House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
1. What progress he has made on implementing his proposals for additional support for disabled people to achieve elected office.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
We conducted a public consultation exercise, which ran from 16 February to 11 May, to seek views on a range of proposals designed to help to remove barriers faced by disabled people who are seeking elected office. We are currently analysing the responses, and intend to announce the strategy later this year.
Amber Rudd
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. In Hastings we have 32 councillors and in East Sussex 49, but not one of them is registered disabled. Can he give any advice to the leaders of my councils about what can be done to encourage more disabled people to get involved in local politics?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: the issue is applicable not just to this place, but to councils up and down the country. There are clearly barriers impeding the participation of people with disabilities in politics at all levels. I pay tribute to those who were involved in the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation, which was started some years ago and identified this as a problem. In our access to elected office strategy, which we will announce, we will address how that might affect local councils as well as this place.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What representations he has received on his plans for the future composition of the House of Lords.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have received many representations expressing a wide variety of views—
Mr Speaker
Order. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking a grouping.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, forgive me. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I would like to group questions 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12. A major issue—my omission to group the questions. That is how over-excited Members on the Opposition Benches get.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
4. What recent representations he has received on his proposals for House of Lords reform.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
5. What recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of the House of Lords.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
11. What representations he has received on his plans for the future composition of the House of Lords.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
12. What recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of the House of Lords.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The loudest voices inevitably belong to those who object the most to our proposals to make the House of Lords a more democratic Chamber but, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said last week, a democratic Chamber was endorsed in the manifestos of all three of the largest parties in the House.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As was discussed in the debate last week, the principle that one of the ways in which we distinguish between a reformed House of Lords and this Chamber is to introduce long non-renewable terms for the elected component in the other place was not invented by this Government. It was identified in a series of cross-party commissions over many years, but if the Joint Committee that is to be established thinks otherwise, that is exactly the kind of thing that we should debate in the months ahead.
Charlie Elphicke
Given that reform of the House of Lords was in all three major parties’ manifestos, is it not right that the House discuss the matter in Committee to work out the best way to implement it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, and that is precisely why we look forward to a Joint Committee of both Houses being established through the usual channels, which will be able to get to grips with all the many questions, queries and objections that have been raised, so that we can as far as possible proceed on a cross-party basis on something that all parties are committed to seeing through.
Mr Bradshaw
From his conversations with the Prime Minister, how committed would the Deputy Prime Minister say the Prime Minister is to facing down his own Back Benchers and, if necessary, using the Parliament Act to get the reform through before the next election?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Prime Minister gave an unambiguous answer to the question about the Parliament Act at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Not only was the commitment made by all three parties in their manifestos, but it is one that we entered unambiguously into the coalition agreement.
The Deputy Prime Minister
One of the advantages of the system that we are introducing, as explained in the White Paper, is that it will permit political parties to take active steps, in so far as they wish to do so, to use elections to the other place to increase the diversity of representation in Westminster as a whole.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Given the country’s firm rejection of AV in the recent referendum and the fact that the Government’s proposals include the possibility of some form of proportional representation for election of Members of this Parliament, will my right hon. Friend at least consider giving the people of this country a referendum on this important constitutional change?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The first point of which to remind my hon. Friend is that this was a manifesto commitment of all three parties. It is something that we as a country have been discussing for around 100 years or so, and we have introduced changed electoral systems to a number of Assemblies and Parliaments in the UK without referendums in the past.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It is understanable that there is tension and disagreement between the two coalition parties on this issue, and perhaps on other matters, but it was reported last week that during a recent meeting of Tory MPs one Member described the Liberal Democrats as “yellow” followed by a second word beginning with “b” then “a” and ending in “s”. Was the Deputy Prime Minister as shocked as I was by such behaviour?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the House that I do not think he is responsible for what is said at meetings of Conservative Members of Parliament?
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Should the right hon. Gentleman not drop this unpopular policy, which does not resonate with the majority of the public, and concentrate instead on finding a solution to the problem of the West Lothian question?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am the first to acknowledge that, whether it is the West Lothian question or reform of the House of Lords, these are of course not matters that are raised by our constituents or on the doorsteps as we campaign at election time, but it does not mean that they are unimportant. We discuss many things in this House, from local government finance to world trade rules and all sorts of things that are not raised from day to day in our local communities, but that are none the less important. That is why we as a country have been struggling with this dilemma for more than 100 years and why all three parties have a manifesto commitment finally to make progress on reforming the other place.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords
“with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”
There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
6. What recent assessment he has made of arrangements for the provision of postal votes on demand.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
We have made no specific assessment of postal voting on demand, but we of course keep postal voting under review as we consider electoral administration in general.
Graham Evans
There have been widespread reports of shocking abuses of postal votes, especially in areas with high levels of multiple occupancy housing. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps the Government are taking to stamp out postal vote fraud and ensure honesty in our elections?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will know that we are introducing individual voter registration before the next general election, which will mean that everyone who wants to cast an absent vote, a postal vote in this case, will have to register individually and provide their identifiers to their registration officer in order to make the register more secure.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Conservative Members are very prone to making rash statements about alleged postal vote fraud, and not just in this House, but in another place. I have been in correspondence with the Minister and regularly asked the Leader of the House whether he can get Baroness Warsi to retract her statement that the Conservative party was robbed of a majority at the last election because of electoral fraud on behalf of the Labour party, particularly in the Asian community. Although a Cabinet member, she resolutely refuses to reply. Will the Minister do so now on her behalf?
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman raised this matter at business questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House drew it to my attention, as I am the Minister responsible for that policy area, and I replied as quickly as possible and gave the right hon. Gentleman a full answer. If he wishes to raise it with me again and ask me anything—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would actually listen, they might hear my answer. If he would like to ask me anything that I have not already answered in my letter, I would be delighted to write to him again.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on steps to facilitate voting in elections by service personnel serving abroad.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I have discussed that issue with the Minister responsible for defence personnel, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), and our officials in the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence are continuing to work on proposals to make it easier for our brave service personnel abroad to be able to participate in general elections. The hon. Lady will know some details about that from the written answers I gave her last week.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am disappointed by the lack of urgency with which his Government are addressing the matter. I was shocked to find that, as a result of the Government’s initiative in relation to voting on 5 May this year, only 40 of the thousands of service personnel deployed in Afghanistan voted in secret by post in the referendum, compared with the 217 who voted by post in the general election last year. At a public meeting in October 2008—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must have a one-second question; there is a lot to get through. Quick question, and we will carry on.
Lilian Greenwood
The Deputy Prime Minister assured my constituent Devina Worsley that he and the Armed Forces Minister would take action to address the issue. Is that another broken promise, or is he just not up to the job?
Mr Harper
I thought that we were going to get something good then, but that was clearly rehearsed. The hon. Lady will know from my detailed answer that the number of people who voted in the specific initiative that we set up, building on the one that the Labour party undertook for the general election, does not take into account all personnel in Afghanistan, some of whom will have registered separately. She will know also that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government plan to lengthen the campaign period for general elections so that overseas voters, including our service personnel, have more opportunity to vote. That is a very clear promise—
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When the Minister talks to the Ministry of Defence about voting, will he try to ensure that not just the way our servicemen and women vote but the way they are required to register is as simple as possible?.
Mr Harper
I agree, and we are doing two things. We are going to make registering as a service voter more straightforward, and we are going to undertake some data-matching pilots with a number of local authorities, working with the Ministry of Defence, so that we can look at improving the way service personnel are registered so they all have the chance to register and vote in elections.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
8. What discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on the conduct of elections for police and crime commissioners.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have discussed the conduct of the elections for police and crime commissioners with the chair of the Electoral Commission. Cabinet Office officials have also been working closely with their counterparts at the Electoral Commission as part of work with the Home Department on the policy and legislation that will be required to allow for the conduct and regulation of those elections.
Nia Griffith
Many of my constituents would far rather see the estimated £100 million cost of running such elections for police commissioners spent on keeping police on the beat, but will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the views of the Electoral Commission on limits to the campaigning expenses for elected police commissioner candidates?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The intention will of course be to bring the legislation on elections for police and crime commissioners into line with that on other elections. We are absolutely determined to deliver the commitment in the coalition agreement to hold the elections so that we have greater accountability in policing. Policing matters to every single family and community in this country, and that is why we should make the police more accountable to the people they serve.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that he will do what he can to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened in Northern Ireland earlier this month, when we had three different polls on one day, an inordinate delay in declaring the AV referendum result and significant delays in the other polls as well?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am obviously very keen to hear from the hon. Gentleman any specific reservations he has about how the combination of polls operated, but the provisional feedback seems to be that, despite some very dire warnings about the combination of polls not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, on the whole it was conducted very successfully indeed.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that plans for police commissioners are a pretty major change in the way we do things, with new electoral boundaries and a new post. I will not go into the substance of the disagreement between the two sides about police commissioners, but on a procedural point the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned his discussions with the Electoral Commission. How soon in advance of the elections, which are now less than a year away, will we see the rules on spending limits, on fundraising transparency and on how the elections are held? He will be aware that all parties need to have time to select candidates throughout the country.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman —unusually—makes a fair point. We do need to get these rules into place in good time, and we will be working with the Electoral Commission at all levels to make sure that the rules are available to everybody who wants to participate in these elections in good time so that they can be held in the proper way.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
9. What representations he has received on the application of the Salisbury convention to legislative proposals relating to political and constitutional reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have received no representations on this subject.
Mr Bone
The Deputy Prime Minister is well known for his love of Parliament and democracy. Perhaps no representations have been made because there is no question of the Parliament Acts being invoked at any time during this period of government because no single party was elected to government.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s question is about the Salisbury convention, which is one of many conventions that entrench the relationship between the other place and the House of Commons. The Parliament Acts are also vital in that regard. We have no intention of altering either the Acts or the convention.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Graeme Morrice
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Now that the Deputy Prime Minister is even less popular than the Swiss entry in the recent Eurovision contest—at least they got 19 points—what immediate plans does he have to redeem himself in the public eye? Moreover, what principle or value is he not prepared to sell out over in his quest to cling to power?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Well read and well rehearsed! I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that I am not going to flinch from for one minute, and that is to clear up the mess left by Labour. Because of the sheer economic incompetence of the Labour party in government, this country, on the backs of our children and grandchildren, is borrowing £400 million a day. He might think that is okay; I do not.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T2. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House a timetable for his proposed reforms of the House of Lords? Will it be during the life of this Parliament, and how flexible are the proportions? Would he consider 30, 30 and 30?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The timetable is that the Joint Committee of both Houses first needs to complete its work, and we hope that it will do so in the early stages of next year, with a view to the Government then publishing a Bill in the second Session in order to see the first steps in a reformed House of Lords and the first elections taking place in 2015.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
People are worried about the NHS being turned from a public service into a commercial market. Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Bill makes this about profits, not patients. The Deputy Prime Minister has reportedly told his Back Benchers that he is against that, so will he tell the House now that the Government will strike out of the Bill the whole of part 3? He has been talking tough in private, but will he say it here in public?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can be very clear, and the Government as a whole can be very clear, that there will be no privatisation of the NHS. It will not be run for profit and it will not be fragmented; it will be free at the point of use based on need rather than the ability to pay—full stop.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It was the right hon. and learned Lady’s party in government that rigged contracts with private sector providers, undermining the NHS and undermining NHS hospitals—a rigged contract with private sector providers to undermine the very ethos of the NHS. We are legislating to make sure that, once and for all, there is a level playing field in the NHS for everyone who is providing care to the British people.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
T3. Just 30,000 of the 5.5 million British citizens living overseas are registered to vote. What plans do the Government have to make it easier for them to register and to lengthen the election timetable so that those who do register can vote by post?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think there is a strong case for lengthening the election timetable to address that issue. We are looking at the matter in detail and will come forward with proposals as soon as we can.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
T5. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to see Liberal MPs and peers veto the Health and Social Care Bill. Given that, why did he sign the foreword to the health White Paper?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The principles of the White Paper were less bureaucracy, more patient-centred health, greater control for people who know patients best so that they can decide where money circulates in the system, greater accountability, and less centralisation. First, those are worthwhile reforms. Secondly, they build on many of the reforms that the Labour party introduced when in government. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were more honest, they would back our attempt to listen to the British people and reform the NHS so that it is safeguarded for future generations.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure no one is suggesting that any right hon. or hon. Member would be dishonest in this Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. I take that as read.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
T4. Did not the Government inherite an unreformed, unwieldy, unaccountable health service that was partly privatised, and are not these reforms necessary to secure the future of the health service for the next generation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members simply cannot get their heads around the fact that this Government are prepared to listen. We are prepared to listen to doctors, nurses, consultants and patients. What is more—this is something the Labour Government never did—when we think we can improve our proposals, we are prepared to do so.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
T6. The Deputy Prime Minister has repeated ad nauseam that the commitment to reform the House of Lords was in all three parties’ manifestos. [Hon. Members: “It was.”] Of course it was. Does that not mean that the electorate did not have the choice to vote for somebody who did not want to reform the House of Lords? Is there not therefore a strong case for a referendum on this issue, which is much more important than AV?
The Deputy Prime Minister
A seriously surreal doctrine is emerging. The hon. Gentleman was unable to persuade his colleagues to exclude the issue from the manifesto, so he wants to circumvent the manifesto on which he stood at the last general election by way of a referendum.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
T7. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister shares my view that the influence of lobbying can cause serious defamation to the democratic process. Will he update the House on the status of his register of lobbyists?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has announced in the House that we are consulting on that matter. We hope that the consultation will proceed during the summer to meet the objective in the coalition agreement of creating a register of lobbyists.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T8. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the discussions he has had with his Government and party colleagues on the circumstances in which parliamentarians should be above the rule of law?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that anyone should be above the rule of law. If we do not like the law in this place, we should act as legislators to change the law, not flout it.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T10. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals for House of Lords reform were not met with total acclaim last week, will he reflect on the points that have been made last week and this week, and try to seek consensus on the issue? To invoke the Parliament Act would be a most unwise move.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that any proposal to reform the other place has been met with total acclaim for as long as the matter has been discussed, which is more than a century. That is the nature of the issue. There are strong feelings on all sides of the debate and, let us be frank, some strong vested interests who do not want to see any change. That is why we want to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that, where possible, we should proceed on a cross-party basis on something as significant as this.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T9. Under the Government’s proposals, Newcastle will have a mayor and a police commissioner imposed on it by London. Given that the people of Newcastle recently voted overwhelmingly for a Labour council to replace a Lib Dem one, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the democratic voice of the people of Newcastle is loudly against wasting money on such vanity projects?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think there is anything wrong with asking people to vote for more representatives, particularly on issues as important as policing. The basic principle of enhancing and increasing accountability, and of enriching our democracy by giving people more opportunity to express their opinions at the ballot box, seems to me a good one.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
T13. Given the announcement that Anglican bishops will remain in the newly reformed House of Lords, does the Deputy Prime Minister have any ideas about representation for other Christian groups, and indeed other faiths?
The Deputy Prime Minister
One of the options that we have set out in detail in the draft Bill is indeed continued representation, if on a much reduced numerical basis, of what is after all the established Church in England. That is clearly what distinguishes it from other faiths in England.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T11. During the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election earlier this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said about the newly opened Tesco in Greenfield that we needed to“keep our high streets diverse, and make sure that we support small shops as well as big ones”.Why, then, did his party vote against Labour’s new clause 29 to the Localism Bill, which would have required councils to include a retail diversity scheme in their local development framework?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We feel that the provisions in the Localism Bill, which give local communities an ability to express their views on what they want to happen in their neighbourhoods to an extent that did not exist for the 13 years under Labour, are sufficient to meet precisely the demand that the hon. Lady makes.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any discussion of the West Lothian question, and therefore of the role of Scottish MPs in this place, would necessarily have to include the position of Welsh MPs and those from Northern Ireland, where there are also devolved forms of government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is one of the many questions that we are now considering in advance of making an announcement about the establishment of the commission to look into the West Lothian question, which we will do during the course of this year.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T12. The Deputy Prime Minister has just said that he is in favour of the public having more people to vote for. Has he read the Hansard proceedings of last week’s debate in Westminster Hall, in which Conservative, Labour and Plaid Cymru MPs criticised the fact that the relationship between Wales and Westminster was being put at risk by the cut in representation from 40 MPs to 30? Only Liberal Democrats seem willing to defend that policy. Is he ready to repent, or has he given up on Wales?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What I have not given up on is having a system of election that is fair. I do not think it is right or fair to have some Members of the House representing far, far fewer constituents than colleagues in other constituencies. The principle that all of us should represent roughly the same number of people seems to me a basic one.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to review the effectiveness of the current methods of electoral registration, and to assist all councils to maximise the number of people on the electoral register?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are planning to legislate to introduce individual electoral registration, which of course is intended principally to deal with cases of electoral fraud. At the same time, we hope to pilot in the coming months new schemes to compare the electoral register with other publicly available databases, so that electoral registration officers can go out to communities in which they are active and ensure that if people are missing on one database, they can be included in the other.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
T14. The Deputy Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that there would be no privatisation of the NHS. I will give him another chance. Will he oppose part 3 of the Health and Social Care Bill, or are his comments just meaningless words?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There is a world of difference between allowing patients greater choice and ensuring that there is diversity in how the best health care is provided to patients, and any sell-off of the NHS to bargain-basement bidders, which we have ruled out. There will be no privatisation of that kind whatever under this Government’s plans.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister has noticed that if proportional representation is used for a reformed House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats will almost always hold the balance of power in the other place. Does he intend to make being Deputy Prime Minister a job for life?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, in a House of Lords without any elections of any description whatever, no party has an overall majority in any event, so a balance of power in a reformed House of Lords is no different from the status quo.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
If, as the Deputy Prime Minister told us last week, the main role of a reformed House of Lords will be as a revising Chamber, why does he propose that people should be appointed under prime ministerial patronage as Ministers and Members of that House? Would it not be better if nobody could sit as a Minister in that House? Would not that properly differentiate the role of this Chamber from that one?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We looked at this very carefully and proposed, on balance, that a very small number of appointees should be Lords only for the time that they hold ministerial office. We need to ensure that Ministers are held to account in either this Chamber or the other place. We therefore felt it right to suggest that the Prime Minister retains a prerogative for a very small number of positions, so that for the limited time that those appointees are Ministers, they are accountable to the reformed House of Lords.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister has been a good supporter of my constituent, Gary McKinnon, and his case. He will recall that when the Prime Minister visited America, President Obama said that because of the unsurpassed special relationship between our countries, an appropriate solution would be found. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the case of Gary McKinnon is raised during the President’s visit, and does he agree that the appropriate solution is to stop that extradition to the US?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I cannot anticipate exactly what will be said in those meetings, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman, and everybody who has followed the case with great interest over a long period, welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that she is available to listen to new representations from Gary McKinnon, his family and his solicitors; that she will judge that new information against the impact on his human rights; and that she will make up her mind in a quasi-judicial form as soon as possible.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how a second Chamber elected under a different voting system, some of whose Members could be elected for 15 years, and almost certainly on a different manifesto altogether, would improve the legislative process?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I always thought that the Labour party was against bastions of privilege and patronage. I thought that one of the founding principles of the so-called progressive party was that it believed that the British people should be in charge, not politicians in Westminster. Labour Members seem to be turning their backs, yet again, on one of their many long-standing traditions.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that the proposed new House of Lords will cost more or less than the existing one?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We want to reduce the number of people in the reformed House of Lords very dramatically—the draft Bill and White Paper that we published last week suggests 300 Members. Exactly what the cost will be depends, of course, on the proportions of elected and non-elected Members, so it is quite difficult to come up with precise estimates at this stage.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Good businesses in all our constituencies are being denied bank lending, and new data show that bank lending to small businesses is £2 billion short of the Government’s targets. When will the Government show some backbone and take robust action on the banks?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That comes from a party that let the banks run completely amok, and a party that landed us with that problem in the first place! However, I totally agree with the hon. Lady on the Merlin agreement, which the Government have signed with the banks—it commits the banks to lending targets to businesses generally, and to small and medium-sized enterprises specifically. The agreement is in its very early days, but we have made it unambiguously clear to the banks that they must honour its terms. If they fail to do so, we will not be bound by our side of it either.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who have to support his and the Government’s measures night after night cannot understand why, when the country is in such crisis, he is prepared to invoke the Parliament Act and gridlock essential legislation in the other place? Will he invoke the Tory principle of gradualism, ditch those radical proposals and come back with something much more modest?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know what could be more gradualist than a proposal that would start in 2015 and not be complete until 2025. Many of the options for transition that we set out in the White Paper could not reasonably be accused of going too fast. We totally accept that a change on this scale, given that it has been discussed for more than 100 years, needs to be done carefully and incrementally.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
At the beginning of Question Time, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was against “privatisation”. Half an hour later he said that he was against “privatisation of that kind”. A week used to be a long time in politics, but he has reduced it to half an hour.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I said there would be no privatisation of the NHS, and that is what I meant. There will be no privatisation of the NHS.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will resist any siren calls to water down the Equality Act as part of the red tape challenge?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can certainly confirm that, as far as I am concerned, there will be no move to dilute incredibly important protections to enshrine and bolster equality in this country under the guise of dealing with unnecessary or intrusive regulation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Deputy Prime Minister is in listening mode, from where is he hearing a vote or voice calling for a House of Commons diminished in power and influence?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I ask all his Opposition colleagues: what is wrong with the basic democratic principle that those who create the laws of the land should be accountable to the millions of people who have to abide by the laws of the land? It used to be called democracy. It used to be something the Labour party believed in. I do not know why it is turning its back yet again on a progressive step towards further reform.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of specialist domestic and sexual violence services to support prosecutions involving allegations of such offences.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have not held specific discussions with ministerial colleagues on the provision of domestic and sexual violence services to support prosecutions. The Solicitor-General is a member of the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is responsible for monitoring progress against its action plan. This action plan identifies the importance of support for victims of violence against women.
Diana Johnson
I know that the Attorney-General has recognised the importance of specialist services in pushing up prosecution rates. Does he share my concern about the cuts to these services up and down the country? If so, what is he doing about it?
The Attorney-General
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Department for Communities and Local Government has secured £6.5 billion of funding for the Supporting People programme, which will include accommodation for vulnerable people, including domestic violence victims, over the next four years. That equates to an average annual reduction over the four years of less than 1% in cash terms. In addition, I can reassure the hon. Lady that the issue continues to be a high priority for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. The evidence to date suggests that despite the difficult financial climate, the success rate for prosecuting this type of offence continues to improve.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Will the Attorney-General agree that, contrary to recent media distortion, Members on both sides of the House take crimes of violence against women very seriously indeed? Will he further assure the House that the Government will continue to support alleged victims of rape and that he will do all he can to ensure that justice is done in cases that are often very difficult to prosecute?
The Attorney-General
I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the position. The provision of specialist co-ordinators and rape prosecutors, the issuing of stalking guidance and the effective monitoring of the measures we have put in place will continue. As I said in answer to the earlier question, the evidence suggests that the good work done by the previous Government is being successfully continued. I want to emphasise that both in terms of the volume of prosecutions and their success rate.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What priorities the Crown Prosecution Service has set during the comprehensive spending review period.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What priorities the Crown Prosecution Service has set during the comprehensive spending review period.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
The priorities are to provide a prosecution service of the highest quality, informed by its core quality standards, published in April 2010, which set the measures by which the CPS is judged by itself and others; to provide a more streamlined and efficient service, for example by making good use of all available technology; and, by working with the police and the courts, to eliminate unnecessarily bureaucratic systems, while at all times promoting justice.
Luciana Berger
I thank the Solicitor-General for his answer, but will he respond to the serious concerns of defence barristers and Victim Support about the CPS instructing single counsel for the prosecution, including for murder cases with multiple defendants, as a result of cost pressures?
The Solicitor-General
I do not know whether that is a direct result of cost pressures, but I, too, have raised this very matter with the CPS, and we are looking into it with some care.
Gavin Shuker
The cost pressures on the CPS over the coming period are leading it to prioritise cases such as those involving serious domestic or sexual offences. What cases will it have to de-prioritise to achieve those aims?
The Solicitor-General
In all prosecuting decisions, the CPS will look at the prosecutors code to see whether there is sufficient evidence and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. It is not a question of picking one type of crime and not picking another.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I support the Government’s drive for more prosecutions of rape. Will the Solicitor-General support my move to allocate a centre to North Yorkshire and York to help victims of rape? Were we to have such a centre—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that this is a priority of the Crown Prosecution Service, but the Solicitor-General can respond to the first part of the question briefly.
The Solicitor-General
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the way in which rape cases are currently prosecuted. As was stated in this House the other day, we want to bear down on the attrition rate. The conviction rate bears comparison with other aspects of the criminal system, but we want to ensure that rape victims can report their allegations to the police and that they are treated with care and sensitivity right the way through to what we hope is a conviction.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that it should be a priority for the CPS and the Metropolitan police to follow the evidence where it goes in the phone hacking scandal. Will the Minister say whether it is cost pressures at the CPS that have left the Metropolitan police reluctant to pursue the evidence of other private investigators involved in the illegal covert surveillance of British citizens?
The Solicitor-General
I do not think that that is at all true. The hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in this matter and I have no criticism of him for doing that, but the relationship between the CPS and the Metropolitan police is entirely clear and constitutional, and will, as the Prime Minister has said, permit both to lead the investigation to where the evidence takes it.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
3. What plans he has to reduce the administrative burden on those completing references for candidates for appointment to Crown Prosecution Service advocate panels.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
On 17 May 2011, the Crown Prosecution Service announced three changes to improve the reference process: allowing additional time by extending the deadline for applications by two months; removing the requirement for a minimum number of judicial references; and allowing references to be submitted directly to the CPS, rather than via the candidate.
Stephen Phillips
I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but he will probably know that the completion of such references—indeed, the entire process—places a considerable burden on the judiciary and others. Will he undertake to ensure that a rather more simplified procedure is applied the next time such an exercise is undertaken?
The Attorney-General
As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, the issue is ensuring that the panels prepared by the CPS are of a high quality, and are able to provide both sustained support to the CPS and regular work to the barristers who are on them. I have to say that I do not agree that the forms are particularly onerous to fill in. A form requiring somebody to provide between 100 and 300 words of reference does not seem to me to be onerous. Many judges are very happy to fill it in, but there are always lessons to be learned from any process of change, and I will bear in mind his comments.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Does the Attorney-General agree that there is widespread concern among the criminal Bar about the new procedure, notably the fact that someone who is unsuccessful in applying for one grade is not allowed to apply for another? There seems to be no parity with CPS in-house advocates.
The Attorney-General
The process of evaluation of CPS in-house advocates is at present extremely complicated, and rather thorough. I do not think that it could be satisfactorily extended to the independent Bar. Discussions on the panels’ structure are continuing between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Bar Council the Criminal Bar Association and the circuits, and I am rather confident that they will find a satisfactory solution. I would like to emphasise, however, that the provision of those services by the independent Bar in future is dependent on having an effective panel system in which there is widespread confidence.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of forced marriage.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of forced marriage.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
I have had no recent discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service on forced marriages, but I shall have one of my regular meetings with the director later today, at which I have no doubt the matter will be discussed. The CPS and the Law Officers are studying the Home Affairs Committee’s report on forced marriages, and the Government will respond to it in due course.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the Minister for his answer. Forced marriages are an appalling abuse of human rights and have no place in modern society. May I press him further on the subject of the Home Affairs Committee’s report and ask whether the Government will consider legislating to make forced marriage a criminal offence?
The Solicitor-General
I am sure that the Government will, but it will essentially be a matter for the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to consider. The matter was considered by the previous Administration. The Labour Government held a consultation via the Home Office in 2005, and announced in 2006 that, on balance, they did not consider that it would be advantageous to turn forced marriage into a criminal offence. The Select Committee’s report is now available for us all to consider, and the Government will come back to the House with their response.
Mrs Glindon
Forced marriage and associated crimes are already thought to be chronically under-reported. Will the Minister explain how 25% cuts to the CPS’s budget will enable more, rather than fewer, victims of forced marriage to come forward?
The Solicitor-General
The most essential thing in this area of the criminal law, as in any other, is to encourage people who have been affected to come forward with evidence, because it is upon evidence that we can bring prosecutions. I can assure the hon. Lady that neither the Attorney-General nor I is in the least bit reluctant to encourage the prosecution of people who have committed crimes. The CPS works hard to ensure that women, in particular—forced marriage cases principally involve women, but about 17% of those affected are men—are properly protected by the law of England, and we will endeavour to ensure that they are.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
5. What steps he is taking to maintain the capacity of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and prosecute economic crime during the comprehensive spending review period.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
6. What steps he is taking to ensure the effective prosecution of cases involving fraud and economic crime.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
7. What steps he is taking to maintain the capacity of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and prosecute economic crime during the comprehensive spending review period.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Serious Fraud Office will meet the requirements of the comprehensive spending review by making efficiency savings in all areas of its business and ensuring that its budget is focused on its core activities of investigating and prosecuting crime. The Crown Prosecution Service also recognises the need to ensure that fraud and economic crime are prosecuted effectively and efficiently. Its structure ensures that cases requiring input and direction by specialist prosecutors are dealt with rigorously.
Karl Turner
The director of the Serious Fraud Office has said:
“My concern has always been if investigations and prosecution powers…are split, the fight against complex economic crime will be damaged.”
Does the Minister share those concerns? If so, why are this Government insistent on letting dodgy bankers off?
The Attorney-General
I am not quite sure that I see the direct correlation between the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question and the first. On the structure of the Serious Fraud Office, it is certainly my opinion that the present structure has been successful in delivering growing effectiveness in dealing with serious and complex fraud. The director has an important point to make. The Government are discussing how they can achieve the best structures for dealing with serious and complex crimes of all kinds, and discussions are taking place on how the Serious Fraud Office will fit into that structure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he has raised is very much in the Government’s mind.
Steve McCabe
Nevertheless, the director of the Serious Fraud Office has major concerns. If the Attorney-General is determined to pursue this route, what assurance can he give the House that the impact of the change on complex crime prosecutions will be monitored, so that it does not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is concerned about?
The Attorney-General
The hon. Gentleman pre-judges a decision that has not been made. It is sensible within government for discussion to take place on how to improve the services, including prosecution, that the Government deliver. My point in reply to the earlier question was that the director has an important role in contributing to that debate, and I am sure that his views will be listened to very carefully. I certainly listen to them very carefully indeed.
Lisa Nandy
In his previous question session, the Solicitor-General told the House that the UK’s international reputation on tackling corruption would be safeguarded by his getting on with his job. Will he therefore explain how he expects staff at the SFO to get on with their crucial jobs in the face of 50% budget cuts and the separation of its investigation and prosecution functions?
The Attorney-General
The first point to make is that the Serious Fraud Office is getting on with the job very effectively indeed. During 2010-11, it took 17 complex cases to trial with at least one conviction in every case; 31 defendants, both corporate and individual, went to trial, of whom 26 were found guilty, giving a conviction rate of 84%. That is an extremely good rate, and I wish to see it continued and built on. I have every confidence in the professionalism of the Serious Fraud Office and in its dedicated staff in delivering its service. I have every confidence that they will be able to do so in the future as well.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
As The Times reports today, the Government’s proposals on serious fraud and international corruption are in total disarray. First, there was dilly-dallying over the Bribery Act 2010 and now there are trailed press reports on dismantling the SFO. Are the Government following the trend and going soft on economic crime? When will a statement on the SFO’s future be made, and will the Attorney-General confirm that it will be made first on the Floor of the House?
The Attorney-General
I have no doubt at all that it will be made first on the Floor of the House, but I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady’s premises. The position is very straightforward. The SFO is doing a good job, but I think everybody agrees that we need to see ways of improving the fight against economic crime. To take the hon. Lady’s point to its logical conclusion, there should be no discussion in government or anywhere else about such structures because doing so might raise some uncertainty. I simply do not share that view. I am confident that we will come out with the correct outcomes and that they will enhance our capacity to deal with economic crime generally. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I was trying to indicate gently that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) must not leave before the question has been concluded. I am sure that he is enjoying the exchanges.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In parts of the United Kingdom, there is widespread organised criminal activity. During the comprehensive spending review, what assurance can the Minister give us that those involved will not be able to gain yet more from their illegal and ill-gotten deeds and activities?
The Attorney-General
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, perhaps missed by other questioners —that there are different kinds of economic crimes, some of which move into serious organised crime as well. That is why it is so important for the Government to give this matter a high priority. As I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), that is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others, as well as me, have been focusing on how to deliver the best outcome to cover the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has spoken about, while also ensuring that the financial end of serious crime is tackled correctly. I am very confident that we are going to come up with the right solutions.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Will the Attorney-General assure us that the Serious Fraud Office will not be swallowed up by the national crime agency, relegating fraud and corruption to third place after terrorism and organised crime?
The Attorney-General
I am absolutely confident—because of my own commitment and that of my fellow Ministers to this matter—that the area of crime the right hon. Gentleman identifies is of the highest priority to the Government. That is precisely why it is being discussed. I can reassure him—and I will stand by it when the time comes for announcements—that the outcome will commend itself, I hope, widely across the House.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
9. When he last met the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the investigation and prosecution of transnational bribery.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
I hold monthly meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss all aspects of the SFO’s work, including transnational bribery. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bribery Act 2010 comes into force on 1 July and the SFO is well prepared for it.
Hugh Bayley
I was reassured by some of what the Attorney-General said in reply to an earlier group of questions. Richard Alderman is a very talented civil servant who has greatly improved the performance of the SFO, but I believe that that improvement is threatened by the proposal to break the SFO into an investigating arm and a prosecuting arm. It appears that the Law Officers are currently having an argument with the Home Office about the matter. The House clearly supports the Law Officers. May I have an assurance that even if the nature of the SFO changes, the prosecuting and investigating arms of whatever new agency takes over will be kept under one roof?
The Solicitor-General
I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree with his assessment of the SFO’s director, Mr Richard Alderman, who has proved to be a loyal and dedicated public servant and prosecutor in whom the Attorney-General and I have the utmost confidence.
I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Law Officers. We accept whatever support we can whenever we can get it. On that basis, I will quit while I am ahead.
JUSTICE
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Members will be aware that I have a long-time concern about secrecy in court processes, which was highlighted in the story in The Guardian today. We have no true freedom of speech when people can be jailed for complaining about their problems. This country seems to have a penchant for covering up problems that would be discussed openly in others.
Florence Bellone, a Belgian journalist, recorded an interview with Carol Hughes and Lucille O’Regan in Ireland, which was broadcast on RTBF in Belgium. A copy was placed on YouTube, but access in the UK is now blocked as a result of what YouTube calls a “government request”. What can be so frightening about that interview that people in the UK are not allowed to see it, but it can be broadcast in Belgium?
The policy of international websites varies. The Twitter account containing the names of lots of people subject to super-injunctions is still there, and will remain there for some time, yet newspapers in the UK are not allowed to refer to it by name. It is clear that in the UK people are now recognising the oppressive nature of court secrecy in this country. For instance, I wrote and released a song about this in 2008, the lyrics of which would have been in contempt of court had they not already been spoken in the House. Since then, however, things have got even worse, with the force of money being used to prevent women from complaining about their ex-boyfriends. One woman who received a super-injunction said to me:
“The process is terrifying…For the first 2 months I shook! And I shake now when talking about it to someone”.
Questions have been raised about whether I should have discussed the row between Ryan Giggs and Twitter yesterday. I am not a party to the privacy case. I have not been served with the injunction. I have not actually seen the injunction and cannot guarantee that it actually exists. I have read his name in the Sunday Herald, and on Wikipedia and Twitter. I could obviously stand on a soapbox in Scotland and say what I said in the House of Commons. I believe I could probably say it on Hyde park corner, because it is in the public domain. For me to have abused parliamentary privilege, I would have had to use it in the first instance, but I do not think that the case has been made that it would have been contempt of court outside the House.
I remain concerned, however, that the process of issuing contempt of court proceedings has been kicked off against users of Twitter. Someone should not be able to hide behind anonymity to take action against others. I am completely unsure what the legal position is in respect of naming Giles Coren. I do not think it would be contempt of court to name him outside the House, yet The Times was worried enough yesterday not to identify him—and he is one of its journalists. I will not identify the footballer whom, it is rumoured, would like to see him prosecuted for tweeting.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I fully approve of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to ensure that injunctions and super-injunctions do not interfere with our constituents’ ability to contact us and speak to us about issues. However, will he explain to the House why he thinks he is judge and jury on whether certain people under court order should be named in this place? Why does he feel he has the right above anybody else? It seems very strange to use privilege in such a way.
John Hemming
I explained that those details were already in the public domain and accessible in Forbes Magazine, the Sunday Herald and many other places, so I do not think it would have been contempt of court outside the House. However, I accept the Speaker’s ruling on this issue.
I refer hon. Members to a story in The Guardian today relating to another injunction. I shall read out the first paragraph:
“A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.”
What we have here is true secret justice: somebody is being prosecuted in secret; they cannot be identified; and the person prosecuting them cannot be identified. As a rule, the Attorney-General does not prosecute civil cases, which the privacy cases are; one of the parties usually prosecutes.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
That has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman did yesterday.
John Hemming
Actually, it has everything to do with what I did yesterday, because Giles Coren was subject to similar contempt proceedings. There is a great danger that a secret form of jurisprudence will develop that aims to jail people in secret and keep their identities out of the public domain for relatively trivial issues.
The law of confidentiality and privacy, as being developed by the courts, seems to be in opposition to the views of Parliament about whistleblowing. That is an important point. A number of the court orders in place act to prevent people from reporting issues, whether to the police, the General Medical Council, coastguards or whomever. The rule of law is undermined by the court orders preventing that information from being given. That is another important issue.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges have also issued court orders naming Members of Parliament as people who cannot be spoken to?
John Hemming
Indeed. The issues of freedom of speech are not just about what goes in the newspapers; they are also about who communicates with whom and how tightly controlled things are. Some of the court orders issued prevent people from complaining to friends about what has been done to them; some prevent them from complaining to Members of Parliament; and others prevent them from going to the police with information. A dangerous system is developing. It is wrong to think that there is a difference between the ZAM case reported in The Guardian today and that of Giles Coren, because he could have faced exactly the same process.
John Hemming
The point I was making about Giggs was that his name was in the public domain already, so it would not have been contempt of court to name him outside the House. That is quite straightforward, and it does not, therefore, involve the use of privilege.
However, there is an argument about privilege where the legal position is uncertain, as it can be at times. We do not want to be unable to debate things because working out whether we can talk about them is so complex. Privilege is important and it needs to be used responsibly—there is no question about that—but my argument is straightforward. To have abused privilege, I would have to have used the name in the first instance, yet no one has evidenced to me the basis on which it would have been contempt of court for me to say outside the House what I said yesterday in it, and if it was not contempt of court outside, it cannot be an abuse of privilege within—
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Why did you not say it outside then?
John Hemming
Because it would not have been reported.
Anyway, the accountability of judicial processes depends not only on there being a public judgment, but on people having the ability externally to challenge the evidence that the courts are using. The problem with secrecy is that this all breaks down. Indeed, the report in The Guardian today about the secret committal of the sister-in-law is an example of exactly that situation, where there is no possibility of checking externally the evidence for whether the assumptions are correct. There are great questions about the reliability of much of the expert evidence provided in the family courts. If we cannot rely on the expert evidence, we will have difficulty relying on the conclusions.
There are many, many problems, and I will obviously be submitting a detailed report to the Joint Committee on the difficulties with the various injunctions. We also have a difficult day today, so I will not use up all my time. The issue of secret jailing is one that we cannot drop. Obviously we cannot do much more about it over the recess, but we cannot allow a process to continue whereby attempts are made to commit more and more people in secret proceedings. This all arises from the objective of protecting relatively trivial secrets, but it is not even close to open justice. The balancing act has completely failed when we are trying to balance somebody’s liberty on one side against something relatively trivial on the other.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am exceptionally grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have perhaps rather better news—it is at least different news—than we heard in the previous speech. I would like to talk briefly about the outstanding work of magistrates and the invaluable role that they play in the criminal justice system.
Magistrates were created some 650 years ago—we are talking about a very long-standing office—and they are to be congratulated, as I am sure we would all agree. There are now 29,000 magistrates in England and Wales. Their minimum requirement is to sit for 26 half-days a year. Some 98% of all legal proceedings are conducted in magistrates courts, which perhaps puts into perspective the outstanding contribution that they regularly make to the justice system. Magistrates bring to bear their considerable experience, knowledge and wisdom to both criminal and family matters. It is perhaps a testament to their ability to dispense justice fairly and properly that they are so rarely challenged in any higher place. In the last 650 years, magistrates have faced many changes and challenges. Their outstanding chairman, Mr John Thornhill, whom I spoke to today, has told me that, notwithstanding all the changes, magistrates always bounce back.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
On the subject of magistrates bouncing back, is my hon. Friend aware that magistrates’ allowances and subsistence fees are under review for a possible reduction to bring them in line with the rest of the civil service? However, there is a crucial difference: our magistrates are volunteers, not salaried staff.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am sure that everyone in this place would join me in congratulating him and his wife, who is sitting up in the Gallery, on celebrating their 25th—their silver—wedding anniversary.
Moving swiftly on to the important point that my hon. Friend makes, our magistrates are indeed volunteers. They receive a small subsistence allowance. I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, many hon. Members will have received letters and e-mails from magistrates in their constituencies who are concerned about plans to reduce their daily allowance and cut their mileage allowance.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is important to emphasise that the lay magistracy already makes our judiciary in England and Wales one of the cheapest in any comparable Council of Europe country. We would be cutting back a system that is already very efficient.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lay magistrates normally sit in threes, as opposed to the stipendiary district judges who sit alone. Despite that fact, lay magistrates are considerably cheaper than stipendiary judges. I am not suggesting that they do a lesser job, however. Both are integral to our criminal justice system.
Another great challenge that our magistrates face is the cutting of 93 magistrates courts. That has been debated at length in this place and in Westminster Hall, and it is a matter of great concern. I do not have much difficulty with the reduction in the number of magistrates courts, but I accept that many people are concerned about the ability to deliver local justice and about the extra strain that this will put on our lay magistrates, who are volunteers, through the extra mileage and work that they will have to do.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My hon. Friend is entirely right in what she says about magistrates. She has mentioned court closures, and we are losing our magistrates court in Goole. When that happens, it will be quicker for some of my constituents to get to King’s Cross than to the replacement magistrates services in Beverley.
Anna Soubry
I take my hon. Friend’s point, and I am grateful for it. I would counter it, however, by saying that those of us who are familiar with the Crown courts will know that defendants and witnesses who appear in them make the effort and appear there without too much difficulty. I struggle to see how there will be much difference when a defendant or witness has to travel to a magistrates court that is further away following the closure of a more local one.
There are many myths surrounding our lay magistrates. The days of the stereotype of the middle-aged lady—not that there is anything wrong with middle-aged ladies—are long gone. The days are gone when women of a certain age and from a certain social class dispensed justice, usually wearing a hat—not that there is anything wrong with hats, I must also swiftly add. We now see magistrates drawn from all walks of life, and rightly so. Their experience and knowledge is also often brought to bear in the Crown court, when they sit with a Crown court judge to decide appeals. They perform an invaluable role there.
I have only one complaint, and I am grateful to my constituent, Mr Roy Plumb, in this regard. He lives in Kimberley, and he served as a magistrate for many years. He performed the role admirably. However, at the age of 70, he was forced to retire. The irony of the situation is that he was born on the very same day in the very same ward of the very same hospital as our esteemed Lord Chancellor. It is somewhat ironic that, while our Lord Chancellor was being appointed to his role, in which I hope he serves for many years, Mr Plumb was being forced to retire, as are other magistrates who reach their 70th birthday.
I am against ageism—of course, I would say that as I get older. It is wrong to assume that, just because someone is of a certain age, they will perform in a certain way. Just because someone who is under 30 is appointed to serve as a lay magistrate, which Governments of all persuasions have sought to encourage, it does not mean that they will necessarily bring to the bench more youthful ideas or be able to identify more closely with young people. I subscribe to the notion that it does not matter what it says on someone’s birth certificate; the test is whether they are young at heart and fit in mind, and whether they have all the faculties to exercise sound judgment.
I know that the previous Government were questioned by people of all political persuasions—this is not an issue of party politics—on whether magistrates should have to retire at 70. Crown court judges can often sit until they are 73 and I believe High Court judges do not have to retire until they are 75, or at least they can sit in court until that age. I would suggest that this seems a little unfair to magistrates, especially, as I say, with our great Lord Chancellor being able to continue to serve for many years to come.
I am sure that all would agree with me in celebrating and thanking our lay magistrates. I urge the Government to view ageism as a thing of the past, so that our magistrates should not have to retire at 70. Mr Plumb might be able to return to the bench. We should certainly give great credit to his campaign and wish it well for the future.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I shall speak about the compensation scheme for the victims of overseas terrorism. Before I do so, I would like to pay tribute to a number of Members from different parties who have worked hard on this issue—not least the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who would have spoken in this debate were it not for the fact that he thought he would have to be in the Finance Bill Committee. I thank him and his staff for the support they have given. I would also like to thank my Lincolnshire colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has secured meetings with Ministers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I also thank the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and the former Member for Makerfield, Lord McCartney, who have both worked hard on this issue over the years. Above all, I pay tribute to the families of the victims of terrorism who have also worked incredibly hard over a number of years and continue to campaign vigorously on it; some of them are present today. Let me outline some of the issues and problems connected with this matter, before looking at the history and putting some questions to the Minister.
Since the Bali bombings in 2002, there have been 58 deaths and 37 serious injuries arising from terror attacks against our citizens overseas. It is my view, and that of many Members, that the British Government continue to have a responsibility for their citizens even when they leave these shores. British victims of terrorism in the UK are eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but that does not extend to victims of terrorism overseas. Travel insurers do not normally pay out for death, injury or costs associated with terror attacks, as they do for death, injury and some costs associated with other violent crimes suffered abroad. Similarly, many foreign Governments do not compensate foreign nationals who are attacked on their territory. This is particularly true in countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and India, where there are many Western tourists, including our own people, and multiple terror threats.
The real issue is that this is not just about British citizens being caught up by accident in attacks while overseas, as many of them have been targeted precisely because they hold Her Majesty’s passport. In Mumbai, gunmen in the Taj Mahal hotel said, “We want US and British,” before inspecting passports, and they then targeted individuals. That is why it is not appropriate for Ministers back here in the UK to bracket terror attacks with other crimes in their correspondence with victims. Terrorism is of a totally different order to other violent crimes suffered abroad. Surely our Government should bear some responsibility for our citizens when they are attacked overseas for nothing more than being British.
Nick Boles
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue, and also the hon. Gentleman—the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—whose constituency I should not even venture to try to pronounce. I would like briefly to thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me, some victims and their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that as people are targeted, as he suggests, simply because they are British citizens, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make a clear commitment to put in place compensation retrospectively for past victims, and a future scheme for any—God forbid—future victims of terrorism abroad? Does he agree that this clear commitment is based on a moral obligation that we all have to stand by our fellow citizens when they are caught up through no fault of their own in such attacks?
Andrew Percy
I entirely agree. We compensate people who are victims of terrorism on our own soil, but we do not compensate our own citizens when they are victims—simply because they are British—in other countries.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue. Does he agree that, in a sense, if United Kingdom citizens are fearful of travelling abroad, the terrorists win? Government compensation will not remove that fear entirely, but a sense among British citizens that their Government will stand behind them when they leave these shores is an important part of the wider effort to combat terrorism wherever it occurs.
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done in this regard. We certainly expect the British Government to stand behind our people wherever they are in the world, particularly if they are attacked, and it is true that if British citizens are put off the idea of travelling, the terrorists win. Many people travel to countries to which the Foreign Office has advised them not to travel. There is at least some implication that their travel is safe and that the British Government will support them if the need arises, as we do through our consulates, embassies and high commissions around the world.
Victims of the bombings in Sharm el Sheikh in 2005 were told by Ministers at the time that they should seek redress from the perpetrators of the attack. Given the time constraints, I cannot give all the details, but let me talk about one family in particular: the Bennett family from Durham, who were bombed on a minibus in Turkey in July 2005, suffering considerable injuries, and one of whose members, Helyn Bennett, was killed. The family pursued the Turkish authorities through the court system for six years following that advice, and it is only thanks to the generosity of the insurers and of Turkish courts that they have been protected from crippling legal costs. However, despite the award of £1 million reflecting the gravity of the injuries, the Turkish authorities have refused to pay out, and an appeal is in progress.
Stephen Lloyd
Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition has a responsibility to deliver on the last Government’s commitment to pay compensation? British citizens who were victims of attacks from Bali to Sharm el Sheikh have yet to receive a penny, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), will soon put that dreadful injustice right.
Andrew Percy
Again, I entirely agree. Those three interventions illustrate the cross-party support for the campaign.
Although the award to the Bennett family was made 18 months ago in the Turkish courts, no funds have been made available to them. They are exceptional in pursuing international litigation, which, as we know, is incredibly complicated and beyond the means of most people. That is why victims were delighted when, in October 2005, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House:
“officials are considering the possibility of introducing a scheme to provide compensation for…UK victims of terrorism”
—crucially—
“ wherever that may happen.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 839.]
It took a long time for that pledge to be fulfilled, and victims and their families continued to campaign. They worked successfully with some of the Members whom I named earlier to establish the humanitarian assistance scheme, and in 2010 the then Home Secretary and Justice Secretary provided for a statutory compensation scheme as part of the Crime and Security Act 2010. That would have enabled victims to be compensated with tariffs identical to those offered by the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Subsequently, 37 survivors of terrorist attacks abroad were written to and informed that they would be eligible to claim. Sadly, however, the change of Government has delayed the process somewhat, and the picture is a little unclear. Families are not sure where we are heading.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made with the review that was announced some time ago, whom is he consulting, and when he will make a statement to the House on the issue? Will the issue of the retrospective ex gratia payments promised to existing terror victims and their families be settled at the same time as the review of any future statutory compensation scheme? Will he confirm that the Government accept the principle that terrorism is distinct from other forms of crime, and that Her Majesty’s Government have a responsibility to our citizens who are attacked overseas on the basis of their nationality? Finally, may I urge the Minister to address this matter quickly, so that victims and their families receive the justice that they deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I shall address each of the issues raised in turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) again raised an important issue that has featured prominently in the press in recent days and weeks. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible—and as frequently as possible, I might add as I am returning to the Chamber to discuss this matter again following yesterday’s performance.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in response to yesterday’s urgent question, there is a balance to be struck when the issues concerned relate to a person’s private life. That has always been the case, and now, in the current context, the European convention on human rights specifically establishes the article 8 right to respect for private and family life, alongside the right under article 10 to freedom of expression.
John Hemming
On the specific question, does the Minister agree that it is unreasonable for an anonymous person to apply to commit another anonymous person in a secret hearing?
Mr Blunt
I want to make sure that I approach this matter carefully.
In each individual case, the courts have to consider the balance between the two competing rights I have just mentioned. In addition, when considering whether to grant a civil remedy or order, such as an injunction, which affects the convention right to freedom of expression, the courts have to take into account section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires particular regard to be given to the importance of that right.
I should also explain that injunctions preventing reporting or disclosure of information may be granted for a number of reasons, and not just for the protection of privacy. They might, for instance, be granted for the following reasons: to protect documents subject to legal professional privilege or commercial secrets; to prevent the release of other information obtained by a party in confidence; to protect children or vulnerable people; or to prevent the release of information about an order freezing the assets of a person suspected of fraud where that might alert other participants in the fraud and lead to them disposing of assets or leaving the country.
The report of the Master of the Rolls’ committee on the procedural aspects of super-injunctions and anonymity injunctions published last Friday makes an important contribution to the debate on these issues, particularly in the context of the debate on privacy. The report reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle, and that exceptions to it are permissible only to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice. Such decisions will necessarily be made in each particular case, dependent on the facts of that case. The report suggests that when that is necessary, the facts of the case and the reason for secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment. It also emphasises that super-injunctions—which is where the fact that there is an injunction has to be kept secret as well as the substantive issues—are now being granted only for very short periods where secrecy is necessary to ensure that the entire point of the order is not destroyed. That should help to allay concerns both that super-injunctions were being granted far too readily and about their potential open-endedness.
The Government welcome the report by the Master of the Rolls, which contains important recommendations that will ensure that injunctions are granted only where strictly necessary. We recognise the importance of striking the correct balance between individual rights to privacy on the one hand and rights to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other.
As the Attorney-General also said yesterday, the Prime Minister has written to the Chairmen of the Justice Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommending that a Joint Committee of both Houses be established to consider how current arrangements might be improved. The Justice Secretary and the Culture Secretary will liaise with those Chairmen regarding the terms of reference of the Joint Committee. Such a Committee will be able to use representation from both Houses and the considerable expertise that Select Committees have, to examine the way in which the current arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes to make things work better. That is where matters stand now.
I shall now discuss the welcome speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on the importance of the magistracy. I wholly agreed with the general drive of it. This year sees the 650th anniversary of the enshrining in statute of the role of justice of the peace by King Edward III in Westminster Hall. The role has changed a great deal over time. Indeed, it was not until the first half of the 19th century that non-conformists and Roman Catholics could become magistrates, and not until the early 20th century that the property qualification for magistrates was removed. From its long and rich historical roots, the magistracy has developed into a fundamental civic institution at the heart of our criminal justice system, and there are 27,000 magistrates in England and Wales today.
Our magistrates are ordinary people from all walks of life who do extraordinary work on behalf of us all. As my hon. Friend said, they deal with the vast majority—95%—of criminal cases in England and substantial amounts of civil work. They are people who care passionately about their communities and the value of the rule of law. What makes magistrates all the more remarkable is that such a vital part of our justice system is composed of unpaid part-time volunteers. They are a very important part of the big society in action.
I wish briefly to discuss how the Government want to consider developing the role of magistrates further, not least in respect of restorative justice. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said,
“restorative justice is a reflection of what we are talking about when describing the Big Society....This is about taking justice out of the narrow confines of the courts and putting it into the community”.
There can be no better expression of justice grounded in the community than magistrates, who are the epitome of justice for the community by the community. As our recent Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle” set out, we are committed to increasing the range and availability of restorative justice approaches to support reparation in the adult and youth justice systems.
Neighbourhood justice panels bring together community volunteers, offenders and victims, harnessing restorative techniques to broker justice outcomes. I would very much welcome the greater involvement of the magistracy in institutions such as neighbourhood justice panels, but we can also successfully extend a role for the magistracy in the entire panoply of elements that deliver justice in the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned the retirement age. The Government recognise that at 70 the majority of judicial office holders will be mentally and physically equal to the demands of the work. However, following careful consideration, including discussion with the senior judiciary, it was decided that the current mandatory retirement age should remain. So I am afraid that I cannot offer any comfort for Mr Plumb, despite the date and the ward on which he was born.
The Government are reviewing the travel and subsistence allowances paid to magistrates, with the aim of ensuring that they are not disadvantaged financially because of their important public service while also getting the best and appropriate value for money for the taxpayer. The Courts and Tribunals Service will meet representatives of the Magistrates Association and the National Bench Chairmen’s Forum, and the senior presiding judge, on 15 June to discuss how to develop a new approach to magistrates allowances, and no decisions have yet been taken.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on making his contribution about the victims of overseas terrorism. This is a difficult and emotive issue. I know that there is continuing interest in this area, to put it mildly, and several hon. Members have raised the matter recently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) said, I recently met his constituent Trevor Lakin and Nigel and Will Pike with him. Mr Lakin lost his son Jeremy in the Sharm el Sheikh bombing in 2005 and Will Pike was paralysed as a result of injuries sustained following the attack on the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai in 2008. Through my hon. Friend, I heard first hand about the devastating impact that terrorism has had on them and continues to have on their lives and on the lives of their families. They shared with me their experiences of terrorism abroad and their frustration and disappointment at the lack of support available to victims after they return home.
Terrorist crime is usually indiscriminate and devastating and usually comes without warning. Its impact can be horrific, not just for the victim but for the victim’s family and loved ones. My deepest sympathies, and those of the whole Administration, go out to all those who have suffered in that way or who have lost loved ones through such tragedies.
Since the spending review settlement, the Ministry of Justice has been reviewing the services available to victims, witnesses and their families. We are also considering afresh proposals for the introduction of schemes to compensate eligible victims of terrorism overseas. We expect to be able to make an announcement before the summer recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned support for victims overseas, as did the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who made an intervention on that point. Her Majesty’s Government stand behind our people overseas; for those who have not had dealings with the system, coming across it in the wake of an appalling experience is difficult and distressing. To alleviate some of this distress, we have revisited the support available to British victims caught up in terrorist attacks abroad. The exceptional assistance measures scheme run by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides immediate assistance with air fares, accommodation and repatriation for victims and their families. From 16 December last year that help has been available to all British victims regardless of their travel insurance arrangements.
Let me point out that according to the Association of British Insurers, 66% of existing policies cover such attacks, but are mostly limited to overseas medical expenses, repatriation costs and a lump sum for personal accident cover. Furthermore, the Red Cross relief fund for victims of terrorism abroad continues to provide emergency funds of up to £15,000 for those who suffer injury or are bereaved through terrorism and normally live in the UK. The fund was begun with £1 million of funding provided under the previous Administration.
Families bereaved as a result of overseas terrorism may also be assigned a specialist family liaison officer by the police. The officer is specially trained and acts as a single point of contact for bereaved families. The officer will answer questions, seek to obtain updates on case progress overseas and provide dedicated one-to-one support for the family.
I appreciate that dealing with the consequences of any crime is anything but easy. There are services on offer to help guide people through the justice process and to provide emotional support, but there is still more to do. There are challenges in the current system in ensuring that the support given is the right support, and that it is offered quickly and to the right people. That is why I and my colleagues in other Departments are working to improve the services that we can provide. We are working to ensure that central Government, local authorities, voluntary organisations and local communities link together to provide joined-up support to victims and families. I look forward to being able to give the House more details about the Government’s proposals soon, and I anticipate that that will be before the summer recess.
Petition
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This petition is from the business owners and customers of Ablewell street, Walsall. The petitioners oppose the new parking restrictions on Ablewell street. There are 787 signatories to the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of the business owners and customers of Ablewell Street, Walsall,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the parking restrictions on Ablewell Street.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to allow a parking amnesty of at least 30 minutes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000923]
Libya
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to update the House on military deployments in Libya.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
Pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, NATO-led air strikes have been successful in reducing Colonel Gaddafi’s ability to attack his people, but he continues to target civilians in clear contravention of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. As the Foreign Secretary has said, it is now necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime.
We constantly review our military operations to ensure that we can continue to enforce UNSCR 1973 and prevent Gaddafi from attacking the Libyan people. Attack helicopters are one tool for that purpose, and the use of such helicopters is one of a range of capability options under consideration. However, I stress that no decision has yet been made about whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya. We will keep the House informed as decisions are made.
Mr Murphy
Thank you for allowing the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
The Opposition have always made it clear that we support the stated aims of the military operation in Libya: to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973, to protect Libyan civilians, and to implement a no-fly zone. We have also made it clear not just that we support the Government and the UN mandate, but that it is crucial for Parliament to have an opportunity to scrutinise Government decisions and the campaign in Libya.
Yesterday Le Figaro reported that 12 French helicopters had been dispatched to Libya on 17 May. There was no comment from the Ministry of Defence other than
“we are constantly reviewing our options”,
but the French Defence Minister, Gérard Longuet, said:
“The British, who have assets similar to ours, will also commit…The sooner the better is what the British think.”
Is that an accurate statement by a French Minister of the British Government’s policy on Libya? The British people will be desperately concerned that French Ministers seem to know more about the deployment of British military equipment than the British Parliament.
Parliament has not written the Government a blank cheque on Libya, and Ministers should never keep the British public in the dark about major deployments. This is a serious moment, and it would be a serious escalation if such a commitment were to be made. Parliament should never be kept in the dark.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, why have discussions about an escalation of such magnitude with our French partners and colleagues reached such an advanced stage without Parliament being allowed even the courtesy of discussion or scrutiny? Secondly, will the Minister go into more detail about the situation on the ground which is leading Ministers at least to consider—and, in a private conversation with the French, to confirm—this military commitment?
Thirdly, if this were to happen, would the operational allowance be extended to those serving in and around Libya in the same way as in respect of Afghanistan? Fourthly, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Defence Analysis estimation that the cost of the conflict could be £1 billion by September? Finally, will he say more about the UK’s military capability to maintain the current tempo, and have the Government decided to order further Brimstone?
Parliament thought long and hard about whether to commit military force over Libya on behalf of the United Kingdom. The House sought in good conscience to take a deep and significant decision about our nation, and now we are expected simply to wave through a possible major escalation in military commitment without a proper debate in Parliament. It is utterly unacceptable that the UK Parliament has to be informed about a possible deployment of UK forces by the French Defence Minister.
On this complicated issue, the Government need to provide greater clarity. On behalf of this Parliament and those who voted for this conflict, which we support—and, indeed, on behalf of those who voted against the conflict—Parliament is right to demand that decisions such as this one are announced in this Parliament, debated in this Parliament, scrutinised in this Parliament, and should never be kept from Parliament again.
Nick Harvey
The right hon. Gentleman quotes the French Minister, and my understanding is that the French have indeed taken a decision to deploy their attack helicopters in Libya. I state again for the avoidance of all doubt that no such decision has been taken by the United Kingdom. It is an option that we are considering, but no decision has been taken, and there is absolutely no sense in which it is true to say that we have kept Parliament in the dark about a decision that we have taken.
I do not accept that if we were to take the decision to use attack helicopters at some point in the future, that would be an “escalation” of what we are doing in Libya. The targets would remain the same; it would simply be a tactical shift in what assets we used to try to hit those targets. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we would consider doing this, and what would be the military logic of contemplating using attack helicopters. The principal advantage it would give us over the air assets we are currently deploying is the ability to strike moving targets with greater precision.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the costs. I do not recognise the figure he gives. It is not possible to compute in real time a figure, but I say to him again that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the cost of this operation will be met by the reserve.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about maintaining the momentum. We keep our stocks under regular review, including specifically of Brimstone. We are content that we can keep going for the foreseeable future, but we will have to make adjustments as time goes on and calculate whether it will be necessary to increase our stocks.
On the operational allowance, the arrangements will remain as they are, but we are looking into the possibility of extending special consideration for those who would not meet the normal criteria.
The Government have been doing their utmost to ensure that the House is kept informed about what is going on. There have been debates and questions, and we have given several briefings, and if the right hon. Gentleman feels at any stage that he needs more information, he needs only to ask and we will do everything we can to afford him that information. We are involved in a military operation, however. We have to consider from time to time the tactics we are using, and you will understand, Mr Speaker, why we would not do so in advance on the Floor of the House. Apart from anything else, telling the enemy exactly what we are up to would be a very unusual strategy. As soon as decisions are taken, however, we will ensure that Parliament is informed.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. If the Apache helicopter were to be deployed, that would be entirely appropriate, particularly given the Gaddafi forces’ change in tactics, and the requirement to have a highly effective machine that can lurk and deal with the hard-to-find targets. What steps would need to be taken to marinise the Apache if it were to be operating off-carrier?
Nick Harvey
I agree with my hon. Friend that we are right to consider this in pursuance, as I said, of UNSCR 1973. Gaddafi and his regime remain a real threat to the civilian population in Libya and if we were to take a decision to use an attack helicopter, it would be in pursuit of that resolution. Such helicopters give us a greater ability to pinpoint targets, we are able to operate them from HMS Ocean or other maritime assets, and there is no need for any specific adaptation in order to do that.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Like many others, I am very concerned about the massive air raid that took place last night, which will inevitably cause civilian casualties, although I entirely accept that the Gaddafi regime will try to make as much propaganda of it as possible. Is the Minister aware that there is an increasing feeling that, despite denials, resolution 1973 is being used for regime change? I emphasise again that regime change is totally outside international law.
Nick Harvey
We are very familiar with the terms of UNSCR 1973, which remains absolutely our abiding objective. I recognise that there are risks inherent in whatever military options we take, but let me reassure the House that we are doing our utmost, and so are our NATO allies, to ensure that there is no loss of civilian life. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is in sharp distinction to the Gaddafi regime, which is retaining that loss as its objective and is continuing to cause it. We are there to prevent it from doing so.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
May I sympathise with the Minister’s reluctance to permit a running commentary on operations in Libya, for the reasons that he has outlined? Were Apache helicopters, which carry missiles, to be deployed, how would that be different in principle from the use of fast jets carrying missiles?
Nick Harvey
I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend: the objective and the targets would remain exactly the same, but we would have at our disposal a weapon with a greater degree of precision, which is better able to hit targets, including moving ones, and with a lower risk of collateral damage. This would be a tactical switch from using one asset to using another, which is why I do not believe it would constitute an escalation, but I repeat that no such decision has, as yet, been taken. The French have taken a decision and announced it. We have not taken that decision, but I confirm that it is an option we are considering.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This decision, if it is made, would make a qualitative difference to the strategy, because it would mean a greater risk to British service personnel. For that reason, the Government should seek not only a debate on the Floor of the House, but a renewed vote to sanction any such measure. May I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made, again, to get a negotiated settlement to this war?
Nick Harvey
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The use of attack helicopters in contested territory is certainly inherently dangerous—about that there can be no doubt—but they have been used elsewhere very effectively and those dangers have not had a deadly effect. I repeat that this is a consideration of using another tactic; this is not a step change in what we are doing. The suggestion that while we are in the course of operations we would come to the House of Commons for a full debate and a fresh resolution every time we took an operational tactical decision is not realistic, and I do not think it would be justified.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
As I ordered the attack helicopters, I am rather disappointed to hear that no decision has been taken on their use. I agree entirely with the Minister that firing a missile from a rotary-wing aircraft as opposed to a fixed-wing aircraft is not an escalation, but does he agree that this decision would also help to address another issue of increasing concern, which is the airframe hours left in the Tornados? That matter is worrying a number of people.
Nick Harvey
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having placed that order, because the Apache helicopter has proved itself in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years since then. It is useful that it is at our disposal for consideration at this time. I agree that sharing the duties out across our air assets will better enable us to sustain them over a period of time. I repeat that no decision to do that has been taken.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble is that if the Government’s aim is not regime change, we are basically at stalemate. The worry for many of my constituents is how long that stalemate will go on.
Nick Harvey
I do not accept that we are at stalemate, as I believe recent events in Misrata have demonstrated. The situation is still dynamic and fluid and we have to respond to the situation on the ground by making tactical decisions. The consideration of whether we should use attack helicopters will be informed in no small part by the tactical call of those closest to it, who make the judgments about what we face.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
May I remind the House of my interest as a member of the military stabilisation support group? Will the Minister update the House on the post-conflict reconstruction planning and, crucially, does he believe that it will require a further UN resolution to implement it effectively?
Nick Harvey
We already have a stabilisation unit in Benghazi preparing the ground for the post-conflict situation. We would expect the UN to play the leading role in co-ordinating that and there might well be an appetite for EU involvement, too. We are laying the ground as best we can but we are taking these things a stage at a time. The overriding priority at the moment remains preventing Gaddafi and his regime from attacking civilians in Libya.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
According to the latest statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross, there is a growing humanitarian crisis on the ground. What can we do to address that?
Nick Harvey
There are certainly immense humanitarian difficulties in various parts of Libya, the most obvious example being Misrata. We were among several nations in sustaining the pressure to get supplies and relief into Misrata. There has been some success with that operation, but one does not want to overclaim on that. It remains an overwhelming priority to ensure that we can relieve humanitarian suffering by all means possible.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Whether or not we deploy attack helicopters, the fact that a key NATO ally has represents, in my view at least, a significant escalation in this conflict and reinforces the point that regime change has been the objective of our intervention. Given the air strikes and this latest news, at what point does the Minister believe that our actions on the ground will cross the line as regards UN resolution 1973?
Nick Harvey
My hon. Friend refers to operations on the ground and asks at what point they would cross UNSCR 1973. What was specifically prohibited was a landing and occupying force and I do not see that one can in any way compare the use of attack helicopters to take on moving targets with a landing and occupying force. We are talking about two completely different things. The French have, as I understand it, taken the decision to use attack helicopters, although I do not believe that they have as yet started in practice to do so. I do not accept, for the reasons I set out earlier, that that would constitute an escalation of the conflict in Libya. It would be a tactical shift in the way we were pursuing it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The House is going into recess today and will not resume until 7 June. Given that the Minister has said on several occasions that no decision has been made, can he tell us, first, why the French Defence Minister thinks a decision has been made and, secondly, when this House will know when a decision is made, if it is?
Nick Harvey
I cannot comment on what the French Minister has said, but I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman once again that we have not taken this decision and have not suggested to the French that we have taken it. I am aware that we are about to have a short recess, but it would be wholly unacceptable in my view artificially to accelerate a military decision in order to comply with the parliamentary timetable. If a decision is made it will be made according to military criteria and the operations will be conducted in the normal way. We will inform Members as soon as we can if any such decision is taken but I stress again that no such decision has been taken and I cannot anticipate that it will be taken on any particular timetable.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I assure my hon. Friend that he is entitled to plan military operations and discuss them with allies in private and that so long as he reports decisions to the House he will not have taken his country’s name in vain in any manner at all? May I draw his attention to the fact that US Carrier Strike Group Two will be visiting Portsmouth this weekend and then proceeding to the Mediterranean? Will President Obama be included in these discussions about military options in Libya, because we either have to break the stalemate or broker a peace?
Nick Harvey
I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. He is absolutely right that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, it would not be appropriate to keep up a running commentary throughout an operation on the tactical decisions we might take. The French have taken a decision and have seen fit to put that into the public domain and that is entirely a matter for the French. So far as the Americans are concerned, it is certainly the case that during President Obama’s visit we will be discussing with him operations in Libya and Afghanistan as well as other world issues. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the US carrier strike group will be passing through the Mediterranean—I understand that is the intention—but these are things that we will keep discussing with allies. Let me say again that absolutely no decision has been taken.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Has not this intervention been subject to mission creep ever since it began, as statements to the House have indicated? There has been a little bit of help here, the use of special forces there and further intervention. It is no surprise to me that the French, who initiated the intervention in the first place because of an election in France next year, are now telling the British Government what the next phase is. How many civilians, whom we were supposed to safeguard, have been killed by NATO forces? When will we reach £1 billion of expenditure on this intervention, which is paid for by the British taxpayer? Is it right what the media say that it will be at the end of this summer, or will it be even sooner?
Nick Harvey
We know for a fact that Gaddafi was on the verge of an absolute bloodbath in Benghazi and that if we had not intervened there would have been an absolute slaughter. In conducting this operation we have at all times done our utmost to minimise the number of civilian casualties, of whom there are far fewer than Gaddafi has killed and would have killed. I do not accept that there has been mission creep from UNSCR 1973 at all. It remains the case that we are prosecuting it to the best of our ability and it remains our overriding priority to reduce the risk to civilian life and the suffering of civilians. The best way in which that could be concluded would be for Gaddafi to comply with UN resolution 1973 and stop killing his own civilians.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I do not see this as an escalation but rather as a proper tactical response to a changing tactical situation on the ground that is in line with UN resolution 1973. We know from Afghanistan and Somalia that helicopters can be more vulnerable to attack than fixed-wing aircraft. What assessment has been made of UK search and rescue capability should one of our helicopters unfortunately be downed?
Nick Harvey
I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. It is inherently true that the use of attack helicopters in contested territory is dangerous, but we are deploying all our assets through NATO and if we were to decide to use attack helicopters it would be through NATO co-ordinated efforts, so the assets of other partner countries would be available to us to help defend them. We have experience of using Apache helicopters in contested territory and we have successful ways of minimising the threat to them, but it is an inherently dangerous business—there is no way of getting around that.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on how many countries have now sent military advisers to Libya to help the rebels? Can he confirm who is responsible for co-ordinating their work?
Nick Harvey
We have sent some of our own advisers and they are working with the French. We co-ordinate that between us and they are the pre-eminent military advisers. There are some from other countries in that region but they are undertaking specific tasks in co-ordination with the British and French forces, so the predominant effort is Anglo-French and we are co-ordinating it between us.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he clarify what the assessment is of the situation in southern Libya, bordering Chad—an area with a huge amount of oil deposits?
Nick Harvey
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are huge oil assets to the south. I can only repeat that our objective in Libya is the protection of civilians, who we know are predominantly in the north and along those coastal stretches. The regime still has effective control over some of the oil assets to the south, but clearly its efforts to transport and export them have been significantly curtailed by the efforts of the coalition to implement UNSCR 1973.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
My understanding is that the French have publicly briefed the press that the National Security Council has taken the decision to deploy the helicopters. When the Minister says that the decision has not been taken, does he mean that there is a recommendation from the National Security Council awaiting rubber-stamping from the Prime Minister in order to get sign-off from the President for an announcement later in the week?
Nick Harvey
I really cannot be expected to justify what may or may not have been said by French Ministers giving briefings to newspapers. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that no decision has been taken. No decision has been taken by the National Security Council and no recommendation is awaiting the Prime Minister’s approval. It is an option that we are considering and at some point in the future we might decide to go down that route. If the French really have briefed in those terms they have clearly misunderstood the situation in the United Kingdom.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been clear that no decision has yet been taken to deploy ground-attack helicopters. May I ask him to assure the House that if such a decision were taken, it would in no way adversely affect our operations in Afghanistan?
Nick Harvey
I can indeed confirm that. There are currently Apache helicopters in the Mediterranean as part of exercise Cougar and if any decision were taken to use Apache helicopters in Libya, they would most likely be the ones used. That would therefore not have any impact on operations in Helmand.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the more regime targets in Tripoli that are bombed and the more tactical weaponry that is employed on the side of the rebels, the more this appears, to the Arab world in particular, as a political rather than a humanitarian intervention?
Nick Harvey
The purpose of our being there is to carry out UNSCR 1973, the objective of which is to reduce the threat to civilian life. What the hon. Gentleman refers to as regime targets are in fact command and control targets—military targets. They are targets relating to the regime’s ability to persecute its own civilians, so those are the targets we have been aiming to hit. I do not accept a narrative from that that regime change is the objective of the exercise. The aim is to prevent the regime from slaughtering its civilians and that will continue to be the aim.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
If the decision is made, will the Apache helicopters be allowed to land on Libyan soil?
Nick Harvey
I say again that this is simply an option that is being considered, and the detail of how exactly these things would be organised has not yet been worked up. It is not the intention that the helicopters would land. The intention is that they would be deployed, if at all, from naval assets, most probably from HMS Ocean, but that is the sort of detail that is being worked through at present as the option is worked up and considered. It certainly should not be inferred that there is any intention to use helicopters in order to land ground troops and take off in a different direction.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I endorse the Minister’s emphasis on saving civilian lives. Can he update us on whether the Libyan electricity and water infrastructure has been damaged by bombing in recent weeks?
Nick Harvey
We have no grounds to think so. There are undoubtedly problems with electricity and water supplies in different parts of Libya for different reasons, but we have no grounds to believe that the actions of NATO or any of our allies have had that effect, and of course it is most certainly not our intention or objective to do anything of that kind.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
What discussions has my hon. Friend had, or does he intend to have, with Arab League countries as part of the decision whether to deploy Apache helicopters?
Nick Harvey
If any decision were to be taken to go down that route, that would be discussed with Arab countries through the contact group. I stress to the House that the Arab League support for what we are doing in Libya remains strong, and we will consult our allies in the Arab League as we go along.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Minister’s reason for withholding information from the House makes no sense at all. If French helicopters are attacking Gaddafi’s forces, there is no tactical advantage to knowing that there will be British helicopters attacking with them; that gives no militarily useful extra information to Gaddafi. When he made the original statement, the Prime Minister gave a commitment to keep the House informed in detail. There should be a votable resolution on the matter because there has undoubtedly been mission creep towards an objective of regime change since the start of this war.
Nick Harvey
I am not withholding information from the House. There is no information to withhold. No decision to deploy attack helicopters has been taken, and if any decision is taken we will take steps to inform the House. The idea that we should have a votable resolution each time we make a tactical decision to use a different air asset is ludicrous.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In his first answer the Minister spoke of the need to increase the military pressure on the Gaddafi regime, but subsequently refuted any concerns about escalation or regime change. As well as reporting to the House, under resolution 1973 any country or group of countries taking an action under that resolution must report it to the Secretary-General of the UN, who will then refer it to the Security Council. Have the latest actions been reported by France or on NATO’s behalf, and does the Minister anticipate no concerns from any member of the Security Council that the resolution has been exceeded?
Nick Harvey
In my initial answer I was quoting the Foreign Secretary, who said, quite rightly, that we had to step up the pressure on the Gaddafi regime through military, economic and political-diplomatic channels. That is true. I do not, however, accept that there is any significant escalation or a broadening of our military objectives. It remains the case that our overriding objective is to prevent the threat to civilian life, and if there are different assets that different members of the international force working in Libya can bring to bear at different points in time, I do not think that such micro-operational decisions need bother the Secretary-General of the UN. However, if we were to shift focus significantly on what we were doing, that would be of a different order altogether, and the UN very well might be involved.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the Minister of State and to colleagues.
Green Investment Bank
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
Today I am publishing detailed plans for a green investment bank, building on the announcements that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday. Copies of the document will be placed in the Libraries and will be available to download from the BIS website. I would like to take the opportunity from inform the House of these proposals.
The UK will be the first country in the world to create a bank dedicated to the greening of the economy. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK makes a successful transition to a low-carbon economy. This will be a big challenge. The UK is committed by law to a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. Over the coming decades, much of the UK’s energy, transport and waste infrastructure will have to be revolutionised or even rebuilt in order to achieve the ambition of decarbonised electricity, low-emission cars and an end to landfill. This transition will involve considerable costs, but also considerable benefits if new enterprise can seize the opportunities presented by the green economy. The task for our Government is to ensure that these benefits exceed the costs.
Vital to achieving a successful transition is the development of well-designed, long-term and stable policies. They are needed to provide the incentive for businesses to invest in new green infrastructure, which by its very nature repays the investment only over many years. To this end the Government have introduced a carbon price floor, proposals on electricity market reform, the green deal for energy efficiency in buildings, a major waste policy review and new initiatives to encourage the roll-out of electric vehicles.
However, the lack of available finance could be a limiting factor. Detailed research and market analysis have established the need for an institution to address market failures that are constraining the flow of finance. The proposals published today set out a vision for a new and enduring institution—the world’s first dedicated national green investment bank—to complement the existing policy landscape.
The green investment bank’s mission will be to accelerate private sector investment, with an initial remit to focus on relatively high-risk projects that are otherwise likely to proceed slowly or not at all. It will work to a “double bottom line” of both achieving significant environmental impact and making financial returns delivering value for money. It will also operate independently and at arm’s length from Government, who will agree its strategic long-term priorities. Initial market analysis suggests that the early contenders to be priority sectors for the bank are offshore wind, industrial energy efficiency and waste, but a wider range of energy and other activities could become relevant over time.
The new institution will need to comply with state aid rules. Therefore, the proposals that I am publishing today will need to be approved by the European Commission before we can establish the bank. The time to act is now, so in order to make rapid progress, from April 2012, my department will start to make direct, state aid-compliant investments in green infrastructure projects. Investments could be in the form of equity, subordinated debt or senior debt on a pari passu basis. In due course, we will transfer these investments to the new institution.
I am also creating a green bank advisory group, comprising independent finance experts, who will advise Government on the setting up and strategic direction of the new institution. Sir Adrian Montague has very kindly agreed to chair this advisory group.
As the Chancellor set out in the Budget this year, the initial capitalisation of the GIB will be £3 billion and the bank will invest with and through the private sector and tackle risks that the private sector cannot adequately finance. In this way, the bank will mobilise projects significantly in excess of the Government’s contribution. With the funding provided in this Parliament the GIB could mobilise an extra £15 billion of private investment. We do not envisage that this level of activity will require a large institution—an estimated 50 to 100 professional staff during this Parliament. Proposals have been made to locate the headquarters in, among others, London, Edinburgh and Bristol, and a decision will be taken in due course based on their ability to deliver the aims of the bank.
The Government will enable the GIB to have borrowing powers from 2015-16 and once debt is falling as a percentage of GDP, which will allow it to scale up its operations significantly at a time when the financing need is greatest. We are not seeking at this stage to be prescriptive about which form borrowing should take or, more generally, about the bank’s products or structure. Once state aid approval is achieved, we will move to enshrine the institution’s enduring status in legislation.
In conclusion, setting up a bank of this kind is a major undertaking. There is much work to be done to build and grow the green investment bank, and the Government look forward to updating the House on further milestones in future.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but although the Deputy Prime Minister announced this policy yesterday and the statement was timed for 12.30 pm today, I had not received a copy by 10 minutes to 1, and did not receive it until five minutes to 1.
A successful green investment bank can make a significant contribution to developing low-carbon technologies and enabling British companies to succeed in the low-carbon green technology markets of the future. That is why the green investment bank was in Labour’s manifesto. Will the Business Secretary confirm that it has taken a year of infighting to get to this stage? Is it not true that the Government are at odds over green policy, and will he confirm that only a month ago he tried to block the adoption of the carbon emissions targets announced this week? So much for “the greenest Government ever”!
Progress is welcome, but have the Government not already taken a series of decisions that have damaged investment in green technologies and activities? Did they not set feed-in tariffs that encouraged many investors into green energy and then suddenly change the rules, leaving investors high and dry and deeply cynical about the Government’s commitment to green technology? Is the Business Secretary aware that the target for zero-carbon homes by 2016 was encouraging new and innovative business approaches to architecture, building technology, skills training and offset technologies? It was already encouraging a supply chain to make our homes greener. Now that has been changed by the flip-flops of Government decision making. Is it not true that when the Severn barrage was abandoned the Government ruled out any tidal investment for five years, so that when this country turns to tidal power we will end up relying on foreign technology?
Despite all the talk of private investment, where is the evidence for it? Is it not damning that the Pew Environment Group’s report in March stated that investment in renewable technology in the UK crashed from £11 billion in 2009 to £3.3 billion in 2010—due, it says, to political uncertainty. That saw the UK drop from sixth to 13th in the ranking of countries encouraging green investment—another example of the Tories letting go Labour’s green legacy.
As with the green deal and the electricity market reforms, green businesses know enough about the green investment bank to be excited, but not enough to start planning investments and changing business models. Does the Business Secretary not accept that the bank will not work without much greater consistency, certainty and clarity about Government policies for green energy and the low-carbon economy than we have seen to date?
When will the green investment bank legislation be brought forward? Will he publish draft legislation so that all those interested can help shape it and ensure that the bank truly does become a long-term part of the infrastructure? How will the bank be staffed, and will he ensure that it is not an offshoot of the Treasury or his Department? Will he learn the lessons of Labour’s technology strategy board, where private sector leadership and real operational independence have helped to contribute to its considerable success? Given non-governmental organisations’ role in shaping all parties’ policies on this issue, will the Secretary of State at least consider allowing an NGO representative to join in the work of the advisory board that he proposes to set up?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House why the bank will be barred from raising its own finance until 2015 at the earliest? What does he say to the CBI, which made it clear at the time of the Budget that the investment
“is welcome, but the bank should have powers to borrow from the outset to give investors confidence.”
Has the Treasury imposed this rule? If so, is that not another case of the Government allowing their preferred reckless approach to deficit reduction to take priority over the investment in jobs and growth that would make it easier to get the deficit down?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as of today, he does not even know whether the activities of the green investment bank will be on or off the public balance sheet? And is it not essential that that is clarified at the earlier possible opportunity? Does he not recognise that denying early investment in fledgling green industries will hinder their ability to create and expand into new markets? Does he agree that, above all, the UK needs long-term investment in the innovative, entrepreneurial companies that have the potential to become the pace setters and global market leaders of the future?
Does the Secretary of State recognise the risk that the available funds could easily be absorbed by major energy supply companies—companies that, relatively speaking at least, have access to capital—which would invest largely in the installation of established technologies, often supplied by overseas companies? Does he recognise that that risk could prevent UK-based innovators and suppliers from winning market share and developing the established technologies of the future? What assurances can be given that the bank will focus not only on the areas of activity named by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, but on the less mature technologies that remain unmentioned, such as solar and marine energy?
There is clearly a balance to be struck between major infrastructure investment and all the activities of innovative companies, but will the Secretary of State tell us how he intends to ensure, in the legislation that will set out the green investment bank’s remit, that he will strike the right balance between those activities?
Finally, given the huge uncertainty and inconsistency that the Government have shown over the past year, can the Business Secretary set out how he intends to create greater confidence in green industry companies about the future direction of Government policy? There was precious little about that in the Government’s growth plan, but without that market confidence none of the high hopes that we all share for the green investment bank will come to fruition.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I ask the Secretary of State to reply, I make the point that I allowed the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) to reach his conclusion because I saw that he was getting towards it, but we cannot again have a situation in which the response to a statement is longer than the statement.
Vince Cable
I take it that, despite the slightly carping tone of the response, the Opposition do support this proposal. It is important that they support it, because the concept of the green investment bank is that it should be an enduring institution that lasts through successive Parliaments. It is important that we have all-party support for what we are doing.
The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) seems to be claiming credit for this policy, which leaves me with a very simple question: why, in 13 years, did Labour not do it? The demand was there and there were institutional finances looking for such an institution, but it never happened. Why did the Labour Government not do it? They did have a financial vehicle to fund infrastructure investment: the private finance initiative. The whole point about PFI was that it was off balance sheet and the debt was hidden. It was not independently assessed as the green investment bank will be, and as a result numerous institutions, including hospitals and schools, have been lumbered with debts that they cannot manage. Our proposal is a soundly based financial institution leading with equity risk capital, which is what this kind of investment requires.
The Government present this, and I am a Business Secretary proud to lead on such an environmental initiative. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something I said earlier about carbon objectives. We must obviously strike a balance between promoting new green industries and jobs, which are absolutely crucial for growth, and taking proper account of energy-intensive industries, several of which are well represented on the Opposition Benches, such as the steel, ceramics and chemicals industries. Of course we must take those into account and manage the process by which the expansion of green industries takes place alongside proper regard for those industries. I am surprised that he is so insensitive to an important sector of industry that should be of concern to many of his Back Benchers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of legislation. Legislation will be initiated once the state aid process has been completed, and we hope that that will take place rapidly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about less mature technologies, and he is quite right that there is a spectrum of activities of varying degrees of risk and maturity. There are institutions, including the excellent technology strategy board, to take on early stage technologies, and there are bodies such as the Carbon Trust to deal with early stage activities. The green investment bank has a specific role and mandate for projects that are high risk, but none the less mature and ready for commercial investment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the scale of the activity. I do not think that most people would regard £15 billion of investment as trivial, and such an undertaking by the end of this Parliament is very ambitious. He says, “Well, why don’t you just borrow more?” But that is the problem. We have an exceptionally high level of debt in relation to our GDP, and it is a painful process working it down, which is what the Government have been doing. It is frivolous and irresponsible to say that we can deal with those problems simply by borrowing more and adding to the debt.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome this excellent statement, because it describes an institution wholly appropriate to the needs of Britain, but will the green investment bank be able to support small and medium-sized businesses in a significant way? They are often the drivers of innovation.
Vince Cable
It will be difficult to support small and medium-sized enterprises directly—but there are other mechanisms for doing so. One area of investment will be industrial energy efficiency, and through the aggregation of projects, SMEs might well be part of that.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The CBI has expressed concern about the dangers of the Government’s overall green strategy inhibiting manufacturers’ ability to provide the necessary green infrastructure. May I seek reassurance from the Minister that he will fight resolutely on behalf of manufacturing industry to sustain that capacity to deliver in this country?
Vince Cable
Yes I will fight, and do fight, resolutely for manufacturing industry, which of course is now seeing significant growth. It is leading this country out of recession, and the CBI has very strongly made the point to me about the need for the manufacturing sector in green industries, and the need to safeguard the industries with energy-intensive plants, too.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I, too, very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. How will larger organisations be encouraged through the process to work with smaller, innovative technology companies, such as Ceres Power and Riomay in my constituency?
Vince Cable
That complements the earlier question about how we integrate SMEs into the process. The fact is that the green investment bank will predominantly be concerned with very large-scale projects, and that is partly where the market failure lies—in mobilising large amounts of capital. In practice, however, large-scale projects can involve combinations of small-scale enterprises, and of course SMEs will also be an important part of the supply chain—particularly, for example, in offshore wind, which is a crucial dimension.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister, in his speech yesterday, said that the green investment bank might be used to deliver the first stages of the green deal. A couple of months ago, however, the Energy Secretary wrote to the WWF stating that he was confident that there was an appetite in the finance community to lend for the green deal, and that he had concerns about using the green investment bank for it. Will the Secretary of State outline why the policy has changed?
Vince Cable
There has been no change to the policy. The green deal has a very sound business model, it will proceed and it will be successful. We do not rule out the possibility of the green investment bank complementing and working with its activities.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I know that my right hon. Friend said in his statement that he does not want to be prescriptive about the nature of the bank’s borrowing or structures, but will he look seriously at the recommendations of Ben Warren from Ernst and Young, who told the Environmental Audit Committee that
“it was crucial to not only focus on big investors when looking to raise capital, but also to work on a structure that allows individual citizens to invest in the GIB”?
Vince Cable
That may well be one of the ways in which the green investment bank will be involved in the longer run—once it is securely established. Large numbers of people will no doubt want to invest, through individual savings accounts for example, and that could well be a product that the bank eventually produces. We certainly do not rule that out, and we want to encourage creativity.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Given that the green investment bank is being set up to promote new green technology, can the Secretary of State confirm that it will not be used to support nuclear, because nuclear is not new, because many of us do not believe it is green, and above all, because such support would clearly constitute a public subsidy?
Vince Cable
The initial analysis suggests that nuclear power would not be an appropriate sector for the bank’s investment, but in the very long run we are not ruling out particular possibilities, including nuclear. It is not part of the bank’s immediate planning, however.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Today seems to be playing an important role in Labour’s revisionist history. This morning in Westminster Hall I listened to an Opposition Member claim that Labour was the saviour of post offices—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order. We are pressed for time, and questions are about the policy of the Government, not of the Opposition. I have made the point several times; I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had heard it by now.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Historically, whatever services the Government decide to offer, the private sector tends to withdraw from them, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the green investment bank complements private sector investment in green technologies and does not merely replace it?
Vince Cable
The bank will not replace such investment. The whole purpose of our extensive market analysis has been to identify the areas where the private sector is not investing and will not invest. The advisory committee is being established, we have appointed the chairman, and it will give us much more specific guidance on how to get the right balance between the commercial and environmental criteria.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The ceramic industry in my city of Stoke-on-Trent will be listening and watching very carefully as the green investment bank develops, but my question is specifically about an engineering firm in my constituency that was looking to manufacture the gearing systems for refurbishing wind turbines. It had no joy from Advantage West Midlands, and it has had no joy from the local enterprise partnership, because it has no funds, so can the Secretary of State reassure me, and the firm, that the green investment bank will be on its feet quickly, and will not be so prescriptive that the company might just as well go to a moneylender, because the terms and conditions will be so tight?
Vince Cable
I have already said that loans can start to be made from roughly April 2012. There will be substantial activity, and the firm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency may well be a successful supplier to the industry, but if I were him I would not be too negative about the other sources of finance. The regional growth fund is entering its second tranche, and if it is a good company with a good project, and if there is a good LEP, it will be eligible for that money.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s announcement today—especially if the green investment bank ends up in Bristol, where it can take advantage of Gloucestershire’s expertise in financial services. Will he look positively at allowing the bank to finance, or to play a part in financing, the green deal? That would send a positive reassurance to investors in green deal businesses.
Vince Cable
An Opposition Member has already asked me a variant of that question, and I have made it very clear that the green deal is proceeding. It is a successful business model, and we understand the mechanisms by which large-scale investment will be forthcoming, but we certainly do not rule out the possibility of the green investment bank complementing it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting to the end of his statement—for a minute I thought he was going to need a wind turbine inserted to pep him up. It is not possible to pick winners in this area, and a great deal of investment is needed in the research and development of new technologies, so will the green investment bank just pick winners or will it be involved in research and development, accepting that sometimes such projects will not come to fruition?
Vince Cable
Any business organisation making project choices is trying to pick winners, and that is what the bank will be trying to do. It will try to get a return for the economy and for society through environmental improvements, so of course it will have to make choices and pick winners. New technologies are being developed through the technology strategy board, we have announced a couple of technology innovation centres—another will be announced later this week—and they will develop the pioneering technologies to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the Business Secretary on bringing forward this proposal, and I hope that the bank will come to York and north Yorkshire. May I ask for a commitment from him—that in trying to resolve one environmental problem he does not inadvertently create another? Will he assure the House that the business and environmental cases for offshore wind turbines, in particular, will meet the strictest and most stringent conditions?
Vince Cable
It will indeed do that. As I indicated in my statement, there is what we call a double bottom line. The projects must be commercially attractive, and we have to decide what the rate of return would be. They must be economically viable. They must also, at the same time, make an environmental contribution. Getting that trade-off will not be easy, and it will be one of the important early tasks of the bank. I will undertake to add York to the list of cities looking for such an opportunity.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the green investment bank. Will the Secretary of State confirm, however, that the EU Commission has written to the Government expressing its concerns, under state aid rules, that the Government’s proposals in the electricity market reform for contracts for different feed-in tariffs and a floor price for carbon may constitute a subsidy for nuclear? If it has done so, will he make the letter available in the Library?
Vince Cable
I cannot confirm that. If the information is available, I am sure we can pursue it in the proper way. As it happens, I met the Competition Commissioner last week and he did not refer to that, but he is alerted to the green investment bank state aid application, and he will deal with it professionally, I am sure.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
One of the crucial things for investors in the green investment bank will be certainty in understanding signals to the market. I understand that investors in bioethanol plants are uncertain as to where the renewable fuels obligation is taking them in this investment climate. Will the Government undertake to make the bank really work by ensuring that investors in that technology have certainty about their future when it comes to Government policy?
Vince Cable
As I said, we are trying to create a stable framework—what is sometimes called a regulatory asset base—against which long-term investment decisions can be made. We have heard several references to the electricity market review and feed-in tariffs. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), is involved in the process of establishing a clear set of rules. The green investment bank will sit alongside those clear policy frameworks in order to ensure that large-scale investment takes place.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Secretary of State is considering the location of the green investment bank in its ability to deliver, he must surely take seriously the bid from the city of Nottingham because of our combination of financial services and low-carbon business innovation. Will he or his officials agree to meet a delegation from Nottingham so that we can overwhelm him with our case?
Vince Cable
As I say, we have not come to a decision on the ideal location, and we are certainly open to good, new suggestions. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Nottingham will have to think about whether, for example, they have a sufficient concentration of project finance specialists; I am sure that they have.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I would hope that throughout the UK there will be real enthusiasm for the announcement that by 2015 there will be £18 billion of investment in green industries. Can the Secretary of State add to that enthusiasm by sharing his vision of what sector of the economy green industries may represent and the number of jobs that that will bring to Britain? In addition, our tidal and wind can be linked with projects such as the European renewable energy project and solar power from the south of Europe, thus transforming the whole of our energy economy.
Vince Cable
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to sketch out the scale of what green industries are and can become. We estimate that some 800,000 people, perhaps more, are already employed directly in green economy-related activities, and I understand that that will expand substantially. I hope later this week, in a more wide-ranging comment, to add some more information for his purposes.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it still the Government’s intention that the fossil fuel levy money sitting in a bank account in Scotland will be rolled into the green investment bank?
Vince Cable
I did not follow fully where the hon. Gentleman was going, but, no, as I understand it that is not the intention. The £3 billion contribution from the Government is not tied to any specific source.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, particularly his commitment to the long-standing, enduring nature of the green investment bank. May I urge him, however, to set a clear time scale for when a decision on location will be made? I fear that once the bank has been incubated in Victoria street, its location may be decided more by inertia than by examination of the excellent business cases that have already been given to him, such as the one from Edinburgh.
Vince Cable
There will be a proper process, and it is important that we consider carefully all serious applications on their merits. I commend my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Edinburgh for the high level of professionalism that they have brought to bear on their application. They have met me and my departmental officials and have taken great interest in it, and I commend their approach.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I welcome the progress that is reflected in the published plans and in the statement, and I hope that we can rely on much of their promise. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the green investment bank will be open and accessible to all the devolved regions; that no project or company will be disqualified on the grounds that its project has a cross-border character, which would be natural and necessary in Northern Ireland; that nobody will be disqualified on the grounds that their project has been funded by devolved Administrations; and that such funding would not be the subject of a qualifying precondition?
Vince Cable
The bank is a UK-wide institution that will apply in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so I do not see any problems of that kind. As regards the cross-border aspects, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting legal question that I will need to look at carefully.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He mentioned future milestones in the setting up of the bank, one of which will be its location. At the risk of exposing him to a civic beauty parade from all around the Chamber, he mentioned three cities, two of which are political capital cities that already have many national institutions. Is there not a clear and compelling case for the new green investment bank to go to the green capital of the United Kingdom—the city of Bristol?
Vince Cable
I am not sure that I am yet in a position to be a beauty parade judge, but they are all beautiful cities, including Bristol.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Like other colleagues, I note that the Secretary of State is still considering where to base the green investment bank, and I see that there is a possibility of its going to Bristol. May I ask him to look across the Severn river and base the HQ in south Wales, given that investment in the Severn barrage has been stalled?
Vince Cable
This is slightly in danger of getting out of control, but I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his nerve in pursuing it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I give an unalloyed welcome to the fact that we are to have a green investment bank? It is great news. As someone who is very much involved in the third sector environmentally, the one aspect on which I would push the Secretary of State a bit further is the need for third sector co-operation. That sector has been very hard hit by some other Government policies. I am also a little worried by one of his previous answers when he said that small and medium-sized companies will not be eligible for much of the funding.
Vince Cable
I did not say that they were not eligible; I referred to the fact that the initial round was likely to involve large-scale projects. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very positive comments. As for the third sector, I did not respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) about participation in the advisory board, which we will certainly reflect on. It was a helpful contribution.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Since 2004, the US Treasury has had the facility to issue up to $2 billion in green bonds to enhance the green economy in the United States, and since 2007 the European Investment Bank has issued more than €1 billion in climate awareness bonds. Is not it a real lost opportunity that the Secretary of State has been unable to persuade the Chancellor to keep to his pre-election commitment to introduce green bonds in the United Kingdom?
Vince Cable
As I said, there is a variety of possible ways of raising funding, one of which is obviously the capital markets. If and when the institution goes to the capital markets, the investment could well take the form of bonds marketed in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. I am sure that we should draw on those experiences.
Points of Order
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that last Monday, 16 May, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the military covenant. Following that, because a lot of it had been leaked to the newspapers over the weekend, I raised a point of order in which I said that
“the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan)”
had
“on the record”
given
“quotations to The Daily Telegraph”,
announcing the policy before doing so in the Chamber. The Under-Secretary then said, in some kind of clarification:
“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.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 43-44.]
I have now read the newspapers. The Saturday edition of The Daily Telegraph to which I referred says clearly:
“a defence minister told The Daily Telegraph that the Government’s plans, to be announced in the House of Commons on Monday, would put the covenant ‘on a statutory basis for the first time’.”
In case there is any doubt about who that Minister was, the article later says:
“Andrew Robathan, the defence minister…told The Daily Telegraph…‘We are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.’”
It is one thing for a Minister to leak something to the national newspapers before it is announced in this House. It is quite another for a Minister to give the House a very misleading understanding of what they have done. I do not think that the words used by the Under-Secretary in the Chamber can possibly be squared with what was in the newspaper. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will ask Mr Speaker to ensure that the Under-Secretary comes back to the House to make the true situation absolutely clear.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
What has been said is on the record for everyone to see. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will refer the matter to Mr Speaker, and that he will look at what has been said today.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, of which I have given Mr Speaker notice. Every Member of this House is doubtless aware that yesterday, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming)—I use the word honourable in its broadest possible sense—named a premiership footballer who is at the centre of the super-injunction row. A lot of people in this place and outside it find it difficult to see the exact public interest in naming that footballer, and I think that it was an act of gross opportunism by a politician on an ego trip. Can you, Mr Deputy Speaker, reiterate the traditional attitudes of the House towards such gross abuses of privilege?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving Mr Speaker notice of his point of order. I will simply repeat what Mr Speaker said yesterday:
“I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point.”
He went on:
“It is important…that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 653-654.]
I think that that is all that needs to be said on the matter.
Autism (Quality Standards)
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make a referral to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop and publish quality standards for autism spectrum disorders; and for connected purposes.
Autism, autism spectrum disorders and Asperger’s syndrome are terms that are increasingly entering public consciousness. The number of people who are diagnosed with those conditions is rising. That is the result of a growing awareness of the conditions and the greater specialism that is now available. However, far too many people are not having their needs met. Most Members will have had casework relating to children, young people and adults with those conditions. Such cases are usually about the difficulty that they and their families experience in accessing appropriate diagnostic services, education, health care or social care.
I declare an interest as the parent of a child with ASD, but I speak today for all families across the country who experience difficulties in accessing services. The Bill is an attempt to plug a gap that I believe exists in the commissioning and provision of health and social care for people with autism, particularly those whose IQ is above the level of diagnosis for a learning disability. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has quality standards for conditions such as chronic kidney disease, dementia and stroke, and it is working on more as we speak. However, none of those standards will relate to autism. I am encouraged that NICE is developing three sets of guidelines relating to autism management in children and adults. I argue that the creation of an overarching quality standard would bring together those strands into one coherent approach. What would the standards look like? I am grateful to members of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and to the National Autistic Society for their work on this. I will put forward some suggestions on behalf of everybody who has been involved.
First, people with ASD should receive care and support from appropriately trained staff who are capable of making reasonable adjustments to understand them and meet their needs. Secondly, people with suspected ASD should be referred to a specialist team. A diagnostic assessment should start within three months of the initial referral and there should be support throughout the assessment by the ASD team. Thirdly, people with ASD should be assessed for any co-existing mental health conditions. The severity of their symptoms and the degree of any associated functional impairment should be identified. Those who require additional help should be offered immediate support.
Fourthly, people who are newly diagnosed with ASD and/or their carers should receive appropriate written and verbal information about the condition and the support options that are available locally. Fifthly and importantly, people who are newly diagnosed should be given a profile detailing their strengths, skills, impairments and needs. That should be the basis for a needs-based management plan that covers learning, communication, self-care and other adaptive skills, behaviour and emotional health. The plan should take full account of the family context and the particular needs in each case.
Sixthly, people with ASD should have a community care assessment carried out by a trained assessor. Any care plan should be agreed across health and social care. If required, people with ASD should be given support to use direct payments or personal budgets. Seventhly, carers of people with ASD should be offered an assessment of their emotional, psychological and social needs and, if accepted, should receive tailored interventions identified by a care plan to address those needs. Let us not forget the carers in all this. Eighthly, there should be an ASD strategy group in each local area to help plan services for children and adults. Each group should contain representation from people with autism—the service users—as well as from mental health services, education, social care, parents, carers and the voluntary sector.
The ninth suggestion is that the professionals working with a child with ASD who is approaching the transition to adulthood—a lot of Members will know the difficulty that young people have with that transition—should inform social services and the child about the need for a community care assessment. Adult social services should formally contact the young person and/or their carer before adulthood is reached, so that such young people get the continuity that they deserve.
Finally, people with ASD who use child and adolescent mental health services should have a plan in place for the transition to adult mental health services. Where the referral criteria are not met, it would be good practice to signpost other sources of support.
Why bring this proposal forward now? It is clear that whatever the precise outcome of the important reform that the NHS is undergoing, the process of commissioning health and social care services will change. That will include the process of referring quality standards proposals to NICE. I suggest that the Bill comes at precisely the right moment and that it highlights the vital importance, which is underlined by the Government’s proposals, of bringing together health and social care. That is not before time say all of us with an interest in and a passion for issues to do with autism and related conditions.
Those who commission services for people with autism would be helped by a list of quality standards, because it would help to define best practice. It would inform GPs and other potential commissioners of the gold standard of provision for people with autism. Patients and service users would also be made aware of the standards that they should expect from service providers. NHS trusts and other professionals would also be helped. Maybe, just maybe, the lives of thousands of people with autism can be made better.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Robert Buckland, Roger Williams, David Mowat, Annette Brooke, Andrew Griffiths, Dr Julian Huppert, Robert Flello, Jonathan Reynolds, Damian Hinds, Justin Tomlinson, Charlotte Leslie and Nicola Blackwood present the Bill.
Mr Robert Buckland accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 194.)
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify whether the House has the option to take today’s votes in an order that would facilitate the expression of Back-Bench opinion, as we will be debating Back-Bench business? In the usual course of events, a motion is not voted on until the amendments have been taken. That means that if the Government use their majority to whip through an amendment, the House will never get the opportunity to vote on the motion that the Backbench Business Committee selected for debate. Is it possible for you to ensure that the House has an opportunity to vote on the motion that was selected for debate, or are we in the hands of the Whips and those under their influence?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Unfortunately, I have been told that the answer is no; those are the rules on how votes are taken. As frustrating as that may be for the hon. Member, those are the rules of the House as they stand.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that this is a Backbench Business Committee debate and the will of the House needs to be heard, would it not be sensible for Her Majesty’s Government to accept the point that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has made and not move the amendment?
Mr Deputy Speaker
As a long-serving Member, the hon. Lady is well aware that that is not a point for me to rule on, but Government Front Benchers will have heard it. There does not seem to be much movement from them to comment, so we will move on.
Backbench Business
Eurozone Financial Assistance
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Mr Speaker has selected the amendment.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that UK taxpayers are potentially being made liable for bail-outs of Eurozone countries when the UK opted to remain outside the Euro and, despite agreement in May 2010 that the EU-wide European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) of €60 billion would represent only 12 per cent. of the non-IMF contribution with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the Eurozone through the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), that the EFSM for which the UK may be held liable is in fact being drawn upon to the same or a greater extent than the EFSF; further notes that the European Scrutiny Committee has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound; and requires the Government to place the EFSM on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council and to vote against continued use of the EFSM unless a Eurozone-only arrangement which relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has by then been agreed.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate.
Ever since the civil war, and perhaps back to the Plantagenet era, the primary duty of this House has been to control supply, to hold the purse strings and to decide what the Executive may or may not spend on behalf of our constituents. It is not for Her Majesty’s Treasury to decide what unknowable liabilities to sign our constituents up for. It is for us, as their elected representatives, to make that decision. I ask every Member to consider that point when they cast their vote later. It is our decision, and only we stand between our constituents and the ability of others to spend their money on their behalf.
My simple point is that it is unaffordable for this country to bail out countries that joined a currency that we chose not to join, when we ourselves are borrowing as much money as, if not more than, those very countries. We are seeing £12.5 billion of our constituents’ money—twice as much as was saved in the whole first year of the coalition Government, and £500 a household—being spent on bail-outs; and I mean “spent”, because although the Government tell us that they expect the money to be paid back, if that is so, why will the private sector not lend? Why are there rates of 10% to 17%?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue and support what he is saying. Does he agree that although bailing out Greece, Ireland or Portugal is expensive in itself, today the contagion is spreading to Spain and Italy, bail-outs for which would be absolutely prohibitive for the whole European Union? Would that not be nonsense?
Mark Reckless
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and it goes on and on. Yet it is not our problem, and it is not our currency. If we can do anything, we can save ourselves and perhaps Ireland, but we cannot save the euro. The eurozone countries made their decision. We advised them against it, yet they chose to create a currency without a fiscal union to back it up. It is their problem, not ours.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Given that the “no bail-out” clause has turned out to be completely worthless, the eurozone will need to design some type of resolution procedure for countries, in much the same way as we are trying to devise one for banks at the moment. Is it not therefore all the more important that, since we are not members of the eurozone, the UK taxpayer should have absolutely no part in the construction of that resolution procedure? We do not want to find that there are any more burdens on the UK taxpayer.
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend is quite correct. There is talk of establishing a permanent bail-out arrangement, and we, the United Kingdom, have a veto over that. We should use that veto to relieve ourselves of all liability under a mechanism that should never have been agreed. That is what my motion proposes, and the amendment fails to do so.
When the European financial stability mechanism was set up, we were told that there would be €60 billion in it, whereas €440 billion would be paid by the eurozone members. Yet in the case of every bail-out we find that the mechanism is used to the same level as, or even more than, the eurozone facility. We in the House and this country are being forced to pay for the mistakes of others, and only this House has the power to stand up, vote and say no.
The whole mechanism is illegal. Let us remember Maastricht and the “no bail-out” clause that the Germans insisted on. What has happened to that? Let us remember article 122 of Lisbon, which states that the mechanism is for natural disasters or other exceptional circumstances beyond member states’ control. Did not Ireland, Portugal and Greece decide to sign up to the euro? Portugal has barely grown at all as a country since it joined the euro, and it has done next to nothing to control its spending. I am afraid there is nothing exceptional about that, and nothing beyond its control. It is just using the mechanism, to which we should have said no, to make our constituents pay for its own mistakes.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recall that Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the International Monetary Fund, said on 17 December last year on that very point:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone”?
She was being very clear and telling the truth.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) responds, may I warn him that he only has three minutes to go?
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is quite right.I hear that that lady is a good friend of the Chancellor, but I do not believe that we should put the debtors in charge of the bank. The IMF money, too, or 5% or so of it, is our constituents’ and taxpayers’ money. We should have an emerging market candidate to run the fund, and we should not allow the eurozone to continue to perpetuate a French-led IMF that nods through bail-outs with no restructuring and no devaluation. The markets know, and all of us know in our hearts, that bail-outs will not work.
The eurozone says that there will be a “soft restructuring”. In other words, when Greece, Portugal, Ireland or—who knows?—Spain cannot pay back what it has promised, the eurozone will say, “Oh, don’t worry about it, we’ll just roll it over.” In the City, they call that an extend-and-pretend policy. Such a policy was pursued in Japan for the whole of the 1990s, which then lost two decades of growth instead of dealing with the banks and recognising its insolvency. The European Central Bank should avoid that. Unless and until the ECB deals with that problem and understands that the assets that it has taken supposedly to back the loans are worth far short of what it currently assumes, the banks will not lend, because they do not know to whom it is safe to lend. The ECB should write those assets down and have that reckoning. The extend-and-pretend policy—the patching up and bailing out, and the throwing of good money after bad—is destined to fail.
Why are we supporting a currency that we very wisely did not join, after warning exactly what would happen? I ask Members of this House to stand up for their constituents. We should require—yes, require—the Treasury to vote against the use of the bail-out mechanism. If the EU does not agree to that, we should require the Treasury to use our veto over the permanent bail-out mechanism until we are extracted and removed from all liability. We should never have been liable for that mechanism. We know that it is unlawful and that it is not for our currency.
It is right that we stand up for our taxpayers and our constituents, who look to us as Members of this House to do so. They do not look to us to seek permission from those on the Treasury Bench, or to urge them to do something rather than require them to do something. Surely as Members of the House we are more than that. Surely our country is more than a star on somebody else’s flag. I urge all hon. Members to vote no to the Government-sponsored amendment.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate and to support the motion of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). I hope very much to have the opportunity to vote for the motion as it stands rather than in amended form.
Today of all days is important because the crisis and contagion in the eurozone is spreading. As reported in the Financial Times and other journals, there are serious problems in Spain, where there is youth unemployment of 41%, and where the economy is in serious crisis, and even in Italy. Those are major economies, not small countries. If we are dragged into a mechanism to save the eurozone even in one of the smaller countries, we will be throwing good money after bad, as the hon. Gentleman said. Bail-outs have been required for Greece and Ireland, and there might be one for Portugal, but those are relatively small countries in EU terms. Spain and Italy are much larger, and bail-outs for them would be prohibitive.
As I have said in the Chamber several times before, it is time to urge the EU to accept the recreation of national currencies for countries that cannot sustain membership of the eurozone. As I and many others have argued, strong currencies derive from strong economies, not the other way around. The Deutschmark was a strong currency because the German economy was strong. Weak economies cannot cope over time when a strong currency is thrust upon them. The best example of that was Argentina, which chose mistakenly to link its currency formally to the US dollar. For 10 years, it struggled, and its economy was almost destroyed before it bailed out and recreated its own currency—not before billions of its dollars had gone abroad. The Argentine economy, which had been one of the strongest on South America, became very weak, simply because it adopted a strong currency, and someone else’s currency at that. Adopting a strong currency that an economy cannot sustain is a foolish decision.
The right to flex a currency as of need is a vital component of economic management. Indeed, at Bretton Woods in the 1940s, it was argued that depreciations and appreciations could be appropriate for different countries, even though a stable exchange rate system was agreed after the second world war.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is it not strange that the Government are backing so strongly the candidacy of Madame Lagarde for the position of head of the International Monetary Fund, given that that lady is part of a ruling European elite, and that she is on record as wanting to go on bailing out the euro? Should we not be more independent in supporting a really good, tough candidate for that important post?
Kelvin Hopkins
I have not always agreed with our former Prime Minister, but I agreed very strongly with his position on the euro. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) might take a more sensible approach to those things, should he be appointed. I think he is something of an outsider at the moment, but Madame Lagarde has not been appointed yet. Let us hope that he still has a chance of the job.
As the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood said, Britain was wise to stay out of the euro. Because of that, we can flex our currency when needs must. Of course, during and after the crisis, we wisely depreciated our currency. Perhaps a bit more depreciation will help manufacturing and our economy. Countries that have their own currency, such as ours, can also choose their interest rates. Two vital components of any economic management system—the ability to flex the currency and control of interest rates—are given away when countries join a single currency. Even beyond that, there are fiscal policy controls. Countries would do well to retain all the components of economic management if they want to succeed.
When countries do well individually, they can do well collectively. Destroying the economies of EU member states or other countries does not help us in any way. Getting them back into some sort of order by permitting, encouraging or helping them to recreate their currencies, and finding an appropriate parity and interest rate for that currency, so that they can manage their economies for their needs, would raise demand for our goods. The shock absorber effect of different currencies would, over time—a fairly short time, I believe—make the economies of Europe work better singly and collectively. Therefore, the recreation of those currencies is in our interest.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend have any idea why this Government are so keen on bailing out the euro when that was certainly not in the Conservative manifesto? Is this a case of the Liberal tail wagging the Conservative dog?
Kelvin Hopkins
That is one mystery that will no doubt be revealed when the 30-year rule is applied. We found out some interesting things about what happened in the 1970s under the Jim Callaghan Government recently, so perhaps we will know what is happening now in 30 years’ time. I know no more than my hon. Friend about why the Government do not take a more sensible line, as is proposed in the motion.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he share my frustration that a Labour Chancellor signed us up to a mechanism over which we now have no veto?
Kelvin Hopkins
Throughout the period of the Labour Government, I put the views that I have put in this debate. I hope that I had some influence, but in the end the Government decide what they must. They will not necessarily do what Back Benchers such as me suggest. Nevertheless, I am on record as writing and speaking on such things many times in the past.
We must bring this crisis to a head. The way to do that is to say, “No more bail-outs. Let’s start recreating national currencies.” I have said that directly to some of our friends in Ireland, when members of the European Scrutiny have met Irish politicians.
Mark Reckless
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that subject to a request from Ireland and to the protection of UK depositors as against the ECB, we should consider extending our currency to allow Ireland to work with us? Under sterling, we could treat Ireland on an entirely equal basis.
Kelvin Hopkins
Ireland is a very special case—it is our next-door neighbour and we are Ireland’s major trading partner. Effectively, the Irish would do very well to join the sterling zone rather than the eurozone. That would mean their recreating the punt and choosing the value of it. I would like us to do a lot more to help our Irish colleagues, not simply because I have a large number of Irish people in my constituency, but because that would be a comradely and brotherly thing to do for a nation with which we have had great links for many centuries.
I once again express my support for the motion.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
It is critical that we put into perspective UK taxpayers’ exposure to the bail-out mechanism. No Government Member relishes having to put the faith or the credit of Her Majesty’s Treasury behind the bail-outs of profligate peripheral eurozone countries, especially at a time of austerity at home, but the coalition Government inherited this situation. The temporary bail-out mechanism, which runs until 2013, was agreed on 10 May 2010 by European Finance Ministers at ECOFIN—after the general election, but before the coalition Government were formed. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) admitted in Parliament, the Chancellor opposed the mechanism at the time, as was clearly recorded in Hansard on 15 December 2010. [Interruption.] Any Labour Members in doubt about that can verify it for themselves.
Joseph Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have been led to understand that the Government took the position that there was no strong legal case to support any such challenge.
None the less, it sticks in the craw of many Government Members to be in this position and, like them, I have my doubts about whether the mechanism is being applied in exceptional circumstances beyond member states’ control, which is the test for triggering the deployment of financial assistance powers under article 122(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Government bond yields in the eurozone periphery are trading at the level they are in some countries because of the reckless management of public finances and the political gridlock in those countries, and because of backsliding on long overdue structural reform. In Greece’s case, Government bond yields are trading at about 20% because of Athens’s lack of progress towards meeting the pledges it made last year as part of the EU-International Monetary Fund bail-out. That is a case in point.
Painful though it was for the Government to be saddled by the outgoing Labour Administration with an indirect contingent liability through their involuntary participation in the mechanism, the truth is that our overall exposure is a rounding error when compared with that facing Germany and other northern European countries in the core euro area. The debts of the eurozone periphery are being progressively socialised by European Central Bank financing operations that could, in time, be seen as the forerunner of an effective eurozone bond. In the meantime, the €60 billion mechanism is just part of a far larger package of measures to preserve financial stability in the EU to which we have no exposure, except indirectly through our share in the IMF. We are on the hook for a share of €60 billion out of an overall package of €750 billion. Our share, which is about 12.5% of that €60 billion, is just €7.5 billion, or 1% of the €750 billion package.
We do not wish to throw away that 1% lightly, of course, but happily, for that exposure to crystallise, all the countries that have thus far subscribed to the mechanism would have to default in totality. IMF data on the history of sovereign defaults around the world suggest that that is highly unlikely. Even in the unlikely event of a domino series of defaults across the countries that have subscribed to the mechanism, it would be extraordinary for there to be a 100% default rate. The pattern of defaults around the world suggests that losses from default are normally between 25% and 35% of the total losses to which countries or investors have exposure.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I would say gently to my hon. Friend that only a few years ago the banking crisis was not foreseen, and the same people who did not foresee that are still giving us advice. We are probably in far worse trouble than is generally accepted.
Joseph Johnson
My hon. Friend is perhaps right to caution me. It never pays to be too optimistic.
More importantly, the coalition Government, who came into power in May 2010, deserve to be congratulated not only on limiting our exposure to the temporary funds—we are on the hook for just one, not both of them—but on successfully capping our exposure. We have been kept out of the €440 billion European financial stabilisation facility, as well as what will be the permanent successor vehicle, the European stability mechanism, which, as mentioned, is due to come into existence in 2013.
That said, we would be wrong to kid ourselves that Britain can shield itself completely from the affairs of the eurozone, and I would suggest that Schadenfreude, in the Chamber or elsewhere, at the turmoil in the euro fringe might be short-sighted. First, our banks remain fragile. People who read the Financial Times will know that 14 British banks and building societies were this morning downgraded by Moody’s, and there were particularly negative outlooks for Barclays and HSBC. The UK banking sector’s exposure to the so-called PIIG economies—Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Greece—alone amounts to about £211 billion, which is the equivalent of about 4.7% of UK bank assets, according to Capital Economics. UK banks can ill afford fresh write-downs that would force them to raise expensive new funds at a difficult time in the capital markets, and a further leg-down in the eurozone financial crisis would certainly not help the Government in their laudable efforts, under Project Merlin, to push the banks to lend more and at reasonable terms to capital-starved businesses in the UK.
The second transmission channel of pain in the eurozone will come in the form of reduced lending to UK consumers and businesses by eurozone periphery banks located in the UK. Irish banks account for about 3% of household loans in the UK, and about 7% of corporate loans. Spanish banks play an even more important role. Through Santander, which owns Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley, Spain accounts for 14% of household loans in the UK. If troubles at home force these eurozone banks to rein back their lending, especially overseas, credit conditions in the UK could clearly start to worsen again. We should think hard about that before expressing any Schadenfreude at what is happening on the continent.
Furthermore, distress will be felt at home through the trade channel. At a time when domestic sources of growth are under pressure and few and far between, the UK’s trade links with continental Europe are of pivotal importance. Although Spain and Portugal might be less significant as trading partners than Ireland, the PIIG economies together account for 14% of UK exports, compared with Germany’s 9% and the 16% of UK exports that go to Asia. A wave of defaults, or at the very least a considerable weakening of the euro, would not only hit demand in these countries, but damage UK export competitiveness—a linchpin of the Government’s economic strategy.
The Government are right to limit our financial exposure to future bail-out mechanisms, and need to be congratulated on having done so successfully, but it should go without saying that we still have much at stake in the success of these future bail-out mechanisms. We cannot wash our hands of them. The health of the UK banking system, the extent to which the UK economy is dependent on credit extended to UK companies by eurozone banks and the UK’s own need to earn a living from exports make it abundantly in the UK’s interests to wish our European partners every success in tackling the crisis through future eurozone-only arrangements. Anyone taking pleasure in the discomfort of our European partners might be in for a nasty surprise.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Measures:
Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011
Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure 2011
Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011.
Eurozone Financial Assistance
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 46 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I rise to support the motion before the House and to add some comments to the debate. I want to give a couple of examples—fishermen and the farming industry—where the EU is creating more hassle than can be justified. I am of the school of thought that we should make the best of a bad job, and on many occasions we have to do that. The EU, along with the way in which it is run, is most certainly a bad job, yet at present we are in it whether we want it or not. It therefore falls on this House, MEPs and another place to do our best to hold the EU to account as far as possible for the events that take place over in Brussels. We have an opportunity today to debate that and vote on it.
It is clear that the European financial stabilisation mechanism is not fit for purpose; owing to this, the UK could be held liable as a member state. On 9 May 2010, the European financial stability facility was created, and it is a special purpose vehicle agreed by 16 members of the eurozone and aimed at preserving financial stability in Europe by providing financial assistance to eurozone states in economic difficulty. Thus far, we are not at all involved, but no to the euro meant no to the EFSF. The tricky part came with the notion that the facility may be combined with loans of up to €60 billion from the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is again reliant on funds raised by the European Commission using the EU budget as collateral, and up to €250 billion from the IMF, all to secure a safety net of €750 billion.
If there is no financial operation in activity, the EFSF would close down after three years, on 30 June 2013. If there is a financial operation in activity—which of course there is—the facility would exist until its last obligation had been fully repaid. There has indeed been activity, and a good deal of it involving the EFSM, despite the fact that it should not have been involved to the extent that it had an equal if not greater share of the bail-outs. The purpose of the European financial stabilisation mechanism is to provide an emergency funding programme that is reliant on funds raised on the financial markets and guaranteed by the European Commission using the European Union budget as collateral. I want to give some examples of where things have gone pear-shaped, to use that terminology.
It seems abundantly clear that, as a non-eurozone member, we can be held accountable only for the EFSM, yet for some inexplicable reason it was this funding that bailed Ireland out—to the tune of €5 billion—as opposed to the eurozone funding, which should have borne the brunt. We are neighbours of Ireland, and I do not wish to be harsh. Of course we want to help out where we can, as a healthy Irish economy could benefit the Northern Ireland economy, owing to the shared land border. However, it is hard to grow this sense of neighbourliness when we see the fund enabling Ireland to undercut us on corporation tax, which subsequently encourages business investment in the Republic as opposed to Northern Ireland, or when we see that it has enabled fuel duty to be reduced, which has also taken flight business away from the Province. So, we bail them out and then they use that to our disadvantage. Why should we doubly lose out—through access to European funds, along with increased competition for our business in Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—when the eurozone fund should have been responsible for bailing Ireland out all along?
Mr Davidson
That point is of significance to Scotland as well, because the pressure from Northern Ireland to reduce its corporation tax to compete with the Irish Republic is being replicated in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea why this Government are using British taxpayers’ money to fund an opportunity for the Irish Republic to undercut us on corporation tax in that way and thereby cannibalise British revenues?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate intervention. We in Northern Ireland certainly do bear the brunt of that, and we feel the pain more than most, as does Scotland. Perhaps when the Minister responds we will get an idea of exactly why that has happened.
The second example is from Iceland—there is more than one cloud hanging over Iceland, by the way—and the second referendum there. Iceland rejected a proposed deal to repay €4 billion that Britain and Holland spent in 2008 to reimburse savers hit when Iceland’s banks collapsed. Meanwhile, I am hearing complaints from my constituents about the amount of fish that fishermen can catch and the number of days that they can work being restricted by EU legislation, as opposed to the Icelandic raiders—they are certainly not an ice hockey team—who are sweeping in, despite Euro-protests, and fishing mackerel that belong to our fishermen. Those are just two simple examples of the failure of the bail-out system in Europe. It is passed the time that this be brought to a head and we ensure fairness for all in Europe.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has stated that the legality of the EFSM is called into question by the current wording of the treaties, which must be changed accordingly. That is exactly the issue that we are trying to address. Therefore, the answer is very clear: use the upcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council to vote against the continued use of the EFSM unless a eurozone-only arrangement that relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has been agreed.
For far too long we have slavishly followed the dictates of Europe, throwing pound after pound into that deep hole that is Brussels and awaiting some kind of recompense for doing things the right way. For too long we have watched other countries prosper—and not too far away from us, either—with bail-out funding, while we cut funding to schools, hospitals and infrastructure in order to remain solvent and claw our way back to a sound financial footing. Everyone in the Chamber today will be able to give examples of that from their constituencies. For too long we have paid in while watching our farmers and fishermen flounder under the weight of European dictates, at the same time as we watch other nations flout the very same rules that our officials seem to have an almost evangelical zeal in enforcing. Indeed, we have been fined £60 million in Northern Ireland for mistakes in bureaucracy and forms that have been filled in.
We need to assert ourselves by saying to the EU that we will no longer be Europe’s nodding dog, making do with a pat on the head every now and again, as if that is okay. We more than pay our way. Others must be held to the dictates that we adhere to. That should start with the matter of this funding and how it is used. I fully support the motion and urge every Member here today—those who embrace Europe and those who oppose it alike—to state that from now on we will make a better job of what is currently a bad job and demand our rights as a member state, beginning with the right to exclude ourselves from the euro without paying for it through the back door.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The background to this debate is the extreme financial turbulence that took place all around the European Union—and, indeed, around the world—in 2008. Since then, the vast majority of EU member states have become stable. They are growing and have deficit reduction plans in place. It is also important to recognise—I am quite surprised that no one from the Government Benches has said this yet—that the UK has not needed assistance from the IMF nor from the European financial stability mechanism, which we theoretically could have called on from our fellow EU member states, or indeed any bilateral assistance, precisely because the coalition Government have put in place a realistic deficit reduction plan to put our finances on to an even keel. However, other EU member states are still struggling and have needed that international assistance—I refer, of course, to Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Today’s debate is concerned with European Union assistance, but we should remember that many fellow member states have also needed IMF support and bilateral loans, from us and other member states.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Is not the reason why Greece, Portugal and Ireland have needed money that they cannot alter their exchange rates or control their interest rates because they are in the euro? Some of those countries are cutting even faster than this Government, and it is not helping. The answer to those countries’ problems is to get out of the euro and return to their old currencies.
Stephen Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suspect that I may be alone in the Chamber—at least on this side of the Chamber—in being for the euro. I believe that Britain could have benefited from joining back in 1999, but I none the less recognise that the coalition agreement contains a strong statement on how that is simply not up for discussion during the course of this Parliament. I would therefore agree to differ with the hon. Gentleman. Surely one of the reasons why the three states that he mentioned are unable to deliver deficit reduction is not just their membership of the euro, but the fact that their Governments have not been as willing as this Government to take the necessary painful medicine to put themselves back on an even keel.
We have, of course, made bilateral loans as well, recognising that, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) said earlier, it is in our own selfish national interest to support our fellow EU member states. Many of those points were made last year in the debates on the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. One statistic, which I thought was implausible when I first heard it—I have now heard it so many times that it must be true—is that Ireland is more significant to our trade than China, India and Brazil, so it is indeed in our national interest to continue to support Ireland.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about our bilateral and multilateral arrangements. Surely it is in this country’s interest to be flexible and not to get locked into multilateral arrangements, but to have the freedom to make bilateral arrangements when it is in our national interest to do so.
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right to say that we need flexibility. Because we are not in the euro, we are not a participant in the far greater funding of the facility. I think that the figure involved is €400 billion. Our exposure is therefore quite limited.
That leads me on to my next point. The loan to Ireland involves about €7 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the maximum theoretical exposure of the United Kingdom to the loans that we have participated in under the European financial stability mechanism. So what is the cost to the UK? I have already mentioned our IMF and bilateral loan contributions, which we make irrespective of our EU or euro membership. We are outside the EFSM, as I have said, and our EFSM contribution is restricted to the UK share of the European Union budget, which is roughly 12.5%. Our total theoretical exposure is therefore about €7.5 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the bilateral loan that we have decided, of our own volition, to give to our close friend and neighbour, Ireland.
Our contribution to those loans—I emphasise that they are loans—is at risk only if there is a default on the part of the member states receiving them. It is the expectation, when loans are made in the ordinary course of business, and certainly between nation states, that they will be repaid without default, and that they will be repaid with interest. If Ireland and Portugal repay those loans in a timely manner and with interest—the interest rate is quite a hefty one—it will be important to ensure that the interest is credited back to the United Kingdom.
A real cost would be incurred if we did not support our fellow EU member states, which are, after all, our closest trading partners. It would simply not be in the UK’s national interest to watch the eurozone fail and even break up, as I suspect some of my coalition colleagues would like it to do. The resulting massive instability among our closest trading partners on our doorstep would not be in our national interest. I plead with the ministerial team to make the case more strongly on behalf of the Government that UK assistance at this time is in the British national interest, and that it is not merely the result of some philosophical commitment to the European Union, whether by the Liberal Democrats—whom I heard being blamed earlier—or by anyone else. Indeed, if we were not making those contributions via the European financial stability mechanism, it is possible that we would be making higher bilateral contributions or having a higher call on our funds because of our treaty obligations relating to the IMF. It is also right, however, that any such support should be temporary, and that, from 2013, the eurozone should be able to wash its own face and support itself through the proposed new European stability mechanism. It will then be up to Britain to decide whether it wishes to give bilateral assistance, when it is in our national interest to support our closest friends and neighbours.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I want to contribute to the debate because it is often implied in the media and elsewhere that very few Labour Members are against what is happening in Europe. It is important to point out that millions of Labour voters would support the motion, and would like to see my party take an even stronger view on this issue.
I do not know the details of who signed up to what and when, but I am clear that if it was our Chancellor who did so, we should not have signed up to these arrangements. The new Government coming in should certainly have made it clear that they were a new Government and that they would look at the matter again. I appreciate that they are a coalition, but this should have had a high priority in the coalition agreement.
Graham Stringer
I am following what my hon. Friend says, and I agree with her. The previous Government were out of tune with the electorate on Europe, as are this Government. Would it not be good to have a national debate on these issues, and a referendum on whether we should be in or out of the European Union?
Kate Hoey
Yes. I am a supporter of the People’s Pledge campaign, and any other campaign that I see on a referendum. I would like those campaigns to work together more.
Even in the House today, we are going to end up being unable to have a clear vote on this issue because of the way in which the procedure works and because of the way in which the Government—like previous Governments—are in a nice, cosy little group with all the pro-Europeans to ensure that we never have a real vote on these matters. I am not sure whether all those Members who have signed up to the Government’s amendment knew what they were signing up to. I cannot believe that they do not support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). Looking at the amendment, we see that they accept the motion up to and including the point that the EFSM is “legally unsound”. If something is legally unsound, the Government should automatically oppose it. I am sure that the European Union will be quivering when it hears that the Government’s amendment proposes that the Government
“raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement.”
Kate Hoey
I will not give way again.
Does anyone in the House really think that our Government would be listened to if they went along to the Council of Ministers and said that they were very concerned about this issue? They have not even managed to get Parliament to give a clear signal about what it thinks. They have fudged the vote today so that it will be pretty meaningless. This fudging on Europe goes on all the time among the cosy establishment, and it makes people angry and frustrated, not only in the House but out in the country.
I recently asked the Foreign Secretary
“if he will have discussions at EU level on reducing the funding spent by the EU on publicity campaigns.”
This matter arose because the European Union has decided to put by even more of our money to ensure that ordinary people throughout the EU are told how wonderful the EU is. We are spending money directly on European Union propaganda. The answer came back from the Minister for Europe, and the first bit sounds great:
“While it is important for institutions such as the EU to communicate effectively…spend on this should be efficient, affordable and proportional. Funding levels for the EU to communicate its work publicly, as for all other EU activities, will be decided within the negotiations on the EU 2012 Budget. With those negotiations, this Government are seeking substantial reductions in spend and greater efficiency across all areas of the Budget.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 448W.]
Once again, fine words. The previous Government said exactly the same thing, but nothing ever changed. Nothing relating to the European Union ever changes. The sums of money involved never go down. We never pay less; we pay more and more.
With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, I believe that it is time for us to have this debate out there in the country. Let us stop being afraid of our constituents’ views, and listen to what many people out there want to say. This Government need to accept what the previous Government would never accept—namely, that we are here to stand up for our constituents and our country on this issue. It is about time that we started to say no to Europe, and to mean it.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Government amendment—they have not tabled it in their own name, but that is what it is, to a great extent—reflects badly on the integrity of the coalition. It has nothing whatever to do with the national interest. It also says a great deal about a commitment to Liberal Democrat ideology, and it is primarily about numbers. The Liberal Democrats, and certain elements in the Conservative party at a very high level, are quite prepared to allow further European integration. There are alternatives that would allow us to renegotiate the treaties and/or to say no, but they are simply not doing so.
Indeed, only a few days ago, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that the object of the coalition was to stabilise the economy. We understand that. The problem is that this is about numbers, not about principles or policy. There are many people in the Conservative party, outside and inside the House, who know that the arguments we are seeking to address in a reasonable fashion are in the interests of the country. There is no question about that; the press outside believe it as well. The bottom line is that those of us who have relentlessly pursued the issue of the eurozone bail-out and have tabled many questions have invariably received what could reasonably be described as somewhat evasive answers.
Why should the British taxpayer or British hospitals and schools in our constituencies in any way underwrite what goes on in Portugal, or indeed any other country in the eurozone, particularly in times of austerity? It is nothing to do with the question, as suggested on a number of occasions, of qualified majority voting. This is completely contrary to the assertion made in reply to me today by the Financial Secretary. Article 122 is not compatible with the treaty and cannot possibly be used to support the European financial stability mechanism. Indeed, in their acquiescence, as shown in the amendment, the Government accept that the position is legally unsound. By saying that, they completely undermine their position. The Government know it and everyone knows it: it is not compatible with the treaty, and the Minister is wrong.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful legal point. Does he agree that what these states in trouble need is a work-out, not a bail-out? We do not give alcoholics more drink; we cure the alcoholism. We should not give the over-borrower more borrowing.
Mr Cash
I could not agree more, and a course of Alcoholics Anonymous would not be out of place.
It is not just the European Scrutiny Committee that said the position was legally unsound or unlawful. Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the IMF, said on this issue on 17 December:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone.”
This is a stitch-up of the British people to maintain the so-called solidarity for further integration of a failing European project. That is what lies at the heart of the matter.
Why are people protesting and rioting all over Europe —in Madrid, Greece, Italy and the list is growing? What is not growing is the European economy and the reason is that the sort of policies needed—here and in all the other countries—to engender growth to deal with the deficit that the Government rightly say we have to address are impossible to achieve without generating the growth that is needed by repealing legislative burdens and generating policies that the integrationists in Europe simply refuse to allow. I would go further and say that the coalition in this country cannot achieve growth simply because the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition, have silenced the Prime Minister’s promise to repatriate burdens on business. It is called 56 votes and the keys to No. 10.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman might have heard, as I did, the Liberal part of the coalition talking clearly about what might happen “if” these loans are repaid, which suggests some ambiguity and concern within the coalition Government about whether the loans will be repaid. He will also recall that when the Conservatives were in opposition, they opposed the bail-out of Northern Rock. What has changed between then and now?
Mr Cash
Very simply, we now have a new coalition Government who have been seeking to achieve a reduction in the deficit, but they are not doing the accompanying things that are required in respect of the failing European project. That is the key problem. There are young people throughout Europe—and, for that matter, in this country—who simply cannot get jobs because companies will not take them on as a result of European employment regulations and because the deficit in the public sector cannot be stabilised without reasonable tax revenues from the small business community, which is being deliberately destroyed by the refusal to repeal the burdens that strangle it.
In the meantime, Germany has had unit labour costs of a mere 2% on average over the last 10 years, whereas the average for the rest of the European member states is between 25% and 30%. It is an impossible situation, making it impossible for Europe—this entity that the integrationists believe in—to be able to compete with the BRIC countries. Germany invests in cheaper labour markets in Europe, with 67% of all its trade being with Europe, while 45% of all European trade with China is German.
The reality is that what we are debating today is symptomatic of a failure in the coalition Government’s strategy. We are not going to get out of this problem—I say this in all sincerity and in the great hope that people will listen at last—as long as we go on with this failing project. We will not get out of the mess. Today’s debate is an opportunity to get the issue straight. As Michael Stürmer, the chief correspondent of Die Welt argued, the dream is over and the Maastricht treaty has to be revised, but the coalition has no will to do so. The European bail-out of Portugal is a symptom of this deeper problem.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Given my hon. Friend’s very pessimistic view of the outlook for the eurozone, which many of us share, does he not feel like giving just a tiny cheer that, thanks to the Chancellor’s efforts last December, we will take no further part in a permanent bail-out mechanism for Europe?
Mr Cash
I did not say anything adverse about it at the time other than that the opportunity was not taken, despite advice I tried to give, to use the treaty opportunity to say to other member states that we would not agree to the treaty and would veto it unless we were taken out of the EFSM; we could then have brought forward the arrangements currently proposed for 2013. That proposition was eminently reasonable, eminently possible and €440 billion was available under the facility, which is in operation until 2013. In other words, the whole EFSM issue pivots on vanity and a determination not to unravel something that cries out for unravelling. It is not just; it is not right; it is completely irrational.
There are going to be further and deeper riots and protests. Worse still, I believe that the Government are contributing towards instability throughout Europe while claiming that within the time frame extending to 2013, bailing out the German and French banks—we should remember that that is what lies at the root of the problem—as well as Portugal and Greece will achieve stability. It will not. The argument is not only wrong, but totally—
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I largely agree with the argument about the incompatibility of eurozone countries, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) outlined, although I do not agree with his defence of the Government. If we pay tribute to anybody it should be to the previous Chancellor and then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) who, against great opposition from the Liberal Democrats and from sections of the Labour party, kept us out of the euro and avoided the consequences that have fallen on the eurozone states that are now in need of support and finance.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) should feel uncomfortable about his lonely defence of the euro as he sits there like an Amplex advert on two empty Benches—because nobody wants to sit with somebody who is going to defend the euro in his kind of fashion—as the Liberal party policy has always been, “My euro right or wrong.” I can well remember, as can many others, the exchange rate mechanism crisis. Just as the ERM was about to collapse, there were the Liberals chanting, “Move to the narrower bands now” in unison with a lemming-like folly, which the hon. Gentleman demonstrated again today. He should not worry about this peculiar position; he should say with triumph that the Liberal Democrats have persuaded the coalition into accepting and financing these bail-outs. It is not a small sum. He mentioned a liability for £7.5 billion—this from a Government who are cutting Sure Start children’s centres and police budgets and who cannot afford anything for beneficiaries in this country, yet who are prepared to back a bail-out that could cost us £7.5 billion.
To have persuaded the cautious Conservatives, who have always been rather sceptical about Europe, to accept that position must be a triumph for the Liberal Democrats, in which I think they should rejoice. It is a demonstration of the impossibility of the eurozone’s working. What we are being asked to do today is pay for the consequences of the fact that it could never have worked because it brings together incompatible economies. It brings together the southern economies, which are frankly uncompetitive, and many of which are close to defaulting in any case, and the powerful German economy, where inflation is kept very low by agreement between the two sections of industry, continuous investment and continuous improvement.
The southern economies, which have higher rates of inflation and lower rates of productivity, can never keep up. The gap therefore widens, and Germany comes more and more to dominate the European economy, to a point at which the others must deflate to clear the deficits caused by their balance of trade with Germany. That is the incompatibility with which we are dealing, and that is the cause of the problems of the southern states in which we are being asked to involve ourselves—although we kept out of the euro, in the face of some derision from the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, liberal opinion in the country as a whole.
We kept out, so why should we be responsible for the failures implicit in the euro? There are only two possibilities for the countries that are now failing and needing help or the ability to default. They can deflate, which they are being asked to do to a degree that is impossible for their electors to accept, or they can get someone to write off their debts, a strategy mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). They cannot do what France and Italy did for many years when they became uncompetitive and their balance of payments deficits built up, and simply devalue. Such action was precluded first by the European exchange rate mechanism, which broke up because it became impossible, and it is certainly precluded now by the euro. These failing countries can have no recourse to either reducing interest rates or accepting adjustments to the exchange rate, as this country has done, and they have therefore moved towards a crisis.
I cannot conceive why we—having kept out of the euro and warned of the consequences of joining the euro, and having drawn attention to what was implicit in a system that brought together incompatible states with different rates of productivity and competitiveness and with no central mechanism to redistribute or help them with their difficulties—should be asked to contribute to the bail-outs, and I therefore strongly support the motion. I cannot see what the sob sisters who tabled the amendment have to offer by saying, “Let us talk about it later.” Let us talk about it now, because the House must be the master of its own destinies and the country’s destinies.
This cannot be left to a Government who, in European matters, are always facing the threat of the tar baby. One contact with the euro, and countries are dragged in; one contact with Europe, and they are dragged endlessly into further and further commitments to a line that is impossible to hold. We should say in the Chamber today, “We cannot hold this line. We will not help to hold this line. It is not our problem.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are running out of time very quickly, and I want to enable as many Members as possible to speak. We need to hear about the amendment, so I now call Chris Heaton-Harris. If there are fewer interventions and Members do not use all their allotted time, we shall do very well and get much lower down the list.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘unsound’ to the end of the Question and add:
‘urges the Government to raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement.’.
As you have made amply clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not have much time. I therefore intend to confine my remarks to the subjects raised in my amendment and to the politics behind it.
The motion argues that there is no legal base for making EU money available for bail-outs. It questions the idea that the natural disasters clause can be used to justify using EU funds to pay the countries concerned. Let me say at the outset that the amendment does not touch the very important line in the original motion that states that the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member,
“has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound.”
Let me now deal with some of the politics of today, which were observed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Was not that line left in the motion because it is a fact—which there is no point in denying—that the European Scrutiny Committee stated that the European financial stability mechanism was legally unsound?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I shall come to that point directly.
Members on both sides of the House know that the Government would not have accepted the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), and that if we were to vote on the original text it would be probably be defeated, and the House would be left without a view on this matter. My amendment, which I should like to think has a good chance of being passed, would enable the House to adopt the words of the European Scrutiny Committee.
I believe that the legality of the EFSM, and indeed that of the European financial stability facility—the EFSF—has been questioned in relation to the EU treaty’s “no bail-out” clause, which states that the EU and member states
“shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of”
other member states.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will say more about the politics later in my speech. In any event, I believe that if either my amendment or the original motion is passed, the House of Commons will be the first member state Parliament to question formally the legality of the stability mechanism.
The remaining part of my amendment involves a fairly academic argument. Does any Member in the House truly believe that, with the Greek economy running out of cash, market fears that the eurozone contagion will spread and reveal itself at the heart of the Spanish and Italian economies, and the continuing problems in Ireland and Portugal, this matter was not going to be up-front and central at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council? I should like to think that those problems are not only the first item on the agenda for such meetings, but being discussed every day throughout the Governments of Europe.
Bail-outs have become what they were always going to be: politically toxic, not only for those who provide the cash—the local election results in Bremen at the weekend underlined that—but, much more, for the Governments of the countries receiving the money, who have to introduce economic measures that are politically unpalatable to the people, as so many Spanish socialists found last weekend. Whatever senior advisers of Governments across Europe may think, the markets have already decided—and I consider it to be a matter of fact—that the Greek bail-out has not worked and will be renegotiated.
What I believe my hon. Friend for the Member Rochester and Strood is after is a vote that will prevent us from providing any more money for these bail-outs through the EFSM. Alas, although the UK could vote against any proposal presented—and I should like to think that it would—the simple fact is that because of the disastrous advice given to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the consequent actions that he took at meetings on 9 and 10 May last year as the previous Government were leaving office, the UK entered the mechanism. Moreover, the Council decides on these matters now, and will do so in the future, by means of qualified majority voting.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that when the Conservatives were last in office they established a firm veto in precisely this context? That veto was given away in 2001 by the Labour party, and the present Government are now being forced to implement a decision that was sneaked through by Labour in the dying days of its Government.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Absolutely—and let me make it perfectly clear that, thanks to what Labour did a year ago as it was leaving office, the EU cannot veto the grant of an EU loan or credit line extended via the European financial stability mechanism.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I should love to agree with the hon. Lady on that—so I will.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Is there anything to prevent us from requiring the European Court of Justice to rule on whether this use of the mechanism is legal?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I honestly do not think so.
In the most basic terms, voting for the original motion will not mean that we are no longer liable to contribute to bail-outs via the EFSM. Worse than that—as I have said—because the Government signalled they were not likely to accept the original motion, it would in all likelihood have fallen, and therefore, far from this House having put its foot down, it would not have had a view at all. My amendment merely recognises that reality. It does not build up false hope that we can simply stop being involved in these matters, but it does send a message to Government that I hope will be reflected in the ongoing debates on them: that this House wants there to be a eurozone-only arrangement in the future.
Too regularly in this place and elsewhere, those of us who question various aspects of our relationship with the European Union march our supporters to the top of the hill only to find that we are outnumbered and outfoxed, and are then valiantly and gloriously defeated. We need to get real.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Perhaps we are led to the top of the hill and then let down by parliamentarians who do not have the guts to stand up for their country.
Chris Heaton-Harris
My hon. Friend could, perhaps, say that, but he would obviously have to have a good 10-year track record of actually standing up for this country in a different Parliament somewhere else.
The economics of our time is proving us right. It is time we changed tactics, and time we learned from the past. Let us win the arguments we can, bank the result and push forward. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have noted the feeling of the House on this matter. I would like to think they understand that we expect the Government to play all the cards they are dealt in negotiations with our European partners, and I would remind them of how much cross-party support they have for their negotiations on the next EU financial framework for 2014-2020. We have a veto on that matter, and are expecting great things.
My endgame is to spare the UK the costs of these bail-outs, leaving them as a proper matter for the euroland countries. I intend to press this amendment—tabled in my name and those of more than 50 other Members—to the vote.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
The wider question we need to address is why it appears that this Government are consistently going soft on the European Union. When they were elected, the impression was given that they were going to be much tougher on Europe than the previous Government had been, and I welcomed that different position, on that issue if on no other. I welcomed the fact that the Conservatives gave the impression they were going to stand up to Europe much more than the previous Government, and that they were going to seek opportunities not only to repatriate powers but to reduce the amount of money we give to the EU and to pursue all possible ways to clip the European Commission’s wings. Why, therefore, has it come to pass that they seem to be simply acquiescing in so much that goes on in the EU?
I do not for a moment accept that the current Government should be allowed to hide behind the playground argument that a big boy did it and then ran away. I accept that the previous Government were not without fault in this matter, but simply to say that they did it so there is absolutely nothing whatever we can do about it now is not acceptable. To their credit politically, this Government have said in respect of a whole number of policy areas that they wish to reverse the previous Government’s line, and they are taking steps to do so. Where they believe it is important, they have taken steps to undo the previous Government’s work—and I oppose what they have done—yet in this area they seem unwilling to do so. I simply do not understand that, unless they have struck a secret deal with the Liberals whereby the Liberal tail is wagging the Conservative dog.
Today’s debate appears to be largely a row among Tory Eurosceptics, with the provisional wing arguing against the official wing. I cannot accept that people I have heard speaking in a Eurosceptic fashion on other issues seriously believe that the Brussels bureaucrats are going to be terrified by the prospect of the British Government raising the issue—I can just see them running off into the bars to have a stiff drink in fear lest this issue be raised! Goodness me, if the drafters of this amendment had been serious they might have said that they urged the Government to “Stamp their foot on the floor if they do not get their way,” or “Write rude words on the toilet wall if nobody pays any attention,” because that would have much the same impact. This is a bit like a child in the classroom threatening to hold their breath until they are sick unless teacher gives them an apple. It is weak and miserable, and smacks of the Yosser Hughes phrase, “Gissa job.”
Those who drafted and signed the amendment have been far too easily bought off by the Government Whips. Perhaps some among them are deluded, but perhaps the others have set their price too low. If Members show our party Whips that we are prepared to be resolute, even though they might have told us that their current offer—or bribe—is the only one available, they will ultimately find another that might be more to our liking.
We must recognise that the eurozone’s problems are economic manifestations of political problems. The eurozone—its creation and membership—is clearly a political construct, and the admission of Greece was politically, rather than economically, decided. I think we all know that the Greeks lied about their economy in order to get into the eurozone. The problems that have now arisen have not come out of a clear blue sky; not only were they predictable, they were predicted. It was predicted that these problems would arise. Therefore, those who are now running about like headless chickens pretending it is all the fault of bad snow, leaves on the line, sunspots and other events that could not possibly have been foreseen, are doing themselves and this House a disservice. We must recognise that these are political issues that have to be handled in a political fashion.
I recognise that we have an economic interest in the well-being of the eurozone, but the Liberal position seems to be that because this is a political construct they wish to support, we have to keep shovelling in money regardless of how much it costs. I agree with those who say that we have spent enough and we must spend no more. I certainly agree with the position of the previous speaker, who seemed to be saying that we are looking for great things from this Government in terms of freezing or reducing the overall level of the EU budget. This debate should be a prelude to that argument that we must have. We should be taking a robust and vigorous line on this, in order to ensure that there are no concessions on the EU budget.
I will vote with whoever I think is most extreme on this matter. It seems to me that that is the only way we can gain Europe’s attention. Simply threatening to stamp our feet and indicate our displeasure will be brushed aside, as will simply acquiescing in the Government Whips’ bidding. This is an issue on which we must vote extremist, so that the UK Independence party does not come and get many of the Members on the Government Benches.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
We are told that the Government’s priority is to cut the deficit, and rightly so—but why, therefore, are we assuming the vast liabilities of other countries? Having struggled for the past year to cut £6.2 billion from our public spending, why do we sign up to bail-out commitments twice as great, all in order to bail out a currency we chose not to join? We have been told that the bail-outs are to help our friends, but since when do we help a friend in debt by pressing upon them a high-interest loan? A year of bail-outs has not removed the debt burden from our neighbours and friends; it has merely increased it.
We have endlessly been told that by bailing out the countries in question we are rescuing the people of Ireland, Portugal and elsewhere. I am not sure that the people of those countries quite see those bail-outs as such a salvation. Like the people of Argentina a decade ago, they increasingly recognise that their economic well-being is being sacrificed by politicians in pursuit of grandiose dreams of monetary union. We have heard how these bail-outs will buy time, but time for what? Are they buying time for the bondholders to pass the weight of their losses on to the shoulders of taxpayers? Ministers have sought to reassure us that UK liabilities for the bail-outs will be limited until 2013, but we need to look at the sheer volume of debt that needs to be rolled over in the affected countries in the next 18 months —limiting our liabilities until 2013 is little comfort to those who care to look at the maths.
We have been told that Britain will get this money back, yet at the very moment that Greece hovers on default we proceed to lend £4.2 billion to Portugal. We have also been told that there is something unavoidable about the bail-outs. It is supposedly a deal struck by the former Chancellor at the ECOFIN meeting on 8 May last year, but I can find no evidence to suggest that we sought to challenge it in the ECOFIN meeting in the week that followed. If Ministers were really reluctant participants in the stabilisation mechanism, why did the Economic Secretary to the Treasury write on 18 July last year:
“While these decisions were taken by the previous government, this Government judges them to be an appropriate response to the crisis.”?
That does not sit entirely comfortably with the idea of Government reluctance to join in the bail-outs. If this Government were reluctant about the deal that they claim they inherited, why are we promoting the senior official behind it to be the next ambassador to Brussels?
We have sat here for too long listening to what Ministers tell us. We have been fed too many bogus assurances and too many reasons that have turned out to be excuses. The bail-outs are not only ruinous and quite possibly illegal; they are indefensible. They mean that although we may not be in the euro as a currency union, we have been dragged into it as a debt union. It is not enough simply to listen to further assurances given from the Dispatch Box as Ministers regurgitate what officials permit them to say. This House needs to instruct the Government to act. It is not time for spoiler amendments designed to stop short of instructing the Government to act. It is not time for carefully calibrated wordplay intended to create the illusion of opposition to the bail-out when such opposition does not exist. There is only one way to vote today to halt the haemorrhaging of our cash. I urge colleagues to support the motion in the Lobby, and to reject the Whips’ efforts to water it down with this disgraceful amendment.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), because he talked about something that should be discussed more in this place: the plight of the people who are suffering problems because of their own Government’s mismanagement. My Eurosceptic colleagues on the Labour Benches are still against the common market—they are not really against the European Union as such—whereas the Eurosceptics on the Government Benches are, honourably, against the EU as a project. As they know, the problem I have with this whole debate is that all these manifestations have nothing to do with our being in the eurozone; they are to do with the failure of Governments to use the money that they had available, their own economic powers and the money made available to them by the EU in their period of transition into the EU to do the right things and invest correctly in the skills of their people and in the supply side of their economy, rather than spending the money on large economic projects.
For example, when we go on a cheap holiday to Portugal we can drive on excellent motorways directly from the airport to the place where we will lie in the sun, and the hotels and large boulevards will have been paid for by EU money. However, the young people of that country fail to get a decent education, proper skills and university places. The reality of these countries is that they have under-invested in their own people. That criticism cannot be levelled at the UK.
The eurozone offers these countries a way out of their dilemma that, as a socialist, I do not particularly find attractive; they will be asked to cut further their budgets, which should be invested in their social infrastructure and the supply side of their economy. That will cause them great harm, but that offer will be made to them by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on because it is the capitalist model. That model says, “When you are in trouble, slash your budgets in the public sector.” Now, where have I heard that before? I have heard it from those on the Government Front Bench and from every Government Back Bencher. They have been told that every time they get up they should use the mantra about how they have to slash and burn the economy of this country—thus denying the young people of this country the chance to look for a better future—because of the problem of debt.
That situation will be the consequence for Greece, Portugal and Ireland. It is what is happening in Ireland, and the young people in Spain are worried that it will happen to them. That country is a good example of a place where major infrastructure projects have been financed by the EU and the supply side of the economy has been run down. I have met many young people in Spain who say, “It was easy to leave school at 16 and get a job building houses, but nobody can afford to buy them now. It was good money, the sun was shining and everything was going to be fine.” Suddenly, these people find that they have no skills, no jobs and no future.
Michael Connarty
I will give way in a moment.
Everything I am discussing is the consequence of the things that the Governments of these countries did; this was not about the EU being in existence and not about their being members of the eurozone. These things were done by those Governments. The offer is that the IMF, the World Bank and the eurozone countries, mainly, will bail out those countries.
Michael Connarty
I am about to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). A small part of the bail-out will be a fund, to which we have signed up, that will give a loan to those countries to help them to get over this unattractive prospect of having to face down their own people and cut their own services because of the lack of good Government management, so that they can be bailed out.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman not see that these countries are locked into a currency at a rate that makes them completely uncompetitive, which is why they have mass unemployment and why lending them money does not get them out of the mess?
Michael Connarty
I do not see that. What the right hon. Gentleman says may be a good indicator of where this debate is coming from. This is not about the European mechanism; this is about wanting to destroy the euro, to see it bust and to see it fail. If that is what it is about, people should stand up and say so; they should not lie to the people of the UK or mislead them by saying that it is about something else. People should be told the truth. I know that some Labour Members would certainly like to see the European monetary project and the euro completely collapse. If that is the agenda of Members on the Government Benches, they should say so.
The prospect I was describing is not one that I find attractive. In the modern world economy we clearly need to have a large trade bloc, probably united in some way around a monetary discipline, that faces down the problems coming from the United States of America, which is in the most unbelievable debt to the rest of the world. That country is run on the basis of its economy always being indebted to other countries. What will come from China and from Africa? That is part of this whole issue, and I hope that one day we will have the courage to move into that area, but what we are talking about is a very small loan of £4 billion, which will come back to the people of this country eventually when these countries are resettled in a new economic environment.
We hear hon. Members go on and on as if they are doing something wonderful in defending the UK, but they are not. We are talking about “beggar your neighbour” politics here and I am not prepared to vote for that. I applaud the Government for being honest and sincere about the fact that this European project either collapses or it is supported by all of us in different ways. I believe that the interest of the people of the UK lies in maintaining the eurozone and the euro, and helping countries when they fall into indebtedness. I hope that the Government will persuade hon. Members to reject the proposals before them.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I wish to preface my remarks by acknowledging the hard work and bitter battles engaged in by so many members of my party, several of whom are in the Chamber today, that resulted in the freedom that our country enjoys in not being part of the euro. That the euro has proved such a disastrous policy for members of the eurozone is evident to all. The improvements to our trade balances and the growth in our exports this year would not have been possible without the devaluation of sterling. The recovery of our manufacturing sector and the stabilisation of employment figures have been facilitated by the low interest rates that the UK, unconstrained by membership of the euro, has been free to pursue.
I share the view, in principle, that as we are not part of the eurozone we should not be bound by its bail-out commitments. That principle has, I believe, been upheld by our Government, but our Government cannot undo the commitments set in stone by the previous Government. The die was cast at the ECOFIN meeting last May when the UK agreed to the creation of the €60 billion European financial stability mechanism. That placed an obligation on the UK to underwrite emergency loans to crisis-hit member states.
Mr Cash
I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, but it was open to the Government to challenge the issue before the European Court and they did not do so. It was open to them to say that they would veto the treaty unless we had an unravelling of the EFSM, but they chose not to do so. They went for integration, not for dealing with the situation.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I shall proceed to make the point that it is no good dwelling on what our Government should or should not have done and whether the former Chancellor should have committed the UK to the EFSM. The point is that the Labour Government signed up to the Nice treaty way back and gave away our veto on the costly European bail-out funds. The decision to establish the EFSM was therefore subject to qualified majority voting and would have been passed. I am not convinced that there is any basis in law to challenge that decision.
The other question raised by the motion concerns whether the loans granted under the EFSM are being granted correctly given the requirement that they should be made in conjunction with the IMF and the other much larger European financial stability facility, in which Britain, thanks to our Government, has no obligation. Under the terms of the proposed loan to Portugal, those three sources of finance share the commitment equally. If there is evidence that the EFSM is bearing a disproportionate load compared with the other two sources of finance, the Government should raise that at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council. I cannot see any argument with that.
I contend that the situation facing Europe is so dire and potentially calamitous that we might well look back at this time and conclude that being up for a proportion of the loans distributed by just the EFSM, commensurate with our share of the European budget, was the least of our problems. The Government are to be congratulated on securing a complete withdrawal from Britain’s liability from 2013 and a very tight cap on anything we might have to underwrite between now and then—something akin to just 1% or 2% of the potential total bail-out loan facilities that might be called on by the eurozone countries. I will therefore support the amendment to the motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris).
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I speak with some trepidation from the depths of the Maastricht maestros on the Government Benches. If I may echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), it is a tribute to many people, surrounding me today and not in the House, that we are no longer part of the euro and that we have been able to establish a healthy Euroscepticism both in opposition and since we came into government.
Let me go back in history to see how we reached this sorry state of affairs. Many Members will remember the debates around the time of the Nice treaty in 2001. Indeed, there are Ministers on our Benches today who urged the Government of the time in the strongest possible terms not to sign up to the treaty as they believed it would give away any future veto on bail-out mechanisms. We were assured at that time by the then Minister for Europe that article 103 made it clear that there would be no bailing out of member states, whether that meant Britain or any other member state. I question whether the Minister for Europe at that point knew what was being done.
In May 2010, the acting Chancellor of the Exchequer signed Britain’s commitment to the temporary European financial stability mechanism. Our total commitment is 12.5% of the putative total of €60 billion—€7.5 billion, a substantial sum. Later, I shall address what that means for hard-pressed British taxpayers. First, let me move the timeline further forward one step to December 2010. As has been said several times, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that Britain would play no further role in a permanent European bail-out facility and also fought for and had implemented a number of stringent requirements for draw-downs from the existing facility.
What will this facility cost the taxpayer? As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) said earlier, it is a contingent liability. A number of things must happen before there is any cash bail-out. The entire thing has to go belly up and the countries all have to default. Given that our ranking on this debt is pari passu with the facilities put in place by the IMF, we will have a superior credit position and will be paid first in the unlikely event that there is a partial or full default. It is not a gift or a grant but a contingent liability of €7.5 billion, of which approximately €1.2 billion has been put into the facility to date. The suggestions we often hear from Members on the Government Benches that hard-pressed taxpayers will see further cuts to public services or will not see the schools, hospitals or road repairs that they have been promised are simply fiction. It is not the case.
This amount is a proportion of the EU budget and the budget is agreed for this year, so the liability is capped at this level. There is no further liability under the facility. What is the “so what” of this point? It is my belief that the action of this Government’s Chancellor has stopped Britain further sleepwalking into handouts, bail-outs, gifts or grants to the European Union. This fund is a eurozone experiment about which we have many concerns and I share the concerns that have been eloquently raised by Government Members about the long-term future direction of countries that are hamstrung by the tightness of their currency conditions and the overall problems with their economies.
A Conservative Chancellor argued for tough conditions and pari passu rating with IMF debt for this facility, the only facility in which we have involvement. If hon. Members consider the conditions under which a country can access the facility, they will see that extremely tight conditions must be met and plans must be made. Although the situation is not ideal, the Government have done far more than the previous Government to put a stop to such developments—in fact, they have done the opposite of what that Government did for 13 years. The point that has been made about fighting to ensure that there is equal draw-down from the facility is right and I believe that the amendment also calls for that.
I urge Members on both sides of the House to stop this Eurosceptic scaremongering, to focus on the facts of the debate and to ensure that we collectively never again sign our country up to the sort of bail-out mechanisms and removal of vetoes with which the previous Government left us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Andrea Leadsom. You have two minutes before the Front-Bench wind-ups.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I stand here as a big fan of Europe but a big enemy of the European Union, and I want to share a few of my passions with you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I want to share my anger at the Opposition for their failure to give us the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that they promised. I also want to share my fury at the former Chancellor for signing us up to the EFSM that has caused so many problems—the reason we are having this debate. Finally, I would like to share my gratitude to the former Prime Minister for not taking us into the euro.
I want to spend a moment talking about our friends the Europeans who find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult position. At the moment, 10-year Government bonds in Portugal are trading at around 64 cents in the euro, while in Ireland they are trading at around 66. In Greece they are trading at around 51—that is about 51 cents in the euro for Greek 10-year Government bonds—which basically means that when our European friends have to lend them money, as they will undoubtedly have to do, it will effectively be half a gift and half a loan. We in this country are extraordinarily lucky that our Front Benchers have enabled us to withdraw entirely from the bail-out mechanism from June 2013. We should praise the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for arranging matters so that we will not, over the longer term, have to suffer the price that will undoubtedly be the case for our European friends.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) for securing this important debate? This is one of those occasions that make me think that there are not just two parties in the coalition.
We need to clarify some of the history to this issue because I get the impression that certain hon. Members are labouring under a false set of impressions about the European financial stabilisation mechanism. Of course there were the ECOFIN meetings of 9 and 10 May at which the EFSM was agreed to as part of the package of measures to maintain financial stability across Europe. It was against that backdrop that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, consulted both the current Chancellor and the Business Secretary, and cross-party consensus had been gained. Those are not my words but those of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The explanatory memorandum that she signed on 15 July 2010 in her own fair hand—Justine Greening, Economic Secretary—says those words:
“cross-party consensus had been gained.”
I know it is convenient for Ministers and some hon. Members to rewrite history and to give a partial account of what happened and about these important facts, but there it is in writing. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to dispute the words of their honourable colleague on the Front Bench I am happy to give way to them.
Chris Leslie
In a moment. In a letter of 18 July 2010 to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, to whom I shall give way in a moment, the Economic Secretary also said, very helpfully, that
“this Government judges”
the EFSM
“to be an appropriate response to the crisis.”
So the official voice of the Government, according to what the Economic Secretary has written in her own fair hand, was that there was a consensus approach during the transitional period following the general election and that the current Government judged the EFSM to be an appropriate response to the crisis.
Mr Cash
Does the shadow Minister accept that the date on which that particular statement was made, 15 July 2010, was four days after the expiry of the date on which a challenge to the European Court could have been made? Furthermore, does he accept that since then the Government have insisted that they oppose the proposal of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Chris Leslie
That is an extremely illuminating fact and it would be perfectly legitimate for Members on the Government side, perhaps in private meetings elsewhere, to ask a few more searching questions about what exactly their Front Benchers have been doing in their name. Either the Minister who signed the memorandum was wrong—perhaps she was misled in her understanding or she and her officials were ignorant of the facts—or perhaps she was actually speaking the truth but was subsequently slapped down by the Chancellor.
Chris Leslie
I will not because I have only a few minutes left.
The situation has changed markedly since last May. The circumstances under which the EFSM was then agreed have altered, casting doubt on whether it is being used appropriately, as many hon. Members have said. Because of the various weaknesses shown by the current Administration in Europe, we have ended up increasingly paying more than our fair share in relation to the EFSM facility, especially as time and again the junior EFSM fund in the bail-out package has ended up shouldering up to a third of the bail-out costs, as some hon. Members have pointed out. We have found that the agreement in May regarding the EFSM sum of €60 billion would represent only 12% of the non-IMF contribution, with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the wider eurozone fund. The British liability for that was going to be only 12.5%, but the proportion contributed from the EU-wide EFSM to the Irish bail-out was greater than the eurozone proportion. The Portuguese bail-out was hardly an improvement, with one third coming from the EFSF, one third from the EFSM and another third from the IMF.
The Minister must explain to the House why the EFSM, which makes up only 12% of the non-IMF contribution, is being drawn upon to the same extent as or more than the EFSF. That forms a crucial part of the motion tabled by Back Benchers. The Minister is under an obligation at least to say why we are using the EFSM to such a high degree. That is incredibly important. It has been in the gift of Ministers to answer that question, but so far they have neglected to do so.
The EFSM was supposed to be a temporary mechanism all along. The failure of the Government to push forward with a permanent mechanism, despite opportunities to do so, is an abandonment of UK interests. The temporary emergency EFSM was only ever meant to be a short-lived interim arrangement. We should have been moving on as quickly as possible to a permanent eurozone-only mechanism. Why has the Chancellor failed to press his European colleagues to sort out a permanent eurozone-only fund more urgently?
The Chancellor attended an ECOFIN meeting on 18 May. The Financial Secretary attended ECOFIN on 8 June last year, the Chancellor on 13 July, the Chancellor again on 7 September and the Financial Secretary again on 30 September, yet the press releases from each of those ECOFIN meetings suggest that not once did Ministers raise the issue of pressing forward with that permanent arrangement. Can the Minister explain why not?
Mr Davidson
The shadow Minister is rightly attacking the Government for being weak and vacillating. Will he tell us what bold, straightforward and clear position he is urging us to take on the vote?
Chris Leslie
I am happy to do that. Unfortunately, the wording of the motion refers to the legality of the EFSM, and I do not think the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), would have acted illegally to sign up to it. I accept that that is a small point, but it is for that reason that we will abstain today.
We will have to revisit the issue time and again. It is hugely important that hon. Members understand the situation. We have not yet seen any occasion on which Ministers have raised the subject of moving to the permanent arrangement as swiftly as they can. They claim that they are responsible for having secured a commitment to move to a permanent arrangement in 2013. The temporary arrangements were always going to expire in 2013 anyway. So much for the famous victories claimed by the Prime Minister, the Minister and other hon. Members.
Too often we have an empty chair at the European table. Only a few weeks ago, on 6 May, Britain was excluded again from a meeting that took place in Luxembourg—the empty-chair approach was very evident when ECB officials met the Finance Ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Greece. Will the Minister say whether there was an active decision by the Treasury to continue to take an empty-seat policy, or were we simply not invited? We see in the Financial Times that Swedish officials are concerned that the Prime Minister is not pressing harder to prevent key decisions from being made only among eurozone members. Will the Minister say what we are doing to stop being sidelined at that European level?
We know very well that that temporary fund was needed. We recognise that it was part of a concerted pan-European action, standing together against the global forces that threatened the bond market with contagion. That is especially the case now in the eurozone. We have to acknowledge that we have trading partners in Europe and it is in our interest to support their continued economic stability, but Britain has already paid its fair share in the stabilisation process in the case of Ireland and Portugal. The time has come for a stronger voice with real influence in Europe to ensure that British interests are properly served, which must mean a swifter move to a permanent eurozone-only bail-out mechanism.
The fund was always due to expire in 2013. That was not Ministers’ doing; it was the original design. We know that Ministers were involved in the cross-party consensus during the transition from the previous Government to the present one. Ministers cannot wriggle out of their responsibility now in relation to the EFSM. The Government are on extremely shaky ground and even their natural allies are questioning the coalition’s leadership. The issue will no doubt return on another day.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate. I will start by setting out our view, which is that responsibility for sorting out the problems of the euro area ultimately rests with euro area Governments. We are not members of the euro area, so it is not our responsibility to deal with all its problems. However, no one should be under any misapprehension about the importance of the euro area to the UK economy.
A strong euro area means a growing market for our goods and services. A weak euro area puts at risk jobs and businesses in our constituencies, as my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) noted in their contributions. More than 40% of UK exports are to the euro area, and we know, as has been repeated ad nauseam, that we export more goods and services to Ireland than we send to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. We have a clear interest in ensuring that the problems in the euro area are resolved and that the right mechanisms are in place to do so, but it is not our responsibility to sort them out and it is right, as the amendment makes clear, for us to find a permanent solution that does not require us to contribute to this.
Mr Hoban
If my right hon. Friend will be patient with me, I want to respond to some of the important points raised by a number of Members who have contributed to the debate. If I have time at the end, I will take interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said that taxpayers had contributed £12.5 billion to bail out euro area states, but that is simply not the case. Let me explain why. The European financial stability mechanism is funded by the European Commission borrowing from capital markets, and it is only in the event that a beneficiary member state defaults that the EU budget, and so the UK, will be called upon to contribute. The UK does not fund the EFSM, which is a contingent liability. Not a single pound of taxpayers’ money has gone into the EFSM. On Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has said, we have made a loan, not a gift or a grant, and we expect to get our money back. Not a penny of the money that we have saved through spending cuts has been used to make that loan.
Let me go back to the events of a year ago. Europe faced a crisis, with concerns about the stability of Greece, and in the May ECOFIN meeting the EFSM and the EFSF were created. They were created at the height of the Greek crisis, in exceptionally turbulent conditions, before the Government took office. Markets were increasingly questioning the EU’s response to the situation. Indeed, there were fears about the stability of the entire euro area and the risk of contagion was real and dangerous. European Finance Ministers decided to create a broader package to restore confidence and stability. ECOFIN agreed to establish the EFSM and at the same time euro area Finance Ministers agreed to create the much bigger EFSF, which is backed entirely by euro area countries and does not create any liability for the UK.
It is worth reminding hon. Members that, although the Greek crisis triggered the creation of the new mechanism, the EFSM was not used by Greece. The Greek rescue package was financed by the IMF and a series of bilateral loans between individual euro area member states and the Greek Government.
The EFSM was agreed at ECOFIN by qualified majority voting and before this Government took office, and Cabinet Office protocol was followed throughout. At the time, in a conversation with his predecessor, the current Chancellor made his views on the EFSM clear and cautioned against committing the UK to proposals that would have a lasting effect on the UK’s public finances. Members need not take my words for it; the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) gave his recollection of the conversation to the House on 15 December 2010:
“I discussed with the Chancellor what we should do about the financial stability mechanism. He had his reservations and stated very clearly that he was against deploying it”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 954.]
That exactly matches the account given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Mr Hoban
No. As I said earlier, I want to make some progress on the matter.
My right hon. Friend was also clear that, in the days prior to the formation of the coalition, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West was still the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the UK in a dynamic negotiating environment, and it was for him to reach that decision.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) quoted an extract from an explanatory memorandum, and yes there was consensus between the parties about the process, but not about the outcome—as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his statement to the House in December. It was a matter for the previous Chancellor to decide, and he was the man occupying the office at the time.
Some of my hon. Friends have today articulated concerns about the use of article 122. The EFSM was created following agreement by a qualified majority of member states at the ECOFIN meeting on 9 May 2010, and the terms of the mechanism are set out in an EU Council regulation. It is based on article 122 and states:
“Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional circumstances beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned.”
The Council decided that in those circumstances those criteria applied.
Several hon. Members have raised the issue of article 125 of the treaty, the so-called “no bail-out” clause, but article 125 does not preclude member states from providing loans to one another, and, as evidence of that, the EU’s balance of payments facility has already provided medium-term financial assistance to a number of member states.
Over the past year, we have had to deal with the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have made sure that the permanent arrangements to sort out the euro area are the ultimate responsibility of euro area member states.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that his goal at last December’s European Council, where he secured two significant victories for the UK. First, he made sure that article 122 could not be used for euro area bail-outs in the future. Secondly, he ensured that the UK would not have to contribute to the European stabilisation mechanism, the permanent mechanism that will replace the EFSM and the EFSF. As the Prime Minister said, we have a good “belt and braces” approach—a no need, no use approach.
Mr Hoban
If my hon. Friend allows me to continue for a few minutes longer, I may be able to take some interventions.
We ensured that the recitals—the preamble—to the decision by Heads of State and of Government at the March European Council stated that article 122
“will no longer be needed”
and “should not be used” to ensure financial stability for the whole euro area once the permanent mechanism is in place.
In shaping the debate about the ESM, we had clear priorities. First, we had to ensure that there was no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU. We would never have accepted such a transfer, so the treaty change applies only to euro area member states, and only euro area member countries have to contribute to the rescue of other euro area countries. There is no transfer of power, competence or, indeed, funds from the UK to Brussels under that treaty change, but that judgment will not be for Ministers alone.
Mr Hoban
I have two minutes left to conclude my remarks and to respond to the very detailed questions that hon. Members on both sides have raised, so I should like to continue to do that.
The treaty change was agreed at the Council in March and will have to be ratified according to the process set out in the European Union Bill. Ministers will need to make a statement explaining why the treaty change does not transfer power or competence from the UK to Brussels, and Parliament will need to pass primary legislation before the UK can ratify that change.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend and his Committee have a particular view on the legality of the arrangements, but as I have said there was a clear view that article 122 could be used in those circumstances.
Although we have had to live with the decisions of the past and the EFSM, we have fought to free our nation from the constraints of those decisions in the future. We will not have to contribute towards a European rescue of another euro area member state once the permanent ESM comes into force.
I believe that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) captures the essence of our position. As a consequence of the action taken by the previous Government, we are part of the EFSM. This Government have had to ensure that we are outside the scope of the permanent mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already delivered that commitment at the European Council in December. I hope that my hon. Friends recognise that the action we have taken has freed the UK from the obligation to take part in future bail-outs of euro area member states.
Mark Reckless
So the Treasury agrees that this is unlawful, but it is not going to do anything about it.
In the debate, it was suggested that these bail-outs were a rounding error. My constituents do not believe that £500 per household is a rounding error. It was also suggested that perhaps these moneys are going to be paid back and there will not be defaults. Well, if Members believe that, why do they not invest their own money rather than that of their constituents? My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said that it would be possible to get a return of 50% or 100%. Does not that suggest that we will not be getting our money back?
Today Members face a choice. If they believe that it is sufficient to urge the Government to raise the issue, then vote yes to the amendment regrettably tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). If they believe that we need to put a stop to these bail-outs and say, “Enough is enough, it is our money, we did not join your currency, and we want our money back”, then vote no to the amendment. I am disappointed to hear that Opposition Members will not be joining us in the Lobby on this occasion. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) put his position honourably; perhaps one day he will have a leader who will lead. For now, however, the position is that these bail-outs continue and our constituents’ money is being thrown away—good money after bad.
This is an opportunity for Members of this House to stand up, to look our constituents in the eye, and to say that we voted no to the bail-outs. Please vote no to the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I put it to you that the Backbench Business Committee is in fact not being allowed to operate as was clearly originally intended when it was established? Because the motion was amended, the Committee was unable to allow the House to vote on the motion that it had selected for debate. What advice can you give to the House on how that matter might be rectified so that in future, as on Opposition days, the motion is voted on before the amendment is taken? What advice can you give to enable that to happen in future?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I recognise that there is a lot of frustration at the way the motion was dealt with today. However, things have been carried out in order. I am sure that the Leader of the House will reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and think about them, but I am also sure that he will speak to the Committee to see whether there is a way forward for everybody. Hopefully, some amiable agreement can be reached in future, if that is the desire of the Committee.
Mr Davidson
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does that not demonstrate quite clearly that this set of Government Whips is just as bad as the previous one?
Spring Adjournment
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that we will now have a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches right across the piece.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
I move the motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. It uses the Hollobone method.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I have been asked by Mr Speaker to remind him of his ruling yesterday, when he said:
“I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point…It is important…that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 653-654.]
I trust the hon. Gentleman will not test the patience of the Chair today.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
We will now move on to debate issues that relate to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Two Members are listed to speak and when the Minister has replied to them, we will move on to the general debate. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that those who wish to take part in the general debate should stay seated at present and once the Minister has spoken we will move on. I remind Members that we have a six-minute time limit and I remind the Minister of that, too, as Ministers are supposed to be as brief and succinct as we expect other Members to be.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I note that the other subject in this small section is that of Christians in Iran. I was just reminiscing with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) about how when we were born in Aden in Yemen we were Christians in an Arab country and how well we were treated by the people of South Yemen, as it then was.
It breaks my heart to come before the House yet again to talk about the crisis that is occurring in Yemen. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), on the Front Bench, because I want to pay tribute to him, to the Foreign Secretary and to the Government for the amount of face-time and focus that they have given to the situation in Yemen. I am very grateful for that, because the globe is very big and Yemen is a very small country. Ministers and the Government have spent an enormous amount of time in ensuring that this House, the rest of the country and, indeed, the world are focused on these issues.
As I speak, the crisis in Yemen is deepening. We have been told for a number of days that the President is about to sign an agreement, which has been brokered by the Gulf Co-operation Council led by the Saudi Arabians, on his making a dignified exit so that a new Government consisting of members of the opposition, some of whom are not involved in politics—a kind of Government of national unity—can take power. Each time I meet Ministers in the Palace of Westminster they brief me on what is happening and tell me what they know, which is that the President is about to sign. We had thought that was the case just 24 hours ago, but then we heard that our ambassador John Wilks had been penned into the United Arab Emirates embassy in Sana’a as he and other dignitaries had been preparing to go to the presidential palace to witness the signature of the President, which did not happen. Now the crisis is getting deeper and deeper. We already have a political crisis that could well lead to civil war in Yemen, which we had before and which ended with the reunification of southern Yemen and northern Yemen to create the state that currently exists. We also have a humanitarian crisis: 40% of Yemenis live on less than £1.25 a day, there is 50% illiteracy and 7 million people do not have enough food to live and survive in Yemen every day. That is why this political crisis has become a military crisis and it is also a humanitarian crisis.
When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee early last week, I asked him to do one thing: to see whether there is any way in which our country, which has an honourable record in such matters, could send an envoy to try to bring the sides together. What I have heard from my contacts in Yemen—I have visited Yemen almost every year since my family left in 1965 and certainly every year that I have been a Member of the House—is that Britain’s role is absolutely crucial. Whether it is through Britain working on its own, the UK working within the EU, or the United States of America working with EU partners and our country—whichever mechanism we have—we need to try to fill this vacuum, because if we do not there will be civil war in Yemen.
We are told that the death of Osama bin Laden has led to the appointment of a new person to run al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and we know that he, Anwar al-Awlaki, is in Yemen. There is a danger that unless we deal with this situation now, al-Qaeda will have an even greater hold on that country and will be part of the process by which it is driven into civil war.
Every time I have talked about Yemen, I have talked about a crisis and said that it is worsening. Every time that things get even worse, I think that they have reached a stage at which they will not get worse, but they do. My one plea to the Minister, therefore, is that he continues his efforts, for which I am very grateful, but looks carefully, as the Prime Minister promised to do when he answered my questions at the Liaison Committee last week, into appointing an envoy who can try to bring the sides together so that we can have peace in that very beautiful but very sad country.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I was particularly pleased to hear his comments about how well he was treated as a Christian growing up in an Arab country, which provide a sorry contrast with what I am about to say about Iran.
I am grateful to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Elam Ministries for the briefing that they have given me in advance of today’s debate. I approach the subject with a degree of humility, conscious that this country has not always got right either the treatment of other faiths or the treatment of other Christian denominations, culminating in the Act of Toleration which we passed in 1689. We have made improvements since that time.
Yesterday in the House a famous footballer was named. In the course of my remarks I shall mention the names of eight Iranian Christians who are currently in prison for no reason other than their faith. Iran wants to persecute Christians in secret, but I believe the world should know and show its concern for what Iran is doing. Christianity has been present in Iran since the second century. We find crosses on coins from around 50 AD, and in the seventh century Iranian missionaries travelled to central Asia, India and China.
Christianity has been protected officially since the 1979 revolution. Article 23 of the Iranian constitution states: “The investigation of individuals’ beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.” Iran claims that there is religious freedom, but the reality is very different. In spite of that, the Church has grown and there are possibly hundreds of thousands of Iranian Christians today. What we see is a lack of tolerance, oppression and persecution. Open Doors puts Iran at No. 2 on its world watch list of the most severely persecuted countries in which Christians live; North Korea is No. 1.
Christian leaders must report to the Ministry of Information, which demands lists of members of churches. There are regular threats and intimidation. It is illegal to distribute Bibles. The Bible Society was closed down by the Government in 1990. The Iranian authorities have burned Bibles that they have confiscated. In May 2010 they burned hundreds of Bibles and New Testaments intercepted on the Iraqi border. In October last year more than 300 New Testaments were taken and burned by security forces on the Turkish border. Only three months ago, on 7 February 2011, 300 New Testaments were seized by authorities in Salmas, in West Azerbaijan, and publicly burned. Many of us in the House and around the world rightly condemned the attempts by the Florida pastor, Terry Jones, to burn the Koran, but I am not aware of any political leader in Iran—Islamic or otherwise—who has condemned the burning of Bibles. I hope Muslim leaders in the UK will condemn the practice.
Since the mid-1980s Christians have faced arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for their faith. Mehdi Dibaj was in prison for nine years between 1984 and 1993, mostly in solitary confinement, before being sentenced to death for his faith in 1994. Later that year, he was murdered after his release from prison. There has been escalating persecution and an increase in arrests in 2010 and 2011, with 282 known arrests of Christians in 34 cities since June last year.
In prison, Christians are subject to solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, interrogation—particularly about the location of Christian leaders—threats of execution and harm to their family, verbal and physical torture, and lack of medical treatment, and they are called on to renounce their faith. Prisoners are often required to hand over large sums of money and surrender the deeds to their houses to try to get out of prison.
Mostafa Shokrollahi and Khalil Yar-Ali were imprisoned on 15 January 2011. Noorollah Ghabitizadeh was imprisoned in Dezfool on Christmas eve, 2010. Farshid Fathi was arrested on Boxing day 2010. Even though his family raised $200,000 in bail, he is still in prison. Vahik Abrahamian was imprisoned in Hamadan on 4 September 2010. Masoud Delijani was arrested on 17 March this year. Abrahim Firouzi was imprisoned in Robat-Karim on 11 January this year, and his family cannot afford the $40,000 in bail demanded of them. Yousef Nadarkhani was imprisoned in Rasht on October 2009 and sentenced in November to death by hanging. He is currently awaiting trial before the Supreme Court. If the sentence is upheld, that will be the first execution for apostasy in 20 years, a very worrying development.
Such treatment seems to be officially sanctioned. Ayatollah Khamenei has talked disparagingly about the spread of the network of house churches. On 4 January this year, the Governor of Tehran, Morteza Tamadon, announced the arrest of 39 evangelical Christians whom he described as “deviants”. Apostates can be referred to the revolutionary court.
I request the UK Government to be active in calling for the release of those in prison for their faith, to call for the investigation into how the Iranian Government use the death penalty for apostasy, to denounce the use of intimidation to curtail religious freedom, and to call on Iran to fulfil its constitutional provision for religious freedom and address its rhetoric and constitutional discrimination against religious minorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I thank my friends on both sides of the House, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for raising these two subjects, which are difficult and disappointing for us all. Both speeches were a measure of how much the House depends on the good briefings that Ministers get in this place from colleagues whose knowledge of a subject can be deep and long lasting and which comes with great passion and from the heart. We could not talk about Yemen without being briefed by the right hon. Gentleman, whose contributions we are all fortunate to have.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the difficulties of the current crisis in Yemen. I could have given nearly all of his speech from here, as his appreciation of the background to the current situation is entirely accurate. Yemen matters to the United Kingdom for a variety of reasons. It is a place of strategic importance, we have a history there and it faces a number of challenges with which this country, not alone but with others, has been engaged for some time. There are territorial disputes in the north and the south of the country and a chronic economic crisis that is being worsened by the political crisis currently besetting it. The security crisis very much relates to the presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has a significant presence there, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
As a result of those various factors, the international community has supported Yemen in a variety of ways. The Friends of Yemen group was started towards the end of the previous Government’s period of office, and we have continued it. It is a group of international partners, including those in the Gulf, the United States, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as significant partners, that work together with the Government of Yemen to try to find a way through the various political, economic and security problems.
Much has hung on the individual character and personality of the President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in office for 32 years. As this year has gone on, it is clear that his legitimacy as President has been called into question. Protests from the people have mounted, opposition parties have expressed their concerns more volubly and the army has divided. Sadly, the protests, the aspirations for greater political freedom and the prospect of change to a more constitutionally based system of rule have been met with increasing violence and a number of deaths, the toll of which rises week by week.
The international community has reacted by working with those elements in the region to see whether there is any answer other than Ali Abdullah Saleh stepping down from power after so long. We all conclude that it is not possible to see an end to the problem without his leaving. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, attempts have been made to find a way for the President to leave that will allow a peaceful transition as part of a constitutional process. It will not be simple and lots of work will be needed with the various parties in the transitional process to work towards an expression of democratic freedom and the election of a new President and a new Government.
Time after time, the President has come close to signifying his own support for such a system. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was correct to say that the Gulf Co-operation Council and, in particular, its new general secretary, Dr al-Zayani, have been instrumental in putting together the most recent document, and significantly over the past few days every other possible signatory to such an agreement has signed it. The President’s own party, the Opposition parties and those who could play a part in the process have agreed to and signed the document. The last piece of the jigsaw was to have been put in place on Sunday, when the President was due to sign, but for the third time he came close to the wire and withdrew from it.
Keith Vaz
We have an opportunity, because the President of the United States is in the UK and meeting the Prime Minister. Indeed, I saw this morning that they had written a joint article for The Times. If there is a British-US initiative, perhaps there is a chance that on a conference call the President of Yemen will listen. Could we consider that?
Alistair Burt
May I give the idea some thought? I must reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the United States is clearly engaged in the situation, as are the rest of us, but the point is that the GCC and its general secretary came so close, and we should back them. The President of Yemen was almost there, and the signature was almost on the document. We believe that that is the best hope.
All the other parties seem to agree that the transitional process, which could be put in place by signing the document, allows for a 90-day transition period and offers guarantees to the family of Ali Abdullah Saleh, is the best hope for the future. It is also the President’s best hope and the best hope for the peace in the region. We are worried about reports that armed tribes are going into the capital, because that increases the risk of confrontation between the various bodies. The situation is absolutely immediate; it is ongoing as we speak.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct also to talk of the atrocious pressure put on ambassadors on Sunday, when the United Arab Emirates embassy was surrounded in a clear attempt to intimidate people and to prevent the President from signing.
So, we know where we are, and on the subject of the envoy the House should trust us. We are already heavily engaged, and our ambassadors to Yemen have repeatedly played a major role in working with others. For the time being, we will get behind the GCC and work with it to achieve a signing. We will continue to play a very important role, and I will continue to bring the House up to date as often as possible—and as needed. We all hope that sooner or later the saga will end, particularly for the good of the people of Yemen, who deserve to have the matter brought to a conclusion so that their country can enter a new chapter. If the President, by his own actions, leads a peaceful transition, he will have been of great service to his country at this time.
I turn briefly to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, who rightly raised the difficulties of Christians in Iran and will have spoken for a variety of other minorities. We remain very concerned about the treatment of Christians and several other minorities—religious, ethnic and linguistic—in Iran. The ongoing systematic persecution of minorities contravenes all Iran’s most basic obligations to international human rights standards, and it deprives thousands of the chance to practise their faith without hindrance or fear.
I commend to the House the publication by Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2011”, which is the latest edition, in which there is good information about the human rights records of many countries. In that aspect of the regime, as in so many others, Iran makes depressing reading. The report states:
“Authorities announced that security forces had arrested more than 6,000 individuals after”—
the disputed elections of—
“June 2009. Hundreds—including lawyers, rights defenders, journalists, civil society activists, and opposition leaders—remain in detention without charge.”
The list of executions is longer than any other country’s except China’s.
Christians, as my hon. Friend said, are a minority protected by law in Iran, and in bilateral meetings in Tehran and in London we repeatedly call on Iran to respect the rights of all who choose their own faith and method of worship. We have also worked with our EU partners and through the UN to highlight those issues for the wider international community and to put pressure on Iran to fulfil its obligations to the Iranian people. We are aware of unconfirmed reports of the burning of Bibles in Iran. The UK wholly condemns the desecration of any spiritual or religious artefacts or symbols of faith, including scriptures. Given that Iran heavily criticised Terry Jones, the American pastor who planned to burn the Koran last year, we call on the Iranian Government to end the hypocrisy and religious intolerance.
The demanding of large bails in Iran is sadly a common problem shared by all who feel the persecution of the system, which is designed to put on pressure. We are aware of those mentioned by my hon. Friend who were victims of the round-up and the crackdown on house churches after Christmas last year. That increased policy of detention continues to be a cause of great concern. Although we understand that the majority of those detained have been released, a number remain in custody, and we continue to believe that there were no legal or moral grounds for their initial detention—a point that we have made repeatedly to the Iranian authorities. Such intimidation on the grounds of faith and practice of worship should stop immediately. We call on Iran to allow all members of all faiths freely to participate in open worship.
We continue to work for the betterment of human rights through international institutions. The EU recently agreed to sanction Iranian individuals for human rights abuses, and the UN Human Rights Council voted at the end of March to install a special rapporteur to report on the human rights situation in Iran and to make thorough recommendations to the Iranian authorities, the Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council.
The comments by my hon. Friend and the case histories that he has dealt with sadly give the lie to the Iranian regime’s claim to be the voice of a republic with moral underpinning. Hypocritical in its support of protests elsewhere and condemned by its execution policy, the regime remains a sad disappointment to millions of good Muslims everywhere and, in particular, to the Iranian people, who deserve rather better.
General Matters
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
We now move on to the general debate. I inform Members that 17 speakers are listed to take part. I remind everybody that the time limit is six minutes; we will do our best to try to get everybody in. I call Eric Joyce.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be very brief and make just one or two points. I can either speak very quickly or stick to the quality.
I want to speak about social media and the issues that have arisen in the past couple of days. Yesterday, the Attorney-General general said in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Justice that he would create a Committee. I presume that that would be a Committee of both Houses involving cross-party membership, but I am not yet sure how it is going to be put together. So far, the debate has had two primary variables at its heart. On the one hand, there has been the legal side, with much discussion among the usual lawyers. In fact, as far as I can see, there are only three or four lawyers in England, because they keep appearing on Channel 4 News, Newsnight and every other news programme. I will not name them, because that is not in vogue at the moment. I do not dispute that the law is a very important dimension. The other dimension is privacy, which people feel variously about. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about issues relating to a certain newspaper empire. To be honest, I have lesser, or different, concerns.
Both aspects are important, but what has not been aired is the issue of technology. At the moment, the court and legal system—and, indeed, Parliament—is finding itself in a tricky position over privacy, injunctions and so forth because of the way technology is racing ahead through social media applications such as Twitter, Facebook and many other platforms; I will not run through an advertisement for all the rivals. The fact is that they exist and that there is the potential for information to circulate with astonishing speed. As the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary said yesterday, it would be wrong for us in this place to say, “That’s the law, it can’t be enforced, so we just ignore it.”
Lord Neuberger’s report, which seemed a pretty reasonable effort, revealed some of the difficulties. Post that report, in the past couple of days, the Lord Chief Justice has tried to create some balance and reflected on the fact that some of the stuff that is said on the social media is taken pretty lightly. People gossip on the high street and at work, and that can sometimes have implications. Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that such gossip can have a legal status so that someone who took part could technically be taken to the civil courts for slander or, if they wrote it down, for libel. Social media merely—I say “merely”, but I know that there are significant implications—transfer that to the internet. One thing that the Lord Chief Justice said—I like to call him Judge Judge, because it is a great name, like the one in “Catch-22”—was that it is a simple fact that people do not give as much weight to information that they see on Twitter or wherever, because often it is wrong. It is patently obvious from recent cases in the media that some of the names that have come out have been wrong.
We might be tempted to say that one just has to accept that this is gossip on the internet, that that is life, and that there is nothing that the law can do about it. However, as the Attorney-General said yesterday, we cannot do that. There are many instances in which we could say that one should just accept that because we cannot implement a particular law in every case, it is not worth having. However, that is not a general position that we accept. We know that we cannot prosecute everyone who ever commits a crime. Nevertheless, it is important that the principle is there.
The argument about emerging technologies and what will come next is terribly important. I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Communications Act 2003, which was the original Ofcom legislation. More recently, I took part in the debate in the House on the Digital Economy Act 2010. It is clear that it is difficult to legislate for new and emerging technologies, because one does not have the foggiest idea what will come next. Twitter is only two or three years old. We have no idea what there will be two or three years down the line. It is difficult to legislate for, or to take into account in the current debate, what will happen two or three years down the line. I want to emphasise that point, I hope it will be taken up by the Joint Committee when it comes into being and considers its position.
When I and other people say that we have to reflect on what is possible, we are not negating the actuality that there have to be laws under which people can be pursued if there is a particularly bad breach of an injunction, or whatever. The fact is that it is enormously difficult to close the stable door once the horse has bolted. That is not a statement of hopelessness. We have to think not just about Twitter, although that is what most of the debate has been about, but about the emerging technologies just down the road—there are many and I could bang on about them at great length, but I will not because my time is almost up—and they will inevitably impact on the deliberations of the Joint Committee and on the further discussions that will no doubt take place in this House.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I am pleased to raise the general issue of tourism policy and some specific examples of places to visit in my London borough of Bexley.
The UK tourism industry contributes significantly to our economy. Large and small businesses, charities and other organisations play a part in generating interest in our villages, towns and cities, from bed-and-breakfast owners and walking tour operators to historic sites, museums and galleries. They directly provide some £52 billion of our GDP and 4.4% of our jobs. Tourism is one of our fastest growing sectors. It creates jobs across our country, from city centres to the most rural communities. Regrettably, tourism in suburbs such as Bexley is under-promoted and is not as successful as it could be. I believe that more can be done in that area.
We have tremendous opportunities to promote England as a place to visit. The recent royal wedding highlighted London’s attractions, including Buckingham palace, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster abbey. Those who watched it on televisions around the world or within this country will have seen our historic streets. It was an excellent advert for London, which in my opinion is still the greatest city in the world. The London Olympics and Paralympics next year will be not just a month-long festival of sport, but an opportunity to encourage more people to visit London.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for tourism in our country. Does he agree that we should look at the VAT rate that is applied to accommodation? In this country, it is the same as the general rate, whereas in our competitor countries, it is far lower.
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will note it and take it back to the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers.
The Government’s tourism policy is an important long-term strategy that will help the tourism industry to develop further and capitalise on its strengths. I welcome the establishment of the £100 million marketing fund and its ambitious aim of attracting 4 million extra visitors to the UK over the next four years. If that can be achieved, there could be substantial economic benefits of some £2 billion, with the possibility of some 50,000 new jobs being created. That is an excellent example of how Government and the private sector can work together for the benefit of our whole country.
I was rather disappointed to learn that only one fifth of the population take breaks of four nights or more in this country. If more people could be encouraged to go on holiday in the UK, to match the number holidaying abroad, £2 billion more could be generated for the tourist industry, and some 37,000 more jobs could be created. That would be a real benefit to our economy, and I believe it would be enjoyable for all those taking part. I still think that Britain is best for tourists and for holidays.
I hope that Government policy is not just about bigger towns and cities. I should like to encourage more domestic and international visitors to come to my borough of Bexley, to enjoy our historic, cultural and entertainment facilities. For a start, there is Danson House, in my constituency, a grade I listed Georgian building that was purchased by Sir John Boyd in 1753 but not completed until 1766. The principal architect was the highly regarded Sir Robert Taylor, who was involved in the design of many significant buildings, such as the Bank of England. The site was landscaped by Nathaniel Richmond, who was once Capability Brown’s assistant.
When the house was purchased by English Heritage in 1995, it was in a dilapidated state, as it had regrettably been allowed to deteriorate. English Heritage’s investment, in partnership with the Bexley Heritage Trust, has been invaluable, and both must be commended for their work to enable the house to be opened to the public. Visiting it is a fantastic experience, and I recommend it.
I also recommend that visitors walk around the magnificent Danson park grounds. With the lake, the conversion of the stables into a pub, the investment in new play facilities and the refurbishment of the Boathouse restaurant, it has won multiple awards, and I believe it is the best park in London. In fact, it recently received the gold award for safety.
A short walk from there will take visitors to the Red House, the one-time home of the artist, textile designer and writer William Morris.
Mr Evennett
He was, but he did good work as well in a different area.
The Red House was Philip Webb’s first building as an independent architect, and it was completed in 1860. It featured ceiling paintings and wall hangings by Morris and furniture painted by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and it is a fantastic experience. It was purchased by the National Trust in 2003, and I recently had the pleasure of touring the house with its new manager, James Breslin. I am confident that the National Trust will ensure that it remains open for people to enjoy for years to come. It is another gem in suburban Bexleyheath.
Another historic property in my constituency that is open to the public is a grade I listed building and former stately home called Hall Place, which is part-Tudor and part-Jacobean and has fantastic gardens. Extensive work has recently been undertaken to ensure that it can be open for all to enjoy. I have been to a number of functions there, and the sense of history is incredible and the mixed architecture impressive and interesting.
There is also the beautiful and historic church of St Paulinus in Crayford. It was built in the 12th century, but there is evidence that there has been a church there for more than 1,000 years. It is located at the top of Crayford hill, on the mediaeval route to the continent, and pilgrims stopped there on the way to Canterbury for respite and care. The church is the burial place of Elizabeth Shovell, the former wife of Sir Cloudesley Shovell, who was Admiral of the Fleet during the reign of Queen Anne. The former Surrey and England cricketer John Shuter is also buried there. Shuter once opened an innings with the legendary W. G. Grace, and his grave has recently been restored and rededicated with the help of the Friends of St Paulinus Church, Bexley cricket club and Surrey county cricket club. The living churchyard is a place of peace and tranquillity among the bustle of suburban Crayford.
In the same century in which St Paulinus was built, Lesnes abbey, in the north of our borough, was founded by Richard de Luci. It has been suggested that it was built as penance for the murder of Thomas à Becket, in which de Luci was involved. The abbey ruins are located in Lesnes abbey woods and are worth a visit.
Bexley has an awful lot to offer tourists both domestic and from abroad. I have highlighted just a few reasons for a visit, and I believe that we should develop tourism in the suburbs. It is also one of the greenest boroughs in London, with many small parks and green spaces such as Martens Grove and Bursted woods. The Erith marshes and the Crayford marshlands can be used for birdwatching, and people can walk along the River Cray. Bexleyheath Broadway offers civilised shopping, and there are quality hotels, such as the Marriott, restaurants—Assos in Crayford is a particular favourite of mine—and pubs. We have small theatres, popular sports clubs such as Welling United football club, the Europa gym and Crayford greyhound track. It is a great place to come, and I urge my colleagues and friends in the House to visit.
There is much to do in my constituency and my borough, but importantly, I welcome what the Government are doing to encourage tourism nationally. It is a very important industry, but it is also an important facility for creating jobs—and for having a good time. I welcome what the Government are doing, but I urge them to consider the suburbs, because there is a lot going on there that is worth visiting as a tourist.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), who takes great pride in his suburb. In the same way, people in Manchester have enormous pride in what our city is all about. That is why I wanted to raise two important local issues today.
First, the Edale unit, which is a secure mental health unit, is currently located in the central Manchester hospital. Manchester Mental Health and Social Care trust specifically had the unit designed only a few years ago as part of a private finance initiative in that hospital. The strategic health authority gifted the trust some £16 million for the project, but only four years on, the trust has decided that it wants to abandon the unit and move its facilities elsewhere.
The trust proposes to move the unit to Park House—the site of the North Manchester hospital. By all accounts, that decision is perplexing. Patients, user groups, families and those involved in mental health delivery tell me that the facilities in Park House are less adequate than those in the Edale unit, particularly because the new facility will have mixed-sex wards and the accommodation will be dormitory-style, with six beds to a unit, and therefore less secure. Because the therapy provision in Park House is worse than that in the Edale unit, those people, who have very serious mental health conditions, will receive inferior treatment.
Three options were examined and appraised before the change was announced, and the move to Park House was judged to be the worst of them. In health terms, therefore, the decision is perplexing, but it might be explicable if it saves the mental health trust £1.7 million a year, as the trust says it will. Money could drive the trust’s decision because of the cost pressures in the NHS, but the decision is still unacceptable, because although the move saves the mental health trust £1.7 million a year, it will cost the wider NHS economy an extra £1.9 million a year. The economics therefore do not add up. It might be good for the bookkeeping of the mental health trust, but it is bad for the health economy.
The difficulty I have had throughout the process is that both the mental health trust and the SHA have not been open with the public. All Members of the House would regard that situation as unacceptable. Bureaucrats cannot hide important decisions behind faceless decision-making processes. No Member of Parliament would accept that for their community, and I certainly do not accept it for mine. People in my community suffer from extraordinarily high levels of mental illness, and we need the provision of a facility that is in keeping with the very best, and not simply with the second-best, as driven by narrow financial needs.
I have asked to meet the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and I hope that happens before final decisions are made. However, I want to emphasise that the process has been inadequate and unacceptable to local people.
The second issue is on another, very different, NHS facility: the Ancoats walk-in centre. Hon. Members often use superlatives, but my constituents in that area have some of the worst health of any people anywhere in the country. The area needs first-class health facilities. The walk-in centre was finally delivered to the Ancoats community when the former Ancoats hospital closed, which was quite a number of years ago now. There was a commitment to making health provision available for the non-chronic conditions that are so common in such areas. The health planners now intend to close this facility, thereby breaking the promise made when the Ancoats health facility was closed. That is particularly galling because the decisions were made long before any public consultation. I have a copy of the in-house magazine in February telling staff that the decision to close had been taken, yet the public consultation only began last week, on 16 May. That is unacceptable.
I repeat that the people in the Ancoats area have some of the worst health indicators not just in Manchester but across the country. The proposed relocated unit—in fact, they are closing the unit and claiming it is a relocation—is more than four miles away, which, for people with no access to a car or other private transport, means a journey by public transport or walking. However, of the three bus services available, one requires an 18-minute walk and the other two require bus changes. For those who need health care they can walk to, which they have come to expect in recent years, the alternative unit simply is not adequate. I appeal to the Minister to tell Health Ministers that bureaucrats cannot do this to communities. Bureaucrats need to answer properly to communities.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I wish to raise several points. The “Panorama” programme last night reinforced my view of FIFA. It is a totally corrupt organisation. We were humiliated in the bid for the world cup. I hope that our representatives will not vote for either of the two candidates, and that we will withdraw from FIFA. I am a lifelong supporter of West Ham and am delighted that we have got the Olympic stadium, but I feel badly let down, along with other supporters, by the management. It is very sad indeed. I have come to the conclusion that some footballers are overpaid, some are oversexed and others underperform, unlike hon. Members.
The winner of the Eurovision song contest, Azerbaijan, was a lot of rubbish. I think that Blue had the best record, and that Eurovision has become totally farcical. We should withdraw from the Eurovision song contest and have a proper contest between members of the G20 instead.
I am looking forward to the Olympic games. As hon. Members know, Southend has the longest pier in the world and a wonderful athlete, Mark Foster, whom I hope will be allowed to run down the pier with the torch. It is all very well that the torch will be going to the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), but we want the flame to be shown in all its glory in Southend too.
We recently held the Southend version of the Essex Factor. A young lady called Lucy Urquhart won the contest, and I have no doubt that she will become an international celebrity. Last week, I had the honour to be nominated by Naturewatch for an animal charity champion award. I pay tribute to Naturewatch. It is a wonderful organisation, and it brought to my attention the problem of puppy farming. A quarter of the British people own dogs, and it is a disgrace that we have these puppy farms churning out five or six litters each year. We should do something about it. The current law is not being enforced. It is no good having a review or putting in place a code of practice. We want the current law enforced.
Last week, I think, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, came to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about using live animals in circuses. He was given a bit of a rough time. It is completely unacceptable that wild animals are used for circuses. I hope that the Minister here today will take that point back to the Department to ensure that we do not use live animals in circuses anymore.
I was totally dissatisfied with the 2001 census in Southend, which left off 20,000 people—we have been paying for it for the past 10 years—and I am unhappy to tell the House that I do not believe that the present census was conducted satisfactorily in Southend either. The local authority, which has done a fantastic job, has assured me that it has not been well-handled by the Office for National Statistics, which seems to be in complete denial. Our Minister—the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—has done a wonderful job, but I fear that we shall be going to appeal on the census.
We have the highest number of centenarians in the country, and buses are very important for elderly people. Sadly, we depend on subsidies to run certain bus routes, and we have just had the First bus company cut the No. 24 bus. I very much hope that the Minister responding to this debate will have a word with that organisation so that the No. 24 can be restored.
I had the great honour of being the chairman of the all-party small business group. Small businesses throughout the country are struggling at the moment, particularly in Leigh-on-Sea. More publicity should be given to the reduction of rates for small businesses. We also need to do something about the empty property relief that we used to have.
I welcome the English baccalaureate. It is good that we are concentrating on core subjects, but it is not acceptable that religious education is not included in the English baccalaureate. I have received representations from St Thomas More high school, St Bernard’s high school and Westcliff high school for boys, and I hope that we can have that restored.
Jo-Jo Cranfield is a very talented athlete who was born with one arm. Hopefully she will be representing us in the Paralympics, but it is absolutely disgraceful that disability living allowance has been withdrawn from her, and it has also been suggested that she have a further part of her arm amputated. I hope that the Minister can do something about that.
I am receiving increasing complaints about the Child Support Agency. It seems to be for ever blaming things on the computer—always a good excuse when things go wrong—so I hope that the Minister will have a word with the appropriate Department.
Finally, as far as fisheries and fish discards are concerned, the common fisheries policy needs to be reformed urgently. It is an absolute disgrace that Leigh fishermen are being penalised by quotas and having to throw away far too many fish.
I wish everyone a very happy Whitsun.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and his skip around his constituency, which has left us all exhausted.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, which I secured to draw attention to concerns raised by a number of my constituents—residents and business owners alike—in Walsall South. Many are finding the council’s approach to parking restrictions and enforcement extremely stressful. They are effectively being harassed as they go about their daily lawful business. I want to cover three areas: fines and enforcement; the council’s attitude; and the case of Cyril Randle.
The story starts on 7 March, with parking charges being introduced on Ablewell street, Lichfield street and Station street. The restrictions cover a total of 310 parking spaces. Previously, people had been able to park free for two hours while they used local businesses on those streets and in the surrounding area. However, under the new rules, drivers are charged 20p for every 10 minutes, up to a maximum of two hours with no return. The charges are in force from Monday to Saturday between 8.30 am and 6.30 pm, excluding bank holidays. For now, there is nowhere free to park in town. There are fines of £50—they are reduced if paid before a certain time—yet the notices on the parking meters do not specify the amount. The restrictions and charges are very rigorously enforced. Several wardens walk down the affected streets each hour. Anyone late by one minute may be liable for a fine of £50. Some 670 drivers were issued with tickets within the first eight days of the charges being introduced, which equates to almost £3,500. Over the month from 7 March to 7 April, 1,700 parking tickets were issued. That equates to £18,000 of parking fines.
Local businesses are suffering and have reported losses as a result of the new restrictions. I have received a petition, which I will present at the end of today’s debate, supported by more than 700 signatories who oppose the new rules from NE Sandwiches, Smart Cut, Super Car, Ablewell Fish Bar, Pure Therapy, Hair of the Dog, News and Booze, and Traditional Settings. Some have already experienced a drop in trade of up to 30%, and others as much as 50%. The owner of News and Booze said:
“Nobody is going to come here and pay an extra 20p every ten minutes to buy a chocolate bar, a sandwich, or get a haircut.”
The GP’s surgery on Lichfield street is also being affected, with one of my constituents given a fine even though he had an appointment there. There are a number of residential properties on Station street. No exemption is made for residents to park their cars or for people making deliveries. Life in Walsall town centre is getting difficult. Mr Papanicodemou told me:
“If no action is taken, we feel that it will lead to the collapse of many established businesses, which would result in numerous empty shop premises. The eventual outcome of this will mean a loss of business rates to the council and also increased unemployment in the area.”
What does the council say? Its justification is that it is looking at the competing demands and the current arrangements to deliver the maximum wider benefit, while also contributing to the cost of providing and maintaining parking facilities, but that is not what the businesses have asked for. Balancing the need to pay for and maintaining parking facilities is not a relevant consideration in making the decision on this scheme. There has been no consultation or justification for the scheme. The council accepts that there has been a decrease in the number of people using town centre car parks. Of course there has! Businesses have said so, and trading figures suggest that people are abandoning the town centre. Now the new art gallery is closed on Sundays. What incentive is there to go into the town centre?
The case of Cyril Randle involves the salutary tale of an over-zealous enforcement officer and a council that would not back down until the court hearing, in the face of no evidence. Mr Randle came to my surgery to ask me to warn my constituents of what could happen to them if Ministers extend the powers of traffic wardens to cover offences such as littering or to stop moving vehicles involved in motoring offences. In 2006, Cyril, then aged 75, was apparently spotted spitting chewing gum from the window of a white Golf. The council had many of its facts wrong—not least that Mr Randle had not done the thing of which he was accused. On the day of the hearing, the council offered not to prosecute, on the grounds of Mr Randle’s age and ill health, but he wanted it on the record that he was innocent. Representatives of the council did not turn up. His solicitor asked that all charges be dropped, and the magistrate agreed that Mr Randle was innocent. Throughout the whole process, the council never issued a fine. It had no evidence. Indeed, the driver’s side window of Mr Randle’s car was broken and would not open.
In conclusion, what is required is, first, public information about ending littering, rather than making vehicle owners responsible for litter thrown out of a car. Secondly, the council must not use car parking and enforcement for raising revenue. The Department for Transport’s operational guidance states:
“The objective of civil parking enforcement should be 100 per cent compliance, with no penalty charges”.
This was revised in November 2010. Instead, the council should allow people to pay for the time used, just as they do in large shopping malls, rather than giving them a short amount of time and penalising them for being one minute late. I have already written to the Government’s new high street tsar, Mary Portas, and invited her to visit the Walsall high streets. On behalf of my constituents, I say: give the highway back to the residents who pay their council tax, and give the high street back to the residents, so that they can linger, shop and visit the new art gallery.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
In the Backbench Business debate before the Christmas recess, I spoke about magistrates court closures, and about how the Government, instead of following their localism agenda, were unjustly moving services away from some local communities in the name of efficiency and effectiveness. I firmly believe that delivering services locally can enhance efficiency and effectiveness rather than being their antithesis. So, as the Government, the regions, and those who commission and provide health services grapple with difficult budgets and soaring demands, I urge the Government, and particularly the key health stakeholders in my county of Surrey, really to think through how community hospitals could help to deliver improved health care at a local and accessible level and in a cost-efficient way.
My constituents in Woking, Pirbright and Normandy are generally well served when they travel out to the two acute hospitals located on either side of the constituency—St Peter’s in Ashford and the Royal Surrey in Guildford—but I am particularly fortunate to have Woking community hospital at the very heart of my constituency. It is an excellent local facility, receiving 110,000 visits each year. It provides assessment and rehabilitation, audiology, ophthalmology, physiotherapy and X-rays, and the nationally respected Bradley unit offers a neuro-rehabilitation service for patients with multiple sclerosis and other disorders.
The doctors, nurses and staff are incredibly dedicated, and the hospital is also supported by the Friends of Woking Community Hospital, whose 350 members have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund additional improvements and projects. These have included diagnostic equipment for the early detection of glaucoma, electronically operated beds and the construction of two conservatories that provide patients with a quiet, light-filled space. They even provide newspapers for long-stay patients of the Bradley neuro-rehabilitation ward. A major legacy has recently been bequeathed by Sir Alec Bedser, a long-term Woking resident, and I am sure his generosity will be put to good use. This amazing level of dedication and support is difficult, though not impossible, to replicate at the larger institutions and provides a real catalyst for future success.
I would argue that community hospitals such as the one in Woking that already have a certain size and critical mass and already have the experience, the space, the good buildings and infrastructure to offer a broad range of services to a reasonably large local population—even though they are not immediately adjacent to a main acute hospital—have enormous potential to expand their existing offerings and deliver excellent health care right in the heart of their communities.
What I am championing is the idea of a lead or a hub community hospital that offers a wider range of truly local health care, which could help to take some of the pressure off our over-burdened acute hospitals. For example, with the right medical staff on hand and good co-ordination with the ambulance service, most low-acuity ambulance calls could be dealt with at hub community hospitals. There could be an extension of medical cover at the hubs, including into the evenings and weekends, so that a wider range of sicker patients could be seen there. What about a rapid access centre, where a consultant would see and assess elderly people within one or two days to save them being sent to A and E or a busy acute hospital? Perhaps there is scope at one or two of our larger community hospitals for a temporary intoxication and related minor injuries unit. I believe that community health services can play a leading role in developing home nursing services to complement local hospitals so that patients can be released quicker to be supported at home, thus releasing hospital beds for new patients.
To its credit, NHS Surrey has held discussions about the future for community health. Let us be clear, however: over the next few weeks or months, I would like to see three things. First, I want a firm commitment that Woking community hospital will be a lead or hub hospital, albeit initially on a pilot basis. Secondly, I want some details on the service provision that is going to be enhanced and how it can be integrated with other local services. Finally, I want a commitment to funding that recognises the important future role that community health services and key community hospitals should have in Surrey.
The Government have increased the primary care trust’s baseline budget by over £30 million for this year, so the plan to reduce spending on community health services by 1.5% is worrying and difficult to justify. I believe that moving more activity to community settings has a major role to play in the future clinical and financial sustainability of the Surrey health system—a view that seems to be shared by NHS Surrey—but the rhetoric about treating more patients in the community must be backed by action and by funding.
In the Woking community hospital, I have a very fine local facility. I want to see it enhanced over the coming years and I believe that NHS Surrey should support me in that endeavour. I believe that the Government and health authorities generally should also look at supporting community health right in the heart of their communities.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on what I see as a key public health issue. I shall consider the health impact of cold homes and fuel poverty. Parts of my constituency are more than 1,200 feet above sea level; our winters can be icy and our houses chilly. We wrap up warm in the valleys, but this is no substitute for a snug energy-efficient home.
People know that cold homes are bad for our health, but cold can also kill. Michael Marmot, our pre-eminent public health expert has said
“A winter death certificate may say ‘death due to heart attack’, but very often cold was a key factor.”
This truth must be addressed to tackle the health impacts of cold homes. The most recent figures from the Welsh Assembly Government show that 25% of households in Wales are in fuel poverty, which means they have to spend 10% or more of their net income to heat their homes adequately.
I recently attended the launch of the Marmot review of the health impacts of fuel poverty, and I want to highlight some of its findings. It found that fuel poverty
“negatively affects children's educational attainment, emotional well-being and resilience.”
It also found that
“More than 1 in 4 adolescents living in cold housing are at risk of multiple mental health problems compared to 1 in 20”
young people in warm housing. Sadly, at the most extreme end of the spectrum, there were 25,000 excess deaths due to cold in England and Wales in the winter of 2009-2010. Our rates are higher than those of many other European countries, including the most northerly Scandinavian countries. Poor heating is leading to poorer lives for far too many people. As Sir Michael Marmot says,
“Inequalities that are avoidable are fundamentally unfair—fuel poverty is avoidable and it contributes to social and health inequalities.”
Our challenge is to align our health and environmental agendas, and to create jobs as well. A Shelter Cymru report estimates the total cost of bringing all poor housing in Wales to an acceptable standard at around £1.5 billion, half of which is needed to deal with cold homes.
Maximising take-up is an absolute must. National Government, the devolved Assembly, local authorities and health workers all have a role to play, and Members of Parliament can help with publicity. The coalition Government have said that they will deliver their green deal and the energy company obligation in the autumn of 2012, and the Minister confirmed to me last week that the ECO would be focused on fuel poverty and hard-to-treat homes. I think that the ECO should target a reduction in excess winter deaths, and in particular ensure that private sector tenants benefit from investment in energy-saving measures.
UK-wide schemes will be important in helping Wales to meet its ambitious targets. The Welsh Assembly Government already give a high priority to fuel poverty reduction. Its strategy was launched at the Coed Cae estate in Nantyglo in my constituency. There, social and private housing is being retro-fitted with external cladding to make homes more fuel-efficient. I want the Government to work with the Welsh Assembly to deliver for the people of Wales. In Blaenau Gwent, Tai Calon, our largest provider of social housing, is spending £9 million on updating heating systems and working with E.ON to invest up to £10 million in energy efficiency, and 1,000 homes will be given new double-glazed windows. In an area of high unemployment, it is important to ensure that local companies are used for those upgrades.
According to my local newspaper, the Gwent Gazette,
“the Valleys consistently come top of the leagues that no one wants to win”,
which include those for rates of heart disease and premature death. If the area is to move down those league tables, tackling fuel poverty must be an obligation. We must ensure that people take up what is on offer. I was appalled when National Energy Action told me that 10,000 households, a third of the Blaenau Gwent total, were missing out on their entitlement. That is the highest percentage in any constituency in Great Britain.
MPs must play their part. I saw the benefits for pensioners recently when I visited Margaret Jones in Ebbw Vale, whose new central heating system had been installed under the Welsh Assembly’s scheme. NEA has a fuel poverty action guide that MPs can use to help constituents. I have written to the chief medical officer for Wales to ask what action is being taken, and whether the Aneurin Bevan Health Board is playing a referral role to help local people with home heating problems.
Ambitious targets are critically important. The investment in public health, a priority for the 21st century, is as important as clean water and clean air were in the 20th century. I want the Government to be active and drive the agenda very strongly, and to work in partnership to make a massive improvement in the health and quality of life of the young, the chronically ill, the disabled and the elderly.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Working with the British Heart Foundation as part of the Heartstart UK campaign, I am calling for every child in the UK to be taught extended life support, so that when they leave school they are capable of saving a life. I want every child, and eventually every adult, in the UK to be able to do the following: recognise an emergency; contact the ambulance service immediately; administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and use an automated defibrillator. This campaign has received overwhelming support from across the medical, teaching and charitable communities, including from the following organisations: the British Medical Association, Research Councils UK, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee, the PSHE Association, SAD.org.uk, and Cardiac Risk in the Young—CRY.
I am passionate about the issue of extended life support—ELS—because as a teenager I found my father following his heart attack, so I know just how essential it is to have these skills. I am far from alone, as there are 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK each year. Currently, only about one in 12 sufferers will survive; that means 27,500 people are dying in the community, some of whom could have been saved. On average, it takes about six to 12 minutes for an emergency ambulance to reach a critically ill patient. For every minute that passes in cardiac arrest, the patient’s chance of survival falls by 10%. However, if immediate CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—is given, survival rates increase threefold.
The great shame is that most people are simply not able to help individuals in cardiac arrest. All too often, passers-by simply hope that someone else will act. By training and educating individuals we can radically alter this situation. I have heard horrific stories of crowds gathering around with no one willing to step in. Thankfully, the evidence clearly shows that with training, lay people can overcome the psychological barriers and manage the patient until more advanced and experienced personnel arrive.
What I am asking for will take only 0.2% of the school year. It takes less than two hours fully to train a young person in ELS; that is the equivalent of just one physical education lesson. The training is straightforward. The recent meeting of the all-party group on heart disease, even I managed to breeze through it, as did my staff. The training can be broken into three levels, and even the most basic form of training can make a difference. For example, the body has enough oxygen in the blood so that even basic-compression CPR would be sufficient for 15 minutes, which is longer than the average ambulance response time. These skills will remain with people for the rest of their lives. We will instantly create a new generation of life savers, and they can pass their skills on, so it is a win-win situation. We have the evidence that this will work. It will allow us to change the prognosis for this devastating condition, saving thousands of lives a year.
My request is not new. Norway, Denmark and France already have this as part of their national curricula. The American Heart Association has decreed that no child who is non-proficient in CPR should be able to graduate from secondary school. The British Heart Foundation already has more than 900 schools actively engaged in the Heartstart campaign, helping train thousands of children in these essential skills. This campaign needs to be extended to every school, and with that in mind I have already met Dr Peter Crouch of the Taw Hill medical practice, and Swindon borough council, to look at ways to ensure that it is extended to all the schools in my North Swindon constituency. I urge all MPs to do the same.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that I recently visited the St John Ambulance team in Brierley hill in my constituency to see the fantastic work that it does with schoolchildren on this very subject. Will he join me in congratulating that organisation on its work?
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely; it serves as an excellent example and it should be encouraged. All MPs have a role to play in encouraging such work.
Life support makes a real difference to survival rates. Training takes less than two hours, with the skills remaining for life. Through education and empowerment a new generation of life savers will be created, saving thousands of lives a year. I very much hope we can now ensure that this is made a compulsory element of a child’s education, and thereby create an army of life savers with the confidence and skills to save many lives.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I wish to discuss the threat to heritage buildings in my constituency. Two months ago, a planning application to build a large hotel development encompassing a 500-year-old listed building, the Dower house, in the village of Harlington, was refused by the London borough of Hillingdon’s planning committee. Two weeks ago, the Dower house was consumed by fire and the police are investigating a suspected arson attack. This is just another example of what feels like the almost industrial-scale destruction of heritage buildings in my constituency.
We all value a sense of community where we live and a sense of belonging, and part of that sense of community is about valuing our local heritage. Local buildings all tell their story of how our communities developed, and are cherished for their architectural beauty and histories— the stories they tell us. This country has a proud history of protecting its national heritage buildings and sites, and I pay tribute to the work of English Heritage and bodies such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and the National Trust. But the battle to save our heritage is now being fought out ferociously in the suburbs of our cities and towns; it is the battle for local heritage buildings. These buildings are often unheralded and unsung wonders that lift our hearts when we discover them and their histories.
Although valued by local people, local heritage buildings, especially those in London suburbs such as mine, are being hit by a tsunami of urban sprawl and intensive pressure from property development. In my area, many of those buildings are still just about standing as beacons of beauty and historical interest, but they are at severe risk, as listed by English Heritage, from developers and neglect by their owners, and they are vulnerable to council asset-stripping sales or a lack of public investment.
I wish to cite three examples, in addition to Dower house, the first of which is the Harmondsworth great barn. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings described it as perhaps the greatest surviving mediaeval barn in the country, and John Betjeman dubbed it the “cathedral of Middlesex”. When its owner went into administration a number of years ago, the local council unfortunately failed to purchase it for £1 and it passed into the ownership of a Mr Robert Noonan. He owns it through a company called Harmondsworth Barn Ltd, based in Gibraltar. Under his ownership the barn has been neglected, and English Heritage now judges it to be in a poor condition. We have established the Friends of Harmondsworth Barn, and as a result of much effort and lobbying by local people, English Heritage has undertaken basic works to protect the barn, but is seeking a refund in the courts from its existing owners. English Heritage has put the barn on its at-risk register and we fear that, having saved the barn from a third runway, we could lose it as a result of neglect by its owner.
My second example is Benlow works, a beautiful building visible from the railway in Hayes. It is the symbol of our local industrial heritage. It was the place where the Orchestrelle factory was; this is where people built the “Aeolian” organ players. It is a grade II listed building but it is in a sorry state of neglect and English Heritage has listed it as at risk. Our only information on the owner is that the building belongs to the Freshwater Group of Companies in Shaftesbury avenue, London, but the council and English Heritage have failed to get any response from the owners to a request to improve the building, despite offers of support, including an offer of a significant grant to refurbish the building.
My third example is Golden Crescent library, a lovely building originally built by Mrs Emily Shackle in the late 19th century as a mission hall in memory of her late husband. Middlesex county council opened it as a local library in 1933 and it served generations of my constituents until last year, when Hillingdon borough council closed the library and opened a new one. Despite promises to preserve the older, listed building for community use, it is now to be sold off for development as flats and most of the building is to be demolished. The façade may remain but we will, unfortunately, lose the cherished building.
I have given just a few examples of heritage buildings at risk in my area. Our community has tried everything to protect our heritage. Working with the excellent council officers Charmian Baker, Sarah Harper and Nairita Chakraborty, two years ago I convened a local community conference to discuss our local heritage. Local residents have gone out to map and research the buildings and sites to update the council’s heritage list. We have set up the Hayes and Harlington Conservation Panel, as well as friends groups for each of the buildings under threat. But despite all this we are still under attack, and I fear that we are, at times, fighting a losing battle.
My appeal is therefore for assistance at all levels of government and from other agencies that could become involved. First, I appeal to the Minister for an urgent meeting to discuss the heritage sites in my constituency, because I fear that without urgent intervention we may lose some wonderful buildings. I fear the cuts of 30% that English Heritage faces, given that more than 400 buildings are at risk in London, but I appeal to English Heritage to refocus on the London suburbs such as Hayes and Harlington. My appeal to the local council is for it to stop asset stripping and to work with the local community to protect our heritage buildings. My appeal to the owners of these buildings, particularly those I have named, is for them to contact me and work with our local community to preserve these buildings. We need powers, resources and co-operation from all levels of government and society if we are to preserve our local heritage. Once demolished, such buildings are lost for ever for future generations. We cannot let this happen.
Mr Speaker
Order. The time limit is six minutes, but I emphasise that the wind-ups will begin at 6.40 and eight Members are seeking to catch my eye. Hon. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves, and a certain self-denying ordinance would be helpful.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is not the only one who has difficulty protecting his local heritage. We have that difficulty in rural areas too. Indeed, I rise tonight to express the deep anger, disappointment and dismay across my constituency that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has approved a mass burn incinerator for the village of St Dennis in the heart of the constituency.
There is anger because a Government who make much of their localism agenda have overruled the wishes of the local parish council, the former district council and the former county council’s planning committee, and ignored representations from Cornwall’s six MPs. There is disappointment because the Government have fundamentally undermined their claims to be the greenest Government ever. There is dismay because the incinerator is the wrong solution to Cornwall’s waste problems and might dominate the small village of St Dennis for four decades to come.
Let me put the incinerator in context. At 120 metres, its stack is twice the height of this building’s famous Clock Tower, which houses Big Ben, and taller than the Statue of Liberty. It will dominate a small Cornish village and will be seen from many of Cornwall’s beauty spots. As we enter an era of global warming, Cornwall’s incinerator will belch out thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions and other harmful particulates.
We know that inefficient incineration, in which the energy is not used, does not move waste up the waste hierarchy. It remains a disposal in the same category as landfill. It is therefore out of step with Government policy, but that is what is happening in Cornwall, and that is what the Secretary of State has approved. The incinerator will generate more than 200 extra fuel-guzzling lorry movements on Cornwall’s lanes and roads each and every day. It will depress reuse and recycling rates. Incineration has never been the right solution for Cornwall, only the quick fix for a council caught in a blind panic.
The difficult circumstances in St Dennis mask the great strength of the people. They have put up a tremendous fight against the plans in what has always been a David and Goliath situation. They are not nimbys and since 2005 they have only ever wanted a modern solution to a modern problem. They have fought with only half the information that other sides in the dispute have.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House directly whether waste private finance initiative contracts and the potential liabilities to which they expose local authorities will now be material considerations in planning policy, as the inspector’s report suggests? Does that not fundamentally undermine the plan-led approach that the Government want to adopt? How can development be plan-led if local people who have no control over the contracts signed by a local authority will always be trumped by the provisions of that contract? How can it be right for a document for use in a public inquiry to be redacted? There should be no document needed for a public inquiry that is not available in full to all participants. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend asked his colleagues in the Department to write to me on those points.
The community in mid-Cornwall is angry. Our faith in the democratic process has been shaken to its core. How can it be, when we have won our case every time we have put it to local decision makers, that our Secretary of State, who is responsible for localism, has overruled the local decision makers whom he says he seeks to empower? There is no doubt that Friday was a sad day for democracy in Cornwall, for Cornwall’s beautiful environment, and for future generations who will look back, bemused, at the folly that has been imposed on them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I, too, would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I apologise to any Members who were present when I spoke in the pre-recess debate last month, as I must return to the issue of antisocial behaviour which I raised on that occasion. After I last spoke on the topic, I received a full and considered response from the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention, for which I thank him. I am glad that he agreed that
“Much of what is described as ‘anti-social behaviour’ is actually crime, and it has a huge impact on the quality of life of millions of decent people”.
The Government are on the right track in recognising that the current measures for dealing with antisocial behaviour are bureaucratic and ineffective and that the solution lies in giving the police and local agencies more effective powers to deal with the problem at a much more local level.
I am saddened to report to the House that the constituents I mentioned in my last speech on this topic are still suffering at the hands of a few thugs who believe that they can do as they please and that they are above the law in waging their campaigns of intimidation and abuse. Just last week a crowd of about 20 were involved in intimidating a resident who said, “I have lived here all my life and this has got to stop!” The crowd followed my constituent down the road to his home where more youths arrived in two cars. Neighbours called the police who, instead of dispersing the crowd or, heaven forbid, making arrests for disturbance of the peace at the very least, simply chatted with the crowd in a manner that my constituent described as jolly and friendly. My constituent reported the matter to the district chief superintendent, who replied that he had asked a colleague to respond, but no response has been received so far. I am hopeful that when a copy of Hansard arrives on his desk, sent from my office, the response will be forthcoming more quickly.
I look forward to the Home Office’s response to the public consultation, but in the interim I expect the local police and local agencies to make full use of the current powers for tackling antisocial behaviour and to offer the most effective means available of protecting victims and communities. It is easy to see why there is a perception in some quarters that nothing can be done about this sort of crime, but something can be done, as it was done in New York by Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In one of the most crime-infested cities in the world, he achieved real success. He realised that
“Reducing the number of crimes wouldn’t be enough: people had to see improvement, not just hear about it. If crime went down but the existing amount of pushing and shoving, urinating on the streets, and other quality-of-life issues remained the same, we would never have a convincing case that life was better. We had to get people to be safe and to feel safe.”
When people feel safe, antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated by the community. Only when the local police achieve that will we see the trends of antisocial behaviour begin to reverse. I have more to say but I know we are stuck for time so I shall finish.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I would like to update the House about the progress on a subject that has become something of a preoccupation of mine of late: the private finance initiative. Members will be familiar with the details of the PFI, including its cost, complexity and lack of transparency and the level of advisory fees involved. The issue affects almost every constituency in the land and therefore almost every Member of the House.
As hon. Members will be aware, there have been far too many scandals for comfort over the years. Let me refresh our collective memory with a few choice examples. The Ministry of Defence pays £22 for each of its 100 W light bulbs. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that the project to widen the M25 took nine years simply to procure, that the cost was likely to be in the region of £1 billion too much and that the advisory fees alone were in the order of £80 million. It is an interesting fact that under the Building Schools for the Future programme, secondary schools were required to have atriums, as though they were multinational corporations, at colossal cost. One might ask why that should be so, but so it was.
Members can take their pick as to their preferred PFI scandal, so it is little wonder that the campaign to secure savings on the PFI now has 70 Members from across all major parties in the House. The campaign is not about tearing up contracts, but about renegotiating them, locating savings without a loss of services and sharing future rewards more equally with the taxpayer. Since the campaign was launched last year, we have made huge progress. The Department of Health is looking very hard, through what it has referred to as its “deep dive”, at its costs at Romford hospital, from which it hopes to infer a programme of cost savings that can run across the entire PFI hospital network. The MOD has reopened contracts at Corsham and two other facilities. The Public Accounts Committee is holding a hearing next month with key players in the industry to find out what has gone wrong, and I am pleased to say that the Treasury Committee—my own Committee—has held an inquiry and is holding a hearing on that inquiry’s findings, focusing on alternatives to the PFI.
In recent months I have had extensive meetings with industry, with Ministers and officials at the Treasury and Cabinet Office, and with the National Audit Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for his intervention in that regard. I have had meetings extensively with the different players in the industry—the contractors, the developers, the banks, the service providers and the advisers—and I have been surprised by the positive response from those organisations. There is clearly a high level of interest in working with the Government to remedy some of the evils of PFI over recent years and setting the stage for the much improved use of private finance in the future.
However, it is important for colleagues to note that some firms remain outside the process. I will mention some in particular. Innisfree, which has been a very big PFI provider, has decided to bury its head in the sand. That organisation has been associated with some of the most lucrative deals for the private sector. It had a profit last year of 53% of its turnover. Sodexho is a very large national service provider, whose exorbitant costs I drew to the attention of the House last year, in relation to Hereford hospital in my constituency.
I draw the attention of the House to the performance of the advisers as a group—the law and accountancy firms, which have not participated so far in the process. It is striking that no matter how many transactions are done, the advisory fees on PFI deals have not fallen at all over the past 15 years.
I shall be approaching the Backbench Business Committee on 7 June for a full debate on the subject of PFI. I very much hope that as many Members as possible will join the campaign if they have not already done so, support my approach to the Committee, and speak in that debate.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Two weeks ago the Danish company Vestas announced that it had signed an option for 70 hectares of land at the port of Sheerness. That option opens up the possibility of Vestas setting up a factory in my constituency to manufacture its next generation wind turbine, the V164-7.0. Vestas is considering locating in the UK because of the immense growth prospects for offshore wind-generated energy in this country, but let us not be under any illusions: Vestas has plenty of alternative options on the continent.
Vestas has already made a substantial investment just to secure the land option in Sheerness, and I am convinced that it is ready to move that option to a full lease as long as it sees firm commitments from customers. Of course, potential customers will not be willing to provide those buying commitments unless there is sufficient market and regulatory certainty to ensure a long-term viable business case. I am calling on the Government to provide that certainty and to create the conditions that would enable Vestas to secure the orders for the V164, which would give it the confidence to turn the option for land at Sheerness into a full lease, start building its factory and create much needed jobs in my constituency.
I have already discussed the situation with Vestas and it is looking for a number of assurances from the Government before sealing the deal. It wants to see a support mechanism that is specifically adapted to the needs of the wind industry, as opposed to trying to make wind fit within a one-size-fits-all solution. Such a support mechanism is key to making offshore wind a long-term, cost-competitive component of the energy mix, and needs to be designed very quickly and set at a level that drives continued investment from Vestas customers. In addition, Vestas need reassurances that the UK’s offshore wind ambitions will not be moderated. It wants to see mechanisms in place to avoid any prolonged hiatus in investments as a result of the electricity market reform proposals. It wants the Government to set firm and ambitious targets, specifically for offshore wind generation, and not only to 2020, but beyond to 2030. Finally, it wants timely decisions on planning applications not only for offshore projects but for the enabling infrastructure, such as grid connections and substations, which would provide more market certainty and increase investor confidence.
If Vestas sets up its factory on Sheppey, an estimated 2,000 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs will be created. On behalf of all those in my constituency who would benefit from those jobs, I would like to ask several questions. First, how do the Government plan to provide Vestas with the necessary conditions that would encourage it to make that major investment in the UK? Secondly, what are they doing to overcome the obstacles that the offshore wind industry faces? Thirdly, what are they doing to ensure that investment like that proposed by Vestas comes to the UK and does not go to countries such as Germany or France, which no doubt would welcome it with open arms? Fourthly, how can the UK maintain its position as global leader in offshore wind energy and secure the jobs and economic benefits that go with it?
Fifthly, why are the Government opting for an electricity market reform package that appears to be focused on getting new nuclear power stations off the ground, rather than putting more emphasis on getting investment into renewables? Sixthly, given that the Government’s £60 million so-called ports fund, which is supposed to help upgrade port infrastructure to meet the needs of the offshore wind industry, applies only to areas with assisted status, how do the Government intend to create a level playing field so that we in Sittingbourne and Sheppey can secure Vestas investment for an area of high deprivation that just happens to be located in the so-called wealthy south-east? Finally, what can the Government do to help de-risk the potential investment by Vestas? I appreciate that those are not questions to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has ready answers, but I very much hope that he will ensure that the relevant Minister provides a response as a matter of urgency.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
In my first year in this place I have often boasted of Portsmouth’s assets: its superb natural harbour, which will soon host our magnificent aircraft carriers; its heritage; its high-tech industries; its entrepreneurial and hard-working people; and its remarkable natural history—after all, a third of the world’s migrating Brent geese cannot all be wrong.
Given those advantages, one wonders why we have not made more progress in regenerating parts of the city. In fact, there have been serious obstacles to growth in Portsmouth, but happily they are not insurmountable. However, we might need the Treasury to give us a leg up. We have suffered from the lack of a clear and articulated vision, which is unforgivable when one considers the heritage on which we can build a strong narrative for future development.
Portsmouth is the maritime heart of this country. We have the wonderful historic dockyard and the recent developments at Gunwharf and the Spinnaker Tower, but that cannot be the limit of our aspirations. We must think about the whole area; not only Portsmouth, but Fareham and Gosport. What do we want the harbour to become? We should aim high, because with the list of assets I have mentioned we could be one of the world’s premier destinations for historical tourism and maritime pursuits. I believe that the key to unlocking the potential of the harbour and to achieving a step change in regeneration for our city lies in the various surplus defence estates in Portsmouth and the surrounding areas.
One of the challenges we face is the cost of maintaining the number of historic and often listed buildings in the dockyard. That is necessary but expensive work. Pleasingly, the Government have reiterated their commitment to all three naval bases, which strategically is the right thing to do, but it is vital that those defence assets have the financial wherewithal to “wash their faces”, as the burden of heritage maintenance is an unwelcome expense when the Royal Navy has so many other commitments. Those wonderful buildings should be preserved, used and enjoyed, and there is the commercial interest and the willingness of the Ministry of Defence to make that happen locally. Alas, rules designed to ensure fair competition demand such a huge investment from would-be developers, without any guarantee of success, that Portsmouth’s historical dockyard continues to stand empty. Local residents and tourists lose out, as they cannot enjoy beautifully restored historic buildings, facilities—homes, hotels, shops and museums—or the jobs that would be created; the city loses out, as it is denied the economic growth and investment that would obviously result; the MOD and the Royal Navy lose out, as millions that might have been spent on the naval dockyard are being spent on the historic estate; and English Heritage loses out as precious listed buildings drift into decay.
I am sure that Portsmouth will not be an isolated case, and the Treasury needs to realise that investors will not hold their millions in reserve, waiting for the day when common sense prevails. They will take their money elsewhere, and not necessarily in Britain. We must make investment easier, and that will require a strategic alliance of industry, civic authorities, the Royal Navy, the MOD, the heritage sites and other organisations. On the current rules of engagement, however, such a vision and alliance is not possible.
A full competitive tendering process for such developments is not practical: the costs would be prohibitive, because it is so complex, and it would require the co-ordination of many stakeholders. It is not realistic for such a chain of contributors to commit themselves without any assurance of success, and the project stands a much better chance of being delivered successfully if, from the start, a close relationship can be established between the stakeholders and such a strategic alliance.
To insist on the full competitive tendering process would inevitably mean the project being broken down into smaller schemes, and that would be the death knell for integrated regeneration in the north and south of the city and through to Gosport. It would certainly remove any hope of coherent integration between military and civil needs. That is an important part of the regeneration programmes for cities and towns where the Royal Navy is the central employer, estate owner and provider of further employment and opportunity. Development needs to be undertaken on such a scale to achieve the necessary regeneration that will drive changes in residential and visitor perceptions.
Today, I ask the Treasury to consider increasing the geographical scope of the national insurance contribution holiday to some areas of the south-east, where extra help is needed and the potential for growth is considerable. In my view, Portsmouth is top of the list. I ask the Treasury also to recognise the damage that out-of-control business rates are doing in Portsmouth and elsewhere, and to work to provide incentives for local authorities to address the problem; to work with the MOD to ensure that bureaucracy and costs are reduced for potential development of surplus MOD estates; to examine how it can support the emergence of strategic alliances throughout all sectors in order to make such regeneration affordable and achievable; and finally to meet me and potential partners in such an alliance in Portsmouth to discuss those issues in more detail. I hope that that meeting can take place in Portsmouth, so that the Treasury can see the energy, drive, vision and potential of our city.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I begin with the case of Ian Elam of Dunfermline, who is the sole carer for his wife, Jeanie, and has looked after her for about 10 years without any respite. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and requires 24-hour care. At the end of 2009, Mr Elam was persuaded by Fife council social workers to make use of a respite opportunity, and his wife entered respite care at Queen Margaret hospital. Regrettably, the staff could not cope with Mrs Elam, and her husband had to attend to her needs for about 12 hours per day during her stay, which continued until February 2010.
Unfortunately, the Department for Work and Pensions has decided that Mr Elam should lose many of the benefits that he receives during his respite from caring. I am sure the House will be surprised to learn that, when people who provide 24-hour care take a short period of respite, they lose all their benefits. After all, no one in this House or, indeed, in the Press Gallery would expect to take unpaid holiday. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Deputy Leader of the House made some inquiries about the state of the case and report back to me at a later date.
It is fitting that I follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), as I too have a naval interest. Just this weekend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is responsible for defence procurement, wrote to many Members to inform them of the outcome of the Government’s strategic defence and security review and the refitting and basing of the surface and submarine fleets. Two Type 23 frigates, HMS Somerset and HMS Richmond, which had been scheduled for refitting at Rosyth dockyard, are now to be refitted at Devonport. I do not oppose the move—after all, Devonport has a large hole in its order book thanks to the decisions of this Government—but there is uncertainty about the future of Rosyth dockyard.
I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House is also aware of the ongoing uncertainties at DM Crombie, which faces an uncertain future when the last of the surface fleet is fitted out at Rosyth at the end of 2013, because there is a long gap until—I hope—the Queen Elizabeth class comes into service. I would therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House ascertained whether the Minister would be prepared to meet me to discuss the long-term future of Rosyth and Crombie.
In my maiden speech, I talked about Longannet power station, which is now the only bidder for the carbon capture and storage project. It has waited 12 months for a decision from this Government, and there does not appear to be one in sight. I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House updated the House on what progress has been made on carbon capture and storage at Longannet and whether the relevant Minister of State would be prepared to meet me to discuss it.
The House will recall that I have led the charge against ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth. This decision lies with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning). I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House urged him to make a decision as speedily as possible when we come back after the recess, as the uncertainty is helping no one.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My constituency is a highly rural one in which agriculture matters a great deal. It matters for jobs on farms and in the processing and distribution sectors—and of course farmers are the stewards of our land and promote tourism too. Food matters. In terms of food security, there are pressures on our population worldwide, with 6.8 billion people today, rising to 9.2 billion in 2050. The amount of land per person that was available for cultivation in the 1950s was 0.5 hectares—it is now just half that amount, and it will be down to a third by 2050. Global warming will also make farming more problematic, as will changes in dietary habits as we get wealthier and eat more meat that requires more land to produce it. That is a huge challenge.
I wish to address one or two important points regarding the challenges that face my farming community in Central Devon. Bovine TB has led to the slaughtering of 25,000 cattle, last year alone, at a cost of £63 million—something that scars the farming families who are affected. I am afraid that the previous Government sat on their hands when the Independent Scientific Group’s report was published. We now await with great interest the Government’s announcement, which is due shortly, on whether action will be taken on the provision of badger control licences. I urge them to take positive action in that respect. Incidentally, that has the support of the British Veterinary Association and the British Cattle Veterinary Association.
Milk prices are a huge issue, particularly for dairy farmers in the south-west. As recently as this February, the National Farmers Union reported that the cost of milk production was 29.1p per litre, which is above the farm-gate price that farmers are receiving. Much has been said in this Chamber about the importance of restraining the power of the supermarkets and creating an ombudsman for that purpose. I urge the Government to make good on their commitment for a groceries code adjudicator.
On red tape, we said in the coalition agreement:
“We will reduce the regulatory burden on farmers”.
I welcome Richard Macdonald’s report and urge the Government to respond to the 200 recommendations that he made by bringing forward as many of those changes as possible, including moving towards risk-based inspection of farms to reduce their onerous nature to as limited a number of farms as possible.
My final plea is for hill farmers. Hill farm incomes in 2008-09 were just £25,700 compared with over £50,000 for other farms. Hill farming is one of the most difficult forms of farming in our country; it is very tough. These are proud, resilient, hard-working people who need our support by continuing to support the higher level stewardship arrangements and stock rearing and suckler cows on the moors. I ask the Minister to let me know what the Government’s thinking is on section 68 funding from the EU, which could be directed specifically into hill farming.
I am anxious that other Members have an opportunity to speak, so I will leave it at that.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I will canter through some topical issues that affect families in the Witham constituency.
First, I bring good news for one Minister. I put on record my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport for listening to the concerns of my constituents and removing the Greater Anglia rail franchise from National Express East Anglia. Its service was appalling. She genuinely listened to my constituents’ concerns and did something about them. With the publication of the McNulty report and the ongoing work on the new long-term franchise arrangements, I make a plea to Ministers to put customer service and value for money first when awarding franchises.
Another issue is the NHS reforms. My constituency has no hospital and it asks for no hospital. However, it has two primary care trusts that have spent a lot of money over the past decade investing in bureaucrats and managers while my constituents have been left high and dry without treatments and access to local health care. That will change with the reforms. I press Ministers to stick with the principles of the Health and Social Care Bill and ensure that real investment can be made at the front line, rather than being spent on management and bureaucracy.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have had difficulties with planning issues in their constituencies, particularly in relation to Traveller sites. I have endless issues with Traveller sites and planning applications in my constituency. Ministers have had plenty of correspondence with me about this issue. I recognise that there is currently a consultation that relates in particular to Traveller circulars. There are serious concerns on this issue and I hope that Ministers will take representations from Members of Parliament and local communities, perhaps as part of the Localism Bill, and listen to genuine local concerns.
On small businesses, I have spoken tirelessly about the fact that 83% of the jobs in my constituency are in small and medium-sized enterprises. That is a tremendous figure and I would like it to be even higher. One problem with trying to make it higher is that banks are still not lending money to small businesses and enterprise is still being stifled. I make a plea to Ministers to ensure that this matter is given priority so that our wealth creators can get the private sector growing, create more jobs, and get our economy back on track.
My constituents frequently raise the sentencing of offenders and the criminal justice system with me. They are appalled by the waves of soft justice that we have seen in recent years and that it is now almost impossible to lock up criminals. In the view of my constituents, prison is there to punish people, to act as a deterrent and to keep the public safe. I urge the Government to use the opportunity of the sentencing review to restore public confidence by bringing in tougher and longer sentences for criminals to protect the public and victims.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the short time that I have, I wish to raise three specific issues.
The first issue is the plight of the Ashiana charitable trust, to which I was proud to give an award last night at the national Kids Count awards. It enables disabled young people and people with learning difficulties to fulfil an active life, and entertains people throughout London and beyond. It is sad to report that Harrow council has decided to remove all funding from that organisation. That is a national scandal that I hope the council will change, even at this late stage.
Secondly, I am a passionate about ensuring that there is growth in the private sector. I was therefore amazed to be told by a constituent who wants to set up a business in my constituency that he has attempted to register for VAT, and yet has been put on hold by the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 18 months. He would employ more than 10 people locally, and he has done the right thing in trying to register for VAT, but the answer that he has been given is that he should charge customers for VAT, retain the money and then hand it over to HMRC when he is finally given registration. He wishes to seek a business-to-business arrangement, but the other businesses require a VAT number before they will do business with him. He has been forced into a position where he cannot get premises and cannot buy vehicles, because he cannot afford to get the loan that is required until he is VAT registered. HMRC is acting as a direct obstacle to the setting up of that business in my constituency. I trust that we can see an end to that.
The third plight that I will allude to briefly has been exposed nationally. My constituent, Yvonne Alpagot, came to see me about Brentsouth Trading Ltd, which operates out of a garage in Southall. I have also raised this matter with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). My constituent found the website because she has a car with a Renault engine. The company purported to be expert in sorting out Renault engines, but she was scandalously treated. When she finally got to see her vehicle again, the engine had been removed and placed on the back seat, spilling oil all over the seat. The car had been damaged out of all proportion, and when she sought to recover the vehicle she was physically threatened by individuals in the company. She took them to court and won, but unfortunately they had closed the company just a week before she got to court.
After doing some research, Yvonne Alpagot discovered that more than six companies were operating out of a single site, and curiously enough, each of them had a number of the same directors. She found that they had closed down companies and opened them again, leaving hundreds of customers high and dry. On many occasions, they had closed down companies with court judgments against them. That is a scandal, and it needs to be put right. We need to ensure that when companies close down and there are court judgments against their directors, the directors are not allowed to start up another company performing the same function on the same site. We need to rectify that scandal.
I could go into great detail about that case, but I recognise that time is against me. What I seek, as I have said before at Question Time, is for such phoenix operations to be stopped in their tracks, so that innocent people who have no idea that those companies are trading illegally are not forced to pay thousands of pounds to companies that should not be operating in the first place.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I noticed when I looked at the list of Members who were going to take part in the debate, and examined their background in “Dod’s”, that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—I do not intend to embarrass her in any way—was once a magician’s assistant, which is perhaps not widely known. It seemed me that I needed at least a magician’s assistant to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate. As usual, I will not be able to do so adequately, and as usual I will ensure that the various Departments that are relevant to the points that have been made write to the Members concerned in due course.
Let us canter through the 18 contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who is not in his place at the moment, talked about the ongoing controversy about privacy and the difficulty of policing online social sites such as Twitter. He is absolutely right that it is very difficult, but that does not mean that there is no responsibility on either those sites or the people who use them to comply with the law. We have said previously, and I say again, that what is illegal offline is illegal online. The criminal law applies as much to those sites as it does to anyone else, and we look forward to the work of the Joint Committee that is being set up to examine those matters and the wider privacy and defamation issues.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) gave us a wonderful look at his constituency and explained the contribution that it could make to this country’s tourism industry. I have been a tourist in his constituency, so I feel rather superior. I took a weekend in north Kent recently, and I am familiar with Hall Place. What I did not know was that his constituency shares something with mine, because it contains an edifice that was built as penance for the murder of Thomas à Becket. In fact, the entire village in which I live was built as penance by Henry II, so the hon. Gentleman and I have something in common.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the capacity of our tourism, both internationally and within this country, and said that it was not just the obvious places that had something to offer. He was absolutely right, and I will ensure that he gets a full response in due course from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) raised two very important points as far as his constituents are concerned: the closures of Edale House and of the Ancoats centre. I am not clear on the extent to which those decisions are irrevocable, but it is essential that local people have a proper input into such key decisions on their health provision. That is the entire thrust of what the Government are trying to do. We want to ensure that decisions are not top-down edicts, but that they are taken on the basis of the advice of local clinicians and the local people involved. If the Government can assist in ensuring that those matters are discussed in the context of what is right for his constituency and the people whom he represents, I am sure we would be happy to do so.
I shall leave the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) to one side for a moment, and address the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who spoke about the difficulties of the parking regime in Walsall. In fact, I was well aware of those problems, because I have been reading the correspondents’ pages in the Walsall Advertiser, which draw attention to exactly the point she raised. Of course, that is a local council issue, and there is a limit to what the Government can or would wish to do, because such matters are best decided at community level. However, clearly, she has taken the opportunity to represent the views of many of her constituents, and as I understand it, she will present a petition later, which will include the views of News and Booze, which I notice decries its name by selling choc bars and hair cuts. I am sure that she represents what a lot of people in her constituency think on the subject of parking in Walsall.
I recall the contribution of the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) to a previous debate on courts. His remarks today on the importance of Woking community hospital were entirely consistent with that. He is working with the grain in this instance, because the indication is that it is felt that that hospital can play a leading role in providing health services in that part of the county of Surrey. I notice that the Surrey primary care trust has made that clear as part of its forward programme, but he is right to emphasise that local hospitals can do things that the big acute hospitals cannot do, and that they can act as a hub for provision. I am glad he took the opportunity to say that.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about fuel poverty. He may or may not know that that subject is dear to my heart and to the heart of the hon. Member for Southend West—he has previously presented legislation on fuel poverty, and I presented a Bill on fuel poverty in the last Session of the previous Parliament. I am afraid that my Bill foundered at the hands of the previous Government, who were not quite as keen on dealing effectively with fuel poverty as the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and I are. However, this Government are making real progress. The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the impact of fuel poverty on communities such as the one he represents. One thing that pleases me about our proposals is that they deal not just with the houses that it is easy to deal with, but those that are more difficult to treat. Some of the residential stock of which he spoke—in Nantyglo, for instance—probably falls into the latter category. It is essential that we do not simply go for the low-hanging fruit and the easy pickings, but ensure that we extend defences against fuel poverty to all parts of our community. I applaud him for making those points.
The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about emergency life-saving skills; that point has been raised several times recently. He is obviously right. It is essential that young people have the opportunity to learn those skills so that they can put them to good use at a later stage. I noticed that this point was raised in Education questions yesterday. I think the Secretary of State agreed that it needs to be addressed and that we need to ensure that young people have access to that information. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will continue his campaign, although whether the teaching of those skills should be a formal part of the national curriculum, or whether there are other ways of providing them in the school programme, is a moot point. However, it is clear that young people ought to have them in their skill range for when they leave school, so that they can use them when needed—and none of us ever knows when they will be needed.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about heritage buildings in his constituency. I am getting to know his constituency rather better having had two of these debates with him. What has happened at Dower house, in particular, sounds very odd. I understand that it is still subject to a police investigation, so we shall see what happens with that in due course. He mentioned other buildings in his constituency that he felt were at risk, including the Harmondsworth great barn, the Golden crescent library and others. English Heritage has indicated to me that it would be happy to meet him and others in his constituency to discuss these issues. I will also extend that request to a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see whether we can arrange something. I know that the Department, English Heritage and the Crown Prosecution Service take heritage crime very seriously. It happens far too easily: an important building suddenly goes up in smoke, often following failed planning permission. We have got to stop that; we have got to take effective measures. I am sure he will find that he is speaking to people who agree with the basic principles he has outlined.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) is clearly very upset with the decision taken on the incinerator at St Dennis. I cannot tell him anything about the decision-making process of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and nor should I say anything, because he will have acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when making that decision. However, I will ensure that the points my hon. Friend raised on behalf of his constituents are communicated to the Secretary of State. I do not know whether things have changed since I sat on an authority with responsibility for such matters, but I seem to remember that there was a two-stage process: planning permission followed by an operating licence. When granting an operating licence, further restrictions or conditions could be applied. I might be wrong, however. I will certainly ensure that his points are raised with the relevant Minister.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about antisocial behaviour, which is the curse of many of our constituencies and causes much unhappiness for many of our constituents. He is right to raise it. I am pleased that he got a good reply from the Minister concerned when he raised it previously. It sounds like issues remain to be resolved in his constituency, however, and it would be sensible were he to raise them directly with Chief Constable Colin Port, because it is clear that he is not yet satisfied with the police response. It is for the chief constable to respond on those matters.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) raised again the issue of private finance initiatives, on which he is fighting an excellent campaign. The key concern is value for money, yet it has become transparently obvious that many PFI schemes simply did not provide that. The Government are committed to ensuring that we get value for money whenever we enter a scheme of that kind. I know that he has had discussions—in fact, he mentioned them—with the Chancellor and the Commercial Secretary, and that he feels that real progress is being made. I hope that progress continues and we ensure that if we use that form of financing for public projects, it is not simply a way of getting the amounts involved off the balance sheet, but a way of ensuring that people have the services they need at a cost that is commensurate with their value. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue his campaign to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) is someone else whose constituency I feel I know much more about than I did a few weeks ago, having replied to a debate with him only recently. I know how important the Vestas investment in Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey is to his constituents. He asked me a series of questions, but accepted that I would probably be unable to answer him. He is absolutely right—I cannot—but I will ensure that his questions are communicated to the relevant Minister. What I can say is that the Government are talking to Vestas about how to assist the investment that it is thinking of making. There is a problem, in that the £60 million is not available because Sheerness is not an assisted area. There are EU state aid rules and there are difficulties getting around them, but the Government are very keen on assisting the investment, as the hon. Gentleman is, and I hope we can do everything possible to make it a reality.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about Portsmouth and the issues there. One thing that I had not known until I read the background notes to this debate is that Portsmouth is the most densely populated city outside inner London. Again, not many people know that. We need to ensure that development continues in Portsmouth. She raised the significant issue of the relationship with the Ministry of Defence, and how it might be brought on board with the local enterprise partnership and the other keys to growth in the area. If there is anything we can do to make that happen more effectively, that would make obvious sense for the interests of her constituents. I will draw the issue to the attention not only of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but of the MOD. Hopefully we can make progress. She would also like to talk to the Treasury about national insurance contributions relief, and I will pass on that request too.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) raised a number of issues. I cannot give an answer to his point about his constituent Mr Elam and respite care, but I will ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions does. As for the shipyards in his constituency, I think he recognises the fact that not every refit can take place in Rosyth—some are taking place in Devonport—but there is work there that has been commissioned by this Government and that will continue, which is good news for Rosyth. As for Longannet, this is a key issue that Ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change have been directly involved in. He asked for the relevant Minister of State to visit his constituency. I am sure that the Minister concerned would very much like to do so if he could, but the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary both already have, so the hon. Gentleman has not been neglected.
The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) talked about farming issues. He will celebrate, as I will on behalf of my constituents, today’s publication of the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. We are making real progress.
The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about various things. She was kind enough to say thank you to the Minister of State, Department for Transport for her work on rail services. She talked about Travellers sites, small businesses and sentences—issues that I know will continue to crop up. As far as hospitals are concerned, it is absolutely clear that the main thrust of the policy will survive whatever changes are made to the details.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about HMRC registration for VAT and a trust in his constituency, which are points that I am afraid I cannot answer in full.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) listed about 20 things in his speech, but I cannot talk about them now. Let me tell him, however, that I will spend the next couple of weeks writing to the relevant Departments about all those issues. Others will have other priorities, but I—
Business without Debate
European Union Documents
Parking Restrictions (Walsall)
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This petition is from the business owners and customers of Ablewell street, Walsall. The petitioners oppose the new parking restrictions on Ablewell street. There are 787 signatories to the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of the business owners and customers of Ablewell Street, Walsall,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the parking restrictions on Ablewell Street.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to allow a parking amnesty of at least 30 minutes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000923]
School Places (Finchley)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Thank you for granting permission for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must first apologise for delaying the House prior to the recess.
Education is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, as is allowing good schools to expand. On Monday the Secretary of State for Education said in The Guardian that he was going to change the admissions code to help to meet parental demand for good schools. He said:
“We hope the new admissions code allows the possibility of increasing planned admissions numbers so good schools can expand, and there will be underperforming schools that have fewer and fewer numbers.”
That is spot on, but it assumes that the popular schools are able to expand. In Finchley there is no shortage of good schools at primary and secondary level. We even have schools with the space to expand; what we do not have are the capital grants to fund the expansion. The schools in Finchley are part of the family of schools in the London borough of Barnet, and Conservative-controlled Barnet is consistently one of the best local education authorities in the country. Barnet is enthusiastically pursuing many new academies and free schools.
Before turning to the lack of capital support from the Department, I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that the council has not sat by and done nothing about the shortage of places. Several years ago, it recognised that there would be an increase in demand for primary and secondary places and, in the absence of Government support, it embarked on its own £250 million primary school expansion programme. Starting in 2004, using a mixture of prudential borrowing and capital raised from asset sales, the programme set about rebuilding, expanding and refurbishing the primary estate. Barnet is forecasting that pupil numbers in the maintained secondary sector will continue to grow, and that they will grow by 22% by 2015-16. That is the second highest growth rate in the UK. The situation is not helped by the Greenwich decision. LEAs are unable to put their own pupils first.
The factors combine to create a demographic shift that Barnet council cannot cope with—certainly not without help. Hitherto, enough help has not been forthcoming. This outstanding LEA has not been rewarded for its education record. Having delivered new schools on time and on budget, however, the authority was invited to join the last phase of Building Schools for the Future. I hold no affection for the BSF programme, as I saw Barnet council being forced into a process it did not need and could not afford, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The promised £83 million under BSF would have allowed three schools to expand and be refurbished—and two of those schools are in Finchley. The schools lost out when BSF was cancelled, so good schools and a good local education authority were penalised again.
I am sure that the capital division of the Department will argue that Barnet has received capital that it should use for expansion. I know that, because it wrote to me in forceful terms to tell me, but Barnet has received an average of just £14.6 million over the past few years for non-academy, non-children’s centre spend. That is money earmarked for new boilers, new toilets, roof repairs, rewiring and so forth—simple basic maintenance. With more than 120 schools in Barnet, that is just £122,000 per school. To put that into perspective, the cost of rewiring one secondary school alone was £1.9 million. The allocation does not go far. It is true that the council could have diverted that capital for school expansion, but is the capital team really expecting a first-class local education authority to tell parents that their school’s broken boiler or leaking roof cannot be fixed because the money has been spent on expanding another school in a different part of the borough?
The council cannot simply borrow the money. I would like to stress that borrowing approval, supported or otherwise, is no help at all. Barnet council has been on the funding floor for several years and borrowing approval is useless if the debt servicing cost is unaffordable because it falls on the general fund paid for out of general council tax. The capital allocation formula appears to need a complete overhaul. The increase in demand for state places has been seen across every borough in London. It is inequitable that London accounts for 64% of pupil place shortages and yet receives just 26% of the capital allocation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the plight of Barnet, and indeed for the whole of London. Does he agree that we are talking not only about issues related to expanding schools, but about allowing parental choice, so that faith-based schools are an important part of the equation? We have identified the need for a Hindu secondary school located between Harrow and Barnet, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to secure support for it from the Department.
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The expansion of the Hindu faith school somewhere between Barnet and Harrow would not only meet parental preference but relieve pressure on the remaining schools in the maintained sector.
To return to the iniquity of the shortage of places and the capital funding allocation, that discrepancy between 64% of places and just 26% of funding means that London is short-changed by more £300 million in the existing allocation.
The current shortage of primary places has been met by providing additional classrooms in portakabins, by changing information technology rooms and libraries into classrooms, or simply by making children travel much further to an available school space. That is not a sustainable solution.
Things are no better in the secondary sector. The area is served by the Bishop Douglass mixed Roman Catholic comprehensive school, which is over-subscribed with 383 applications for 180 places, and by the Compton mixed comprehensive school, which is also over-subscribed—and every applicant from Finchley N2 was rejected; not a single pupil could get a place there. Mr Speaker went to the Compton school—or the Finchley Manorhill school, as it was then called—but he would not get in today, as he lived too far away from it. Then there is Christ’s college, a boys-only school—again over-subscribed, with 424 applications for 150 places. St. Michael’s Catholic grammar school for girls has 370 applications for just 96 places. We also have Henrietta Barnett, a highly selective girls school, grossly over-subscribed with 2,000 applications for 180 places. Then we have Copthall, a girls comprehensive. It too is over-subscribed, and 100% of applicants from N2 were rejected simply because they lived too far away.
In the past fortnight alone I have received 200 emails from worried parents. Let me report just some of what they have said. Mrs Catherine Atkinson wrote:
“I have lived in East Finchley for 28 years. My son got into Fortismere by the skin of his teeth 8 years ago and I remember the stressful wait for the letter saying he had the place. Those not so lucky because they lived maybe 200 yards farther away from the school were offered either Bishop Douglass school or…Christ’s college.”
That would more difficult today, because those schools too are over-subscribed and full.
Mrs Carey wrote to me:
“I live in Long Lane. My daughter is in year 5 and my son is in year 4. Our position is as follows: Fortismere—we’re not in catchment and are unable to afford property prices in Fortismere catchment. Wren Academy Church of England—we are not churchgoers and we are not close enough geographically either. Compton—not in catchment. Christ’s College—we would be in catchment for our son, but that is not much help for our daughter! Bishop Douglass—it is at heart very much a Catholic school”,
and they are not churchgoers.
“Henrietta Barnet is highly selective.”
In Barnet, first preferences granted stand at just 62%, and once second preferences have been allocated, just 85% of parents secure their first or second preferences. That is well below the national average of 85% and 96% respectively. I appreciate that capital is scarce, and I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister is experiencing. I am not asking him to issue a cheque this evening, although I am pretty sure that we would name a school after him if he did: the “Gibb Academy” does have something of a ring to it.
I hope the Minister will accept my view that we must seek to overhaul the capital allocation formula, reward good local education authorities, fund good schools so that they can flourish and expand, help parents to secure their preferences, and give pupils the best possible education and start in life. All that I ask this evening is that he agree to meet me, along with the chief executive and leader of the council, to discuss what targeted support he is able to provide.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate. Let me say at the outset that I will accede to one of his two requests, and that I will reveal which it is at the end of my speech.
I know that my hon. Friend is no stranger to the issues surrounding Finchley and Golders Green, as he has served the community well in local and national Government for a number of years. The Government are well aware of the pressures faced by many local authorities in London, including Barnet, in their attempt to provide enough suitable places to meet higher demand arising from the increase in birth rates and other demographic changes. I am also familiar with the argument advanced by London Councils—which my hon. Friend mentioned at the beginning of his speech—about the inequitable levels of funding received by London boroughs. The figures are not in line with our data, but I have asked officials to meet councils to discuss theirs in more detail.
The Government ascribe considerable importance to meeting the Department’s priority of ensuring that every child has a good school place. Responsibility for balancing supply and demand rests with individual local authorities. We look to members of those authorities —as the people with the best and most relevant local knowledge—to ensure that there are enough places and that local schools meet the needs of local communities. They are in the best position to know how many schools are needed, and where those schools should be located to serve local populations.
For its part, the Department for Education supplies capital funding directly to local authorities to help them to provide school places. Through the recent spending review and this year’s Budget, the Department secured £15.9 billion of capital funding over the four-year period starting in April this year. By taking early action to stop the wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme, the Secretary of State has been able to ensure that funding is available for the most pressing needs. He has allocated £800 million to local authorities for pupil places in 2011-12, and has indicated that he expects that level of support to continue for the other years of the spending review. That is twice the previous annual level of support that was given for those needs. It has been targeted on the areas of greatest demand, based on forecasts of pupil numbers provided by each local authority, and in addition to allocating the £800 million for additional pupil places the Secretary of State has informed local authorities of their overall share of capital funding for 2011-12.
Local authorities have been asked to prioritise spending to provide new places in areas experiencing severe demographic pressures, as well as to address the needs of the schools in the very worst condition. The London borough of Barnet and its schools have been allocated almost £17 million of capital funding for 2011-12, which includes £9.4 million for the provision of basic need places. Local authorities are also able to use money allocated to school maintenance to address basic need and vice versa. They have that flexibility. Barnet has also benefited from a substantial contribution from Government to JCOSS, or the Jewish Community secondary school, which will over time provide an additional 1,300 places in the area.
Forecasting future pupil numbers cannot be an exact science. That is why the Department has used the school census returns of the number on roll for 2010 as the starting point for basic need funding. As well as giving actual numbers on roll, the census collects information from each local authority on forecast growth areas for the three years to 2013-14. That information was used by the Department as the basis for the basic need funding calculation for 2011-12.
By using that informed approach, the Department has been able to target funding to where growth in demand has been forecast by the local authority. However, it must be stressed that, as a result of the actions taken, we have been able to allocate all of the basic need funding to the local authorities as the providers of places in their local area, and as a consequence I am afraid to say that no unallocated or additional funds are available for local authorities to call upon during 2011-12. Alas, we are therefore unable to make an exception for Finchley. I think I have now answered one of my hon. Friend’s two requests.
We are serious about getting education funding right in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current capital allocation system is overly complex and unfair, which is why the Department is taking steps to ensure that future capital expenditure delivers greater value for money for everyone involved in the education sector, and that the maximum number of children benefit. We have already made changes to the allocation system to address one of my hon. Friend’s main concerns. I recognise that some local authorities were in practice unable to use supported borrowing. That is why for all schools we have allocated capital funding in 2011-12 as capital grant. That means authorities at the floor receive real funding to address their need for school places.
Last year, the Secretary of State commissioned Sebastian James to conduct a full and independent review of the Department’s capital programmes. That review has now been published, and the Secretary of State is currently considering its recommendations. They include the proposal that there should be a new approach to the future allocation and use of all the available capital funding. The Secretary of State hopes to respond to the recommendations shortly.
Future capital allocations and the management of funding for 2012-13 until 2014-15 will be informed by the outcome of the capital review. However, as I have said, the Secretary of State has already indicated that local authorities can expect that the headline amounts of capital available in future years will be in line with those of 2011-12. As well as providing funding to meet basic need pressures and radically reviewing the way in which capital funding is allocated and spent in future, the Government are pressing forward with their academy and free school programmes. I am aware that my hon. Friend’s constituency contains two open academies, the Wren academy and the Compton school, both of which he mentioned. By giving those involved in education the freedoms to shape the future of our schools and by opening up the opportunity for others to enter the education sector, we believe that we are offering an education system that will meet the needs of local communities.
I hope that the House will acknowledge that the steps the Government have taken and continue to take to ensure that future capital investment benefits those in most need represent the correct approach. By tackling the areas of greatest need first and then developing a new approach to future investment that delivers value for money, I believe that we are making the best use of limited taxpayers’ money to improve the fabric and quality of our schools. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the very difficult fiscal situation faced by the country, but I would be pleased to meet him and his colleagues from Barnet council to discuss these issues further. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and the House a very fruitful recess?
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
ESOL Funding
Funding for English for Speakers of other Languages Courses
Student Visas
Minimum Sentence for Murder
Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Post Office Card Account
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to introduce the debate this morning. I requested the topic as a subject for debate as I was concerned by the apparent lack of progress on an important part of the coalition agreement. I am delighted that the coalition Government have been so publicly supportive of both the need to provide an enhanced Post Office card account and the need to enable more income streams into the post office network to ensure the sustainability of our much trusted and widely respected local post offices.
The additional Government plans for the post office network have received a warm welcome. They include no further closures of our post offices; an extra £1.34 billion in funding for the network between now and 2015; and post offices becoming a front office for Government and offering an expanded range of financial services, including credit unions and existing high street banks giving access to personal and business accounts at post offices. Currently, an estimated 60% of accounts can be accessed through post offices. The Government aim for that to be increased to 80% of all current accounts, and they will seriously consider enabling the Post Office to become a co-operative or mutual.
I understand that, for a variety of good reasons, the Government are exploring the possibility of enhancing POCA while at the same time developing a new account that could replace it. For the purposes of this debate and brevity, I will refer to POCA covering both possibilities. Although I very much appreciate the considerable economic challenges the Government face, as well as the pressure on Ministers’ time, I hope that there is a lack only of visible progress and that the Minister today will take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the behind the scenes progress being made. That would allay the concerns in post offices and the communities that they serve around the country. Although they very much support the direction and words of the Government, they want to see action. There is significant potential for POCA to be developed into a fully transactional account aimed at low-income consumers. The account is also vital to the financial viability of post offices, which play an important role in rural areas, where the local post office is often the only access to cash for people, small businesses and voluntary groups.
To help our debate, I will provide some background information on POCA, starting with some history. The direct payment scheme was the Government programme that replaced traditional payments of state pensions and benefits by order book or girocheque over the post office counter with electronic payments made directly into an account. The programme began in 2003 and was completed in 2005. The loss of the payments of pensions and benefits cost post offices about 40% of their traditional income. The Government claimed that direct payment would help to tackle financial exclusion and provide a cheaper method of paying pensions and benefits.
Under direct payment, there were three main options for the receipt of state pensions and benefits: a current or savings account at any bank or building society; a basic bank account; or a POCA, which was introduced in April 2003. A small number of pensioners and benefit claimants were able to sign up to the exceptions service to have their payments continue to be made by the green giro.
At its peak, there were about 4.3 million POCA customers, and that was despite well documented efforts by the Department for Work and Pensions at the time to promote other payment methods and to discourage customers from opening a POCA. The account has unique features that are important to people on low incomes. In particular, there are no restrictions on who can open an account, as long as they are in receipt of a state pension or benefit, and it is impossible to get into debt. It is a straightforward product that enables benefits to be paid into accounts. In March 2010, POCA was enhanced to allow access to cash withdrawals, balance inquiries and other PIN services at post office ATMs and over post office counters.
POCAs have a great deal of public support. When in 2006 the Government announced that they would cease by 2010, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters campaigned rigorously to overturn the decision, which led to more then 4 million people signing a petition that was submitted to Downing street. As a result, in December 2006, the Government decided to continue the accounts. Another effective campaign by the NFSP led to more than 3 million postcards being sent to MPs, which called for POCAs to be retained exclusively by the Post Office.
Both successful campaigns highlighted the importance of POCAs to sub-postmasters’ income. According to the NFSP’s most recent research, from June 2009, on sub-postmasters’ income, on average, sub-postmasters earned £220 a month—7% of net income—from POCA transactions. However, that average does not highlight the heavy dependence of certain post offices on POCA income, typically those in deprived urban or rural areas. The 2009 survey showed that 15% of sub-postmasters earned £400 or more a month from POCA transactions. When customers withdraw at a post office, they also spend money through other Post Office services, such as bill payments or mobile phone top-ups, or in the attached shop. That footfall is a key factor in maintaining the viability of thousands of post offices.
The NFSP estimates that the value of the POCA contract for Post Office Ltd has fallen from an estimated annual £195 million to £131 million in the period ending in the spring of this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the hon. Lady’s last point, which was very valid, there are a great many postmasters and postmistresses who have actively engaged with their local communities to ensure that POCAs are available. They have done all the hard work and are now looking at the possibility of those accounts being removed through the running-down of rural post offices. Does she agree that it would be detrimental, not only to rural communities, but to small towns, for the Government to pursue that policy?
Sarah Newton
I absolutely agree. It would be detrimental to the post office network if POCAs were removed, but I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention.
The reduction in the worth of the contract will be felt in the income of sub-postmasters and postmistresses. It is understandable that the DWP wants to drive down the transaction costs of benefits payments and so sees that reduction as a saving—costs have come down to about 50p from about 70p to 75p per transaction—and I understand why the Government want to look at efficiencies in that way, but there are significant implications for incomes, livelihoods and the sustainability of the network. That underlines why it is so important that the future of POCA and banking services more generally is secured. Existing and new customers would very much welcome enhanced services.
Research on POCA customers by Consumer Focus demonstrates that customers want additional transactional features and want to carry on using post office branches, which they know and trust, to access their payments. A fully transactional account could deliver significant benefits in terms of financial inclusion. Consumer Focus research shows that up to 1.75 million people are “unbanked” and could access a transactional account. By not having a bank account, vulnerable consumers can lose out time and again. Not being able to use the internet to buy goods and services or direct debit for household bills means that they pay more. They miss out on safer money management and convenient access to cash through ATMs. They find it difficult to access mainstream credit or insurance, or to save effectively, unless they are fortunate enough to have local access to a credit union or community bank. They will find it increasingly difficult to be paid for work; Consumer Focus estimates that by 2018 only 2% of employees will be paid in cash.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, on a subject that is important to millions of people. Is she aware of the report recently published by the Association of British Credit Unions, which highlighted the opportunities for co-operation between the Post Office and credit unions? Although it is a difficult area and is connected with the mutualisation of post offices, which is taking time, does she agree that it could signify a huge step forward for the millions that do not have access to bank accounts, and will she join me in encouraging the Government to make progress on the matter as soon as possible?
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting contribution. I support the work of credit unions. We have an excellent credit union in Cornwall: Cornish Community Banking provides good services for people on low incomes. As the Government consider the future of the post office network, given its reach into our communities, it is important that they fully consider the positive benefits of post offices working with credit unions and community banks, and how that might work with co-operatives or mutuals. Indeed, credit unions and community banks might work alongside post offices and offer their products through the branches. I hope that the Minister will update us on that.
I return to the benefits of an enhanced Post Office card account. It could also offer a genuine alternative for consumers who are dissatisfied with their basic bank account. Figures provided by the Financial Inclusion Taskforce last year suggest that up to 40% of basic account holders either have dormant accounts or, because of the associated penalty charges, opt not to use the full range of transactional features, including direct debit.
As well as the 1.75 million unbanked people in the UK, there are just under 4 million POCA customers, and benefit payments of about £1.2 billion per annum flow through those accounts. Many people on low incomes are reluctant to open basic bank accounts or current accounts because they fear high charges if they go overdrawn. Treasury research shows that, for low-income households operating a conventional direct debit facility, savings are offset by the loss of an average of £140 per annum in penalty charges. The cost is borne disproportionately by low-income households, who have to juggle daily or weekly income and/or benefits payments.
Consumer Focus recently undertook research on a transactional POCA. The account that it tested offered post office counter withdrawals, LINK-ATM access, the ability to receive inward payments and a debit card. Crucially, it also offered a bill payment facility that allowed customers to benefit from cheaper utility rates. Equally crucial is the fact that, unlike other direct debit facilities, it would be for the consumer to determine the frequency and the amount of payments to be made—and the consumer would not be liable for penalty charges if a payment were missed. A level of control that prevents them becoming overdrawn and incurring penalty charges is important to low-income households, as they have to be careful to live within their means.
I understand that the Treasury has recently finished a feasibility study into accounts that have the additional and useful feature of weekly budgeting. Measures that help people on low incomes to obtain the best prices for essentials such as energy, and enable them carefully to budget incomes and expenditure, are to be welcomed. Many low-income families are susceptible to doorstep lending, with its exorbitant interest rates, which can quickly get them into unmanageable debt.
I hope that a new product can be developed before the POCA contract ends in March 2015, and that existing account holders will be migrated on to the new account. Such an account would have much broader appeal to post office customers. It could lead to a customer base large enough to give economies of scale, which would make the operation of such an account cost-effective. The introduction of a transactional POCA with a budgeting facility will be particularly important in helping to secure the migration to universal credit.
I have been an MP for a limited time. I can see that, despite their good intentions, Governments can find it challenging to work across Departments on joined-up policy. The delivery of an updated POCA or similar new product is one such policy. It needs to be given thoughtful consideration by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. However, I understand that, as in so many policy areas, there are conflicting priorities. I realise that the DWP will want to reduce transaction costs for benefit payments. The Department also has the key aim of lifting as many people as possible out of poverty, and the improved POCA could help with that.
I realise that 2015 seems a long time away. However, sub-postmasters, the vast majority of whom are self-employed small business owners who work long hours for low returns, need to know that the Government are committed to introducing an enhanced POCA or a replacement, and that they are on track to deliver a product that will not only benefit customers but give them certainty of income. The recent decision to award the green giro payment contract to PayPoint, with savings going to the DWP but with losses going to the post offices, is a concern to many sub-postmasters.
The post office network has reached a critical point. The previous Government’s closure programme, the withdrawal of Government services and major social and economic changes have resulted in 7,000 post office closures over the past decade. However, the remaining 11,500 post offices and 500 outreach services still provide a much bigger network than all the banks and building societies combined. Every week, 20 million people visit a post office, and for every £1 transacted, 14p is handled through the post office network.
Post offices are a vital resource for rural communities such as those in Cornwall. Only 4% of villages have a bank, compared to the 60% that have a post office. Between 2000 and 2010, rural areas experienced the loss of nearly 60% of their banks and building societies According to the Campaign for Community Banking Services, Barclays closed 22 banks during the last quarter, 12 of which were the last, or the last bank but one, in the town. HSBC and Lloyds each closed nine branches. That lack of services and competition for small businesses has been recognised by the Treasury Committee and the Banking Commission in reports in April. This could be a real opportunity for new services to be delivered by post offices, as 47% of small businesses already use the post office more than once a week, especially for stamps, mailing and cash.
Although many post offices run alongside shops—in small villages, they are often the only shop—sub-post office income is worryingly low. New work urgently needs to be brought into the post office network to increase income for the remaining post offices and to ensure that they can continue to serve local communities.
Having outlined some of the challenges that face the post office network and the real opportunity of developing POCA in the war against poverty and the delivery of the universal credit, I look forward to being reassured by the Minister that the coalition Government are taking action to deliver the important legacy of a sustainable post office network.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. I had intended only to make a couple of points in relation to my constituency, but the hon. Lady has raised a number of matters that I wish to pursue. I shall refer to the inquiry undertaken by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on postal services in Scotland. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, if I may call him that, who is also a member of the Committee—I mean the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—will want to say something about that report.
The Post Office card account was put in place by the Labour Government, particularly as a way to deal with financial inclusion. For those of us who are used to conducting our financial business online, either on the internet or by phone, it can be difficult to appreciate exactly what it is like for people who do not have access to a bank account. People on low incomes have to ensure that every penny is spent appropriately. We should not underestimate the difficulties that they face in trying to secure the best prices for electricity, gas and other utilities without access to the financial services that we all take for granted.
The post office is important for many elderly people, because they want to be able to conduct their business with a real person and a face they know. They do not want to have to press umpteen buttons on their keypad telephone to be told to hold on, with perhaps the vague promise that they may get to speak to someone at the end of the day. When we looked at the future of post offices in my area, I was grateful for the input from postmasters and postmistresses not only in Kilmarnock but in the surrounding rural villages of Fenwick, Mauchline and Kilmaurs. Post offices in such areas provide an important service, because their customers do not always have access to face-to-face banking. None the less, the amount of business that comes through those offices does not always make them sustainable. All the postmasters and postmistresses expressed real concern about the loss of business from the Post Office card account. In some instances, they believed that that might well make their local post office unviable in the longer term.
During the course of our inquiry in Scotland and in other debates, we have heard a lot from the Government about diversification and about how they are trying to ensure that post offices can adopt different business models at a local level. However, for a tiny post office, such as the one in Kilmaurs, there is simply no option to expand, to put in other retail outlets or to do anything other than provide a post office service, which is what it was set up to do. There are village shops; the Co-op is next door and there are other shops and independent retailers across the road, but the post office and the service that it provides are vital. I accept that the Government have no wish to undertake a closure programme, but if those small post offices are not protected and do not get enough business, they may end up withering on the vine.
We have heard about the option of linking up with credit unions, which would be a worthwhile path to pursue. Credit unions should not just be about the poorest people or the most financially excluded people in our society. They are a perfectly valid business model that is owned and controlled by the members. As part of our Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry, we visited the Pollok Credit Union in Glasgow, which runs a successful post office. We spoke to the people involved, and saw the post office in action at one of its busiest times. The number of people who came along and the types of transactions that they conducted spoke volumes.
In conclusion, I should like to mention a couple of points that have been raised by the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Its general secretary, George Thomson, has made it clear that the Post Office card account, or something of that nature, should continue. It has raised concerns that the award of the contract to PayPoint may have been at below-cost price. Obviously, we want to ensure that every aspect of Government offers good value for money, and the benefit system is no different. Personally, I would rather see the money spent on benefits, so that people have a better quality of life, than being spent on administration. However, I want to ensure that everything is done absolutely correctly and that the Government take account of the social value of the post office in the context of providing a service to people generally and to people on low incomes specifically. I hope that the Minister addresses those points in his summing up.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate on the important issue of the Post Office card account and on presenting a good case on behalf of our communities. After spending nine years in opposition to a Government who were clearly urban based, it is a pleasure to be part of a Government who understand rural communities.
The coalition agreement includes a commitment to post offices and to making them the front office of government. For that to happen, they have to be financially underpinned so that they can provide a large number of basic services, including the Post Office card account. The importance of POCA to post offices derives not only from the income that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses get from it, but from the fact that customers collect their money from the post office and then spend it in the shop. In rural villages in a constituency such as mine, there is often just the one shop and the post office is an important part of that shop. Without the post office, the shop would not be sustainable.
My hon. Friend talked about the need for joined-up government and for all Departments to support the post office. Given the structure of government in this country, there is clearly a temptation for Ministers to engage in silo thinking and to be concerned only about their own Department. Although the Government inherited a terrible financial mess from their predecessors and the pressure is on Ministers to make savings in their own Departments, it is important that our Ministers do not pat themselves on the back for making savings in their own Department at the expense of other Government Departments. The Post Office is a case in point. We need all Government Departments to support the Post Office.
When I came back to Parliament after the election, I was unpleasantly surprised to find that the previous Government had issued tenders to replace green giros, which brought in a lot of money to post offices. People in rural areas were particularly dependent on such a service because it meant that they had a place in their own community to cash their green giros. When the new Government came in to office, they had to deal with the fact that the tender had been drawn up by the previous Administration, which greatly restricted their room for manoeuvre. I was further disappointed when the contract was awarded to PayPoint. Although there are a lot of PayPoint outlets in my constituency, they are all in the towns, and large rural parts of my constituency have no PayPoint outlet. There is no PayPoint outlet in the rural parts of north Argyll. There are about half a dozen in shops in Oban, but nothing outside.
Sarah Newton
I can echo my hon. Friend on that point. We have the same problem with access to PayPoint in parts of Cornwall. However, does he not agree that we should take some reassurance from the fact that the Government have said that people who currently receive the green giros will be given advice on their options, including signing up for a Post Office card account? I will work with my rural post offices to put up posters in branches so that as people cash in their green giros for the last time, they are encouraged to apply for a Post Office card account.
Mr Reid
My hon. Friend makes an important point that customers who use the green giros must be given the option of using POCA and must be encouraged to do so. I hope that this Government’s attitude towards POCA will be very different from that of the previous Government. Those of us who were MPs in the 2001 Parliament were inundated with complaints from constituents who were badgered and bullied by the Department for Work and Pensions call centre to move away from POCA to the banks. As I say, I hope that this Government will have a completely different attitude to POCA and that its use will be marketed positively rather than actively discouraged, as was the case under the previous Government.
There is a lack of PayPoint outlets in the rural parts of north Argyll, and there are several islands in my constituency that do not have a PayPoint outlet. Every time I mention PayPoint in a debate, I am conscious of the fact that a few days later a letter comes in from PayPoint saying what a wonderful service it provides. I say now to the person from PayPoint who will read the Hansard report of this debate that PayPoint still does not have outlets in rural north Argyll or on several of the islands in my constituency.
As we are discussing green giros, it is important to remember that many people who use them are people who were unable to use POCA for disability reasons. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he can tell us what facilities will be made available to people with disabilities who were previously deemed unable to use POCA to make it easier for them to access POCA. For example, if they live on a small island without a PayPoint outlet, what are they to do?
One of the lessons to be learned from the green giro contract is the importance of Government consultation before contracts go out to tender. When some of my hon. Friends and I attempted to lobby Ministers to give the green giro contract to the Post Office network, we were told the standard line that all Ministers in any Government use—that once a contract is out to tender and a legal process is under way, Ministers cannot engage in discussions about it. It is therefore important that we consult before contracts are put out to tender rather than, as was the case with the green giro contract, only finding out after the contracts have been put out to tender.
Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister has a responsibility to run his Department as efficiently as possible and to save as much money as possible. However, any savings that are made should not be at the cost of making the problems of financial exclusion worse. I understand that one of his remits is to be the Minister with responsibility for financial inclusion. If the only place in a rural community where people can access cash is a village post office and that post office closes, we will see real financial exclusion. Although pensioners may have bus passes that allow them free bus travel, in a rural community in the highlands there are not that many buses. Even on the days on which the buses run, it is often the case that there is only one bus from a village to a town at 9 am and there is only one bus back at 5 pm. What is a pensioner on a low income to do if they go into a town on the 9 am bus to collect their pension from the post office and they have to wait until 5 pm for the bus back?
Cathy Jamieson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for many people, particularly elderly people, the fact that they are able to conduct their business at a post office gives them some particular comfort? There are circumstances in which they simply do not want people to know their business if they have to conduct transactions in a very public place such as another shop.
Mr Reid
Yes. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, because the post office has a certain privacy that, say, a PayPoint outlet—I might as well say “PayPoint”, because I will get a letter about it anyway—in a filling station rarely has. Also, the staff who work at the checkout in a supermarket or filling station do not have the training that the post office staff have. That is another very important point.
Sarah Newton
Does my hon. Friend accept that staff in local post offices, such as those in villages in my constituency, know the regulars who come in, particularly elderly or vulnerable people? They can help those people if they have forgotten their PIN numbers; I am sure that that goes against the regulations, but it is a vital thing that they can do. They also notice if Mrs Smith or Mrs Jones does not come along. That sets off an alarm, and they either go round themselves or they ask other people to check on them. That is a vital social service for elderly people and people with disabilities in many of our villages.
Mr Reid
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that the Minister and other Ministers will bear it in mind when they consider the importance of post offices.
The Government have a commitment to the Post Office network, as set out in the coalition agreement:
“We will give Post Office card account holders the chance to benefit from direct debit discounts and ensure that social tariffs offer access to the best prices available.”
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us what progress the Government have made towards achieving that objective in the coalition agreement.
In conclusion, post offices are very important to our rural communities. As I have said, the post office often underpins the only shop in a village and there will be all sorts of problems for villagers, particularly elderly people on low incomes, if post offices close. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it is worth the Government spending money or perhaps giving up the opportunity to make some savings to retain the Post Office network in such areas. That means supporting Government services through the Post Office network and, crucially, it means that when the present POCA contract runs out in 2015 its successor is a post office-based product, and hopefully one that offers even more services than POCA offers at the moment. The successor to POCA must be a post office-based product. Otherwise elderly people on low incomes in our rural communities will really suffer.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on making an excellent opening speech. She outlined the history of the Post Office card account very clearly, but she also showed that she is way ahead of many other hon. Members in thinking about 2015 and the fact that in order to secure the future of post offices any incoming sub-postmaster will immediately ask, “What will be my income in five or 10 years from now?” They see no hope of any inter-business agreement coming through, as a result of the privatisation of the Royal Mail; very disappointingly, such an agreement has not been enshrined in legislation. Consequently, they will ask, “Well, what of the promise that the post office will be the shop front for Government business? What is going to come of that promise?” So it is very timely that the hon. Lady has secured this debate today.
Labour first introduced POCA as a measure to boost financial inclusion. It was designed to give people who had perhaps always dealt in cash an opportunity to collect their pensions or benefits from their local post office. Indeed, by 2008 4.5 million people had a POCA, of whom 30% had no other bank account. Obviously, therefore, the future of POCA is vital for that particular sector of the population.
Those of us who were here in the last Parliament will remember the box-loads of cards that came in begging us to lobby to keep POCA and to have it extended beyond the finishing date of its first phase, which was 2010. Obviously that renewal of POCA was made by the last Government. They put in place the present arrangements, which will run until 2015. Now we need to look towards 2015 and consider what will happen next.
As has been pointed out, the Royal Mail Group used to earn about £195 million annually from POCA. That figure has now dropped to about £135 million annually, but the income from POCA is still a very significant source of income for post offices. Furthermore, it is not necessarily very evenly spread and therefore some post offices will be disproportionately hit if a lot of Government business is withdrawn from the network.
POCA is important for consumers because it was part of the last Government’s financial inclusion plan. It exists so that customers can obtain their benefits or pensions if they cannot use or do not wish to use any other kind of banking account. It allowed account holders or a nominated helper to withdraw cash free of charge at any post office branch using a plastic card that could not be used for other purposes. It also meant that the problem of people getting into debt, and all the difficulties associated with some types of account, were avoided. The important thing now is to say, “Where do we go next?”
In its 2010 manifesto, the Labour party made a clear commitment to a people’s bank with a full range of competitive, affordable products, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned that there was a commitment in the coalition agreement not only to an enhanced Post Office card account but to a people’s bank. The Minister himself stood on that manifesto for a people’s bank, so what is happening about it? Why have we not yet seen any steps towards creating any sort of additional banking services in the Post Office? I hope that the Minister today is able to tell us something about the plans, because at the moment it looks very much as if that coalition promise has been broken. There is no plan for any form of people’s bank at the Post Office, and we do not yet know what sort of enhanced services the Post Office card account will have—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady glosses over a bit of the history of the Post Office card account. My memory is pretty clear that in 2007 the account was put out to tender and that by the beginning of 2008 it was clear that the tender would not be given to the Post Office. The previous Government changed direction only in November of that year, after an enormous campaign that showed the unpopularity of the suggestion.
The hon. Lady is right that in March—I think—of last year, the Government started to recommend that the Post Office card account be extended to cover other financial services, and that her own party’s manifesto included more of the same, but that does raise the question of why, after 13 years in government, her party took so long to arrive at some proposals for extending the account. It would be fair to say—I hope that she agrees—that this Government have made substantially increased commitments. The question, however, which she rightly raised, is how we will take forward those commitments to using post offices as the front office for more Government work.
Nia Griffith
It was indeed decisive action by the Labour Government in late 2008 that ensured that the contract went to the Post Office. My question here, however, would be, “What has happened to the green giro?”
I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the letter, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, that George Thomson wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in September. It contained a list of ways in which he thought further Government business could be put the way of the Post Office, including, among other ideas, assisted applications for all benefits, assisted benefit withdrawals, signing on, payment in cash and various housing benefit validations. He obviously wanted to discuss in detail with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions his ideas about the Post Office becoming a front office for DWP business—the DWP is probably the Department that would most use the Post Office. Instead, however, what do we find? We see the green giro awarded elsewhere, and that is a very significant blow for the Post Office.
Mr Reid
Yes, it is a blow to the Post Office, but the hon. Lady must recognise the part that her Government played. It was that Government who put out the contract and wrote the specification, and if it had specified a widespread rural network, the Post Office would have won the contract.
Nia Griffith
What we want to know now is what the Government will do about securing more Government business for the post office network. It is absolutely clear that unless there is more business, the worrying situation of hundreds of post offices being temporarily closed—for months, or two or three years—will continue. Post offices are closing because it is extremely difficult to identify people who want to take on a sub-post office. They want to see guaranteed income, but instead they see much less security in what they will get from Royal Mail in the future, both because of the drop in the volume of postal items and because there is no guarantee in the Bill currently going through Parliament of any definite business from Royal Mail for the post office network after privatisation.
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady is, of course, absolutely right that the risk at the moment is different from what it was. The risk under the previous Government—the reality, in fact, not the risk—was the Government-led closure of some 8,000 post offices across the country. The risk today is that the network of 11,500 post offices that remain after the Labour closures programme could be weakened—she is quite right about that—if sub-postmasters either retired and no one took over or if they decided that the business was so unprofitable that they had to give it up, again with no one prepared to take over. I must point out, however, that that risk is a very different one.
In Kingsholm in my constituency of Gloucester, a profitable post office was closed. The sub-postmaster was one month short of having served 25 years and wanted to continue in the job, but my predecessor as MP and his Government closed the post office. Under this Government, a post office closed in Quedgeley when the sub-postmaster decided to give it up, but after a while a new sub-postmaster was found and a new post office opened, with the support of Post Office Ltd and the Government. The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk, but it is not the same, and it is much smaller.
Nia Griffith
The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that although about 8,000 post offices probably met the previous Labour Government’s access criteria we kept 11,500 open, and put in a £150 million subsidy each year to do so. He was very lucky that a new sub-postmaster was found for Quedgeley, but in my constituency, and those of many Members, post offices have remained closed for much longer, and the real difficulty will be in enticing people to take on the businesses if they cannot see a viable future in them. I am so grateful to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing the debate today, because the Post Office card account will be a key part of that viability.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I was absolutely delighted this week to receive a letter from the Post Office saying that it is reopening a post office in Port Clarence, a community in my constituency. That has been made possible by the local authority, voluntary organisations and the local community working together. Is there not that wider responsibility on a whole community, even though the Government also need to be in there to ensure that things happen?
Nia Griffith
Indeed. It is very much a partnership, and where that can happen, all to the better, but a key part of that partnership is the Government business, which is what we are talking about today.
I hope that the Minister is able to shed some light on what the Government mean by Government front office. What is the additional business that they hope to give to the post offices? What is the enhancement of the Post Office card account that they can offer at this stage, and what is the future for the account after 2015? Without that security and that business coming into the post offices, it is very difficult to see how we will encourage new entrants to take on post offices, particularly in areas where there is little opportunity to do much else in the post office, because they are very small, for example. Sometimes there is little else in the village that would offer people the opportunity to get enough money just to pay the milkman or the fish van that comes round. I have constituents who cannot get the cash they need for very small, simple, everyday transactions without a local post office. It is absolutely vital, therefore, for the future of the Post Office that we get that Government business, and I hope that we will hear how the DWP will contribute to that and, in particular, what its views are and its plans for the future of the Post Office card account.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate, which I know will be welcomed by people up and down the country who rely on post office services in their local community and value the Post Office card account. As she said, this debate is a chance for the Minister to alleviate some of the concerns felt by sub-postmasters and postmistresses and their customers. Consensus is building on the importance of guaranteeing Royal Mail business for the Post Office. I hope that the Government will take note.
Two key issues are at stake. The first is ensuring access to pensions and benefits, especially for vulnerable people and those in rural communities. The second is ensuring that the post office network as a business is viable and vibrant in the long term. The importance of both those issues rings true in my constituency, where temporary closures include the Hawksworth Wood post office, which has been closed for nearly a year, despite Government promises that there would be no more post office closures. Since the closure, local residents have had to travel to other areas for the post office services that they value, either tackling a long, steep hill or paying for a bus to another part of the city. The closure has been devastating to the community served by the post office. It has been particularly hard on older people and more vulnerable people, as many hon. Members have said, because the face-to-face service that they are used to is extremely valuable.
I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced similar closures in their constituencies and know at first hand the difficulties that they create. Currently, 424 post offices are temporarily closed, 417 of which have been closed for a prolonged period. It is vital that we strive to keep post offices open and help them adapt to changing demands from their customers and, particularly, to protect the vulnerable. Post offices are at the heart of many of our communities, and we need to make it easier for them to survive. The business generated by the Post Office card account can help them to do so.
Labour did not get everything right on post offices, but POCA in the post office network was a proud achievement. POCA was introduced by the Labour Government to improve financial inclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. That is particularly important in deprived and remote areas. I am proud of Labour’s decision to introduce POCA and the decision in 2008 not to allow it to leave the post office network, which would have diverted business away from the Post Office and jeopardised the viability of many of our local post offices.
About 4 million Department for Work and Pensions benefit and account payments were made through POCA in 2010, to a group of customers who rely on a simple service to receive their pensions and benefits. Many of them are elderly: 55% are pensioners. POCA is a core aspect of Post Office business and a key driver of footfall, but it is also designed to promote basic financial inclusion. Unlike most financial products—I say this as someone who used to work in financial services—POCA has huge support among the people who use it. When the POCA contract was on the agenda in 2006, as has been said, it generated 4 million signatures in support of keeping it in the post office network. I believe that that is the largest ever peacetime petition.
A Help the Aged survey of its members also found that they were overwhelmingly in favour of the service. Help the Aged’s report highlighted the importance of post offices, particularly to older people who rely on POCA, and POCA’s popularity in rural areas where no local bank is easily accessible. That is also an issue in some of the most deprived urban areas.
The Post Office card account has several key advantages for its customers. Some 71% of people without access to a bank account depend on POCA to receive payments. POCA customers are often people who cannot or do not want to access bank accounts; 30% have no other bank account. According to Age UK, someone from an unbanked household is 23 times more likely to use a POCA than someone from a household with access to bank accounts. POCA is also the only facility for receiving benefits or pensions open to people who have been declared bankrupt. Another good feature is that the facility offers no risk of getting into debt. POCA also offers a crucial facility for people with mobility problems. Almost 10% of Post Office card account holders have a second card that can be given to a carer to draw cash on their behalf, a facility not available through high-street banks.
POCA was introduced as part of a wide-ranging approach to financial inclusion as a simple facility for people who could not or did not wish to use a bank account. However, POCA alone is not enough to ensure that older, vulnerable and hard-to-reach customers are financially included. To do so, the Government could work to identify links with credit unions and consider carefully what steps are needed to increase the accounts’ functionality in the interests of post offices and their customers. Like other hon. Members, I urge the Government to increase POCA’s functionality and consider whether direct debits could be introduced. Even now, people with a Post Office card account but no bank account do not get the direct debit service that helps save money and time on utility bills and other payments, a service that most of us take for granted.
There are, of course, risks involved in introducing direct debit functionality. The Treasury financial inclusion taskforce has documented the excess charges often incurred by new users of bank accounts, and they must be taken into account, as average losses are £140 a year and charges are focused on the poorest households. Consumer Focus also has concerns, but none the less supports a more flexible POCA account, and its research indicates that POCA users do too.
The coalition agreement said:
“We will give Post Office card account holders the chance to benefit from direct debit discounts and ensure that social tariffs offer access to the best prices available.”
In answers to parliamentary questions, the DWP has also said that research is being conducted on the subject. What steps have been taken to ensure that that promise is delivered?
Members are keen to ensure that POCA lasts beyond 2015 and that we have some certainty about the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said. The year 2015 may seem like a long way off, but POCA customers and sub-postmasters—like many Liberal Democrat MPs, if I may say so—look to 2015 with some trepidation.
When exploring options for increased functionality, it is important to consider that the Post Office has unprecedented access to the consumers whom credit unions are best able to support. Credit unions do an immense amount of good in our communities. The Leeds and Bramley credit unions have a tangible impact on the lives of my constituents, too many of whom, lacking access to the services that credit unions offer, are driven into the arms of loan sharks. However, credit unions in my constituency lack a shop front and a high-street presence. The post office network could help change that.
Despite sending a mixed message with the financial inclusion fund, the Government have supported credit unions and could take a serious step to support them by linking them with the Post Office when considering the Post Office card accounts. Will the Minister update us on what practical measures the Government are taking to support that aim? Hon. Members support credit unions as an important source of affordable finance within our communities and welcome the opportunity to increase footfall in our post offices.
We must make it easier for post offices to survive. POCA is one of the services that ensures the viability of post offices. About 20% of total visits to post offices, or 6.5 million visits a week, are made to access POCA payments. POCA brings in a significant portion of income for sub-postmasters up and down the country. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has estimated that it provides 10% of sub-postmasters’ net pay. In rural and deprived areas such as Truro and Falmouth, Argyll and Leeds West, that proportion jumps significantly: it is about 12% in deprived urban areas, for example. Indeed, 15% of sub-postmasters earn £400 or more a month from POCA transactions. Nationally, POCA brings in about £195 million a year.
POCA customers ensure vital footfall and additional income to ensure that post offices remain at the heart of our communities, but a Government supposedly committed to preserving the footfall have already failed one test by handing the green giro contract to PayPoint. Now 250,000 people who would previously have gone to post offices to collect their green giros will no longer do so. That is a negative step that could damage our post offices and reduce the services available to customers.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
The hon. Lady will be aware, as has been said, that the previous Government initiated a competitive tender and set criteria for bidding. All of it was undertaken according to strict European Union competition rules. If one of the two bidders was substantially cheaper than the other, does she think that the Government should have gone with the higher bidder?
Rachel Reeves
As the Minister knows, that decision would have been outside my domain, but we should consider the Labour Government’s decision in 2008 to award the Post Office card account to the Post Office rather than continuing with the tender. That is an example of what this Government could have done if they had chosen to do so, but they did not.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for its report on postal services, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, Billy Hayes, described the decision to remove green giros from the Post Office, at a time when the Government were committed to increasing the use of the post office network, as being
“about as joined-up as spaghetti”.
This is a hit to the footfall in post offices, and I urge the Government to ensure that POCA remains a Post Office account.
With the POCA contract subject to competition tendering requirements, and considering the fact that only 4,000 of approximately 12,000 post offices are viable independent of the shops in which they operate, the stakes for the future POCA contract could not be higher. Moreover, with Government commitments to the post bank seemingly in the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has said, and with little tangible progress towards making the Post Office the front office for government, what assurances can the Minister give us that POCA will be part of securing the commitment to maintaining post office services?
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady has mentioned—with, I think, approval—the remarks of Billy Hayes from the CWU about this Government’s approach. Does her party support Billy Hayes’s mantra of no cuts?
Rachel Reeves
That is outside the domain of today’s debate. I quoted what Billy Hayes said about taking the green giro account away from the post office network. I do not think that he supports that. I think that he would have preferred to have kept it in the post office network. That is the context in which I quoted his comment that the Government’s policy is
“about as joined-up as spaghetti”.
Richard Graham
What does the hon. Lady estimate would have been the cost to Government of re-awarding the green giro contract, and how would her party have funded that?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, it would be good to see the Government working on a more joined-up basis. Savings for one area of government put costs on another area of government, and this is a prime example of that. It also goes against the commitments in both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat manifestos. They would have put more services into post offices, but awarding the green giro account to PayPoint goes against those principles.
Mr Reid
The hon. Lady keeps forgetting that it was the previous Labour Government who wrote the tender specification, which could have specified the need for an extensive rural network. That would have meant that only the Post Office would have qualified, so why did her Government not specify the tender in that way?
Rachel Reeves
As I have said, the Labour Government did not get everything right in relation to post offices. The Labour party is using the period of our policy review process to look at a large number of our policies. I return to the point, however, that both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos made it clear that those parties were committed to giving more services to post offices, not to removing them. That is why the decision on the green giro was so disappointing, because it went against those commitments.
To return to another point that I made earlier in response to the Minister’s question, although POCA was put out to tender, the previous Labour Government recognised the public concern, ended that process and gave POCA to the Post Office. That decision was welcomed by our constituents and by post offices up and down the country.
Rachel Reeves
I will, but we need to get to the Minister’s remarks, so this will be the last intervention that I will take.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity. It is worth highlighting the fact that the commitment in my party’s manifesto was to maintain the post office network. The commitment by this Government to provide £1.35 billion to make sure that Post Office Limited maintains that network is the single most important example of expenditure to maintain a post office service that I can think of over the past 15 years. Does she not agree?
Rachel Reeves
The Conservative manifesto said:
“Nothing underlines the powerlessness that many communities feel more than the loss of essential services, like post offices”.
We all know, however, that removing services such as the green giro from post offices makes it harder for them to be viable in the long term. The Government may be giving money in one way, but they are taking money away from post offices by removing from them services such as the green giro.
Today’s debate has been consensual, with representatives from all parties saying that they want to support their local post offices. We should welcome that consensus and try to work together to support post offices and the people who use them in all our communities. That has been the tone of my remarks. I have admitted that Labour did not always get things right, and it would be good to hear other Members say that not everything that their parties are doing is right in representing the people whom we are here to serve—our constituents.
In conclusion, we have heard useful and interesting contributions from Members who represent both urban and rural areas, who know first hand how important post offices are in their communities. I have set out what I think are the key questions surrounding POCA and some wider questions that the Government must answer on the future of postal services.
I have already quoted the Conservative manifesto, but the Lib Dems also promised a post bank as a central plank of their efforts to keep post offices open. People who rely on the post office are keen to know what is happening now that those two parties are in government. They are keen to hear whether the coalition partners are making POCA part of realising their pre-election promises, both up to and beyond 2015.
The post office is at the heart of communities up and down the country. In an era of falling trust in financial services, the Post Office remains a beacon of hope for restoring trust. I welcome this debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth again on securing it—as an opportunity to lend support to POCA and post offices, and to emphasise that decisions about POCA should be made with the intention of making sure that the post office is a viable and vibrant part of our communities in both urban and rural areas, offering services that pensioners, families and the most vulnerable in society rely on.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Good morning, Mr Hollobone. I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that, although this is the final day before the Whit recess, we have a good turnout and that, as has been said, we have heard perspectives from rural and urban England, rural Scotland and Wales—indeed, from around the United Kingdom.
Steve Webb
Before the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene, I should say that, when I said the United Kingdom, I thought that I was including Northern Ireland.
There are a lot of common threads. Any community-minded constituency MP will echo much of what has been said this morning. My own constituency is a mixture of market towns and villages, most of which, notwithstanding the series of cuts over the past year, either have sub-post offices or, in some instances, have reopened them as community ventures—community shops, co-operatives and so on. I think that we all share that commitment to the post office network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is absolutely right to say that, although money is tight, the Government should prioritise spending on the post office network. I encourage him to think about which Government Department identified £1.34 billion for the post office network, and about the other spending issues that that Department faced that raised some political issues. He will recall that there were other calls on the Department’s money, yet it prioritised the post office network, because we are about not just words, but deeds in relation to that. To be clear, in return for that £1.34 billion, Post Office Ltd must maintain a network of at least 11,500 branches and continue to adhere to the strict access criteria that mean that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office.
Nia Griffith
Does the Minister agree that, under the previous Labour Government, it was £150 million per year and that that went up to £180 million per year in the last year in which we were responsible for setting the subsidy? That is half of what the present Government are giving to the post office network, and it was sufficient to keep open those 11,500 post offices. Why on earth has such a large amount of money been given to the Post Office when it would be far better to create the streams of business that make post offices viable and sustainable for good, so that they do not need that type of subsidy? I find it very difficult to understand why doubling the subsidy is the best way forward when making things viable would really be the best way forward.
Steve Webb
I could not have written that question better myself. Why is it necessary to double the subsidy to keep the post office network going on a viable basis? Because so little was done over the past 13 years to make the post office network sustainable. That is precisely why we have had to put temporary subsidy in while we get the Post Office back on its feet.
I shall quote from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills document, “Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age.” On the very point that the hon. Lady raises, it states:
“Senior management at Post Office Ltd… estimate that without action and modernisation”—
how much of that happened?—
“keeping the network operating at its current size would result in the annual subsidy required from taxpayers rising from £150 million this year to £400 million by 2016—and would carry on climbing.”
That is the legacy. That is what would have happened had we done nothing. I sense, Mr Hollobone, that you are not a great PowerPoint fan, but it is at such moments I wish we could have a screen and slides because I would simply refer hon. Members to chart 3 of that document.
I will point that document in the direction of Opposition Members because it shows that the long-term gradual decline in the post office network is partly because of demographic trends—sub-postmasters retiring and not being replaced—and partly because, during the 13 years of a Labour Government, the number of post offices has fallen off a cliff. During the two closure programmes between 2003 and 2009, 5,000 branches were closed. People have stood in this place and in this Chamber for the past 13 years pleading loyalty to the post office network, yet those were the people who carried out two massive closure programmes.
Nia Griffith
Does the Minister not agree that the fundamental reason for the Post Office’s loss of business is the complete revolution in how we correspond with each other? Personal letters were of immense importance 20 years ago, but the growth of the internet and so on is clearly the main factor in the reduction in the amount of mail business going through post offices. That is the be-all and end-all and the real reason for the existence of many post offices, in addition to what Government business they can do.
Steve Webb
The reasons for the decline of the post office network are many and varied. When I go to my local village post office, I am told that eBay is keeping it going. The fact that people buy postage for parcels and so on brings a whole range of different customers into the post office network. One of the biggest trends, which was accelerated by the previous Government through direct payments, was people being paid via their bank accounts, rather than by traditional giros at post offices. That was one of the single biggest changes that accelerated the demise of the post office network. Opposition Members ought to take just a tiny bit of responsibility for the trends that we have seen.
On the Post Office card account specifically, the perspective of POCA users has been missing from the debate. The Post Office has recently published some startling research that it undertook on what POCA holders wanted from the account. The Post Office talked to 930 people and asked the following about the POCA:
“is there anything you would change about it, for instance any additional services you would like it to provide?”
Some 80% of respondents said “nothing.” I will return to that significant point. Some 80% of respondents did not want any changes to the account and they valued POCA for its particular characteristics, which we should think carefully about changing. The next most popular answer to that question had a 4% response rate. I shall read down the list of things people would change about POCA, which have a response rate of between 4% to 2%:
“deposit/cash cheques into it; more cashpoints; use any ATM; comments relating to PO service in general; more flexible like a debit card; interest on account balance; online account access.”
Hon. Members will have noticed that direct debit is not on that list. Some of these issues are counter-intuitive. I will not say that I like nothing better than to go online to use my bank account—which, I should just add, I access at the post office—but the folk who use POCA value it for what it is. As a number of hon. Members have said, we need to ensure that the people who have POCAs can benefit from things such as direct debit. However, that may not imply sticking things on to POCA.
Why might it be a good thing to provide access to those services but not to do so through changing the POCA? It is striking that many hon. Members have said that 30% of people with a POCA do not have another bank account. However, I tend to think of it the other way around. Some 70% of people with a POCA have a bank account or some other sort of account. So why do they have two? If they have a bank account with direct debits and all the rest of it, why do they bother having a POCA? Because people like to budget in different ways and they like a simple account that cannot go overdrawn.
Some of the evidence on charges is startling and worth repeating. I have been known occasionally to go overdrawn without planning to and I am shocked when I see the charges. The evidence of what happens shows that most people do not simply face one charge in a year. Once things have gone wrong, the charge is debited. People are then more overdrawn, they perhaps do not notice it and so another charge goes on. Just to give a feel of the situation, in 2008, out of 12.6 million active bank accounts, about a quarter incurred at least one penalty charge and the average charge was £205. Of that 2008 sample, a quarter of people had one charge, 15% had two charges and 39% had at least six charges.
Hon. Members can start to see why such an overdraft facility—there might also be a situation where someone had a POCA that could not go overdrawn but a direct debit bounced and somebody somewhere had to pay a charge for that—is not necessarily what people are asking for. People do not want to pay more because they are on a low income, so we need to find ways of giving them access to the best prices. However, grafting the ability to use direct debit on to an account that people like because of its simplicity may not necessarily be the best answer.
I absolutely stand by our coalition agreement commitment. The coalition programme for Government includes a pledge to give POCA holders the chance to benefit from direct debit discounts, but that should not necessarily be done by grafting direct debit on to POCA. We have listened to what the account holders are saying to us and our impression is, yes, people want the best prices they can have, but not necessarily by taking a product they value and turning it into something else.
That brings me on to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made about the fully transactional account. One of the problems with the fully transactional POCA is that it would be so different from the product that was originally tendered, we would have to retender. The postcards will probably go to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), but I have a feeling we might be going through it all over again. The comment rightly made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) was that there is uncertainty about the future. There always is. If we said that we need a full transactional POCA, so we are going to retender for it, I suspect that there would be riots on the streets of Kilmarnock.
We do not want more disruption and uncertainty. What we want—and as a Government what we are trying to do—is to work in partnership with the Post Office far more. Rather than those involved with running post offices being people to whom we do something, they should be in here as people we do something with. That is a profoundly different approach. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) talked about joined-up government and different Departments not damaging the Post Office. The Department that springs to mind is the Department for Transport. I renew my car tax each year at my village post office because, having talked to the sub-postmistress, I know it is one of the biggest transaction charges it gets. The Department for Transport would rather I did not do so. It sends me letters that say, “Do it online—you don’t have to go to your post office.” One year, it had a prize draw—or a raffle or lottery—in which I could win a free car.
The fact that Departments are not working in a co-ordinated way on the Post Office is not new. I work closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The three of us have discussed financial inclusion issues, particularly credit unions. The post office network and credit unions could work together. There are exciting possibilities on that. One of the challenges is that, although credit unions are often very good and strong in a localised way, there are some very small credit unions and, in large parts of the country, if we asked someone on the high street where their nearest credit union is, they would not know what we were talking about. The potential for linking post offices and credit unions and access is very exciting, but it is also very expensive. That is the trade-off and the challenge.
We do not want credit union accounts with hefty charges because that would defeat the object of the exercise. We are wrestling with how to bring those two things together, but there are real opportunities for the post office network to build closer links with credit unions. In recent years, credit unions have made great progress in bringing affordable, financial services to people who would not otherwise be able to access them. I want credit unions, in partnership with the Post Office, to provide more services more efficiently to more people. That is what we want to see.
I was asked about the Post Office as the front office for Government. A number of Government Departments are looking at ways to do that, and I want to share briefly with the Chamber some measures that the DWP is taking. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned George Thomson at the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, who wrote to the Secretary of State. I am delighted to say that, in response to that letter, the Secretary of State had a face-to-face meeting with George Thomson. Several points that she read out, and which were on his list, are now being piloted in Government.
For example, a pilot for document verification started last week. The Pension Service, for which I am responsible, is piloting a check-and-send style service. That is for applicants who claim state pension or pension credit, and who are required to submit additional documents in support of their claims, such as birth or marriage certificates. Many people do not like sending their marriage or birth certificate in the post, so why not go into a post office and let post office staff check the documents, as they do when people renew their car tax? Post office staff could say, “Yes, that is fine; I have seen it. I am authorised to say that.” That would be quicker, and would give the Post Office revenue and footfall—everybody would be happy. That is not a—I do not think the word “piddling” is parliamentary—little pilot. Some 106 post office branches in the north-east of England are involved—a big pilot. It started last week and will run for three months in the Seaham pension centre catchment area. It will include a mix of Crown branches in urban, urban deprived and rural locations.
That is one concrete example; let me give the Chamber another. Later this year, we will be looking at a national insurance number pilot, which will investigate whether applications from what we call low-risk groups—EU citizens in states that are already members of the EU, not including the accession countries—could be directed to the Post Office for the evidence-gathering interview to get a national insurance number. Although the Post Office currently carries out document checking for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Identity and Passport Service, the DWP requires something qualitatively different. We are working closely with the Post Office to see if we can have an efficient but secure service, and hope to go live with the project later this year.
We want business in post offices, but we do not want dirty great queues. In other words, if I am queuing up to buy a stamp, I do not want someone in front of me trying to verify a national insurance number. We have to try to think of what post offices are good and efficient at, and harness that without disrupting the core business of the post office. That is why we are conducting these pilots.
The hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned signing on. In rural areas, getting to a jobcentre can be quite a trek, so why not sign on at the post office? At the moment, I was surprised to learn that customers in rural areas, intriguingly, sign on by post. The pilot will test whether there are benefits in requiring customers to attend and sign on in a local post office instead. We will evaluate that approach across a wide geographical spread and range of labour markets. We have identified test locations in Essex and in the highlands and islands—a range of areas.
Cathy Jamieson
That is very positive. Does the Minister agree that there are potential lessons for local authorities? Will he undertake to ensure that the outcomes of pilots are conveyed directly to local authorities, including in Scotland, as they may wish to look at doing something similar, particularly the check-and-send style service?
Steve Webb
I am very happy to undertake to do that. Those are some examples of what the DWP is doing. Other Government Departments are also looking at things, including our friends in the Department for Communities and Local Government and in the devolved Assemblies and Parliament. We want to see everybody working together, alongside and with the Post Office, rather than simply taking bits of business away.
The issue of the green giro was, properly, raised. I was intrigued by the hon. Member for Leeds West. Having quoted Billy Hayes, she then said that, having issued competitive tender for a second time, we should have ripped it up and just given it to the Post Office anyway. I do not think that that was the intention of the previous Government when they issued the tender. It would raise one or two issues about tendering if, every time the Government issued a tender with the Post Office in it, they panicked half way through and then just gave it to the Post Office anyway. That might undermine the concept of tendering, not just with the Post Office but across Government as a whole. Indeed, I have a suspicion that if we kept doing that we would probably end up subject to legal challenges too, which might cost a good deal more than the money we spent on the contract.
It is worth putting the issue in context. I take the point that there are variations between post offices, but the green giro, on average, delivers a fiver a week to the average sub-postmaster, just to give a sense of scale—a fiver a week, and falling. The number of people with these cheques and green giros is falling. It is therefore worth retaining a bit of scale. They are important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) is right to mention the importance of rural access. I can assure him that, before the contract was awarded, I stood in my office with a map of the United Kingdom with dots on it, marking out the PayPoint network and the Post Office network. I was pleasantly surprised by the rural extent of the PayPoint network, but I take his point about north Argyll and the islands. I hope that PayPoint reads Hansard and does something about that. I can tell his constituents, through him, that my hon. Friend has been a pain in my side on this issue, and properly so. He has represented those concerns very strongly.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about disabled people. I stress that all the outlets that can be counted for the tender have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The new service, the replacement for the cheque, is specifically designed to be simple for that group of clients. There is no need to sign and there is no need for a PIN—it is only necessary to present a card. It is designed to be analogous. In a sense, it is converting a piece of paper to a plastic card. Beyond that, it is essentially the same process designed for the same people. Access was very important to us.
We covered a wide range of issues in the debate. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mention her visit to the Pollok credit union. That is a positive example of a credit union and post office working together.
I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in an intervention. He pointed out the difference we now see with the post office network. The Post Office has had the promise of a subsidy to undertake to maintain the network at the 11,500 level, so when there is a closure of a post office, effort is now going in to replace it. Rather than the gradual attrition that has gone on, frankly, for decades, there is now a Government in place who are committed to protecting the network. That is a sea change in attitude, and one that post offices will very much welcome.
A question was asked about the tender process. Clearly, such processes are done under strict rules. We are required, under the EU, to be specific about what we are tendering for, and to include both cost and qualitative factors. We can take account of access—that was part of the consideration. I have no reason to think that that process was not properly undertaken, but if the hon. Member for Leeds West has further evidence on that she is welcome to send it to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned the issue of what happens when a village or a community does not have PayPoint access. One thing that the Post Office can do—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned this—is to see this as an opportunity to offer customers a Post Office card account, or to remind them that there are approximately 30 different sorts of accounts that can be accessed at post offices. Hitherto, when people turned up with a green giro, there was no incentive to say, “Why not have a Post Office card account?” Now that there is, I hope that many of his constituents will do so.
We have heard about the excellent work of post office staff, with their friendly, familiar approach and knowledge of people. An interesting mix of people receive green giros. It is not necessarily overwhelmingly people who struggle with signatures or plastic. Often they are young unemployed people, whose financial situation is a bit chaotic. The mix is diverse. Many community post offices will be able to provide a facility for the people my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about, so that they can access their money at the post office through a POCA, with the help and support that post office staff so often give. I place on the record my appreciation, and the Government’s appreciation, of the sub-postmasters up and down the land, who are very often the heart and soul of our community.
What I want as a Government Minister, instead of warm words while presiding over a halving of the post office network, is to put the money in to ensure that post offices are there, and to give them that breathing space to modernise the network. Ultimately, that has to be the key. Rather than presiding over declining business, and Departments across Government withdrawing a bit here and a bit there to save some money, let us look forward. Let us look at new services of the sort being piloted by the DWP. Let us look at modernising the premises. There are some exciting ideas. I will not go into detail, but there is the idea of a “post office local”, whereby the rather intimidating screens will come down and post offices will be much more friendly and welcoming.
The post office network has huge potential. It is worth remembering that it is still the biggest retail network in the country, notwithstanding everything that has gone on. My commitment, as a member of this Government, is to ensure that we are not passive bystanders watching the network decline, but that we are active participants encouraging and supporting the Post Office, and making sure that it has the bright future that everyone in this House wants to see.
Night Flights (Heathrow)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on night flights at Heathrow.
The debate is timely because it takes place during noise action week, which is organised by the charity Environmental Protection UK. Noise action week highlights the impact of excessive noise on our communities, and it encourages communities and organisations, including business and government, to work together to find solutions. I hope that today’s debate is a constructive contribution to that goal.
The Government are assessing the noise action plan for Heathrow and will shortly consider the new agreement on the number of night flights allowed at the airport from 2012 to 2017. The Department for Transport also has an open consultation on the Government’s future aviation strategy, “Developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation”.
My position on Heathrow is clear. With a constituency next door to Heathrow, where some residents work, and as a former frequent business traveller, I appreciate the value that Heathrow brings to our area and the importance of the aviation industry to the economy and for creating jobs for the future. I am proud of our engineering capability and our world-class airlines. I want tourists to come to this country, and businesses to come and invest in the UK economy. For that, we need great airports, supported by the best customer service from the airlines.
My aim is to ensure that Heathrow continues to thrive but, at the same time, that we take into account the quality of life of people living and working around the airport—local residents, businesses, schools and community groups. That is why I was delighted that one of the first decisions by this Government was to stop the third runway at Heathrow and to maintain the runway alternation that allows local residents some respite from aircraft noise. I thank MPs in west London, including my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who is present, HACAN—Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—which is an action group representing people living under the flight path, Hounslow council, the 2M Group, the Mayor of London and the then Opposition team responsible for transport, for working with me during the campaign against the third runway.
I cannot commend the Government highly enough on their decision. We did what the previous Government did not have the courage to do. The decision was an example of a listening Government. I was told, when I started on the campaign against the third runway, that the task was impossible—politicians told me, residents told me—but I do not believe that anything is impossible. Being told that only makes me more determined. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for all she did to achieve that decision.
Today, I wish to address three basic themes. First, is noise, particularly from night flights, an issue at Heathrow? Secondly, are night flights necessary? Thirdly, I have some considerations for the Government on the issue of night flights at Heathrow. My constituency of Brentford and Isleworth stretches from Chiswick to Hounslow Central and Hounslow Heath, and it lies under the Heathrow flight path, so I am well aware of the problems caused by noise, particularly for residents who are frequently woken during the night. I receive lots of correspondence on the matter, and a constituent from Isleworth summed up the sentiment of many people in a recent e-mail to my office:
“As someone who doesn’t sleep easily, I am writing to you to complain about planes landing early in the morning—six flew over this morning at around 4.30 am. This seems like a totally unreasonable time to be woken in the morning.”
As part of my campaign against the third runway at Heathrow, I took the then shadow Transport Minister—now my right hon. Friend the Minister—to Grove Road primary school in Hounslow Heath, where the pupils clearly explained the impact that the aircraft noise, both at night and in the day, has on the quality of their learning.
When we talk about night noise from aircraft at Heathrow, we need to be clear about our terminology. A “night flight” takes off or lands at Heathrow between 11 pm and 7 am. The Government set strict quotas for how many night flights are allowed at Heathrow, but those quotas apply only between 11.30 pm and 6 am. A number of factors influence the number of flights: noisier planes take a higher quota; figures are different during summer and winter; and the noisiest planes are restricted altogether from scheduled take-offs and landing during the night flight period. On average, over a year, 16 flights are allowed per night. No restrictions apply after 6 in the morning—indeed, that is one of the busiest hours of the day. People such as my constituent from Isleworth could, if they are light sleepers, be woken up on many occasions during the night and in the early morning.
Does that really matter? Yes, according to several respected studies. New research from Warwick medical school, published in the European Heart Journal in February this year, studied the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people across eight countries. The study found that chronic lack of sleep produces in the body hormones and chemicals with a severe impact on health. It concluded:
“If you sleep less than six hours per night and have disturbed sleep, you stand a 48% greater chance of developing or dying from heart disease and a 15% greater chance of developing or dying from a stroke.”
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for a review of the number of night flights. As a resident of Old Windsor, I must declare an interest—I am right underneath the flight path. On behalf of my constituents, I want to reinforce the point that only one noisy night flight is needed to ruin a night’s sleep—it is not about average volumes or levels. One noisy flight can damage a night’s sleep and induce those stress hormones.
Mary Macleod
Absolutely, I could not agree more. We want to legislate against that lack of sleep and disturbed sleep. The World Health Organisation and the HYENA—Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports—report from Imperial College London also found that, even if people do not wake up, there is evidence that noise from night flights causes immediate increases in blood pressure.
The latest World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that night-time noise should be kept at no more than 55 dB to ensure no adverse effect on health, which is roughly equivalent to being in a noisy office—certainly my office, although that is because they work so hard. However, more than 20 miles from Heathrow, the noise of night flights can exceed 70 dB, which is roughly the equivalent of driving down a busy street with the window down. The effect is more pronounced given that the background noise level during the night is low. Ironically, this week, owing to the volcanic ash cloud, we might get some respite and peace because of flight cancellations.
Secondly, are night flights necessary? There are no scheduled take-offs between 11.30 pm and 6 am, and the first flight to Heathrow is scheduled to arrive at 4.30 am. Which planes, therefore, are flying to Heathrow during the night quota period, and where are the passengers travelling to and from? Are they really benefiting our local and our national economy?
Around a third of the passengers arriving on the very early flights to Heathrow transfer directly to other flights across the country and beyond, so the economic benefit to our economy of such flights might be limited to BAA and the airlines with which those passengers are flying. This year, a CE Delft report commissioned by HACAN concluded that a ban on night flights at Heathrow is likely to be beneficial to the economy, as the economic costs of the ban would be outweighed by the savings on the health costs of sleep disturbance and stress from night-flight noise.
A European Commission report in 2005 stated that airlines, when restricted on flying at night,
“seem to be able to adapt their schedules and get over slot availability, congestion and connections and fly by day.”
Can we conclude that night flights are operationally convenient for the aviation industry, but not essential?
In the consultation by the Department for Transport on future aviation strategy, it is recognised in the document that
“night noise is the least acceptable impact of aircraft operations”
and that
“it continues to be a major concern for local residents.”
Night flights are not only an issue for UK airports such as Heathrow. No major airport in Europe has a night ban on flights, and many airports, such as Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid, have more night flights than Heathrow. However, rather more than an estimated half a million people are overflown by Heathrow night flights—more than any other place in Europe. Given the dense residential population around Heathrow, surely we should set the standards for other airports to follow, with our residents, businesses schools and community buildings benefiting from best practice in noise control and mitigation.
A report commissioned by Hounslow council from Bureau Veritas demonstrated that, far from leading the way, Heathrow’s neighbouring residents, schools and community buildings receive a worse deal in funding for insulation against the noise of aircraft than people near many other airports in the UK, including Gatwick, Birmingham, Liverpool, East Midlands and London City. The most generous scheme internationally is at Nice airport, which provides support for insulation for those impacted at the 55 dB and above. A similar scheme at Heathrow would stretch from Windsor in the west to Barnes in the east.
Thirdly, I have some issues for the Government to consider. Heathrow airport makes a significant contribution to the local and national economy, which is desperately needed now more than ever. However, the issue is the quality of life for people who live under Heathrow’s flight paths. Their sleep is affected night after night, and their health and ultimately their life expectancy are impacted by noise. Illness caused by sleep deprivation hits business, and is also a major burden on the NHS, as taxpayers’ money is used to care for them. Quality of life and health must be considered, and I urge the Minister to do so when preparing the night flights agreement for Heathrow airport.
Aircraft are becoming quieter, which is welcome and should be encouraged, but should be used to benefit our residents, not as a way of arguing for maintaining or increasing the number of night flights. We are used to conflict in the aviation industry, and I hope that the Government’s future aviation strategy will be a first step in a more productive and professional relationship between Government, industry and other relevant groups.
How far can we go? First, in the short term, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who has campaigned hard on the matter, I would like stronger enforcement of current quotas, especially for flights that come in early, before 6 am, from the Pacific rim—Hong Kong, Singapore, Johannesburg, Lagos and Kuala Lumpur. Secondly, if quotas are not adhered to, there should be more transparency and publication of which airlines continue to breach quotas, and higher fines for persistent offenders. Thirdly, in an ideal world, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I would like a ban on night flights. However, I recognise the significant challenge of reducing flights between 6 am and 7 am, and I understand the resistance from business to changes during that period. I certainly do not want the debate on mixed-mode operations to be reopened. There will no doubt be consideration of operational efficiency at Heathrow, whether it is possible to reschedule those flights later in the day, and what impact that would have on Heathrow’s competitiveness against other airports throughout Europe. Landing between 6 am and 7 am allows people time to go home, get ready for work, and be in the City at 9 am for a productive working day.
I would like a commitment from the Government significantly to reduce or eliminate scheduled night flights at Heathrow. I recognise that that may have to be achieved in stages, but we could put a mechanism in place now to assess feasibility, and set reduction targets more regularly. The final step is to fight for the very best noise mitigation for those who are worst affected.
Finally, night flights have a serious implication for the health and well-being of those who live under flight paths, which has an ongoing effect on spending on the national health service. We have an opportunity fundamentally to improve the quality of life of many thousands of people, and we must take that responsibility seriously. In the light of the recent evidence that I mentioned, I urge on the Government stronger enforcement of the current quotas, more transparency on breaches, and stronger fines for repeat offenders. They should consider carefully the issue of night flights as they prepare the 2012-17 night flight agreement for Heathrow; consider whether we can significantly reduce or eliminate scheduled night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am; and encourage effective noise mitigation and insulation support from the BAA and the airlines. I believe that such action will allow us to create a really strong partnership between local residents, who will have enhanced quality of life and better health outcomes, and a world-leading aviation industry that we can all be proud of.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I want to say a few words to urge the Government to take action in a certain direction. As a long-time campaigner against the third runway and for a reduced number of night flights, I very much welcome the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) both as Minister of State and in opposition as shadow Minister to ensure that the third runway did not proceed. The policy approach and the way in which it was adopted were bold, courageous and elegant, and they reflect her status.
On night flights, I understand that a lot of work is being done to review, research and consider the evidence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) drew out two key issues. First, there is an impact on the economy around the airport and on the economy at large if thousands of people are struggling with health concerns because they are woken during the night.
Secondly, we should consider carefully whether night flights are necessary. There may be a commercial way of shifting flights in the early hours of the morning, between 4 am and 6 am, to a little later in the day. On behalf of Windsor, I urge the Government to consider the evidence carefully, and as a former shadow Minister for Science and Innovation, I am keen that that is done. If the Government have more bold and courageous policies in them, they should try to reduce those flights, not necessarily immediately, but over a period, because I suspect that any economic disbenefits would be overcome by the economic benefits for people who live and work around the airport.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) on securing this debate on this important issue, on which she has campaigned so hard for so many years. I also congratulate her on a powerful and well-informed speech, and I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who is another steadfast campaigner on behalf of his constituents on noise issues generally and night noise in particular.
My last visit to Brentford and Isleworth ironically coincided with the day on which air space was shut because of last year’s volcanic ash crisis, but I recollect my earlier visit to Grove Road primary school with Councillor Barbara Reid, who is another leading campaigner on these issues, which gave me a real and personal insight into the impact of aircraft noise in the constituency.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth said, this is a timely debate, but I must acknowledge at the outset that we have a long and detailed process ahead of us before final decisions are made on the new system of controls on night flights at Heathrow. She will appreciate that there are some questions that I simply cannot answer now because that could prejudge the outcome of the consultation. However, the debate has provided valuable input into that decision-making process, and all the points that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made today will be carefully considered as part of the consultation process and in the run-up to the decisions.
I agree that night noise is widely viewed as one of the least acceptable impacts of aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth set out with clarity the quality-of-life concerns that many of her constituents have about night flights. I am aware that it remains a key concern for people under the flight path in areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. I assure my hon. Friends that the local impact of aviation on communities around airports and under flight paths is important for the coalition, and that is why one of our first decisions in Government was to scrap plans for a third runway at Heathrow, and to make it clear that we oppose new runways at Gatwick and Stansted. I thank them for their kind words about my role in that decision.
In September last year, I confirmed that there would be no revival of Labour’s proposals on mixed mode. I also confirmed that the airport will start to use alternation when operating with easterly winds, which will ensure a fairer distribution of aircraft noise around the airport. As has been said today, we recently published a scoping document kicking off the debate on how to deliver a sustainable future for aviation, which harnesses the economic benefits that my hon. Friends mentioned in relation to Heathrow and aviation generally, but does so in a way that also addresses the environmental impact of aviation, including its noise.
There have been controls on night flights at Heathrow for many years, with limits on movement and noise quotas to restrict the level of noise emitted. Restrictions prevent the noisiest aircraft from landing at night, and Heathrow operates a policy of runway alternation overnight to give residents a degree of predictability on flight paths and some respite periods. Even with those restrictions, however, I appreciate that night noise continues to be a key concern for local communities, as my hon. Friends have made clear this morning.
As has been pointed out, current protections are time limited, and in the coming months the Government will need to make a decision on the regime that will replace the existing controls when they expire in October 2012. That provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at the issue and explore the scope for a more effective night noise regime. The scoping document already mentioned began an extensive process of public engagement that will ultimately culminate in a decision about a new set of rules and controls for night flights over Heathrow. During that process, we will seek evidence on how best to balance the economic benefits of night flights against the social and environmental costs that they undoubtedly impose on communities that lie under the flight path. We want to hear from the widest possible range of stakeholders about how the current arrangements are working and what elements people would like to see changed, and I welcome the comments made this morning by my hon. Friends on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred to the recent HACAN report, which suggested that a ban on night flights at Heathrow would produce a net benefit to the economy. I recently met John Stewart from HACAN to discuss that report, and my officials will give it proper consideration alongside other representations that we receive on night noise. Such representations will help inform the debate on policy development, and we must analyse evidence on the social impact of night flights, and the health issues mentioned by my hon. Friend.
One important issue for consideration is whether it is possible to deliver a more extended period of respite from night noise. I recognise that flights that arrive between 4.30 am and 6 am tend to be the most controversial, and we need to analyse carefully any evidence on the potential benefits that are derived from such early morning arrivals, and properly explore the operational scope for change.
My hon. Friend mentioned her concerns about enforcement, and when we look at the shape of the new regime we will certainly consider arrangements for its administration, transparency and enforcement. Transparency can be a real help in such situations, and give communities that are affected by all types of noise from Heathrow the confidence that rules are being complied with. Aircraft that breach departure noise limits are fined by the airport, and the revenue is used to finance local community projects. It is important that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that the current regime is properly enforced.
Mary Macleod
Does the Minister think that it might be worth looking into the levels of the fines imposed? They need to be a real deterrent or else airlines will keep breaching the existing noise limits.
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That issue should be included when considering the new regime, and the airport is already looking at that matter in relation to current arrangements. There may well be a case for change.
My hon. Friend made an important point about the importance of mitigation and insulation as a fall-back method for dealing with the problems of noise. BAA has recently launched a local consultation on noise mitigation schemes, which could potentially broaden the scope of the existing schemes. It is important that my hon. Friend takes part in that consultation, and I will ensure that BAA is given a copy of this debate in Hansard so that it is made aware of the concerns felt by my hon. Friend’s constituents, and their desire to see a stronger and more effective regime in terms of insulation and mitigation.
Another issue for consideration is how we create the right conditions and incentives for airlines to deliver technological improvements that will support the policy goals we wish to achieve. As I have said, the current regime already bans the noisiest planes, and UK technology and know-how plays a major role in making commercial airliners quieter and more fuel efficient. Developments such as the A380 and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner also help to mitigate the effects of noise. As well as encouraging the aviation industry to reduce noise by improving aircraft technology, the Government are working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to seek improvements in air navigation and airspace management in order to deliver quieter approaches and climbs.
Having obtained and considered responses on the broad themes regarding night noise that are included in the scoping document, we will then develop more detailed proposals for a new night noise regime. We plan to issue a consultation document on that next spring. Carrying out that process in the most effective way possible may require a limited roll-over of the existing regime. We have not made a final decision on that, but if we decide to run the current regime beyond its expected termination date of October 2012, we will need to consider whether to use temporary movement and quota limits to maintain the trend in progressive noise reduction required under the existing regime.
My hon. Friend referred to noise action plans, which are a requirement set out in the EU environmental noise directive. Seventeen major airports have been asked to produce such plans and noise maps, and we are in the final stages of considering whether draft plans submitted by Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester, Birmingham and East Midlands airports meet the requirements of the directive. The directive does not require a complete reassessment of airport noise policy, but the plans have been a useful exercise and have prompted airports to reassess their approach and strengthen existing measures. Such plans will, I hope, be an important tool in maintaining the pressure on airports to take action on the issues of noise, insulation and enforcement mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The plans that emerge from that process should be seen as a starting point rather than an end conclusion. They should be treated as living documents and serve as a driver of good practice and help improve performance on local noise management and mitigation. As such, they should be subject to regular review and be adaptable to changing circumstances, including the new night noise regime.
I conclude by restating the Government’s commitment to addressing the local environmental impacts of aviation, and state that we acknowledge the concerns that local communities have about night flights. We now wish to move forward to develop a better night flights regime, and explore the scope for change. It is important that we engage fully with all interests and understand all the differing views, and today’s debate has provided a valuable opportunity to bring this important subject before the House and highlight some of the key issues.
Although I cannot give my hon. Friend all the answers she needs, I view this as one of the most important issues that I will face as a Minister. I have listened with care to all the points she raised, and I will continue to listen as the debate unfolds over the months to come. I urge her, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and their respective constituents, to take part in the consultation process on which we have recently embarked. I am confident that broad engagement from my hon. Friends and their constituents will strengthen and improve the eventual outcome of this important matter.
Treatment of Christians
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a privilege to introduce the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and I thank other hon. Members for attending. I acknowledge that this is a wide-ranging subject. The issues that it raises could not be fully incorporated in a single debate, but given where we are meeting and where we as a nation are in our collective history and given the current complexion of our national politics and some of the international happenings that surround us, it is a subject to which we would do well to turn our attention.
Today, I want to consider two issues: the violent persecution of Christians internationally and restrictions on or the denial of civil and religious liberties for Christians in some parts of the world. Let me begin by making it clear that I am not blind to the abuses or atrocities that have been perpetrated by individuals who took to themselves the name “Christian” or by the professing Christian Church down the ages. However, it is not true, as some assert, that religion has been the one great persecutor in human history, for we should never forget Lenin and his use of slavery, the war that he waged against his own poor, the famine that that created, which left 30 million people facing starvation and death, and his slaughter of people of religion. Nor should we forget Stalin and his labour camps and the culling of the disabled—his Russian holocaust with victims numbered in the tens of millions and human beings regarded only as commodities to be exploited and expended in the interests of the state. We should not forget the repression of religion, including so-called accidental assassination carried out against people of faith.
There is also Chairman Mao, with an estimated 40 million victims—a figure that combines the outcome of his policies and the many millions deliberately killed. We could consider Pol Pot and those who were responsible for the killing fields and the deaths of between 25% and 30% of the entire population of Cambodia. Could we forget the many victims in Romania, where it was forbidden even to own a simple typewriter? I could also mention the East German experience and that of Poland and Albania under the rule of atheists. To that I could add the innumerable atrocities perpetrated by atheist authorities in central and south America, Africa and the far east.
It is not true, as some try to allege, that above all other things, religion is the great persecutor and the cause, source and substance of all the world’s great woes, for when atheism has been anointed as the faith of the state, to that, too, we can trace all kinds of brutality, inhumanity, violence and death. However, although that is undoubtedly the case, no one could deny that religion has played a grim role in far too many of the world’s sorrows or that those who profess faith in Jesus Christ have been the guilty party far too often, so I am not blind to the horrors of the crusades or the fires of the Inquisition. In this week when we look back on the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to the Republic of Ireland, I am not blind to the role played by professing Christianity in the darker episodes of Irish history, from the day when Pope Adrian donated Ireland to Henry II right down to present-day scandals involving the evil of child abuse. I make that very clear at the outset.
I do believe, however, that we need to turn our attention to the troubles and tribulations faced by Christians across the world today. This is the subject of the debate. There is violent persecution of Christians across the world. There are numerous areas of great concern. In the short time available to me, I cannot go through all the individual countries or list every example. I will just draw hon. Members’ attention to some particular cases.
In parts of Africa, Christians face intense, violent persecution. Nigeria continues to witness wave upon wave of violence directed against Christians. Hundreds of Christians have been killed in the aftermath of the election. Massive simultaneous attacks against Christians were launched in almost every northern state. Mobs massacred hundreds of Christians, burned more than 300 churches and destroyed countless Christian homes. It has been estimated that in Kaduna state alone, at least 300 people were slaughtered. Nigerian Government authorities were in such a hurry to hide the extent of the massacre that they organised mass burials of the victims almost immediately after the attacks. As a result, the exact death toll remains unknown.
Just this month, Muslim attackers reportedly killed 17 Christians, including the wife and three children of a pastor in northern Nigeria. Several Christian homes were burned in the village of Kurum. Among the victims in Nigeria are indigenous missionaries, pastors and leaders. Last year, more than 2,000 Christians were killed in targeted Nigerian violence.
Thousands of Christians are fleeing violence in western parts of Ethiopia. Muslim extremists killed several Christians and burned dozens of churches. Some 55 churches and dozens of homes are reported to have been burned in recent days near the city of Jimma, in the western Oromia region.
In Somalia, the radical organisation al-Shabaab has led the way in killing Christians, especially those who have converted from Islam. In Sudan, Christians have endured long decades of violence. In a recent debate in the other place, the Bishop of Bath and Wells said the following regarding Zimbabwe:
“The Anglican Church in Zimbabwe is undergoing a sustained and brutal persecution with its origins in a dispute over church properties and the non re-election of Dr. Kunonga, the former Bishop of Harare and someone widely regarded as a plant of the Mugabe regime…This is something that I have witnessed, all too painfully, for myself in a number of places.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 March 2011; Vol. 725, c. 1809.]
When we turn to Asia, we find that Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws have been used as a cover to justify violent attacks. The President of India recently expressed her shock at the upsurge in violent persecution of Christians, especially in states such as Karnataka and Orissa. Christians in Karnataka have suffered serious violent attacks since 2008, including physical attacks on individuals and places of worship.
The sufferings of Christians in Orissa state are long standing and are truly horrendous. They include murder, kidnapping, forced marriage, the burning of churches and the forced removal of people from their homes, with about 18,000 people being injured, and 6,000 houses and 296 churches and smaller places of Christian worship in some 400 villages being burned. More than 56,000 people were displaced and more than 10,000 have yet to return home; and 1,000 have been warned that they can come back only if they convert to Hinduism.
To that could be added the long enduring plight of Christians in China, Burma, North Korea and Vietnam, where death is common and suffering is intense. In the middle east, there are numerous and disturbing examples that can easily be assessed.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Before he moves on from the middle east, will he join me in noting that a couple of months ago The Independent drew a dramatic picture of the demographic decline that has resulted in the almost total elimination of non-Muslim groups in many countries in the middle east? Hopefully, we will see some recognition of that with international action to stem it, and the promotion of inclusivity rather than expelling people on religious grounds.
David Simpson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is 100% right; I shall deal with the matter later in my speech.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Pakistan. I know the Government have said that their influence is limited—we condemn all this but we are limited in what we can do—but we are extraordinarily influential. We were very influential in Iraq: we invaded it, and the plight of Christians has become much worse since. We are extremely influential in Pakistan, where we are a major donor. The Government therefore have a lot of clout, particularly with regard to the blasphemy laws, to ensure that Christians are treated fairly.
David Simpson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. Again, I shall deal with that later.
Although the Orthodox Church in Iran faces discrimination, Protestant Churches face severe persecution and are regarded as enemies of the state. Throughout 2010 and 2011, dozens of Protestant believers were prosecuted for no reason other than practising their faith. Protestant groups in Iran are often formed of converts, who actively seek to make more converts. That has brought down upon them a particular form of state opposition; they are targeted and tried under political charges, and are treated as politically subversive.
Since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime, more than half of Iraq’s Christian population has, as a result of violent suppression, been forced to flee their homes or else flee the country altogether. In 1991, the professing Christian population totalled some 850,000. By 2003, that had fallen to just over 500,000. Today it is reckoned to have fallen to fewer than 250,000 individuals. That should surprise no one, given that there have been beheadings and even crucifixions. In the old Soviet bloc countries—from Russia itself through to Belarus—violence, prosecution and imprisonment are common.
I now turn to restrictions on, or the denial of, civil and religious liberties for Christians. Again, we can see this in many parts of the world. I shall cite a few examples, for I know that others want to contribute to the debate. Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws are used deliberately to settle personal disputes or disputes over land, or to carry out personal vendettas. However, they are also used to ensnare Christians into expressing any kind of criticism of Mohammed or the Koran, and thus to enable the bringing of charges. In the middle east, religious liberty is limited. In places like Kuwait, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, evangelism is prohibited and conversion is not allowed. In Saudi Arabia, expatriate Christians are supposed to be allowed to worship privately, but many are still prosecuted for doing so.
On the wider question of the denial of religious freedom, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom identifies a number of countries of particular concern. They are Burma, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Vietnam and a number of others. It also lists what it calls watch list countries. These include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Turkey, Venezuela and Russia.
We must also acknowledge the inherent dangers that accompany what has come to be called the Arab spring. Right across the countries affected, groups are emerging that seek to exploit recent developments in order to establish a purist society in which the plight of other religious groups will be made worse. Indeed, Members will doubtless have read reports this week of the concerns expressed by pro-democracy elements in Tunisia and Egypt—that if the G8 fails to give financial assistance to strengthen the democratic cause in those countries, it could sound the death knell for democratic hopes in the region, thereby strengthening repressive regimes and providing a boost for radical movements that would seek to legislate away whatever minimal freedoms remain.
Although the current situation for Christians in many middle east countries is difficult, it could become increasingly dangerous in the coming months and years. What I have outlined represents a record of blood, a trail of suffering and a denial of basic humanity to many tens of thousands of people. We, as a Parliament and a nation, should not be like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan and simply pass by on the other side. Many of these nations are important trading partners. Some are in receipt of aid. Still others are members of the Commonwealth.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has outlined the extent of persecution, and I understand that three quarters of all persecution across the world is directed at Christians. We must condemn that, and seek to do something about it, but what about the modern-day form of persecution? He mentioned a number of countries, particularly Pakistan. Does he agree that it is the rise of Islamist threats there, and the Islamist Governments of other countries, that are causing or contributing to that persecution? Indeed, we have particular concerns about education in Pakistan—that hate education fomented by Islamist opinion is causing many of these problems. The Government should be held to account for the financial aid that they provide for education, given where it is actually going.
David Simpson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The rise of Islam is strong in those areas, which is a particular problem. Indeed, as I outlined earlier, in years to come we will see more persecution of Christians in those countries. We may not even have to go to other countries to see Christian persecution, but simply look to our own back door.
I diverge slightly, but the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. In the United Kingdom, the policy seems to be that people can do whatever they like against Christianity—criticise it or blaspheme the name of Christ—as long as they do not insult Islam. It is sad because this country is based on civil and religious liberty for all. When Queen Victoria was on the throne, the secret behind England’s greatness was its open scriptures and open bible. Today, that policy is being hammered into the ground, and that concerns me greatly for the years and months that lie ahead.
As a Parliament and as a nation, I do not believe that we should be like the Levite and pass by on the other side. There is no doubt that many of these nations are important trading partners. Some are in receipt of aid, and others are members of the Commonwealth. It is clear that silence should not be our response. I am not advocating that we intervene directly in such countries, but we can and should apply diplomatic and political pressure on Pakistan and other countries, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) suggested. We should use as much influence as possible and apply pressure either individually or through organisations such as NATO, the EU and the United Nations. We could be far more proactive in the whole of this regard than we have been thus far. I am not saying that we have done nothing to help out, but we could do a lot more.
Recently, the MEP Peter van Dalen urged the EU to make more rights for the Egyptian Coptic community a policy priority and to develop a strategy for religious freedom. Mr van Dalen pointed out that more concrete European action is needed as the position of Christians worsens across the world. He correctly pointed out the “new big threat” towards Christians in the middle east, drawing attention to a structural neglect of, and discrimination against, Christians in several countries.
In conclusion, I urge the Government not simply to chase the financial bottom line in our dealings with neighbours and partners. As one of the great economies of the world and one of the beacons of democratic freedom, we have a duty to use all of our influence to help those who suffer injustice around the world. There is a rising tide of affliction that is swelling around Christians across the world. This nation and this Parliament should be more to the fore in the campaign against that and for civil and religious liberty. I urge the Government and all hon. Members to rise to that challenge.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) has done the House a considerable service in initiating this afternoon’s debate. It is depressing that, in the 21st century, when the world is, in some ways, getting smaller, intolerance of other faiths and beliefs is growing in all too many parts of the world.
The best means for ensuring the fair treatment of Christians internationally is through the strong advocacy of the right to freedom of religion or belief for people of all faiths, as outlined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights and article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Although the UDHR is non-binding on UN member states, it contains significant moral and normative force. The international covenant is legally binding on those member states that have ratified the treaty.
Freedom of religion or belief should be viewed as not some peripheral right, but a right that is central to the identity and well-being of all people. Looking around the Chamber this afternoon, I see hon. Members with views and faiths that are fundamental to their identity as individuals. The coalition Government should be complimented on raising the profile of freedom of religion and belief, as evidenced in the most recent human rights report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for which my hon. Friend the Minister is responsible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann was entirely right to say that the British Government should set out clear benchmarks for progress on religious freedom issues in bilateral and multilateral dialogue with other states. Pakistan will soon be the largest recipient of UK bilateral development aid, which legitimately gives us some leverage in our dealings with it. We should continue to make representations in the strongest and most forceful way about the impact that its blasphemy law is having on its people.
Many of us were present at St Margaret’s, Westminster, for the memorial service for Shahbaz Bhatti, who was assassinated in Pakistan for being a Christian. Sadly, his death is symptomatic of the growing divisions in Pakistan as well as symbolic of the silence of those in Pakistan seeking to confront forces of extremism.
There are many ways in which the UK Government can exert pressure on countries in which religious tolerance and religious freedom are being ignored. Perhaps the most strategically concerning issue at the moment is the situation facing religious minorities in north Africa and the middle east, given the current phase of various uprisings and revolutions. Egypt is particularly crucial because a significant minority are Christians—Copts and Catholics.
There have been an increasing number of attacks on religious minorities in Egypt, particularly on the Coptic community. The most recent incident to gain widespread attention was the attack on 7 May on two churches in Cairo. One was gutted following false allegations that it was forcibly detaining a female convert to Islam.
What is rather sad is that such events took place after the events in Egypt and the Arab spring when so many people were full of hope and optimism. The President-Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Most Reverend Mouneer Anis, observed:
“The fear now is that the revolution is being kidnapped by these extremist groups, and there is a lot of effort being made by more democratically minded Muslims and Christians to rescue the revolution.”
That is absolutely correct. What has also been impressive is the extent to which many Christians and Muslims are still trying to protect minorities in Egypt. Despite the recent violence, efforts to promote sectarian tolerance continue. Indeed, several thousand Copts and Muslims recently held a joint march through Imbaba in Cairo to denounce the burning of the churches.
Nevertheless, the scenes that one has witnessed or read about are horrific. I was particularly struck by reports that a guard—I suppose that here we would describe him as a sexton—at St Mary’s church in Cairo had refused to denounce Jesus Christ and his own Christianity and that, as a consequence, his throat was cut. He was a man who was just doing his job but he was confronted and attacked. That is intolerable.
Only last weekend, up to 80 people were injured in Cairo when a group of Copts demonstrated outside the state television building. They were simply calling for more effective police protection for Christians and their property in the aftermath of the clashes in the Imbaba district, in which 15 people were killed and two churches were set on fire.
In the coming days of the Whitsun recess for Parliament, I am going to Cairo. I will meet Christian friends—both Catholics and Copts. Not only are they going through the turmoil of what is happening with inter-faith challenges in Egypt, but they are going through the political turmoil in the country. They wonder where they fit into that situation.
As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, it is not only Egypt that is affected. The tragedy is that Christianity in the middle east is on the slide. Indeed, it is not just sliding into obscurity; it is almost in danger of being extinguished in many countries, such as Iran and Iraq. About 50 years ago, this was a part of the world where Jews, Muslims and Christians lived side by side. Now, for various reasons, it is extremely difficult for Christians to profess their faith in many middle east countries.
As the hon. Gentleman said, part of that process is about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which is also on the rise in Nigeria and other parts of Africa. Some of the stories—indeed, some of the facts—about what is happening in northern Nigeria, a leading Commonwealth country and another significant recipient of UK development assistance, are frightening. A system of religious repression is developing in parts of northern and central Nigeria and effectively there has been imposition of sharia law in those areas.
For example, there are parts of northern Nigeria where non-Muslim subsistence farmers are being subjected to an extreme form of usury that is known locally as bada kaka. Under that system, those non-Muslim farmers are obliged to pay for every bag of fertiliser that they buy from Muslim traders with two bags of goods that have been harvested and that fee doubles if they default on repayments. Ultimately, those who are unable to pay off such loans risk being deprived of their land, their possessions and, in a few extreme cases, their children, following a sharia court ruling. Those are things that we do not tend to hear about when we are debating international development and other related matters in this House, but they should have a far higher profile.
There are other parts of the world where Christians seem to be under considerable pressure. In countries such as India, there is an increase in nationalism. As a result, the position of Christians in India is being made increasingly difficult. In a number of communist or quasi-communist states, such as China or North Korea, life is incredibly difficult for Christians.
All the rights set out in the universal declaration of human rights are very important. However, I am concerned that the world is allowing there to be a creeping acceptance that religious intolerance is to be tolerated, or at least not challenged. There comes a time when we all have to ask ourselves, “To what extent can the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” There comes a point where increasingly we have to challenge some countries in the world about what they are doing to defend their minorities and people who may have belief systems that are different from those of most of their citizens.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is touching on a very important point. It is not only in other countries but here in the United Kingdom that these types of things are happening. Does he agree that some of the issues that the far right in the United Kingdom thrive on are exactly the issues that we are talking about today? The far right in the United Kingdom feed on the paranoia of some communities that anyone coming into the United Kingdom from any of the nations that we have discussed today is to be abhorred and treated with contempt and disdain. We will see in our society the seed bed of problems for the future if we do not deal with these issues internally in the United Kingdom as well as in other countries.
Tony Baldry
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I go back to what I said at the beginning of my speech, that it is generally depressing that here we are at the start of the 21st century and we are actually going backwards in this regard. I hope that all of us—in our family lives, in our communities and in the constituencies that we represent—will seek to inculcate an atmosphere in which there is a built-in mutual tolerance and mutual respect of other people’s beliefs. I am more than willing to walk hand in hand with people of other faiths or people of no faith at all in the journey of life, provided that I tolerate their views and beliefs and they tolerate mine. That is fundamentally important.
I think that what we are saying this afternoon is nothing more than that. I do not think that it can be said in any of the countries where Christians are under pressure that Christians are seeking to challenge or overthrow the existing norms or established customs of those countries. They are being persecuted simply because they are Christians and in the 21st century that is wholly unacceptable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I apologise to everyone for not being in Westminster Hall at the very beginning of this debate, as I was attending the debate on financial assistance for the eurozone in the main Chamber? I thank Mr Deputy Speaker for allowing me to exit that debate early before going back later—I think that that was the way in which he put it to me.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this debate on a topic in which I am particularly interested and which needs to be highlighted. My hon. Friend and indeed other contributors have spoken eloquently. The Palace of Westminster, where laws are made, is certainly the right venue for this type of discussion and the importance of this subject cannot be denied.
I am very conscious of a particular verse from the Bible:
“In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
That is from John, chapter 16, verse 33. It gives many Christians in this world the strength to face daily something that we cannot imagine for one second—persecution. Hon. Members have spoken about that persecution very clearly today.
The horror stories are numerous. There is a tendency almost to become desensitised to the plight of others, but that must not happen. It is important for us all to remember those people who are persecuted and to help them, both practically and prayerfully. We must listen, be stirred by what we have heard, then do all we can to help.
The website, Persecution.com, says:
“Around the world, and especially in Africa and Asia, Christian populations are suffering severe discrimination and brutal attacks. Thousands are being killed. Systematic campaigns are being waged against Christians simply because of their faith, and it is not too dramatic to suggest that these are forms of ethnic cleansing and genocide.”
I believe that that is exactly what they are. The website continues:
“Yet there is little awareness of these continuing atrocities in the West, and even less response.
Christianity is no longer a predominantly Western religion. Since 1900, there has been a startling growth of Christianity in Latin America, Africa and Asia, to the point that now, 65 percent of the world’s 2 billion Christians live on one of those three continents. Christians now constitute the largest single religious group in Africa. Close to 350 million Christians live in Asia.”
Clearly, the Church is growing, but as it does, persecution grows with it.
If we go over a map of the world, we see that persecution is rife in many countries. It has been said that the blood of the martyrs is the seat of the Church, and that certainly applies to the Church in China, where churches have flourished despite opposition and years of underground worship. Although the Chinese Government now allow churches in homes, they are strictly regulated, and I recently read that the Chinese Government had enacted new regulations in a further attempt to control the growing Christian population.
According to some sources, pastors at some of China’s house churches face new reporting regulations. They must provide police with weekly reports detailing their whereabouts and how many people attend church meetings. If pastors leave a city, they must report their travel plans, and they are restricted to short trips. Clearly, persecution continues. The Chinese Government do not want the Church to grow any more than it has done, because they know that it has been growing in great leaps and bounds, and from the Chinese point of view, it is important that it is controlled.
If pastors fail to report, they are arrested. Churches must also organise under a specific name and advertise and meet publicly. That is hard to deal with, but the Church in China grows every week. The question is what we can do, and perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about what the Government are doing. We must ensure that our foreign ambassadors continue to exert pressure so that the Chinese Church has true religious freedom. We should raise the issue of religious persecution in all the churches we help with our aid across the world.
Christians in India continue to face systematic persecution at the hands of radical Hindus. Indeed, a couple of years ago, my hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I spoke in a Northern Ireland Assembly debate about Christians in Orissa. Some Christians in India were doing some films outdoors, when extremists beat up the pastor and his son. The police arrested them and kept them in custody until the early hours of the morning. No police complaint was filed.
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, extremists seem to be very active in other parts of India, and they are not averse to dealing out physical abuse to Christians. A Christian professor’s hands were cut off after he was accused of blasphemy. In some countries, people do not actually have to commit blasphemy; they just have to be accused of it, and the story grows legs. Retribution then takes place.
In Nigeria, as the hon. Member for Banbury made clear, deadly religious violence occurs with regularity, with the result that hundreds of people are killed at a time. In the early hours of 7 March 2010, 500 Christians, most of whom were women and children, were murdered in their beds. That was not the end of it, however, and the village raids continued. On 17 March, another 12 Christians were massacred, including a pregnant woman, in a village in Plateau state. Other atrocities were also carried out against Christians. Thirteen Christians were murdered by a Muslim mob in Bei on 13 April and seven were murdered in Rikwe Chengu on 2 December.
Little information escapes North Korea’s borders, but the information that does indicates that Christians suffer harsher penalties than most criminals. An estimated 100,000 Christians are thought to be in labour camps, where they are being worked to death.
Our Government give substantial aid each and every year to Pakistan, where religious violence and anti-blasphemy laws are used to suppress Christians, and prominent Christian politicians and their defenders are clearly assassinated. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws authorise Government and societal persecution of Christians. Indeed, Pakistan absolutely refuses to progress towards being a religiously free society. According to Pakistani law, blasphemy against the name of Mohammed is a crime punishable by death, and desecrating the Koran warrants life imprisonment. Again, Christians do not actually have to do those things; they just have to be accused, and the retribution comes right away. Several Christians were killed in 2010 as a direct consequence of such laws, and many more people been imprisoned.
I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude shortly. I subscribe to a number of organisations that deal with these issues, as I am sure other Members here do, and Open Doors and Release International are two examples. Persecution is rife in many countries, and we should be grateful for our religious freedom in this country, but it cannot be taken for granted. Let me leave Members with an example of something that happened in our free, democratic and open country. A doctor who discussed with a patient the fact that Jesus helped him was reported to the General Medical Council. That is an indication of the fact that we in the United Kingdom must also make every effort to protect our freedom.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann on introducing the debate. The call that now goes out to everyone inside and outside this Room, as well as to everyone who reads the report of our proceedings, is this: what will we do about this?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is an honour to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). Although we are on opposite sides of the Chamber, I agreed with much of what he said on numerous policy areas. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is an outstanding representative of the Church in the House of Commons and who has been of enormous help to me in my constituency over a Church issue. Equally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his excellent speech.
Wherever there is tyranny and oppression in the world, the persecution of religious groups is never far behind. That is why this debate is important. We are always focused on persecution, but because Christianity is a mainstream western religion, its members do not always get the same attention as other minorities, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann highlighted. Outside the western world, however, Christians face a constant barrage of murder, imprisonment and persecution.
I have heard the Secretary of State for Education say that we can judge a country by how it treats its Jews, and the more democratic a country, the more equally the Jewish people are treated. The same goes for Christians in the developing world. I am here, not as a Christian, but as a Jewish person. However, because of what happened to many members of the Jewish people, it is my duty as a politician to help other peoples who suffer genocide and persecution. It gives me enormous pleasure to be standing next to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is a former school friend. He attended many Friday nights at my house, just as I attended many Church services with him and learned about Christianity as we grew up.
We have talked a little about China. Six weeks ago, 100 peaceful members of the Shouwang Catholic church were arrested by the People’s Republic just for holding an outdoor service. In Uzbekistan, armed officers from the Government’s national security service raided the home of a Christian pastor and confiscated 250 Bibles. A few days later, he was convicted of illegally owning Bibles, organising Christian worship and preaching the gospel. He was fined more than 80 times the minimum monthly wage. We have also heard about Nigeria, where a church was burned to the ground. I could mention other nations, such as Sri Lanka, which has a particularly evil Government; indeed, I attended a memorial service for the Tamils last week in Trafalgar square. Sri Lanka has a tough anti-conversion law, and people there are not allowed to convert others to Christianity.
The tragedy of such stories is not how isolated they are, but how common they are. Nowhere is that truer than in the middle east. I am a senior officer of the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq. Earlier in the year, I went to Kurdistan, and I am going back there for three days next week. The all-party group’s latest report on Kurdistan, which I helped to publish in March, states:
“Iraq’s Christians once numbered about 1.5 million. There are now just 850,000. Many families have fled to Kurdistan from Baghdad, Mosul and other areas, according to the United Nations refugee agency. The Kurds know much themselves about being a persecuted minority and have opened Kurdistan to Christians fleeing from the rest of Iraq. For example, their universities have offered free places to Christians fleeing Mosul.”
I met many Christians in Kurdistan. It has become a progressive Muslim nation that has provided sanctuary for Christians in Iraq who are being treated brutally. That was confirmed to me by the Archbishop of Erbil and the other Christians I met, and I hope to meet some more next week.
Kurdistan is one of the beacons of hope in a troubled region, but it is doing what it can with limited resources. I urge the Government to do more to support Kurdistan because of how it has offered sanctuary to Christians from Iraq.
Mr Burrowes
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s contribution to this important debate. Is it not a tragedy that Christians are fleeing for sanctuary from an area where they have historically had a presence? They do not simply want an enclave to practise their religion, but want to express it freely, which has historically involved being part of a community, for example, in Pakistan where Christian schools have Jewish, Hindu and Muslim pupils. There are shafts of light, for example, in Baghdad, where fantastic vicars such as Andrew White do what they can to open their church to all communities and to support them, despite war, repression and fear.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right. Why should Christians have to flee from one part of Iraq to another for safe haven, when they should be able to practise their religion wherever they are?
In Gaza, there were lots of reports of Christians disappearing or being shot dead if they were caught trying to preach the gospel. Although Hamas officially condemns the attacks, it very rarely makes arrests. During the elections a few years ago, Hamas forces were linked with an attack on the Catholic Rosary Sisters’ school and church, which were assaulted with rocket-propelled grenades and then burnt down. The ancient seafront of Gaza once had a thriving Christian community, but that community has now shrunk to 2,500 people.
Britain has a stake not only in the economic wealth of our neighbours, but in their freedom and self-determination. The question before us is, what role will Britain play before this story unfolds? Psalm 102 encourages us to
“hear the groaning of the prisoner, and set free those who are condemned to death.”
I am sure that hon. Members present will not mind me quoting the Old Testament as opposed to the New. I accept that the Prime Minister confronted human rights issues with the Chinese authorities during the trade mission to China last year and I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has continued to uphold the export restrictions that prevent lethal weapons being sold to China, but the problem is not just about selling guns. Britain and its NATO allies have an array of soft powers that they could use to bargain with states that are dependent on western imports. One key factor in the fall of Soviet communism was not the atom bomb or the space race, but the fact that Ronald Reagan refused to export wheat to Russia. That is a lesson for us today, as we confront the persecution of Christians and religious minorities around the world.
Intolerance towards religious minorities does not happen by itself, but is propagated by vested interests and evil regimes. In the middle east, the worst examples of that are Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the face of rising commodity prices and recession, many despotic Governments have tried to deflect their country’s grievances. That lies behind much of the extremist propaganda against the Christian west and the antagonism towards Israel in Arab League countries, but we have an opportunity to demand change. Saudi Arabia is apparently our ally and it depends on western imports, but it is also a despotism in which honour killing is legal, homosexuality is punishable by death and Wahhabist textbooks in state schools preach hatred of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities. As was recently reported in the papers, women are not even allowed to drive cars.
From Ethiopia to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia’s oil money is fuelling the persecution of Christians and other minorities, and the destruction of their property. Only last Wednesday, Christians protested outside the US Saudi embassy, demanding that Saudi Arabia stop financing radical Islamists, including the Salafis, who have been largely responsible for attacks on Christians in Egypt. Surely we can do more to ask the Saudis to give their people the freedom and security for which they are crying out? In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia produced more than 4 megatonnes of wheat a year—more than enough to be self-sufficient—but now it has exhausted its water supply and by 2016 it could produce no wheat at all. Nearly 50% of all Saudi Arabia’s imports—primarily, machines, cars, textiles, chemicals and foodstuffs—now come from the US, the EU and close allies, such as Japan and South Korea. In short, it cannot live without us.
If we believe that ethics is as important as economics, we must demand a higher price for trade with the western world, and that price must be free speech, democratic reforms, property rights, freedom of association, freedom of movement, respect for women and, most importantly, religious tolerance. Those are the foundations of a free society on which our hopes for peace in the middle east depend.
In conclusion, intervention—and I am an interventionist—does not have to mean war. I accept that military action is sometimes unavoidable, but I urge the Government towards a policy of fair trade. If a regime kills its citizens for their faith, Britain should not do business with it. We already refuse to sell most of those countries guns, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, but we should not sell those countries butter either. If a state imprisons minority groups without charge or trial, it should become a pariah state and be excluded from the world economy.
In the middle east, 10,000 children are born every single day. Unless the Arab spring leads to lasting economic and social reforms and protection for minority groups—including minority Muslim groups, such as those in Kurdistan—then the 10,000 children born today are more likely than ever to grow up in a barren region, which has no jobs, no bread and no security. We have to act now with fair trade to pressure those countries into change. That would transform the treatment of Christians and religious minorities around the world and it would be in our national interest as well.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing the debate and I congratulate those who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That was the second speech of his I have heard today, because like him I was torn between this and the debate on the eurozone. Even though that debate is about billions of pounds, this debate is actually more important, although it is in Westminster Hall and the other debate is in the main Chamber. Why? Because lives are at risk and people all over the world are dying.
It is a bit depressing for me, because I have taken part in so many of these debates over the past 28 years and have written scores of letters to Ministers. I claim no credit for that because I, like other hon. Members, have been supported by campaign groups, particularly the Jubilee Campaign. I pay tribute to Mr Wilfred Wong, who for 20 years has helped MPs to raise the plight of persecuted Christians in numerous letters to the Foreign Office, but it is, frankly, a bit of a depressing exercise.
I do not blame the Minister—he has his brief, which he must read out—but so often the answer is much the same. Of course, there are soothing words and of course the Government condemn brutality in any shape or form and believe in freedom of expression and freedom of religion. However, over the years, as the problem has got so much worse, I am not convinced, frankly, that the Government have spoken up enough—I am sorry to have to say that to the Minister. We have real influence in the world. I was very moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said as a Jewish person. There is no real comparison, I suppose, between what was happening in the 1930s and what is happening now, and if I am overstating my case, I apologise, but there was the famous case of some Foreign Office diplomat who, when evidence was coming out of Nazi Germany of the persecution of Jews, wrote in the margin of one of the papers, “Save us from wailing Jews.” That was an outrageous comment.
I know that the Foreign Office is not like that now; it is not quite the same. Sometimes, however, when one reads replies from our Foreign Office, one gets the impression that there is rather a light touch, and that it does not really want to get heavily involved. I noticed that recently, when speaking to a very senior diplomat who had served at the top level in Iraq and is now an ambassador in Europe. I mentioned the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has cited, that the Iraqi Christian population has declined from 1.5 million to 800,000. He immediately said, “No, no, that’s not right. It hasn’t declined by that much. It’s declined from 1.5 million to 1 million, or something.” In other words, he was not fully engaged, and I did not get the impression that that had been a priority for him as a top diplomat in Iraq.
I know that the situation in Iraq was appalling; I have been there. I went to northern Iraq and wandered around the Christian villages, something so few of our top people who instituted the invasion have done. I went twice; the first time was to Kurdistan during Saddam Hussein’s time. That was a brutal, horrible regime, and I make no apology for it, but at least the Christians had some degree of safety; they were protected. I also went after the end of the regime, and had to listen to harrowing stories. Women, with tears streaming down their faces, sat in a room and recounted how their son and their husband, a church warden in the suburbs of Baghdad, had left home one day to go to church and had been killed in a brutal, senseless, sectarian attack, just because of their religion. What was even more horrific, and absolutely traumatising to listen to, was that some mothers’ children had simply disappeared. Can Members imagine that—a child, an 18-year-old daughter, going off to church and never being seen again? That is why I am passionate about the issue, and I make no apology for being so. We should be doing so much more, and our Government should be speaking much more forcefully.
Pakistan has been mentioned. It is our largest recipient of aid. It is a nuclear state and has an elite that massively evades paying taxes. The Pakistani military establishment was probably complicit in harbouring Osama bin Laden, a terrorist who was targeting our people. We are now giving hundreds of millions of pounds to Pakistan’s education service. The country has an appalling human rights record, and a dreadful system of blasphemy laws. I just wonder, in all the hours of discussion that will go on between President Obama and our Prime Minister during the two-day visit, in all the hours that will be spent talking about Iraq and Libya, how many minutes will be devoted to the brutal persecution of Christians around the world. None at all, I suspect. Through their aid programmes and their moral force, these people—our Prime Minister, the President of France, the President of the United States of America—have enormous influence.
I believe that there should have been zero tolerance of the persecution of the Jewish people before the second world war, and that now, in the 21st century, there should be zero tolerance of the persecution of anyone. It is not just outright persecution that we are talking about, not just the appalling genocidal attacks that have taken place in Iraq and Nigeria. Nigeria is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has pointed out—a Commonwealth country and a large recipient of aid, both now and in the past. It is not just these horrific physical attacks; in so many countries there is the absurd situation of a kind of quiet persecution, and I am afraid that that applies to Egypt. I have been involved in numerous campaigns to support the Copts. No one can go out—has ever been able to go out—in Egypt and build a new church. There are all sorts of planning restrictions. The Copts are at the bottom of the economic heap and it is very difficult for them to rise up from there. Mention has been made of Saudi Arabia, which is a so-called key ally, but that country is back where we were in the 18th century, when people were allowed to engage in a minority religion but only in private. Frankly, the situation in Saudi Arabia is scandalous.
In conclusion, I congratulate Members on what they have said today, and I urge the Minister, when he goes back to his Department, to really get a grip of his diplomats around the globe and to use our powerful voice to speak out for the oppressed of the world.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this timely and very important debate, and extend support from the Labour Benches for the principles that he set out so powerfully and eloquently in his opening speech.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact, throughout history, of various forms of fundamentalism, the horrors of which have been touched upon in the debate. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) reminded us of the articles on religious freedom in the United Nations declaration of human rights, and that issue lies at the heart of the debate. We are still learning lessons from events of the past four or five months in north Africa and the middle east, but a lesson for our own policy surely must be that we need a clear consistency of approach to the defence of human rights, including religious freedom, and that favouritism towards certain regimes has undermined our moral credibility on some of these issues, in ways that Members have set out today.
A depressingly large number of countries have been mentioned, and it is difficult in 10 minutes to do justice to all the different horrors that we have heard about. All I can really do is echo some of the things that Members have said about Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, China, North Korea and Sri Lanka, for example, and say a bit more.
Regarding Iraq, I think that we are all deeply alarmed at the incidents of sectarian violence that have been described today. As a country, we need to use the influence that for obvious reasons we have in Iraq, to promote tolerance and interfaith dialogue. I would like to take this opportunity to echo what the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said about the Kurdish regional government. The Kurdish part of Iraq provides us with some important human rights lessons, and we should especially pay tribute to it for providing a refuge for Christians escaping from other parts of Iraq. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) rightly said that those people should not be displaced but be able to stay in their family homes and practise their religion freely, and we should seek to achieve that. I echo what he said about Andrew White—“the vicar of Baghdad” at St George’s Anglican church—who has done such amazing, heroic, courageous work in standing up for the principle of religious freedom for people of all faiths in that city. I also draw Members’ attention to the work of the House of Love run by Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity in Baghdad. The house was initially set up to serve orphans left disabled by Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, and the sisters, who typically come from India and Bangladesh, provide their services to acutely vulnerable children. That is a moving example of the very positive role that religion can play in conflict situations.
A number of Members have talked about Pakistan. I absolutely share their anger at the blasphemy laws and at how they are used and abused, and I pay tribute, as have other Members, to Shahbaz Bhatti, who was the only Christian serving in the Pakistani Government. As such a major donor to Pakistan, we clearly have a responsibility to do more to stand up for human rights in general in that country, and in particular to use our aid and our political and diplomatic relationships to put pressure on Pakistan to defend religious freedom.
The same applies to India. We heard again today about the appalling catalogue of horrors in Orissa. Several hon. Members referred to Iran, a country that we know abuses the human rights of large sections of its population, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, women and minority ethnic communities, including Kurds. The treatment of the Baha’i community in that country is also appalling. Iran targets Christians in the same way that it targets other minorities.
I mentioned the Arab spring. Several hon. Members have expressed concern that one consequence of an opening up in some north African and middle eastern countries is that it is easier for extremists to target Christian minorities. I agree with those who have said that the situation in Egypt is of particular concern, as is the role of Salafists and others in attacking Coptic Christians and other Christian communities in that country. I ask the Minister to update the House on the situation in Egypt. What are the UK Government doing to assist the promotion and consolidation of human rights in that country, including the right to religious freedom?
Tunisia might offer a more positive example. I was in Tunisia relatively recently, and it seemed to have a strong commitment to protecting minority rights, including religious freedom, as the country moves towards writing a new constitution and elections to the Constituent Assembly in July. However, it is vital that we maintain a clear watching brief on the Tunisian situation as it develops.
I take this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to some organisations doing positive work in the field, both here in the UK and internationally. I am pleased to be acting as a mentor to three students who are part of an interfaith dialogue programme being run by the Three Faiths Forum. Talia, Philip and Sultana are Jewish, Christian and Muslim respectively, and they recently organised a thought-provoking photographic exhibition at University college London on the awful practice and prevalence of human trafficking. I hope that we can showcase the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall of the House later this year. It demonstrates that interfaith dialogue can promote the positive values associated with religion and a commitment to universal human rights.
Last week, I returned from a visit, with Christian Aid and the all-party group on the great lakes region of Africa, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I put on record the positive role played by the Churches and Christian charities such as Christian Aid and CAFOD in those countries, where such horrors have been committed over the past decade or so.
The hon. Member for Harlow asked what role the United Kingdom would play. We must use every lever to promote religious freedom and protect Christians from the increasing violence that we have heard described in this debate. Will the Minister inform us what progress the human rights advisory group established by the Foreign Secretary last year has made on addressing the human rights of Christians and other religious minority and majority groups around the world?
Will the Minister also update the House on the work that the British Government are doing through a range of multilateral institutions to voice the concerns raised in this debate? It strikes me, given that north Africa is part of the Mediterranean region, that Europe has a responsibility to fulfil the values for which it stands by protecting minority rights. The United Nations clearly has a role to play, and we must address the Commonwealth’s potential to be much more proactive in promoting the rights of Christians and other religious groups. Many of the countries whose appalling records have been highlighted today, such as Nigeria and Pakistan, are Commonwealth members, and the Commonwealth could do more. The Department for International Development also has an increasingly influential role in many such countries as British aid increases, at a time when many other countries’ aid programmes are being cut. What more can DFID do to use its influence to ensure that human rights and religious freedom are protected?
I think that all of us in the House, across parties, have a responsibility to use the institutions of Parliament—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Select Committees, all-party parliamentary groups—to promote religious freedom. This debate has been an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our strong cross-party commitment to religious freedom. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, we must not pass by on the other side. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr Benton, for calling me to conclude this debate. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this debate on an extremely important and regrettably topical subject. I thank the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for their speeches, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) for a typically impassioned and powerful speech and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for a typically thorough and thoughtful contribution. The treatment of Christians worldwide and, more broadly, individuals’ freedom to worship or practise their own religion or belief without discrimination or persecution is an important topic and of increasing concern given the problems faced by religious minorities, including Christians, in many parts of the world in recent years.
I will start by setting out the Government’s policy in this area, for the avoidance of doubt. The Government strongly support the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief and the right to freedom of opinion and expression as set out in those key international human rights instruments the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and the relevant 1981 United Nations declaration. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear on many occasions, the effective promotion of human rights, including religious freedom, is at the heart and core of our foreign policy. All Foreign and Commonwealth Office embassies and high commissions have a responsibility, which is made clear to the heads of mission in every post, to monitor and raise human rights in their host countries. We continue to raise freedom of religion or belief with other Governments whenever necessary. I reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann and other Members that we are aware of the difficulties faced by Christian minorities around the world, and particularly in middle eastern and western Asian countries. I will deal with those countries with the greatest attention.
The Opposition spokesman mentioned Egypt in particular. In Egypt, where tensions between Christians and Muslims eased initially during the revolution in February, a number of extremely alarming incidents have recently occurred. Violent clashes between Muslims and Coptic Christians in Cairo on 7 and 9 May left 15 people dead and more than 250 injured. Peaceful demonstrations about those events on 15 May were attacked by unidentified gunmen. The Foreign Secretary condemned the violence in a statement to Parliament on 16 May and called on both sides to resolve their differences peacefully. He welcomed the fact that many in Egypt were appalled by the violence. The EU High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Baroness Ashton, also issued a statement on behalf of the European Union on 7 May condemning the clashes.
The UK remains in close contact with the Egyptian Government on the issue and has made absolutely clear the importance that we place on religious tolerance. The Foreign Secretary was in Egypt on 1 and 2 May, raising our concerns about the dangers of extremism and sectarianism in Egypt directly with the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the Prime Minister.
The Egyptian Government have shown their intention to punish those who incite sectarianism by announcing on 8 May plans for new laws to criminalise attempts to jeopardise the freedom of faith and attacks on places of worship. We will make sure that we are vigilant in seeking to hold them to account for those commitments.
In Iraq, we remain concerned about the treatment of Christian minorities, and were appalled by the attack on Our Lady of Salvation church in Baghdad on 31 October 2010, which killed more than 50 people, and the further attacks on 10 November 2010, which targeted mainly Christian areas across Baghdad. The United Kingdom remains in close contact with the Iraqi Government on this issue and is committed to doing all that it can to protect the rights and freedoms of all minorities in Iraq. On 10 November 2010, the Foreign Secretary met the visiting Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Zebari, and raised with him directly the issue of Iraqi Christians. Mr Zebari acknowledged that the protection of Christians was the Iraqi Government’s responsibility.
More recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has responsibility for the middle east, visited Iraq from 22 to 25 November. He met a number of senior Christian figures and raised the plight of the Christian community with the Foreign Minister, the new Speaker of the Council of Representatives, and the President and the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan regional government.
Pakistan has, regrettably, featured prominently in this afternoon’s debate. I pay tribute to the only Christian Minister in Pakistan, who was assassinated recently, and join everyone who has expressed regret about that.
Mr Browne
I share my hon. Friend’s despair about some of the abuses of individual freedom and the right to expression, including religious expression, and, specifically, freedom of Christian expression in Pakistan. The Government, however, need to tread carefully, because the reason why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was separated from the Department for International Development in the late 1990s was to try to decouple considerations about the alleviation of poverty from the Government’s overall foreign policy goals. I appreciate that those two may overlap at times, but we need to be cautious about judging the suitability of a desperately needy person to receive aid based on their Government’s behaviour in relation to religious subjects.
Mr Browne
Before we broke for a Division in the main Chamber, hon. Members will recall that I was talking about the appalling murder of Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan on 2 March. Over recent months, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who covers Pakistan, had engaged regularly with the former Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, on the importance of religious tolerance and freedom of speech in Pakistan. Mr Bhatti was a tireless and vocal proponent of those beliefs, and his appalling murder is a blow to those in Pakistan who share his beliefs and to all of us who believe in religious freedom and tolerance.
Following Mr Bhatti’s untimely and violent death, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to express his condolences to President Zardari, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, have all made statements condemning his killing. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who deals with Pakistan, is regularly in touch with his counterparts in the Pakistani Government on human rights issues. He will continue to engage with the authorities in Pakistan on these important issues and will raise them with the new Minister for Minorities.
My hon. Friend recently visited Pakistan, where he was able to engage on the issue of religious tolerance with Shahbaz Bhatti’s brother, Paul Bhatti, who has been appointed as the Pakistani Prime Minister’s adviser on inter-faith harmony and minority affairs. He also had the opportunity to meet religious leaders from across Pakistan as part of the Ministry’s inter-faith council. That highlighted how leading political and religious figures in Pakistan feel about religious tolerance, and the need to ensure that all of Pakistan’s citizens are accorded their rights under the Pakistani constitution. We will continue to support the Pakistani Government on this subject.
Jim Shannon
Will the Minister cast his mind back to the time of the floods in Pakistan, when the people of Great Britain, through their Churches and through aid, gave a lot of money to help overcome the difficulties in Pakistan? At that time, Christians sent word out of Pakistan back to the United Kingdom to indicate that they were not receiving some of that aid. Will the Minister pursue that matter? It is very clear to me as an elected representative, and to many others, that there is deep-rooted discrimination against Christians in Pakistan, which reaches as far as the UK aid that was given to help them as well.
Mr Browne
There were a number of points in that intervention. I pay tribute to all the British people who were extremely generous in their contributions to the victims of the natural disaster in Pakistan. Many of them were Christians or were involved with Christian groups that co-ordinated and led that charitable activity. I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep alarm—perhaps the word “alarm” is not strong enough—and profound anxiety about the circumstances of some Christians in Pakistan, and the fact that they cannot worship as freely as they would wish. I will certainly convey to the Minister with geographical responsibility for Pakistan, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. As I was explaining to the Chamber, my hon. Friend is extremely committed, on a personal basis, to the issue of religious freedom of practice for Christians and others. I know that he will, with great sincerity, want to take forward the exact agenda advised by the hon. Member for Strangford.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Also in Pakistan, Governor Salman Taseer was shot dead for raising the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian caught up in these draconian laws. Will the Minister urge the Government of Pakistan to release Asia Bibi and all the others imprisoned under those laws, so that they can practise their faith?
Mr Browne
I cannot give my hon. Friend that commitment, not because I necessarily disapprove of the view that he expressed, but because that is not a commitment that I am in a position to give this afternoon. All I can undertake to do is ensure that his views are heard clearly in the Foreign Office, and that they are taken seriously by those who are in a position to make the relevant decision.
Other countries have been brought to our attention this afternoon. Nigeria continues to experience significant inter-communal violence, particularly following the presidential elections last month. Both Christian and Muslim communities have suffered terrible loss of life in recent years as a result of violence driven by underlying social, political, economic and religious factors. We have made it clear to the Nigerian Government at ministerial level that the perpetrators of those crimes must be brought to justice. The Minister with responsibility for sub-Saharan Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), has raised this issue directly with the vice-president. Our high commissioner has raised it and related subjects on several occasions.
Iran has come up as a subject, rightly and understandably. There is significant cause for concern about the treatment of Christians and other minority religious groups in Iran. That continues to be a country of high concern to the Foreign Office. We express that view whenever and wherever we can.
Briefly, before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I was asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby to talk about the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group on human rights, which identified religious freedom as a key human rights issue at its first meeting in December. Following on from that, a programme of work based on freedom of religion has been agreed, including a Wilton Park conference in July, to discuss promoting religious freedom around the world. That will be attended by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, along with a range of senior religious leaders. The conference will identify how the international community can strengthen its ability to protect religious freedom. It will also seek to build new partnerships between Governments, NGOs and faith groups.
Tees Valley Rail Transport
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Tees Valley is a distinct area of the country with a population of more than 750,000 people. It is well defined, with the sea to the east, 20 to 30 miles of open County Durham countryside to the north, the dales and Pennines to the west, and a vast area of sparsely populated north Yorkshire to the south. It has long been defined as a coherent economic area. It was no accident that the Tees Valley local enterprise partnership was quickly established, as a similar body already existed. Despite the substantial population, the area has a slight identity crisis. It is often referred to as a city region by policy makers, but it contains no cities or even one dominant town. Middlesbrough is currently applying for city status.
Steam-powered passenger rail transport actually started in Tees Valley between Stockton and Darlington in 1825, hauled by George Stephenson’s engine, “Locomotion”. Some 185 years later, we cannot even go directly from Stockton to Darlington on a train. There is a passenger rail system, but it is poorly co-ordinated, has insufficient trains and badly needs investment. New station stops are needed to reflect developments since the lines were built. This has been recognised for many years by the local and regional planning authorities. Finally, in 2009, a first tranche of investment in a Tees Valley metro system was approved. However, after less than £5 million was drawn down, the remaining £24 million was postponed by the present Government. The importance of the project to the area was shown by the fact that a first phase was resubmitted to round 1 of the regional growth fund. Unfortunately, the bid was unsuccessful.
My speech today will cover three main areas: the need to get a good passenger metro system in Tees Valley; the importance of freight investment; and the need for a long-term vision, including further use of existing lines and possible new lines. Settlements in Tees Valley are there mainly due to manufacturing industry. Decline of industry in the last few decades has left much of the area at the wrong end of all the socio-economic league tables. For example, a study by the BBC and Experian in 2010 looked at 324 areas of the UK in terms of economic strength. It placed Hartlepool borough 314th, Redcar and Cleveland 319th and Middlesbrough, arguably the largest town in England, in last place at 324th. Middlesbrough also has the third lowest number of businesses per thousand residents in the country. It is precisely because the area has been performing badly in recent years in respect of socio-economic indicators that there is a need for a modern, long-lasting rail network to aid regeneration.
There are many promising signals. Teesside university was UK university of the year for 2009-10, and that has helped fuel a rapid growth in digital and media industries. Teesside remains a key UK centre for process industries and is emerging as a major centre of green technology research and manufacturing. Teesport is a thriving, growing port. Darlington is a growing commercial centre, aided by the presence of the Student Loans Company and Teachers’ Pensions. If we are to restore the north-east to the economic hub it once was and can be again, improving rail infrastructure is vital.
Existing passenger rail in the core area is in the shape of a cross, with a north-south Hartlepool to Nunthorpe line intersecting the east-west Darlington to Saltburn line at both Thornaby and Middlesbrough. This area should be the first target of a metro system. There are 21 stations in the core area. Some are very poorly served, including the one near the airport at which only one train stops every week. Despite the patchy service, usage has grown over the past 10 years. More than 2 million people a year use Darlington station, which gives access to the east coast main line and other national services.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
My fellow Teesside MP—I still do not like “Tees Valley”—has already touched on a key concern for our part of the north-east, which is the future viability of our airport. An effective rail transport system, making proper use of the station at the airport, would be an important piece of the puzzle in bringing Teesside airport—as I still insist on calling it—back into use and making it successful once again. The airport, which is on the boundary of my constituency, has a new owner, looking to do exciting things. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I hope that the Minister will consider that, as part of an integrated package, rail transport could also revive our air transport links.
Ian Swales
My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely, because I am about to talk more about the airport. I fully support his comments. It is essential that the airport is better served, and a frequent light rail service operating in the core area would help to change the economic fortunes of Tees Valley.
The use of rail services has continued to grow, despite the patchy service: last year, footfall increased by just less than 50,000; and in the past 10 years, the average increase in footfall overall has been 58%. Refurbished stations have shown the biggest increases, some in excess of 100%. The increase in passengers, along with huge further potential demand, means that new lines, trains and infrastructure are needed to meet the needs of residents and businesses.
Investment in existing stations is vital. For example, establishing a proper link to the airport is vital: Durham Tees Valley airport, or Teesside as it is still shown on departure boards all over the world, must be the passenger airport in Britain worst served by public transport, but the train line passes just half a mile from the terminal. Eaglescliffe station now has a main line service to London, but no information displays and only two small bus shelters for passengers. Redcar station needs investment as a gateway to the town and the new college and civic developments, and Darlington station needs investment to improve access to new educational and economic developments. The Redcar and Darlington schemes were included in the regional growth fund round 1 bid. The last new station in the area was Longbeck near Marske-by-the-Sea in 1985.
There are clear possibilities for further new stops on the existing lines. Some examples include Teesside park, for access to the new shopping area and the Tees barrage leisure facilities; Middlehaven, for the major new commercial developments and the Riverside stadium, home of Middlesbrough football club; and the James Cook university hospital, which is the major acute hospital for the area. Traffic to and from the hospital is a big source of congestion on one of the main access roads to Middlesbrough, and there are chronic parking problems at the site. Providing a good rail service would help to reduce such problems. The existing lines run close by, and a new station for the hospital was also part of the initial regional growth fund bid.
A number of other residential and commercial developments are current or planned along those routes, opening further possibilities for new stations, such as at Morton Palms, Darlington, and The Ings, Redcar. A further key need is to ensure that the new enterprise zone recently announced by the Government is well served by public transport. It is almost certain to be close to those rail routes.
I will now move on to freight. Teesport has recently been ranked variously as between the second and fourth largest port in the country, depending on the amount of industrial activity in the area. As well as serving the bulk process industries and being an import terminal for cars, Teesport has a rapidly growing container business, with giant new warehouses serving Tesco and Asda. The excellent facilities at Teesport mean that process industries inland also use the import/export facilities, and such industrial materials normally require shipment by rail.
The port has been successfully driving economic and employment growth. For example, 1,100 jobs have been created since 2007 and further exciting developments are planned. However, the existing connecting rail facilities need upgrading—for example, to provide clearance for modern 9-foot 6-inch containers—which is strategically important for the country. A successful Teesport backed by good rail facilities will help to reduce lorry use by millions of miles, bringing economic and environmental benefits. As part of the regional growth fund round 1, a gauge clearance project was submitted, which is vital to continuing the rapid, port-based economic growth. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of getting more bulk freight off the roads and on to the railways.
The longer term vision includes more use of lines joining the core area and possible new lines. To the west, Darlington connects to Bishop Auckland via four other stations, including the former rolling stock manufacturing town of Shildon and, following the Hitachi announcement, the new rolling stock manufacturing town of Newton Aycliffe. The line from Eaglescliffe to Northallerton passes through the large population centre of Yarm-on-Tees, which I believe is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). Beyond Nunthorpe, the line passes into the north Yorkshire moors and on to Whitby. Services on that line are always likely to be more of a leisure activity, but the first station is Great Ayton and most people in that area work in Tees Valley.
Finally, beyond Saltburn, part of the old Yorkshire coast line to Scarborough still exists as a freight-only line as far as the Boulby potash mine. The potash mine received money to expand in the regional growth fund round 1 and is a major local employer. I have recently been approached by an operator who is considering restoring a passenger service along the line to include the east Cleveland settlements it passes through, including North Skelton, Brotton, Skinningrove and Loftus. Use of all such existing lines to better connect people to the core Tees Valley services and opportunities should be part of our vision.
Serious discussion is also going on about reopening the old Nunthorpe to Guisborough branch line. Although the track has been lifted, the route is virtually intact as a walkway, and Guisborough has expanded to be a large centre of population, with most of the people working in Tees Valley. They are a large contributor to the heavy south-to-north road congestion at peak times. A rail service would reduce the current pressure to invest in new road solutions—some road-building proposals even involve taking land from the National Trust at Orenby hall.
More speculative would be the construction of other new lines and a Tees crossing nearer the river mouth. Redcar to Hartlepool is only seven miles as the crow flies, but the need to go a long way upriver to cross by road or rail means that their local economies are largely disconnected. A Tees crossing remains a dream for many in the long term. Where new lines are not economical, better co-ordinated bus services are needed to link centres of population to the rail network, for example from the Greater Eston area.
I appreciate that investment requires funds, but I urge the Minister to consider carefully the issue of fares. The UK already has some of the highest fares in the world. I live close to Redcar East station and, to travel one stop to the centre of town, the fare is only slightly less than a taxi fare—for just two people, a taxi would be the cheaper option for most short journeys locally. For long trips, we risk incentivising people to do the wrong thing. For my trip to Parliament each week, it is already cheaper to drive at 40p a mile than to buy a standard class open return train ticket. I hope that the Minister will recognise that fares must remain reasonable, as mentioned in the coalition agreement, and that continued public investment in the railways is in the country’s interest. That is the view taken by Governments in almost every developed country.
As I hope that I have illustrated, it is vital that Tees Valley receives the short-term investment it desperately needs to improve passenger and freight rail transport. Investment without a long-term vision, however, will not deliver the results that the people throughout the region want, so it is important that a long-term strategy is put in place to manage investment over time and to build the infrastructure needed. Tees Valley is an area with enormous potential to drive major growth in the UK economy. I hope that this debate has helped further the cause for improving Tees Valley rail transport, and I strongly urge the Minister to support the upgrades that are so badly needed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) for securing this important debate. Having a debate on the day before a recess is always dangerous, but he managed to encourage some of his colleagues to attend.
I was in Teesside only recently. I went there by train from London to visit Teesport, which comes within my portfolio. I have been asked to respond to the debate because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), whose portfolio covers regional and local transport, is not here. He has asked me to apologise for his absence.
The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar raised cover myriad modal shifts in how to get passengers and freight off the roads, and how better to use available facilities. It was fantastic news for the region when the Tees furnace was reopened, and certainly the new owners, whom I had the privilege of meeting, were thrilled. What was obvious when coming in by train was the unbelievable number of sidings that have not been used for a considerable time. I am the Minister with responsibility for freight, on whatever mode, and it always hurts to see that investment sitting there unused. It may have been made many years ago, but the concept was right.
The port, which is under new ownership, has a huge footprint, and not all of it has been used as well as we would like. There are contamination issues, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—the new owners of Teesport, however, have good and imaginative ideas, especially in some of the areas to which my hon. Friend alluded—such as problems relating to moving larger containers around. A particular issue in this country is that we cannot move many of them on our canals, which are a great asset, but difficult to use.
My officials have written a brilliant speech for me, but if I read it out, which I am sure is what they would like me to do, I would fail to pay tribute to the contributions that we have heard this afternoon. Investment for the area was planned before the new coalition Administration came to power, and before we realised how bad the economic situation is. I will not go through how bad it is, because everyone knows the situation. The £4.9 million that was drawn down has been well spent, and the stations at Hartlepool, Eaglescliffe and Thornaby have benefited.
I am pleased to hear that the new owners of the airport have sensible ideas for expansion, and how to increase their market share and put the airport on the map in the UK, but that will require investment. They will have to look at their business plans, and create a market that drives people to use it. I was fascinated to hear private companies saying that they would like to put passengers back on that line. They are obviously thinking of doing that because there is a need. The Government may help and, as my hon. Friend knows, two funds have been drawn down.
Sadly, Tees Valley Unlimited was not successful in the first tranche, because it needed to be much better at proving what the economic benefits in terms of jobs would be from drawing down from that fund. Tees Valley Unlimited has discussed the matter extensively with my officials. They have met eight or nine times recently, and I urge them to have further meetings, because the key to both funding plans is that the community comes together, and that a proper business plan is drawn up to create the right climate for further investment in the area. I will not go into the semantics of what it should be called. I have enough problems deciding when to call my football team Spurs or Tottenham Hotspur, and my town Hemel or Hemel Hempstead. It is for local politicians to discuss the matter over a pint on another occasion.
However, it is important—I am sure that this has been discussed—that the area is branded in the right way so that investment comes to the area, and there is no confusion about that brand. The first time I flew to what was Speke airport in Liverpool, I looked for Speke on the departure board, but it had been renamed John Lennon. I had no idea that I was going to Liverpool. When a brand name is used for a community, it must be what the community is looking for. I am sure that the new name was discussed in great depth before it was introduced, but whenever I spoke to people in that part of the world, and especially when I was at Teesport, there was confusion. When I quoted my brief, they did not understand what I was talking about until I talked about Teesport, the Tees area and so on.
There is real scope for local authorities to come together, and to consider joint bids. It is crucial as we go forward with the localism agenda, to which the Department for Transport is fully committed, that local authorities are not parochial and say, “This is our borough, and we won’t join together.” They must have confidence in their area and say, “We know what’s best for our community, and exactly how to generate jobs and go forward.” Four local authorities would probably need to join together to formulate a plan and to give them confidence to return to the Department for Transport, as well as to other Departments, because transport will not be the only issue.
Ian Swales
I want to pick up the point about local authorities. Five are involved: Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar, Cleveland, and Darlington. The Minister can be confident that they are speaking with one voice on such issues, because Tees Valley issues and transport infrastructure cross all five. One reason why the local enterprise partnership got going so quickly was that it was heavily backed by those five local authorities.
Mike Penning
I am new to this area, and I may not be back if I make a mess of it, but my brief refers to the four Tees Valley local authorities. If that is wrong, I will arrange for my Department to write and apologise. When talking about local areas, branding is important.
In the next six months, passenger transport executives, groups of local authorities, and local enterprise partnerships should come together to discuss whether they want to take greater responsibility for such services. That is crucial when discussing where they are going, and how. There will be some central Government funding, but not as much as we probably all want, but local communities, especially through local enterprise partnerships and so on, will have much more say in what is done, and there will be an early opportunity to shape the future and destiny of local rail services. We have been discussing bits and bobs, but the discussion should be formalised with a shopping list of what should be done first, what should be done second, and what should be done third.
If we read my hon. Friend’s speech tomorrow morning, and the points that he made—I apologise for this and I am not being critical—will we know what the priorities are, and what needs to be done in the short term, the mid term and the long term? Communities and LEPs must come together to decide that. I am not being critical, but that must be done.
On cost, the McNulty report, which was commissioned by the previous Administration, addresses fares, and the fact that, if we are not careful we may jeopardise the great success—this is not party politics—of the railways today. There are issues about capacity and cost, and whether we are driving people off the railways and into their cars. That is important: we must address it in the franchise agreements and remove bureaucracy. McNulty acknowledged that the way in which the railways operate involves a huge amount of bureaucracy and cost, and in international terms they are very expensive. He estimated that £1 billion of savings could be made without damaging infrastructure, while at the same time encouraging people to use the railways. That will be a difficult task, but anyone who has had anything to do with railways—I am involved purely in freight, which is more successful now than it was—must address the fact that the state can provide only a certain amount of money for new lines. There is only a certain amount of railway capacity for the freight industry, and we must look carefully at how we can encourage a better modal shift and not have so much long-haul freight on the railways.
On today’s network—without High Speed 2 and the lines to the north-east and north-west, which would release more rail capacity—even if we increased rail freight to full capacity we would still struggle to get freight off the road. One of the huge successes in the Teesport region has been made by Asda and other supermarkets that are building what I consider to be the beginning of a renaissance in coastal shipping facilities—I apologise for naming Asda, but it is the store I visited. Bigger and bigger box ships are coming into big, deep-water wharves, but our roads do not have the capacity to move those goods around.
The most efficient way of moving freight anywhere in the world is by sea. We are a maritime nation with over 90 ports in state and trust ownership, yet we do not properly utilise those ports and their capacity. At the Asda hub, all the products that arrive come in by sea. The distribution is then worked out, and followed by what Asda describes as a limited “road bridging” system. That system is beginning to be replicated around the country. I was in the north-west the other day at Stobart’s rail hub. Stobart has developed such a system, not because it wanted a rail hub, but because its clients—Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda; we could name all the supermarkets but I probably should not—have said that they want goods to travel shorter distances. That area is developing.
The rail industry is underused. We have spoken about lines that need to be better utilised, and the railways are a huge facility that we could use to create a modal shift in transport locally through the hubs. The Asda scheme has been a great success, and it is looking at expanding it. It is a badge of honour for the local community and local authorities in that part of the world to facilitate the scheme and understand the needs and demands of their communities. We should also use other lines, especially if we can deal with the problem of bridges, and I know that discussions on that are taking place.
At the same time, we must be honest about what is likely to come in and out of the ports. As my hon. Friend said, if a line is working, it is crucial that it is used. It is much cheaper to use that line in a better way than to rebuild a line or put track back down. A lot of residents—I know this from my constituency—will have moved to live close to a railway line after the track was removed, and there will be an interesting debate about whether those lines should be put back. Those people no longer live next to a railway and without doubt, having a railway at the end of the garden or in the community impacts on people’s lives. That debate would be interesting; it would not be wrong to reopen the line, but such matters take time and must be managed correctly in the communities.
The use of Westminster Hall for a debate such as this is important. Concerns and ideas can be bounced into the arena, and Ministers will respond. I am conscious that I have not answered all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) in his intervention, but the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, will write to them and answer all their questions. If a further meeting with a Minister is needed, the door will be open.
Land Stability (Ironbridge Gorge)
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Benton, and to see the Minister in his place. Over the past 12 months he has become used to responding to my Adjournment debates.
The Ironbridge gorge was designated as a world heritage site in 1986 and now ranks in the “Premier League” of heritage sites across the world. It is a living, working community with approximately 4,000 residents, and 200 businesses that employ about 1,500 people. The gorge attracts about 750,000 visitors per year, generating about £60 million of the £110 million annual tourist spend within the borough of Telford and Wrekin. The world heritage site includes 250 listed buildings, seven statutory ancient monuments, including the iconic iron bridge, 10 museums and two sites of special scientific interest. It is an incredibly important asset, not only for this country but for the world.
Telford and Wrekin council has been instrumental in assessing the problems of land instability in the gorge in line with the objectives of the world heritage site management plan, and it has completed a number of studies, ground investigations and stabilisation schemes in the gorge. I commend the council for its work, and I particularly want to place on record my thanks to Neal Rushton, who has worked incredibly hard on the site over recent years.
Approximately £16 million has already been spent on addressing land stability problems in the gorge. The problem is that that is not enough, and a further £80 million of investment is needed. That was identified in a cost-benefit analysis conducted by the local authority in partnership with a number of other players. The Government are aware of those studies, and have supported the approach taken by the council over recent years.
Land instability in the Ironbridge area is not a new phenomenon and dates back to the formation of the Ironbridge gorge. The geologically young valley structure is still developing through natural processes, and both sides of the gorge are gradually slipping down towards the River Severn. The local community has lived with the impact of land instability and the problems it causes for many years. That instability manifests itself in damaged roads and footpaths, collapsed retaining walls, severed services, and occasional major landslides that damage the structure of properties within the gorge.
Numerous documented landslides have occurred in the gorge over the past 250 years, and a review of various records has been carried out to collate information on the magnitude, distribution and frequency of the principal events. Those events have varied widely in location, scale and effect. Landslides have taken place throughout the gorge, from Birches Coppice in the west to Jackfield in the east. The events have occurred within undeveloped and built-up areas alike and they range from local collapses of individual retaining walls or parts of embankment slopes, to wholesale failure of large areas of valley sides. The 1773 landslide led to a total blockage of the River Severn. Where landslides have occurred in open ground, relatively little damage to property or infrastructure has occurred. In built-up areas, however, even medium and small landslides have had a significant impact, leading to the demolition of numerous properties throughout the gorge and the loss of roads and other services.
Until recently, our understanding of the nature and extent of instability in the gorge was quite limited. Over the past 10 years, however, a number of significant studies and investigations have been undertaken and have provided a much clearer understanding of the causes and pattern of land instability in the area. The work undertaken to date has included the following elements: the stabilisation of Jiggers Bank, completed in March 2002; the world heritage site land instability study, completed in February 2003; ground investigation work at Jackfield, Lloyds Head and the Lloyds in January 2005; the Ironbridge and Coalbrookdale ground behaviour study in January 2005; and the production in 2004 of an emergency plan in conjunction with the emergency services and other agencies aimed at addressing worst-case scenarios. That plan is regularly reviewed and updated. The latest version was produced in 2010 and was used in a multi-agency exercise in the gorge in November of that year.
An instability pack outlining the issues in relation to the world heritage site was distributed to residents of the area, and part of the council’s webpage is dedicated to redistributing updates about what is happening in the gorge. That has been taking place since February 2005. There was a three-day drop-in session to raise awareness of the issue among members of the public and to provide an opportunity to ask questions. That, too, took place in February 2005.
Ongoing surface and subsurface monitoring is examining the speed, amount and direction of movement. That work has been under way since 2001. Stabilisation of the Lloyds phase 1 site, a 165-metre-long section of Lloyds road in the vicinity of Lloyds cottage, which was the site deemed to be at greatest risk, was completed in August 2007. Stabilisation of the Lloyds phase 2 site, adjacent to Lloyds phase 1, was completed in December 2008, as was stabilisation of the Lloyds Head site, on the opposite side of the river to Lloyds phase 1 and 2, where ground movement in April 2007 led to closure of the road. Stabilisation of a local landslide at the Wynd, Coalport road, following a period of excessive rainfall, was completed in December 2008. Additional ground investigation and the installation of monitoring instruments in the immediate area around the iron bridge and within Jackfield was also carried out at that time.
It is important to understand that we have carried out a comprehensive assessment, involving a range of partner agencies, of what is happening in the gorge and we have taken strategic steps to improve the situation as funding has become available. We now need additional resource to carry out further work to protect the world heritage site and properties on the site and to ensure that we continue to have a strong and vibrant community in the gorge.
I am pleased to say that a dialogue has remained open and positive between Government Departments and the council and that a plan for future work has been developed and an estimate prepared, identifying a need for further works with a total cost of about £80 million. That would address and manage the issue immediately and within the coming 10 to 15 years. The plan reflects the risk assessments and recommendations in the reports completed to date.
So what do we need to do next? As I said, approximately £16.7 million has already been spent to address instability in the gorge, but there is currently no funding to carry out any further investigation or remedial works. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that we have investment in the gorge to sustain the world heritage site and the community that lives there. We are signatories to the UNESCO world heritage site convention, which requires the Government to ensure that that site is protected. It falls to the Government, in partnership with the council, to produce proposals to ensure that further ground stabilisation works are undertaken.
I think that, based on the investigations and monitoring carried out to date, and in line with the cost-benefit analysis, the council believes that the Jackfield area and, in particular, Salthouse road needs to be the next area targeted for remedial works. That area is showing the greatest movement. I think that the Minister knows the area. If he drives along the road, he will find that it is more like a rollercoaster than a road, because the movement is so significant. In some areas of the gorge, service pipes must be laid overground rather than underground, because fracturing of service pipes would be so extensive if the pipework were laid underground that it would have to be dug up again and maintained within months. We are talking about serious levels of movement and a serious impact on the gorge and the lives of the people who live there.
There is significant structural damage in the Jackfield area. That has occurred over many decades. I understand that the budget for that first element of work would be about £20 million. It would be very good if we could start to see progress on the first phase of work down at Jackfield. Clearly, we would need to have further discussions with the Government about where we should go over the coming years. I am quite open about this. I have no axe to grind in terms of which Government are in power. I have been campaigning on the issue for a number of years as the local MP. It is the kind of issue that we bring up as a local Member of Parliament, a constituency MP, because it is important to our community.
It is interesting that we have had several ministerial visits over the years. We have had a positive dialogue with Government. That is why we have already seen significant investment in the area. What we need to do now is to work together in partnership. I raise this, and I look directly to the Minister, in a spirit of partnership: we need to get this right not just for the residents of the gorge, but for the future of the nation in terms of protecting its world heritage sites.
Land instability constitutes a major risk to the fabric of the gorge and a risk to the health and safety of inhabitants of the area and visitors alike. Immediate investment is needed to implement a series of stabilisation schemes along with further investigation and monitoring to deal with the problems proactively. The cost-benefit analysis evidences the appropriateness of such an approach and the financial benefit to be gained by being proactive. Further funding is needed now. We have a duty, collectively, to protect that environment not just for the residents who live there now—although clearly that is very important—but for future generations who will want to visit the gorge and live in it in the years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I thank the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) for raising an important issue and for the manner in which he has done so. He is right to say that he and I have had the pleasure of debating the issue before—and it is a pleasure to be able to do so again this afternoon with you in the Chair, Mr Benton. The only thing that is not a pleasure to me and the only thing on which I will take issue with the hon. Gentleman is his admittedly accurate description of Ironbridge gorge as being in the premier league of world heritage sites. He will know full well that I am a West Ham supporter and that was a particularly painful analogy for him to have drawn, albeit an accurate one in terms of the importance of Ironbridge gorge. It is a huge asset to this country, and the phrase that he used accurately describes its standing. The Government wish to see it preserved as much as anyone, because it is an immensely valuable part of our national heritage.
The hon. Gentleman set out the history and background in a characteristically well informed way. We are on common ground when it comes to the importance of the gorge and of finding a resolution to what is a difficult problem because it is ongoing and arises from geological causes that are not easy for any individual agency to deal with. He rightly set out the significance of the gorge. I will not repeat in detail what he said, but he was absolutely right to refer not only to its world heritage site status, but to its importance to the local and the wider economy in terms of jobs, its status as a significant attraction and its considerable tourism potential. We take that point very seriously.
It is right to observe that the gorge has suffered from and continues to experience land instability. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out in some detail the history of the problems that have arisen. By their very nature, they are the responsibility of a number of Departments and agencies. The landholdings in the world heritage site are diverse. Some are in the public sector—some were originally inherited from the old Telford development corporation, some are with the Homes and Communities Agency and others are with the borough council—and others are privately owned. However, the geological problem that causes the problem is no respecter of who owns the land, nor of the statutory responsibilities of particular agencies. A cross-agency approach is particularly important in this instance, and I concede that it sometimes requires more behind-the-scenes work to get a proper alignment, but the Government are committed to achieving that.
I realise that threats of this kind are sometimes beyond the means of the local communities where such sites are located, and the hon. Gentleman made that point fairly. Equally, one cannot simply say that the whole of the problem should pass to the Government. We have therefore been working constructively, as the hon. Gentleman said, with the local council to find together an achievable solution.
The position is this. We are now at a stage where it is realised that a programme of work needs to be undertaken over a number of years. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is because it is a comparatively new geological feature and ground movement continues all the time. He rightly identified the associated problem of flooding as well as that of land instability. It has therefore been necessary to undertake a thorough technical evaluation and stabilisation programme. The scientists advise that it is unlikely that we will find a complete solution because of the geological youth of the area, but we can do much, working together, to mitigate the worst of the risks.
My Department is charged with co-ordinating the Government’s response and has been in regular touch with Telford and Wrekin council. It considers that the risk of land instability and the resultant flooding continues to be serious, particularly the risk of a slip into the Severn and consequent damage to life and property. Initial estimates suggest that some £80 million over a period of years will be required to carry out the stabilisation works that are believed to be necessary. In consequence of that, the previous Government commissioned consultants to study the matter. They concluded that although the risk of an imminent major event was not high the risk nevertheless remained, and it is exacerbated by the continuing ground movement and the heavy rain and flooding to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The scientific conclusion is that, without stabilisation, the gorge would suffer a major slippage, but the complex factors involved make it difficult accurately to predict the timing. It has therefore been recommended that the problem should be addressed through a structured implementation plan, using a risk-based approach; that will be supported by a rolling programme, with a smaller-scale investment of approximately £50 million at a rate of about £2.5 million to £5 million over the next 10 to 20 years. There is a commitment to dealing with the stabilisation programme.
The assessment by the consultants and partners clearly shows that the problem of instability creates a threat to homes and lives, to the local transport infrastructure and to the integrity of the world heritage site and tourism. The designation of the gorge as a world heritage site means that there is a requirement for action to be taken to conserve and protect the site. The range and mix of impacts has required us to adopt a cross-departmental approach. In that respect, one difficulty is intervening to get the appropriate agencies to work together. We seek to bring the various legitimate interests together.
As part of the comprehensive spending review, the interdepartmental working group considered the matter. It recently finalised its assessment, and the Treasury has agreed to contribute to further land stabilisation works in the gorge on behalf of the Government, via my Department. The proposal is that it should be done on a shared funding basis, with the Government funding 60% and the local authority 40%. It is a condition of the funding that it is directed to the highest priority needs, based on independent scientific and technical assessments.
Senior officials from my Department spoke to councillors shortly before the local elections, but because of the local government purdah period there has been a hiatus in activity. There was a meeting between departmental officials and the previous leader of the council and its chief executive, which was very constructive. Despite the change of control in Telford and Wrekin, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials stand ready to meet the new leader of the council and his team, the chief executive and appropriate officers to continue those discussions. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there is no party interest; we want to see the matter resolved regardless of any party political considerations. So far, the Government and the council have dealt with everything on exactly that basis, and we stand ready to continue in the same manner.
To access the funding, we need to see a proposal from Telford and Wrekin council that meets those conditions. I understand that the annual meeting of the council to form a new administration takes places on 26 May, and I am sure that the new administration will make it a priority to contact the Department. We are happy to progress as swiftly as we can.
David Wright
It is good news to hear that the Government are looking to come forward with a funding package. There are clearly difficulties with local authority expenditure, and there is great pressure on the local authority’s budget. I hope that the Minister will confirm that over the coming months the council can consider how to find matched funding or how it can phase such funding, given the assets that the council controls, to find something that will work. I hope that he is willing to have a dialogue with us about how it might be put together. I welcome the Government’s general commitment that the problem has to be dealt with, but we need to consider the nuts and bolts of paying for it.
Robert Neill
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. My officials, and I if necessary, will be happy to discuss the details of matched funding. I welcome the willingness that the council has shown in engaging in that discussion. We accept that these are exceptional circumstances, and it is right that the Government should make a contribution; it is obviously sensible to have matched funding, and I am more than happy to talk about the most constructive way forward.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have endeavoured to respond constructively. It is always frustrating for those involved in such situations that councils and the Department have to go through such lengthy technical appraisals, but they are necessary to ensure the right outcome. The commitment of working together and sharing the objectives and costs can offer a stable and deliverable way forward, and we all wish to see this unique site protected and preserved. We are happy to continue working in a constructive manner with the hon. Gentleman, other local Members of Parliament and local councillors.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
The Government are publishing today the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and has invited pre-legislative scrutiny of it by Parliament. The groceries code adjudicator will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the groceries supply code of practice which is designed to curb abuses of power in the groceries supply chain and protect the long-term interests of consumers. The House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee has expressed its willingness to conduct such scrutiny.
Copies of a document setting out the Government’s policy for a groceries code adjudicator and the final regulatory impact assessment are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill is presented in a way that helps wider understanding of the purpose of the proposed new law and how it would work. This is part of the Government’s commitment to increase transparency and accountability of Parliament to the public. The Bill is drafted in simpler language and an explanation is given alongside each part of the legal text.
It is hoped that this approach will allow those affected by the legislation, parliamentarians, interested groups and the public, to engage more actively in the legislative process and understand the impacts of the Bill, without compromising its legal clarity and force.
The Government will be able to consider the suitability of the approach for other Bills in the light of the views they receive on this exercise.
Tax Avoidance
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
On 6 April 2011 the Government announced a change in legislation to prevent tax avoidance. The Government have set out a clear strategy on preventing tax avoidance. We will not hesitate to take action to stop those who seek to take unfair advantage of unintended tax loopholes. The measure demonstrates our commitment to act quickly to close these.
Legislation published today for consultation will be introduced in Finance (No.3) Bill to prevent individuals from taking advantage of a tax loophole that would have emerged had the Government not taken action. It will provide that, notwithstanding the terms of a double taxation arrangement with another territory, a payment of a pension or other similar remuneration may be taxed in the United Kingdom where:
the payment arises in the other territory;
it is received by an individual resident of the United Kingdom;
the pension savings in respect of which the pension or other similar remuneration is paid have been transferred to a pension scheme in the other territory; and
the main purpose or one of the main purposes of any person concerned with the transfer of pension savings in respect of which the payment is made was to take advantage of the double taxation arrangement in respect of that payment by means of that transfer.
In the event that tax is paid in the other jurisdiction, appropriate credit will be available against the UK tax chargeable.
The legislation will have effect in relation to payments of pensions or other similar remuneration made on or after 6 April 2011.
Planned Tax Consultations
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Since the June Budget 2010, the Government have taken a number of steps to improve tax policy-making, with consultation on policy and scrutiny of legislation as the cornerstones.
Budget 2011 announced a number of tax policy changes and longer-term tax reforms that will be subject to consultation. These are summarised in the tax consultation tracker, which is available on the HM Treasury website at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm
HMRC and HM Treasury are today publishing the following documents:
Employer asset-backed pension contributions—A consultation on changing tax rules in relation to the tax relief given to employers when they make asset-backed contributions to their defined benefit pension schemes.
Machine games duty—A consultation on the design characteristics of a new machine games duty.
Incapacitated person—A modern definition—A consultation on how best to modernise the language used to define an incapacitated person for direct tax purposes.
The following consultations are expected to be published before Parliament returns from recess on 6 June:
27 May
Tax reliefs—A consultation on abolishing a number of tax reliefs announced at Budget 2011, following the Office of Tax Simplification recommendations.
31 May
Capital allowances for feed-in-tariffs and renewable heat incentives—A consultation on the capital allowances treatment of plant and machinery that could qualify for feed-in-tariffs or renewable heat incentives.
Capital allowances for fixtures—A consultation on proposed changes to the capital allowances fixtures rules.
Capital allowances anti-avoidance legislation—A consultation on improvements to capital allowances anti-avoidance legislation to make it clearer and more effective.
High-risk tax avoidance schemes—A consultation on proposals to list certain high-risk tax avoidance schemes in regulations. Users of listed schemes would be required to disclose their use to HMRC and be subject to an additional charge on tax underpaid as a result of using the scheme.
Establishing the future relationship between the tax agent community and HMRC—A consultation on options for implementing HMRC’s agent strategy, and ways in which tax agents and HMRC can work together more effectively.
Tackling VAT evasion on road vehicles brought into the UK—A consultation on the implementation and design of a joint HMRC-DVLA initiative to combat VAT evasion on road vehicles brought into the UK.
Any changes to these planned dates will be publicised on the tax consultation tracker.
Lords Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My noble Friend, the spokeswoman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has made the following statement:
On 27 April 2011, I answered the following written PQ:
“Lord Laird: to ask Her Majesty’s Government what charges are made by mobile phone network providers for providing information to the public on location and incoming and outgoing calls on mobile phones removed during night-time dwelling burglaries [HL 8480]”, Official Report, column WA142.
The question was amended and should have been answered as follows:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what charges are made by mobile phone network providers for providing information to the police on location and incoming and outgoing calls on mobile phones removed during night-time dwelling burglaries.[HL8480]”
Answer:
The police and other designated public authorities may use part 1, chapter 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to require a communications service provider to disclose certain information about a communication, which may include details on the location and incoming and outgoing calls, when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The Act allows for communications service providers to be recompensed for the cost of carrying out such disclosures.
Sovereign Base Areas
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
As part of the follow-on work to the strategic defence and security review, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have agreed that a separate study of the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus should be undertaken. The study will be informed by independent advice and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft has agreed to undertake the role of senior independent adviser along with the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). The study is expected to be complete by the end of 2011.
EU Directive (Third Country Nationals)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have decided to maintain the position that the UK should not opt in to the European Union directive providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third country nationals: Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009.
While sympathetic to the objectives behind this measure, the UK did not opt in under title V of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union during the negotiations because there were significant aspects of the draft directive which the UK did not support. These included the creation of additional administrative burdens on both employers and the public sector in requiring employers to notify the authorities every time they recruit new third country national employees and in requiring compliance inspections. The directive also extended the legal definition of employment in a manner creating further costs and liabilities to both employers and the authorities. This would mean, for instance, that enterprises utilising subcontractors might be held liable for instances of illegal employment by the subcontractor. The directive also guaranteed additional rights to illegally staying employees, including provision of back payments where an employee has earned less than the minimum national wage, which would be difficult to administer and would send the wrong message by rewarding breaches of immigration legislation.
Having reviewed the text post-adoption, the Government have noted that these difficulties remain and that our existing domestic provisions achieve similar outcomes without the additional burdens and costs the directive would impose on both business and the public sector. We have therefore concluded that it would not be in the UK’s national interest to participate. UK legislation already provides strict controls on the employment of third country nationals who do not have the right to work in this country. Between March 2008 and the end of January 2011, the UK Border Agency issued over 5,660 penalty notices under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and collected over £11 million in penalty payments.
A decision not to opt in to this particular directive does not prevent the UK from engaging with the EU on other matters relating to immigration and asylum and the UK continues to play a prominent part in developing EU strategy in these areas.
British Transport Police
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government are committed to the security of the country and as such keep our capabilities under constant review. As part of this, I am today announcing, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that the security of the railways and London Underground will be further enhanced by the development of a British Transport police (BTP) armed capability that will be deployed as appropriate in response to the terrorism threat level at any given time.
The Government have been considering the resilience of the overall police armed capability and have concluded that it would be beneficial to enhance this by providing the BTP with an armed capability of its own. The timing of this is not as a result of any specific threat: it is a sensible and pragmatic approach to ensuring that our police forces have the right resources to be able to respond as and when needed to protect the public.
By sanctioning the development of this armed capability, we will reduce the burden on other police forces which currently provide armed support to the BTP. This is not a major new capability in terms of overall armed policing, but by training BTP officers to carry out armed patrolling of the rail network it equips BTP with a capability already available to other police forces. Armed patrols will be deployed according to operational need—it will not be a daily event to see armed officers at stations.
We will continue to work with the BTP and others to assess the use of this capability and its effectiveness and impact. I would like to reassure Parliament that this is a measured and proportionate approach to supporting the BTP in maintaining public safety on the railway.
Defined Contribution Pension Schemes
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to be able to publish today new guidance to help those involved in offering a default investment option for people who are automatically enrolled into defined contribution pension schemes.
The pensions landscape is changing. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will see millions of individuals newly saving for their retirements. Many of these people will not choose to make an active investment choice. It is likely that, from 2012, automatic enrolment into default options will be the norm. Therefore, it is important that suitable default options are available.
The guidance sets out the Government’s expectations on how default options should be designed, governed, communicated and reviewed. It is intended to provide useful information that will support good decision making and help protect members’ interests.
I would like to thank all those groups who have been engaged on this issue and responded to our consultations.
The guidance will be placed in the Library, and be made available later today on the Department’s website.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/pensions-reform/workplace-pension-reforms/guidance
House of Lords
Royal Assent
House of Lords: Membership
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many additional Peers from each of the parties that contested the 2010 general election are required to meet the commitment in the coalition’s programme for government to establish “a second Chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the coalition programme made clear that, pending reform of this House, appointments would be made with the objective of creating a second Chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election. We have now published our proposals for a wholly or mainly elected House, and we intend that the first elected Members will join this House in 2015. The Prime Minister will continue to move towards the objectives set out in the coalition programme.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, that was an Answer to two questions, neither of which was the Question I asked. Can I assume that neither the Leader of the House nor anyone in the unit in the Civil Service that is dealing with these things has read the document published by the Constitution Unit of University College London, which calculates that if the coalition agreement’s plans for appointment to this House were to be met, an additional 269 Peers would be required? We have two simultaneous government policies, one set out in the coalition agreement, which provides for a House in excess of 1,000 Members, and the other in the document published last week, the draft Bill, which provides for a House of 300 Members. Will the Leader of the House explain the Government’s thinking?
Lord Strathclyde
I think the noble Lord is making a frightful meal of this. There is no complexity in it at all. The Prime Minister has said, as outlined in the coalition document, that we will move towards this objective over time, but we may not reach it. If we get to 2015 and have elected Members of this House, it will, of course, be unnecessary. What all the figures demonstrate is that the Labour Party is extremely well represented in this House. If anyone needs more Members it is the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Rennard
Does the Minister agree that one of the important principles that should be preserved in this House is that no one party should ever have an overall majority within it? Does he also accept that in the House as presently constituted, 80 per cent of Members are male and 20 per cent female, with an average age of 69, and that any future appointments or any future electoral system should be geared towards improving the representative nature of this House to make it more reflective of the diversity of the country as a whole?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend’s first point. It is a matter of record that the coalition—the combined forces of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats—is no more than 40 per cent of this House, which means that it is a minority. The Labour Party does not like to be reminded of the fact that it is the largest group in the House of Lords, but that, too, is a fact. I am sure that my noble friend’s statistics on the male-female ratio are correct. We are also a substantially older House than many other assemblies and parliaments in the world, which of course is not such a bad thing. It is a good opportunity to let the House know that it is my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway’s 94th birthday today.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I thank my noble friend very much. I was wondering whether noble Lords in this House were more interested in retaining its ethos than in diversity. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am a great believer in the ethos of this House, which has served the interests of the nation over a long period of time. I very much hope that if we do get to an elected House its essential ethos will not change.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Is the noble Lord aware that the Prime Minister wrote to me last August saying:
“I do take on board what you say about the number of UKIP Peers currently in the House of Lords and I will, of course, keep this matter under review”?
Since UKIP got more than 3 per cent of the vote at the last general election, that would give us some 24 Peers by the present numbering instead of the two we now have. How is the Prime Minister’s review proceeding?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the Prime Minister is still keeping it under review.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, does Her Majesty’s Government believe that the appointment of a large number of additional Peers will help your Lordships’ House to serve the people of our country more effectively, or might some of the proposals of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, help to achieve that objective better?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is no intention at present to increase the number of Peers in this House. However, from the point of view of my noble friend Lord Steel’s Bill, I can inform the House that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s proposition has been published in a Procedure Committee report, will be taken in the course of the next few weeks and, I hope, will be agreed by the House.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, amusing as all this is, can we not abandon the constitutional gobbledegook to which we have been subjected? Can my noble friend not recognise the worth of this House and the good sense of the Steel Bill proposals, reform this House, and abandon plans to abolish it and replace it by an elected assembly, which could only be second best?
Lord Strathclyde
I was unaware of any constitutional gobbledegook during the course of this Question. It is because my noble friend Lord Steel’s propositions on permanent retirement from this House are so sensible that the Procedure Committee has agreed a report which I hope will be agreed by the House.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am sure that many of my noble friends would welcome the noble Lord’s announcement that the Government have no intention to increase the number of Peers, thus breaking another promise in the coalition agreement, but one which we welcome wholeheartedly. Does the Leader of the House agree that, while neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Democrats have a majority in this House, as the coalition Benches they have a political majority, which has fundamentally changed the workings of this House since the advent of the coalition?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is no intention at present to increase the size of the House of Lords, but that—for the avoidance of doubt—is not a moratorium. As for the political majority, it is true that the coalition has more members than the Labour Party, but that is not the whole of the House of Lords. The Cross-Benchers play a substantial and serious-minded role in this House—one the Labour Party wishes to abolish from the future House. I am, on the other hand, entirely in favour of the Cross Benches remaining an important and integral part of a reformed second Chamber.
Education: English Baccalaureate
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Anderson of Swansea
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations have been received about the place of religious education in the proposed English baccalaureate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, since announcing the subjects that would count towards the English baccalaureate in the 2010 performance tables, the department has received a wide range of correspondence on whether it should include religious studies. Ministers and departmental officials have held a number of meetings with interested parties. The Government are currently considering the content of the English baccalaureate for the purpose of the 2011 performance tables. We intend to publish information on all measures to be included before the Summer Recess.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, surely the inevitable consequence of the exclusion of religious studies as an examination subject in the English baccalaureate will be its downgrading and increasing marginalisation. Is that what the Government intend? Given the widespread popular support for religious studies as evidenced by a petition signed by well over 100,000 people, would not the Government be well advised to consider a possible two-out-of-three option for the humanities component of the English baccalaureate? That means two out of history, geography and the very popular and rigorous religious studies.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am aware of the proposal for a two-out-of-three option and my ministerial colleagues who are responsible for this area are aware of it too. On the noble Lord’s point about the marginalisation of religious studies, I am glad to say that in recent years the opposite has been the case—more pupils have been studying religious studies at GCSE, so we are starting from a position of strength. As the noble Lord will know, the thinking behind the EBacc is to try to ensure that more children have the chance to do a core of academic subjects which will enable them to progress to A-level and into higher education. That was the focus of what the EBacc was attempting to do.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, the Church of England is concerned about high-quality RE and religious studies not only for the 1 million pupils in its own schools and academies. Is the Minister aware that it is not just religious organisations that feel dismayed at the exclusion of RE from the English baccalaureate?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, my Lords. As I said in my initial Answer, we have had a series of meetings and representations, and I am aware of the wide range of views that have been expressed on the importance of religious studies—a view which I share—and that those views have been expressed not only by churches and faith bodies but also more widely. It is generally accepted that religious studies plays an important role in educating children and giving them an understanding of some of the ethical and moral issues that we want all our children to learn about.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The noble Lord illustrates one of the difficulties that one has when one starts to expand the number of subjects that one would like to have in some kind of EBacc. There are many people who can make an extremely strong and persuasive argument as to why particular subjects should be included—the subjects of music and creative arts, for example, have been raised in Questions before. If one wants to have a small core of subjects that enables us to see what is being offered, one has to try to keep it to a core. I understand the point about the range of subjects, but the principal drive in this is to ensure that children, particularly those from poor backgrounds, have the chance to study a core of academic subjects alongside vocational subjects, and then there is time for a range of other subjects to be taught alongside them.
Lord Elton
Can my noble friend think of any time in history when an understanding between different faiths was more crucial to the future of world peace? Does he not think, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, that a step which will inevitably result in a marginalising of this subject is a step in the wrong direction?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Well, my Lords, an understanding between two religions could have been usefully applied in our own country in the 16th century. I accept my noble friend’s basic point about how important it is. Nothing that I have said, I hope, or that the Government are intending for religious studies, in any way undermines our support for the subject. I agree about the important role that it plays, particularly in a religiously and culturally diverse society. It is a statutory subject and the take-up is increasing, which I very much welcome.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, can the Minister give an absolute assurance that no school’s performance will be assessed on the basis of retrospectively applied rules and that all schools will be judged on the rules that applied at the time that they were assessed?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, my Lords. As the noble Baroness will be aware, the point of the EBacc is to provide information. It is not a performance or accountability measure. We use the same measure as we inherited from the previous Government—that is, five A to C GCSEs. The point of the EBacc, alongside other measures, is to try to provide more information. One would want to see more information being made available about schools offering RE, alongside the other, vocational subjects. The more that parents can see what a school is offering, the better it will be.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is essential that all pupils have access to a broad syllabus in the bacc, including religious education that teaches all faiths and none, which is about what people believe rather than teaching them what to believe? Does the Minister further agree that, in addition to RE being an academically rigorous subject, effective all-faith teaching promotes understanding, social cohesion and tolerance?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much agree with my noble friend’s second point—I think that it does precisely that. The position with EBacc subjects is as I have set it out. The Government are considering the subjects and will make them clear before the Summer Recess.
Crime: Homeowners’ Liability
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the rules on homeowners’ liability in the event of injury to intruders on private domestic property.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government believe that the civil law provides effective protection to property owners and other victims of crime against possible claims for damages by those engaged in unlawful activity. We have no plans to review the law in this area.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he reconcile the contradictory advice given to homeowners, particularly in rural areas? In some areas, they are advised to lock up their lawnmowers and be very careful about their sheds, whereas in Surrey and Kent the police advise people that, whatever happens, they must not put any wire mesh on their garden sheds in case it injures a burglar.
Lord McNally
I saw the report of that advice. All I can say is that it is an example of overcompensation. Certainly, putting wire mesh on a shed is not disproportionate. The law warns against disproportionate protection measures. The property owner has protection in law to protect their property proportionately.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the Minister see any reason to vary Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provided that civil proceedings brought by a burglar could be brought only with the permission of the court? It is a defence for the householder to say that he believed that the claimant was about to commit an offence or that he was defending himself. Does the Minister see any reason to change that position?
Lord McNally
No, my Lords. I believe that the party opposite can take credit for the Criminal Justice Act 2003 because, as my noble friend said, it included a test to make it more difficult for a person who has been convicted of an imprisonable offence to make a civil claim for damages unless what they had encountered was grossly disproportionate to the circumstances. It is interesting to note that, since the introduction of Section 329, we are not aware of any claims by criminals for trespass to the person succeeding.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
Does the Minister agree that the starting point in dealing with burglars injured during the commission of an offence is that they are the author of their own misfortune?
Lord McNally
Yes, and this is a good opportunity to emphasise from this Dispatch Box wise guidance that was given by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2005, who is now my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. He said:
“The law is on the side of householders … It is only in the most extreme circumstances that householders are prosecuted for violence against burglars”.
He goes on to say that householders,
“are entitled to use violence to protect themselves”,
and that,
“Indeed we routinely refuse to prosecute those reacting in the heat of the moment to finding intruders within their homes”.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Is my noble friend aware that some of the more ridiculous cases are stimulated by claims management companies and that there are recommendations about their activities in Lord Justice Jackson's report? Will he update the House as to where we are on the possible implementation of those proposals?
Lord McNally
My Lords, my department will respond to Lord Justice Jackson's report shortly, but anyone who thinks that they can get a no-win no-fee prosecution on this basis will end up with no fee.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, is not the absurdity of the advice given by the police as outlined by my noble friend Lady Gardner a very good example of why we need elected police commissioners to reconnect with the public they are supposed to serve?
Lord McNally
What a good question. While a Bill is before the House, that can be used in evidence. As I said at the beginning, this is a report of advice given by the Surrey police which, on reflection, they would probably think is not proportionate. In a case in Florida recently someone wired up their window frames to the electricity mains and electrocuted a burglar. That is disproportionate. Wire mesh on the windows is not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am not surprised that the Minister did not answer the noble Lord’s question, because he gave the game away. He suggested that elected party political police commissioners will interfere in the day-to-day operations of the police force. That is why that Bill has to be defeated.
Lord McNally
I will not be drawn into this. My noble friend was suggesting that a little common sense in these matters would be beneficial to the police and the public in general.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
Does my noble friend recall that the Criminal Justice Bill 2003 was amended by your Lordships' House twice as often as any other Bill in the Government’s programme that year?
Lord McNally
I was not aware of that but I have never been, certainly in the last 10 years, averse to sensible amendments being carried in this House.
Crime: Rape
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government believe that rape is a very serious offence, with dreadful consequences for the victim. The seriousness with which the offence is viewed by the Government, Parliament, the courts and society at large is reflected by the fact that the maximum penalty is a life sentence and that the average determinate custodial sentence imposed is eight years.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that the careless and damaging remarks made last week by his right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor have undermined the confidence that victims have in the criminal justice system? The views expressed seemed hopelessly out of touch and out of date, and have offended many people, including victims of sexual violence. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no downgrading in the priority given to prosecuting those who have committed offences of sexual violence; and that the Government will not reduce the number of specialist rape prosecutors —now around 840 in number—employed by the Crown Prosecution Service over the comprehensive spending review period?
Lord McNally
I do not know who is damaging confidence most, if damage has been done. It certainly was not anything that my right honourable friend said. Anybody who analysed what he said would accept that. I was caught by a paragraph in the Stern review, which said:
“We need to look at rape victims as people who have been harmed, whom society has a positive responsibility to help and to protect, aside from the operations of criminal law. Whether the rape is reported or not, whether the case goes forward or not, whether there is a conviction or not, victims still have a right to services that will help them to recover and rebuild their lives”.
That is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government and we will stick to it.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it was extremely regrettable that the leader of the Labour Party chose to jump on a populist bandwagon the other day in an effort to undermine a Secretary of State who is pursuing some of the more progressive and enlightened policies of this coalition Government?
Lord McNally
I am very grateful for those comments. The Labour Benches and the Labour leader must make their own minds up whether that intervention was opportune. All I know is that this Government and this Secretary of State have put rape support centres on a secure financial footing for the first time, with £10.5 million of grant funding allocated to existing centres across the country over the next three years. Up to £600,000 is also being provided to develop four new rape support centres. We have run a grant-funding programme to award the voluntary community and social enterprise sector up to £30 million in grant funding over three years. We have guaranteed funding of up to £2 million a year for the next three years to fund specialist support for adult victims of human trafficking. We have provided Victim Support with £114 million in grants spreading over the next three years. That is the action that this Government have taken on rape: standing by women, supporting them and giving them the support they need. Everybody realises it is an extremely traumatic experience.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, would it not be quite wrong for the Government to duck legislating in the area of rape, given the problem we had this last week? In particular, the argument over whether men should have anonymity in rape cases remains outstanding, as does the question of whether women who make false allegations should enjoy the anonymity that they currently enjoy.
Lord McNally
I know that the noble Lord has raised these matters on a number of occasions. The Government’s sentencing and legal aid Bill will shortly come before the House—or, rather, before Parliament, as it will go to the Commons first—and it will give us a chance to consider again the issues that he has raised consistently. However, his assertion that there are large numbers of false claims for rape is not, as far as I am concerned, borne out by research.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, leaving aside what the Lord Chancellor may have said, does the noble Lord agree that sentencing in rape cases, as indeed in all cases, is a matter for the judges? Subject to the maximum sentence for any given crime, which in the case of rape is, as the noble Lord has pointed out, life imprisonment, it is for the judges to decide where the particular case fits, subject of course to the guidance of the Sentencing Council.
Lord McNally
My Lords, perhaps this is an opportune time to say from the Dispatch Box that this is certainly a case where Parliament should trust the judges, and so should society at large. Only the judge hears the full case, the full information and the full background and is able to make a proper judgment as to the required punishment. Nobody should be in doubt that the judiciary, the Government and society at large treat rape very seriously and the perpetrators will be punished appropriately.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, are the Government considering reclassifying consensual sex by two people under the age of 16, given that that appears to be very different from rape? Only 5 per cent of victims feel able to report rape and, for two-thirds of victims, rape by a partner or ex-partner involves violence to the point of choking or strangulation.
Lord McNally
The case that the noble Baroness brings up is one that is best left to the good judgment—and it is the good judgment—of the authorities involved in those cases. It is extremely difficult to make broad-brush assumptions. I note what she says and, for our review of sentencing, I will take back the particular point that she has raised.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, all incidents of rape are serious and to indicate otherwise sends the wrong message to victims of rape. Will the Minister give an undertaking to ensure that there is a public awareness campaign about the laws on rape and consent so that we make it absolutely clear that non-consensual sex is a serious offence? I believe that this would clear up any misunderstandings that have happened over the past week.
Lord McNally
I do not think that there are misunderstandings from over the past week. There has been no doubt that this Government take rape very seriously, and the Secretary of State takes rape very seriously. The amount of money, even at a time of difficulty in overall spending, has been maintained and the number of rape advice centres has been extended. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is time to publicise the seriousness of rape, and I think that that could be started in the schools and by looking at some of the worrying things in advertising, in pop music and in some of the newspapers, which have been so quick in their editorial pages to condemn my right honourable friend. Some of those should look at where they put the position of women in society and whether they encourage young men to give women the respect that they should have. That might be a start.
Parliament Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Haskel be appointed to the board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) in place of Lord Taylor of Warwick.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6 April be approved.
Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.
Postal Services Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Postal Services Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 2 : Report on decision to dispose of shares in a Royal Mail company etc
Amendment 1
“( ) the strategy for achieving the objective of making post offices the principal location for the provision of government services over the next ten years”
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, as we have scrutinised this Bill, many noble Lords have stressed the crucial importance of maintaining the link between Royal Mail and the post office network. We have urged the signing of a new 10-year interbusiness agreement of long enough duration to give a sense of security to the people who run our post offices and the many members of the public and businesses that rely on them. The Government have made helpful moves in providing the details for the IBA to be included in the report to Parliament. The Minister has said that she expects a new IBA in the spring and that she hopes that the agreement might extend to 10 years or more. That is good news. Royal Mail work accounts for the largest single stream of income for post offices, about a third, but government services are also very important. They account for more than 25 per cent of post office income; they used to account for more than 40 per cent.
I fully understand the difficulties facing the Government. It would have been wrong to prevent pensioners receiving their pension direct into their bank account if they so wished. It would be wrong to prevent the public from applying for licences by internet if they so wished. We understand the constraints of European competition law. So the Government should be realistic. They should not raise hopes only for them to be dashed and they should turn warm words into practical projections and plans. But when it comes to converting fine intentions into actual work, the results have been disappointing. The document produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in November 2010, Securing The Post Office Network In The Digital Age, contains welcome words. It boldly declares:
“We want to see the Post Office become a genuine Front Office for Government at both the national and local level … acting as a natural home for the delivery of face-to-face government services and helping citizens interact with Government online”.
Those are wonderful words, but the document is in truth a little thin on this particular subject. There are promises of pilots and one or two isolated examples. Indeed, Mr Billy Hayes of the Communication Workers Union described the Government as being as “joined up as spaghetti” in this respect, with different government departments each adopting a different approach.
The first practical test that came along was the DWP contract for so-called green giros, which are paid to an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people on benefits or pensions who do not have a bank account or card account. In contrast to the record of my noble friend Lord Mandelson in suspending the bidding for the post office card account, the one actual decision that the Government made was to take away from post offices the multi-million pound contract to process so-called green giros. I suspect that that is a bigger blow to sub-post offices because of the added footfall that it brings than it is to Post Office Ltd as a whole, but it was a serious setback to the confidence of sub-postmasters. But the Minister for postal services was clear when he said that:
“BIS has no intention of subsidising DWP and I am sure DWP has no intention of subsidising BIS. I would simply say that if new services are put forward by any Government Department, unless there are issues that prevent a competitive procurement, those Whitehall Departments have to go through a proper procurement process and Post Office Ltd would have to compete with them”.—[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 23/11/10; col. 349.]
It is the usual stance of other departments and local councils, especially at a time of cuts of 20 per cent or more, to concentrate more on saving money, so there are practical steps that can be made. Injection of modern technology at post office counters, for example, could benefit from the comprehensive spending review funding; then there is the imaginative use of the post office as a central and trusted point in community life. There are deadlines for decisions on procurement and projections that need to be made. The views that I have expressed are views shared and supported perhaps even more strongly by the National Federation of SubPostmasters.
This amendment is intended to concentrate minds and encourage a strategic approach to the future of government services provided through post offices. It is an important addition to the call for a long-term interbusiness agreement, on which the futures of many of our post offices hang. The Government will be judged on this issue, to quote the words of the Suffragettes, through deeds not words. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, Amendments 1 and 2 seek to introduce new requirements into Clause 2. On Amendment 1, as we have discussed previously, Post Office Ltd has developed a clear strategy to deliver a commercially self-sustaining business while maintaining a network of at least 11,500 branches. This Government have allocated a funding package of £1.34 billion which will allow Post Office Ltd to deliver this strategy, as part of which Post Office Ltd has been clear in its ambition to become a front office for both local and central government. The Government fully support Post Office Ltd in this, as does the National Federation of SubPostmasters.
The National Federation of SubPostmasters realises that this strategy, along with the other elements of the Post Office’s plan, such as the introduction of Post Office Local outlets, must succeed in order for the Post Office to become the vibrant business we all believe it can be. Indeed, the National Federation of SubPostmasters stressed the importance of the front office for government strategy last week, when welcoming the publication of the Co-operatives UK report on options for a mutual Post Office. The front office for government strategy is already under way and the Post Office is working hard to develop competitive, innovative services targeted at both local and central government. It is also engaging with a number of departments, agencies and local authorities to develop the role it will play, particularly as all parts of the Government plan how to deliver their services in new and increasingly digital ways. This is beginning to yield results.
Only yesterday, the National Federation of SubPostmasters welcomed the beginning of a pilot scheme which offers document verification for pension applications across 106 post offices in the north-east. I welcome it too. The Post Office, the National Federation of SubPostmasters and the Government all agree that this is simply a good start and that more work should follow. It is therefore good news that the pilot is actually just the first of three planned pilots with the Department for Work and Pensions, which has set out that it will continue to work with the Post Office to explore opportunities for delivering welfare in the future, including universal credit. The Post Office has also been successful in its bid to provide registration services as part of an initiative to enrol local authority employees into a government employee authentication service.
The annual report on the Post Office network required under Clause 11 will provide ample information regarding its progress in delivering government and other services across its network, and that will be provided each and every year. I see no benefit in duplicating the information in the report to be delivered on a Royal Mail transaction. As such, and due to the reassurance I have given on the progress that Post Office Ltd is making in securing new government business, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words. I will obviously study the detail of them. I found them helpful and I do feel able to withdraw Amendment 1. In my desire not to take up too much time, I did not speak to Amendment 2 which, with the House’s indulgence, I should like to address.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
It might be to the assistance of the House if the noble Lord withdrew Amendment 1. He could then move Amendment 2 and get a response to it. That might be helpful.
“( ) the criteria and method by which the value of shares or overall sale value of the Royal Mail Group, or part thereof, which is to be disposed of, has been assessed”
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, Amendment 2 addresses a concern that, in the pursuit of other no doubt laudable objectives, attention may be diverted from getting the right valuation of Royal Mail and ensuring that the taxpayer is not short-changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, drawing on considerable professional banking experience, reminded us of her wicked past, although I doubt it was enough for a super-injunction to be called for. She said that it was,
“good to have the warning that past sales of assets have not really achieved the maximum price that could have been achieved under more effective disposal mechanisms. The Government tend to be quite poor at procurement of almost anything, including a price for the sale of assets”.—[Official Report, 14/3/11; col. 103.]
Those are wise words, based on experience.
There is a compelling case to show that in the heyday of privatisation, the 1980s and 1990s, privatised companies were consistently sold at too low a price. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, on the basis of his thorough research, pointed out to the House that it has been estimated that for 1986 alone the average share issue premium on major share issues was 7 per cent. On privatisation issues the average premium on the first day of trading was 77 per cent. One of the reasons for this undervaluation is that it is extremely difficult to place an accurate valuation on a company in which no shares have been traded recently. That would certainly be the case with Royal Mail. It is not uncommon, when a public body has kept records for other purposes, for its inventory not to be perfectly up to date for the purposes of a sale.
Ministers have previously warned that they do not want to publish the valuation of the company for fear of affecting the sale price adversely. In other words, they think they might undervalue the assets, compared with what someone is willing to pay. They have also been unwilling to guarantee that there will be an independent valuation, or to share the valuation prior to the sale with the Public Accounts Committee in another place. They have indicated that there will be an internal confidential valuation and that the accounting officer of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be obliged to ensure value for money overall. That might be reassuring were it not for the fact that similar obligations also applied in the palpable underselling of public corporations in the 1980s and 1990s.
This amendment does not seek the publication of any figure for valuation. It does not even ask for a figure to be shared with the Public Accounts Committee in advance. It simply provides for the Government, at the time of their report to Parliament—already promised in Clause 2—and prior to the sale of Royal Mail, to make clear the criteria for and method of their valuation. That does not mean the valuation itself but at least the criteria and method of valuation. I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication of a willingness to present this or similar information, if not to Parliament as a whole then to the Public Accounts Committee.
Could the Minister also address a question raised by the coalition review of its year in office? It made reference to the timescale for European state aid clearance, which seems to have been extended by six months to May 2012. That conflicts with previous statements that this might be achieved in the winter of this year. I would welcome some reassurance—clarification might be a better word—on that.
We are pleased overall to help improve the safeguards in the Bill; to safeguard the viability of Royal Mail; to strengthen regulation transparency and accountability to Parliament; to strengthen the safeguards to the universal service and the post office network; and to ensure that we get the best possible value for public money in the event of a sale. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, in my defence, although I continue to think that the Government do not have a very good track record in valuing companies that they put forward for sale, I did not think that the Floor of this House would be any more effective in coming to an appropriate valuation either. Therefore, I support the Government in this instance.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support this amendment. The Government have to recognise that despite the hours which this House and another place have spent on this Bill and the very protracted proceedings, to which the noble Baroness replied in a very courteous and often very helpful way, the central fact of this piece of legislation, which deals with one of our national institutions and an essential part of our national infrastructure, is that nobody—not the Government, employees, customers, competitors or potential investors —knows what Royal Mail will look like once this legislation is passed. We do not know who the prospective buyers are. We do not know what mechanism the Government are intending to use for the sale, and therefore we do not know who will call the shots in Royal Mail’s future decisions once the privatisation is complete.
In those circumstances it is not entirely surprising that the basis for valuation causes concern. This is what lies behind my noble friend’s amendment. He is right that, historically, assets were sold off at a price that proved to be less than their value. However, in the 1980s, at least it was clear how we were going to sell them, which were going to IPOs and which were to be sold directly to particular bidders. This is not the case here. It is therefore even more important that this great national institution is not passed to an unknown process of sell-off, or to an unknown buyer, without Parliament and the public as a whole being confident about the basis on which that valuation is carried out.
As my noble friend has said, the amendment does not say that we should publish a valuation and therefore undermine the Government’s negotiating position, but it does say that we ought to know the criteria in the Government’s mind on which the valuation is based. This is a fairly minimal requirement. I hope that the Government, who are determined on this course, will at least have the self-confidence to make the public feel confident that this great asset will not be seriously undervalued. I hope that my noble friend’s modest proposal would go some way to achieving that objective if at this late stage the Government were to concede that such a measure should be included in the Bill.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, describes as a modest proposal. However, I completely endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lady Kramer. What worries me about the amendment, were it to be carried, is that the most likely outcome would be a sentence in the report simply saying, “It was the best price we were offered”.
Baroness Wilcox
We have debated at length the issues around revealing the Government’s internal estimation of the value of Royal Mail shares prior to a disposal. Amendment 2 would not require the Government’s estimation of the value to be revealed, but would require us to publish the methods and criteria for making that valuation. Our expectation is that we will apply a range of valuation methodologies to our assessment of the business’s value.
I reiterate what I said on Report—that we would, of course, expect that both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will wish to review the sale process, including the valuation methodologies that we have applied. They would both provide their own independent view to Parliament on whether the Government had achieved value for money for the taxpayer. This is consistent with the reporting requirements for previous sales of government assets. What should matter is not the technical valuation methodologies that we may apply, but whether we have the right objective for the sale. In that respect we have committed to report back to Parliament prior to a sale process beginning, and this report will confirm our objective for the proposed sale.
I reiterate a further point with regard to valuation. As your Lordships will fully understand, we cannot, and should not, reveal our estimation of the value of the company. Doing so would be giving the whip hand to the potential investor and would severely undermine our ability to negotiate the right deal for the taxpayer or for the company. Put simply, it does not make good business sense.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for her clarification of the timescale; it was helpful to place that on the record. To respond briefly to a few points, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that I was not suggesting that this House should do the valuation. I agree with her assessment: valuation by committee—what a thought.
My noble friend is right: this is a modest proposal. It is true that it was not in the Bill presented by the previous Government, but as I have said on a number of occasions, we were not going for the full monty, 100 per cent privatisation. Perhaps in hindsight we did not get every aspect right anyway. I freely confess that. Although I welcome some of the points that the Minister made, the reassurances in relation to the National Audit Office and so on are all post-sale. We were trying to get a bit more transparency into the process that precedes the sale. I recognise that she has gone about as far as she can go, as the song said, and in the circumstances I will study carefully what she said but I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
“( ) In the event that a section of the RMPP is constituted as a separate pension scheme the members of which consist of or include persons who are qualifying members of the RMPP—
(a) any reference in subsection (2) to the RMPP includes that separate pension scheme, and(b) any reference in subsection (3) to the trustee of the RMPP includes the trustees or managers of that separate pension scheme.”
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, Amendment 3 is designed to future-proof the information-sharing provisions in Clause 24 of Part 2. Clause 24 sets out a legal gateway to facilitate data sharing between the government scheme, the Royal Mail pension plan and the employer of the RMPP members. The framework will help to ensure that the administration of the two schemes is seamless so that, for example, members with rights in both schemes will need to notify a change in personal circumstances to only one point of contact rather than two. That is an important objective that we share with the trustees of the RMPP and, I believe, with all Members of the House.
The management of the ongoing Royal Mail pension plan will be a matter for the company and pension trustees. Amendment 3 simply ensures that if separate sections of the Royal Mail pension plan are split off into separate schemes at some point, the information-sharing framework provided under Clause 24 will extend to those separate schemes. That additional flexibility will help to ensure that we are in a position to meet our commitment to seamless administration, regardless of any changes that may be made to the RMPP by the trustees and company in future. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, government Amendment 3 to Clause 24 is in itself desirable. If the Royal Mail pension plan is to be divided into two or more pension schemes, as distinct from sections, it is better that all trustees co-operate with efficient administration and have the power so to do. What is most interesting about the amendment, however, is that it reveals for the first time during the Bill’s progress that the Government's intention may be to split the Royal Mail pension plan into two or more separate schemes, as distinct from sections.
It would be possible not to split the scheme and run the Royal Mail pension plan as a segregated scheme similar to the railway pension scheme. From the perspective of scheme members, that may well be a preferable outcome, because the governance structures would remain in place, but one can anticipate that that may not be the Government's preferred outcome. As the amendment now introduces separate schemes into the Bill, as distinct from separate sections, it raises questions that I put to the noble Baroness.
Is it now the Government’s decided intention to split the Royal Mail pension plan into separate schemes post-privatisation? If the Royal Mail pension plan is to be so divided, is the Post Office scheme to be hived off, leaving the reduced Royal Mail pension plan with the privatised Royal Mail, or vice versa? What is the Government's intention on consulting the trustees on such separation?
A fourth point that I know will be of concern to scheme members attracted some attention in the debate in the House of Commons. There is no power to wind up in the rules of the Royal Mail pension plan. That is a very important safeguard for the current members, which ought to be replicated.
During the House of Commons Committee debate on 30 November 2010 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Mr Edward Davey, commented to the effect that inserting a winding-up provision would be prevented by the then Clause 19 of the Bill, which is now Clause 20, dealing with the “no worsening of benefits” provision. He said—
The Countess of Mar
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Might I ask the two people speaking behind the Woolsack to retreat into the Prince’s Chamber, as is suggested in the Companion?
Baroness Drake
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:
“Any amendment to the RMPP rules that would allow the scheme to be more easily wound up would fall foul of the protection provided for members under clause 19(2), as any such amendment would have a material effect on members’ ‘relevant pension provision’ … and given that our intention is to take on the historic deficits for the Royal Mail together with a more manageable scheme, it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make any amendment to the RMPP that would allow the scheme to be wound up”.—[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 30/11/10; col. 445.]
In view of that debate, and in view of the fact that this amendment now introduces an intention to separate the plan into separate schemes rather than separate sections, is it the Government’s position that there will be no change to the winding-up provisions in any separate scheme if and when a section of the RMPP is constituted as a separate pension scheme?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I certainly concur with the points made by my noble friend Lady Drake, and I shall not repeat them because once again she has covered the waterfront on that issue. I want to take the opportunity to say, first, that we welcome the constructive approach of the Government Front Bench, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, with her ineffable charm in listening to the representations, in bringing forward a number of appropriate amendments and assurances. Our every wish has not been granted but I did not expect that that would be the case.
I pay tribute to the many noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and I would single out two: the noble Lord, Lord Low, who unfortunately is not in his seat, but I am sure that it will be conveyed to him, and my noble friend Lord Clarke, who is not with us today. He reminded us how much of his life has been invested in what we both joined as the GPO. It is also traditional in these cases to pay tribute to the Bill team, who have served us very well. I was reflecting that it was led by Jo Shanmudalingam—I probably have her name wrong. I do not know whether she is in the Box today, but I know that she is expecting her second child. I could not help reflecting that some mothers pay a lot of attention to what babies hear when they are in the womb, and play them Mozart. I am thinking of this child who has been exposed to House of Lords debates, whose first words, instead of “Mama” may be “My Lords”. The only hope is that she will grow out of it, or it might be a career destination. In any event we thank the Bill team.
My final piece of advice to the Minister is to remember what they put on the side of fragile parcels or packages, and the same goes for this Bill: handle with care.
Baroness Wilcox
I shall start by giving my last response on this Bill to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and reassure her, I hope, that there is no change in policy. Clause 18 allows for the RMPP to be divided into different sections to reflect the restructuring of the Royal Mail Group Ltd under Part 1 of the Bill. We do not have powers to create a separate pension scheme. However, in the fullness of time it is possible that the businesses might wish to alter the pension arrangements by transferring a section of the RMPP into a new stand-alone arrangement. Any such change would need to meet the safeguards provided under statute and under the scheme rules. The amendment simply ensures that in this event, the information-sharing framework provided under Part 2 would apply to the new scheme as it did to the old section. The trustee would need to consent to any proposal made by the employer to create separate schemes under the scheme rules and under general pensions legislation.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long, because the next business before the House—
The Countess of Mar
I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that paragraph 8.153 of the Companion states:
“The motion ‘That this bill do now pass’ is moved immediately after third reading has been agreed to or, if amendments had been tabled, as soon as the last amendment has been disposed of. The motion is usually moved formally. It may be opposed, and reasoned or delaying amendments may be moved to it, but in other circumstances it is not normally debated”.
Lord Cormack
Well, I will certainly be guided by the noble Baroness who sits on the Woolsack, but I was informed that it was entirely proper to make a brief speech at this point.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, perhaps I may assist the House. Of course the noble Countess is right, but it seems to me that the rule is honoured as much in the breach as in the observance.
The Countess of Mar
In the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, which was agreed by the House, the recommendation was that:
“The motion ‘That this bill do now pass’ should be moved formally and should not normally be debated. Ministers should if necessary respond to points raised on the motion by other Lords. The motion should not be an occasion for thanking those involved in the passage of the bill”.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, perhaps I may draw the government Whip’s attention to the fact that the word “normally” is used here, and “normally” in your Lordships' House means that it might not always apply.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I want briefly to say two things. First, having taken part in all stages of this Bill, I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy, sensitivity and willingness to listen. Secondly, I express the hope that what was not a terribly good Bill but is now a slightly better Bill will come back from another place in the state in which it leaves this House. In other words, I hope that the Cross-Bench amendment passed a couple of weeks ago will remain in the Bill. It will give great encouragement and comfort to those of us who have had certain concerns about it.
Lord Bach
Following the very brave intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I follow him briefly to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who has conducted his part in this Bill with great skill and understanding. I speak on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who led for the Opposition on this Bill, in saying that we hold him in the highest respect for the way in which he has dealt with this legislation. It does not stop us thinking that this is completely the wrong way of passing constitutional change in this country, and I believe that if there had been a free vote in this House—here I am looking particularly at Conservative Peers—there certainly would have been four years rather than five. My last hope is the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, expressed, which is that the Bill is accepted by the Commons as it leaves here today.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for their kind words, which are appreciated. This is an important Bill. It is an important constitutional development. We made it clear at the time that we were not able to support the amendments that gave rise to a sunrise and possibly also a sunset clause. No doubt the other place will consider that constitutional novelty. That apart, this Chamber has engaged in its role of proper scrutiny, improvement and revision, and therefore, subject to what I said about one particular amendment, I think this Bill goes to another place in a better shape than that in which it came here. I thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House who have contributed to that. It has been work well done. Once again, I encourage noble Lords to pass the Bill.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
“Pilot schemes
(1) Section 1 and other provisions on police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels shall commence—
(a) in accordance with section 158 in respect of not more than six police areas designated by the Secretary of State, and(b) in respect of other police areas only in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State.(2) No order shall be made under subsection (1)(b) unless—
(a) pilot schemes have been undertaken for at least two years in the police areas designated under subsection (1)(a), and(b) the Secretary of State has reported to Parliament on the pilot schemes.”
Baroness Hamwee
In addition to this amendment, I also have Amendment 47 in this group. They are two amendments among a number proposing different models of piloting the proposed new policing governance. Before I turn to the substantive issues, noble Lords will be aware that we have quite a difficult day ahead of us in that the groupings of amendments today have been described as aggressive in an attempt to get us to move on more swiftly with the Bill. Apart from one enormous grouping of about 60 amendments, I have been quite happy to go along with this, but I think it may leave the Committee in a difficult position. It is inevitable that on a number of the groupings many of us will make rather more general speeches than we might otherwise have made, and I am just a little concerned that we will not give the word-by-word content of the Bill this House’s normal detailed scrutiny. Perhaps I say that not on behalf of the whole Committee, because I am sure other noble Lords will be more competent than I in dealing with this situation, but just as a disclaimer on my own behalf.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, one way to deal with that would be for the Government to write letters in response to the amendments so that the technical details, which might normally be addressed in the winding-up speech of the Minister, could at least be on the record and placed in the Library. When we come back on Report, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords would then have the benefit of a Government response. I do not know whether that is helpful. It might be one way in which to alleviate the concerns of the noble Baroness.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord’s suggestion, I am very happy to agree to that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that will be helpful. I would merely add that I have always had a bit of a concern about responses being dealt with by letter because they would not be in Hansard and easily accessible by those who may seek to look for them. In fact, this is a matter on which the Leader’s Group on the working practices of the House of Lords has made some suggestions.
To turn to the issue of piloting, the very number and variations of proposals for amendments demonstrates the importance of the issue. Whatever model of governance we end up with, we all have a great concern that it should work well. After all, that is our role. Certainly, piloting is not equivalent to not taking the changes forward, which is why my amendment would provide for pilots for a two-year period. I see a lot of sense in a longer period but I did not want the suggestion that this was a matter of trying to undo the proposals to become mixed up with the issue of piloting.
Piloting is hardly a new concept. It is what the outside world regards as sensible, about which a lot of people, having become aware of this issue over the past couple of months, have commented on to me. The Government do it as well. Last week, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee had a statutory instrument on dentistry which was taking forward the piloting of new arrangements. It is not simply directed at a yes or no answer to the proposition but tests all the aspects of that proposition, including—I come to them again—the checks and balances, which, if they are too limited, will be insufficient. Checks and balances have to be sound in themselves individually, and extensive. Otherwise, they will be ineffective because ways around them will be found.
I have always thought that it was necessary to look at checks and balances in the round. There may be different views of the role of scrutiny; that is, the role of the panels here. The tagline of the Centre for Public Scrutiny—I am a member of its advisory board—is, “Good Government Needs Good Scrutiny”. It should not be in arrear or by way of commentary. If it is oppositional, it should be active, constructive, collaborative and preferably consensual, thus providing a reality check.
This is not just the role of the police and crime panel. Another major area of concern expressed by your Lordships is the boundary of responsibility and function between police and crime commissioners and chief constables. We have a protocol in draft form. We debate the term “operational”. Seeing how the model works and where the boundaries lie in practice would be more than useful: it is essential. The decisions that must be taken above the local level is an issue that was touched on at the last stage when the noble Lord, Lord Laming, raised child protection. Counterterrorism is an obvious issue, but child protection, trafficking and a number of other matters may have to be dealt with not just very locally but at levels above that.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
I have to inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 218.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, as my name is attached to Amendment 26, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the manner in which she introduced it. It is very much a probing amendment. I do not want to repeat my concerns about the election of police commissioners—my noble friend the Minister is well aware of those and has been most gracious in her recognition of them. She has already shown that she is indeed a listening Minister. We are in a slightly peculiar position, having passed the amendment that we passed a couple of weeks ago. I did not vote for that; I voted with my noble friend the Minister, because I felt that it was consistent with the role and responsibility of this House that we should accept the general principle from the House of Commons and then seek to improve what it had sent to us. It seemed to me that the most constructive way of seeking to improve it was to sanction pilot schemes.
This is in no sense a wrecking tactic; it merely says, “Make haste slowly. Make sure you’ve got it right and be aware that there are very real problems that Members in all parts of the House have already touched on”. I am concerned about the possible impact on national issues of the election of essentially local commissioners. I am very concerned about the party-political nature of the commissioners. It is almost beyond any doubt that unless we include in the Bill a provision specifically to say that those affiliated to a political party cannot stand, most commissioners will be affiliated to a political party. I am saying not that they cannot do their job but that I have real concerns about it, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I think that many Members in all parts of the Committee would urge the Minister to discuss the strength of feeling with the Home Secretary and her other ministerial colleagues to see whether the pilot scheme cannot be accepted and adopted, or to come up with an alternative that meets some of the legitimate concerns and objections that have featured in debates so far.
I do not wish to detain the Committee further, but I think that, far from being a wrecking tactic, this is a constructive suggestion. I hope my noble friend Lady Browning will recognise that when she comes to reply.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I sympathise with the motivation behind the amendment. Although I realise that it is a probing amendment, I cannot support it. The perfect storm of change that understandably surrounds policing needs to be resolved in the quickest and best way possible. However, pilots might be an unnecessary delay for a number of reasons. A small number of pilots might tell you a great deal about the relationship between some individual police and crime commissioners and some individual chief constables in localised areas, but I am not sure that we would learn great lessons that could be extrapolated to the whole of the country in all circumstances over 40 police forces. Although I acknowledge that this is a probing amendment that seeks a way to test, explore and challenge some of the rationale behind elected police and crime commissioners, I am not sympathetic to pilot schemes. Having discussed them with serving chief constables, I know that not many of them are supportive either.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has said, because my views accord very much with his. Normally, I am a great fan of pilots—they give you a step-by-step approach, they are often sensible, they lead to a sense of being sure-footed, and they hammer off the rough edges of what was proposed in the first instance. In this case, however, I submit that they would lead to a sense of great unreality.
I, too, have taken a straw poll of members of the police service, ACPO members and so forth, and I have met with the same result. So far as I can make out from a fairly detailed survey, the service wants a degree of certainty, certainly nationally. That is particularly so when one looks forward. One does not need much of a crystal ball to recognise that more is coming down stream towards us that has not yet reached your Lordships' House, such as the national crime agency, which relates to national issues. Today, we have been focusing more on the local, and issues of leadership that are bound to flow from what part 2 of the Winsor report will propose. All those things and others depend on a sense of certainty. If we get into pilots now and they overtake us, the service will not be in a position to handle the other issues that are bound to come before your Lordships' House in the next 12 months or so.
What I propose flows logically from the argument that we have just heard. We should make quite sure that the proper checks and balances surround the whole concept of police and crime commissioners and at that stage vote yes or no. We either have them or we do not, having given them due and appropriate consideration in your Lordships' House. We should not get into the business of pilots, which will be disruptive.
Lord Soley
I share the concern about pilots, but I also very much share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Bill contains so many unanswered questions that we are in danger of causing policing in this country more problems than we need. My profound anxiety is that, having spent the past 10 or more years trying to get the police from where they were 20 years ago, which was not a good place, to where they are now, which is a very much better place, we are in danger of losing that if we do not think this through.
I pick up on the suggestion made by the noble Baroness and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that there is a strong case for the Government to go away and think about this. They should think about how they can ensure that this Act will not introduce profound changes to the police that are unpredictable in their outcome and that might move us backwards rather than forwards. The police are in a better position than they used to be. Let us not throw out the good for the sake of something that we think might be better but that does not have the checks and balances that are necessary.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 38 and 253. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who I assume will speak to his amendment in a moment, I propose a system of pilots.
I listened with great interest to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear, who are worried about the impact of pilots. As they said, the feedback that they are getting from chief constables is that the worst thing of all for them is to have uncertainty about the future. I understand that point of view. I declare an interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust and as a consultant and trainer in the NHS. We are going through a similar process in the NHS. Obviously, people worry about uncertainty and about where they are going, but the crux of the point is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear; he said that we should see what checks and balances we can get into the Bill and then vote yes or no on the whole thing.
I understand the noble Lord’s point. I have no doubt that if the Minister responds sympathetically to some of the points put by noble Lords in our debates on recognising the need for stronger checks and balances, the argument for pilots would become less persuasive. However, the enormity of the change that is being proposed and the potential politicisation of our police forces are serious matters. There has been no Green Paper and no pre-legislative scrutiny. No evidence whatever has been produced to justify the changes that are being proposed.
On that basis and despite the uncertainties that this might produce for chief constables, I suspect that, retrospectively, if elected police commissioners were introduced without checks and balances, those chief constables might look back and wish that there had been pilots so that some of the most contentious points of the arrangements could have been tested. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has gone for two-year pilots, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for three years, and I have gone for four years. However, the substantive point is that they need to be long enough to see how this works out in practice. I also think—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, really has endorsed this—that there needs to be an independent evaluation as well. That would give confidence that the experiment has been judged and considered, and it would give Parliament time to consider the matter again. Above all, it would raise issues around governance, checks and balances, and the role of the panels, which the Government might wish to consider in the light of experience of those pilots.
In reflecting on and understanding the point about uncertainty, and given the Government’s position at the moment, the case for pilots is pretty persuasive.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I particularly support the submissions and remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Although I have immense regard and sympathy for the amendments, the answer does not really lie in pilot schemes at all. I look upon it as the Government embarking on a very revolutionary experiment. Whether one agrees with it or not, one cannot deny that it breaks new ground in a massive way. Here is a machinery that has the potential to be successful but also to be extremely dangerous. How do you test that to destruction, before you bring the whole scheme into being? In other words, what is the legislative equivalent of the wave tank or wind tunnel that will give you an answer to that problem?
I listened of course with total respect and regard to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Condon, with their immense and distinctive experience in this field. Uncertainty is also a very great enemy of the morale of the police service in this matter but, nevertheless, these are massive questions. You may have a situation where perhaps 30 of the forces involved find themselves well and successfully served by a commissioner. What if you had 10, 11 or 12 situations where it did not work? The damage and the disastrous consequences would be so immense. That is the danger that we face.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke of national issues, and I will speak about a Welsh national issue. The Welsh Assembly Government were conscious of the very particular situation that we have in Wales with the four police forces and the possibility of amalgamation, which raises immense constitutional questions. In Wales you now have the outline of statehood and the question of whether you should have one single police force for a country and nation—not a situation that, at the moment, we are facing in the United Kingdom. The Welsh Assembly set up a high-powered body, which reported, I think, in February this year and recommended very strongly that there should be full discussions between the Welsh Assembly and Her Majesty’s Government on this most sensitive of matters.
Here we have been told by the Government—and I have no doubt that the Government are sincere in this —that this is a matter on which local views, attitudes and conditions have immense pertinence. That can be put to the test by respecting that attitude in relation to Wales.
Lastly, speaking as a former family judge, I accept completely what has been said about the secrecy involved in dealing with the protection of children. These are not matters that can be laid down as huge lines of policy. They are sensitive matters where a great deal has to be done by way of trust and, if I may say so, covertly in so far as the general public are concerned. I do not for a moment believe that the role of protecting children is mainly that of the police; agencies in local government, and indeed in the health service, have that as their main concern. If I may say as an aside, I believe that the best protection that any child in danger can ever have is to have one person responsible for collecting and collating information—that, above all, is the best service that can be given to children. The police certainly have a massive and impactive role to play, but I do not think that their role can be improved in any way by the sort of structures contemplated in the proposals for police commissioners, with every respect to Her Majesty’s Government. The matter needs to be approached with great imagination and great sensitivity.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, those of my colleagues who read the Daily Telegraph will have noticed from yesterday’s edition that the stated main purpose of the coalition is to save us from economic disaster. The paper berated some of my noble colleagues for being left-wing trouble-makers. I have never regarded myself either as a trouble-maker or as particularly left-wing, but I believe the Bill to be essentially a flawed piece of legislation.
I will speak very briefly to the amendments in my name, and I do so as a gardener. One of the things that you learn as a gardener, when you move about the country as I have done, is that you leave the place virtually alone until you know about what is growing there; you do not just go in and hack everything down. I am afraid that Ministers have a tendency to the hacking approach rather than the gardening approach. I must say to the noble Baroness the Minister that, so far, we have had no message in this House that would cause us to believe that Ministers in another place will actually listen to and discuss the concerns that we are raising. We have had many meetings, but those have not been productive meetings as we have been told, “This is what is going to happen”. Indeed, I believe that instructions have been issued to police authorities that they are to prepare for Armageddon.
Why would my amendments provide for three-year trials? I believe that it is essential that you go through two complete budget rounds before you know whether the arrangements work and what they will cost—I am very concerned about how much they will cost. I also believe that the experience in London, which the Policing Minister cited as the pilot study, is anything but a pilot study. I would ask the same Policing Minister whether, if he thoroughly approves of the way in which things are done now, he would still do so if Mr Livingstone is successful in 18 months’ time. One of the rules in politics is that the pendulum does swing, and sometimes it swings pretty violently with great reaction against the party that it is leaving. Many organisations are then left to pick up the bits and to start reconstructing again.
Turning back to the economy, I cannot see one iota of evidence that says that the proposed move is necessary or that it will save money. I believe that the Government have masses of things to do and, with due respect, I believe that this could be kicked into touch and nobody would notice.
Baroness Henig
I rise briefly to support the amendment, and I do so for a number of reasons.
First, there is a tremendous lack of detail in the legislation, as has been mentioned before. Some very general ideas are put forward, but there is not much supporting detail about how it will all work in practice, as we have already commented. I am particularly concerned about how a PCC would interact with local government—not just with the councils but with all the bodies that local councils work through, including such local strategic partnerships as still exist and the crime and disorder partnerships that have been mentioned. I am also concerned about the relationship between the PCC and the panel, however the panel ends up and whatever powers it might have. There is clearly a relationship there that needs to be tested, and at the moment we have a very dim idea of how that would actually work.
There is another set of reasons why I would like to see some pilots, relating to the electoral system. We have not talked about this yet, although I am sure that we will in due course. The Government have come forward for these PCC elections with an electoral system which I would like to see work, particularly in places such as Thames Valley and West Mercia. We have not actually had elections like these before in our history—one-topic elections over considerably large areas of the country, such as Thames Valley, where we have three local authorities, not one. I would be interested to see what the turnout would be in such elections and how the election campaign would be conducted. It seems reasonable to suggest that that would be worth studying. I would certainly want to see different models. I would like to see something happening in the West Midlands or Thames Valley because of the huge size of those places, but then you have very compact areas such as Cheshire and Warwickshire, which have rather different dynamics. It would be interesting perhaps to tweak the modelling to emphasise slightly different things in slightly different places.
Politicisation is something that we have talked about. It is a huge problem for all of us and we are all very worried about that. Clearly, some sort of trialling might give us a handle on how elections could be conducted perhaps without party-political slanging. I would, for example, like to know whether we are right in thinking that no independents could conduct these elections. That was raised two sittings ago, and the point was raised that we are assuming that these elections will be contested by party-political candidates; yes, I am assuming that, because of the expense of the exercise. Maybe I am wrong—maybe independents could contest them. Again, one might get a better idea if one had some sort of pilot running.
My very last point is that, while it is no secret that I have grave concerns about the proposals in this legislation, I am always prepared to admit that I might be wrong. Actually, what the Government are proposing might be fantastic for policing and I might have it wrong; my concerns might be misplaced. I am always ready to put my hand up and say that that is the case. Equally, however, I would expect the Government to be as flexible and say that perhaps they have got it wrong. It is possible. If we were in the private sector, it would not be seen as a terrible admission of anything to trial something before you went full tilt; you would say that it was very sensible. I do not see why in the public sector one should not adopt the same kind of cautious approach.
For a whole number of reasons, I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, before I respond to the debate that we have just had regarding the issue of pilots, it might help the House if I clarified the position regarding policing in Wales, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. Within this group of amendments, and a number of subsequent groups which we hope to debate later today, there are specific amendments that address matters of devolution and I dare say seek to probe the Government's negotiations with the Welsh Assembly Government. I am aware that there was not enough time at Report and Third Reading in the other place to debate the specific provisions within this Bill that had to be amended as a result of the failed legislative consent Motion. I therefore feel it is appropriate to set out publicly and on the record the narrative behind these provisions and, I hope, avoid any misunderstanding of the Government’s position.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments that will provide me with this opportunity. The Government have worked hard to try to secure a negotiated solution specific for Wales in the spirit of the devolution settlement. I must emphasise at the outset that policing is a reserved matter under the devolution settlement. However, there are related matters that are devolved.
At the start of the planning for this reform in government, Ministers in the Home Office sought, and entered into, early engagement with the Welsh Assembly Government at both ministerial and official level. Their intention was to discuss how the Bill would apply in Wales and how it could respect those devolved institutions. On a number of occasions throughout the Bill’s development, the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister met the Welsh Assembly Government's Minister for Social Justice and Local Government, Carl Sargeant, who was reappointed earlier this month to the same ministerial portfolio. Indeed, the Policing Minister also made visits to Cardiff to speak to the Welsh Assembly Minister and his officials to address directly the concerns of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Members in the National Assembly for Wales.
Lord Wigley
I apologise to the House that I missed the earlier part of this debate, although I have heard all of the Minister’s comments. She mentioned the role of local government and that there might be an involvement in the activities that she has just outlined. Can she confirm that each local government area would have a voice in this, as they do at present on the police authorities—a unique situation in Wales, where every authority is represented?
Baroness Browning
I have to say to the noble Lord that these negotiations and discussions are still ongoing. However, I hear what he has said and will certainly feed back what he has suggested today.
We have also amended the Bill to ensure that the provisions on community safety partnerships do not touch on matters in respect of which Welsh Assembly Government Ministers have functions. I hope that this account explains how we have reached the provisions set out in the Bill at present. Policing remains reserved. It is this Government’s intention to secure the same reform for the people of Wales as for those in England, following the decision taken in the first session of this Committee. The Bill now removes the current arrangements for policing governance, but I can assure your Lordships’ House that there are ongoing discussions to make sure that we get this absolutely right. I am grateful for the patience of your Lordships’ House. There are amendments that relate specifically to Wales not only in the current group but in subsequent groups.
I turn now to pilots. The amendments tabled by my noble friends would require the Government to pilot police commissions—or police and crime commissioners, as remains the Government’s intent—in certain police areas before establishing them across England and Wales. In the spirit of constructive debate, I will deal with this group as though the amendments affected the original policy and clauses that would have established police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Your Lordships will know that we are in difficult territory here. We are dealing with two very different bodies in the context of piloting.
I shall not repeat what I have said in debates on previous amendments but I spelt out some of the research that has been done, which clearly demonstrates the public’s appetite for more engagement with policing in their local areas. The success of the crime mapping website launched this year is evidence of this, with 410 million hits since January. Cabinet Office research showed that more than two-thirds of the public wanted an elected person to hold the police to account. I heard what my noble friend Lady Hamwee said about not praying in aid the experience of the Mayor of London. However, I cannot ignore what has happened in London. They mayor is there and the policing structure in London is there, and has been there for a while. While it was not exactly floated as a specific pilot, none the less we cannot ignore the fact that since the Mayor of London took on responsibility for policing, MPA correspondence has more than quadrupled. For these reasons there is no need to conduct pilots to establish these matters. Pilots also present practical problems.
Baroness Henig
In the research that the Minister cited, and certainly in the research that I have seen, when members of the public were told that police and crime commissioners would have a party political label, I understand that only 7 per cent of them wanted individuals with a party political label to be in charge of policing. That is not quite the same as what we are being told by the noble Baroness.
Lord Bradshaw
Will the Minister reflect on the fact that London is a unique area, with unique and very large media coverage? I ask her to think about places such as Devon and Cornwall and the distance from Barnstaple to Penzance and the distances to be covered in several other areas. People in different areas do not listen to the same radio programmes or read the same papers. It is only by having representatives of the divisions within an area that you will get any form of representative democracy.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that the fact that people checked on crime in their local area does not give an indication either way? My husband checked but I assure the noble Baroness that he would be very cross were she to assume from that that he is in favour of the Government’s proposals.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I would not dream of presuming what the noble Baroness’s husband has made of all this. That would be a step too far for a mere Minister. My noble friend referred to the uniqueness of police forces across the country. That is the essence of this matter. Each police force is unique in its nature. Nobody is suggesting that what works in London will be exactly replicated in the Devon and Cornwall forces, or any other force. That is why piloting such a scheme would not give us a representative picture of what one sees in forces across the country. It would be interesting perhaps, but I genuinely believe that it would not take us any further forward, and it would cause delay.
There are practical problems associated with pilots, such as how they would be chosen, who would decide that matter and who would be denied democratic policing while they were carried out. Also during the piloting scheme the two different forms of police governance would be running alongside each other, which would cause uncertainty. The noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear, with their vast experience in this area, referred to the uncertainty that this would create not least among chief constables. We are looking to the chief constables to show the leadership that is needed in working with the police and crime commissioners on these reforms to introduce the change that will allow the public to believe that the duo at the heart of these reforms will make a difference to the way that they see the police and can engage with them and with policing matters in their area.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Is the noble Baroness arguing that there are no common factors, or that there are some? Is it not reasonable that where there are some, the alteration that is envisaged should take place?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, of course, there are common factors across all police forces, although each force is unique. However, notwithstanding those, I believe that spending time on pilots would cause uncertainty, as I have said. Costs and delay would arise in sorting out this publicly recognised issue—that the public want to engage with policing in their area and to be represented by somebody who is democratically accountable directly to them. That very important matter is at the heart of these changes.
Noble Lords have continued to ask about checks and balances. I cannot commit to changing the text of the Bill in order to satisfy the demands with regard to pilots. However, I am genuinely open to discussing checks and balances across the piece. I say to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw that although I have attended meetings, I have not yet held meetings to discuss checks and balances, as I promised the House on the previous Committee day. A letter will be sent out today to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in the protocol, inviting them to meet immediately after the Recess so that I can hear their views. Other meetings will be offered as the Bill goes through your Lordships’ House. I hope to hold them before the Bill leaves this House. Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this has been a serious debate, for which I am grateful. When my noble friend Lord Bradshaw talked about hacking in the garden, I thought that he would mention pulling things up by the roots, but perhaps I should not pursue that. I believe that his reference to meetings concerned an earlier regime—I am not sure whether that is quite the right term—but certainly before the noble Baroness took up her ministerial office. I am grateful to her for her offer to hold discussions throughout the passage of the Bill.
I take very seriously the issue of certainty, which has been raised. I accept that the problem of uncertainty is inherent in the proposal for piloting or trialling. There is certainty and uncertainty on the one hand, and on the other there is getting it right—that is the dilemma we are in—and making sure that there are proper checks and balances, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said. The coalition programme for government refers to “strict” checks and balances.
“Applicability of memorandum of understanding: operational independence
The Minister must ensure that any memorandum of understanding finalised and approved in accordance with section 155(2) is applied to non-geographic police bodies in the United Kingdom, including—(a) the British Transport Police Force;(b) the Central Motorway Policing Group;(c) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;(d) the Ministry of Defence Police;(e) the Port of Dover Police;(f) the Port of Liverpool Police; and(g) the Serious Organised Crime Agency.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I will link what I say to Amendments 231, 231A, 231B, 234ZA and 234ZB in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. They effectively seek to ensure that the British Transport Police has the same powers and authority as geographical police forces. For reasons that I hope will become apparent, we support these amendments, which seem to make good operational sense.
Additionally, in this group are a number of amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Beecham, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that require police forces in the scope of the Bill, when enacted, to have particular regard to co-operation and collaborative working arrangements. Again, we support those amendments. Amendments 83ZA and 83B in the names of members of our Front Bench cover much of the same ground, but additionally require these working arrangements to be independent and impartial, and included in the memorandum of understanding.
A memorandum of understanding has an important role to play in policing, irrespective of the Bill. In last week’s Committee debate, the Minister encouraged us to regard as a first draft the memorandum of understanding circulated earlier this month by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. She invited comments and we should very much like to take up her offer of a meeting at an appropriate point to discuss the text in more detail. Although the MoU was referred to in our Committee discussions last week, it was not given much detailed consideration. I should therefore like to spend a little time on it, in the spirit of constructive debate, before arguing that the MoU, once agreed, should apply also to all UK police forces and, in particular, to the British Transport Police.
What do we want from a memorandum of understanding? The model that comes to my mind is in part the military covenant and in part the BBC royal charter. Like the military, the police put themselves at the service of their country and have to endure risks on a daily basis, sometimes paying the price of such service with their lives. Like the military, this ought to be recognised in a compact with the state. As with the BBC, the police clearly need to be independent and be seen to be independent. Therefore, there needs to be a document setting out the high-level principles that we think should apply to policing, defines the aims and objectives of policing, guarantees the independence of the police operating within those parameters, indicates how the success of police operations will be measured, and defines how accountability will be discharged—accountability that should surely be to Parliament.
It should, in short, be adjudged to be part of our constitutional writings, as is acknowledged in the draft. Much of it already exists in other documents and in legislation. The task, therefore, is one of bringing the material together in a readable and appropriate form. It is a pity that that has not been the approach taken to date. The draft which has been circulated does not achieve those aims. It ought to be an authoritative disquisition about the operational independence of the police, a clear statement about what we, the people, want our police to do and defining how they may do it, putting flesh on the bones of that admirable construct, policing by consent.
In fact, what we have been given is somewhat polemical in approach, containing as it does a rehash of the arguments for the Bill and, in particular, a case for the role of the police and crime commissioners. It states:
“The election of Police and Crime Commissioners is at the heart of the Government’s plan to cut crime”.
Perversely, it starts off in a negative mode and is full of warnings about what it does not contain. It states:
“This Protocol does not supersede or vary the legal duties and requirements of the Office of Constable”,
instead of positively defining what those duties are.
These documents are not easy to get right, and I sympathise with Ministers struggling with them. I hasten to add that there are some very good sections in the MoU but, to my mind, they come much too late in the document and lose their impact because of what you have to read through to get to them. The section on the chief constable and what, to us, seems to be at the heart of the memorandum, the section on operational control, need to be considerably expanded and should come up front so that, for example, the sections on relationships with local interests and with the Home Office have a context.
I make two other points. The document would be much improved if more attention was paid to the inevitably complex lines of accountability and control in policing. For example, the assertion that the chief constable holds office under the Crown but is appointed by the PCC needs to be unpicked and given much more detailed consideration. There also needs to be much more in the memorandum about the assertion:
“The PCC and Chief Constable must work together to safeguard the principle of operational independence”,
but the sentence continues,
“while ensuring that the PCC is not fettered in fulfilling the role set out above”.
Those two aspirations pull in opposite directions and seem irreconcilable.
Amendment 30 is intended to ensure that the citizens of the United Kingdom and our visitors can be assured that the standards of policing in this country are broadly comparable wherever they are and whatever they are doing, not only across the geographical police forces, which are in scope to the Home Office, but the non-geographical forces, listed in our amendment, which are in scope to other departments such as the Department for Transport and other departments of state.
Surely we should be striving for a commonality of approach while respecting local and operational differences. My concern is that a memorandum for one set of police forces will exacerbate the present differences between the geographic and non-geographic forces. Where the Bill has to introduce new structures, they should support a seamless policing environment from the citizens’ point of view.
I declare a past interest in that I was for several years an external mentor for the excellent senior management development scheme in the British Transport Police. I confess that I knew next to nothing about policing or even the existence of BTP, but I soon came to recognise that BTP was, and remains, a very special police force. I have a high regard for its ethos, its approach to policing, the quality of its senior management and its overall operation as Britain's only national police force.
BTP's history can be traced back to 1826 and the origins of the police service in Britain. The railways and high-speed rail in particular are a unique policing environment with a unique set of needs. BTP's 2,835 police officers and 1,455 support staff exist to provide a specialist policing service to meet those needs. The officers and men of BTP police the tracks and provide a service to rail operators, their staff and passengers across the whole of the country, including the London Underground system, Docklands Light Railway, the Midland Metro tram system, Croydon Tramlink and Glasgow Subway. BTP safeguards about 6 million people every day. Railway passengers do not recognise the boundary between the railway and the community more generally. Crime and the fear of crime know no boundaries. Criminal behaviour is promiscuous and it crosses areas and networks. It is surely vital that our policing services do likewise with the minimum interruption from the structural concerns. At present, the systems and structures, pay and conditions, training, the use of HM inspectorate, the uniforms and the rest ensure that the BTP is seen by the public as an integral part of our policing system. Senior officers of the BTP, for example, regularly serve as gold commander at public events such as sporting occasions and state visits.
Our amendment seeks to ensure that, when the memorandum of understanding is introduced, the Bill takes account of any danger that it might separate the non-geographic from the geographic forces. We think that the way to do that is to require that the memorandum of understanding, once it is finalised and approved in accordance with Section 155(2), is applied to non-geographic police bodies in the United Kingdom. Only in this way, I believe, can we guarantee that visitors coming to London through our ports, via the Channel Tunnel or by using our motorways, can be sure of parity of service provision, or that people attending the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games can be confident that the police service will match the highest standards found in the community and that our commuters and their families will be sure that they are as safe out and about as they are at home and that the standards applied are equivalent. I beg to move.
Baroness Henig
Amendment 77 is in my name, so perhaps I may say a few words about it. Before I do so, I did not declare my interest on the previous occasion and perhaps I may seek clarification. Do I need to declare my interest at the start of every Committee day, or does the fact that I did so on the first day mean that I do not need to do so again?
Baroness Henig
I am grateful for that. Amendment 77 relates back to an issue that this House discussed on our previous Committee day—that is, exploring the role of the police and crime commissioner in relation to the crime aspect of their portfolio, in addition to the aspect relating to policing.
In that debate I mentioned my concern that this aspect of the police and crime commissioner’s role is underdeveloped in how it is described in the Bill, which seems largely to focus on the ability to make grants to organisations engaged in crime reduction. The amendment seeks to link the role of the police and crime commissioner to this wider role in preparing policing and crime plans. It is clear that it is the Government’s intention to enable crime-related issues and priorities to be included in the functions of the police and crime commissioner and therefore, by extension, in these plans. The issue here is whether it would be possible, without explicit powers, to do what the Government want. Therefore, I am trying to make explicit what the Government hope the police and crime commissioner will do and to give a permissive power to the police and crime commissioner to work with partner organisations, and not just the police, and include them in crime reduction plans.
I have indicated before that I consider the Government’s proposals regarding police and crime commissioners to be very ambitious. I quote what the policing Minister stated in a speech at the IPPR on 28 March 2011:
“The role of commissioners will be greater than that of the police authorities they replace. That is the significance of the words ‘and crime’ in their title. They will have a broad remit to ensure community safety, with their own budgets to prevent crime and tackle drugs. They will work with local authorities, community safety partnerships and local criminal justice boards, helping to bring a strategic coherence to the actions of these organisations at force level”.
I hear that, and it is what I should like to happen but there are no explicit linkages in the Bill to ensure that it does happen. It is an aspiration but I want to make sure that it happens in delivery terms, and I am therefore trying to put something explicit in the Bill. We all know about good intentions but that does not necessarily mean that delivery happens on the ground, and I am most concerned about how this works out on the ground.
Therefore, perhaps in her response the Minister can address whether she believes that the plans, as currently set out in the Bill, will be able to pick up priorities related to this wider crime role and not just policing priorities or whether she thinks that what I am trying to suggest here in my amendment is helpful. Again it comes down to collaboration with a whole range of bodies that exist at local level at the moment, and on giving the police and crime commissioner an explicit remit to go out and do all these things. They have been mentioned but I would like to know that they will happen.
I was disappointed that the Minister did not address my query at our previous sitting about how the Government see the wider crime role of the police and crime commissioner fitting in with the new payment-by-results approach, which the Ministry of Justice is developing in relation to criminal justice bodies. That was not addressed but it is an issue, and it would be helpful if she could address it in her response. I remain concerned about timing. The Bill risks putting in place premature arrangements while the landscape in relation to criminal justice is still being developed. It is not yet clear so I hope that she can reassure me on that point.
Lord Dear
I understand that we are debating an issue of uniformity, which has to be a good thing. I do not think that anyone will be surprised if I remind the Committee that nearly all the organisations mentioned are either controlled by or commercially responsible to either Her Majesty’s Government or to commercial concerns.
I wish to draw attention to the Central Motorway Policing Group, which is in the list. I set up that group in the late 1980s. It was then, and remains, a collaborative agreement between four police forces: the West Midlands, which is at the heart of the ring around the West Midlands conurbation, with substantial stretches in Staffordshire, West Mercia and a small section in Warwickshire. It covers the M5, M6, M40, M42 and the M6 toll road. It is a collaborative agreement in which the constituent chief constables take an interest but it does not fit usefully into that list. Those proposing the amendment, assuming things are not changed, might consider withdrawing it from the list.
Lord Beecham
I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 83A. The clause requires the elected police commissioner to co-operate with a variety of partners in the criminal justice system. One might think that it might be overegging the pudding to require that he should co-operate with,
“the chief officer of police for that police area”,
but that is what Clause 10(4)(a) says. The clause then identifies a range of other partners, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chancellor in respect of courts, a Minister of the Crown in respect of functions relating to prisons and a youth offending team —effectively NOMS and probation.
It is arguable that a body might be under a duty to co-operate with such agencies of the criminal justice system but it strikes me as somewhat invidious for a single individual to have that relationship with bodies administering the courts and these other functions. Those powers are sensitive—extremely sensitive, it might be thought—and likely to promote some concern on the part of the public as to whether single individuals should be engaged at that level in such a co-operative enterprise. I should be grateful if the Minister could elucidate the thinking behind that provision. It seems somewhat dangerous to me. One might be more ready to accept the duty if it were that of a police authority, constituting more than one individual. If we do revert to that position, there are some concerns that need to be discussed.
Baroness Hamwee
I have a number of amendments in this group. Like other noble Lords, I found the draft of the memorandum of understanding that we have seen useful as a narrative but disappointing in that it seems hardly to tackle the difficult issues. It would be inappropriate for the memorandum of understanding simply to say in other words what the Bill, or Act as it will become, says. It must go further and deeper. There is a lot that could be cut out, but noble Lords are identifying a lot that needs to be covered.
Amendment 69AA, on the supplementary Marshalled List, provides for any protocol or memorandum of understanding to be one of the items that must be considered when the police and crime plan is reviewed. Clause 5 lists other items, but we should recognise that a document such as this will be in existence and should be acknowledged in statute. I appreciate that the Minister will want to talk about whether the protocol should have statutory force when she discusses that with other noble Lords.
Amendments 82 and 83 deal with Clause 10: “Co-operative working”. My simple proposal is that victims of crime and their representatives—I am thinking of various voluntary organisations—should be included among those who work co-operatively and should be brought in to the arena. Similarly, arrangements for obtaining the views of the community, covered by Clause 14, should include those who have been the victims of crime and those who support them, because their views should be obtained and made good use of.
Finally, the Local Government Association asked me to table Amendment 231 on community safety partnerships. The Bill transfers the Secretary of State's authority to commissioners. The amendment would delete the transfer so that authority would remain with the Home Secretary. Noble Lords might be surprised to hear me advocating the retention of a Home Secretary's power: it is not what I normally do. However, the LGA is concerned—and I share its concern—that the introduction of police and crime commissioners could undermine the partnership working that is in place, introduce ambiguity for community safety partnerships over the role of the commissioner and undermine the ability of the partnerships effectively to deliver results. The LGA warns of tension between the differing political mandates of commissioners and local authorities. I remind the House that it speaks on a cross-party basis. It says that to keep the authority over CSPs with the Home Secretary at national level and encourage close collaborative working at local level would be for the best.
Lord Bradshaw
I will speak to Amendments 231A, 231B, 234ZA and 234ZB standing in my name. They relate to the British Transport Police. That body is unique and not, as far as I know, subject to the idea of elected commissioners. However, it polices our railways and goes back in its origins to the days when transport policemen were the signalmen on the railway who looked after the conduct of trains.
We have moved on a bit and the transport police now are more or less corralled within the boundaries of the railway, so that they cannot exercise their powers outside the railway unless explicit guidance or agreement has been reached with the county force or its successors. These amendments would extend the jurisdiction of the transport police to make them responsible for policing transport interchanges. Nearly every railway station has a car park, a bicycle place and somewhere where people catch the bus. People need to be assured of their safety throughout their journey. Some research I had done about 18 months ago showed that according to the estimates made by the Department for Transport, 11.5 per cent more journeys would be made on public transport if passengers felt more secure. I am not pretending for one instant that letting the transport police embrace the precincts of a station would put that all right, but I know that the moment when people get off a train and transfer to another means of public transport, even walking down the street, is when they feel most vulnerable and is probably when they are most likely to be attacked.
I am not asking for more money to be given to the British Transport Police, which is, in fact, a matter for the Department for Transport, rather than the Home Office, but it is important that some real force is put behind the guidance. Actually, there is no guidance. Informal arrangements exist in some places, and they work, but they are informal. To take an example I know well, at Reading station, which has extensive bus stops, car parks, some of them rather nasty, and cycle racks, the police cannot even deal with disorder in the park that was built as part of the station but is outside the limits. We want to use the manpower at the Government’s disposal in the best possible way to promote the interests of passengers, and the British Transport Police force is, to a large extent, paid for by the train operating companies .
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and have put my name to the same amendments in this group. I commend the speech made at the beginning of this debate by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who summed up ideally the importance of the British Transport Police and the necessity of removing the anomalies in existing legislation. We made some progress on improvements over the past 10 years. For example, at one point, it was illegal for a British Transport Police officer to pursue a pickpocket out of the station on to the neighbouring street. It was like one of those Wild West films where the police’s jurisdiction finishes at the state line and the next state’s police have to take over. It is an absurd situation. The problem that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to still exists to a considerable degree. I believe that it is important that when people undertake a journey by train to an airport station, the British Transport Police should be not only on the platform but in the airport as well because they are providing the same sort of security to the traveller and, as far as the passenger is concerned, it is a seamless journey.
There are some anomalies that we have the opportunity to address with these amendments. I shall concentrate on one aspect of them relating to alcohol. The BTP is at present excluded by Section 1 of the Police Act 1996 from having a view on licensing applications, even though there are now large numbers of retail outlets selling alcohol on stations, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, points out. It would be very much in the interests not just of the travelling public but of the public generally that, if the British Transport Police was aware of problems relating to particular premises associated with the railway, it had the opportunity to object to those licences. I understand that at present it is not able to do that.
A number of these anomalies can be put right, particularly if the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has tabled and which I am supporting were to be accepted by the Government. I very much hope that the Minister will look at them, and if it is not possible to accept the amendments today will be able to come back to us at a later stage to say that some of these difficulties will be ironed out at later stages of the Bill. I think these are worthwhile amendments, and I hope the Committee will support them.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, there is a cornucopia of interesting points concealed in this group of amendments. I shall try to confine myself to about three rather than address them all. In response to the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester about the British Transport Police, although I have a lot of sympathy for what is being said, I say that we need to think through some of the implications. It would not be in the interests of citizens if they never knew where the tentacles of the British Transport Police had so far extended and that they might be relating to them in places considerably different from railway stations or the railway.
I am conscious of that because some years ago I conducted an exercise, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which listened to Londoners about their attitudes to counterterrorism policing. There were a huge number of comments, particularly about stop and search and Section 44. I appreciate that Section 44 is no more. It was interesting that, on analysis, a large number of those comments related to the actions of the British Transport Police. The public, particularly young people, did not make a distinction between the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police in that instance. We have to think about how a chief officer of police will have direction and control for policing in their area if this is blurred. But that is not to say that we would want an extraordinary sort of relay race where the baton is handed on when a pickpocket is being chased from one place to another. The position of some of the non-geographic police bodies should be regularised and it is important that they are regularised in this Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara for putting forward and speaking to Amendment 30, which raises the issue of the memorandum of understanding defined in his earlier amendment. Incidentally, I think that it is a different document from that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was talking about and which the Government published a couple of weeks back. This is intended to talk about the relationship between different forces rather than the relationship between an elected police and crime commission or a non-elected police and crime commission and a chief officer of police.
Some specification of the relationship between the non-geographic forces and the mainstream Home Office forces is extremely important. I should like to illustrate that in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which is responsible for the protection of nuclear sites and for the transportation of nuclear materials, including at sea. Because of the nature of nuclear materials and the considerable dangers that might be associated with it, it is a very heavily armed constabulary with significant amounts of weaponry, including, I think, cannons for use at sea. It is therefore very important in terms of what might or might not happen in respect of these issues. It highlights potential vulnerabilities of particular sites or when nuclear materials are being transported and the public, quite rightly, would expect those materials and sites to be properly protected.
However, it is slightly anomalous that, as I understand it, the members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are paid on different, lower scales than other police officers. It is more than slightly anomalous that those officers are not necessarily subjected to the same levels of training. I think that as regards firearms training there now is a lot of read-across, but that was not always the case and there is no requirement for that to be the case. This is potentially of enormous public concern and we want to see that the governance and arrangements are managed properly.
The relationship between the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Home Office forces in the vicinity also worries me. As I understand it, agreements are in place between the Civil Nuclear Constabulary around particular establishments and the local police force. I think the concept—no doubt I caricature it grotesquely—is that if, for example, a particular establishment came under sustained attack from the massed ranks of al-Qaeda or whoever else it might be, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary would be able to hold off that attack for a certain period while the local constabulary would come to its aid. The problem, I suspect, is about what the local constabulary would be able to do under such circumstances. Often these are in quite rural and remote areas; the forces concerned do not have large armed presences that could be summoned at short notice—or they might have to go over mountain ranges or face other difficult circumstances. To clarify what the relationship is and should be not only would be very valuable in terms of this legislation, but also would be extremely important in terms of public safety and the security of the critical national infrastructure.
I suspect—but I know less about it—that a similar arrangement might well be important in respect of the Ministry of Defence Police. I know there were some discussions—and I acknowledge that I am not sure how they turned out—about the Ministry of Defence Police taking on responsibility, in addition to its duties in respect of Ministry of Defence establishments, for keeping an eye on and protecting certain bits of the critical national infrastructure. Again, the same principles apply about the relationship between its activities and the local force’s. Getting that right is important: I think it probably would valuably be spelt out in the context of having independent-minded police and crime commissions or commissioners—whatever we end up with—or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in London. It may be important in terms of protecting the national interest and what we all expect to happen with respect to that collaboration if some of these things were capable of being spelt out by a proper memorandum of understanding which could be referred to and in which the Home Office and other agencies would want to play a significant part.
That is one point I wish to make on this group of amendments. The second relates to Amendment 83A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham. This deletes the reference to specific bodies listed in the definition of “criminal justice body”. Again, it would be valuable when the Minister responds if she could spell out the direction of travel as far as the Government are concerned. What we have at the moment is an enabling clause within the Bill, designed to enable things to evolve over time. However, we also want some clarity that this is not going to damage some of the existing areas of collaboration; we need to understand what the longer-term constitutional implications of major changes in this area might be.
For example, at the moment, there are plenty of very good, well worked-out examples of having Crown Prosecution Service staff collocated within police stations. This is designed to ensure a quick and rapid interchange between police officers investigating a crime and Crown Prosecution Service staff about whether sufficient evidence has been gathered as soon as arrangements have been made as to how to take things forward, were a charge to be made. That is good practice, and something which works well. Is it the Government’s intention that that should go further—that ultimately the Crown Prosecution Service should come within the ambit of the police, or within the ambit of the police and crime commissioner, the commission or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—whatever we end up with? I think that then raises some fundamental issues about the relationship between the police and the prosecution decision. We do not have in this country an inquisitorial system whereby a prosecutor comes in and makes all the decisions on the investigation and how things proceed. By changing that relationship—or potentially changing that relationship—we will change significantly the components of the criminal justice system and the way they relate to policing. Whether that is in the wider interests of the public, I think we need to be clear and we need to debate. I have a fairly open mind on it, but it raises some quite big constitutional issues.
Similarly, I can see that considerable savings might be made were some elements of probation and policing to be brought together. Checking whether people are meeting their probation obligations might fit in usefully with local policing, but the distinction between the end point of criminal justice—the punishment end or whatever else it may be called—and ordinary policing would then be blurred. Again, I have an open mind as to whether that is good or bad, but it raises profound constitutional issues about the independence of those different functions. We should be clear about what the Government see as their direction of travel.
On court administration and court services, tremendous benefits in terms of cost savings could be achieved by removing some of the extraordinary anomalies whereby police officers hang around indefinitely almost for the convenience of courts, magistrates or judges. If all those services were under the control of a single individual—the police and crime commissioner, the police and crime commission or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—efficiencies could be introduced in the way those systems worked. That would no doubt be good news for the public purse; it might be good news in terms of people awaiting trial and disposal by the courts, because things would happen speedily and when people expected them to happen; it would certainly be in the interests of witnesses; and it might well be in the interests of police officers who could spend their time otherwise. However, fundamental constitutional questions are raised about the relationship between the courts and the police. I am quite happy for us to have that debate but I would not want it to happen by default on the basis of a comparatively obscure clause in this Bill, as opposed to us looking at what the implications might be and whether there are serious unintended consequences of what might otherwise seem a sensible proposal.
I shall make my final point briefly because I appreciate that I have spoken for quite a long time. It relates to Amendments 230A, 230B and 230C, which are on crime and disorder strategies and propose essentially to link into them the police and crime commissioner, the police and crime commission or the MOPC. The amendment ties in with the amendments that we debated last week about the relationship with local authorities. It is important to make sure that the accountability mechanism created under the Bill, whatever its final picture looks like, is seen to have a read-across at divisional level and at very local level. If a single individual ends up being in charge of all these things, the mechanism risks becoming centralised into a county-wide and force-wide process of debate and discussion, and you will lose the local dialogue which is essential to crime and disorder strategies at a local-authority level. It would also be more difficult to bring about the neighbourhood dimension. Making the strategy an explicit responsibility of the police and crime commissioner, the police and crime commission or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime makes enormous sense.
Lord Bradshaw
The noble Lord said that stop-and-search powers had been clumsily or excessively used by the British Transport Police. Will he give the Committee the benefit of knowing when that took place and acknowledge that a great deal has changed since then?
Lord Harris of Haringey
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, heard what he feared I was saying rather than what I actually said.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Well, both your Lordships are strong protagonists of the British Transport Police. My point was about the potential confusion. I am sure that all of us in this Committee know instantly whether a police officer whom we see is from the Metropolitan Police, the British Transport Police or the Ministry of Defence Police. We recognise the hat badges and the different detail around the cap, but most people do not. I was simply demonstrating that this was an area of considerable confusion.
There was equally severe concern and criticism of the way that the Metropolitan Police had used Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in terms of stop and search and there was also enormous confusion about whether it was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act or stop and search under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or whatever else. The point is that people do not understand these processes. Before we go down the road of saying that the remit of British Transport Police officers should automatically be extended, we need to think through how that will be managed and dealt with.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising the potential implications of the protocol or memorandum of understanding for the non-geographic police forces within England and Wales. Of course, the Bill does not change the governance structures of these bodies. With the exception of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, they are not answerable to the Home Secretary, who is to issue the protocol. The protocol will not vary the interaction between the Home Office and non-geographical forces. That is why in the Bill we have safeguarded the direction and control of chief officers. Through that, their operational interaction with, for example, the British Transport Police and others remains unaffected.
There are also questions about how the protocol, as it is currently conceived, would apply to these bodies, which differ from the geographical police forces significantly in terms of their functions. The Committee has touched on some of these this evening. The governance arrangements and relationship with the public, although overlapping, are often quite different. However, I appreciate that at least some of those forces may benefit from such a protocol being in place. I genuinely welcome further discussion on the merits of widening the protocol's scope.
However, this has not been the immediate focus of the protocol as drafted and we would be keen to discuss that further, including of course detailed discussions with the bodies concerned. I reiterate that Members of the Committee who have expressed an interest in the protocol as currently drafted will receive an invitation to discuss it in more detail with me. Those letters should go out in the next 24 hours. I hope that after the recess we can have a more detailed discussion about that protocol.
The Government expect police and crime commissioners, community safety partnerships and other criminal justice bodies to co-operate in order to deliver the best service to local communities across the force area. Their priority should be tackling crime and disorder for the benefit of the local people. Therefore, they should work together to overcome any particular issues. Clause 10 sets out in legislation a reciprocal duty to co-operate for police and crime commissioners and authorities comprising community safety partnerships. It also requires police and crime commissioners and other criminal justice agencies within their force area such as the probation, prison and court services to make local arrangements to work effectively together.
We want to establish a framework that enables commissioners to develop strong relationships with these key local partners. Those relationships will be critical to commissioners in order to make the most sustainable impact on crime and community safety. The clause sets the foundations for that framework and we expect commissioners and local partners to build on that through strategic engagement and dialogue. They will work together to provide the most effective and efficient response to the needs of their local communities. It is important to see Clause 10 in the context of other measures to advance joint working in the Bill, such as grant-making powers, provisions to elevate crime and disorder strategies to a force-wide level and to commission reports to examine any element of those strategies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, asked specifically about payment by results. I hope that she will find it agreeable for me to write to her on that issue. I know that she focused on Clause 10.
I do not think it necessary to further labour the duty with a memorandum of understanding which has the potential to become burdensome on the professional and experienced services that certain amendments within this group are seeking to bind in law. We have agreed a way forward with the protocol and I hope that noble Lords will avail themselves of making their views on specific issues known to me. However, I want to keep that light touch because there is a danger if too much detail is set into the protocol it will become a burden. That is not what we want it to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was concerned that an individual would carry the power and responsibility. But I gently remind the noble Lord that if they are elected by the public, that person, whatever badge they had when they stood for election, would have had to present themselves to the public and convince them that they were able to do the job. They would have to carry out those important functions not just in an honourable way but in a competent way. Therefore, they would have to gain the trust of the public.
This is often the cause of debate. We say that we trust the public, but do we really? I do and I believe that our democratic process is such that if we give the public an opportunity to elect somebody to an important and responsible role such as this—as we do in other areas of our democratic process—we should trust them. The police and crime commissioners will of course have the scrutiny of the panel behind them which will hold them to account and who will be an important check and balance on the way in which they carry out their duties.
Lord Beecham
Does the Minister not see that, in all the partnerships that arise, there will be only one person—the elected police commissioner—who stands alone? In no other case will he be engaged with a single individual. He will be dealing with a properly constituted body, whether that is the Lord Chancellor's Department—he will not have a direct relationship with the Lord Chancellor—the Prison Service, the National Offender Management Service or the youth offending teams.
We will have a situation where an individual, elected as the noble Baroness said, deals effectively with a number of corporate bodies. Does that relationship not look odd constitutionally? My noble friend Lord Harris pointed that out. Is there not a danger that, with their having been invested with that elected authority, there may be a temptation, which may be difficult to resist, for an unprecedented—in our system—degree of pressure on other parts of the criminal justice system?
Baroness Browning
The Mayor of London might well be described as having similar power as constituted already and already elected. I was not aware at the time that that was an argument brought forward to oppose the powers of the Mayor of London. I do not know whether I am reading the noble Lord correctly. I understand why he is concerned but he has not yet persuaded me. I am sorry to tell him that.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am not aware that the Mayor of London currently has powers in respect of the criminal justice bodies that are listed here.
Baroness Browning
I hear what noble Lords are saying. I am not persuaded of the argument because I believe that there are sufficient checks and balances as far as the police and crime commissioners are concerned to ensure that they carry out their duties, not only in a robust way but in the way that we would all expect them to carry them out in their relationship with all bodies, whether at a local or national level. I remain unconvinced, I am afraid, by the noble Lord's arguments in that area.
Baroness Henig
I also trust the public, but in the only cases that I can see that might be compatible—elected mayors—there have been one or two examples of extremely problematic situations in the past few years. If they were repeated in the policing sphere it would have the most serious consequences.
Baroness Browning
I understand why the noble Baroness says that, which is why, of course, the checks and balances need to be in place. We are all frail as human beings, even the highest. That is why the Bill needs to ensure—and I believe it does—that there are checks and balances for police and crime commissioners. That is one of the things we might discuss in our negotiations across the Committee before this Bill leaves it. However, I do not want noble Lords to think that I am persuaded that the principle of a democratically elected police and crime commissioner is something that we are going to depart from. It is the core of the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
The Minister has, with a very welcome style, promised meetings before the Bill leaves the House. In my experience, those meetings would be most helpful prior to Report stage, because it is then much easier for Members with a detailed interest in this legislation to consider what their position will be on Report.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I quite accept that and it would be my intention to do exactly that. There is a gap between Committee and Report and I hope that we can usefully fill the hours in between discussing these matters.
The public, through a police and crime commissioner, will receive a stronger voice within the wider criminal justice system; moreover, the commissioner would act as an advocate for the system’s independence. I do not believe there is a need to restate in this Bill the legal consequences were any individual, irrespective of their public position, to seek to undermine or frustrate the well established legal processes within England and Wales. As with the operational independence of a chief constable, no clauses in this Bill seek to undermine or influence the independence of the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service or the legal responsibilities and foundation of other criminal justice bodies.
To that end, it is right and proper that we simply list in Clause 10 those bodies and authorities which the Government expect a PCC to develop a co-operative working relationship with rather than leave it to chance or allow for uncertainty and doubt or, at worst, preach to the converted and issue guidance on how the separate bodies should go about each other’s business.
I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the subject of the British Transport Police.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Now that the noble Baroness is leaving the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, perhaps she could tell us whether she is saying that the sole purpose of Clause 10(4) is to remind these paragons who are going to fulfil these roles in future that these are people they ought to talk to and collaborate with. In that case, it seems unnecessary to include the list in the Bill unless the Government have some further intention in mind going beyond simply saying, “Well, these are people you ought to talk to”.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the Government have no intention or expectation that they will go further in the way that the noble Lord has outlined. We just felt that it was important to put it in the Bill but not to the point of being prescriptive in any further detail than that. I can assure the noble Lord—if this is what is in the back of his mind—that there is no hidden agenda of mission creep here in terms of the powers. I do not know if I have interpreted what he has said correctly but if that is what he was suspicious of, I hope I can reassure him on that point.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, that is an extremely helpful comment. Let me put it round the other way. Does Clause 10 contain within it an expectation that those bodies listed will themselves collaborate? We have heard examples of where some of the individuals and bodies have stuck very carefully to what they regard as their independence and have not seen it as their responsibility to collaborate with other partners.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, we hope that with the election of police and crime commissioners there will be a real culture change in the way in which these bodies work together. We hope that we will break down Chinese walls where bodies do not co-operate and that they will work together where it would definitely be to the public’s advantage that they do. One of the police and crime commissioner’s duties will be to build these relationships and ensure that they advance the fight against crime. That is their objective. We do not want to be too prescriptive in the Bill but, on the other hand, we also want to make the intention behind the role very clear. I reassure the noble Lord that if there are problems at a local level—and there are bound to be, because we are talking about human frailties and people taking positions; we are all familiar with that—a police and crime commissioner will make it his or her priority to rebuild bridges and co-operate right across the piece to ensure that they fulfil the main objective of their job, which is to reduce crime and represent the people’s view on crime reduction in their area. It may sound rather worthy but culture change is not always easy to bring about. It does not always happen simply by dotting every last “i” in the primary legislation.
I turn to the British Transport Police. As I hope noble Lords will recall from exchanges during passage of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, some of the matters that have been raised tonight were to have been considered within the context of the quinquennial review of the British Transport Police Authority, which was to have been carried out under the previous Administration but was not progressed. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for the Government to re-examine these proposals and to consider them within the wider context of the Government's plan to reform the governance of the 43 Home Office forces within England and Wales. I therefore undertake to consult my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport on the various issues raised by these amendments and to consider how they might best be progressed. Once I have done so I will write to noble Lords. I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that I have just had my ministerial duties defined this week, and alcohol and drug use are included in my responsibilities. I was very interested to hear what he said about the lack of British Transport Police involvement. I promise to take the matter away and consider it as I thought that he made a very strong point.
I am grateful to those who contributed to the debate on these amendments, and I ask those who tabled them to consider not pressing them.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Baroness has very helpfully addressed a number of the points. However, I am still not clear whether she has addressed the central point of some of these amendments—the call for a statement somewhere of the relationship between the new structures and the non-territorial forces. It is not part of the protocol about operational independence, about which we will no doubt have plenty of interesting discussions; it is about the relationship between police and crime commissioners, or whatever we end up with, and those other forces. For example, I raised some points about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. I am not sure that the Minister addressed the point about the value of some sort of codification of how these relationships are managed.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that clear in my remarks, in which I focused very much on the British Transport Police. The same would apply to other forces. We will look at it, and I promise to write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness responded to my amendments on the role of victims and victim organisations and the contribution they can make in the two areas that I mentioned, or indeed to the amendment on community safety partnerships. I think that the word cornucopia was used about this grouping. If these amendments have somehow slipped out of her notes, I hope that she will nevertheless be able to look at the issue. I am particularly concerned that, although the Bill makes a reference to the role of victims and so acknowledges their place in what might be called—to use a term that is used quite often—the wider landscape, I read that as a little bit of a gesture. I would like to see those matters brought far more centrally into the way in which the new arrangements are to operate.
Baroness Browning
I quite take the point that the noble Baroness makes. I promise to write to her specifically on those matters.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for her helpful comments and responses to what has been a wide-ranging and very full debate—a cornucopia indeed, as has already been mentioned. I think that essentially four issues have been raised, although not necessarily by everybody, as we have gone through the debate.
The first issue concerns the duties of collaboration. As with the last point that has just been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I think that there would be room for the Minister to make the offer to write on that in a bit more detail. As my noble friend Lady Henig and the last speaker have pointed out, some of the details might skip out and not be caught properly, so I think that correspondence on those issues might help. The general concern is to flesh out some of the frameworks that are in the Bill so that we have a better understanding, when we go forward to Report stage, about how these things will work.
In that context, there was an exchange between my noble friend Lord Beecham and the Minister on the rather subtle point—it may not have been given enough air to grow and flourish in the debate—about the difference between an individual dealing with a range of corporate bodies and a body corporate, should there be such, that was to have the same responsibilities. That is quite an important issue. Again, we would benefit from having a bit more flesh on why the Minister thinks that a single individual should have that capacity and would not get carried away as was suggested in the discussion. The point was made that, if elected persons such as mayors have a particular remit and take an aggressive stance on some issue, they tend to stray into areas that perhaps were not thought of when a democratic mandate was first given to them. We think here perhaps of the experience in Doncaster.
The second point was about the direction of travel, on which there were also a number of exchanges. I think that we ended up at what is the right place to be, which is that the fact that the “criminal justice system” is explicitly mentioned in the Bill as an area with which the new structure will engage is not meant to mean anything other than is appropriate. On our side, we would like further clarification on that. The idea that there is some sort of creeping organism embedded in the Bill that will somehow express the Home Office’s territorial interests has been rightly rejected by the Minister, but I think that the sense on our side is that we would like a little bit more on that, either in correspondence or perhaps in Hansard, to explain why those particular groups, rather than others, are mentioned and why the Government think that it is appropriate for those groups to be there. In her concluding remarks, I think that the Minister said that nothing should be read into this other than that it makes good sense for these bodies to collaborate.
The third point was on the British Transport Police. I am very grateful for the support that my amendment received from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and from my noble friend Lord Faulkner. As I said at the beginning of my remarks opening the debate, the British Transport Police has a long history in policing. This may not be well known to your Lordships, but the phrase “the booking office” comes from the British Transport Police because, in the early days of rail travel, you had to go and book in your travel with the British Transport Police-equivalent at the time before you were permitted to travel. It became known as “the booking office” because the journey was written down in a book—
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
If noble Lords like my erudition, I will continue. My second point, from my lecture this evening, is that we owe the very term “police station”, and all that those words imply, to the British Transport Police because, in the days when the railways were being built, there were so many undisciplined chaps around causing trouble in the localities that stations had to be built—believe it or not—every mile along the track. Those became the British Transport Police stations, and the term became loosely associated with the police. So we owe a lot to BTP: it is in the DNA of our modern police.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that were made about the need to discuss in more detail how we might, while respecting the differences, also seek to have a comparability of approach across the country. I think that that matters to ordinary people.
I opened the debate by talking about the importance of having a memorandum of understanding. I thank the Minister for her willingness to engage with that proposal. There is a balance to be struck between having the detail, on the one hand, and safeguarding the essential verities that we want to see in our police force. We are not asking for enormous amounts of bureaucracy—we on this side of the House are not in favour of that—but we want the checks and balances that we think will be reflected by such a memorandum to be brought out a bit more securely. I look forward to our discussions and, if the Minister cares to write on that as well, we would be very grateful.
I think that this has been a very satisfactory debate, which has raised a lot of points. I am sure that we will want to study the record to make sure that we have got everything right, but in the interim I seek to withdraw the amendment.
“Police Commission
(1) There shall be a body corporate for each police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 to be known as a “Police Commission”.
(2) A Police Commission shall consist of—
(a) a police and crime commissioner, and(b) a police and crime panel.(3) The police and crime commissioner shall be appointed by the police and crime panel (from amongst its own members).”
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31, for the avoidance of any doubt let me say that it was agreed by the Government that this amendment is consequential on my first amendment, which was agreed to on the first day of Committee, and I am most grateful for that.
Lord Beecham
“Deputy police and crime commissioners
(1) There is to be a deputy police and crime commissioner (“the deputy commissioner”) for each police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (police areas outside London).
(2) The name of the deputy commissioner for a police area is “the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for” with the addition of the name of the police area.
(3) The deputy commissioner shall be appointed by the police and crime commissioner for the area from among those members of the police and crime panel for the police area who are properly appointed as members of the panel.
(4) The deputy commissioner shall have—
(a) such functions that are performed by the police and crime commissioner for that police area, where the police and crime commissioner is unable or unavailable to perform them in accordance with this Act;(b) such other functions that are conferred by this Act or any other enactment.(5) A person must not hold the office of deputy commissioner and chair the police and crime panel at the same time.
(6) If the police and crime commissioner appoints as deputy commissioner the person who chairs the police and crime panel, the person shall resign as chair of the police and crime panel.
(7) Subsections (5) and (6) apply in relation to the deputy chair of the police and crime panel (if there is one) as they apply in relation to the chair of the police and crime panel.
(8) A person shall cease to be the deputy commissioner if—
(a) that person ceases to be a police and crime panel member;(b) that person, at any time, gives notice of resignation as the deputy commissioner to the police and crime commissioner’s chief executive; or(c) the police and crime commissioner at any time gives notice terminating his or her appointment as deputy commissioner.(9) A person who ceases to be deputy commissioner shall be eligible for reappointment.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendments in my name in this group relate to the situation in which a vacancy arises in the position of police and crime commissioner, which, for the purposes of this debate only, we will assume might eventually emerge as enshrined in the legislation.
Such a vacancy could arise in a number of ways. It could arise because of incapacity or because of the resignation or death of a police and crime commissioner; it could also arise if the police and crime panel suspended the commissioner under Clause 30 of the Bill. Incidentally, the police and crime panel does not have to suspend the commissioner if he is charged with an offence carrying a maximum prison sentence of more than two years—that is an issue to which your Lordships might wish to revert later, as it seems rather odd that there is such discretion—but, be that as it may, the situation could arise under which a commissioner is suspended, and the period of the vacancy could be quite considerable. In the event of death or resignation, there would have to be an election of a successor within 35 days, which is a tolerably short period of time, unless the vacancy arises within six months before the due date for an election, in which case the vacancy would last for six months. However, I assume that, if there is a suspension, the vacancy could last for a considerably longer period, because the suspension would lapse if the charge was withdrawn or if the commissioner was acquitted, but that process could take many months.
The extraordinary position arises under this Bill that the vacancy would be filled by a member of staff appointed by the police and crime panel. That is the procedure under Clause 62. It is quite remarkable that, presumably, any member of staff would be eligible to be appointed by the police and crime panel for that purpose. That is the opposite of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s desire to combine the position of elected mayors with that of the chief executive; this is the other way round, as an officer would in effect become the police and crime commissioner. It is as if Caligula, in appointing a horse as his consul, had to appoint a police horse. It is quite a remarkable concept and is, really, entirely unsatisfactory.
My amendments, therefore, seek to create the position of a deputy commissioner, who would be chosen from the police and crime panel—it could not be the chairman but it could be another member. Under these amendments, the deputy commissioner would in effect have the powers of the police and crime commissioner whose position had been vacated permanently or temporarily. Otherwise, under the Bill as it stands, the position would be exercised by a paid officer. Curiously, the Bill provides that in the event of incapacity, the incapacitated police commissioner’s views should be sought about which member of his staff, appointed by him in the first instance, would be appointed. That is again a rather curious concept—that somebody incapacitated for one reason or another should designate a successor in that way. Given the nature of the duties that would fall on an acting commissioner, which is the Bill’s phrase, it seems inappropriate for that position to be held by someone appointed in the manner currently prescribed by the Bill. It would be much better if it were a member of the police authority; the amendment provides for it to be a councillor member of the police authority—that is to say, somebody with a democratic mandate. That seems appropriate, particularly given that the period during which the deputy served could be many months. Obviously, he could have a whole range of duties including quite possibly determining the precept, bringing forward the crime plan, and so on.
This is not in any way a destructive amendment, but one which I hope the Government will consider carefully, because the proposal before the House is in my recollection quite unprecedented to be made in the way that the Bill prescribes. It certainly does not engender confidence that accountability would be served. So I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at a way of improving the provision in order to cover those occasions when a vacancy might arise.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 212, which I hope has the status of a drafting amendment since its aim is simply to make sure that any enactment in relation to an acting commissioner includes this Act. It would have the additional benefit of bringing the wording in line with that of Amendment 31B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which I find extremely helpful because it imposes a very important check and balance on the police commissioner. It would mean, put simply, that the deputy cannot be a member of the police commissioner’s own staff, appointed to their substantive job by that police commissioner. Rather, it must be a member of the panel who can be appointed as a deputy by the police and crime commissioner. That seems a much better approach to providing a deputy role and cover for incapacity. It is much clearer to the general public; it would occur at an early stage and it would mean that an elected not an unelected person would have the mandate of being a deputy.
Baroness Henig
I rise to support the amendment. Given that thus far with the amendments that have been moved there has not been that much sense of give in the Government’s responses, I would like to know what the thinking was on this provision. I find this whole area of the Bill quite extraordinary and quite out of line with anything else that I have experienced in policing or local government. Given that it is seen by many of us as an extraordinary suggestion, would someone explain where the idea has come from? It is so unprecedented, in my experience. If the response follows the same pattern as on previous amendments and the Minister stands up and tells us why the arguments that we are putting forward are not going to work and why what is being proposed is absolutely perfect and that therefore we should not be challenging it, in this particular case I would like to probe why this provision is in the Bill. It seems bizarre to a lot of people.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lord Shipley. My first question is whether we need a deputy for the PCC. My contention is that it is absolutely essential and that that person must be chosen from within the police and crime panel, who will in the main have been elected by the local community. How utterly bizarre it would be for an elected PCC to appoint his or her deputy. That could be absolutely anyone from the PCC’s own staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has outlined. What a recipe for corruption that might be. How will that person be chosen and what criteria will the PCC use to put so much political power into the hands of an unelected person? We absolutely must ensure that whatever befalls a PCC during its term of office, it must appoint a deputy from a properly elected body—the police and crime panel or, as I would prefer, the police and crime commission.
Lord Condon
I support the amendment as well. I fear that the thinking behind this provision was like something that I explored at Second Reading. It is almost as if the police and crime commissioner will be contaminated, or his office will be contaminated, if he is in any sort of collaborative arrangement or anyone else is drawn into the ambit of the police and crime commissioner in any way. I, too, think it would be totally inappropriate for the police and crime commissioner to nominate his deputy. Therefore, I support the notion of a deputy, if there needs to be one, being drawn from a police and crime panel, or some other body with more legitimacy than just the touching of the shoulder—figuratively speaking—by the crime commissioner of someone who happens to be working within his office.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington
I also support the amendment, because if the argument is that police commissioners are elected, surely the deputy must also be elected if he acts in their place. There is nothing more bizarre than if someone was appointed to the power, bearing in mind that a commissioner might be ill for six or nine months. That surely would be a recipe for disaster.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the Minister spoke earlier about recognising the need for checks and balances, and I regard this as a very important issue. I do not think that we can let the Bill stand as it now rests on the appointment of an acting commissioner. Clearly, the reason for it must be the architecture. Of course, the architecture is of the concept of an individual, a corporate sole, having huge powers. One can see the difficulty: if you do not place it within a proper corporate governance structure, what do you do? The Government clearly have no answer so have come up with the extraordinary idea that if a commissioner becomes incapacitated or no longer holds office a staff member can take over that responsibility.
Will vacancies arise in the circumstances of Clause 62(1)(a) to (c)? I rather think they will. As the noble Baroness said earlier, people are frail, and I am pretty certain that out of the 41 or 42 potential elected police and crime commissioners, one or two bad eggs will be elected. I am also pretty certain that the media will be very intrusive in looking into the backgrounds of people so elected. Given the position that they hold, they and their families will come under intense scrutiny, and it is likely in those circumstances that some elected commissioners will find themselves in a position to no longer hold office. Yet one of their staff members is to be appointed to take their place in those circumstances.
What sort of staff are these elected police commissioners likely to have? I would have thought that they would be likely to be media people and people who will help the commissioner be re-elected. Who is it going to be? Will it be the chief media person or chief pal of the elected police commissioner? Will it be the chief of staff? Who knows? What is likely is that this person is woefully unqualified to be an acting police commissioner. When we come back on Report, I think the Government will find that the House will require them to be willing to amend the Bill in this regard. This is a very important part of the checks and balances that are required.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we recognise that the whole question of checks and balances is a matter of much concern throughout the House and that a number of amendments which we will be discussing deal with the checks and balances built into these new arrangements, and with the relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the police and crime panel. We will be discussing those throughout several more groups from now on. The architecture of the Bill is in principle that one identifiable individual, elected and accountable, should be clearly responsible for oversight of the police. I think that noble Lords would all recognise the difference between an assistant commissioner appointed when there is a vacancy or due to incapacity, and a deputy commissioner who is appointed from the outset. That builds a very different relationship into the structure which we are designing.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the amount of care that he has put into these amendments but I am sure he also recognises that having a deputy—particularly one who comes from the PCP—also builds a potential basic tension into a structure which has been designed to do something rather different. The checks and balances should come between a separate police and crime panel and a directly elected police and crime commissioner, rather than blurring the relationship between the two. The panel is appointed by local authorities and, under our model, is clearly distinct in its origin and role from the police and crime commissioner.
The provision which we have put into Clause 62 is intended to provide a reasonable one for a temporary expedient when the elected police and crime commissioner is unable to act. We have conceded that, in such circumstances, as set out—
Lord Condon
If the Minister will forgive me for interrupting, he talks about a temporary expedient. Does he accept that it could be, in certain circumstances, many months or perhaps even more than a year?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Yes, we accept that and it is something which we will have to consider further and discuss with noble Lords who wish to pursue the issue. Nevertheless, we are concerned about blurring the relationship between the panel and the commissioner. We have conceded that the panel should make the temporary appointment, as the most suitable single body for an event that might arise from a multitude of different causes, but the principle of the Bill is that there should be a definite dynamic which depends on direct election and a high public profile. I am reminded that the Bill states that six months is the maximum for an assistant commissioner and that there would then be a by-election.
Lord Beecham
Surely that would not be the case, would it, in the event of a suspension? The suspension could clearly last for more than six months in the circumstances to which I referred—for example, a trial on a charge carrying a sentence of more than two years’ imprisonment.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, perhaps I might add to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in that this is not just blurring the distinction between the police and crime panel and the police commissioner. What the amendment proposes is that a power of patronage be given to the police commissioner over the panel whose purpose is to be a check and balance and to call him to account. Surely that does not extend the logic which I have heard so often in your Lordships’ House: that power is being concentrated in one person. This amendment would in fact give even more power to that person and confuse the relationship even further between the commissioner and the panel.
I submit to the Committee that it would only make sense to have some kind of election within the panel which would keep the roles distinct. In the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—of suspension on the grounds that the commissioner has been charged with a criminal offence—surely the patronage that was previously exercised to appoint someone from the panel to deputise could, in the eyes of the public, be polluted by the fact that the commissioner is now standing charged with a criminal offence. Therefore, the function of deputy could again be polluted. To have the panel itself perform some kind of election is a matter of regret, having heard so many representations about the need for independence in policing. It seems from the Committee’s discussion of this amendment that co-opted, independent members would not be eligible to be the deputy commissioner, so I query the logic behind this amendment. It could pollute and give even more power to the commissioner in those circumstances.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps it would help if I came in because that was an interesting point about the issue of pollution and people being tainted if the police commissioner had to stand down, or was suspended or incapacitated in any way. Take the example of a police commissioner where the charge was corruption: the idea that a member of that person's staff could then be appointed the police commissioner is just not going to run. Would the Minister be prepared to take this away? I accept that my noble friend Lord Beecham has put a suggestion forward as to how you emerge with a credible acting commissioner. There will be other suggestions; I do not think he is suggesting that he has all the answers and I do not think that anyone does. What we are pretty convinced of is that the approach in the Bill will just not do.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. We may agree that appointing or electing the deputy commissioner at the outset may well not be necessary or desirable, but we will look at what happens if there is a long-term suspension. There are precedents with directly elected mayors and others that we will want to look at. We will reflect on this and discuss it off the Floor and, on that basis, I ask if the noble Lord would care to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Henig
Baroness Henig
I shall speak also to Amendment 32B to 32F in this group. I will try to be brief as I hope that these amendments are relatively straightforward. The substantive amendment is Amendment 31E; the others are largely consequential upon it. These amendments are designed to align the provisions in Schedule 1 about the payment of salaries to police and crime commissioners, along with allowances and pensions, to the new structure now incorporated in the Bill of a police commission with two component parts—the commissioner and the panel. My main amendment suggests that the panel, not the Secretary of State as provided in the Bill, should set the salary of the commissioner. The consequential amendments, however, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about commissioners’ salaries. The remaining amendments provide that the police commission will pay the commissioner's salary and be responsible for paying the pensions of ex-commissioners.
I am uncomfortable about the Home Secretary being directly involved in setting the pay, allowances and pensions of individual commissioners. That looks to me like micromanagement, not the greater devolution and localism to which this Government say they are committed. These amendments therefore propose that the Secretary of State can still set the general parameters and exert influence over salaries through making regulations but would put her at arm’s length from the immediate decision. This is a more appropriate arrangement, which allows local accountability to be more meaningful and more flexible.
I am aware that the Senior Salaries Review Body is looking at an appropriate level of remuneration for commissioners. That does not prevent its findings being included in the arrangements that I have suggested through this amendment. These findings could be included in a national framework set by the Home Secretary, which would allow local flexibility in determining what salary is appropriate to a particular area or particular circumstances. These amendments would also provide for the police commission as a body corporate, and not the incumbent commissioner, to make pension payments to ex-commissioners.
Similarly, the commission, not the commissioner, would pay the allowances and expenses of the commissioner. This seems a much more satisfactory arrangement than that currently proposed, which is effectively that a commissioner should pay himself or herself. This might be appropriate for a person who is self-employed but it is completely inappropriate for a public servant. It raises the possibility that governance of public finances—in this case police finances—will be perceived as suspect. At best, it may have a whiff of the gravy train about it, at worst the taint of corruption. At present the British policing model is widely regarded as one of the cleanest and least corrupt in the world. It must be of concern that provisions such as this could leave it vulnerable to a different perception. That worries me. It is an important issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group: Amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 63, 64, 94 and 135. Amendment 32 would restrict the salary of the police and crime commissioner to no more than one-third of that of the chief constable. I expect a bolt from the blue for suggesting such a meagre amount but this is a probing amendment. We know that the SSRB is to advise but I understand that it will advise only. As the noble Baroness has just said, it is proposed that the decision will be that of the Secretary of State. However, the SSRB and we will need to understand several factors that are relevant to the recommendation. There is not only the responsibility carried, as one reads in the Bill, but the workload. What workload do the Government expect of the new commissioners? I am sure it will be different for different police areas. Perhaps the Government can assist the House with some sort of general advice or ballpark figure. It will not necessarily be a good thing for the commissioners to be full-time. Will that not bring them into a position of challenging the role and authority of the chief constable? There are some sensitive and complex issues buried within this. As I say, this is only a probing amendment but it is not a frivolous one.
My next three pairs of amendments are also probing, but they probe only the drafting and are very much third-order matters. Amendments 33 and 34 deal with incidental powers, including entering into agreements. I want merely to understand why it is necessary to word it in this way. Does “legally binding” mean enforceable through legal mechanisms? Is it necessary to cover all the bases by giving these examples of incidental powers? Amendments 47 and 48 to Schedule 2 are rather similar. They relate to the chief constable. The distinction is that the chief constable is an existing post. Do chief constables not already have these powers? Are these provisions necessary because of some new functions in this schedule?
I have two further pairs of amendments: Amendment 35 and 36 to Schedule 1, and Amendments 63 and 64 to Schedule 2. These paragraphs deal with protection from personal liability. I have no problem with that but I am a little puzzled by the terminology. Is not the position that there should be no personal liability for an act or omission unless it is not in good faith? The words that I am looking at are “shown to have”, which must mean something. I can think only that this is about the standard of the burden of proof. I have warned the Bill team that this is what is in my mind. My alternative to “shown to have” is simply “has”. One would have to provide evidence but there must be some distinction. There is something here that I do not understand but I would like to. It might be quite significant.
Amendment 94 would delete Clause 15(3), which provides that commissioners may not enter into agreements with each other about matters that could be the subject of a collaboration agreement. My question is: why not? Why not give the local bodies discretion? Is it not up to the local body to find the most efficient way?
Amendment 135 would transpose paragraphs 19 and 20 from Part 3 to Part 4 of Schedule 6. This is very esoteric stuff, for which I apologise. It is so that we might understand whether paragraphs 19 and 20 are not of general application—the general provisions are contained in Part 4—or relate only to the panels established by the Secretary of State, which are the subject of Part 3.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has not raised esoteric points; she has raised two fundamental issues. In one case I agree with her very strongly. In the other I disagree with her almost more strongly. As I understand them—I appreciate that they are probing—Amendments 33 and 34 effectively remove the power of the police and crime commissioner or commission, or whatever else we might have, to enter into contracts. That is an extremely dangerous amendment. It takes away one of the very powerful mechanisms or levers that whatever we end up with—the elected police and crime commissioner or the police and crime commission—will have in terms of its accountability responsibility. If the commissioner does not enter into these contracts, it must presumably be the chief officer of police who does so. This amendment further shifts the balance of responsibility away from the elected or indirectly elected body that holds the police to account to the chief constable. That is an extremely worrying principle. There is already too much in the Bill that places additional powers and responsibilities on the chief officer of the police and takes them away from the body that is supposed to hold the police to account. Given that the police have tremendous powers and responsibilities, some countervailing mechanisms are needed. That is what I thought the Bill was supposed to be about. I disagree; it has sold a pass in one or two instances and given excessive powers to the chief officer of police. However, this amendment would make it worse.
Baroness Hamwee
It might be helpful if I respond to that to save the Committee going down an avenue which I am certainly not suggesting that it should go down. My amendment would leave the right to enter into agreements but it seeks to understand the distinction between contracts and other agreements, whether legally binding or not. That is the simple thrust of my amendment. I am certainly not suggesting what the noble Lord indicates. One of the problems with probing amendments is that they sometimes seem to indicate something far more significant than is the case.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I accept that the noble Baroness is merely trying to elucidate what it means. It seems to me that in this case the Government are entirely sensibly trying to cover all the various types of agreement and contract that might exist. That seems to me what that part is about, and in my view that is why it should remain.
I turn to easier ground and to that part of the noble Baroness’s remarks with which I strongly agree. I find it bizarre that the Bill prohibits an elected policing body entering into a collaboration agreement with another. Surely, this is precisely what we hope would happen. I hope to see all sorts of networks of agreements between policing bodies around the country, perhaps to share back-office facilities or an agreement that one police area will develop an area of policing expertise and other police areas will agree that that body will take the lead in that matter. That seems to me eminently sensible. I find it strange that the Bill appears to prohibit that. I do not understand why the Government have gone down that road. If this is a probing amendment perhaps the Minister will tell us that we have completely misunderstood what the schedule is about. However, it seems to me that it cannot be interpreted in any other way. I thought that it was government policy to encourage this collaboration.
The Conservative Party, and probably the Liberal Democrats although I cannot remember their precise position on this issue, were deeply opposed to the idea of mergers of police forces when it was raised by previous Home Secretaries. They felt that this was a terrible diminution and that people would be affronted by changes in the hat badge if police forces in different parts of the country were merged. Their response was that they would want to see this sort of collaboration. Indeed, I recall the Minister for Police Nick Herbert pointing out at a conference that the proposals and discussions that were then—as I understand it—going on extremely slowly between police forces about how they might share helicopter services were a test case to establish whether police services and police authorities could collaborate under any circumstances. The message that I took from his comments was that if there was a failure to share helicopters in that instance, where there seemed to be an overriding case for doing so—however, the chief constables who wanted their own helicopters might argue differently—the Government would try to make that mandatory. I hope the Minister has received the advice that she needs on this point and that we will be told that that is not the Government’s intention. However, if it is the Government’s intention, perhaps they can explain why that is the case.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I rise to make a short comment on Amendment 31E, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to add a gloss on the earlier debate that we had in the context of Amendment 32, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
On Amendment 31E, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, spoke out for localism in deciding what these salaries should be. I find myself frequently reading in both the national and local press about the extreme distress caused by the salaries that are paid to the chief executives of local authorities, which seem to be totally out of order when compared with the salaries paid in a neighbouring county. Here we are talking about an office which is not elected, but where the decision is taken by the local authority itself. I understand the noble Baroness’s argument about localism but I recall doing these exercises from the centre for four years between 1985 and 1989, when the then Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, delegated to me responsibility for the pay and conditions of the Civil Service. I negotiated with a number of people who now sit on the Benches opposite in connection with those matters. I recall that some jobs in public bodies went beyond purely the Civil Service and that in those cases the Treasury reserved the right to decide what the salaries would be. It was a difficult task and one which I think we discharged with reasonable consistency, accuracy and honour. I would be happier with something of that order rather than the provision which the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, suggested.
In the context of Amendment 32, I heard my noble friend Lady Hamwee say she did not believe that the police and crime commissioners would have a full-time job. I recall that on the previous occasion we debated these matters my noble friend Lord Eccles pulled up the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and asked him where the Bill stated that it would be a full-time job. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had made the perfectly reasonable assumption that it was likely to be full time. However, here we are on Amendment 32 going back to the situation where it is not likely to be a full-time job at all. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire whether the Government expected the job to be full time and received an immediate answer. I go back to a mild comment that I made on the previous occasion when I said that there was some danger of entering an Alice in Wonderland scenario if we did not keep track of the matters that we were discussing, particularly given the way in which we are dealing with the Bill.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have explained the purpose of their amendments, which we are discussing. I want to refer only to one or two aspects.
This group of amendments seeks to address the considerable powers that are given virtually unchecked and unchallenged under the Bill to police and crime commissioners, while very little meaningful power or responsibility is given to the new police and crime panels. As my noble friend Lady Henig has said, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to determine a commissioner’s salary. We know very little about how the Secretary of State might do this. At one stage, certainly in the media, there were suggestions of six- figure salaries, though it now appears that the Senior Salaries Review Body may be called in.
However, that raises the issue of why the Secretary of State wants to determine directly the salary of a police and crime commissioner. As has been said, the approach seems at odds with the Government’s declared stance of devolving responsibility as far down the line as they can. Is the view that Whitehall knows best on this issue? Is the Secretary of State of the view that each commissioner should be paid the same irrespective of the geographical size and diversity of the area covered, the population of the area, the size of the budget and of the force and the levels of crime? Or is the Secretary of State of the view that commissioners’ salaries should differ? If so, what factors does she consider should be taken into account? How will she take into account any specific local or area factors? Does she intend to take into account the views of the police and crime panels or, indeed, the views of anybody else other than those of the Senior Salaries Review Body, if that is to be used?
I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and probably others, have about some of the salaries that are paid to chief executives of local authorities. But if you devolve responsibility and you believe that that is right, you have to accept the consequences and not simply say that because you are concerned about what might happen you will automatically keep everything at the centre. Of course, the salary of a local authority chief executive is, in that sense, determined by the local authority members, as are the salaries, if any, to be paid to council members and the council leader. One of the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lady Henig provides for the salary of a police and crime commissioner to be determined by the police and crime panel. The panel should be in a better position than the Secretary of State to know what salary will be appropriate to the responsibilities and complexities of the position, and what salary is likely to be needed to attract appropriate candidates for the position. It could be argued that that would also enhance the position of the panel and provide a check by the panel to the largely untrammelled authority and power given to a commissioner under the terms of the Bill.
We have discussed other amendments relating to the ability to enter into contracts. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the amendments were intended, at least in part, to probe what powers the Bill seeks to give or to remove. We have heard concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey about some of the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness.
I hope that because most of my comments related to the determination of the salary the Minister will recognise the concerns behind the amendments on salaries, reflect that in her response, respond to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harris about the provision that appears to prohibit an elected policing body from entering into a collaboration agreement with another elected local policing body, and explain the Government’s thinking behind that.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the Bill provides for the Home Secretary to determine the salary of Police and Crime Commissioners. These are unique positions, being directly elected. The Home Secretary has asked the Senior Salaries Review Board to make recommendations to the appropriate levels of pay by September this year. The SSRB is now calling for evidence to help it to decide on its recommendations. Furthermore, the SSRB will consult with partners as it considers appropriate, and this will ensure further that its recommendation takes into account the views of relevant groups.
Specifically, the Home Secretary has asked the SSRB to recommend pay arrangements that are adequate to encourage, retain and motivate candidates of sufficient quality; recognise the extremely challenging fiscal climate and wider constraints of public funding; meet the demands and expectations of the public in terms of getting value for money; reflect the essence of the role as an elected public figurehead and ambassador; provide transparency and robustness in determining PCC pay levels; recommend an approach to establishing PCC pay levels that is simple to administer and is based on a range of single salary points pay structures; and take account of, where applicable, the salary levels and responsibilities of other similar roles in the wider public sector, including elected executive mayors, MPs and MEPs. We believe that these requirements will ensure a fair pay level for PCCs, which I believe is the concern expressed by noble Lords.
The salary payable to a chief constable is one benchmark, but only one. There are other criteria that must be considered, such as demographics. In any event, the job of a chief constable is very different to that of a PCC. The SSRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration of holders of judicial office, senior civil servants, senior officers of the armed forces, and other such public appointments as may from time to time be specified. We believe that the SSRB is the right body to provide independent advice on the levels of PCCs’ salaries. Noble Lords have said that these are probing amendments, and I therefore ask for them to be withdrawn or not moved.
I turn now to contracts. The wording used in the Bill,
“contracts and other agreements (whether legally binding or not)”,
is designed to make it clear that the mayor’s office and the PCC can enter into contracts—in other words, agreements creating legal rights and liabilities, and agreements with no legal force, such as memoranda of understanding, protocols or service-level agreements. If the proposed amendments were made, the Bill would merely refer to “agreements”. Because a legally binding contract is a kind of agreement, we would say that the PCC would still be able to enter into a contract and there would not actually be any effect on the scope of the PCC’s powers.
I turn now to the amendments in relation to protection from personal liability. I understand that the intention is to reduce the protection available to the office of the PCC and its staff by reversing the burden of proof in relation to whether a questioned act or omission was done in good faith. Under the Bill as it stands, a person who challenged an act or omission of the PCC would have to prove that it was done in bad faith. The effect of the amendments would be that it would be for the PCC to prove that the questioned act was done in good faith. The concern here is with civil proceedings where the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Whether it is the claimant who has to prove that it is more likely than not that the PCC acted in bad faith, or the PCC who has to prove that it is more likely than not that it acted in good faith, is unlikely to matter in most cases.
I should also stress that these provisions are concerned only with the personal liability of the person holding the office of commissioner for policing and crime and their employees. The provisions do not restrict the liability of the office itself, and a claimant harmed by an act or omission of the PCC or their staff in the exercise of their functions would still have legal redress against the office.
Bearing in mind the high-profile nature of the role of the PCC and the difficult issues that it will have to deal with, it may be a tempting target for legal challenge. We would not want the office or its staff to carry out their duties in a defensive fashion, out of fear of attracting personal legal liability for their actions. Rather, the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance in allowing the legitimate claimant legal redress, while giving the PCC a sensible level of legal protection.
Much has been said about the supply of goods and services. I should stress that Clause 15(3) merely replicates Section 18(3) of the Police Act 1996, which applies to police authorities at present. The provision is not new. Noble Lords asked particularly about this, and perhaps I may examine what the amendments would do. We do not believe that there is a particular advantage in using the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 with policing partners instead of the Police Act collaboration agreement provisions. The 1970 Act simply allows for agreements to be made about the provision of goods and services. However, when both parties concerned are policing bodies, making an agreement under the 1970 Act would circumvent the safeguards in the police collaboration provisions of the Police Act 1996, which would take priority. For example, there would be no requirement to have regard to any guidance issued by the Home Secretary to provide advice on best practice in drawing up agreements, and there would be no requirement for consultation with the relevant chief constables before making the agreement.
Other noble Lords have raised the matter of panels in this group of amendments. Although I recognise the intention to ensure that all panels, regardless of how they are established, are treated equally in the provision of financial resources, that is already the case. It is for that reason that I resist the amendments. Funding for all panels will be borne by the Secretary of State, regardless of whether they are established by local authorities or by the Secretary of State. For panels established by local authorities, paragraph 11 of Schedule 6 makes clear that it is for local authorities themselves to decide how that money is paid to or distributed between themselves. The Secretary of State will provide funds amounting to those required for a scrutiny officer and to cover running costs of meetings, which will be distributed at the discretion of the legal authority. That leaves local authorities the freedom to establish their own processes.
For panels established by the Secretary of State, in the case of Wales, or where no panel was formed under other circumstances, it cannot be left to local authorities to make those arrangements. In those cases, the Secretary of State will work directly with the panel to provide financial resources. That is what paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 provides. The liabilities of police and crime panels established by local authorities will be borne by the relevant local authorities, as they are with other local authority committees. The liabilities relating to panels established by the Secretary of State will be borne by the Secretary of State.
If I have not answered any specific questions, some of which were quite technical, I apologise and I will ensure that they are responded to by letter. I hope that, under the circumstances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I seek a little more clarification about Amendment 94 and the response given about elected policing bodies not entering into collaboration agreements. I understand that that takes forward a heavily amended bit of the Police Act 1996. I think that I am right to say that there is no consolidated Police Act available for us to refer to, so it is difficult to track through the changes. The previous Government had a policing Act at least once a year, so there were always changes to confuse one.
Is it being said that the prohibition is here because other arrangements permit the same thing to happen between elected policing bodies? Is the wording of police authorities changed in the Police Act 1996 to permit that?
Baroness Browning
I do not want to venture into territory where I may in any way mislead the noble Lord, but my understanding is that Clause 15 provides support for more effective collaboration arrangements between forces by securing that where an arrangement can be properly made by a collaboration agreement with another force rather than contracted out, the collaboration agreement should take priority. That is already established in statute.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If it is the case that collaboration agreements are entered into between what under this terminology would be the elected policing bodies, that is helpful. I was slightly surprised that one reason given why that was the preferable arrangement was that it removed a requirement to take account of guidance issued by the Home Office on how such arrangements might operate, given that I understood that the intention of government policy was that there would be far less guidance from the centre in future and that it would all be left to local action by the elected policing bodies.
Baroness Browning
I hope that I can assist the noble Lord by telling him that a police authority may not enter into an agreement with another police authority under Section 1 of the 1970 Act in respect of a matter which could be the subject of a police authority collaboration agreement. If I have understood that correctly, the collaboration agreements take priority.
Baroness Henig
I thank the noble Baroness for her response on the financial issues. She was so kind as to say in our previous setting that she was a listening Minister; we all appreciate that. I reiterate that I have no problem with the national framework but what I wanted was some local variation within it. I have no problem with the Senior Salaries Review Board undertaking its work; that is absolutely appropriate. I have no difficulty with the points made by the noble Lord. I want a national framework, but I am asking that within it, there should be the possibility of local variation.
The reason for that is straightforward. The whole purpose, as I understood it, of the introduction of commissioners is to empower the public in local policing. One area that the public will be interested in is the salaries of those individuals. If there was some way in which there could be a local dimension in setting the salaries within a national structure, that would be helpful in enabling local people to feel involved in the whole exercise. I was trying to bring an element of localism into this, while of course not ruling out that there should be a national framework in which it will operate. I listened carefully to the Minister and will happily withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Browning
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, but a thought has just occurred to me. There is always the danger with salaries, particularly with someone who is elected, that a Dutch auction ensues of who will do it for least. We want to get value for money in setting the salaries, but we want the salary to be fair. With elected positions, there is a danger in how the candidate might canvass the electorate in trying to bid themselves down. That will give an advantage to people with a lot of personal wealth or a lot of money behind their campaign. I think that the Home Secretary, with SSRB recommendations, is a much more stand-apart arrangement and would mean that we would not go down that route.
Lord Beecham
Does the noble Baroness’s statement that we should trust the electorate to choose not extend to their capacity to distinguish the cases to which she referred?
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord is quite right to chide me. In fact, as I was saying it, I remembered my words to him earlier; they were ringing in the back of my mind. This is not about the electorate; this is about the motivations of the candidate who is not as worthy as we would like to apply for these positions. If the salary has been set by a body such as the SSRB, through the Home Secretary, it is complete and divorced from anything that a candidate might say in seeking to put themselves forward or any questions a candidate may be asked during their selection.
Lord Rosser
I hope that the noble Baroness would accept that even if the Secretary of State was determining the salary, someone could fight an election knowing what the salary was and running their campaign on the basis that they would send half of it back.
Baroness Browning
Off the top of my head, given that many people’s salaries are set by the SSRB—I declare an interest that for many years mine was—I do not recall any of them sending any of it back.
Lord Rosser
Does that not show that the fears just expressed by the Minister are unlikely ever to occur?
Baroness Browning
No, my Lords, because in another place, where I served for nearly 20 years, it was not an uncommon practice—not when one appeared before the electorate but in the selection process—for people to be asked about their financial position with a view to that influencing the selection process. I think it is much healthier to have that professionally assessed and divorced from anything to do with either the selection or the election of the police and crime commissioners.
Lord Beecham
“( ) The police and crime commissioner must exercise these powers in consultation with the police and crime panel.
( ) The police and crime panel may amend or reject the police and crime commissioner’s decisions to use these powers if the panel agrees to do so by a two-thirds majority.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we are now moving into the territory of checks and balances, which, as some noble Lords have indicated, lies very much at the heart of the concerns expressed around the House at Second Reading.
Amendment 34A relates to the incidental powers of the proposed commissioner contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, which declares that the,
“commissioner may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the functions of commissioner”,
including,
“entering into contracts ... acquiring and disposing of property”,
and “borrowing money”. The amendment would require the police and crime commissioner, in exercising those powers, to consult the police and crime panel, which would have the right on a two-thirds majority vote to reject or amend the proposed exercise of those powers.
It was generally the view of your Lordships’ House that the checks and balances claimed for the Bill were more apparent than real. I believe that we must flesh out the functions of the police and crime panel to give it a real say—although not one which would be likely to be exercised because, as I have indicated, the amendment proposes a two-thirds majority as being requisite—in critical decisions of the very broad kind that the schedule gives the police and crime commissioner. In any event, it is surely reasonable for the commissioner to consult the panel on such important matters.
A second amendment in this group, Amendment 85A, concerns information. The Minister and others before her as the Bill has been debated have referred to the huge interest shown by people in consulting the crime statistics for their area and in doing so online. Very many people, including, as we have already heard, Members of your Lordships’ House, have done that. Of course, I do not think—although I stand to be corrected—that information about what they have been looking at is available. I suspect that most people will have looked at the statistics for their immediate locality. Based on my experience as a local councillor, to which I have referred more than once in this House, it is unlikely that people would look very much beyond their immediate locality. They would be very unlikely to look at the statistics for a whole area, and they would be least likely of all to look at the information at force level, although of course some people will do that. Therefore, it seems all the more necessary to consider the provision of information—and, indeed, to require the provision of information—at the appropriate levels.
For most people, the appropriate level will be the very local, or neighbourhood, level. The amendment suggests that such information should be provided at that level and that, in effect, the neighbourhood should be determined in conjunction with the local authority, which is in a very good position to ascertain reasonable measures of area and population. Above that, although I suspect that, again, fewer people will be interested in it, you need to have information at a divisional or basic command unit level—in London it will be the borough level. I think that we have two divisions in my city of Newcastle, although obviously in large county areas there may well be more. However, it seems appropriate to provide the information at that level for people who are interested in it and, finally, at force level.
It is fair to say that many police authorities now provide information online, in annual reports, at public meetings and at a very local level. Certainly in my experience—and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will confirm it from his perspective—Northumbria Police is very good at providing accessible, readable information at very local level, and that is to be commended. The amendment seeks to ensure that that takes place across the whole force.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 123C, talks about the need for transparency and accountability in relation to the police commissioner—a matter to which many of your Lordships have referred. That goes to the heart of many of the concerns about the Bill. However, it is equally necessary for the police and crime panel to be transparent in its operations and to be accountable, and that is why the amendment proposes that meetings of the police and crime panel should be in public. That would accord with practice and we might hear more about it if and when we receive the Bill on NHS reform—for example, with regard to GP consortia, if they survive the current consultation. I think that there will be moves to ensure that they meet in public as well, which seems appropriate.
In addition, there is provision in Amendment 123C for a call-in procedure, which would effectively give police and crime panels the same rights as non-executive members in local authorities to call in decisions of the executive. I cannot see any reason why the same principle should not apply to both. It would not mean that that procedure would allow a decision to be overturned; it would require the person making the decision—in this case, the police and crime commissioner—to consider it and explain it, and to answer questions about it. It seems highly desirable that the mechanism provided for local government—whether it is a mayoral model or a leader and executive model—should also apply in the context of police authorities.
These three amendments by no means cover the entire ground of checks and balances—there will be many more; there are some on the Marshalled List today and there will no doubt be others as the Bill goes forward—but they represent the beginning of an attempt to strengthen the checks and balances applicable, whatever system we have. However, they will be particularly necessary if we revert to the concept of the elected police commission. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group and I shall give the numbers as I come to them. The noble Lord has, for the first time in our proceedings, raised the subject of the level of veto that should apply, reducing it from three-quarters to two-thirds. Depending on the size of the panel, that would make a difference of only one or two members—none the less, a significant difference. The normal world—perhaps I should not suggest that we are not operating with a degree of normality—would consider a decision taken by 50 per cent plus one to be adequate. I was a member of the London Assembly, which had the power, if two-thirds of us agreed, to block the mayor’s budget. I remember when the previous mayor, sitting in the public gallery, listened to the Assembly debate his budget. It was rejected by the Assembly but not quite by two-thirds and, from the public gallery, he shouted out “Agreed”. I think that at least one other Member of your Lordships’ House was there and there is another Member who may not be surprised at what happened on that occasion. It is very counterintuitive to have a veto applied by such a high proportion of the membership.
My Amendment 84 deals with information to be provided to the public under Clause 11 and suggests that not only should that be specified by the Secretary of State but that it is thought “necessary” by the police and crime panel. I do not know how one challenges the “necessary” or what is more generalised. I am suggesting widening it to,
“or required by the relevant … panel”.
Amendment 85 deals with what is necessary or required to assess the “performance”. I am deliberately dealing with these amendments quite fast. This amendment suggests that the,
“treatment of victims of crime”,
should be one of the factors assessed within “performance”.
Amendment 86 is about the contents of the annual report, and I have based this on the arrangements within the Greater London Authority applying to the mayor. It proposes that the annual report should include information which the relevant police and crime panel has notified the police and crime commissioner that it wishes to see included. This will not necessarily be contentious but it is part of the scrutiny process and part of the check on the commissioner. Amendment 88 would allow the police and crime commissioner to provide the panel with the information that it requests. Amendment 87 would limit the information that would be withheld on grounds of security and confidentiality by suggesting that it could be provided in an alternative form. Only if it could not be provided in an alternative form would it be limited.
I have a number of amendments to Clause 29 about requiring both the attendance of individuals at meetings of the panel and information. For the panel to do its job it is essential that it has the tools, and many of the tools are information. Some of that is best obtained by asking questions but sometimes one needs to have people at meetings to question them and to follow a line of questioning in public. I can anticipate that the Government might say that panel meetings should not be turned into some sort of circus, but occasionally that might happen because of the subject matter. Sometimes you find that a meeting has an item on the agenda that has become extremely topical, and people pour in and the press and media crowd round. I am not suggesting putting officers on trial in proposing that they could be required to attend meetings, but they may have information that is essential to the panel doing the job.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group and I would like to speak briefly to both of them. As this is the first time that I have spoken in this stage of the Bill’s passage. I need to declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a member of the Home Office Olympic Security Board. I am pleased that I do not have to say all that every time I stand up to speak.
I shall deal first with Amendment 156 and then go on briefly to Amendment 165. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the powers of the London Assembly to co-opt independent members to the police and crime panel, which might otherwise be subject to legal challenge. The Bill establishes police and crime panels throughout the country but there are different arrangements for London. Outside London each police and crime panel will consist of 10 or more members of the local authority plus two independent members who are co-opted. Within London the police and crime panel will be one of the Assembly committees, formed as a panel, and it may co-opt independent members. To make this possible the Bill removes the restriction in the Greater London Authority Act which provides that only Assembly members may serve on ordinary committees of the Assembly. However, I believe that the Bill is very unclear on certain aspects. It does not make it explicit that the London Assembly could appoint independent members. It also does not make it explicit that if the London Assembly did appoint independent members, it could allow them to vote. There is no provision in any of the other legislation that gives the Assembly such powers, so if the Assembly were to appoint independent members to the police and crime panel it could be open to legal challenge.
This amendment would remedy that deficiency by giving the London Assembly the specific power to appoint independent members to the panel, thereby removing the possibility of legal challenge. The amendment is important regardless of whether the current London Assembly wishes to appoint independent members because it would make the Bill sustainable in the long term. I should add that the amendment would not give special treatment to London; it would merely try to treat London in the same way as the rest of the country.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee has covered many of the points on Amendment 165 and I do not intend to repeat what she has said. I would just agree wholeheartedly with her assessment that it is essential that the panel has the right to summon the Metropolitan Police in London and senior members of the police staff to give evidence. For example, if the Mayor of London identifies neighbourhood policing as a priority, the panel will need information about the allocation of resources within the Metropolitan Police, and about its performance, in order to inform its deliberations. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said so powerfully the other day, we on the Metropolitan Police Authority hold the commission and the police to account in public. We question police officers, including senior police officers, and we receive and publish information provided by the Metropolitan Police. It is very important that we continue to do this, and that there is openness and transparency. It is important also to point out that the amendment enjoys the support not just of my party but of all parties on the London Assembly.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 156 and 165, which deal with the panel arrangements in London. It is worth reflecting on the way in which the London arrangements will be substantially different from those in the rest of the country. The Bill replaces the panel responsibility on the London Assembly. Therefore, one will not be able to make—in the way that one will elsewhere in the country—the automatic assumption that every relevant local authority will be represented on that forum. There will be representatives from various parts of London, but it is possible that some parts of London will not be represented on the London Assembly panel. Therefore, it is worth remembering that the London arrangements for the panel are significantly different.
This highlights also the importance of Amendment 156 in dealing with co-opted members. It is designed not to frustrate the Government's intention but to tidy it up. If there are such co-opted members, they should be appointed by a resolution of the whole London Assembly, which would avoid some of the complexities that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, highlighted. I support the points made by her and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about who could be summoned to a panel. This is a particularly important issue, not just in London but around the country.
In the past, I talked about two particular difficulties with some of the arrangements in the Bill. First, where is the visible answerability of the police service in any particular area to those who are holding it to account? I understand the Government's argument, which is that in London the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime will hold the police service to account, and that outside London it will be the police and crime commissioner—or the police and crime commission, if the House’s preferred option goes forward. However, the scrutiny process will be very strange if the only scrutiny that is possible will be of the actions of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime—or the deputy MOPC, because the mayor will almost certainly appoint a deputy—and, in areas outside London, of the police and crime commissioner.
There are a number of problems with that. It will mean that the entire focus of discussion will be about political debate. One elected politician will appear before a group of other elected politicians, possibly with one or two independents. Discussion will focus on the political decisions that the policing and crime commissioner, or the mayor’s office, have taken. That is all well and good: people may say that that is as it should be. However, I suspect that one will lose a lot of the granularity around what has happened in the police service in that area in the intervening period with which the panel is concerned.
We are told that the chief officer of police—the commissioner of police in the metropolis—may attend meetings of the panel. However, they will not be obliged to attend, but may attend by their own grace and favour. The importance of Amendment 165 and parallel amendments is that they would ensure an expectation that certain senior police officers could be required to attend. That will be critical to ensure that the discussion moves away from the political knockabout that all of us in Committee enjoy and have participated in at various times in our life, and towards scrutiny of important policing issues. The panel will have the power to call before it senior police officers who are responsible for the area of policing that is being debated. This will be critical to remove some of the political knockabout that will otherwise happen and to provide at least some, though not all, of the visible political answerability that is so necessary to policing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very sympathetic to many of the amendments, particularly concerning the need for recall and, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, clarity on the ability of panels to summon people to appear before them, particularly chief officers of police, in order to ensure that serious discussions take place. If the conversation is only between elected councillors who are members of the panel and the elected police commissioner, two things will happen. First, as my noble friend said, the discussion will become almost entirely political. Secondly, if it is only the elected police commissioner who stands or sits before the panel, they will be drawn into discussing detailed operational matters of policing. That is why we are so fearful of the Bill. It will be essential as a matter of course for the chief constable and other chief officers in their own right to appear regularly before the panel. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to that.
The amendments concerning the openness both of the panel and the elected commissioners are important. An important point was raised about co-opted members on the London panel. I will focus in particular on Amendment 34A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Beecham. The incidental powers given to the commissioner in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 are considerable. It is right that there should be scrutiny, and that the panel should be able to question the commissioner and, if necessary, amend or reject decisions. Those are the kinds of checks and balances that we wish to see.
We will come later to other amendments that deal with the panel's responsibilities in relation to the appointment of chief constables and to precepts, where it will have veto powers. The problem is that the exercise of that veto will become almost impossible if the threshold is put at 75 per cent. It is not even 75 per cent of those present and voting but 75 per cent of panel members. Therefore, I was very glad to see my noble friend's suggestion that, particularly in relation to the incidental powers contained in paragraph 9 on page 107, the threshold should be reduced to a two-thirds majority. That takes us some way towards a more realistic relationship where there would be at least some possibility of the panel being able to act as a check and balance on the elected police commissioner. Whether two-thirds is sufficient, I do not know. I would be tempted to reduce it to 60 per cent. Indeed, I find it difficult to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who suggested that 50 per cent plus one would be a more reasonable figure.
I hope that we can have further discussions on this matter. What I am clear about is that, in relation to the incidental powers, the panel should have a role in scrutiny and, in some circumstances, be able to exercise a veto. However, although the Bill provides for a veto, the figure of 75 per cent needs to be reduced to make it a realistic veto.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate on a lengthy collection of amendments. Having complimented the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on his skill in drafting amendments, I should add my compliments to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on her deeply conscientious and detailed scrutiny of all aspects of the Bill.
We are discussing with considerable care the right balance between the PCC and the PCP and the distinction between accountability and scrutiny. I know that is a concern across the whole House. We need to strike the right balance between the need for the police and crime panel to scrutinise effectively and the police and crime commissioner being inundated with requests for information to the point that his, or her, ability to discharge his duties effectively is limited. In the design of this Bill, it is the role of the police and crime commissioner to scrutinise the chief constable and the role of the police and crime panel to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner. The intention of the Government and the elected House is that policing is for the chief officer of police to deliver and it is for the locally elected body—the PCC or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—to ensure that public priorities are met and that performance is appropriately high. That is the dynamic of a single individual responsible for this to the electorate. It is not intended that he or she will share this role with the police and crime panel. Its role is to advise and scrutinise the police and crime commissioner, especially in respect of the annual policing and crime plan.
The details of how one works out that relationship and exactly what reporting is required are what these amendments investigate further. The public already have access to street-level police performance information thanks to the introduction of a police website. It is, and will continue to be, the role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to provide the public with information on force performance, including an annual report on the state of policing nationally.
Amendment 87 is scarcely necessary because of course the principle should be that everything should be made public except matters that relate to national security, personal safety or the prevention or detection of crime, which are the only caveats in the Bill. Otherwise, the exemption does not apply.
The majority of the work the panel will undertake will be done in public and will remain accessible to the public. The Bill states that the panel must hold a public meeting to review the annual report it receives from the police and crime commissioner, must publish all reports and recommendations it makes to the police and crime commissioner and must hold public confirmation hearings for new chief constables prior to making recommendations for their appointments, but there may be good reasons why the panels will, on occasion, want to meet without the public present. None of us would wish to block that completely.
We will need to write about some of the further amendments. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the panel requiring the police and crime commissioner to explain and justify any decision that he or she has made. That is a natural part of the relationship between the two, but—
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but surely the problem is on the other side. There is nothing to stop the panel requiring. It is the obligation on the recipient of that request or requirement to respond. Will the Minister take that away and think about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, might you not have a situation where the elected commissioner has made it clear that he does not expect police officers to go to the panel? That would permeate through, and even though police officers received a summons, they would know that they would incur the wrath of the commissioner in going. Some people who were elected might very well take the view that because they were pursuing what we might regard as perverse or bizarre policies they would not want senior police officers to appear before the panel because the police officers would disabuse the panel about the policies being pursued by the commissioner. I worry if the only relationship is going to be between the commissioner and the panel. Surely we must have senior police officers at those meetings.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I appreciate that concern. It was evident in the debate and is clearly something that we need to take away and consider further. The exact relationship in this triangle, the extent to which we maintain the operational independence of the police and the relevant accountability and scrutiny are at the heart of what we are all concerned about with this Bill. It is a fundamental principle of this Bill that the buck stops with the police and crime commissioner. The police and crime commissioner can delegate functions to others but cannot delegate responsibility.
There are some very useful amendments here on the London Assembly, which I think I should probably not delay the Committee with, but we will consider further whether the police and crime panel should be a particular committee of the London Assembly or whether the London Assembly as a whole should take a range of decisions. We argue that it is for the London Assembly as a democratically elected body to decide for itself how the membership of the panel should be chosen and that the existing arrangements are sufficiently robust for the scrutiny of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
We will have further discussions on some of these issues off the Floor. I thank noble Lords for the careful and often detailed and technical contributions to this debate. I ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Libya
(12 years, 11 months 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, the Statement is as follows.
“We constantly review our military options to ensure we can continue to enforce UNSCR 1973 and prevent Gaddafi from attacking the Libyan people. As the Foreign Secretary has said, it is now,
‘necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime’.
Attack helicopters are one tool for doing that. The use of attack helicopters is one of a range of capability options under consideration. However, we have made no decision yet on whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya”.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating as a Statement an Urgent Question that was allowed in the other place. We have always been clear that we support the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 in order to protect Libyan civilians and implement a no-fly zone. We have also said that we support the Government’s actions and that we scrutinise their actions. I note that the Minister has referred in the Statement to the Foreign Secretary’s comment that it is now,
“necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime”.
However, the Minister went on to say that, while the use of attack helicopters was one of a range of capability options under consideration, no decision has been made yet on whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya. The Minister in the other place also said that once they have, Ministers will come back to inform the House.
Certainly, an inference might be drawn from the phrase “once we have” that the decision is more about when rather than if. But if the words simply refer to once we have made a decision, is the Minister saying that if the decision is not to use our attack helicopters in Libya he will also be coming back to tell the House? When does the Minister anticipate coming back to inform the House, bearing in mind that a short recess is imminent? Is no decision likely before the date that this House resumes after the Recess?
I should like to refer to the reports in the newspapers this morning. The Guardian, which may not be the Government’s favourite newspaper, said, without any ifs or buts that Britain and France are to deploy attack helicopters against Libya and said that the French Foreign Minister had confirmed that his country had dispatched a dozen helicopters. Indeed, the dispatch of 12 French helicopters to Libya on 17 May was reported in yesterday’s Le Figaro newspaper.
The Sun, which certainly is one of the Government’s favourite papers, said that the Government would announce the deployment of Apache attack helicopters today. The Daily Telegraph, which sometimes seems to be better briefed on the Government’s thinking and intentions than some Cabinet Ministers, said that British attack helicopters would be in action in Libya within days and would fly in from a Royal Navy warship. It said that the operation will take the allies closer to a full ground operation. The report went on:
“Whitehall officials said that, by the weekend, the Apaches will begin flying missions from HMS Ocean … Their use was authorised by David Cameron at a meeting of the National Security Council”.
Those newspaper reports bear the hallmark of concerted briefing since they all say much the same thing. Will the Minister tell the House who was responsible for those briefings? I hope that he will not tell us that such briefings have not taken place. Will the Minister also say why briefings of this kind, which are not far removed from a running commentary on our imminent military intentions, are given to newspapers before anything is said in Parliament? Is that not another example of the way in which the Government are seeking to marginalise Parliament’s role of being able to question, to challenge and to call the Executive to account?
Will the Minister say whether a meeting of the National Security Council has recently taken place and if decisions on the use or otherwise of helicopters were made, as confidently asserted on the front page of the Daily Telegraph today? The French Defence Minister was quoted yesterday as saying:
“The British, who have assets similar to ours, will also commit. The sooner the better is what the British think”.
In view of the statement by the French that they have dispatched a dozen helicopters, and in the light of the Government’s Statement that we have made no decision yet on whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya, how well is the close military co-operation between ourselves and the French in relation to Libya and in other areas of activity going?
On the face of it, an announcement by the French that they have made a decision to dispatch helicopters at a time when we are still considering a range of capability options and have made no decision yet on whether to use our attack helicopters, does not suggest that the co-operation is quite as close as it might be. It could be inferred that there is not always unanimity over the advantages of acting in concert either on what to do, when to do it or how to do it, or over the appropriate timing of announcements. Is this a matter that Ministers intend to pursue with their French counterparts?
Does the Minister accept the view that the deployment of helicopters by the French, and possibly by ourselves, represents an escalation of the conflict? While helicopters will add to firepower and give precision targeting, they are more vulnerable to ground fire than high-altitude fighter jets and thus, if we deploy them, will potentially put British personnel in greater danger. If we do deploy the helicopters, would it be the Government’s intention that the British personnel involved will also receive the operational allowance that their colleagues in Afghanistan do?
The Minister referred to the Foreign Secretary’s comment on the necessity for intensifying military pressure on the Gaddafi regime. If the Government are still considering a range of capability options, what are the objectives that are not being achieved now in pursuit of UNSCR 1973 that the Government seek to achieve through the use of one or more options now under consideration, including possibly the deployment of attack helicopters?
The Government need to be clear about how their ultimate objectives in Libya will be realised without the conflict becoming something other than that which was stated at the outset. When the Government do the right thing, we will always support them. So far they have, and so they continue to have the support of these Benches. But the events of the past 24 hours have raised a number of concerns about how matters are being handled rather than the decisions being made or considered. I hope that the Minister will now be able to address those concerns.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reconfirmation of the Opposition’s support for the Government’s position on the United Nations mandate. We cannot keep up a running commentary on every tactical change that we make. Our operational timetable is to support UNSCR 1973 and it is not driven by the parliamentary timetable. We have debated this important issue many times in your Lordships’ House and the Ministry of Defence has provided background briefings to many noble Lords. My intention is to continue to keep noble Lords aware of developments through both briefings and formal statements. I stress that no decision to use Apaches has yet been taken but I can confirm that three Apaches are on HMS “Ocean” in the Mediterranean, taking part in exercise Cougar and would be available should we decide that we need their formidable capability.
The noble Lord mentioned various articles in the newspaper. All I can say is that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers. I am not aware of any briefings to the newspapers that have taken place. We are not ready to make this decision. I can confirm that a meeting of the National Security Council has taken place, but no decision on the operational use of the Apaches has been taken. The noble Lord asked about relations with France. I can confirm that they are very good on operational terms; the French may have made a decision, but we are not yet ready to make a decision on the deployment of our Apaches.
The noble Lord asked if this was a significant escalation of the conflict. While I stress again that we have made no decision on the use of the Apaches, we do regularly update and review our military options and tactics to ensure that we can continue to enforce UNSCR 1973. The deployment of the Apaches does not translate to an escalation of the campaign.
The noble Lord asked about the possible risks to the Apaches. These are flown by very well trained pilots; in Afghanistan they face daily threats from hand-held grenades and machine gun fire, so I have complete confidence in their ability to deal with similar threats in Libya. Looking around the House, I see some noble Lords who have seen the work of the Apaches out in Afghanistan. They can of course take advantage of the terrain—the lie of the land—that fast jets cannot, and they can lurk while remaining hidden and then engage their target with their missiles.
The noble Lord asked what the Government’s objectives were. NATO air strikes have been successful in reducing Gaddafi’s ability to attack his people, but he continues to target civilians in clear contravention of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. We have moved on significantly in the last two weeks: the regime has had to pull back from Misrata, Gaddafi is in hiding, and there were further defections and desertions. The coalition is resolute and time is not on Gaddafi’s side. We must keep up the pressure on him, and Apache is one of the very highly capable weapons that we have to do this.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me whether we would extend the operational alliance. This is a matter we are looking at very seriously; as I say again, we have not made any decision on Apaches, but if we did, that would obviously be a matter we would look at carefully.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefits of short questions, because I suspect we have several very experienced noble Lords who would like to get in on this Statement.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, no one would criticise this Minister for failing to keep colleagues informed of what is going on in Libya. The decision about the Apaches is clearly taken above his pay grade; no criticisms attaches to him for our not being told about that. However, I do have some other questions to which we need some answers.
First, it seems sad that, once again, we are being led by the French. I do not think that is doing our standing in the world any good at all. In addition to the list of questions that my noble friend put so succinctly to the Minister, I would like to know when we are going to have an explanation of that brazen breach of the no-fly zone by some of Gaddafi’s helicopters a few days ago. On whose watch did that happen? Who is responsible for it and why have we not had an explanation? Finally, will the Minister tell us how many working helicopters are available to Mr Gaddafi at this time?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, taking the noble Lord’s last question first, I do not think Gaddafi is in a position to use any helicopters at the moment. The no-fly zone would ensure that no helicopters were able to be operational. The noble Lord asked me the other day about the helicopter that was supposed to have taken off. I am not aware that this categorically took place, but I will look into the matter, report back to him and put a copy of my letter in the Library. It is a very important question and I am not able to answer it at the moment, but I will get back to him as soon as possible.
Finally, we are not being led by the French: no decision has yet been taken. We want to put the pressure on Gaddafi, and if a decision were taken to use Apaches, it would be for that reason—not because we were being led by the French.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I certainly echo the tribute paid to the Minister for the efforts he has made to keep this House briefed on the situation in Libya. However, does he recognise that it is extremely difficult—in spite of the excellent briefing—to get an accurate picture of what is really happening on the ground and the way this event is moving? Against that background, I found that the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition made an interesting point. Presumably, the decision to send Apaches did not originate with a decision of the National Security Council; it must have originated in a request from the NATO commander on the ground. I imagine that is where it originally came from, and not the other way around. Will my noble friend comment on that?
Also, are we to have a situation in which, if one French Apache or attack helicopter gets involved, then there has to be a British one as well, and then we have to have a parallel approach in this? My understanding was that individual nations would contribute to this effort the resources they thought most appropriate and had most available. If there is to be a limited attack helicopter effort, it is probably much more sensible if it is done by one country than by trying to do a bit from one and a bit from the other.
Lord Astor of Hever
As far as the last point is concerned, my noble friend makes a very good point. I thank him for his kind words about trying to keep the House involved: I do my best to keep all noble Lords involved and I am open to any suggestions about how I can continue to do that. If anyone feels that I should be doing more, I would be grateful to hear about that. As for my noble friend’s question about who requested the Apaches, I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, military intervention in Libya was mentioned as being led by the French, but in fact, military intervention in Libya began on 19 March, with actions by the French air force. British submarines then fired over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Two months further on, the use of Apache helicopters is being considered. Will the Minister say whether this is a move from desert warfare to urban warfare, and will he also comment on the use of Apache helicopters in Libya putting a further strain on UK efforts in Afghanistan? Will he also comment on the intensification of military pressure in Libya affecting the procurement policies of the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I keep on saying, we have not made any decision on Apaches; however, if we were to authorise use of Apaches in Libya, it would have no effect on our operation in Afghanistan. I can reassure my noble friend on that point. As for his question on the French, I make no apology for working very closely with the French. They are our closest allies in Europe and they bring a lot to bear. Having said that, we also—for the benefit of noble Lords sitting opposite—work very closely with our American allies.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, is it not the case that, as the Minister has just said—and here is a point of emphasis with my noble friend Lord Gilbert—ever since Somalia we have been going down the line of closer and closer co-operation with the French at every level? As for the idea that there is a proposal that it must be one of ours and one of theirs, I would like to hear whether that was conceived or not. However, we must not get paranoid about operations of a slightly asymmetrical nature one way or another with the French. It is to be welcomed.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, once again, I say that no decision has been made on the use of Apaches—I cannot go on repeating that. That, I think, answers the question on “one of ours and one of theirs”. We are working very closely with the French and will continue to do so.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He mentioned that the Foreign Secretary was anxious that further military, economic and other pressure should be kept on Gaddafi. Does that mean that there are other members of the NATO group working with us who also want to add to the military pressure? If so, what contribution are they likely to make? As far as the helicopters are concerned, I presume that some form of risk assessment will be, or has been, made. Perhaps the Minister would like to talk about what risk is envisaged if the helicopters are to be used in Libya.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his questions. We do not comment on the military contributions of other nations to the campaign. However, we are grateful for them. He asked me about risk assessments. Before we take any operational decision, we make a full risk assessment to understand the environment in which we require our personnel and equipment to operate. We will look particularly at the regime’s capability, not least its surface-to-air missiles.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of UNICEF UK. If we are to have helicopters and ships in greater number in the area, have any further instructions been issued on what to do with boat-loads of refugees who are fleeing the situation? I am sure that, like me, the Minister does not want to see any more of the disasters that were seen previously.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I understand it, there is an international stabilisation response team in Benghazi looking at this issue. Of course, the United Kingdom will continue to provide medical and emergency food supplies.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It is clearly quite right that we should review options all the time. It is also worth bearing in mind that we need to get rid of Gaddafi, which needs to be factored into everything that is done. We also need to be very wary. Three helicopters are not enough, if we ever use them. I am afraid that we are misleading people if we lead them to believe that they are not at greater risk than if the fast jets were there. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is absolutely right that a proper risk assessment needs to be made. The Minister said that no decision had been made, but it is a slightly strange circumstance that we are in.
My question relates to something about which, as the Minister knows, I feel very strongly. The best aircraft that we had for close air support, having been designed for that purpose, was the GR9. Many of them are sitting in a hangar and the pilots are still current up to the end of June. This is the last-chance saloon for being able to use those aircraft. It is not good enough to say that there is no money, as it is all from contingency funds. A huge amount of contingency money is being spent by the Treasury on getting the GR4 “fleet within a fleet” up to the right level and getting the Typhoon available to deliver a bomb, yet here we have an aircraft designed for the purpose and better than the Apache at it because it is less vulnerable. Will the Government take this opportunity to look again at this matter and perhaps change their decision? If the conflict becomes long and drawn-out, we will need them there to be able to put the right pressure on.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging that we are right to review the options and reaffirming the need to get rid of Gaddafi. There is always a risk in using attack helicopters—although, as I have said, we have not made any decision on them. I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord by saying that we have no plans to look again at the use of the Harriers.
Lord Soley
The Minister keeps many of us informed, for which I am grateful. He will know from discussions on Afghanistan that there is a difference between using the Apache there and using it in some of the urban areas in Libya. Are reports correct that one of the reasons that the French and British are looking at the possibility of deploying it is that Gaddafi’s army has discarded uniforms and is using civilian trucks and clothes? Is that the reason for the close attack?
We have a squadron of UAVs, or drones as they are popularly known. Are we considering using them in Libya, or they committed totally to Afghanistan?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I well remember my visit last year to Afghanistan with the noble Lord. We managed to see quite a lot of our different weapons out there. The noble Lord asked me about Gaddafi’s forces shedding their uniforms. They are doing that. They are also using civilian vehicles and hiding armour in buildings, including hospitals and schools. If we were ever to use the Apaches, they might target mortar batteries, light military vehicles and individuals including snipers and commanders.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
To what extent are foreign mercenaries a threat to civilians in Libya? Is this a significant consideration?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot really answer that question. Gaddafi’s mercenaries from different parts of Africa are obviously a threat to our allied forces. We deal with them as we do the regime’s soldiers.
Lord Judd
Will the Minister restate for the House the very firm political undertaking given by his ministerial colleagues at the beginning of this intervention that the ultimate solution must be genuinely Libyan and is for the Libyan people to reach? Will he also confirm that our role is limited to protecting people who are in danger and under attack? Will he therefore assure us that, while it may be necessary to do everything possible, including, if need be, using helicopters, to achieve that objective of protection, there is no danger not only of military creep but of political creep? Are we absolutely certain that the aims of this mission are the same on the part of the French and the UK Governments?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s last question is yes: they are exactly the same. We want a genuinely Libyan solution. This is about upholding UNSCR 1973 and its remit to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas. That is what the French want and that is what we want.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, in the context of the press comment alluded to, and referring back to a previous Anglo-French alliance, does my noble friend recall the episode in The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman leading up to taxis of the Marne, where the French chief of staff was having dinner in the Champs-Elysées with a friend and they heard the couple at the next table say one to another, “The situation is so serious that the chief of staff is leaving for the front tomorrow”? As the chief of staff’s friend smiled and raised an eyebrow, the chief of staff said, “That, my friend, is how history is written”.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am afraid to say that my noble friend is better read than I am, but I shall have a word with him afterwards and find out the source of his comments.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the Minister has been very clear that the action that we are taking is in pursuit of UNSCR 1973. That resolution did not say that seeing the back of Gaddafi was a principal point, although I have a great deal of sympathy with those who think that it is a means of delivering on UNSCR 1973. But it is not specific and we have to be careful about how we talk around that issue in the coming days.
Does the Minister accept that what my noble friend Lord Rosser said about the briefings on the Apaches sounding very authoritative? I am prepared to accept what the Minister has said to us here in Parliament—that no decision has been taken. The French, too, have been giving very authoritative briefings, which sound as if they are very well rooted. Again, I believe the Minister because he has given us excellent briefings and he commands the confidence of all sides of the House in what he is saying.
We are about to have a short break. Will the Minister assure us that, if the situation changes, there will be an authoritative Ministerial Statement making clear what is happening to British forces and to the deployment of our assets and that it will not be done through press briefings, which are unattributed?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, taking the last question first, as far as the Statement is concerned, that is a little above my pay grade. I would very much welcome a Statement and I would imagine that that would be the policy of my department. I cannot see why not.
I can confirm that we are not targeting Gaddafi, but if he happens to be in a command post at a bad time, he may get killed. That is a risk he takes. I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the briefings appearing authoritative, but I say to the House again that we will not take any decision on the deployment of Apaches until we are ready. The noble and gallant Lord asked about risk assessments. They must be done and done properly. I am sure that the House would support the Government on that.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Henig
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I am going to speak to 24 amendments in this group that stand in my name and one to which I have added my name. First, I want to address Amendments 41 and 64A but I am also going to put forward some alternative proposals that are set out in Amendments 42, 46 and 64C and need to be taken together. These broadly relate to my concerns about using the construct of a corporation sole within which to encompass the functions of a chief officer of police and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I am then going to talk about Amendments 66A, 67, 67A, 67B and 234A to 234Q, and also say a little about Amendment 44 in this group, which I support although I did not put my name to it. These all relate to concerns I have regarding the creation of two chief finance officers and auditable bodies for one police fund. I apologise to the House as I will go into some detail and also for trying to put my own construction on this idea of corporation sole. I cannot claim to be an expert but looking around the Chamber there may be noble Lords who are more expert than me in this area, who might perhaps allay some of my concerns—or possibly add to them, I do not know.
I start off with my concerns regarding corporation sole. I am extremely uncomfortable with this idea. Chief officers, to me, are meant to be police officers, not corporations or commercial enterprises. Amendments 41 and 64A remove the status of corporation sole from chief officers and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, while Amendments 42, 46 and 64C limit the scope of the status of a chief officer and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner as a corporation sole for the purpose of employment of staff only. I start by probing what this construct of a corporation sole means in practice and what the implications are for corporate governance of policing and the accountability of chief police officers.
As I have already said, I am not a lawyer and I do not know a great deal about corporation sole, but even the name seems to be a contradiction in terms: a corporation suggests a collective body but sole most certainly does not. Putting aside for a moment what is said in the Bill about the accountability of chief officers of police, the very name corporation sole suggests that the incumbent is accountable to him or herself. What laws set rules about corporate governance within corporations sole? What general powers and duties do these laws give the incumbent and what do they say about the accountability of the incumbent for those powers and duties? Do any of those laws or any other common practice within corporations sole conflict with what is being proposed in this Bill, whether in relation to the powers and duties of chief officers, the corporate governance regime of policing, or the accountability and operational responsibility of chief officers?
I am concerned that this construct creates technical difficulties in other areas of the Bill, for instance by creating two auditable bodies for one police fund—which are the subject of other amendments—or additional bureaucracy and expense in relation to transfer schemes. It might also create other unintended consequences. I am having a very hard time seeing what the benefits of this extra difficulty and expense will be.
I shall briefly explain how things work at the moment. The governing body is the police authority, which holds all the assets, funding and land for the police force. It is also the employer of all police staff. The chief officer has operational independence and also has direction and control of all police staff and officers. As an aside, I think it worthy of note that police officers are not employed by either the authority or the force but hold warrants from the Crown, and this will not change under the proposed new arrangements. The police authority then delegates functions to the chief officer so that he or she can manage the force and police funding on a daily basis. The delegation framework is a flexible document that can contain freedoms or restrictions on the functions delegated according to what is appropriate to the context. Typically, a scheme of delegation would contain limits, for instance, on the value of contracts that a chief police officer could sign before he must refer it to the authority for approval. This enables the authority to give chief officers freedom to exercise their professionalism, unless they give cause for concern, but also enables the authority to have the final say, as the governing body, about how public money is spent.
It seems to me that this current practice is both more flexible in practice and more robust in terms of corporate governance and accountability than the artificial construct of corporations sole. I am completely unclear, for instance, how this new arrangement will enable funding to be passed from the elected policing body to the chief constable or Metropolitan Police Commissioner to manage the police force yet still give enough traction to the elected policing body to determine how that money should be spent. How can a corporation have any influence over how its money is spent once it has been given to another corporation? Surely the money passes out of its jurisdiction and control.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I have added my name in support of Amendments 41, 42 and 46, which the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, has set out in very clear detail, so I will be brief.
These are important amendments to test the implications of chief officers being corporations sole. Like the noble Baroness, I am uncomfortable with chief officers being given a legal status as corporations sole, and I look forward to an explanation from the Minister outlining answers to some of the questions that have already been asked about what this means for accountability and corporate governance.
The alternative amendments here deal with limiting the status of corporations sole to powers of employment only. As I understand it, that would prevent chief officers from owning assets or entering into contracts not directly related to employment. I have to say that I also have some significant concerns about giving chief officers unfettered responsibilities for employment of police staff without any role for the governing body. At the very least the latter should have an oversight role in grievance and professional standards, or the chief officer will become both judge and jury in these matters. But I am sure we will return to this later in the Bill. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that the most objectionable aspect of the current wording is the role that chief officers could play in determining how huge sums of public money should be spent, for instance through entering into multimillion-pound contracts or borrowing money in their own right. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure me on this matter.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 64B, which differs only in a minor fashion from one or two of the others, and in support of Amendments 66A, 67, 67B and 234A to 234Q, to which I have added my name. I want to say why all this stuff matters. It no doubt seems like a terribly arcane set of arguments, but I rather suspect that some of our discussions on this group of amendments will determine whether what the Government are trying to do on police accountability actually happens. The way that the Government have framed all this is a recipe to undermine police accountability rather than strengthen it. I am sure that that is not the intention, but I suspect we have ended up here almost by accident.
Let me explain what I mean: it relates to the amendments dealing with corporations sole. The Government have decided that it would be appropriate for chief officers of police and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to have responsibility for the employment of police staff—a function currently carried out by police authorities. I think that is the wrong decision because it places too much power in the hands of a single individual. It is the argument that we have about policing and crime commissioners, and everything else. However, it is particularly difficult in a policing context.
There is a tendency among some chief officers of police to have around them a group of blue-eyed boys and girls who they see as their favoured supporters, and who they tend to promote in favour of others. One of the checks and balances that we have at the moment is that appointments at ACPO rank—commanders in the Met and assistant chief constables and above outside—are appointed by a panel from the police authority rather than simply on the decision of the chief officer of police. I am suggesting not that chief officers of police would use this power capriciously but that the temptation or tendency might be there. Having worked closely with a number of chief officers of police, I am well aware that some of them have extremely strong personalities and that they like to get their own way. This is about creating some checks and balances on those very strong personalities from getting their own way on every single occasion. It is going to be particularly important on employment.
It is actually a protection for the chief officers of police not to be doing this or not to be taking sole responsibility. I lose track of the number of instances where there have been complaints following appointment processes in the police service—the police are a particularly litigious lot. The complaints were about whether processes have been followed properly, whether there has been favouritism or whether individuals have been discriminated against. For a chief officer of police to be able to say, “Actually, this was done through a proper equal opportunities process and properly documented by the police authority” is an important protection. However, Ministers in their wisdom have decided that the employment function for police staff, as well as for the appointment of senior officers, should pass to the chief officer of police.
If that is the decision that the Government have taken, it is of course not too late for them to reconsider this matter. I do not believe that it runs to the centre of the main political headline that the Government wish to achieve by all of this, so they have that opportunity but they have made that commitment. To make that commitment work, as police officers have a particular status of being officers of the Crown, if you transfer responsibility for police staff across to chief officers of police you have to create the legal framework around which that can happen.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I speak from a position of neutrality on these amendments. I wish to illustrate my remarks by recounting something that happened to me when I was a Member of the other place. A rave occurred in rural Montgomeryshire, which involved 10,000 people, loosely described as hippies, invading a couple of fields in the south of the constituency. As the local Member of Parliament, I made an arrangement with the police that I would telephone them late every evening for a report on what was going on in relation to public order around the rave and all the other issues that arose. One evening I telephoned at midnight from my then home in Berriew to the public line of the Dyfed Powys police. The telephone was answered by a man called Ray White, who was the chief constable of Dyfed Powys at the time. He was manning the public telephone line, doing his turn in the office of constable.
I tell that anecdote because in my view whether a chief officer of police is a corporation sole and however we dance on the head of a pin about the legal definition of a corporation sole, I suggest that the overwhelming purpose of a chief constable—I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response—is that he acts, albeit as chief, in the office of constable. I therefore urge the Minister to recognise that whatever grand titles are given to him, and whatever the legal technicalities of the matter—far be it from me to avoid legal technicalities; many of my learned friends make a good living from them—it should be recognised that in this legislation we are seeking to strengthen the role of the chief officer of a police force, not in the role of manager but in the office of constable at the head of his force.
Having said that and having watched at close quarters the splendid Mr White, for whom I came to have enormous admiration, running his force, I realised in our many meetings that he was also the chief executive of an organisation that covered in Dyfed Powys a huge area and, like all police forces, had a massive budget and set of responsibilities. As it happens, Mr White had some good management qualifications that he had acquired along the way through his life as a police officer, and he put them to good use. I hope that my noble friend will confirm in her response that the purpose behind the Bill and the creation of a chief constable as a corporation sole is to enable him or her more effectively to be the chief executive of what is, in effect, a large public business, and to remove from that chief officer some of the inhibitions that may currently exist in running that business.
I hope, too, that the Minister will confirm that the chief officer who is a corporation sole will have to pay extremely close attention to employment law and employment law standards as they are today. For example, it was suggested that a chief officer might surround himself or herself with chums—people who he or she likes because they happen to agree with him or her on most issues. As political party leaders learn quickly, it is actually a bad idea not to have among your top team people who are prepared to disagree with you on a daily basis and to act as devil’s advocate in any event.
However, in order to achieve a real top management team, whether or not they agree with the chief constable, I hope that the Minister will confirm that appointments standards will have to be high and that they will have to accord with the self-same standards that are required in the appointment of senior managers in companies. One can also look at the public sector for examples. The Judicial Appointments Commission has a transparent system for the appointment of judges that includes lay membership of appointment bodies. I hope that the Minister will confirm that fair interview techniques and appointment systems will conform to the very best standards in the public sector.
I know that later we will debate matters of discipline, but it would help if at this stage my noble friend also confirmed that in conduct and disciplinary matters—a difficult area for chief officers of police—the same high standards that are applied elsewhere in the public sector will apply to police forces. I hope she can also confirm that a chief officer, albeit as a corporation sole, will never be able to act as judge and jury in their own cause. I promise the Minister that my learned friends will make a real killing if that is what occurs, because every such decision would be open to immediate judicial review, and the chief officer would lose if he or she did not act in a way that was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.
Finally, I wanted to say something about finance directors. I return to my experience of Dyfed Powys and of some other forces for which I have acted as an adviser professionally, either for the police force or for the police authority. I observed that the chief finance officer of the police force was an extremely important figure, who held a sort of honorary ACPO rank, although he or she was not a police officer. The chief finance officer of the police force and the accounting officer of the police authority seemed to carry out completely different roles. The chief finance officer of the police force was really the chief accountant of a very big business. The accounting officer of the police authority carried out a much more restricted role, because the turnover of the police authority was inevitably much smaller—at least as regards its functions, as opposed to those of the force. Duplication would be unwelcome, and I hope that my noble friend will confirm that if there are to be separate finance officers, they will not carry out duplicated roles. Perhaps she will explain to the House what their different roles will be, at least in outline.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Does the noble Lord accept that it is possible to construct a situation where you have a finance officer in the force and a finance officer in the authority, the commission, commissioner or whatever it is, with different roles, so you do not have duplication; but you have removed from the commissioner, authority or whatever the opportunity adequately to control the financial matters which, as the body to which the chief officer of police is accountable, it should control?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am always prepared to defer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, because he is a much greater expert than I am on how police forces are run. I see the potential for constructive tension, if it has to be tension, between two finance officers carrying out different roles. I see them as providing a check and balance on one another and their roles as being markedly different in any event. That is something we can learn from the current situation in which, as I said, the chief finance officer of a police force carries out a major managerial role and the accounting officer of the police authority a very different function.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government feel satisfied that we will not have a high degree of duplication and that the role of the finance officer in the force will be related to operational matters and that of the other finance officer to the rather different strategic matters? There, perhaps, we have the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about Tasers. Tasers are the sort of thing which may well be strategic and one would expect to be discussed by the commissioner and those to whom he is accountable, whatever structure we end up with at the end of the Bill. The deployment of such Tasers as are purchased at any incident is plainly an operational matter, which must be left in the hands of the chief officer. That is an example of how different functions will deal with different aspects of police activity.
Lord Dear
I was going to speak at length about the points that have been very adequately covered by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and, not for the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with what he said. I will just pick up one or two of the points in an effort to be brief. Let us get a sense of reality back to this. I have heard phrases such as chief officers getting their own way and blue-eyed boys—by which I assume we mean blue-eyed girls as well. As has been said, no chief officer today or in the past 15 to 20 years could get away with that sort of piratical approach to policing. They have to prefer discussion and challenge. Of course, they like winning but I think that if one gets used to winning all the time, there is an in-built problem with the management style.
As for blue-eyed boys and girls, I suppose that loosely you could say the same thing about generals, captains of industry or the judiciary. The whole point is that if, as I think will be demanded under the new regime, you have a system with independent assessment and/or a proper board structure but, above all, transparency which in the final analysis is defensible in the courts, there is nothing to lose. I, for one, would not want to see the legislation being overprescriptive on this. You have to leave some room for balance and common sense, appreciating that, if you go past a certain line, particularly in the area of appointments, you are going to be challenged, so you do not tread over that line in the first place.
I want to say a brief word about the finance officers. There are of course two in place at the moment—one in the police authority and one within the force itself. I am not sure whether I was the first but I was certainly one of the early chief constables who civilianised the old police role of assistant chief constable, admin and finance, bringing in a very well-qualified civilian. I put them on ACPO rates of pay and ranked them equal with ACPO. You would certainly find that model in many police forces up and down the country today. There is some risk of duplication but I think one has to avoid that risk. One has to recognise the two roles, as has already been said, and expect a constructive tension between them.
I close by saying once again that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I am sure that this will not be the last time that I do so.
Lord Soley
Perhaps I may follow on briefly from what my noble friend Lord Harris said. He made a very thoughtful and, as usual, very forensic analysis of this part of the Bill. When he referred to the Taser issue, I was reminded that police forces have purchased contentious weapons on a number of occasions. Many years ago, there was a big argument about rubber bullets, for example. It is not immediately clear to me from the Bill but, as I understand it—I do not think I am wrong about this—when police forces purchase guns, which they have to have in store, there are very tight Home Office controls on what they can buy and in what number and so on. With the corporation sole model, to which my noble friend referred, I am not sure whether they would be able to choose the number of their weapons and, more importantly in a sense, the nature of the weapons, which can determine the outcome in certain critical situations. That may not change at all and the Home Office may retain full control over it. However, in view of my noble friend’s comments about Tasers, I should like reassurance that there will be some control over the overall picture and that it will not be left to individual police forces to determine what they need.
Lord Shipley
What seems to be missing in this debate and in the Bill as a whole is a clear indication of the net cost of these proposals. There are existing costs both within a police force and within a police authority, but everything I hear and read suggests that the cost of police commissioners, with their offices and staff, will be significantly higher than the costs that we currently meet. There will be 41 full-time police and crime commissioners. They will have an undefined number of staff, with buildings to house them in, and they will have their running costs. Given that the police commissioner will work full time and, I understand, be paid a low six-figure sum of money, the implication is that the cost of a police and crime commissioner’s office is likely to run into several million pounds a year. The figure is very hard to estimate and it is not clear from the Bill documentation what it is likely to be. It seems to suggest that the net cost will not be significantly different from current spending. We will see, but I have come to the conclusion that the total net cost of police and crime commissioners, with the structures that will underpin them, is likely to be somewhere between £100 million and £200 million. I could be out and it could be higher than that.
It goes back to the nub of the issue about duplication, on which we have had a very good debate and I hesitate to repeat things. I have not understood who will be making exactly what decision on spending. I understand that there is operational and there is strategic, but there is also the challenge from the commissioner’s office on day-to-day spending on the basis of the police and crime plan and the challenge from the finance staff of their colleagues on the operational side of finance about what money is being spent. The Bill says that a chief constable will have a chief finance officer. Words matter because a chief implies that there will be others as well. A chief constable will have a chief finance officer for the police force’s financial affairs and the commissioner will have a chief finance officer for the commissioner’s financial affairs.
These are not different things. The commissioner is responsible for constructing the police and crime plan. That plan implies a budget as a budget is a statement of policy. The statement of policy is therefore the plan. There is the budget, the heads of expenditure and the precept. I find it hard to understand how you will not end up with conflict if you run two separate staffing structures on finance. There will be conflict and difficulty because there will have to be an assessment of whether the police and crime commissioner’s plan, which is the budget, is being carried out operationally. That requires the staff to work very closely together. I think there is great cause for concern about how the structure is being put in place. At the moment the costs on the police authority side are comparatively low, and certainly a great deal lower than the costs on the force side.
We are about to put up the overall costs of a public service at a time when there are major reductions in the numbers of police officers on the beat. The priority needs to be to keep neighbourhood policing at a high level rather than increase the costs of accountability. It is in that accountability between the two parts—the police force and the police commissioner’s office—that we will end up with it not being clear who is in charge of what. That will cost money because people will be challenging it. There will be more meetings, more reports, more audits, more explanations, and so on.
I am very concerned about this. Amendments 43 and 44 are probing amendments to see whether there is clarity on who would be responsible for what. I feel that some work now needs to be done to get these issues clear. That would start with a clear costing of the overall cost of this. That then would produce a definition of what the policy really is.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about the office of chief constable and the business of corporation sole. I shall not take up the Committee’s time longer than to say that it needs to be looked at in terms of where the office of chief constable and corporation sole stand in a legal context.
It is one of the principles of policing in this country to be apolitical and independent in terms of delivery. A little bit of work could be done to ensure that your Lordships’ House is more satisfied that there is no conflict between the two. The area in which I would ask for caution to be used is finance. The Metropolitan Police historically had two commissioners: one to deliver on the operational side; and the other who then became the received person to deal with the financial side. With a budget of more than £3 billion, which it was when I was commissioner, I had a delightful relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Being a pussycat we always got on together; I was the pussycat and he was the other. It was essential for delivery on the financial side that there was an expert on financing in the Metropolitan Police. More importantly, there had to be political accountability outside that for creating contracts, sometimes for hundreds of millions of pounds, which could have got in the way of delivering what we were doing over a period of time in the Metropolitan Police, namely driving down crime and keeping the terrorists away.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and important debate. My noble friend and other noble Lords raised very pertinent questions about the status of the elected police commissioner and chief constable as corporations sole, the financial consequences of the proposed arrangements, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the financial relationship between the commissioner and the chief constable. I will start with that. Since it is the commissioner who will set the precept and ultimately sign off the plan, he will have considerable influence over the chief constable, because he who controls the resources tends to pull the strings. It will be rather like the relationship between Her Majesty's Treasury and the Home Office. My experience of friends in the Treasury over 10 years as a Minister was that they delighted in micromanaging the affairs of departments, which they did not think could organise a you-know-what in a brewery. It will be inevitable that the commissioner, who in the end will have total control over how much money the chief constable gets, will be able to exercise considerable operational control. We should bear that in mind when we consider the construct of the Bill.
My other concern is about the lack of good corporate governance when it comes to the concept of corporation sole and issues of expenditure, contracts and the employment of staff. As I said on our previous day in Committee, it is puzzling that the party opposite, the Conservatives, who 20 years ago were very concerned about ensuring good corporate governance both in the public and private sectors, seem to have forgotten all this when they came to construct the Bill. This has been a very good debate and noble Lords have used their experience of how the police service currently operates to tease out some of the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about the chief officer as chief executive. He thought that it was probably a good thing, provided that it was done in the right way. The problem I have with that is that, as I read the Bill, the chief constable, being corporation sole, is not just the chief executive; he or she is also the chair and the non-executive directors. It is the realisation of a Gilbertian fantasy: the Lord High Everything Else. The chief constable is not just the Lord High Everything Else; he is the Lord High Everything. Of course the noble Lord was right to ask the Minister whether there will be structures, such as good employment practice and all the other constraints and necessary safeguards, and I am sure the Minister will seek to give an affirmative response, but, in the end, it will be down to the chief constable as a corporation sole. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, in the end those who make, for instance, employment decisions will be employed by the chief constable, the corporation sole, and that must have an impact on their behaviour.
This corporate governance structure, or the absence of it, would never be contemplated by the Government if this were a private sector operation. The idea that you can have one person without some kind of board structure and without non-executives to give the check and balance would not be contemplated. Why is this kind of structure being contemplated in this part of the public sector? It is a puzzle to me. I have always paid tribute to the previous Conservative Government for the emphasis they gave to good corporate governance, the encouragement they gave to the Institute of Directors and the CBI and the work by Cadbury. The previous Conservative Government encouraged all these things. Why are they ignoring that when it comes to this Bill?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I am grateful. This has been a very constructive debate on a very important part of this legislation. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, mentioned the corporation sole, and I shall begin by setting out where the Government are coming from on this. As Members of the Committee will know, a corporation is a body that has its own legal personality distinct from that of its members. This means that a corporation can own property, enter into contracts and take part in legal proceedings in its own capacity and that its assets, rights and liabilities are those of the corporation rather than the members. Typically, corporations have more than one member. Such corporations are called corporations aggregate. Local authorities are a typical example. However, a corporation can consist of only one person: the corporation sole. The sovereign is a corporation sole, as are various ecclesiastical figures, such as bishops, and various other public offices have been created corporations sole by legislation, such as the Treasury Solicitor, the Information Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, so this is not something completely new that has been contrived for the purposes of this legislation.
The amendments concerning this part of the Bill and particularly concerning the chief officer’s status as a corporation sole remove or limit the status to apply to employment matters. They also remove the chief officer’s ability to enter into other contracts and agreements, including the ability to borrow money and sell property. The Government are clear about the need to establish chief constables as corporations sole. This legal status will allow them to employ staff in their official capacity and thus have greater control over running their forces. We believe that it is a very important move for chief constables to be able to have that more direct link with the employment of the police. I accept what noble Lords have said about the status of existing police officers who are not employed as such by any one particular body. It is quite right that that has been mentioned. But this does not in any way detract from the oath that they take or from their status. They would go into a direct employment situation as far as the chief constable is concerned.
My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew clearly set out what I thought was exactly spot on as to why we want to do this. In terms of the increased capacity that the chief constable would have, particularly in the employment field, we want to ensure that a PCC is also enabled to focus on accountability rather than on running the force. Those two roles are quite distinct. We believe that the corporation sole allows the chief constable to fulfil that clearly defined role. The legal status that allows them to employ staff in their official capacity is very important in its vital function in the context of providing greater autonomy over the day-to-day management of the force. It is at the heart of clear operational independence, about which a lot has been said in our deliberations so far. This clearly, we believe, would contribute to it.
However, noble Lords have raised issues that are of concern and I hope that I can reassure them. As currently drafted, there are parts of this part of the Bill that we intend to change. Perhaps I may set them out. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, and my noble friend Lady Harris raised the concern that chief officers will have significant powers to enter into contracts and agreements. It is our intention to consider this further. We will consider laying amendments which would prevent the chief constable from borrowing money and require him or her to obtain permission from the police and crime commissioner before entering into any contract other than a contract of employment. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have already revisited this. They have made some important points around this aspect and at later stages of the Bill we will bring forward government amendments to try to correct this.
The amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, would mean that, while the chief police officer would be able to appoint a chief finance officer, they would not be required to do so. Nor would they be required to appoint someone suitably qualified to hold that role. Currently, the Bill will require each chief police officer to appoint a chief finance officer of the force and require that person to be a member of a chartered financial institute. This is not about gathering chums around; it is about making sure that there is proper professional support for the role. I understand that the requirement for separate chief finance officers reporting to the chief police officer and the police and crime commissioner may on the face of it seem like duplication. Several Members of your Lordships’ House have mentioned that tonight but I stress that this is not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, made the point that there is a situation here with the police authority and the chief constable.
The Bill makes key changes to the current system of financial governance for the police, flowing from the fact that it will be the chief police officers who employ the police staff currently employed by police authorities. The Bill provides for chief police officers to be corporation sole so that they can do this in their official capacity. As two distinct bodies both legally capable of holding moneys and entering into contracts, it is right and proper that chief police officers and police and crime commissioners both have suitably qualified people responsible for the propriety and efficiency of their financial affairs.
The provisions in the Bill set up two distinct bodies whose financial responsibilities will have to be formal, clear and accountable in law and to the public. I want to clarify any confusion between the role of the two. The chief finance officer to the force will be primarily involved in the propriety of operational spending and employment. The PCC’s chief financial officer will have the overall oversight of spending, including grant-making functions. I can confirm that there is no reason why there cannot be group audits of these two functions.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Before the Minister sits down—and I apologise for interrupting her—I have been slowly digesting something she said about the making of contracts. I well understand what she said about the Government reconsidering issues about whether chief constables could make contracts, but can she reassure us that there will be no inhibition on the making of contracts required for the best conduct of individual investigations? I am not citing “Cracker” as a good example of what occurs, because it does not occur; but sometimes it is true that one-off forensic science services are required for a particular investigation at short notice. Sometimes one-off accountancy services are required for investigations at short notice, and one can think of many other examples. Can she confirm that the chief officer will be able to purchase those services in such circumstances without having to go through elaborate consultation hoops on contracts?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I may have misheard her, but I thought that the Minister hinted or said that amendments would be brought forward which would make it clear that contracts would have to be approved by the police commissioner. I can see why the Government have come back with that proposal, but to my mind, it just gives the commissioner that much more control over the chief constable. Because the commissioner is being given so much power with regard to money, whatever a protocol says about the relationship between the commissioner and the chief constable, the fact is that the person who holds the dosh usually controls what goes on. I hope the Government will give this further thought.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I want to question whether my noble friend has got the correct nuance of the argument. We have to be very clear about what we are trying to achieve with this Bill. My understanding is that the Government are trying to achieve stronger accountability, and that the mechanism for accountability is an elected police and crime commissioner—or we may end up with some other model. The danger is that, inadvertently, that accountability will be weakened. While my noble friend is right to say that being able to set the overall budget and strategy provides some degree of control, it does not provide the full picture. If you have a situation in which the corporation sole status of the chief officer of police is untrammelled—I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said about putting some limits around that, and I think it would be helpful to see those sooner rather than later—the danger is that chief officers of police will ignore what the body to whom they are supposed to be accountable will say are the key strategic issues that matter to their local communities. We would not want every minor arrangement in respect of an individual investigation to be referred to the accountable body, but we should have some system that ensures that those key decisions lie clearly with the body to which the chief officer of police is being held accountable.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am very grateful for the further contributions that have just been made to the debate. I can assure my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew that if, for example, forensic science commissioning were suddenly needed, there would not be a time lag while permission was sought. That is not our intention. I also take on board what noble Lords opposite have said about getting the balance right. I can assure the Committee that we will bring forward an amendment that I hope meets the concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Soley
Would the Minister answer my question, which arose from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the number and type of weapons purchased? Does she need more time to find out what the situation would be if it is a corporation sole? Does she want to come back to the Committee, or can she answer the question now?
Baroness Browning
I hope that I can answer the noble Lord now. The situation will be as it is now.
Lord Soley
So the situation now would override the corporation sole nature of the body.
Baroness Browning
Yes, that is right. I ask noble Lords not to press the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the Minister has given a very helpful explanation in relation to the chief financial officer. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the chief officer of police should not have financial support from somebody who was suitably qualified. It is told, no doubt apocryphally, that the Metropolitan Police, when it was under the control of the Home Office, had only two qualified accountants responsible for a budget of £3 billion, which may have explained why it did not have a system for knowing whether it had paid bills more than once. Having a senior financial person who is a qualified accountant is not the same as having a chief finance officer, which has a specific meaning in local government law. It is clear that the post is intended to have that specific meaning in local government law. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we should move away from the situation that exists at the moment, where every force has a senior finance person, but the person who is clearly responsible for accounts and everything else resides within the police authority or, in this case given the Government’s construct, with the police and crime commissioner.
Baroness Henig
It has been an extremely interesting debate which has teased out a number of important issues, many of which I am sure we will come back to. I am most grateful to the Minister for her response and for telling us that the Government will bring forward an amendment in relation to some of the issues. I am sure that we will have further debate at that point simply because so many important, technical issues relating to where the balance of power lies in different situations are still to be clarified. Given that we shall come back to a number of them, and given the important assurances that the Minister has provided, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56. I see that Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is in this group. I do not quite know what it means and I am not sure that it is meant to be in this group, but the noble Baroness will no doubt enlighten us later.
The purpose of the amendment in my name is to extend the responsibility of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to cover the City of London Police. I put this forward because I was sure that it would be a minor and non-controversial change to the Bill—something that would attract universal approbation and something that the Government would have done had they thought of it at the time.
We are all familiar with the City of London Police force. Of course, it does an excellent and much-respected job. It has an annual budget of around £61 million, which is what the Metropolitan Police gets through in a week. The City of London Police force covers a population of 8,000 people, which is rather smaller than most local government wards in Greater London. There is of course a slight commuter issue in that some 300,000 people come into the area each day. The area covers just over one square mile. It has 800-plus police officers, 85 special constables, 48 PCSOs, a number of police staff and three police stations. It is the smallest territorial police force in England and Wales. It is something of an anomaly.
The argument is that because of the economic significance of the City of London, it has historically had a separate police force. That argument has prevailed every single time in the past 180 years that people have considered whether there should be different policing arrangements in London, but I hope that it is something that we can consider afresh today. I looked at the figures from the City of London Police annual report. Apparently, the average monthly number of crimes recorded in the City of London Police district is 505. The Metropolitan Police force clocks that up in around six hours. That gives noble Lords some idea of the different scales.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, who is not in his place, is apocryphally said to have been asked on one occasion, “Commissioner, what would you do if you were given responsibility for the City of London Police?”. I have never asked him whether he actually said this, but he is alleged to have replied, “I would put a sergeant in charge”. I say that not to be pejorative about the City of London Police, but to highlight what a strange anomaly it is to have within Greater London this tiny enclave catering for a tiny population with the full panoply of staff. It has its own commissioner—a commissioner in the policing of the metropolis sense rather than in terms of an elected police and crime commissioner. The Bill is silent on whether there will be any changes in governance of the force. It will continue to be governed by the Corporation of London Police Committee with no changes whatever to reflect the general drift of government policy in this area, whether amended or not by your Lordships' House or Parliament.
I hope that the Minister, in responding, will be able to enlighten us as to why the Corporation of London is exempt from the general provisions of the Bill. If one believes in the principle of seeing direct and visible accountability, what could be better than to say that the entire police service within Greater London should be accountable to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime? Surely that is the way to do it. That is the way to make it explicit and demonstrate that the entire police service in London is the responsibility of the mayor's office.
In an earlier debate in Committee, we talked about the problem of the confusion of members of the public. The City of London Police force goes to great lengths to ensure that its officers are distinguishable. The little squares on the cap band are red rather than black and the insignia and helmet are different, so it should be immediately apparent to members of the public that they are now being dealt with by the City of London Police as opposed to the Metropolitan Police. However, I rather suspect that this is a distinction—even though enormous efforts are made to demonstrate it—that will be lost on most Londoners.
The point in putting forward this amendment is to say, for the sake of completeness, that Greater London contains the square mile of the City of London. Its 8,000 residents—who vote for the Mayor of London—should have the right, through that process, to see their police service being governed through the same arrangements as the rest of London, the mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime as envisaged in this Bill. I am sure that the five people who were subjected to firearms offences in 2009-10, or the four instances of trade description offences that the force dealt with, or the two offences relating to obscene publications or the two offences of dangerous driving—and this is an area where 300,000 cars come in each day—would all be better served it if it was seen as part of a Greater London police force, accountable to the Mayor of London’s Office of Policing and Crime. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is using this group of amendments to seek to achieve, at a late hour and in Committee, the merger of the City of London Police with the Metropolitan Police, a matter that has been around not just since 1829 but goes back to 1785. The matter is frankly for the Minister to respond to, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I must put a small gloss on it, having been the Member of Parliament for the City of London for the third longest length of time since 1283. It goes back to 1785 because there was a genuine essay to secure a London police force that went wider than the City in the 1780s. William Pitt the Younger embarked on it because of the Gordon Riots, when he felt a police force was needed. The City of London Police—this is the one thing I concede to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—did actually scupper that idea by saying that they would not themselves have anything to do with it. Pitt himself confessed to the House of Commons that this was a subject of which he was himself insufficiently the master and therefore he would not press the point. Thereafter, it was decided to create a police force in the city of Dublin and it was the existence of that force that prompted Peel, who served as Chief Secretary for Ireland between 1812 and 1818, to pursue the idea when he became Home Secretary on his return to London in the 1820s. Of course, from 1829 onwards, everything is history.
I will fast forward from 1829 to 1977, when I entered the House of Commons at a by-election as the Member of Parliament for the City. I recall that before I had made my maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, had moved a 10 minute rule Bill in the House of Commons to abolish the City of London Police, to which I was not allowed to reply because it was a controversial subject and you should not make your maiden speech on a controversial subject. The late, lamented Lord Finsberg opposed it himself. I have to remark on the coincidence that these Bills always came forward in the spring of a GLC election, because they were quite clearly intended to provide further grist to the political mill.
Your Lordships’ House will be glad to hear that I am not going to make a prolonged defence at this hour but I will say that I did think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was a little selective in the observations that he made. There is no question at all that the City of London Police response to the terrorist outrages that occurred within the square mile was both prompt and efficient. I can recall long, long ago reporting to the House of Commons on the technology that the Corporation of London had developed so that any car approaching the ring of steel was photographed and, at the moment that it reached the ring of steel, the policeman on duty knew perfectly well who the driver was and who it was registered to et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made no reference to the expertise developed by the City of London Police in the context of fraud or to the international implications of the City of London and its police force nor did he allude in general to the terrorist issue to which the ring of steel contributed as a defence, but he did refer to the City of London’s population, on which his figures were broadly right. The 8,000 residents do not all have votes, but I agree that that is approximately the right figure. He was certainly right about the number of commuters. The number of commuters is the reason why the European Commission says, erroneously, that the City of London, the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are the richest areas in the whole of the European Union. The reason why the European Commission’s statement is ill founded is that, in the context of the City, it is the 300,000 commuters who contribute to the area’s wealth rather than the 8,000 people who live there. However, in working out its calculations, the European Commission takes the GDP produced in those three local authority areas and divides the figure by the resident population rather than by the number who come in to work there, who make such an enormous contribution to the economy of this country.
My noble friend Lord Eccles was present during our Committee stage debates on the Bill last week; I just want to allude briefly to his late father, who was the 1st Viscount Eccles, or David Eccles as was. In 1944, David Eccles moved an amendment to the Education Bill—no doubt it was also moved late at night—at a time when David Eccles had been in the House of Commons for a year. His amendment said that, once the war was over, all women teachers in the United Kingdom should receive equal salaries with all male teachers. The Division was the only one in the House of Commons throughout the war on which the Government were defeated. Rab Butler, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, was not the fastest of movers and was actually not in the Chamber when the vote was taken, although he was proceeding towards it. The amendment was carried by 117 votes to 116. The next morning, Churchill sent for the Chief Whip and said that Herr Goebbels would make such an enormous profit out of this defeat for the Government that it had to be reversed on Report as a matter of confidence. The amendment was reversed by 417 votes to 25 and, thus, the Bill was restored to its original form. I tell that story in the context of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, because, once all that had been done, the then Prime Minister sent for David Eccles and—I shall not put on a Churchillian accent at this late hour—said words to the effect, “Young man, I have a great deal of personal sympathy with the underlying proposition and principle that you were advancing in your amendment, but to do so late at night on the Education Bill, in the midst of the greatest conflict the world has ever seen, is frankly the equivalent of putting an elephant in a perambulator”. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in my view that is what he is seeking to do tonight. I hope that he will be wholly convinced by the arguments advanced by my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way—or perhaps he had resumed his seat anyway—but he has referred three times to the lateness of the hour. There is no desire on my part for us to be debating at this hour; we are doing so as an assistance to the Government, who have decided that the House should sit beyond 10 pm tonight despite the normal convention that we do not sit late on occasions when the House will sit early the following morning. I would have been much happier to have debated this at an earlier hour, when no doubt we could have devoted much more time to the particular arrangements in the City of London.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I am deeply sorry if I have in any way offended the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but the fact remains that it is a late hour.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it is a late hour, but that is not anyone’s doing, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has sustained greater insults than that in his career.
I am not sure, either, what Amendment 155 is doing in this group. It was in another group. I observed that it should be in a group on London and this is where it ended up. It is one of a number of amendments that say that the London Assembly should be able to decide its own procedures and how it works as a policing and crime panel. However, we will debate that point in another group.
I have considerable sympathy with these amendments on the City of London. I am asking myself why there is a separate force and why the issue has not been brought within what seems entirely the right vehicle for addressing the matter. I can only assume that it is in the filing tray that has “too hard” written on it and that the Government are unwilling to take on the City. But it is an important issue. If we are being asked, as we are, to look at inserting democracy into the governance of our policing arrangements, the City should not be exempt from that. They have a lot of experience of elections in the City—there is no problem in carrying that out.
There are so many anomalies, with the separate precepting arrangements and what has always seemed to me unnecessary bureaucracy and complication because of the division. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to expertise, and I accept that there is enormous expertise, but it is transferable and needs to be so, because whether or not the City likes it London’s financial centre is not only where it used to be. It has moved eastwards, and the expertise in fraud and other matters specific to business are no longer, in the 21st century, relevant only to the Square Mile.
This Bill is the right context for this debate. There is a considerable distinction between this issue and that of teachers’ salaries in 1944, and I am sorry that the Government have not felt able to extend the new governance arrangements to the whole of England.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this is clearly a perfectly legitimate amendment and this is clearly the time when the issues that this amendment raises ought to be discussed. They ought to be discussed as part of this Bill. Having listened to the complaint that this is not a matter that should be discussed late in the evening, I am not sure whether that means—if the Minister is not going to accept the amendment—that if it appeared at Report stage at five o’clock in the afternoon it would be universally welcomed and supported. I was not quite clear on the significance of the comment about the time of day.
Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is to bring the arrangements for the City of London in line with the proposals for the rest of England and Wales—and one looks forward to the explanation that we will receive from the Minister as to why, one assumes, the Government are not entirely enthusiastic about going down this road. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the interesting and relevant point that, if the argument is that you need a separate police force for the City of London because it is a financial centre, it should be taken into account that we now have around Canary Wharf another financial centre. Presumably, it is under the Metropolitan Police, unless I am to be told otherwise. If the Metropolitan Police is considered to have the expertise to handle the issues that might arise there, why is it not considered that it could encompass, by taking over or by merger, the City of London Police as well? The Metropolitan Police force has considerable expertise which is recognised internationally and which is used on a national basis in England and Wales, not simply confined to its area. Yet the inference through having a separate force for the City of London is that somehow the Metropolitan Police, despite the expertise that it has, would just not be able to cope.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
Would the noble Lord care to answer one thing? Will he comment on why the previous Labour Government, against what I would have thought were all their natural instincts, chose to confer on the City of London Corporation the right to have elections for democratic representation in the City, in which all businesses in the City were allowed to have a vote that was calculated in a particular way? Indeed, they pressed the Corporation to go down that route. Was it really not because there was a recognition that the City at large worked extraordinarily well and that fiddling around with it was not a very profitable use of time, not least in the context of the City of London's success?
Lord Rosser
I do not know specifically what the reasons were. They may well have been those that the noble Lord has said. However, I am not sure that that necessarily applies to an argument about the City of London Police, which is what we are discussing, particularly in the context of the expertise which the Metropolitan Police has—and in the context that the City of London is no longer the only financial centre in London. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the financial centre has moved further east to an extent and nobody has said that those responsible should set up or extend the powers of the City of London Police to cover those new centres, which presumably come under the Metropolitan Police.
It is not irrelevant for this question to be asked when we are talking about a major reorganisation of our police forces, with a major change in how they are run and in governance. Maybe there is a good answer, and I am waiting to hear what the Minister has to say, but the question should be asked: did the Government look at the issue of the retention of the City of London Police and was it justified? If so, what were the reasons for coming to the decision that they did, bearing in mind that they think that all other police forces should be covered by the changes that they are putting forward in this Bill?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the history that has been contributed. Not much of it appeared in my notes but it has helped me to put into context the City of London and the role of its police. I hope noble Lords will not mind if I begin by paying tribute to that police force. It is a small force but it has in recent times dealt with significant investigations and major incidents. It has dealt with them and acquitted itself extremely well. Because of its position it has a national role. I hear what has been said about the movement of financial services around not only the country but the globe. None the less, the force has taken a lead in tackling white-collar crime that continues today.
When the noble Lord, Lord Harris, began, I thought this would be one of those sublime moments when, as a politician, one could sit back, listen to two arguments and make up one’s mind as to which was the more persuasive. As a Minister, I do not have that luxury, as Members will know, more is the pity. It would be very nice to do so. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, lost me when he mentioned motoring offences in comparison with what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville said about the much more significant and recent role that this police force has played. Neither the Mayor of London nor the Metropolitan Police Authority has a role in the governance of the City of London Police.
The position of the Common Council as the police authority for the City of London Police has, as we have heard, remained essentially unchanged. It was not altered by the Police Act 1996, which created the police authorities that currently exist outside London. Nor, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was it changed when his Government introduced the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which created the Metropolitan Police Authority. Therefore, when he asked me why we are not doing this and said that the amendments are reasonable, I noted that he did not refer at all to what his own Government did. I assume they, too, when they were legislating for London would have looked at this issue. There was no offering or crumb there to persuade me that the previous Labour Government looked at this and decided that it was an appropriate thing to do.
Lord Rosser
The Minister’s argument is that she has been so overwhelmed by the decision of the previous Labour Government that it cannot possibly be challenged or questioned. Is that the argument for keeping the City of London Police?
Baroness Browning
Not at all, my Lords. We studied very closely the actions or lack of actions of the previous Labour Government. I assure the noble Lord that they are on our radar screen all the time. However, we have this situation not just because of the many years that the City of London Police has been in place but because of the exemplary way in which it conducts itself. The size of the population of the City of London has been mentioned. There are 8,000 voters but one must put that in the context of there being 25 wards in the City, of which only four have residents. To translate that into representation would be quite complex. The City of London is unique and has unique policing governance to recognise that fact. I suspect that various Governments down the years have looked at this and probably all came to the same conclusion. It operates on a non-party political basis through its lord mayor, aldermen and the members of the Court of Common Council. The governance is tailored to the particular institutions and traditions of the City of London. I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships, but it is not my intention to change that tonight. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to Members of the Committee for their consideration of the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his history lesson as it demonstrated the extraordinarily effective lobbying power of the Corporation of London over the past two and a bit centuries.
Noble Lords have asked why the previous Labour Government did not address this issue. I was very engaged in the discussions that led to the creation of the Greater London Authority and I can let your Lordships into a secret: the then Prime Minister, who was renowned for his bravery in taking on international conflicts when other counsels might have prevailed, was not prepared to enter into a conflict with the massed troops of the Corporation of London. He did not wish to see tanks trundling down Ludgate Hill towards Westminster to try to suppress any uprising on the part of the unruly citizens of Westminster vis-à-vis the traditional powers and role of the Corporation of London.
I am sure the Committee will recognise that my amendment is very modest. It does not propose subsuming the City of London Police into the Metropolitan Police. It merely suggests that the City of London Police should be accountable to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in the same way that the Metropolitan Police are. That would not necessarily mean any disruption of the City of London Police’s excellent work, particularly on economic crime. It may have been unfair of me to refer to the heavy load of traffic offences with which the force deals. I was talking to a colleague in the House earlier this evening who remarked that the City of London Police dealt with a particularly high number of cases of indecent exposure, and that that factor should be taken into account when arguing for a separate force. However, the argument has always been about economic crime, certainly during my involvement in this area. We are talking about 213 new investigations during the past year, which is a comparatively modest figure.
This was intended to be a minimalist amendment to try to bring the City of London Police into line with some of the arrangements prevailing in the rest of the country. London is already an anomaly in the Bill, as we shall discuss further in a few minutes. The amendment is not intended to destroy the City of London Police or its work; it simply tries to create a system of accountability which would at least be parallel to that in the rest of London, if not in the rest of the country.
I note that the Minister is as susceptible as all previous holders of that office and, indeed, all previous Ministers in every other department of government, when it comes to the lobbying power of the Corporation of London, to which I defer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
“(3) There is to be a Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime for the metropolitan police district and the City of London.
(4) The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is to be elected, and hold office, in accordance with Chapter 6.
(4A) The person who has been given the title of deputy mayor and particular responsibility for policing and crime by the Mayor of London at the time this section is brought into effect is to be the occupant for the time being of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.”
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, in moving Amendment 50, I wish to speak to an extremely long list of amendments which, because of the lateness of the hour, I will not proceed to go through individually and in detail.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to bring some of the arrangements in Greater London more into line with the Government’s original intentions in the Bill. The principle of the Bill was that there would be greater visible accountability of the police service through the election of a police and crime commissioner. That is what the Government have proposed everywhere in the country apart from London. However, it is proposed that because we already have a directly elected Mayor of London, the processes will not be the same in London as they will be elsewhere. Instead, there will be created the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, which will be a functional body of the Greater London Authority. There is recognition of the very wide range of duties of the Mayor of London. Therefore, it is understood that he might not be able to fulfil the office of Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—there is a very strange use of language in the Bill—but might appoint a deputy mayor of London to fulfil that role. There are clauses in the Bill that describe the functions of the deputy mayor for policing and crime; how they relate to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and to the Mayor of London; the arrangements for the appointment of that person who might or might not be an elected member of the London Assembly; the arrangements that would occur in the event of a vacancy in that office; what would happen if that person were disqualified or incapacitated; and so on. However, the real gap in those proposals is that if the Government believe, as they do, that the single act of election and the visibility of the person fulfilling the role of holding the police to account is the key element, why does it not apply in London?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am interested in the concept suggested by my noble friend of different people being elected to a position in the same authority. What does he think about the Government’s proposal to appoint shadow mayors? Can I take him from the great city of London to the equally great city of Birmingham and the situation whereby the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is intending to nominate Councillor Mike Whitby, the Leader of the Conservative-Lib Dem council, to be the shadow mayor of Birmingham at the very time when it is clear that he will lose control of the council next May? We have a bizarre situation of having a shadow mayor with all the powers of the mayor, and the council being Labour-led. What does my noble friend think about that?
Lord Harris of Haringey
I think that that is a consequence of extending discussion in your Lordships' House past our normal finishing time of 10 pm, when we tend to range more widely on subjects.
My noble friend raises an important point. Neither I in my amendment nor the Government in their original proposal were doing anything as bizarre as seems to be suggested under the Localism Bill. Had they followed the same principle, no doubt we would have had chairs of police authorities all over the country suddenly becoming shadow commissioners of police and crime for their areas. Although many chairs of police authorities would no doubt have relished that transformation and enjoyed their brief period in that role, we are not in the Bill being offered the same arrangements that are being offered under the Localism Bill for the creation of mayors in major cities. The Localism Bill also envisages that there would then be a referendum of the local community. Some of us had hoped that we would have an interesting debate on that, but my noble friend chose to deny us that opportunity and is perhaps, by the back door, trying to give us the opportunity to have such a debate now. I shall not be lured down that path.
The purpose of my amendment is that, if the principle is clarity—that the person who holds the police to account should be directly elected and visible in that role—that individual in London should also be directly elected. In the Bill, we have a system where the Mayor of London is elected but, effectively, will automatically delegate an individual who need not be directly elected—and certainly will not be directly elected to fulfil that function—to carry out the role of the police and crime commissioner. That is wrong. It is a mistake. It runs against the entire premise of the Government's proposals, which is that there should be a directly elected individual who holds the police to account. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I intervene very briefly. When I am attending your Lordships' House, I stay in a club in my former constituency. In the 1930s, a Duke was slumbering in that club after lunch one day when he became conscious that a man and a woman had entered the room. He waited until they had left and then pressed a bell. The club servant arrived and said, “You rang, your Grace?”. The Duke said, “What was that?”. The club servant said, “That, your Grace, was the club secretary and Her Majesty the Queen”. “Thin end of the wedge”, said the Duke, shut his eyes and went to sleep again.
I will not expand on the point at this hour of the night, but I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to know that I have noticed, as the thin end of the wedge, that the City of London again creeps into his Amendment 50.
Lord Rosser
One reads with interest the amendment, which, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, provides for the deputy mayor for policing and crime to be elected, on the basis that it ought to be done on the same terms as the Government proposed for everywhere else in the country under the Bill, namely, for the police commissioner to be directly elected. Clearly, as long as the Bill remains as it is, where there is no elected police commissioner, we will not press for the deputy mayor for policing and crime to be elected. We will be consistent and say that we will stick with the same arrangement in London as the Bill currently has, having been amended by your Lordships' House.
If the Government are to make an effort in future to restore elected police and crime commissioners to the Bill, it would appear rather odd if they did not also say that, if that is what is to happen outside London, Londoners should also be able directly to elect the person who in reality will be responsible for policing. The arrangement that we appear to have at present is for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor, who takes over the role that, if the Government get their way, an elected police commissioner will have elsewhere. I suppose the only parallel—although it is hardly a parallel—is that, if we had elected police commissioners and one were suspended or otherwise unable to operate, that elected police commissioner would, as the Bill stands, appoint someone from their own staff to act in their stead. The arrangement that we appear to be moving towards in London is not that of the mayor waiting to be suspended or otherwise unable to act before appointing someone, but that the mayor, immediately he or she comes into office, appoints someone else to act as the deputy mayor responsible for policing and crime.
We look forward to the Minister’s response on this. As I said, as long as the Bill remains as it is without elected police commissioners, we do not wish to be inconsistent by saying that the deputy mayor for policing and crime in London should be elected. However, if the Government intend to try to restore elected police commissioners to the Bill, we look forward to their explanation of why they think Londoners should not be able to elect the person responsible for policing as well.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, these amendments would prevent the mayor holding the mayor’s office for policing and crime and would instead create an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime to hold that office.
This Government’s policy is to introduce a directly elected police and crime commissioner in every force area in England and Wales outside London but, as your Lordships are only too well aware, these provisions have been removed from the Bill. It therefore seems rather odd that your Lordships should now be debating whether those self-same provisions should apply to the Metropolitan Police Service. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about wanting to remain consistent. However, having struck out from the Bill the part that proposed elected police and crime commissioners, your Lordships now seem to be applying the same arguments to elect the deputy mayor for London.
The Government had not intended to introduce a new elected person to hold the police to account in London for the very simple reason that the whole of London already elects a single person to take responsibility for strategic issues such as policing, and that of course is the Mayor of London. The mayor is in the unique position of having responsibility for a whole force area and, as such, it seems sensible for him to have overall responsibility for holding the police to account as well.
The amendment would create a situation in which both the mayor and the deputy mayor had a direct democratic mandate across a whole force area, although they might have different ideas about what should happen. I do not think that that could work. It is right and fitting that the mayor should take on formal responsibility for holding the Metropolitan Police to account and, in turn, the mayor should be directly accountable to the public for how that is done. I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, “Nice try”, but I regret that I am not able to accept his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, highlighted what he called the thin end of the wedge. There is a choice and it goes to the heart of the Minister’s response to this. One can either envisage that the deputy mayor for policing and crime is elected by all Londoners on the same day and in the same manner as the Mayor of London, in which case the logic is that the 8,000 electors in the City of London should cast a vote for the deputy mayor of London as they vote for the Mayor of London. Alternatively, if the noble Lord preferred it and would be happy to support it on a later occasion, we could exclude the 8,000 electors from the Corporation of London area and have a deputy mayor elected on a slightly different franchise from that of the Mayor of London. That would, of course, completely undermine the Minister’s argument about how difficult it would be if these two individuals were elected on the same basis. The Government cannot have it both ways—I am trying to—by saying that we should not include the City of London in this. If you do not include the City of London, you therefore require that the franchise for the deputy mayor of London should be different from that for the Mayor of London and the argument about having the same franchise, being elected on the same basis and possible conflict, disappears.
The reason for including it was to try to achieve some consistency with the arrangements for the election of the Mayor of London. If it makes the Minister happier I am sure that we can construct the amendments in a way that excludes the City of London. That would then mean that she had achieved her objectives in terms of my previous amendment as well as this one. I am not clear that even had we altered the franchise slightly the Minister would have been happy with the amendment.
I have to say that there is a difficulty. I do not believe through very close observation that it is possible for the Mayor of London to fulfil the full range of activities of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. I was certainly clear when I chaired the police authority about the amount of time that that took up. The role of being responsible for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime will take up more time than that, and it would be impossible to combine that with the other responsibilities of the Mayor of London. The present Mayor of London, who no doubt is the role model for which the MOPC is being created, tried for a period, having made a manifesto pledge, to chair the police authority as well as being Mayor of London. After a comparatively short period, he decided that it was impracticable and not possible. We now have the situation that the Mayor of London appoints the chair of the police authority.
The difficulty is arguing that the arrangements will somehow be an improvement in transparency with current arrangements. Essentially, you are saying that the Mayor of London will appoint a person to fulfil the responsibilities in respect of holding the police service to account. That is the arrangement that we have at the moment. The Mayor of London appoints the chair of the police authority and that person, who is called the deputy mayor, although it is not a statutory title, fulfils those functions. That dilutes the principle of direct accountability. People might feel that the Mayor of London was doing a wonderful job on transport arrangements, introducing bicycle schemes, representing London on an international stage in such a way that all Londoners feel that the cockles of their hearts are warmed by seeing him perform. They might feel that or they might not, but they might have very different views about the conduct of the role on policing.
Under these arrangements being proposed by the Government, people cannot differentiate between them. All of it is subsumed in the responsibilities of the single elected mayor and the mayor can distance him or herself from what happens in policing by the fact that they appoint somebody else to do it. That is a weakness. If the Government are intent on restoring the principle of direct election to the rest of the Bill they need to think again about restoring the principle of direct election to the position in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. If they are worried about duplication, they could take policing out of the Mayor of London’s area of responsibility. That is not something that I would personally advocate. The proposals are intended to balance those different responsibilities.
I will think carefully about what the Minister has said. When we know the Government’s intent it will be clear whether something like this needs to be put into the Bill at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Subsections (3) and (4) are subject to section (Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime: term of office).”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 51, too, concerns London and to an extent follows the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Amendments 51 and 214 deal with the term of office of MOPC. I am aware that the pair of amendments is incomplete. In seeking to align the term of the London-elected commissioner with the terms of commissioners in the rest of England and in Wales, one faces the difficulty that under the GLA Acts the mayor’s term is not limited. During the passage of both GLA Acts, I attempted to introduce a two-term limit for the Mayor of London, but I was unsuccessful.
I drafted an amendment that would have dealt with that, because I realised that one cannot suggest that the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime—which is such a strange title for an individual—should be limited to two terms if the mayor, who is the same person, is not so limited. However, the Public Bill Office was not persuaded that it came within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, I accept that there is a problem. I would be interested to know why the Government did not attempt to deal with this matter. Again, perhaps it was too difficult and they did not want to disturb the GLA arrangements. However, there is an inconsistency and it is right that we should highlight it.
Amendments 61 and 62 deal with the issue of who will be the deputy mayor for policing and crime. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Doocey will speak to this. A number of my amendments—this is just how things fall—are acting as trailers for her interventions, which are based on experience that is more current than mine. It is right that the deputy mayor should have a democratic mandate: that is the reason for the amendments.
Amendments 70, 71, 74, 151, 157 and 158 deal with who in London should carry out the functions equivalent to those of the policing and crime panels elsewhere. As I said when we debated the last-but-one group of amendments, it should be for the London Assembly to determine whether the whole Assembly carries out the panel functions. It should not have forced on it procedures dictated by central government. I do not know whether the Government's view is that it will be desirable for a committee of the London Assembly to develop expertise in this area. I am sure that the Assembly has not changed very much in the past three years: in fact, it will have developed in this regard. It covers a lot of ground and does not have difficulty with individual members covering a lot of ground. It is of benefit that the Assembly works in this way, because it is able to join up the issues: what it does is integrated. I know that my noble friend has tabled amendments in this area. I feel strongly that the Assembly should work out for itself its own best procedures. It knows how best it operates.
Amendment 72 is about the police and crime plan: the how as well as the what. The aim is to expand the process. Because of the hour, I am going very quickly; I know that the Minister will cover some of the explanation in her reply. The underlying reason for the amendment is to ensure that the process in London should be similar to that outside London in order to achieve a better product at the end of the day.
Amendment 97 is on delegation—we seem to have strayed outside London here—and restricts it to a member of the police and crime panel. This is an important principle that has been alluded to in other contexts today. Amendment 103 also deals with delegation. Like my noble friend, I believe that it should be to an elected individual, a Member of the London Assembly. Amendments 99, 100, 101 and 107 are consequential.
Amendments 98, 104 and 106 ask the Government what delegation means. Is it a transfer of function or of responsibility? I am concerned about this because as I read Clauses 18 and 19, I think that they may be going a good deal further than is appropriate or perhaps even proper. I have used as a device an amendment which refers to the commissioner or MOPC retaining responsibility, but this concern underlies my amendments.
Amendment 109 addresses what can be delegated. Will the Minister justify the provisions that the amendment deals with by taking them out? Amendment 111 concerns the deputy mayor’s functions. The trickle-down arrangements in this clause are just too much. What is envisaged? The provisions that the amendment would delete must be about more than handing over jobs to staff. If that is so, it all becomes far too remote. Amendment 114 is consequential, but if noble Lords look at Clause 19(8), which it addresses, I hope they will understand why I am concerned. It states:
“If a function of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is exercisable by”,
somebody else,
“any property or rights vested in the Office may be dealt with by the other person”.
This moves quite a long way from the accountability through democratic election that is at the heart of the Government’s proposals.
Amendment 164 takes us back to vetoes, numbers and so on and would give the Assembly the right to approve or reject the police and crime plan, which I think it should have. The Assembly has rights and, more importantly, responsibilities to consider mayoral strategies, and I am doing nothing more here, I think, than bringing the police and crime plan into line with those other strategies. We have talked before about the linkage with local authorities and consideration of the other parts of the crime and disorder landscape—that is probably the current jargon. I am not sidelining the role of the boroughs in all this but we have a London-wide government which deals with a number of related issues. I think that it would be entirely proper for the Assembly to have this power.
Amendments 179 and 180 are about appointments. I do not have direct experience of shortlisting and interviewing, to which I have referred here, for either the commissioner in the metropolis or for any other senior posts. But I have been aware of colleagues being involved through the MPA, and quite rightly so. An Assembly Member should be involved and regard to that person’s views should be had. This is an important role. I do not think that it is at all inconsistent with the separation between the commissioner and the panel, to which the Government have referred.
Finally, under Amendments 183 and 184, which deal with the suspension and removal of the commissioner and deputy commissioner, I suggest that there should be a degree of consultation. I accept that these amendments could be criticised on the basis that these matters will be sensitive. There are HR—I guess that that will include human rights and HR in its more traditional sense—considerations. I am not suggesting some sort of public trial but again it is part of the role of the Assembly as the police and crime panel. It is in a good and proper place to contribute to these matters.
In cantering through these amendments, I have still taken 12 minutes, which indicates that there are a lot of issues here. I am sorry to have had to ask the House to listen to that canter at this time of night. If noble Lords have followed it, they have probably done better than I have in listening to myself. But they are important issues and we have to get this right in London as well as in the rest of the country. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I should like to address Amendments 103, 105, 112 and 116, the four amendments in my name in this group. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure democratic legitimacy to the function of police and crime commissioner as exercised in London. I have no objection to the concept of the Mayor of London, acting as the PCC, appointing a deputy mayor for policing and crime. The issue that arises is the fact that the deputy mayor for policing and crime will not be an elected person. The mayor has the right to appoint anyone to this position.
Mayors are not infallible. London has so far had two elected mayors. Both have appointed a range of unelected people to a wide variety of important posts, some of which have resulted in controversy, resignations and sackings. I recognise that no such mistake has been made in the appointment of the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority or, in fact, any of the appointments, but the fact is that that very important principle still stands.
However, I believe that there is a much more fundamental objection. Were the mayor to appoint an unelected person to the post of deputy mayor for policing and crime, it would negate the whole purpose of the Bill. How on earth can an unelected police and crime commissioner be accountable to local communities? Does not this proposal to hand the powers of the PCC to any unelected individual make a nonsense of the Government’s argument about democratic legitimacy?
Previously in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said:
“Cabinet Office research in 2008 showed that more than two-thirds of the public wanted an elected person to hold the police to account … It means an elected individual charged with being the voice of some of the most vulnerable people … I believe that police and crime commissioners will be both visible and democratically accountable”.—[Official Report, 11/5/11; col. 940.]
My noble friend made the same comment earlier this evening.
Therefore, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said earlier. Why on earth should every area outside London have a democratically elected individual carrying out the job of PCC, but not London? What rationale is there for treating London differently from any other part of the country? Whatever misgivings one might have about certain sections of this Bill, it is essential that the new legislation works in practice and does what it is supposed to do. But it must also be logically consistent and ensure the same degree of democratic accountability throughout the country. These amendments would achieve these objectives by obliging the Mayor of London, in delegating his functions as PCC, to choose a deputy mayor for policing and crime only from elected Members of the London Assembly.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I will speak to an amendment that is in my name, to four other amendments to which I have added my name and to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendment in my name is Amendment 110. I have to confess that this is possibly a refugee from what should have been another group. However, it could stand on its own here. It essentially deletes Clause 19(4), which is about the power of the deputy mayor for policing and crime to,
“arrange for any other person to exercise any function of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime which is, in accordance with subsection (2), exercisable by the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime”.
This comes back to the issue that we keep raising in relation to policing and crime commissioners: their ability to delegate functions to people who are not accountable in the same way. The proposal is that, even though this is an activity which is specifically the responsibility of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and specifically should be carried out by the deputy mayor, it should not be possible to delegate this to any other person in such a cavalier way.
I also wanted to speak to Amendments 103 and 116, which essentially say that the deputy mayor for policing and crime shall be a Member of the London Assembly. If your Lordships and the Government are not minded to accept the principle of direct election, then the second best must be that the person delegated by the Mayor of London must themselves be an elected person, a Member of the London Assembly. It really is extraordinary that the Bill gives such latitude to the Mayor of London to appoint someone whom they have not met and may have no personal direct mandate. One could create a justification as to why it would be inappropriate to have a direct mandate, but it seems to me that the main thrust of this ought to be that that the person who is acting on behalf of the Mayor of London in this very important role should themselves have at least been subject to the electorate for at least part of London, if not the whole of London. It is important that the deputy mayor of London for policing and crime should be an elected Member of the London Assembly, and Amendments 103 and 116 deal with this.
I have also put my name to Amendment 105, which enables the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to delegate to any person the functions that would otherwise be carried out by the deputy mayor for policing and crime. The issue is the same: whether it should be possible for these functions so easily to be delegated to people who are not elected. Amendment 105 would at least require the mayor to delegate them to somebody who was part of the structure of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime rather than to someone completely different. What would be the point of having a Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime if the mayor could say, “Well, one of these functions I am not having done by somebody who works for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime; I’ll have it delegated somewhere else”? I suspect that this was an unintended consequence of something else when the drafting was done, but it seems to be a very strange arrangement.
Amendment 180 would involve Members of the Assembly in the appointment of police officers of ACPO rank other than simply the commissioner and deputy commissioner. I spoke earlier today about the importance of that responsibility being shared. It is an important issue of governance. It is also important that senior officers of the Metropolitan Police not only see the line of accountability to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis but recognise the importance of democratic accountability. The involvement of Members in the appointments process would help facilitate that.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, there is a great number of amendments in this grouping. I shall try to do justice to as many of them as I can.
Amendments 61, 62, 107 and 116 would prevent the mayor appointing as deputy mayor for crime and policing anyone who was not already a Member of the London Assembly. I understand the concerns that lie behind the amendments. It is argued that if PCCs elsewhere are directly elected to their position, the deputy mayor should have some democratic legitimacy. We touched on this in previous amendments. However, it is important to remember that the deputy mayor does not occupy the Mayor's Office for Crime and Policing; the mayor alone may hold that office. The mayor may appoint a person to whom to delegate the day-to-day responsibilities of the office, but I emphasise—particularly to my noble friend Lady Hamwee because she raised this matter—that the liability and accountability to the public rest squarely on the shoulders of the mayor, whatever the nature of the delegation. For that reason, I suggest that it is not necessary for the deputy mayor to be elected, although there is no reason why they could not be.
To require the deputy mayor to be an Assembly Member would also limit the mayor's discretion to 25 people, many of whom already have important responsibilities. Until the Greater London Authority Act 2007, Assembly Members were not able to serve on the Transport for London board. While they are now able to do so, there is no requirement for any of the members or the chair to be an Assembly Member. In fact, none of the current members of the Transport for London board is also an Assembly Member; the accountability comes through the mayor. I therefore ask that this cluster of amendments not be pressed.
Delegation is very important in any organisation. No one person, be that the mayor or the deputy mayor, can carry out all the functions of an organisation from making strategic decisions to replying to letters. The Bill sets out that the mayor may delegate to the deputy mayor, who in turn may also delegate functions.
Amendment 109 would seriously restrict the mayor's ability to delegate to the deputy mayor, meaning that the mayor would have to carry out all the day-to-day functions of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. With a role as large and strategic as the mayor’s, it must be right that day-to-day functions are able to be delegated. As such, I ask that that amendment not be pressed.
Amendment 105 would restrict the mayor's ability to delegate functions so only the deputy mayor or an employee of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime may have functions delegated to them. I would be very concerned that this would prevent the useful shared services that already exist in the GLA, as it would require that all of the mayor's functions in respect of policing and crime are performed by the staff of that office. In order to ensure that the mayor can make sensible decisions about the most efficient and effective way of working, I ask that this amendment not be pressed.
Amendments 106 and 109 make it clear that the mayor retains overall legal responsibility for any function he or she should choose to delegate. This is a fundamental principle of the law on delegation. The mayor could not choose to delegate overall responsibility of his or her functions even if he or she should wish to. As such, these amendments would have no practical effect and I ask that they not be pressed.
Amendment 114 would forbid any person but the mayor from exercising any rights of his or her office or using any property. That would effectively be a bar on the mayor from delegating any functions, as nearly all functions would require that person to exercise some rights of the mayor.
Amendments 110 and 111 would prevent the deputy mayor from delegating any functions that he or she has been delegated by the mayor. This would mean only the mayor or the deputy mayor could carry out any function of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. Were this the case then the mayor's office could have no effective staff, as every function from appointing a junior member of staff, to replying to a letter on behalf of the mayor's office would need to be carried out by either the mayor or the deputy mayor. Similarly, Amendments 103 and 112 would prevent the mayor and deputy mayor from delegating functions to any person but a London Assembly Member. I do not think it is right that only the mayor, deputy mayor or a London Assembly Member are able to perform the basic administrative functions of that office. Any organisation needs to allow for effective delegation to be efficient, but the amendments would prevent that and so make the office bureaucratic, if not actually impossible. For that reason, I would ask noble Lords not to press those amendments.
Finally, Amendments 97 to 101 make similar changes to restrict the ability of a police and crime commissioner in delegating functions. Your Lordships may care to consider what effect if any the amendments will have following the vote on the first day of this Committee. Had that vote not taken place, I would be arguing that PCCs also need to delegate, and it would be as inappropriate to expect police and crime panel members to handle a PCC's correspondence or to interview the staff.
I would have made similar arguments in respect of a PCC as I have in respect of the mayor; that it is right that conflict of interest considerations prevent them from delegating functions to a police officer, and the law is already clear that they cannot delegate overall responsibility for any function. I do not think that Clause 18 has any practical effect any longer, and as such, neither do the amendments sought.
To pick up on some of the other points raised, my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the question of term limits on MOPC. As drafted, the amendment would mean that the current mayor would not be able to take on MOPC if successful in the 2012 election, as only the mayor can hold MOPC. That would leave the office vacant. This is probably not the place to open up the debate on how that problem might be resolved, but no one other than the mayor would be able to fill the role of MOPC and how that would be decided and how that situation would be dealt with is not clear in the proposals that have been brought forward.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Greater London Authority Act provides for circumstances in which the office of mayor is vacant. It provides for arrangements in which the statutory deputy mayor under the Greater London Authority Act—not to be confused with the deputy mayor for policing and crime—assumes the functions of mayor. Surely those arrangements are covered under the Greater London Authority Act.
Baroness Browning
I am not up to speed with the Greater London Authority Act, but I would have hoped that in bringing forward amendments that created the circumstance, there would have been provisions to decide how to deal with the situation that I described and could well happen in respect of the sitting mayor and the elections due next year. So if the noble Lord does not mind I will not engage in the detail of that. Those proposals are simply not in front of the House today and I am going to move on to the role of the London Assembly.
These amendments would establish the London Assembly as the police and crime panel for London. I appreciate the position that noble Lords have taken with this. Like them, I am keen to ensure that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in London is properly challenged and that its decisions are tested on behalf of the public on a regular basis. However, I see that the police and crime panel must comprise members of the London Assembly so as to ensure proper accountability.
The first question to address here is why there should be a bespoke committee of the London Assembly called the police and crime panel rather than, as proposed by noble Lords, the functions being conferred on the London Assembly as a whole. The reason is one of practicality. Having a dedicated committee, representative of the wider London Assembly, will ensure that sufficient attention and scrutiny can be paid to delivering its policing responsibilities and would also allow for independent members to be brought on to the panel to ensure diversity and the right mix of skills. Independents would be appointed subject to the existing rules of the Assembly.
This smaller group will be able to focus its attentions on the important business of scrutinising, in detail, the actions and decisions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—particularly in respect of the police and crime plan. The requirement for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to produce a police and crime plan is a statutory requirement. It is right and proper that the London authority, through its police and crime panel, should have the appropriate opportunity to review and report on the draft police and crime plan. This is a very important element of its scrutiny role. However, given the statutory nature of the police and crime plan, and the accompanying requirements made of it by this legislation, it would not be appropriate for the police and crime panel to have the power to veto the plan itself.
Finally, these amendments would introduce a role for the London Assembly in the appointment of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, and their senior team. I will address these in turn. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police remain royal appointments, subject to the advice of the Secretary of State, due to the number of important national and international functions that they undertake. In making this recommendation, the Secretary of State must have regard to any recommendations made by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
It has been proposed that the London Assembly should also be a part of these considerations. Requiring the London Assembly to do so, be that directly through the police and crime panel, would add an additional layer of bureaucracy to the process, which would delay the decision further. The proposed amendments would also establish a role for the London Assembly in the appointment of the assistant commissioners, deputy assistant commissioners and commanders of the Metropolitan Police. Such appointments under this legislation will now be made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. They will no longer require the approval of the Secretary of State, which reflects the Government’s commitment to reduce interference from the centre and reduce bureaucracy.
The Government feel that the commissioner is best placed to make decisions about the make-up of his top team. The role of the police and crime panel for London is to scrutinise the decisions taken by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in London. It is not its role to scrutinise the decisions of the commissioner and neither it, nor the GLA more widely, as these amendments propose, should therefore have a role in the appointment of the commissioner’s senior team.
Furthermore, allowing the assembly to call in the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to give evidence will mean the commissioner having to answer to two masters. The commissioner is held to account by the mayor and the mayor by the assembly. These clear lines of accountability are needed.
I have not been able to go into a lot of detail—we had a long list of amendments before us—but I hope that your Lordships who have tabled amendments will feel able not to press them.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, there is a long list of amendments because there are a lot of issues. I would have been considerably happier if we had been able to unpack this package somewhat. From listening to the Minister’s reply—she has been saddled with this, I accept—it seems to me that some of the provisions are straining to apply to London the model provided for the rest of England and Wales. That feels very awkward and very inappropriate. I cannot see that we will finish the debate about London tonight, so I think that we will have to come back to aspects of it.
On delegation, at one point I referred to that as “trickle-down”, but I think that the Minister’s reply vindicates that description. I have realised, a bit late in the day, that “Delegatus non potest delegare”, as we all say—
Baroness Hamwee
That is an important principle. I am really troubled that so much of this debate is described as being about delegation, whereas actually it is about getting other people to do a job in a way that, in other businesses, would be quite natural. That is not the same as delegation.
On the term limit, had the Public Bill Office allowed my amendment, it would have addressed all the points that the Minister made. However, the Minister did not address the problem—or, perhaps it would be fairer to say, the question that I asked—which is, “Why is London different in this respect?”.
Let me mention two final issues. The first is about the arrangements that the London Assembly makes and the Government’s insistence on requiring a bespoke committee. The Minister said that this is a matter of practicality. Well, there are practical considerations, but if central government is going to keep out of these things, central government should let the London Assembly work out for itself what the best practical arrangements would be. Frankly, I think that it is a bit paternalistic for central government to say, “You 25 people won’t be able to cope, so let us tell you how best to do it”. It seems to me that certain matters could and would be best handled by a committee, whereas some issues—the budget is obviously one of them—would be matters for the whole Assembly. The Government’s proposal seems an unnecessary intervention.
Finally, on the issue of appointments, although bureaucracy has been blamed, sometimes bureaucracy is a good thing. Actually, the point made is the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, about the lines of connection—I had better avoid words like “accountability”—which I think is the right approach. I do not think that one should be saying that, in the name of avoiding bureaucracy, we will make the process, frankly, rather dodgy.
I am sorry that it must have been quite difficult for those Members of the House who are not directly involved in these matters to have tried to follow the debate, but certain themes have come out. I think that I look forward to—I anticipate with some sort of emotion—discussing these issues further with the Minister, because there are a number of points on which we have now teased out some of the Government’s thinking, which I have found helpful to hear, that we will need to address further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.
Lord Soley
“( ) A police and crime commissioner must issue a crime prevention plan within the financial year in which each ordinary election is held.”
Lord Soley
This is an important group of amendments dealing mainly with crime prevention, which is an important matter. It deals also with the way to vary the crime plan and the various people who could be involved in that. To synopsise, it could be people like those in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Home Secretary and others, to change or vary the plan or their powers to submit information on it.
This is an important group of amendments, and it is a pity that we are taking it at this time of night. The Minister might be worried to know that I can wax lyrical for many a long hour on the importance and complexity of crime prevention, and if I chose to do so we could all end up by having breakfast on the Terrace, which would be a wonderful way to start Wednesday. So maybe I will do that.
This is the crime prevention part of this Bill, and to me it is very important. In an act of great modesty, I say that Amendment 68ZA in my name is the most important. Some of the other amendments are probing, but they are all important because they deal with how the plan is structured, and so on.
I have a couple of key questions, which I shall put in context for the Minister. First, are we to assume that the crime plan really does mean crime prevention? I would prefer if we actually gave a duty in Clause 5 to draw up a crime prevention plan. A crime plan could mean almost anything.
The second issue that this covers is that if the assumption is that the crime plan includes crime prevention, it raises the funding of crime prevention. A number of references to funding are in this Bill. In Clause 9, a body can fund measures to combat crime and disorder. But if it is to be assumed that crime prevention is included in the plan—this is the other question to the Minister—are we really going to assume that all the other agencies that deal with crime prevention are also going to lose those functions into this? If they are, that is going to have profound financial consequences. If, for example, the Home Office gave up many of its crime prevention projects and plans, are they to go over to these localised—although they are not really that localised—police areas? Are the various organisations that operate under either funding from, or the direct organisation by, other government departments to be transferred, too? This is why I say that if the Government put in the Bill that there is to be a crime prevention plan, they can at least define what is in the plan, which powers are to be transferred and what funding is available to it.
I want to put this in the context of the battle to reduce crime, if I can. I suppose that is always an ongoing battle, but over the past 10 years or so we have been remarkably successful in reducing crime. One factor is policing; the police are obviously important as a deterrent and in detecting crime. If you can increase the conviction rate, crime tends to reduce because one of the greatest deterrents is the certainty of being caught. However, the police alone cannot deliver and that has long been the history of this crime prevention strategy. Crime prevention is more than better locks on windows and doors. It is everything from parenting through to some of the special projects that go on.
I notice that in some parts of the Bill—I paraphrase slightly because of the lateness of the hour—the Government refer to certain things that the panel can do. For example, it can fund measures to reduce disorder. That is fine but if you are to do that, how do you define what it takes on and fund that? There is an assumption in the Bill that the crime plan, as it is referred to, really means crime prevention, but without mentioning it. Yet it does not then deal with the funding issue. If the Government go down this road and are not clear about crime prevention, crime will go up again. It already is; burglary, the one that worries people an awful lot, is going up. Street crime will begin to go up again for other unrelated reasons, which I will not go into at this late hour, but the old crime of mugging—as it was called, although it is strictly robbery—will go up because as unemployment and other issues go up, it rises, too.
One way we have been successful in reducing crime is by having all forms of intervention earlier. That of course involves some social aspects, such as children's centres and things of that nature. Yet the Government have produced a Bill which, leaving aside my other concerns about it, does not properly address crime prevention. We really will have a situation where crime goes up again unless we are clear about whose duty it is. There are two ways of doing this. One is to keep things much as they are now and be clear about what we devolve to these police commissioners. The other way is to say, “Right—we will shift as much as possible down”. From what the Government say, they want to devolve but if they want to devolve much crime prevention, they really have to come clean on the funding. That is not being identified here through a proper crime plan.
If in an area you get, for example, a number of hostels which are for people who are recovering from a mental illness, or who have been discharged from prison, or who have been through the court system, you will have a different type of problem there than in other areas. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and one or two other Members pointed out that one danger of this structure is that because you have quite large police areas, the loudest voices will be heard most. Those will be from the leafy suburbs—the richer areas—while the voices of those in the poorer areas, where the crime rate tends to be much higher, will not be heard, although those areas are in most need of a crime plan, or crime prevention plan as I prefer to call it.
I want to be clear about this. If we are to have these large police areas and an elected commissioner for each area, that person will have to relate to the high crime hotspots which will not necessarily have the loudest voices in the election. That point has been made several times in a number of debates on this over time. That is why my Amendment 68ZA would include in the Bill a duty to issue a crime prevention plan. That would then relate over the whole area, people would not have to speak up about it and it could be checked. There could be a situation, for example, where the individual MPs or councillors throughout the area say, “What is the plan for reducing crime on this estate or in that street?”. At the moment there seems to be no thinking about that at all. It is just a police and crime issue without any definition of whether crime means a crime plan. I cannot overstate the importance of this. This is where the Bill is not well thought through. We have to be clear about crime prevention.
Think of the blood, sweat, tears and toil that were spent by the police, various government agencies, the previous Government, and politicians at all levels and of all parties to get crime prevention right up front. It really was a struggle and we are in danger of losing it. That is why I want the requirement to produce a crime prevention plan included in the Bill. I would then want to see individual MPs, councillors and others saying, “What’s the crime prevention plan for this area?”. At the moment that is not there. All we are doing is saying that someone can vary the plan, that there are restrictions on who can vary it, or that HMIC or the Home Secretary can have an input. We have to be clear about this. At the moment we still have a pretty good crime prevention policy in this country. It has been working well but I am not at all sure that that will continue under this structure. I strongly urge the Minister to see if she can work out the dividing line between these bodies and the existing groups that organise crime prevention programmes. If she does that and does it well, I might be able to let her have breakfast at home. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I was hoping to intervene before the noble Lord sat down, but I will now put my question after the amendment has been moved. Although I am a bear of very little brain, there is the faintest possible ambiguity in the noble Lord’s amendment. I think I know what he will say but, to put it beyond peradventure, does his amendment mean that the crime prevention plan should be moved before or after the ordinary election to which it refers?
Lord Soley
I am not too worried about that but my view would be that it ought to be before the election.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend. This series of amendments concerns police and crime plans. These are clearly very important because they set the strategic direction for how the police force is to be run. Clause 7(1) sets out the requirements for matters to be put in the plan, including,
“the elected local policing body’s police and crime objectives”.
As my noble friend Lord Soley has said, there is no mention in Clause 7(1) of anything to do with crime prevention. The points that he raised are very pertinent and we look forward to a positive response to them. My noble friend is also right to point out that there has been a very encouraging reduction in crime over the past decade or so. However, those trends are being reversed. A report to the West Midlands Police Authority last week showed the first rise in crime for many years, which is an extremely worrying trend. I agree that crime prevention needs to be an important part of the focus of any police and crime plan.
I have a series of amendments in this group, which are partly probing. I specifically ask the Minister about the rationale for Clause 5(4), the provision that says:
“A police and crime commissioner may vary a police and crime plan”.
Of course, I understand the need to have flexibility. However, my concern is that the ability of the police and crime commissioner to vary the plan at will may be used to exert undue pressure on the operational decisions of the chief constable.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have amendments in this group. I will deal first with Amendments 76ZA and 76C as they are similar to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, spoke at the end of his speech. What is to be measured? Clause 7(1)(b) refers to,
“the policing of the police area which the chief officer of police is to provide”.
However, we should be looking rather at whether the police and crime objectives are being attained. Surely that is what should be assessed. I am uncertain as to what “policing” means in this context. It could be interpreted in a number of ways. For instance, policing is dependent on the budget, so how do you measure performance in the provision of policing? My amendments seek to direct attention to outcomes rather than outputs.
My Amendment 69 seeks to require a variation of the police and crime plan to require the approval of the police and crime panel. Clause 5(6)(d) requires regard to be had to views and to a public response. I would like to see something stronger. The panel has expertise and experience with which to tackle the job of holding the PCC to account. The plan must be one of the most important pieces in the jigsaw. The term “have regard to” can sometimes be influential, but the noble Lord, Lord Harris, while not using this terminology, said earlier that it is obviously best if you do not pull the trigger, but you need ammunition and a gun—perhaps held behind your back, but known to be there—on certain occasions.
My Amendment 123 would amend Clause 28 by giving the panel the right to approve or reject the plan, and the panel would be deemed to have approved the plan unless it is rejected by a majority of two-thirds. That goes against my instincts in terms of proportion, but the right of approval is important.
Amendments 75 and 76 are London issues again. They would extend Section 32, whereby consultation on the plan includes the voluntary organisations to which I referred today and last week.
Finally, on the provisions for the Secretary of State’s guidance on the content of the plan, Amendments 78, 79, 78A and 80ZA provide that the Secretary of State should consult representatives of police and crime panels and local authorities, and have regard to their views. Guidance to those who have a duty to comply with the plans should state that representatives of local authorities should be consulted. I hope that at this hour I do not need to spell out why the input of local authorities is important in this context.
That takes us back fairly neatly to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, when he introduced this group of amendments.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to the amendments in my name in this group—Amendments 73, 152, 159, and 160 to 163. Their purpose is to make the provisions of the Bill consistent with those proposed in the Localism Bill. That Bill will change the relationship between the London Assembly and the Mayor of London, as set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, because it will give the London Assembly a new power to reject by a two-thirds majority the Mayor’s statutory strategies.
However, this Bill makes no equivalent provision. As it stands, it would not allow the Assembly to reject the Mayor’s draft policing and crime plan. Consequently, once both Bills have become law, the London Assembly would have the power to reject every one of the Mayor’s strategies, with the sole exception of the police and crime plan. This discrepancy makes no sense. There are no substantive differences between the police and crime plan and other mayoral strategies that would justify it being excluded. These amendments, which are supported by the Mayor of London and all political parties on the London Assembly, would remedy this discrepancy.
The amendments also propose that the power to reject a draft police and crime plan would be exercisable by the whole Assembly. I am very aware that the Bill’s provisions suggest that none of the functions of the police and crime panel should be carried out by the full Assembly. However the whole point of vesting this specific power in the full Assembly, as opposed to in a committee of the Assembly, is to provide consistency with the provisions of the Localism Bill in relation to mayoral strategies.
These amendments would ensure that accountability arrangements within the Greater London Authority are coherent and internally consistent.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred. It is extraordinarily anomalous that two Bills that we will be considering at the same time in your Lordships’ House have such very different provisions for the role of the London Assembly and the strategies of the mayor. It seems sensible that they are made consistent. The proposal that the London Assembly has the power to reject—or, when it comes to the Localism Bill, perhaps even amend—the plan is extremely important and it would be sensible if the power was consistent across the two pieces of legislation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We have another complex and technical set of amendments here. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, although I was not quite sure when he came to his conclusion whether he was referring to organising crime prevention or organised crime prevention.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We are all clear, and it is clearly the intent of the Bill, that the police and crime plan will be one of the core documents which will govern the relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable and will provide the basis for scrutiny by the police and crime panel. It is a core document. However, we insist that it should not be governed by an absolutely fixed calendar that, on 1 April every year, there must be a new annual crime plan, which is what is suggested in the amendment.
The intention behind the Bill is that, on being elected to office, a new police and crime commissioner should prepare and publish, in consultation with a range of others—including the chief constable and the police and crime panel, of course, but not exclusively them—a police and crime plan which may last for the full term of office but which may be varied. That is to allow a degree of flexibility. It is not intended that he should vary it every week; indeed, it states clearly in Clause 5 that, in variation, a number of people have to be consulted, including the chief constable. If you wish to vary the plan, you naturally again consult the appropriate people, including those whom you expect to carry it out.
Lord Soley
Can the Minister clarify one question I asked him? Does the crime plan mean crime prevention plan or is it something else? If so, what does it mean?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is clear throughout the Bill that the reduction of crime, which involves the prevention of crime, is core to everything. Clause 7(1)(a) states that the plan must include the PCC's police and crime objectives. Later, Clause 7 defines police and crime objectives as including objectives for crime and disorder reduction. In Clause 102, crime and disorder reduction is defined as,
“reduction of crime and disorder (including antisocial and other behaviour and adversely affecting the local environment) … combating the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances, and … reduction of reoffending”.
I recognise that part of what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, wants to get at is the range of other agencies involved in crime prevention beyond the police. We all recognise that crime prevention in the broadest sense, as well as the reduction of reoffending, is not a matter for the police alone and involves much of the work of community safety partnerships working with a range of other agencies, some public and others in the voluntary sector. That is a problem we have in all aspects of government: however you draw the line for the number of the tasks that you wish to perform, you must always co-operate with others.
We had not anticipated that the question of funding would come into the debate on the amendment but, as the noble Lord is well aware, crime prevention is funded partly through the police, partly through local authorities and partly through the Ministry of Justice and Home Office budgets through a range of channels, in which community and safety partnerships play a large role. In recent months, I visited a number in Yorkshire. They are examples of different agencies, including the police, working together to reduce inner-city crime, burglary, drugs-related crime and alcohol-related crime and so on. That is very much part of what has been practised over the past 15 or 20 years, and much of what happened under the previous Government contributed to that. As we all know, alcohol and drug-related crime is a very serious problem, and we will touch on some aspects of that during later stages of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Soley, replies, I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to respond to my question about the assessment of policing. I do not want to go through the arguments again but they relate to my Amendments 76ZA and 76C. If he is not able to respond, perhaps he would write to me about it. My question covers very similar ground to that covered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, so, with safety in numbers, I think I can claim that this is a genuine concern.
Lord Soley
That was a disappointing reply. I really do think that the Government need to go away and put crime prevention in the Bill. We all want to reduce crime but simply saying that we want to do so is apple pie and motherhood. This is an important matter because, if you simply have a crime plan under an elected system, the loudest voices will decide what is done. The crime prevention plan needs to be drawn up on the basis of the crime statistics throughout the police area. If that does not happen, the loudest voices in any electoral system will make the decision and they will not address the type of crime that is most prevalent in the poorest areas.
We will, to some extent, come to the other matter that is not addressed when we reach Clause 9. We can see what is going to happen—indeed, the notes on the Bill give it away in a sense. They say, as does the Bill, that the money can be paid into a scheme to reduce crime. We know what will happen. The Home Office will currently be funding one plan, or this or that organisation will be funding it, and will then say, “It is over to the police and crime plan now”. Where will the money come from? You have to have a crime prevention plan that actually addresses those issues and allows MPs to look at it as well and say, “If the Home Office is going to stop funding this, will the crime plan fund it instead?”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way and am sorry that it is so late but is not the point that the Government are doing that to get them out of responsibility for crime issues? It is clear that crime will go up over the next few years and that the Government will wash their hands and say that it is the responsibility of elected police commissioners. That is what it is about.
Lord Soley
My noble friend anticipates me because I was going to finish on this. It is a relevant point. Leaving aside some of the wider issues of accountability, election and so on, my fear is that we will lose what has been gained over many years by many groups, including local authorities under different party control. We will lose that if we do not have a clear requirement for a crime prevention plan. This is when amendments from Back-Benchers are not as good as government amendments. We must address the issue of crime statistics in the area, not simply rely on the electorate to tell the chief officer what they want done. Does the Minister not see the problem that the loudest voices will determine the priority, instead of the statistics of the crime perhaps determining the policies towards reducing those crime patterns? Do I make sense?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I can half see the problem but I am not fully persuaded that crime is quite so pocketed in one area. I am conscious that in West Yorkshire every weekend, very well off young people pour into the middle of Leeds, Wakefield and elsewhere and there is quite a lot of alcohol-related crime, which is focused in one area. It is not where they live, so things spill out from one area to another. The reduction of crime in some of the rougher areas of the region has benefited areas elsewhere. People do not always carry out burglaries in the places in which they live. They move to other areas as well. The noble Lord may be exaggerating the problem that the level of co-operation that we have among different agencies and between local authorities and the police is likely to be severely damaged by this development. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, adds, as a sort of conspiracy theory, that the Government are trying to shovel off responsibility. I suggest that neither of those things is correct.
Lord Soley
I ask the Minister to sit down and talk with his own noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, who does understand this. I agree that patterns of crime are widely varied and that is why you should work on the basis of statistics. If your main aim is to please an electorate you deal with the loudest voices. That is the reality of elections. It is not just in inner-city areas. You get a pattern where people are worried and set up Neighbourhood Watch—a good thing which nobody is against—and do all these other things, such as coming to meetings with the police to ask them about a particular burglary, or whatever. In the poorer crime hotspots, where burglaries are more common, there is little addressed on that unless you have a very good local authority which then does a range of things, such as putting in caretakers, and all the other things that go with that. What we are doing here is saying that there is a crime plan and that we will fund some of the things, as indicated in Clause 9, but giving no indication of what will happen when other organisations, most notably the Home Office—or a local authority, for that matter—withdraw the funding and say that it is over to the crime plan to replace that.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I would almost predict that crime goes up again and continues to go up if we do not give a clear direction to those organisations to take on crime prevention in a very clear way, based on statistics of crime. An MP in an area can then look at the different aspects, not just in relation to the election of the police commissioner but focusing on those statistics and reducing them in each area. If you do not do that, it will be the electorate who are most interested in the issue, in middle-class areas where crime is lower. In working-class areas with high rates of crime they may rattle the bars of councillors but they will not necessarily get the same crime prevention plan. That is what has happened in the past—we do not need to look in a crystal ball—and that is what we must avoid. I ask the Minister to look at this again. If he wants crime prevention to be done by another body, or to keep it as it is, we need to be clear about that. The alternative is to give it to these bodies but recognise the financial implications.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as it happens, next week I will be taken round one of the poorer areas of Leeds by the head of the neighbourhood police. The police there are extremely proud of what they have achieved through the neighbourhood police forum and through neighbourhood policing. It is absolutely what we need to continue. I will reflect on what the noble Lord has said, both before and after my visit. We are all aware that neighbourhood policing, and working with local communities—poor as well as better off—are very much part of the future of policing and what we all want to do. I do not see the problem at which the noble Lord is gnawing, so to speak.
Lord Soley
I will wait to see what happens. I simply say to the Minister that crime prevention policy should be based primarily on the statistics of crime and should not depend on who votes for whom and when. I urge the Minister to be aware of the danger in the Bill of not having a clear policy on crime prevention. It is extraordinary that the Bill does not mention crime prevention as a core issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.