, it is right that there should be some kind of parliamentary mechanism that would decide what issues are of fundamental constitutional importance. On the question of how we do this, and the detailed set-up of a committee on such a process, we on this side of the House do not have a dogmatic view. However, we would seriously like the Government to consider this point as an alternative to the incredible complexity of putting in the Bill all the different varieties of referendum lock.
That is the logic of our amendment. In my remaining time, I will say why this is a better way for the House to proceed. In the debate about whether referenda are required, a judgment should be made about proportionality. Is the issue really of fundamental constitutional significance, or is it a relatively minor issue that does not justify a referendum? The value of the judgment on proportionality was brought home to me when I listened to the very thoughtful reply that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, gave at the end of last week's debate. I will try to summarise the Minister's argument without traducing him. He said that it was all very well for us on this side of the House and on the Cross Benches and other parts of the House to say that we were in favour of a referendum on the euro, but why then should we not have a referendum on common European defence, on participation in the office of a public prosecutor or on border controls? These issues, he argued, were as significant as whether Britain should join the euro.
There is a point here of fundamental importance. The reason why we have to have a referendum on the euro is that one is either in it or out of it; it is a fundamental choice about whether one joins or not. However, issues such as a common European defence are much more subtle and require a judgment about proportionality. I do not want to criticise the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect. However, in his argument on a common European defence policy, he stated:
“Allow me to elaborate on some of my remarks. A decision on whether to join a common EU defence is fundamental, as it could result in a common EU army”.—[Official Report, 9/5/11; col. 759.]
That is a total straw man in the debate about a European defence. Certainly it would be a fundamental constitutional issue if we were to set up European military forces. However, if one thinks about the realistic development of European defence in the next 10 or 20 years, we are talking about better rules for the harmonisation of defence procurement, which is a very practical matter. Does something like defence procurement really require a referendum? In the parlous state of our defence budget—we have heard today about how the Government are planning further cuts in defence—a practical man or woman would say, “We have to have more practical co-operation in Europe on defence procurement”. Do we really think that this is an issue on which the British people think they should be voting in a referendum rather than that the people they chose to represent them in Parliament should decide?
The same sort of argument about proportionality can be applied to other aspects of this Bill, such as the public prosecutor. We heard a lot from the Minister about how it is a fundamental issue in how we organise our legal system, but is it really? For instance, if it were limited purely to tackling financial fraud in the EU, surely this would be just practical common sense. In terms of proportionality, it is not a matter that would require a referendum, and nor would changes in Schengen. As a result of what is happening in north Africa, we may have to take steps towards much stronger rules on asylum, but is that something that fundamentally challenges our border controls? We need to make judgments about the proportionality of what is proposed, and in our opinion that can usually be done only by a parliamentary committee, ideally an independent committee, that looks at these matters.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
The noble Lord seems to be saying that referendums should be held only on really important issues, such as whether we join the euro. Would he therefore agree that we should hold a referendum on something even more important: whether we stay in the European Union at all?
Lord Liddle
We all know the noble Lord’s views on this matter. The experience of the 1975 referendum was that it did not resolve the issue of whether we stayed in the European Union. We won a yes vote, but it did not resolve the fundamental issue. However, on issues such as the euro, there is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake, and it is right to have a referendum, so there are circumstances in which referenda are the right thing to do.
In the light of the AV referendum result, which I regard as the betrayal of the Liberal Democrats in the AV referendum by their partners, when I looked at the coalition agreement I was surprised by what it said. We are now told that the Liberal Democrats are going to adopt a much more muscular, robust relationship with their coalition partners. Well, on this Bill, let us have a look at what the coalition agreement says. It says:
“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty”.
In other words, you would have a referendum on a big treaty, but the agreement continues:
“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation”.
Yet every page of this Bill fully and directly contradicts that coalition agreement where the agreement says that passerelles and other matters should be subject to referenda.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I, too, have a copy of the coalition agreement in front of me. While the noble Lord is right in what he says about bullet point three, he is very selective in his interpretation of what to pick and choose, because he does not notice that bullet point four says:
“We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains in Parliament”.
If the noble Lord had been watching the news, and was aware of government statements in the year since the coalition agreement was made, he would know that no sovereignty Bill is about to be introduced into either House of Parliament but that the areas where there might be changes in sovereignty—in other words, a transfer of power and competencies—might be covered for the use of referendums.
Lord Liddle
I have the greatest affection for the noble Baroness, but I think that her attempt to justify the fact that the terms of the coalition agreement have not been met in this case is neither muscular nor robust. I think, therefore, that our friends on those Benches have something to think about. What I am suggesting that our friends on those Benches think about is the merits of the amendments that this side is putting forward. We are offering a mechanism by which a lot of the unacceptable trivia in the Bill could be assessed in a proper way by an independent committee that would advise Parliament about whether they were fundamental or matters that would not require a referendum.
I suggest that there is possibly a germ of consensus in the coalition agreement. We on this side have moved our position from when Labour was in government because we now believe that matters such as passerelle clauses and simplified revisions of the treaty should be approved by a proper Act of Parliament. That is a significant move on this side of the House towards greater parliamentary accountability. I should have thought that the Lib Dems ought to seize that as an advance in accountability. We should confine referenda to these fundamental issues that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee said needed to be defined. An independent committee would be a good way of doing this.
I am sorry to have gone on at such length—
Lord Dykes
I intervene only briefly and thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not perfectly correct in general and in the specifics he mentioned? There is no apparent transfer of power, notion or concept built into the EPPO proposals. That is the European Union being allowed by the sovereign member Governments to deal with matters to do with any financial misdemeanours affecting Union finances. There is no extra transfer of power there at the margin at all. Why are the Government so obsessed? My noble friend the Minister kindly and co-operatively said at the end of the previous Committee session that he would focus on the important areas that the noble Lord has emphasised today in his remarks. However, he then goes back to say, “Ah, we must have the whole list as well. They are important as well”. There is no logic to it, particularly with the EPPO proposals.
Lord Liddle
I think the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is right on that subject. The problem is the people who believe in the thin end of the wedge, but the way to deal with that is to have a proper process for deciding what is significant and requires a referendum and what does not in the form of an independent process that people will respect. That is what we are proposing in these amendments. It is a sensible compromise for the way forward that I hope the Government will consider seriously. It would resolve an awful lot of the big problems that people have with this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the two amendments as probing amendments. I think that they could better be described as tongue-in-cheek amendments. Similar amendments were moved in the House of Commons, but at least they applied to Clauses 3, 4 and 6. These amendments mysteriously apply only to matters dealt with in Clause 6. For the life of me I cannot understand why, as I am sure others will not either, if Parliament is to be involved in these matters, Parliament as a whole should not be involved. Quite obviously, members of the public will wonder what this mysterious body is. At least if Parliament as a whole was involved, they would know what was going on.
Lord Liddle
The noble Lord has made two points which reflect a misunderstanding of what this side is trying to propose. Parliament would be involved because it would be Parliament that would take the decision on whether a referendum was necessary on the basis of advice from either a Joint Committee of both Houses or some kind of independent committee which had real expertise on it. This is not being proposed tongue in cheek, but makes a serious point.
Lord Waddington
Of course I accept what the noble Lord says about the proposal not being tongue in cheek, but I certainly do not accept his argument. The fact remains that if you put in a Bill that a mysterious committee is going to have some say in the matter, you are moving even further away from a situation where the general public has any confidence at all that its views are considered when vital decisions are made. I fail entirely to see how giving a Joint Committee of both Houses a key role in deciding whether there should be a referendum will help to restore trust in the EU. I am bound to say—obviously this will not find favour with everyone in the House—that the House of Commons, controlled by the Whips, has never proved to be an effective check on the ambitions of the Europhiles, and this House, I have to say, seems to suffer from a built-in Europhiliac tendency. The idea of having a Joint Committee and expecting it to come up with a unanimous recommendation for a referendum is just pie in the sky, and I suspect that the noble Lord knows that perfectly well.
I remind the House that on 9 May, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, implied in an unguarded moment that it was inconceivable that a Government would just give everything away for no gain. But the public are of the view that we have made a habit of giving things away. Sometimes Ministers have listened to anguished cries from the Guardian that if we do not agree with our partners we are going to be isolated, when it really would not be the end of the world if the others went ahead without us and, for instance, wasted their money on empire building like the setting up of the European External Action Service while we continue to benefit from the single market. I think that that would be a good idea.
Let us face it: sometimes peer pressure has got to work on the vain and on those who wish to be thought good members of the club with disastrous consequences like Mr Blair’s surrender over the rebate. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, had to say about that matter at Question Time today. I invite him to read with care various contributions made in this House on 4 February 2008 when we had a debate on the European budget. Every action of Mr Blair was dissected and examined with great care. All his convolutions, distortions and changes of front were brought out into the open. I do not think that any impartial person could honestly say that it is a very happy story. Governments are often not very good at saying no and Parliaments have gone along with them. That makes this Bill as it stands very necessary and overdue and makes the amendments very dangerous.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I agree and disagree with the amendments. I agree with the concept of proportionality which underlies them, and I think that we need to relate what we are doing to the real world. I do not like the complication that is built into these procedures, largely for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just given. We do not need the additional commission to advise us. As for the Joint Committee of the two Houses, I do not know why we need that either, because the expertise is here. We need to reinforce parliamentary sovereignty. What worries me about the Bill—and is in conflict, as I understand it, with the coalition agreement and the terms read out by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner—is that it takes away from parliamentary sovereignty by moving towards a plebiscitary democracy.
I shall illustrate my point about the real world with a couple of examples. I like the amendments not because they introduce complication but because they introduce the concept of urgency. In the real world, the very elaborate procedures that we are laying down might not fit very well. The examples that I take are in Clause 6(5)(e) and (j). Paragraph (j) states that we would require a referendum for,
“a decision under the provision of Article 333(2) of TFEU”.
That would permit using qualified majority voting for the following article:
“Expenditure resulting from implementation of enhanced cooperation, other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions, shall be borne by the participating Member States”.
Let us say that we had an enhanced co-operation activity, such as conflict resolution or election monitoring, involving less than the total number of member states. Such enhanced co-operation is governed by Article 333(1), which states that it needs to be within the framework of the common foreign and security policy. Article 333(3) states that the activity should be paid for by the member states taking part in it. It is possible to envisage, because it has arisen before, countries that did not feel particularly muscular militarily but wished to contribute. Germany has several times in the past been in that position; that is, it has been prepared to stump up but not send people. The decision that the Germans should be allowed to pay would require a referendum in this country under Clause 6(5)(j). The whole action would have to stop or, rather, the Brits would say, “No, I’m sorry, we can’t have your money, because if we took it we would have to have a referendum on it”.
This is not the real world. It cannot be right. Let us remember that the provision is not about the voting rules. Paragraph (j) is different from the reference to the same article in the schedule. Schedule 1 states that there would need to be a referendum if the voting rules were changed under that article of the treaty. In this case we have a specific decision on how we are going to finance this week’s expedition somewhere. Do costs lie where they fall? Germany says, “No, we would like to stump up. We think others should be contributing”. The Brits have to say no. The real-world consideration, which would be helped by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is relevant here.
My second example relates to paragraph (e), which is about the euro. We all know what would happen if we were one day to decide to join the euro: the Act would go through this Parliament; it would be followed by a referendum; and if the result of the referendum were yes, the Minister would fly to Brussels to take the decision referred to in the Bill under Article 140(3) of the TFEU to make the euro the currency of the United Kingdom. Article 140(3) states:
“The Council shall, acting with the unanimity of the Member States whose currency is the euro and the member state concerned, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank, irrevocably fix the rate at which the euro shall be substituted for the currency of the Member State concerned”.
That is the decision—and our Bill is about what we do with decisions.
The decisions have to be brought back here in draft and have to be the subject of an Act of Parliament and then a referendum. But hang on—we have had the Act of Parliament: the issue upon which we wanted a great national debate and a referendum was on whether we should join the euro. The Bill states that the Minister cannot vote in favour of or otherwise support the draft decision about the rate. If we have a referendum on a Thursday about whether we should join the euro, we will know the answer on a Friday; the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day will get on to his colleagues, the ECOFIN will meet over the weekend and the rate will be set before the markets open in Tokyo at three o’clock on Monday morning—it would have to be because the amount of speculation would be enormous.
This is a small technical point but we need to look at the drafting of the Bill to ensure that we do not create an unworkable monster in the real world. We know what should happen—the sequence is Bill, Act, referendum, decision—but we will not know at the time of the referendum what the rate will be; by definition it will be different on the day from what it was during the referendum campaign. So there is something wrong with the drafting of Clause 6(1) and (5)(e).
We can get it right and I am not arguing that there should not be a referendum on joining the euro. However, I am arguing that there should not be a referendum on some of the extremely minor items in the Bill, such as the one covered in paragraph (j) about enhanced co-operation and its financing.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, on the need for proportionality and I accept that things will happen that we may not be able to foresee when we are drafting legislation and giving a legal basis to aspects of future decision-making. However, before I speak to Amendment 39B, I should like to say a few words about Amendment 39A.
I welcome the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, of how the Labour Party has moved considerably to advance accountability. It is particularly welcome given that it failed to provide for that in the time that it was in office. I do not often find myself echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, very much, but this afternoon’s discussion on the budget rebate was a very useful one to remind us that even when it was in office it took accountability so lightly that when the budget provisions were changed, as it appeared from today’s discussion—and nobody on the Labour Benches rebutted it—in 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even agree with that change. Yet it happened.
I turn specifically to Amendment 39A. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, explained what his amendment would do. I have some sympathy with the idea that you would have a level of scrutiny here that should determine what should happen—in other words, that Parliament should take a decision, rather than having a referendum. But my question would be to the noble Lord about his proposed new subsection (4B), which calls for a resolution of each House of Parliament. It is not entirely clear to me what would happen if one House of Parliament approved of holding a referendum but the other did not. Presumably, we would have a situation whereby a Joint Committee could have recommended a referendum and, potentially, the Commons would have agreed with the Joint Committee but perhaps this House would not. I wondered whether he would be able to tell us what would happen, in that case, on Amendment 39B.
In this variation, the review committee takes into account the significance, urgency and national interest at stake in its examination of the draft decision. Both urgency and national interest are, I say to noble Lords opposite, deeply subjective. We thought, with the European financial stability mechanism before us in February, that there was huge urgency in agreeing on what to do, because of the Greece, Ireland and Portugal scenarios. In fact one could argue that there is still considerable urgency, given where Spain—and, potentially, Italy—is. But the fact that other countries may be covered by that by the time the facility comes into being in 2013 suggests that something that one sees as urgent at a particular point in time may as events unfold not be quite as urgent as we thought.
Let me come to a consideration of a national interest. We know that this is notoriously difficult to define in international relations, which is one reason why this concept of national interest, which we all cherish and hold dear, has never been given legal force. I recall when I was a student reading the realist American scholar, Hans Morgenthau, who in 1951 wrote his book In Defense of the National Interest, which was contested throughout the 1950s, during the Cold War, and all through the 1960s, and is contested still today. It has never taken off as an argument that was legally testable in a court of law, so I would be concerned—while I see what the noble Lord means; we know the national interest when we see it. We can touch it; we can feel it; we can smell it. But to define it in legislation would be extremely difficult to do. I therefore suggest some caution about agreeing with the amendment. On Amendment 39B, I ask the noble Lord what he would do if one House went in a different direction from the other.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly in support of this probing amendment, not because I am in total agreement with every detail of it but because I think that it addresses a very serious problem to which I alluded at the end of Second Reading, when I said that the effect of the Bill if passed unamended would be to lock the door and throw the key out of the window. I believe that that is an accurate description of what this Bill will do if not amended. These amendments are a sincere and quite well thought-out attempt to keep the key in the hands of the Government and the majority in both Houses of Parliament to some extent, subject to the reporting of a committee and so on.
I think that this issue should be taken a bit more seriously, frankly, than it is by those on the other side of the House. If the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, will forgive me for saying so, about the piece that she quoted—I hate to have to construe somebody else’s coalition agreement, which has nothing to do with me—the sovereignty issue to which she referred and which she read out is dealt with in Clause 18, not in the clauses that we are discussing now. We will probably have the delights of spending a whole day discussing that next week but it has nothing whatsoever to do with referendums. No one has ever suggested that it should be. The suggestion was that you should inscribe in the Bill some test of what the basis for European law in this country is. Anyway, I suggest that the Government really ought to think about this enormous multiplicity of referendums which are provided for and which cannot be dealt with just by casual remarks such as, “Oh well, don't worry—they won’t ever happen”.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly on these matters. Although the amendments have been described as probing, I hope that the Government will be able to give a considered response to this interesting set of ideas, particularly the second amendment, which needs attention from the Government. On the most recent Committee day, hopes were expressed that the Government would respond to the constructive suggestions made in a raft of amendments. I hope that the Government will respond in that way today.
Ministers are definitely responding in the sense of having discussions outside the Chamber about what might be parts of the Bill in future. I hope that that will continue and people would be grateful for that. Any answers that could be given in the Chamber to take us further forward to make the Bill more sensible, more proportional—to use that important adjective—and more balanced would be very welcome.
As an example of messages sent by my noble friends the Ministers, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, kindly sent me a copy of the Daily Express attack that was mounted on his correct and sensible words in the previous Committee session. This is relevant to these amendments as well. I will not quote every word that Mr Patrick O’Flynn wrote in the Daily Express on Saturday 14 May because it would take too long, but he said that perhaps Mr Clegg’s ambition of changing the House of Lords would be justified after all. Although the Daily Express would not normally support that kind of thing—I am paraphrasing—on this occasion he was attracted to Mr Clegg’s ideas because he had just discovered that,
“the current way of selecting peers—appointing establishment time-servers—has turned it into a hotbed of European federalists”,
referring to the debates in the most recent couple of Committee sessions. He continued:
“The Lords is now full of people I have always regarded as ghastly pro-EU creatures … turncoats such as Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Dykes”,
Ministers,
“such as Lib Dem Lord Wallace and returnees from the Eurogravy train such as Labour’s Lord Tomlinson. Much of the time they spout rubbish about paying homage to Brussels. They were at it again on Monday”—
that was 9 May—
“turning their guns on this newspaper’s crusade to get Britain out of the EU. Lord Wallace complained about the opposition of the Daily Express to the flying of the EU flag from British public buildings … Pearson reminded the pro-Brussels coven: ‘Millions of people in this country actually welcome the campaign to leave the EU which the Daily Express has started’”.
I think that the total number of people who supported the Daily Express’s dodgy little campaign was 370,000, which is one and half times the average size of a London borough, representing the whole nation. That shows how few people actually read the Daily Express. Mr O’Flynn then concluded that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson,
“challenged Dykes to admit ‘that the absence of the European flag on most of our public buildings reflects the wishes of the British people’”.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, before the noble Lord continues with his line on the Daily Express, when he mentions those 370,000 people, does he realise that that is the most successful newspaper campaign of this kind that there has been? Each one of those people took the trouble to take a pair of scissors, fill in the form, cut it out, put it in an envelope with their own stamp on it and send it to the Daily Express. He should not dismiss this campaign so easily. It is growing, it is going to go on and it is going to win.
Lord Dykes
I think that there have been examples of much larger figures when money has been offered by newspapers, although on this occasion the Daily Express at least had the grace not to offer any money. We know that the whole thing is got up by the British press, a small number of headbangers in the parliamentary Conservative Party in the Commons, UKIP, the BNP and other entities like that—not many people. I am returning to the amendment as quickly as I can, but I am quoting the Daily Express’s remarks to show the background to the whole campaign. Clause 6 would directly affect the status of all the provisions in it and make them subject to referendums. It has nothing to do with the common sense or logic of it.
Another letter, to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on his points, was sent from my noble friend Lord Howell, who has kindly sent copies to other participants on these debates. The very acceptable reply gives ample intellectual and practical cover for the notion of the Government now having the imagination to remove some of the other sub-subsection areas from the classification of being subject to a referendum. We therefore concentrated on the three, four or five areas which could be retained—we differ on those, although some people say we differ only on the euro—starting with euro inclusion, which is generally regarded as the most important, as already supported widely in the Chamber in recent debates. We will therefore reduce the future nightmare for hapless Ministers suffering agonies of confusion in the Council of Ministers and receiving the wrath of their counterparts for paralysing the Union on literal trivialities.
When a Bill is complex and incomprehensible, and far too verbose and heavy because it has to cover so many points, I feel sorry for the government draftsmen who have to assemble it—in quite a short time, I imagine. They would probably regret it, and wish to look at it again. When you feel it is complex and incomprehensible, you turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, but that does not help at all. In respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was saying when he was particularly concerned about subjection (5)(i) and (j) of Clause 6, paragraphs 78 and 80 on page 18 of the Explanatory Memorandum show once again how obnoxious Clause 6 is compared to the earlier clauses. I will not go into detail, or I will take too long. However, the last part of paragraph 80 refers to moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting:
“This is in line with the provisions of subsection (5)(b) above. Such a move would not require a referendum, however, if a referendum had already been held to approve a decision to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in accordance with subsection (5)(i) in the same area of enhanced co-operation. To do so would in effect mean holding a referendum on whether to change the role of the European Parliament or not, and would not be a transfer of power or competence”.
I suppose that you might say that that would be literally true, subject to carefully re-reading it again. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talks about throwing the key through the window. That would not, of course, be a good idea because some sensible pro-European pragmatists would pick up the key. They would find it in the street, come back in and unlock the secrets. You have to put it down a hole to ensure that the whole thing is abandoned. An explanation like that shows the bad quality of a badly drafted Bill, particularly this clause.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I probably would not have risen except for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, to which I will return in a moment. As for the amendment, at this time of night it is confusing and difficult to understand what its result would be. As far as I can see, it attempts to introduce parliamentary control over the items which might well attract a referendum. I hope that that is right, because I am of course always in favour of better parliamentary scrutiny. The problem is that all our experience so far shows that, one way or another, the Government manage to evade parliamentary scrutiny. For example, last week they overrode the European Union Committee’s reserve on the matter of patents. They did not do so on any reasonable grounds, except that the Hungarian presidency wanted them to do so. The Government overrode the parliamentary scrutiny of the House of Commons.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
No, I specifically excluded the House of Lords. It was the House of Commons. The House of Commons had before the meeting of its committee a Member of this House, who tried to explain exactly why the Government acted as they did. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, winds up, he will assure me that this would be better parliamentary scrutiny than what is contained in the Bill.
I come back to the noble Lord who was excoriating all the people who are opposed to further European integration. He well knows that I was never in favour of joining the EEC or the Common Market, as it was. I still believe that this country would be better off out of it. The Daily Express has been trying to give people the opportunity to have a say whether we should remain in. I noticed in last Sunday’s Sunday Express that one of Nick Clegg’s most senior advisers—Mr Tim Farron, the president of the Liberal Democrats—had called for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. He said that Britain’s relationship with the EU has become so poisonous—poisonous, mind you; I have never used that sort of language—that voters deserved a chance to express their views in a referendum on membership of the bloc. Those are not the words of any Liberal councillor; he is the president of the Lib Dems. The noble Lord presumably excludes his own president from his excoriation. He will have to be careful whom he excoriates in the future.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
The president of the Liberal Democrats is very well known to me. He is a supporter of the European Union. He simply believes that the only way to end the misrepresentation of what the European Union is doing and the attempts to get us out without directly facing the question of “in or out” is to have an “in or out” referendum. He believes, as I do, that such a referendum would be likely, in the end, to confirm that we should stay in. The trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, knows even better than I do, is that within less than five years of the previous referendum, which gave a clear decision in favour of staying in Europe, the Labour Party officially decided to leave the Union. That does make referenda look a bit less strong than one might like to believe they are.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I remember the 1975 referendum very well. I took part in it myself. If Mr Farron believes that we should have a referendum because our relationship with the European Union has become poisonous, he is right and I agree with him. However, it is not only UKIP—there are Labour Members who are opposed to our membership of the European Union and, indeed, quite a lot of Liberals. When he believes, rightly, that our relationship with the European Union has become so bad that we need a referendum, I would hope that people, particularly from the Liberal party, would stop criticising those who believe that, after 50 years or so, it is time the British people had another chance to say whether we should stay in or get out.
Lord Dykes
If the result of the referendum was a yes vote, which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has suggested would definitely be the case, the noble Lord would refuse to accept that verdict, as he did with the 1975 referendum.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The noble Lord is absolutely wrong on this. The 1975 referendum was held because of the failure to hold a referendum before we went in. The Labour Party was having great trouble—I remember it well because at that time I was a member of the Labour Party—and to heal the split that had grown up within it, the device of a referendum was put into operation. However, that occurred only two years after our entry into the Common Market and we had not felt the effects of that. Now that we have been in it since January 1973, people have experienced what it means, what it costs and how it affects them. That is why so many people now are beginning to believe, or already believe, that we need to test the view of the British people on the matter. What is wrong with that? People like the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, have said that the European Union is the best thing since sliced bread and that the country is behind it. They said the same about AV but, when people voted on it, they found that they were not with them at all. I believe that they should test the people’s opinion. I promise that if we have a referendum on being in or out of the European Union, and the people say that we must remain in, I shall go away and have a nice retirement. Until then I shall continue to press for a referendum. I hope that eventually the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and others like him, will come round to the same position as that of his party’s president.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I do not want to follow my noble friend Lord Dykes too far as I am not sure that his remarks were strictly in order. We have tended to have rather a lot of general remarks. I am sure that the Daily Express is highly flattered by the amount of time that has been devoted to it in these debates. Listening to my noble friend Lord Dykes, I remembered Enoch Powell’s remark that politicians who complain about the newspapers are rather like fishermen complaining about the weather. It is not the Daily Express that has caused the rise of the True Finns party. It is not the Daily Express that has caused the Germans to become more sceptical about the euro. It is not the Daily Express that has caused a very considerable dramatic change in opinion in Holland about the European Union generally. If my noble friend wishes to understand why the Daily Express manages to get people to sign these petitions, he ought to read his own speech because it is exactly remarks such as his, abusing the feelings of ordinary people, which increase the number of people supporting these petitions. To seek to deny that there is concern among ordinary people about overcentralisation in the European Union is to neglect public opinion in a rather cavalier way, if I may dare say so.
I want to ask about two points that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in his extremely interesting speech. The first concerns the point about Clause 6(5)(j). If what the noble Lord said was right, this was not about powers but about a policy. He instanced a policy decision and the hypothesis whereby, under enhanced co-operation, the Germans, while not participating in it, might wish to make a financial contribution to it. That is rather an important point because one of the fears one would have in Britain, as a country unlikely to participate in some of the enhanced co-operation projects, is that we might end up paying the bill. That would be one of our natural instinctive reactions. It would be extraordinary if, in fact, Germany wanted to pay part of the bill and that was not allowed without a referendum in this country. I cannot believe that the situation is quite like that, but I very much hope that my noble friend can clarify that point.
Secondly, I wanted my noble friend to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about whether one would have to have a referendum on the exchange rate as well as the decision to join the euro. Normally, when I was a Minister, distinguished civil servants such as the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Hannay, and people of their ability, talent and knowledge, had ingenious ways of solving problems and they could always refer to some obscure part of the treaty to enable us to decide what to do. On this occasion, I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, seemed to be using his ingenuity to make things more difficult, rather than to consider this matter more seriously, which is what he normally does.
I do not believe that it would be possible to put the rate and the decision in principle to join the euro together. I certainly do not believe that the referendum would be about the rate. No one would be remotely interested in that. The referendum would be about whether or not we joined the euro. I do not see, as the noble Lord seems to do, some tremendous market problem because the rate announced on one day would be implemented on another. There was no such problem when the rates for all the individual currencies that formed the euro were announced well in advance—a year or more in advance—of the date on which the currency was set up. It was announced that there would be a date on which the currencies would be irrevocably linked together in a grid. Naturally, the market adjusted to the decision that had been made, rather than the other way round. I do not see the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, outlined, but I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that my understanding and conclusions on that matter are correct.
More generally, I obviously could not support the amendment because in essence, under a disguise, it tries to get rid of the lock imposed by the Bill. While we hear a lot of criticism of the vetoes that will be subject to the referendum provisions, we never hear anything about the 50 vetoes that are left intact, in the sense that they can be abolished without a referendum. There are 50 areas under the Bill where unanimity is still required, and a referendum will not be required if they are removed by whatever procedure. A degree of judgment and selectivity has thereby been exercised by the Government.
We tend to forget in these debates that after Maastricht, Lisbon and Nice unanimity remains on certain articles. They remain there for a very good reason. Many countries, not just Britain, have wanted unanimity to remain and they do not want easily to surrender it, which is one reason why the idea that you will get a multiplicity of referenda on what the Opposition consider to be minor subjects will not actually happen.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I should like briefly to return to what the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said when he saw fit to expatiate on the Daily Express’s anti-euro campaign. At an earlier stage in our debates, he said that he had examples of 125 anti-euro headlines in the hated, Murdoch-ite, Barclay-ite and Desmond-ite press that some eminent think tank had proved to be wrong in every respect. He promised to let us have those figures and the factual debunking of those 125 stories. I wrote to the noble Lord about 10 days ago and asked for those figures, and still I have not received them. Can he provide them to the House or just to UKIP Members?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, I have a feeling that we have reached the stage in the debate when we could leave the press and the Daily Express, and move to the precise issues and amendments in the debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I wanted to press the mover and supporters of the amendment on one or two points. We have heard a lot during these debates about how inconvenient it is in the Council of Ministers if things get held up by the British people being consulted and the whole of that process in the United Kingdom. I ask those who support the amendment: what is their timeline for the independent review committee? It has to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Surely it will take a long time to be appointed, to meet, to deliberate, to report and all the rest of it. Are they not extending the inconvenience which they see as putting a spoke in the wheels of the European juggernaut?
Secondly, they seem to have great faith in the scrutiny of Parliament. I must repeat to them the figures given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on 7 February, when he told me in a Written Answer that in the years from 2004 to 2010 inclusive, the scrutiny reserve had been overridden no fewer than 347 times in your Lordships' House and 364 times in the House of Commons. Those figures, apart from being almost unbelievable and, I should have thought, destroying any pretence that parliamentary scrutiny was worth anything in the process of European legislation, must remove some of the confidence that the noble Lord has in his amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Those are interesting and important points. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who was the father of the amendments, or one of the fathers—anyway, he has some paternity—will no doubt comment on them after me, but I thought that I should address some of the serious points. Not everyone has been sharply focused, but we have heard some extremely interesting observations and responses to them. I would like to express the Government's view.
Just to be clear, I say that the two amendments would make the question of whether to seek the consent of the British people in respect of the big 12 decisions in Clause 6—that is the big five or six decisions and then the whole section in Clause 6 which governs the surrender of the veto—subject to a small committee of either both Houses of Parliament or an independent review committee. The assessment of the committee, via the composition, would then be validated by a short debate and a single vote of each House of Parliament. That is what the amendment states.
That design—which, as the noble Lord said, was proposed only as a probe—would frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. Why would it do that? I will make the general point; I will come to the detailed ones in a moment. The amendments would, in effect, replay the history to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, because they would hint at referendums being held with the prospect that people would once again be denied their say because, in this case, some small committee of experts—or a committee of two Houses of Parliament—had made decisions. That undermines the whole intent and thrust underlying the Bill, which is designed to rebuild trust by ensuring that the British people can decide on the key decisions affecting the future course or expansion, if that is what is required, of the competences and powers of the European Union. By going into the detail—and I can see that the detail is considerable, because the legislative patterns of the European Union are very complex and detailed—the Bill makes clear the transfers of power and competence on which the British electorate would have the right to be consulted. However, the amendments would seek to unpick that by making recommendations in small committees.
Therefore, in effect, the British people would be denied the say that they want when EU powers are to be expanded. Very few seem to want that anyway and I am very puzzled by the sudden passion of the Front Bench opposite for an expansion of powers. The British people would miss yet another opportunity to regain trust, further exacerbating the electorate’s disconnection with, and cynicism towards, the European Union. That is what the amendments would do and that is why I am glad they are only probing amendments and not a serious intention to undermine the whole purpose and spirit of the Bill.
Lord Triesman
Can the noble Lord give me one or two examples of the extensions that he believes this Front Bench supports and is enthusiastic about? I ask that because, certainly during the previous day in Committee, and I think that he is also inferring it tonight, it was suggested that we were in favour of the possible production of a European army—something to which I was explicitly opposed as a Minister, as I am tonight—and the abandonment of Schengen, to which I have been explicitly opposed, as we were in government. What are the examples? These are either straw men or there is substance to them.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My difficulty in answering that question is due to the difficulty that the Opposition have in stating why they want particular treaty amendments and expansions of the powers and competences of the European Union. When we have pressed on this matter, it has been a bit like “King Lear”: the Opposition seem to want to do “such things” and there will be uncertain futures in which new powers will somehow be needed for the European Union. Therefore, they want to amend the Bill by removing areas where the Bill would prevent the surrender of the veto. That would not prevent activity, because a huge range of competences accorded to the European Union allow it to be highly active in all these areas. However, the Opposition want to remove the vetoes on the big decisions. I think that they want a referendum on the euro, although I am not at all sure about the others and I want to go through them as we discuss these matters. The Opposition have not answered that. Why do they want these huge treaty changes, and why do they want the vetoes removed? It seems to me beyond understanding that they should want vetoes removed when so many powers and competences are now accorded to the European Union, and they can do all sorts of things to achieve the kind of Europe that we want in the future. If the Opposition have some new ideas for expanding the powers of the European Union, let them state them, otherwise we are left with a kind of “King Lear” situation—they will do “such things” as it is too difficult to mention at this time.
I want to turn to the 12 decisions in Clause 6, which cover highly sensitive areas. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, call some of them trivial, it made me, in the words of Hilaire Belloc, gasp and stretch my eyes. When one looks at the reality of them—their real-world implications—they are anything but trivial. The big five decisions under Clause 6 include joining the eurozone, and there seems to be a general consensus that there should be a referendum on that. Incidentally, I reassure my noble friend Lord Lamont that there is not really a problem there at all. The referendum would take place before the UK took the decision, and the exchange rate would then be struck at a certain point in the middle of the night or whenever it was technically advisable to do so. I think that my noble friend put that in perfect perspective.
On the provisions relating to EU common defence, I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, say such decisions could not necessarily lead to anything too serious—I do not want to parody him—because it was a complex issue and it might be desirable, I suppose he was saying, to give up the veto or decide to join without a referendum because not too much harm could come from it. That is miles from reality. In fact, under an EU common defence policy—on which we would urge there should be a referendum—we would no longer be able to decide independently which situations and developments we should respond to and which situations represented a threat to our national security, we would lose our ability to decide unilaterally which operations we would mount and it would no longer be our choice alone whether we should act independently or with whom we should act in concert. Of course, in this modern world we will always be acting in concert, but we decide. To say that is in the trivial category seems to me to be taking off to another planet.
Lord Liddle
I cannot recollect using the word “trivial”, to be quite honest. The key point we were trying to make is that, when he talks about a common defence as though we were going to pool all our military and have a common air force and a common army and all the rest, that is a complete straw man. That is not what anyone on the continent is proposing. The real issues in European defence are ones such as why we have—I cannot remember the precise figure—400,000 people under arms yet we can manage to mobilise only 5,000 for a particular operation and why, in terms of bang for the buck, Europe is so unbelievably inefficient, given all the different national procurement systems. When we are up against it on the defence budget, the Government are saying they are not interested in common procurement and how we make that work. What we are talking about is very small-scale, step-by-step, gradual changes that would be useful, not suddenly deciding that we want to have a common army and a common air force. It is ludicrous to say that the Opposition are in favour of that.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The Maastricht treaty and other treaties make clear that common defence means common control and common finance. There may be all sorts of arrangements short of that with some aspects of existing competencies already available to the European Union for all kinds of co-operation. I am going to come particularly to the question of enhanced co-operation and other military aspects in a moment. The noble Lord is splitting hairs. In the treaty it is perfectly clear what this step would involve. He says that there might be just one small step and it will be all right because we can have adjustments later on; that is not how it really works and certainly not how it works in law and under the treaties.
Let me move on, as I have plenty more to say on the other areas that were apparently described as trivial. Those included abolishing border controls—I feel it absolutely extraordinary to put that in the trivial category, as it is a major issue. Joining the European public prosecutor system, which is already in the treaty, or extending its powers when we had joined it is a very serious issue affecting the whole of our judicial system. Then we come to—
Lord Goodhart
Is my noble friend aware that the EPPO would have virtually no effect on litigation or law in the United Kingdom? It would affect only a few elements which involve entirely cross-border matters.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not think we are going to join the EPP. The previous Government did not want it, this Government do not want it and I suspect a future Government would not want it. The issue here is whether, if we were in the system and it sought to expand its powers, we would have been right to give up the veto or would we hope to achieve advance by unanimity. Would it not be more sensible, particularly in the legal areas that the noble Lord knows so well, to advance via a system of solidarity, unity and consensus, rather than by seeking somehow to move into the QMV area? These are serious matters that affect the overall pattern of our judicial system.
Lord Goodhart
Again, is it not distinctly possible that QMV would have considerable benefits for the United Kingdom? With unanimity, things that we want to do can be blocked by another member state. Is it not best to have the decision about whether to go for QMV taken by Parliament?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I have always found this argument very curious. To go to QMV requires a unanimous decision by those involved in taking the decision. The suggestion is that a country that is anxious to protect its national interest by blocking the move to QMV should nevertheless vote for QMV and for the power to be overridden by itself. That seems to be a turkeys-for-Christmas argument that does not add up in the real world. To imagine that by the muscle of QMV—I will not call it a sledge-hammer—one is going to get other countries to fall into line with a proposition that we might like to see pushed through is unrealistic. Why should they vote against themselves? That is not the way the pattern is ever going to work. The truth is this—my noble friend Lord Lamont touched on it—that the reason there is a long list of items in Schedule 1—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The Minister has, with enormous eloquence, destroyed the case for the Single European Act and the single market. I believe he was a member of the Government who negotiated and ratified that. I can accept that there are areas of unanimity that we will never want to allow to be subject to QMV, such as taxation. That is quite clear. We will not allow them to be, and because unanimity is required to move from that, it will not happen. There will not need to be a referendum or anything else. The root-and-branch description he has given of national interest is frankly completely contrary to the facts. The Single European Act, which provided for qualified majority voting in a number of areas of technical barriers to trade, which had been blocked for many years, has been to this country’s interest. The Germans, who voted for the Single European Act, found themselves being voted down on the banking regulation. They willed the use of QMV, and they accepted the consequences. This country has never been put in that position. I do not think we should generalise this argument. There is no dispute that there are areas where any British Government are going to refuse to move from unanimity to QMV.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not want to sound critical of the noble Lord, who has had such experience in these things, but I have to ask where he has been because this Bill is about the present and the future. It is not saying that we can unravel the Lisbon treaty or that we should revert from QMV back to unanimity on a vast number of things where there is QMV. This Bill does not take back any competences or powers, although there are people in this House and another place who would like to consider that some of the powers are somewhat out of date in the central situation and should perhaps be revisited. It is not about that at all. This Bill is about further treaty changes and further transfers of power.
Here I agree with my noble friend Lady Williams. I suspect that most people—not the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—think that we are right to be good Europeans and to be effective in the EU, that we have given the European Union enormous powers and that almost anything we want to do can be achieved within those powers and with legislation within the existing competences, but that the case for allowing a further expansion of the powers and competences without consulting people who feel that time and again they have not been consulted is a very weak case. The case for not allowing people is very weak, and the case for allowing them is extremely strong. That is what this Bill is about, so I do not understand the noble Lord’s intervention about the past. It just does not add up.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Does the Minister not agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is in fact a misunderstanding of the purpose of this Bill and that his remarks and the remarks of so many of those who oppose this Bill still relate to overwhelming ownership by government of all these decisions? The purpose of the Bill is to bring the British public and the voter into that decision-making process. The focus of the Bill is in fact quite different.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend puts the matter with wonderful clarity. The truth is that not only is it not in our interest to remove the locks on so many aspects that the noble Lord finds so difficult but that many member states, not all of them, like us want no such thing as a removal of the veto in so many areas. Indeed, this explains why most of the areas requiring unanimity are in the treaty in the first place, remain in the treaty and are in Clause 6 and Schedule 1.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I have a strong preference for interpreting what I say myself and for not having it interpreted by another Member of the House. The reason I spoke as I did about the past was because the Minister spoke about it himself and expressed very strong views about the total unacceptability of movements from unanimity to QMV and about why it was inconceivable that any country would ever agree to that knowing that it might then be voted down. I gave one or two examples of why that was not inconceivable and why that had actually happened and had been in the British interest.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am receiving strong hints—correct hints, I think—that not too much more time should be taken up from this Dispatch Box on these matters, and I will leave that debate aside for a moment.
This Bill is about a further expansion of competencies and powers; it is not about unravelling the past, because we are not in a position to do that, although some would like to. It remains unclear to me why the Opposition want more competencies and powers for the European Union; I am very interested that that is now the official position of the Opposition. I am longing to hear how they are going to deploy that and expand on it in the coming weeks and months.
Let me finally turn to Amendment 39B, which states that the committee must have regard to the urgency of the draft decision. Again, this shows a lack of understanding—possibly through my deficiency in being unable to convey how the system actually works, although there are other people in this Chamber who know it much better than I do. As I tried to explain previously on Amendments 16A and 16B, and as my noble friend Lady Falkner rightly said, one could think of few more urgent things than stabilising the eurozone. It still needs doing, of course, yet the use of the simplified revision procedure to enable member states in the euro area to set up the ESM to safeguard the financial and economic stability of the euro area will take 21 months to finalise. It was agreed in March 2011 and approved at the end of 2012. How could anyone consider that to be urgent? I do not understand what the “urgency” word is doing in that amendment.
There are a couple of other weaknesses in this probing amendment, which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who is extremely experienced in these matters, is well aware of. These amendments do not seem to take account of the work of our excellent scrutiny committees. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks they are not paid enough attention. There is always the point that our scrutiny should be more effective, but it does go on and it is conducted with great vigour and assiduity under the leadership of people like the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in the European Union Committee of this House. It is within their gift to make recommendations similar to those prepared by the referendum committee at the time when Parliament came to debate the primary legislation required under Clause 6. It could be done there.
Finally, the amendments do not seem to take into account the need for primary legislation—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is reminding us of—in all these situations, which would provide for full parliamentary consideration of the decision in question through the rigour of the legislative process. It is therefore not clear how the provisions for resolutions of Parliament would fit with the requirements earlier in the clause for an Act of Parliament. Nor is it clear what would happen if one House approved the recommendations of the committee and the other House did not. Therefore, there is no need for the additional complications and opportunities for prevarication, because that is what we would get with these amendments, along with delay and opaqueness.
It is surely right that if a future Government really believe that a further transfer of power or competence from the UK to the EU is in the interests of this country, they should not be afraid to make the case to the British people and let them decide. Those who might be in favour of more powers to the EU and those who might be against should have the courage of their convictions—possibly more so than in the past—and be prepared to seek a mandate from the public, not from a small group of Parliament or some external committee. That is why I ask noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I am very disappointed with the Minister’s reply to this debate. I think that we have made a simple argument in support of these probing amendments and it is not fair to criticise us on their detail. That is not the point. We are trying to put forward the argument that if the issue of whether a referendum should take place is in question, an issue of proportionality also has to be addressed. We do not want to have multiple referenda. Let us have them, as your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has said, on fundamental matters of importance. The question is how those fundamental matters of importance are to be decided. With these amendments we are thinking about a mechanism by which these issues could be considered in an objective and rational way that is detached from political partisanship.
Amendment 39B in particular proposes the setting up of an independent review committee that would advise both Houses of Parliament on whether an issue was large enough to pass the test of proportionality and thus whether a referendum should take place. To me, that is a simple argument which is worthy of consideration, but I do not feel that the Government have shown that they are really prepared to give it that proper consideration.
Members on this side of the House stand for greater parliamentary accountability in terms of the EU. We are arguing for Acts of Parliament for any changes that are made as passerelles, simplified revision treaties or whatever else. These would require Acts of Parliament, not just a resolution of Parliament. That marks a change from what happened under the previous Government, and it is quite a big change. It puts in place an additional safeguard in politics because it would not be just Ministers in their department pushing through parliamentary resolutions, it would require them to get the agreement of colleagues through the Cabinet Legislation Committee in order for the matter to be taken forward. It makes this much more of a collective decision of the whole Government and would enable more thorough scrutiny of issues through the procedure of creating an Act of Parliament.
We are in favour of parliamentary accountability. The question is this: what are the circumstances in which in addition to greater parliamentary accountability, there should be referenda? The Minister says that there are what he calls “key decisions” that require referenda, and puts forward a lot of proposals for change that no one on this side is actually proposing. We have not put forward dramatic proposals for the extension of QMV or for large transfers of competences and powers to Brussels. What we have said is that, as a Government who are sensibly trying to make the European Union work, some flexibility is required to deal with difficult issues as they come up. Moreover, circumstances change, so what you think about the future now might not necessarily still be what you think in five years’ time. Judging what would require a referendum to be held and what would not is of vital importance, so we are proposing a mechanism here that can deal with questions of proportionality.
What we are proposing here would fit the coalition agreement far better than what the Government are proposing. The coalition agreement draws a very clear distinction between treaties which would require referenda and other changes which would simply require primary legislation. That is what is in the coalition agreement which the Liberal Democrats signed up for. As with the Bill on the National Health Service, it is a bit like the Liberal Democrats have been sold a pup, because they have not got what is in the agreement they signed up for. What they signed up for here was a clear distinction between future treaties and other small changes which would be dealt with differently. We are proposing a mechanism which would enable that to be done. I hope that when we get to Report stage people will think again about this Bill and have the common sense to see that the mechanisms that we are proposing are in the national and the public interest. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.