House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
1. By what means he plans to assess levels of fraudulent use of aid in fragile and conflict-affected states.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government are committed to spending 30% of UK aid on conflict-affected and fragile states where the millennium development goals are most off track. We have a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and other abuse and all our programmes include safeguards to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent properly.
John Cryer
A very high proportion of that taxpayers’ money flows through the EU. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that that EU money is being properly used and accounted for?
Mr Mitchell
About a third of that money goes to the European development fund, which scored highly in the multilateral aid review, and that suits Britain’s interests because around 40% of it goes to Commonwealth countries and we contribute only 17%. The money spent through the budget is £800 million, over which we have much less control, and we are seeking to ensure that it is better deployed.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Secretary of State will of course acknowledge that the Government have committed additional funding to post-conflict states because that is where the greatest poverty and the greatest risk of falling back into conflict lies. Nevertheless, does he accept that, although we must do everything we can to stamp out corruption, it is precisely in those difficult climates that risks must be taken if achievements in poverty reduction and conflict prevention are to be secured?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are greater risks when operating in conflict states, but in such states the very poorest in the world lose out twice over, once because they are poor and again because they are living in frightening and conflicted circumstances.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to a zero-tolerance attitude to fraud. Will he encourage the World Bank to continue to have its regular survey of 32,000 small businesses across different developing countries, which shows that although fraud is a problem, it by no means absorbs all the aid entering those countries, as bar-room gossip would have it, and that it is more prevalent in south Asia than in Africa?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend’s analysis is absolutely right. He will have seen the world development report, produced by the World Bank, on working in conflict states, which focuses on security and development. It is a very good report, produced at Britain’s request, which focuses specifically on the points he has made.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to improve the transparency of bilateral and multilateral aid.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
We have introduced the UK aid transparency guarantee, under which we have published greater and more detailed information on the Department for International Development’s aid expenditure than ever before, and we have actively encouraged our multilateral and other partners to follow our lead. I welcome the launch today of the Make Aid Transparent website, which is supported by a coalition of more than 50 civil society groups from more than 20 countries.
Jake Berry
I thank the Minister for his answer. Just as the Prime Minister has called on others in the G8 to live up to their promises on their aid budgets, will the Minister assure me that the Government are calling on others to increase the transparency of their spending and will he update the House on the international aid transparency initiative?
Mr Duncan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Prime Minister secured agreement in Deauville that the G8 should begin to lead rather than follow on aid transparency. DFID also leads the international aid transparency initiative, an alliance of 19 major donors. Under our leadership, a new aid transparency standard was agreed in February and is already being implemented by DFID, the World Bank and the Hewlett Foundation, with many more set to follow later this year.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
In view of the lobbying of the House tomorrow by international development enthusiasts, will the Minister encourage as many people as possible to turn up, including hon. Members, to make our contribution to international development awareness?
Mr Duncan
I fully share the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for international development awareness, and when it comes to transparency there is already much praise for what the UK is doing. For instance, Publish What You Fund recently said:
“As well as focusing on its own breadth and quality of publication, its”—
DFID’s—
“commitment to influencing others sets important precedents for aid transparency on a global level.”
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the better we can demonstrate the effectiveness of UK aid, and that it is not all siphoned off into Swiss bank accounts, the sooner we will get the people of this country behind our excellent and worthy notion of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid?
Mr Duncan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is exactly why we have set up the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which can evaluate the impact and value for money of UK aid. Transparency sheds light on all that is done and reduces the sort of corruption that my hon. Friend describes.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the welcome continued emphasis on transparency in Government aid must also apply to businesses? Given the OECD estimate that poor countries lose $120 billion each year to tax havens, three times more than the aid that they receive, what is he doing to require companies to publish what they pay to Governments in developing countries?
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
3. When he plans to bring forward legislation enacting the commitment to spend at least 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The coalition Government have set out how we will meet our commitment to spend 0.7% of national income as overseas aid from 2013. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will enshrine that commitment in law as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
Catherine McKinnell
Tomorrow I will meet several of my constituents as part of the “Tea Time for Change” event to discuss their and my support for the 0.7% commitment. Has the Secretary of State had any recent discussions with the Defence Secretary on that important issue?
Mr Mitchell
I have discussions on those matters with all my colleagues, not least the business managers for the reasons that I set out in my original answer, but the hon. Lady is right to point out the importance of proceeding with the commitment, and that is why we have made it clear that we will.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State recently described Britain as an aid superstate. Can he tell us what an aid superstate is—and do we really want to be one?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend refers to a comment that I made on Monday, when I said that just as America is a military superpower, so Britain is a development superpower. I was referring to the fact that throughout the world brilliant work is being done with Britain in the lead on development, and we do so because it is not only morally right but, as my hon. Friend will understand, absolutely in our national interest.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
4. What steps he plans to take to reduce levels of HIV/AIDS in Lesotho.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
The DFID Lesotho programme has helped to reduce the prevalence of HIV in garment factories from 37% to 27%, and we continue to assist 40,000 factory workers. We also provide support to HIV programmes in Lesotho through our contributions to the EU, the World Bank and the Global Fund.
Mark Tami
The Minister will be aware that almost 25% of the population of Lesotho has HIV, and one project that his Department funds is the Apparel Lesotho Alliance to Fight AIDS, which as he says targets almost 40,000 people. Will that funding carry on? If not, who will fund it?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman is completely correct that one of the most successful programmes in Lesotho has been the ALAFA programme, which has enabled those 40,000 factory workers to obtain vital services to help with HIV/AIDS. We have just announced that we will continue that programme up to the point when we can secure long-term funding through either the EU or other donor agencies.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the prevention of HIV is as essential as the treatment of it?
Mr O'Brien
My hon. Friend is entirely right to bring to the House’s notice, and to emphasise, that prevention is as important as the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Indeed, that will be one of the major thrusts of what I say in New York tomorrow at the UN meeting on AIDS. In addition to prevention and treatment, however, we want to ensure that care and support, which has often been the neglected area of HIV campaigning, is addressed too.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Dolen Cymru has 26 years’ experience of working from Wales into Lesotho, particularly in the field of health care. What consideration have the Government given to using such a non-governmental organisation to administer some of the aid budgets in Lesotho?
Mr O’Brien
I pay tribute to and congratulate Dolen Cymru on its tremendous ongoing work with Lesotho. It has not been a recipient of DFID funds; it has been self-supporting. On 30 June, I will be travelling to Wales on a ministerial visit, so I can discuss the most appropriate way, particularly now that Wales has the newer powers, to take forward the fact that development is a national responsibility while equally ensuring that we involve all parts of the United Kingdom in continuing good development work.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
5. By what means he proposes to determine the level of funding his Department will allocate to UN Women. The Department for International Development recently reviewed the value for money of British taxpayers’ funding to all multilateral agencies through the multilateral aid review. We will apply the same broad criteria to UN Women’s strategic plan by assessing its organisational strengths and the relevance to UK aid objectives. This approach will help to determine the level of core funding for the agency.
Sheila Gilmore
One of the key priority areas for UN Women will be political empowerment of women. What plans does the Secretary of State’s Department have for backing up this work in Governments and legislatures around the world?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is incredibly important to put girls and women at the centre of everything we do in development, which is what empowerment is. We are watching very carefully how the agency is developing. We have given nearly £660,000 as transitional funding to the agency and offered support staff on secondment. I am confident that once the plan is produced we will be able to fund it. I am sure that she will understand, however, that it is right to commit taxpayers’ money only when we can see what it is being spent on.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Evidence is coming from Egypt that the position of women is not advancing as a result of the Arab spring; indeed, there are concerns that it is going backwards. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is using all the influence that comes with the additional money that we are investing in that part of the world to ensure that women get their fair share of that resource?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a feeling that the role of women in the Arab spring in Egypt was very significant, and it is extremely important that their role should now be advanced. We will try to do that in a number of ways, not least through know-how funds and the Arab Partnership money that we are deploying.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
To follow up the point so ably made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), while there is no doubt that the Arab spring offers huge possibilities for democracy and human rights in Egypt, it will not be progress if women’s rights are set back. Will the Secretary of State ensure that out of the generous funding that we are providing, funds will go to the Alliance for Arab Women in Cairo to make a reality of the demands set out in the Egyptian national women’s statement of 4 June?
Mr Mitchell
I am considering the right hon. Lady’s suggestion. We have exchanged correspondence on this, and I will look very carefully at the proposition that she puts. During my visit to Benghazi at the weekend, I had the opportunity to meet representatives of Arab women’s organisations, who made a similar point. I am sure that we will be able to assist.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
6. What his policy is on tackling HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O’Brien)
The Government’s policy on HIV in developing countries is set out in “Towards zero infections: The UK’s position paper on HIV in the developing world”, published on 31 May. I have placed a copy of this in the House today.
Mark Pawsey
I thank the Minister for his answer. Following the recent good news about a decline in the number of infections, does he recognise the contribution that has been made by UK-based non-governmental organisations, with young volunteers, often in their gap years, working overseas with young people in their communities to get across the message of how a change in their behaviour can reduce their exposure to the risk of AIDS?
Mr O’Brien
My hon. Friend makes a very good observation. Tremendous, and often brilliant, work is done by NGOs in ensuring that work on the ground is delivering results. While this can be a tremendous, life-changing opportunity for gap year students and other young people, they also need to ensure that they observe a duty of care in ensuring that those experiences are benign and deliver results.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects women in developing countries. Why, therefore, have the Government dropped from their new strategy the specific commitment to measure the impact of AIDS programmes on women and girls?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Lady is right that in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV/AIDS is primarily a disease that affects women; they are now in the majority compared with men. It is right that in putting women and girls at the heart of all our policies, we measure all the impacts on women, in particular those on the poorest women in the poorest countries. In tomorrow’s meetings at the UN, there will be a keen focus on women, and we hope that something will come of that.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
8. By what means he plans to assess value for money in his Department’s funding for climate change prevention in developing countries.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
We rigorously assess costs against benefits in all our programmes. To measure the value for money of our climate programmes, we will look at metrics including the number of poor people protected from extreme weather events, the number of hectares of forest protected, and the number of people with access to energy.
Luciana Berger
The Minister will be aware of the decision at the last climate change summit to establish a green climate fund, and that the UK has a representative on the transnational committee that is designing the fund. Will he update the House on the progress made to date by the transnational committee and on what concrete outcomes the UK Government hope to see by the next summit in Durban later this year?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The clearest message from the poorest countries at the world climate change talks in Cancun was that they face immediate impacts from climate change. Will the British Government commit to set an example to other countries by putting a high proportion of our climate finance into adaptation, as well as into climate change mitigation?
Mr Duncan
Climate change will hit the poor hardest and first. DFID will support poor people to protect their lives and possessions from the impacts of climate change, for example by raising homes on to plinths to protect poor people from flooding in Bangladesh, supporting drought-resistant crops in Malawi, and preventing coastal erosion in Vietnam. We aim to spend 50% of our climate change finance on adaptation. That will be kept under full review.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that if we are to meet the commitments we made at the Copenhagen climate change conference, the UK will have to allocate by next year a further £1 billion in fast-start finance to help developing countries tackle climate change. Will he confirm that the Government still intend to allocate that funding by next year?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
9. What estimate he has made of the proportion of gross national income to be spent on official development assistance in (a) 2011-12 and (b) 2012-13.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
British official development assistance as a proportion of gross national income will be 0.56% in 2011 and 2012. The Government are fully committed to delivering 0.7% of GNI as ODA from 2013 and will enshrine that commitment in law, in line with the coalition agreement.
Julie Hilling
The Government have frozen aid for two years and propose to spend money through multinational institutions, which have more expensive bureaucracy. Is it not nonsensical for DFID to cut its admin costs only to spend money through institutions with higher costs?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is not correct. The way in which we judge multilateral institutions was set out clearly in the multilateral aid review. The whole point of the two big reviews that the coalition Government commissioned on coming to power was to ensure that we deliver best value for money. It is our aim to ensure that for every pound of hard-earned taxpayers’ money that we spend, we get 100p of development results on the ground.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The brave men and women of our armed forces put their lives at risk every day to protect civilians and rebuild societies in far-off lands. That is real overseas aid. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is surprising that his budget is increasing by £4 billion when the defence budget is being cut by billions and billions of pounds?
Mr Mitchell
Having served in the armed forces, I yield to no one in my respect for them. However, I point out to my hon. Friend, who I know takes a close interest in these matters, that Britain’s security is maintained not only by tanks and guns, but by training police in Afghanistan, getting kids into school in the horn of Africa, and building up governance structures in the middle east.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Last weekend I visited Benghazi with the Foreign Secretary to meet the national transitional council and discuss its plans for the future of Libya. I also announced new British support for the clearance of mines in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas, to help ensure the safety of 200,000 people.
On Monday, Britain will host the replenishment of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, to secure global pledges to vaccinate a quarter of a billion children and prevent the deaths of millions of children in some of the poorest countries in the world over the next five years.
Jake Berry
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On behalf of the whole House, may I express a great welcome to those coming to London for the GAVI pledge drive next week? What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage people who are coming to make generous pledges for the vaccination of children in the developing world?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is quite right that we are bending every sinew to ensure that we have the biggest possible replenishment. Our ambition is to be able to vaccinate 250 million children and save 4 million lives, and replenishment progress is going well. We are not there yet, but I am reasonably confident that we will get there by Monday. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I want to hear Ministers’ answers, and I want now to hear Catherine McKinnell.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T4. I have been contacted by several constituents who believe that the World Bank should be leading the way towards a green economy and a greener future for the world’s poor. Will the Minister outline what discussions he and his colleagues in government have had with the World Bank to ensure that there is investment in clean energy projects in developing countries?
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
The crux of this issue is whether the building of coal-fired power stations should be supported. We believe that such power stations should be a last resort, and that every possible action should be taken to explore the scientific and commercial availability of carbon capture and storage.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
T2. During the Secretary of State’s visit to Benghazi this weekend, what discussions did he have with the national transitional council regarding its plans for the immediate and longer-term future?
Mr Andrew Mitchell
The stabilisation response team is working flat out, together with our international allies in Benghazi, to work out what action should be taken when the conflict is over and early recovery is taking place. That work is going well, and I hope that we will have a plan within the next 10 days. It will of course be owned by the Libyan people under the umbrella of the United Nations, and it will involve all the relevant organisations in helping the Libyans to implement it.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T8. More than 1,000 supporters of international development charities, including some of my constituents, are coming to Westminster tomorrow to show their support for protection of the aid budget and for further action to tackle global poverty. Given that poor countries lose more money to tax-dodging each year than they receive in aid, what action is the Secretary of State taking to address that issue?
Mr Mitchell
I am very glad that the hon. Lady’s constituents are coming tomorrow, and Members of all parties will want to support that important lobby. The issue that she raises, which was discussed in earlier questions, is very important, and I expect that we will make progress on it in the coming years, not least because of the emphasis that has been put on it in the G8 and the European Council.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
T3. Can the Minister assure us that the UK Government will maintain their global leadership role in the response to HIV and AIDS, in both policy and funding?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
I am pleased to confirm that the commitment of the UK Government, who are the second largest contributor globally to the effort against HIV and AIDS, is set to continue. The matter will be central to the discussions that I have in New York tomorrow at the United Nations meeting.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
As the Minister has just alluded to, the UN General Assembly’s high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS is taking place this week. Can he assure the House that the UK will raise the issue of homosexuals being prevented from accessing information and health care in relation to HIV/AIDS in countries where homophobia is still prevalent?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Lady is quite right that if we are to make prevention equal to treatment, it is vital that we tackle what leads to the problem, whether it is men having sex with men or injecting drug users. Both those matters often lead to some difficult discussions and policy take-up in countries that do not wish either to discuss or to accept them—
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T5. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell the House what progress is being made on encouraging other Arab nations to provide much-needed humanitarian aid in Libya?
Mr Andrew Mitchell
In the last two weeks, the humanitarian position in Libya has eased, particularly on the border, which some 950,000 migrant workers have left. Today, under 6,000 people are stuck on the border, so a humanitarian crisis has been avoided.
In general, we encourage all countries to play their roles in providing humanitarian support and to put their taxpayers’ money into those funds. Progress on that is good.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Given the sensitive time line for change in Sudan, what commitments can the Secretary of State give to people there, and particularly to those in Abyei?
Mr Mitchell
I visited South Sudan and north Sudan recently with troika Ministers from Norway and the US. The position in Abyei is extremely tense at the moment, and we call on all parties to desist from taking aggressive action and to approach the negotiations in a spirit of good will and compromise. That is the way to reach the birth of the new state on 9 July and the full completion of the comprehensive peace agreement.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 June.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the following brave servicemen who have died in Afghanistan since we last met: Colour Serjeant Kevin Fortuna and Rifleman Martin Lamb from 1st Battalion The Rifles; Lieutenant Oliver Augustin, Marine Samuel Alexander and Lance Corporal Martin Gill from 42 Commando, Royal Marines; and Corporal Mike Pike from 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland. All of them were dedicated professionals serving our country. Their deaths are a reminder of the very high price that we are paying to stop Afghanistan being a haven for terrorists. We honour their memory and we will support their families, and we will not forget their service and their sacrifice.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Jackie Doyle-Price
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s tribute to our fallen soldiers? We do indeed owe them a great debt.
We are reminded on a daily basis that not everyone in the world is as fortunate as we are in respect of the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. In particular, I should like to highlight the absolute horror of the images of the 13-year-old boy who was tortured by Syrian Government forces in recent weeks. Will the Prime Minister give me his assurance that he will use every influence he has to ensure that the international community condemns the activities of the Syrian Government and demands that their reign of terror ends?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House in what she says about those dreadful pictures of that poor boy. There are credible reports of 1,000 dead and as many as 10,000 detained. The violence being meted out to peaceful protesters and demonstrators is completely unacceptable. Of course, we must not stand silent in the face of those outrages, and we will not. The EU has already frozen the assets of, and banned travel by, members of the regime, and we have now added President Assad to that list. However, I believe that we need to go further, and today in New York, Britain and France will table a resolution at the Security Council condemning the repression and demanding accountability and humanitarian access. If anyone votes against that resolution or tries to veto it, that should be on their conscience.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Colour Serjeant Kevin Fortuna and Rifleman Martin Lamb from 1st Battalion The Rifles; Lieutenant Oliver Augustin, Marine Samuel Alexander MC and Lance Corporal Martin Gill from 42 Commando, Royal Marines; and Corporal Michael Pike from 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland. They all showed enormous bravery and courage, and our thoughts are with their families and friends. As the Prime Minister said, that number of deaths once again demonstrates the bravery of all our forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.
We read in the newspapers today that the Prime Minister has torn up the Justice Secretary’s policy on sentencing. Has he?
The Prime Minister
What we want is tough sentences for serious offenders. This Government produced a consultation paper—there was wide consultation and widespread support for many of the proposals that it made—and in the coming weeks, we will publish our legislation.
Edward Miliband
But we read in the newspapers today that the Prime Minister has torn up the Justice Secretary’s proposals because he felt that he had to step in—and frankly I can see why. There is widespread public concern about the proposal to cut by 50% sentences for those who plead guilty. The consultation ended in March. The Justice Secretary was advocating the policy two weeks ago. Has the Prime Minister torn it up, yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman should do something more useful than just read the newspapers. One response to the consultation paper came from the shadow Justice Secretary, the man sitting next to him, who said that it is
“a perfectly sensible vision for a sentencing policy, entirely in keeping with the emphasis on punishment and reform that Labour followed in government”.
Why the sudden U-turn?
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister knows, and the whole country knows, that he is in a total mess on his sentencing policy, just like on all of his other crime policies. I now want to ask about another area where he is in a complete mess. Why has he made such a mess of his health plans?
The Prime Minister
I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to move on because on the first subject he was found guilty. On the issue of discounts, it was the last Government who introduced a 33% discount—a third—on sentences. So there is more than a whiff of jumping on a bandwagon.
Bandwagon No. 1 hit the buffers, so let us turn to bandwagon No. 2. Yes, we are having a review of the plans that we announced on health: we want to get them right. I have to say again that there has been widespread support for the review of our health plans, not least from the man sitting four down from the right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Health Secretary—I know I often quote him—who said that
“looking at the evidence of what works, listening hard to those who know the NHS and learning from the views they get…is not rocket science. It’s simply good government”.
What the right hon. Gentleman calls a shambles, his shadow Health Secretary calls good government. The right hon. Gentleman is not really in command of the ship.
Edward Miliband
I asked the Prime Minister why he had made such a mess of his health proposals. The first reason he made such a mess of his health proposals is the promises he made before the election. We all remember the Prime Minister touring round the country promising no more top-down reorganisations. A year before the election, he told the Royal College of Nursing:
“There will be no more of those pointless top-down reorganisations that aim for change and instead bring chaos”.
Why did he say that?
The Prime Minister
What the Royal College of Nursing said yesterday was a welcome for the speech that I made. The reason that we are able to improve the NHS is not only that we are committed to reform, but that we are also committed to more funding. The Labour party is in favour of cutting funding to the NHS. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at what is happening in the NHS, Wales is now only one part of the country that is controlled by Labour and there waiting lists are massively up and health spending is being cut. That is what Labour would do to the NHS.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the Prime Minister why he made promises that he then broke—because he is completely shameless and he will say anything. The second reason he has made a mess of the health service is because he did not think the policy through. Last June, he ordered the NHS to stop enforcing Labour’s 18-week waiting time target. As a result, the number of patients waiting more than 18 weeks has gone up by 69%. Why did he scrap the instruction to enforce the waiting time target?
The Prime Minister
The best that can be said about this performance is that—quite rightly—the right hon. Gentleman was not thinking about politics on his honeymoon. On waiting times, what actually matters is the time people wait and median waiting times are down. That is what has happened in the NHS, and that is something that he misled the House of Commons about a fortnight ago—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the Prime Minister will be a follower of parliamentary protocol, and he will not suggest that the Leader of the Opposition misled the House of Commons. I am sure that he will withdraw that remark.
The Prime Minister
What I meant was that the right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting use of facts on waiting times, which are down in the NHS. What we are seeing today is simply empty opposition and weak leadership. That is what we get from Labour.
Edward Miliband
The whole House will note that the Prime Minister did not withdraw his remark. He is obviously rattled over the health service. It is no wonder he is rattled, because he is making a complete mess of it, and everybody up and down the country knows it. What is the most important reason he is making a mess of the health service? However much he says he loves the NHS, and however many times he says it, the truth is that he has the wrong values. He wanted to put a free market free-for-all at the centre of our health service, and any changes he makes now are not because he wants to make them, but because he has been found out. We know all we need to know about this Prime Minister from what he has done on the NHS: he breaks his promises; he does not think things through; he is reckless; and he has got the wrong values. I will hand it to him though. After one year, he has proved the oldest truth in politics: you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.
The Prime Minister
This side of the House will not take lectures from a party that, when in government, gave £250 million to private sector companies for doing nothing. That is what happened. What we have heard today is just a series of bandwagons, and anyone who is watching this knows that it is this Government who are boldly making reforms in the public sector; who are dealing with the deficit; and who are reforming welfare, and what do we get from the Labour party? Where is the right hon. Gentleman’s plan for the NHS? There is not one. Where is his plan for reforming welfare? Nothing. Where is his plan for higher education? Nothing. All we get is empty opposition and weak leadership, and the country can see it.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Q2. Following the welcome introduction of the pupil premium, some head teachers in Worcester tell me that owing to long-term underfunding from the previous Government’s flawed formula, the money is needed to make ends meet and cannot be spent on the deprived pupils it was meant for. Can the Prime Minister assure schools in both Worcester and Witney that the Government will not just consult on that formula, but reform it and correct a problem that has been too wrong for too long?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point about a serious problem in our country. He is right to welcome the pupil premium, which will put more money in all our schools, particularly those that have many children from free-school-meals backgrounds. However, the current problem with the discrepancy of funding means that at present there can be a difference of £1,800 per pupil between the best-funded school and the worst-funded school. We want to reform the school funding system, and we want to do it in a fairer and more logical way. I am determined that we will make progress on this.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I have come here from meeting the family of my 18-year-old constituent, Nana Darko-Frempong, who was fatally shot outside his block of flats on Monday. I am sure that the whole House will want to send its condolences to his family. I raised a similar case with the Prime Minister this time last year. This senseless loss of life is completely and utterly unacceptable, yet it continues, and rightly or wrongly there is a perception that, on all sides of the House, we are not getting to grips with the root causes of this problem, which is blighting our inner-city streets. What reassurance can he give my constituents and the country that the Government are doing all they can to stop this senseless loss of life.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to bring this case to the House of Commons, and I join him in sending condolences to his constituent’s family on their appalling loss. He is absolutely right that the level of gun crime and knife crime in our country, particularly in inner-city areas, is unacceptable. I do not think there is one single answer. Of course, we have to ensure that the police do everything they can to search for guns and knives and have a zero-tolerance policy, but we also have to look at where these problems are coming from, including the growth of gangs in our cities and the fact that in too many cases people are looking to gang, rather than to family and community. It is incumbent on us all to try and work out how we can strengthen the fabric of our communities, starting with our families.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Q3. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advise me on whom to listen to on the UK’s economic policy? Should it be the experts in the International Monetary Fund or the letters page of The Guardian? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend was being shouted down because the Labour party does not want to hear what the International Monetary Fund said about the British economy. It said:
“Strong fiscal consolidation is underway and remains essential to achieve a more sustainable budgetary position”—
[Interruption.] Members ask me to read the rest, and I will read the rest. The IMF put the question specifically:
“This raises the question whether it is time to adjust macroeconomic policies”—
the question put by the Labour party—and it said this: “The answer is no”. The IMF could not be more clear in backing the policies that we are pursuing to get this country back on track.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Q4. What message does the Prime Minister have for the hundreds of women in my constituency in their mid-50s who feel that they have been unjustly thwarted by the extension of their retirement age, contrary to the coalition agreement?
The Prime Minister
What I would say is that the first decision was taken in 1995, when there was all-party agreement that we should equalise men’s and women’s pension ages, and that was done over a long period of time. The second point is that it is right to lift the pension age for men and women to a higher level more rapidly than the last Government decided. However, the key fact is that 85% of the women affected are going to lose one year or less in terms of their pension. The last point that I would make is this. Because we have linked the pension to earnings, people who retire today will be £15,000 better off than they were under the policies of the last Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Q5. Why do magistrates have to retire at the age of 70, when the Lord Chancellor, who appoints them, is 71 this year?
The Prime Minister
The point that I would make to my hon. Friend—I speak as someone whose mother served as a magistrate for over three decades—is that it is important to get turnover in the magistracy so that new people come in. To be fair to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, he has been in his job for only a year. He is doing a superb job, and I can tell the House that there is plenty more fuel in his tank.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Q6. The Prime Minister has an aspiration of making his Government the greenest ever. Meantime, Proven Energy, a small wind turbine company in my constituency, is making 10% of its staff redundant, not because it does not have a great product, but because planning applications for its product are stuck in town halls and bureaucracy all over the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister meet me and members of the Proven Energy team to discuss how we can find a solution?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to ensure that someone from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—or, indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change—speaks with the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We are reforming the planning system to try to speed up these processes. We want to ensure that local people benefit when turbines are built, so that they have a share in the success of a scheme. Also, the Government are taking action to attract manufacturers of wind turbines to the UK—for instance, by putting £60 million into our ports infrastructure—and I am talking personally to those manufacturers to try to bring them to Britain.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Q7. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s previous answer, I would, as a woman not affected by the current pension proposals, like to ask him personally to review this particular proposal, because of the injustice and discrimination against women. The group of women affected, who were born between 1953 and 1954, will be asked to work up to two extra years over and above what they had planned for, whereas men will be asked to work only an extra year. It is the discrimination that concerns me.
The Prime Minister
I do understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but let me make this point. First, in general, the reason for raising pension ages is twofold: one is that we are seeing a huge increase in life expectancy, but the second point is that we want to ensure that we can fund really good pension provision for the future, and if we do not do this, we will not be able to. Let me repeat the statistic: four fifths of the women affected by the proposals will have their state pension age increase by a year or less. The reason, as she says, that there is this difficulty is that those two things—the equalisation of the pension age and the raising of the pension age—are coming together, but that is enabling us to link the pension with earnings, thus meaning that people will be £15,000 better off than they were under Labour’s plans.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q8. Given 1,200 job losses at Tata in Scunthorpe and further job losses in the private and public sectors in north Lincolnshire, will the Prime Minister meet with the taskforce chair and local MPs, so that he can understand how his Government can help the local economy face these demands positively and respond positively to future challenges?
The Prime Minister
I shall be happy to do that, because I am extremely disappointed—as I know the hon. Gentleman and others are—by the job losses in Scunthorpe. I spoke personally to Ratan Tata about the decision.
Tata Steel is still hugely committed to the United Kingdom. It is still investing hundreds of millions of pounds in our country, which I think is wholly welcome. Obviously, however, what has happened in Scunthorpe is not welcome, and we must do all that we can to bring the taskforce together—I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing that—to ensure that we do everything we can to mitigate the impact on local jobs and local communities.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Q9. I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that there should be no place for corruption in football. Given that the re-election of Sepp Blatter has brought FIFA even further into disrepute, will he take this opportunity to voice his support for those who are calling for the reforms that we need in order finally to show Mr Blatter the red card?
The Prime Minister
I have personally seen football governance at an international level, and I was not that impressed by what I saw.
FIFA’s reputation is now at an all-time low, and obviously the election involving just one candidate was something of a farce. FIFA must become more transparent and more accountable. It must prove that it is capable of doing the job that it is meant to do. Ultimately, however, change must come from within football, and I am sure that the Football Association will want to play a major role in helping to bring that about.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Q10. I love the NHS and I love my local hospital, Ealing hospital. I was delighted to learn that the Prime Minister also thinks highly of Ealing hospital, and that he chose it as the place in which to deliver his speech on the Government’s NHS reforms. Given his personal experience of the high quality of services that Ealing hospital provides, will he assure the House that, faced with budget pressures and merger proposals, it will not close or lose its accident and emergency and other key services?
The Prime Minister
I enjoyed my visit to Ealing hospital, and was impressed by what I saw. There are no plans to close the hospital. Indeed, a new urgent care centre is due to open in July, and the maternity unit has a phased redevelopment programme in process.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, any proposals relating to any hospital must go through a proper process involving public and patient engagement, sound clinical evidence, support by the GP commissioners, and support for patient choice. That is the process that must be followed. As I have said, however, there are no plans to close the hospital.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Q11. The Prime Minister will be aware that one in seven couples in the United Kingdom suffer from infertility problems, but, notwithstanding that fact, three quarters of primary care trusts do not provide the recommended three cycles of IVF treatment. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on all PCTs to follow the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines and provide sufficient treatment for infertile couples?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend is right to raise an issue that affects a huge number of people in our country. We have all encountered constituency cases in which people are frustrated by local guidelines. The deputy chief executive of the NHS is writing to all primary care trusts reminding them of the NICE guidance and its recommendations, and I think that that is very important. Of course some PCTs have worse deficits than others and have a more difficult process to follow, but we want to ensure that everyone has access to this treatment.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Q12. After four years, 15-year-old Alice Pyne, who lives in my constituency, is losing her battle against cancer. She has posted online her “bucket list”, a simple wish list of things that she wants to do before it is too late. She wants to meet Take That, to own a purple iPod and to enter her dog in a labrador show, but at the top of the list is a call for everyone to sign up to be a bone marrow donor. Will the Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition and me to find out why too few people are currently on that life-saving register?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. I am very sorry to hear about the situation facing Alice and what she is going through. Our thoughts go out to her and to her parents. She sounds like a very brave and very admirable person.
We want to get as many people as possible on to the bone marrow register. This year we are investing some £4 million of new money to improve donation processing and services for NHS patients. However, this is partly to do with a cultural and population change that we must help to drive, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and I can discuss that.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware of the terrible explosion at the Chevron refinery in Pembroke last week, as a result of which four people died and one was seriously injured. Will he join me in extending condolences to the families and colleagues of those concerned, and also in commending the safety record of Chevron and its new owner, Valero, in what is a pretty difficult industry?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. This was a tragic incident, and, on behalf of the whole House, may I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituents and expressing our deepest sympathies to the families of those who have been affected? I am sure there will be lessons to learn, but as my hon. Friend said, the company has had a good safety record, and in an industry in which there are inherent risks. I will be happy to discuss the issue with him.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Q13. What does it say about our society when a BBC documentary on child poverty ends with a child saying: “And I don’t want to grow up”?
The Prime Minister
It says that, frankly, we need to do far more to tackle child poverty, not just here in the UK, but around the world. That is one of the reasons why, despite difficult spending decisions, we have maintained the pledge of increasing our aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income by 2013. That is a difficult pledge to make, but I think that, even at times of difficulty, we should not break our promises to the poorest people in the world.
In terms of child poverty here in Britain, the biggest challenge today is not just benefit levels, but mobility: how do we help people get out of poverty and stay out of poverty? That is why this Government are putting so much emphasis on measures such as the pupil premium, which will actually help people build themselves a better future.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q14. I have the honour of representing the only town to have given its name to an international sport: rugby football. Under the union code of the game, the home nations are preparing for the world cup later this year. Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing gratitude to the New Zealand authorities for proceeding despite the recent earthquake, and will he also join me in hoping that at the end of the tournament the Webb Ellis trophy will be making its way back home?
The Prime Minister
I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says, and I will do everything I can to support our rugby team. I very much hope the trophy will be coming home—[Interruption.] Calm down. I very much hope the trophy will be coming home to one of the nations of the United Kingdom. When I met the Prime Minister of New Zealand, he kindly gave me an All Blacks shirt, but his advice was, “Whatever you do, don’t be seen wearing this”, and I think I will take that advice.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister has previously said, the hacking inquiry should go where the evidence takes it. The Metropolitan police are in possession of paperwork detailing the dealings of criminal private investigator Jonathan Rees. It strongly suggests that, on behalf of News International, he was illegally targeting members of the royal family, senior politicians and high-level terrorist informers, yet the head of Operation Weeting has recently written to me to explain that this evidence may be outside the inquiry’s terms of reference. Prime Minister, I believe powerful forces are involved in a cover-up; please tell me what you intend to do to make sure that that does not happen.
The Prime Minister
I know the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this subject, and the point I would make to him is that there is a police inquiry, and a police inquiry does not need terms of reference. The police are free to investigate the evidence and take that wherever it leads them, and then mount a prosecution with the Crown Prosecution Service if the evidence supports that. In the case of phone hacking, which is illegal and wrong, there have been prosecutions and imprisonments, and if that is where the evidence takes them, that is what will happen in the future. There are no terms of reference as far as I am concerned; the police are able to look at any evidence and all evidence they can find.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The Prime Minister will recall visiting Nuneaton town centre on several occasions, and he will be glad to hear that it is surviving well, with a comparatively low level of vacant premises, but our town centres are facing a vital and difficult challenge from the out-of-town stores and the internet. Given those challenges, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this Government will be a keen supporter of our town centres?
The Prime Minister
I can, and my hon. Friend speaks powerfully not just for Nuneaton, but for all town centres and all Members who represent constituencies with vibrant town centres. We want to keep them, rather than see everything go out of town. There are two steps we need to take. One is to make sure local people have a real say in the planning process, so they can decide where future development goes. Secondly, we should continue the steps that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been pioneering in terms of rate relief, to help local shops in our high streets so we do not end up with identikit high streets, but instead have thriving town centres such as Nuneaton, which I so enjoyed visiting with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The chairman of the Georgian Parliament is in London this week, and, indeed, is following our proceedings. Some Members of this House went to Georgia during the recess. When the Prime Minister goes to Moscow later this year, will he remind Russia of the commitment it gave in 2008 to withdraw its troops and stop the occupation in Georgia?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. I well remember myself going to Tbilisi when the Georgians were under so much pressure from the Russians, and standing up with them, recognising that Georgia is a country that wants to be a democracy; it wants to be an economic success story; it wants to join NATO; it wants to be able to look west, as well as east; and it wants to have good relations with its neighbour. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is meeting representatives from the Georgian Parliament. I myself have met Georgia’s President Saakashvili on several occasions, and I will certainly make my views clear on the issue of Georgia, if I visit, and when I visit, Russia later this year.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key challenge facing the national health service is how to convert this Government’s welcome commitment to year-on-year growth of real resources into improving productivity and improving quality of care for patients? Did the key to delivering that not lie in my right hon. Friend’s speech yesterday: in his advocacy of more integrated and less fragmented care? Will he continue to—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—I think we have got the thrust of it.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend’s support for the reforms is hugely welcome, and I know that he follows these issues very closely. It was not just he who welcomed the speech that I set out yesterday: also, I had express support from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the NHS Confederation, Macmillan Cancer Support and Breakthrough Breast Cancer. I think we are seeing a coming together of people who care about the health service, who use the health service, of professional bodies in the health service, who can see that this Government are listening, getting their changes right and will add the money that is required—and that only we are committed to—with the reforms that are necessary to make sure the NHS can go on and thrive in future.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister will be aware of the dastardly murders of senior police officers Breen and Buchanan, and the subsequent public inquiry, established in consultation between this nation’s Government and the Irish Republic’s Government. Will he make sure that nothing is allowed to impede Anglo-Irish relations by making personal representations to the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, such that they cannot restrict the time, the effort and the money put into that inquiry, so that we can get to the truth and find out how those two brave police officers were murdered in so dastardly a way?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look very carefully at the issue the hon. Gentleman raises. There is still, on all sides in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Republic, huge concern about things that happened in the past. Often, people ask for an inquiry, a public inquiry or a process. I think in most cases, what people really want is the truth. I found with the issue of the Saville inquiry that what really mattered, actually, was not the £120 million, the five years and all the rest of it. What people wanted was the unvarnished truth, so then they can come to terms with what happened in the past. I have said that I do not want to see further open-ended inquiries; but I do think there is still more that we can do to uncover and be frank about the truth, and that goes for us on all sides of this debate.
Mr Speaker
I appeal to hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is about to introduce her ten-minute rule Bill, that they would want to be extended to them in such circumstances.
Post Box Provision (Nelson, Lancashire)
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
This petition is from the residents of Nelson, Lancashire, and the surrounding area. It is signed by more than 500 residents.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Nelson, Lancashire, and others,
Declares that there is a need for a post box outside the main Post Office in Nelson.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Royal Mail to take all possible steps to ensure that a post box is provided outside the main Post Office in Nelson.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000924]
Bus Service (Little Harrowden, Northamptonshire)
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Last week, I had the great pleasure to attend a protest meeting in Little Harrowden about the No. 24 bus—or lack thereof. We nearly overflowed into the car park because there were so many people there. A petition has been given to me to present to the House to get Little Harrowden reconnected with Wellingborough. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall read the petition to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of residents of Little Harrowden, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth
That the decision by Stagecoach bus company to eliminate most of the bus services between Little Harrowden and Wellingborough due to cut backs in subsidy from Northamptonshire County Council has led to considerable hardship to the old, disabled, vulnerable and young in isolating the village from Wellingborough and necessitating a difficult and dangerous walk along a busy and partly unlit road.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to liaise with Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to find a resolution that will lead to the Number 24 bus service being re-established between Little Harrowden and Wellingborough.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P000925]
NHS (Cornwall)
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am proud to present a petition of more than 6,000 residents of west Cornwall, which was gathered by my constituents who have been, and remain, justifiably concerned about the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill. They have gathered support for their petition over the past few months, before and since the Government’s “pause and listen” process. They look forward to the formal outcome of that process and hope that the Government will have been encouraged to scrap the Bill and start again. I have also been given a disk copy of a similar petition undertaken by 38 Degrees. That amounts to a total of 300,000 signatures.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of West Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and St Ives, and others,
Declares their opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament as it will take away their single Cornwall National Health Service and replace it with consortia led by GPs. Further, the Bill will allow the increased involvement of profit-led companies in our health service.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons rejects the Health and Social Care Bill.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000926]
Education (Special Educational Needs)
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to increase parental involvement in provision of education for children with special educational needs; and for connected purposes.
I am aware that the business following my ten-minute rule Bill is of great interest to the House, and so, knowing that you are ever the friend of innovation, Mr Speaker, I shall endeavour to make this a five-minute Bill.
The Department for Education’s current guidance is clear about what parents of a child with special educational needs should expect from their local education authority once a statement has been drawn up: to have their choice of school respected, provided it is a suitable use of LEA resources. In practice, this guarantee is often not worth the paper it is written on. I have met the evidence, so to speak: parents of children with dyslexia or a language disorder, struggling in the aftermath of short-sighted LEA decisions which undermine the principle of an education for all.
In these cases, perhaps the LEA has accepted that a child’s needs should be assessed, but refuses to make an assessment or maybe the parents have pinned their hopes on an appeal against the LEA at the first-tier tribunal only to find that the tribunal panel is the LEA. Alternatively, the child might actually have a statement but the school does not have the right provision, and no one is prepared to provide the enforcement. Alternatively, the child might have a statement but no school place, because the LEA has refused the only suitable provision as it is in the independent sector, even though it would be cheaper than the total cost of state provision. In what is perhaps the cruellest of ironies, some parents, for want of a school place, try to home educate their child, not through choice, but through necessity, only to find that they are cut adrift by the LEA without any support or guidance, and their child’s name is also removed from all waiting lists. As far as the LEA is concerned, that is one fewer problem to deal with.
These parents, some of whom have learning disabilities themselves, have no cards to play, no stick to wield and no hope of redress to ensure that their child has access to an education. In Portsmouth, Martin is due to take his GCSE options next year, yet he has never been to a secondary school. His disability is undiagnosed, and the remedial action required is unrecognised. Iris’s dyslexia was discovered by good teachers and demonstrated by an independent assessment, but the private school that would meet her needs was refused, even though it would involve the same cost as placing her in an LEA school without any dedicated special educational needs support. Joanne’s disabilities mean that she is unable to use public transport and so she has been awarded a travel grant to get her to school, but she must make her own way home. James, who is also without a school place, has been required to demonstrate his level of need by failing at school after school, to the extent that failure is now his state of mind. It is little wonder that when he was asked to describe himself by his last teacher, he said he was “unliked” and “alone”.
Change is needed to strengthen the hands of parents and teachers fighting for these children’s rights and entitlements. Five principal areas must be addressed and although the recent SEN Green Paper has made progress on them, improvements could be made. First, in the manner of the NHS constitution, the rights and entitlements of children must be established in law. We must have a document towards which parents can point stubborn local authorities. It is not acceptable for a child to fall through the cracks, and a clear assertion of children’s rights would help to hold authorities to account.
Secondly, there must be means other than a statement by which a child’s needs can be demonstrated and verified. Statementing needs reform, but it can be the only ammunition that parents have. The Green Paper outlined plans for a single assessment process as a replacement for the statement, but to really strengthen parents’ hands other forms of proof should be accepted as evidence of need, even if this simply guarantees that the child undergoes the new assessment. We must remove an LEA’s power to deny that a child has a special educational need despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The third aspect of necessary change is closely associated with the second; the link between the assessor and the financer must be broken. Currently, local authorities sit in judgment on SEN cases with only one eye on the child’s future—the other is glued to its own bottom line—and that is not a tenable situation.
Fourthly, all providers of appropriate schooling, including independent schools, must be listed by the LEA, as is supposed to happen already. The last area to address is funding. I applaud the Green Paper’s commitment to personalised funding, but for this to work properly funding must truly follow the pupil, as with the pupil premium. But unlike the pupil premium, it must include the per-pupil funding derived from the LEA. I urge the Government to consider, as part of their review, how school funding can become genuinely per pupil, whether on a total or top-up basis.
On hearing about my speech today, Iris, whom I mentioned earlier and who is now being funded to attend an independent mainstream school with a specialist dyslexia unit thanks to the generosity of Portsmouth residents and a livery company, suggested that I should tell hon. Members what she told me, and I can think of no better way to conclude. She said:
“At my old school I felt silly and sad because I didn’t understand. I really love school now. I feel so much happier and I understand everything a lot more. I get lots of help and they make it easy to understand. I have great teachers and lovely friends. Now I want to go to school.”
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Penny Mordaunt, Mr David Blunkett, Mr Robert Buckland, Charlie Elphicke, Charlotte Leslie, Dr Julian Lewis and Jacob Rees-Mogg present the Bill.
Penny Mordaunt accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December and to be printed (Bill 199).
Ninetieth Birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the ninetieth birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to assure Her Majesty of the great pleasure felt by this House on so joyful an occasion.
That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty’s Household.
That a Message be sent to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to offer His Royal Highness the warmest good wishes of the House upon the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, expressing the gratitude of the nation for his lifetime of service to the country and the Commonwealth and praying that His Royal Highness may long continue in health and happiness.
That Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Sir George Young and Edward Miliband do wait upon His Royal Highness with the said Message.
This week we celebrate the 90th birthday of a remarkable man who has given years of service to our country. Someone who has defended his nation in time of war. A man who has stood alongside Her Majesty the Queen for more than six decades. A man who has given his time, effort and passion to many great causes up and down the country, across the Commonwealth and indeed around the world. I refer, of course, to His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Since the time of William the Conqueror there has never been a consort who has served for so long at the side of a monarch and, as such, Prince Philip has seen extraordinary events in life from the end of rationing to man landing on the moon, and from the end of the cold war to the beginning of peace in Northern Ireland. Of course, along the way he has had to put up with listening to the views of no fewer than 12 Prime Ministers. Through it all he has been there for Her Majesty the Queen as a constant companion and source of rock solid strength. Throughout it all he has served us, the British people, with an unshakeable sense of duty. He has conducted more than 300 public engagements a year and delivered more than 5,000 speeches.
Over those years, he has also made more than 600 visits to more than 140 countries. In most of those, he is heralded and much respected as the consort of a monarch, but, of course, there is one—Tanna, part of Vanuatu—where he is treated slightly differently. In fact, no public event in that far off part of the Pacific Islands is complete without the islanders holding aloft pictures of Prince Philip, whom they worship as a god.
Of course, His Royal Highness served this country long before his royal duties began. The Duke of Edinburgh spent 14 years on active service in the Royal Navy. During the second world war he served with the Mediterranean and Pacific fleets. He was awarded the Greek war cross of valour and was mentioned in dispatches when he manned the searchlights during HMS Valiant’s triumph at the battle of Cape Matapan. In a fitting tribute to his outstanding abilities, the late Lord Lewin, the First Sea Lord, said he would most certainly have gone right to the top of the Navy.
Today the Duke of Edinburgh is a patron of more than 800 organisations. Looking through that long list, one passion shines through: supporting young people by giving them the confidence to stand on their own two feet. It was this passion that led him to initiate the Duke of Edinburgh awards, recognised around the world as the gold standard in leadership for young people. Since 1956, about 6 million young people in 120 countries have won awards by building skills for work and life and proving that they can take responsibility for themselves and their communities. To all of us in this Chamber who believe in the value of helping to change people’s lives for the better, that is an inspiration. His is a huge achievement for which this country and many others owe the Duke a deserved debt of gratitude.
He also has an extraordinary passion for wildlife, nature and the environment. As president of the World Wildlife Fund, he helped to save many of the world’s most beautiful creatures from extinction, including the snow leopard and the black rhino.
The Duke is also a passionate family man and I know that all of us would like to congratulate him on becoming a great-grandfather for the first time with the birth of Savannah Phillips at the end of last year.
He has done all these things in his own inimitable way, with a down-to-earth, no-nonsense approach that I believe the British people find endearing. Of course, many of us who give public speeches would be honoured to have a book published of our most famous sayings. There have been several published of his. My own favourite was when, after a long flight, the umpteenth eager-to-please official asked him, “How was your flight?” He replied, “Have you been on a plane? Well, you know how it goes up in the air and then comes back down again? Well, it was just like that.”
I would like to go on for a great deal longer but I am reminded of His Royal Highness’s remark about sermons that overrun. It is not just sage advice for clergy in the pulpit but, I think, probably for us in this place, too. As the Duke put it, “The mind cannot absorb what the backside cannot endure.” With that in mind, let me give the final say to the person who knows him best of all, Her Majesty the Queen. She said in a speech to mark their golden wedding anniversary that he had been her
“strength and stay all these years”
and that she and
“his whole family, and this and many other countries, owe him a debt greater than he would ever claim, or we shall ever know.”
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing His Royal Highness health, happiness and above all a very special 90th birthday.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I second the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and associate myself and my party entirely with the sentiments that he has just expressed? As the Duke of Edinburgh approaches his 90th birthday, he is, as the Prime Minister said, the longest-serving consort and the oldest serving spouse of any British monarch. The Duke and Her Majesty have been married for 64 years. As a relatively new spouse, I have particular admiration for that achievement and I realise that it will take me 63 years, 11 months and 20 days to catch up.
The Duke of Edinburgh has been a constant companion to Her Majesty throughout her reign and he has shown a moving love, support and devotion to Her Majesty that has been unfailing. He has also made an enormous contribution to public life here in Britain and right across the Commonwealth in his own right. He is the patron of hundreds of organisations that focus on the environment, industry, sport and education but he is perhaps best known, as the Prime Minister said, for the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, which he established 55 years ago to give young people a sense of responsibility to themselves and their communities. I am sure that every Member of the House will have had the experience of visiting a local school in their constituency and seeing the eyes of young people light up as they talk about the excitement, passion and sense of achievement they have got from doing the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. For that, we owe the Duke of Edinburgh a huge debt of gratitude.
The Duke is a reminder to us all of the unique spirit of public service that the monarchy discharges to the British people at home and abroad. That affection was evident at the wedding last month of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The Duke of Edinburgh has been a prince among consorts, but is, if I might put it this way, a king among characters. His unique turn of phrase has become a much-loved feature of modern British life. There are two repeatable examples that I want to share with the House. To the matron of a hospital he visited in the Caribbean, he commented:
“You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.”
That is a sentiment that many of us should share at various times in politics. Legend also has it that following the coronation in 1953, he turned to Her Majesty and said:
“Where did you get that hat?”
Humour is a great part of British life and we thank the Duke for his unique contribution.
We owe the Duke a great debt for the personal and professional sacrifices he has made to serve our country. He was, as the Prime Minister said, a distinguished naval officer who, at just 21, became one of the youngest first lieutenants in the Royal Navy, but he put his professional ambitions aside to be the loyal consort to the Queen. When asked in a recent interview if he had been disappointed to give up his naval career, he said that he had been a little disappointed but that, more importantly, it seemed to him that his duty was to serve the Queen
“in the best way I could.”
The Duke embodies qualities of duty, loyalty, public service and good humour—great British qualities. He came from a generation who were prepared to sacrifice everything they had for this country and their values. As he approaches his 90th birthday, I once again pay great and humble tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh for all he has done for Queen and country.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I, with the indulgence of the House, add a few personal words in support of the excellent speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition? I have had the great good fortune and the inestimable honour to have known His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh for 50 years. I first met him when I was, as the psalmist said, yet
“in the slippery paths of youth”.
I want to take this brief moment, therefore, to add my own salute to Prince Philip. He is, in my view, one of the most exceptional men of his generation. No one can fail to be struck by the great breadth of his interests, the profound depth of his knowledge of them, and his distinguished and energetic contribution to our national life through the many organisations with which he is closely associated and over which he takes so much time and trouble.
As both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made clear, all of us in our constituency duties will have come across the beaming faces of the young who have taken part at one level or another in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award schemes, an organisation in which millions of young people in more than 60 countries have taken part. That in itself is a remarkable achievement and one of which I hope Prince Philip is properly proud. In his work as the first president of the World Wildlife Fund—in which, incidentally, he was well ahead of his time—and through his profound interest in nature and wildlife conservation, as well as in environmental questions more generally, he has played an important, innovative and highly influential role for many years, both at home and abroad.
On a day like today one cannot hope to do full justice to Prince Philip’s inspirational work in the promotion of science, design and industry, or his work with the armed forces, but I conclude by saying that we in the House feel gratitude, respect and pride for Prince Philip’s exceptional service to his country, and recall that he is part of that remarkable generation that served with distinction during the war, did their duty and just got on with it, and then got on with the rebuilding of Britain afterwards.
Prince Philip certainly is a formidable man and, refreshingly, does not suffer fools gladly, as I know to my cost. He is, above all, to himself true, and a most especially devoted and loving husband, father and grandfather. His many qualities should shine brightly for us today since they march with great good humour, a complete lack of any side or pomposity, and a clear, thoughtful and generous understanding of the world in which we all live. I join my parliamentary colleagues in sending to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh my warmest congratulations and most profound respects on his 90th birthday.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The supreme achievement of the Duke of Edinburgh is that he is working at the age of 90. This is a magnificent example and one that has been followed by a constituent of mine, Mr Harry Polloway, who is working as a toastmaster at the age of 97. I last saw him in the Jewish cemetery in my constituency, where we were commemorating the death of May Mendleson, who died last year at the age of 108. Continuing work into that period of life is a wonderful example to set, and one that we can look at with some embarrassment and shame in the House, where I believe the oldest Member—a distinguished Member—is just 80 years of age, and we have only five Members over the age of 76.
This group of people are disgracefully under-represented in the House. If we are to have a proper reflection of senior citizens, we must look to have all-80-year-old shortlists at the next general election. In the light of the heroic examples set by Prince Philip, Harry Polloway and May Mendleson, that fault needs to be corrected.
However, my purpose in speaking today is to make another point. As someone who is not a royalist and is happy to say that I am a republican and always have been, I want to ask why on earth, in this age, the address is to be “humble”. Are members of the royal family superior beings to the rest of us? Are we inferior beings to them? Is Prince Philip superior to Harry Polloway and May Mendleson? That was the feeling of the House seven centuries ago, when we accepted the rules under which we speak now.
We live in an egalitarian time when we recognise the universality of the human condition, in which royals and commoners share the same strengths and frailty. In the House, when we speak of the royals—not just the monarch, but all the family, without any limit—we are denied the chance of making any derogatory comment. That might extend to first cousins who are a long way distant from the monarch. There is no question but that the monarch—the Head of State—should remain above the political fray. We have been well served by this, particularly recently.
However, if these occasions are to be greatly valued, it should be possible for Members to utter the odd syllable that might be critical. I do not have anything to say in this case, but the sycophancy described by the Prime Minister when he referred to someone asking Prince Philip a fairly obvious question when he came off a plane must sicken the royal family. When they have an excess of praise of this kind, it is devalued.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
No one would accuse me of being an ardent royalist, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the most terrifying dictatorships—terrorist dictatorships—of the last century, including Germany, Russia and China, have been republics?
Paul Flynn
I was coming to the final sentence of my speech, but I would be happy to discuss that at some length. If my hon. Friend is asking whether the Queen has been a monarch of whom we should be proud, a monarch who has served this country in a way that is probably unparalleled, and whether she has maintained political neutrality throughout those years, I would say yes. We particularly appreciated her work in Ireland recently, where she has done much to restore the link. That is not the point of what I am saying today.
I am saying that the House has allowed itself to be infantilised by our own history into a position in which we are not allowed to make any criticism—not just of the person whom we are talking about today, but of other members of the royal family as well. It stretches to all of them. By accepting today that the address is a humble one, we demean the honour of our elected office. We were elected by the first-past-the-post system, but those with hereditary offices are in their place as a result of what Tony Benn once called the first-past-the-bedpost system. We should be free in this House to tell the whole truth as citizens, not gagged as subservient subjects.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I have no difficulty in supporting the motion proposed by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, sending our very warmest wishes to Prince Philip for his birthday on Friday.
The Prime Minister referred to the fact that Prince Philip is already in the record books as the longest-serving consort. My limited research immediately revealed two other things. He is also in the record books for being the last surviving great-great-grandchild of Queen Victoria—and, even more extraordinarily, is apparently currently in the line of succession to 16 thrones. If ever we wanted an example of how interconnected our European continent is, he is probably the living embodiment of that.
Prince Philip was born in the same year as my late mother, so when we were growing up, my parents, my brothers and I often found him featuring in the conversation as a sort of point of comparison in youthfulness and activity on which we were asked to model ourselves.
In addition to his obvious loyal, steadfast and wonderful roles as husband, consort, father, grandfather and great-grandfather, I suggest that the Duke of Edinburgh also plays the role of the most active citizen. He is an active citizen in many countries of the Commonwealth, which he has supported throughout his time in public life. He is wonderfully active in his inspired award scheme, which has already been referred to. I am one of the lucky people who benefited from being a Duke of Edinburgh’s award winner. The prize was going to receive the award from him at Buckingham palace. The punishment—the preparation for the prize—was being nearly frozen to death in Snowdonia on an expedition the previous Easter; it was not an award achieved lightly.
The Duke of Edinburgh has always encouraged participation in sport, which is very important. Reference has rightly been made to his very early commitment to conservation world wide. When he became president of the World Wildlife Fund, he encouraged millions of people, particularly young people, to realise the importance of conservation, not only at home but on the other side of the world.
Lastly, we cannot avoid referring to the fact that the great thing about Prince Philip is his ability to comment, and to do so publicly from time to time, in a no-nonsense, down-to-earth and—thank God—humorous manner. At least two of his children have the same quality, for which we should be grateful. It is typical that he is working on his birthday this week. That should encourage everyone in the country who sees retirement looming to think that they may still have a long time to go. We wish him a very happy birthday on Friday, happy and enjoyable celebrations over the weekend and continuing robust health and much happiness in all his years ahead. We thank him for a lifetime of incomparable public service.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and indeed the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, I heartily endorse the sentiments that have been so eloquently expressed this afternoon on the occasion of His Royal Highness’s 90th birthday. We send him our warmest congratulations.
His Royal Highness bears many titles. When I looked at them the other day, I found that reading them all out would almost be a speech in itself. Some people today might dismiss such titles as anachronisms, but in my view they are not: they speak to us of the history of our Union, our nation and our Commonwealth. With nearly 60 years as royal consort, Prince Philip has been a living example of the steadfast values that created and sustain to this day our Union, our nation and our Commonwealth. Throughout his life he has exemplified the qualities of duty, sacrifice and service to country and Commonwealth, and all carried with great humanity and humour, as we have noted. In the course of that service, he has visited Northern Ireland on many occasions, and we look forward to further such visits, when he can again be assured of the warmest of welcomes.
Beyond his formal duties, the Duke of Edinburgh has worked with hundreds of different causes and organisations and maintains to this day a schedule that many younger people would baulk at. Of all this work, the crowning glories are undoubtedly the World Wildlife Fund and the award that bear his title, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. His work with WWF was literally decades ahead of its time, as has been said, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award will this year break the 2 million mark for the number of children and young people who have gained an award. Proudly, Northern Ireland boasts the highest participation levels in the award scheme in the United Kingdom. Few individuals on earth can boast that they have written the rulebook of a sport, but he can—for carriage driving, which he once described as a geriatric sport.
As we approach the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty’s accession to the throne, we rightly reflect on the tremendous service that the monarch has given to this country, its people and the Commonwealth. When Her Majesty was crowned in Westminster Abbey, Prince Philip pledged to
“become your liege man of life and limb, and of earthly worship; and faith and truth I will bear unto you, to live and die, against all manner of folks. So help me God.”
Truly it can be said today that he has fulfilled that pledge in both word and spirit. For any man or woman, there are few better compliments that can be paid than to be recognised and respected for a lifetime of loyalty, steadfastness and truth to their word. For that and so much more, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, deserves our nation’s deepest gratitude, our heartiest congratulations and our sincere prayers for God’s blessing and continued health and happiness.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today to the motion for a humble address to be presented to Her Majesty on the 90th birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. I was fortunate enough some time ago to be given a role in the royal household, working for Her Majesty and senior members of the royal family, advising on strategic changes to the monarchy and briefing on key areas of national life. What struck me most when working at the palace was the incredible work load not just of Her Majesty the Queen, but of His Royal Highness. I commend him highly on his commitment to service over the years.
The Duke of Edinburgh not only attends many engagements on his own, but accompanies the Queen on her Commonwealth tours, state visits overseas and visits to many parts of the United Kingdom. On average, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, he carries out more than 350 engagements a year. He is also patron or president of some 800 organisations, with special interests in scientific and technological research and development, the encouragement of sport, the welfare of young people and conservation and the environment.
In 1956 the Duke founded the Duke of Edinburgh’s award in order to give young people
“a sense of responsibility to themselves and their communities”.
That has made a lasting contribution to our society and benefited many thousands of young people. A sense of responsibility to themselves and their communities is exactly what we are trying to create with the big society, so perhaps after all it was His Royal Highness who led the way and helped to inspire the policy.
In my constituency, many young people and schools are involved in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme. Chiswick community school is particularly grateful for the award scheme. In the words of Tony Ryan, the school’s head teacher:
“We value the Duke of Edinburgh award more than I can say. The award helps build social and team building skills and independence. It takes kids out of their comfort zones—many kids have never been to the countryside before and often you see a completely different side to them. It really makes them think differently.”
When I visited Gunnersbury Catholic school recently, people were also talking about the benefits of the award scheme. Kevin Burke, the school’s head teacher, sent me pages of comments from students, a few of which I want to mention. James Phelan said:
“The Duke of Edinburgh award scheme opened my eyes to many new and challenging experiences, from which I learnt many life skills and values”.
Tom Sylvester said:
“The Duke of Edinburgh award scheme was a fantastic experience which has allowed me to put myself through all of my paces. I have managed to learn new skills that would have been nigh-on impossible. What I liked the most about this epic journey was the choice that was available and that I could complete it with my friends. I believe this experience has changed my life forever and has adjusted my perspective on life.”
Felix said:
“The Duke of Edinburgh bronze award brought many challenges and people could gain many valuable skills such as leadership.”
Jack said:
“The award scheme was an amazing experience”.
Jesse said:
“My Duke of Edinburgh experience was an experience of a lifetime”.
I would like to conclude by thanking His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh for his contribution to our society, his patronage of more than 800 organisations, his unstinting commitment to public life as the longest-serving royal consort in British history and, in particular, for the truly remarkable legacy for young people today from the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, and finally for the personal support he gives Her Majesty on a daily basis.
His Royal Highness is a real example and inspiration to us all. If more people were encouraging many others to support voluntary organisations and helping young people gain life skills and experience for their future, bringing out the best in them, this country would be a much better place. I support the motion, which is our way of thanking His Royal Highness for his lifetime of service to the country and the Commonwealth.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to repeat all that has been said by other Members, but I will mention one further capacity that His Royal Highness has: the ability to put MPs in their place.
Parmjit Dhanda, when he was the Member for Gloucester, was invited in 2001, as I think was the current Prime Minister and others elected that year—it was our 10th anniversary yesterday—to Buckingham palace, and the Duke of Edinburgh went up to Parmjit and said, “So, what did you do before you got this job?” Parmjit said, “I worked in a trade union.” The Duke immediately replied, “Bugger all, then.” Parmjit, somewhat offended and thinking that he would retaliate with force, asked, “Well, what did you do before you got this job?”, to which the Duke replied, “Fought in the second world war.”
So, notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I think that there are occasions when a little humility from this House towards His Royal Highness is entirely appropriate.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Duke of Edinburgh is clearly someone who does not take well to compliments, but he will just have to put up with them this week, because quite frankly he deserves those compliments, not just because it is his 90th birthday on Friday, but because for more than 60 years, since their marriage in 1947, he has been the bedrock of support for Her Majesty the Queen—the constant and loyal support and the dutiful and honourable consort, perpetually at her side over the 59 years of her reign so far and, please God, for years to come. He is the longest-living consort in 1,000 years of British history, surpassing, only a couple of years ago, Queen Charlotte, the consort of King George III—but I am reliably informed that that is the only thing he has in common with Queen Charlotte.
The Duke may be 90 years old, but he has something to teach the youngest generations, and that is the principle of duty and service, as we have heard from other hon. Members. Nowadays, many people are accustomed to doing something only if they want to do it and only if it suits them. Many have an expectation of what their rights are, but not of what their responsibilities may be.
Many of the prince’s generation, maturing in the 1940s, understood the importance of doing a thing because it was the right thing to do for someone else, or for the country—but of course that sense of duty is not entirely extinguished today; very far from it. I had the honour of spending two days at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, last week, and I met many young cadets in their 20s and even younger who are very much focused on serving others—a willingness to serve, and certainly not for financial reward. They want to give something back.
The British are a very generous people and give vast sums and amounts of time to charities, and that is reflected in Her Majesty’s Government’s international development policy, but the Duke has done a great deal for this country over generations, as well as supporting the Queen. Not the least of those is the welfare of young children, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago. The Duke established the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme in 1956, and it has seen more than 7 million work to achieve an award. He meets the gold award winners personally.
The Duke is patron of some 800 organisations and has flown almost 6,000 hours in dozens of aircraft, but he was always what would now be called a type A personality—a leader. At Salem, as a pre-teenage boy in the early 1930s, the Nazis started to creep into school life, but Prince Philip used apparently to break into fits of laughter when he saw them and clearly even then considered them contemptible. Perhaps that is not surprising when one considers that his late mother is honoured in Yad Vashem in Israel as “Righteous Among the Nations”.
The Duke went on to be head boy, or guardian, at school in Gordonstoun. At the Royal Naval college he came top of the class and won the King’s dirk. He captained a warship at an extremely early age during world war two, and he served on battleships and destroyers throughout the second world war, even being mentioned in dispatches. He was involved in the allied invasion of Sicily, and was in Tokyo bay to witness the surrender of the imperial Japanese.
Still carrying out hundreds of public engagements a year at the age of 89, the Duke has given so many speeches that they apparently take up several volumes of shelf space, and he has never done anything that would affect his personal integrity or the integrity of the Crown. It is clear that his grandchildren love and respect him. He has borne the vicious cruelty, at times, of the press in this country with dignity and poise, and he has never once in public life done anything to embarrass Her Majesty the Queen or to weaken the dignity or integrity of the Crown—despite the odd controversial remark.
The Duke should be, and I believe is, a guiding light to others showing the correct way to behave with duty, honour, service and tradition.
Question put and agreed to, nemine contradicente.
Opposition Day
Women (Government Policies)
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the Government’s policies are hitting women and families hardest, including direct tax and benefit changes, cuts to childcare support and Sure Start which are making it harder for women to work, reductions in domestic and sexual violence specialist support, and their impact on the provision of social care; opposes plans that will make 300,000 women born between December 1953 and October 1954 wait an additional 18 months or longer to receive their state pension; calls on the Government to maintain the commitment given in the Coalition Agreement that the state pension age for women will not start to rise to 66 sooner than 2020; believes that promoting equality for women is vital to building a fairer society; and calls on the Government to commission independent, robust assessments of the impact of its policies on women and to prevent the implementation of policies that could widen inequality between women and men.
I got an e-mail from a woman called Michelle, who lives in my constituency. Michelle is a single mother with a toddler; she works part-time in a bank to support her family; and she studies part-time at the Open university, because she wants to get on and build a better future for herself and her child. Right now, she is very worried. Her train fares are going up and she is afraid that her course fees will go up, but the really big blow for her is that her child tax credit is being cut from 80% to 70%.
Michelle wrote:
“This is really devastating for me. My nursery fees are £530 a month, and my salary is £600 a month. This is an extra £50 each month out of my already very tight budget. This sadly is going to force me out of work and onto benefits, which I desperately don’t want to do. It is so unfair and I am very angry. I want David Cameron, George Osborne and the rest of the coalition to acknowledge this is happening to myself and thousands of other single parents, but that will never happen.”
It is because of Michelle and the stories that we have heard from so many women throughout the country that we have called this debate today. We are deeply worried about women who are struggling to work because of the changes that the Government have made; women who are finding it harder to make ends meet; women who are losing their own income and some of the independence that they value; women who are losing thousands of pounds of their pensions; and women such as Michelle who are finding it more difficult to work because of the sheer scale of the assault on families throughout the country—20% cuts to the Sure Start budget, cuts to child care tax credit and cuts to child tax credit.
The Government are taking more money from support for children than they are from the banks as part of their deficit reduction plan, and mothers throughout the country are taking the strain. Time and again, the Government hit women and families hardest, and I fear that for the first time in many generations equality and progress for women is being rolled back.
All Members know and will celebrate the major advances that we have seen in women’s equality over the past century. When we celebrated the centenary of international women’s day, I met a woman called Hetty Bower, who is already more than 100 years old and has received her telegram from the Queen. When Hetty was born, however, women did not have the vote, and when she had her first child there was no maternity care on the NHS—indeed, there was no NHS. She worked, but she certainly did not get maternity pay, family allowance or child benefit. By the time her daughter started work, it was still legal to pay women less than men to do the same job, and even when her granddaughter started work there was still little child care and little help for women wanting to work part-time or to care for their elderly parents.
When the Secretary of State and I were elected to Parliament, maternity leave was just 14 weeks, compared with 52 weeks today, and there were child care places for only one in eight children, rather than the one in four today. Of course, here in Westminster itself we had no nursery, but we still had a shooting range.
All the progress that we have seen for women over those years has been hard-won, and we should not take it for granted. From the suffragettes to the Dagenham strikers, women have campaigned and worked hard for those changes.
We know that there is still a long way to go, and if we look at the facts we find that, even some 40 years after passing the Equal Pay Act 1970, the pay gap remains at 15%. Women still make up only 12.5% of the boards of the UK’s top 100 companies. One in four women is a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime. Women here still represent only 22% of our Parliament. Some 30,000 women lose their jobs every year because of pregnancy. So yes, we have come a long way, but we have further to travel yet.
I think that the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Minister for Equalities support progress for women and agree that it should go further and faster. The trouble is that their Government are not delivering; instead, they are turning back the clock.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Would the right hon. Lady like to take this opportunity officially to dissociate herself from her previous Government’s disastrous 10p tax policy, which did so much to hit the lowest paid, especially women across the country?
Yvette Cooper
I think that it was right to change the policy on the 10p tax rate, which did cause problems for a lot of women—the hon. Lady is right. However, often the very same women for whom we had to make changes to ensure that they got help because they were being affected by the 10p tax rate are now being affected by what her Government are doing to change the pension age and equalise pensions so quickly. The 10p tax rate did affect women, but not on the scale under this Government of hitting them with more than £10,000 of losses. Yes, she is right to point out the problems with the 10p rate, but she also needs to point out to her Government the serious damage that they are doing not only to women approaching pension age but to many other women across the board.
Yvette Cooper
I will make progress and then take an intervention from the hon. Lady.
In area after area, whether it is income, employment, child care, public services or action on violence against women, we are seeing the clock turned back. Today we want to concentrate on the Government’s reforms to the pension age and what is happening to women as a result. We understand the Government’s concern about rising longevity; of course we are all living longer and that has consequences. However, the nature and timing of the changes they have chosen is hitting women much harder than men. Bringing equalisation down to 2016 from 2018, combined with increasing the age again straight after that, means that women currently in their late 50s are getting a very bad deal. No men will see their state pension age increase by more than a year, but half a million women will do so. Those women, who are already in their mid to late 50s, are suddenly seeing their retirement plans ripped up. A third of a million women will have to wait an extra 18 months, and 33,000 women will have to wait an extra two years.
Let us think about what that really means. These women are already around 57 years old. They have been expecting to get their retirement pension in about seven years’ time. They will already have made financial plans; many will already have made retirement plans. These women are often the rock of their families. They are the ones who stopped work to look after their grandchildren so that their daughters could work, or they are working part-time and looking after elderly relatives. They have worked out how they can manage it, and how they can stretch their savings until the pension kicks in, and suddenly the Government are ripping all that up.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The group of women who, when they started work, would have expected to retire at 60, had already accepted that because of the equalisation of the state pension age they would have to work until they were 64, but it is the two years on top of that which is very difficult for them to swallow.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those women have already made changes to their retirement plans, but these further changes are very late in the day, when it is extremely difficult for them to rearrange their plans. The consequence is that the equivalent of about £5,000 is being taken from half a million women, £10,000 is being taken from thousands of women, and £15,000 is being taken from those who are hardest hit—and they have less than seven years to work out how to cope. For most of those women it is too late to make changes to their financial plans and their career plans.
Let us take the case of Christine. She was born in July 1954. She is still working as a self-employed bookkeeper, and works about 25 hours a week. Like a lot of women her age, Christine says that she put her career on hold to bring up her children, so she does not have much of a private pension. She does not have extra savings to help her to cope and to make good the gap. Women in their late 50s have average pension savings of £9,100 compared with an average of £52,000 for men of the same age. These are women who took time out to look after their families, who worked part-time, and who started work in the ’70s when the pay gap was bigger. The pension system never properly recognised the contributions that they made to their families and to society, and now, as a result of what the Government are doing, it is kicking them in the teeth again.
The Government cannot tell us that this is being done to cut the deficit, because in 2016, when these changes come in, their structural deficit is supposed to have been eliminated. The best that the coalition has been able to come up with in its defence is to say that some of the poorest male pensioners who get pension credit will be quite hard hit too. I do not think that people such as Christine will consider that much consolation. Today, the Prime Minister tried to claim, “Well, it’s all right, it means that pensioners will be £15,000 better off because this is restoring the link with earnings,” but the link with earnings had already been restored as part of the Turner review. Making such a change now does not provide any benefits for women for many years to come. Instead, in the next few years, it hits extremely hard women who have worked hard for their families and for society.
Women on the Government Front Bench and Back Benches ought to do something about this. They should stand up and be counted; otherwise they are letting down women in their constituencies.
Dame Anne Begg
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not good enough for the Minister responsible for pensions to say to my Select Committee that it is all right because these women can get jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance instead?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is appalling to suggest that these women can get jobseeker’s allowance, because many of them have claimed very little throughout their lives. They have believed in working hard, doing their bit, and making their contributions to their family and their society, and the state pension was what they had earned—what they had saved for and contributed towards. Saying to them that they should claim jobseeker’s allowance, which is set at a much lower level, or that, having perhaps taken early retirement to look after the grandchildren only now to find that they cannot do so because they cannot make their savings stretch, they must suddenly try to find work after so long out of the labour market, misunderstands the reality of their lives and the pressures they are under. Something needs to change. The Government have done U-turns on issues such as forests; they have paused on the NHS; and they should make a massive change on this policy.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is this change coming in very quickly but thousands of women out there are not aware of it, despite the excellent campaign, because the Government have provided very inadequate information?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. To the extent that women can plan for such change, they need to know what is going on. At the moment, a lot of women do not know what is happening and are worried. They are starting to hear about the change, but do not know what it is going to mean for them and for their personal circumstances.
Unfortunately, I heard one of the men on the Conservative Benches mutter “Deluded” in response to my call for the Government to U-turn. I have to say to him that he is deluded if he thinks that women across the country will not feel extremely angry. The more that they realise what the Government are doing, the more they will be knocking on the doors of their constituency MPs and asking why their MP is allowing them to lose up to £10,000 as a result of deeply unfair changes.
Yvette Cooper
I give way to the hon. Gentleman; I hope that he can defend the proposals.
Mr Gray
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. As one of the two Conservative men who signed the early-day motion on this subject, the other being my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), I very much sympathise with the point that she is making on behalf of women born in 1953 and 1954—like me; 1954 was a vintage year. Does she not regret that in the motion she has chosen to make a broad sideswipe at the Government that is much less well thought through than her point about that particular cohort of women? Had she focused her attention on that, she might well have found one or two of us joining her in the Lobby.
Yvette Cooper
I apologise for my slightly aggressive reaction to the hon. Gentleman when he stood up; I should have checked the EDM beforehand. I commend him for his defence of his vintage, of all sexes. He is right that this issue is of extreme concern, and I hope that we will have further opportunities to vote on it.
I will turn to the wider points in the motion that the hon. Gentleman criticised, but which I think are important. It is women rather than men who are taking the biggest burden in the Government’s deficit reduction plans. The Government know of our deep concern that they are cutting too far and too fast, and that they are hitting growth and pushing up unemployment, which will cost us more. However, even those who support the scale and pace of the Government’s plans should be worried about the way in which they are carrying them out.
The House of Commons Library has produced detailed analysis of the direct tax and benefit changes in the Government’s emergency Budget and the spending review. A net total of £16 billion is being raised. That takes account of the increase in tax allowances and the cuts to tax credits. It looks at the extra money as well as the cuts. The conclusion is that £5 billion is coming from men and £11 billion is coming from women. Women are paying more than twice as much as men to get the deficit down, yet women still earn less and own less than men. How can that be fair?
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the numbers she is citing include the £3.75 billion from the child benefit cuts for higher rate taxpayers such as me, who obviously are predominantly women?
Yvette Cooper
The figures include everything, so they do include the child benefit changes, as well as the change in tax allowances, the cuts to housing benefit, the cuts to public sector pensions and a series of other things. The point is that the cumulative impact will hit women much harder than men. Women who are on higher incomes will be hit much harder than men who are on higher incomes. Women who are on lower incomes in households where the man is on a higher income will also be hard hit, even though they may only be on part-time or low earnings. The hon. Lady is right that the analysis does not separate women on the basis of different levels of earnings, but it does show that at every level of earnings, in every sector of the economy and in every sector of society, women are being hit harder than men.
Yvette Cooper
I give way to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) first.
Harriett Baldwin
Is the right hon. Lady saying that she would like my child benefit of £81.20 every four weeks to be reinstated, despite the fact that I make more than £65,000 a year as an MP?
Yvette Cooper
We have said that we think there is a serious advantage in some universal benefits. I do not think that the hon. Lady should be paid child tax credit, and she is not, because it is right that some things depend on people’s incomes. However, it is important that some things are universal. That is why we have said that there are serious problems with what the Government are doing on child benefit. She needs to take seriously the point that at every level of income and in every sector of society, women rather than men are the hardest hit.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As someone who has staunchly defended universal child benefit precisely because of the reach that it secures for the poorest families—better than the means-tested benefits that are designed to reach them—I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) that I will certainly campaign for the reinstatement of child benefit for all parents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why it is so important to have benefits that are predominantly directed at women is that even in the best-off households, the way in which income is divided between a couple often favours the man? It is important to give women some independent income to protect their financial independence within the household.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, because who gets the income in the household matters for a lot of women. Child benefit was about giving women an independent income, and it has given women a greater ability to make choices about their own lives.
The Government have dismissed the figures about the impact on women and men. They say that those figures cannot be calculated, but they have calculated no figures of their own. They claim that it cannot be done. That is rubbish, because the House of Commons Library did it, and pretty quickly. They also claim that it is not possible for the Government to come up with such figures, but the Treasury has done it before. When the Minister for Women and Equalities and I were new Back Benchers, I asked Treasury Ministers a written question on exactly the same thing. I asked what was the impact on women compared with men of the 1997, 1998 and 1999 Budgets. Treasury Ministers were able to calculate it then and they can calculate it now. The answer was that men benefited by £2.30 per week and that women benefited by £5.30 per week from the changes brought in by the Labour Government. This is the contrast: the Labour Government’s first Budget helped women twice as much as men; the Tory-led Government’s first Budget hit women twice as hard as men.
The Government say that one cannot look at men and women separately, but that one must look at households. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made. The Government’s plans for universal credit have the same kind of flaw. They are talking about a single payment being paid to a single household member, with the risk that it will go predominantly to the man. What the Government say is just not true. Of course people choose to share their money in the household and in the family, but that is the point—they choose to share their money. Who gets the money in the first place matters. Beveridge understood that 60 years ago. That is why he introduced the family allowance, which led to child benefit. I do not understand why Government Members and the Government are so blind to this issue. Women on the Government Benches would be horrified if suddenly their salaries were paid to their husbands on the basis that it does not really matter because they are in the same household. That is the logical consequence of the Government’s arguments about households and for not being able to do such analysis.
Mrs Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is pretending that child benefit is an income for women that is paid to women, but it is a benefit that is paid for the benefit of the child. It is not and never has been income for women.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady does not seem to understand that most women do the spending for the children. That is why, originally, Beveridge wanted to ensure that women got some money. Right now—[Interruption.] Government Members obviously do not talk to women in their constituencies about the way in which child benefit money matters massively as part of their income. Of course a lot of that money is spent on children, but however women spend it, the fact that it is they who get the income gives them choices about how it is spent.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Corby (Mrs Mensch) listens to the recording of “Woman’s Hour” from soon after the Government’s announcement of their plan to take child benefit from those on the highest earnings. A lot of women called in to describe how they were on a low income, even though their husbands were on a higher income. They spoke about the difference that it made to have some money that came to them and over which they made the decisions, even if it was then spent on the children and their future.
Mrs Mensch
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for being generous and giving way to me again. My constituency of Corby in east Northamptonshire has a large proportion of lower-income women. The women who come to my surgeries are delighted that higher-income women and families will not be paid this benefit, because they regard it as fundamentally unfair that rich people receive benefits. They cannot understand why it is the Labour party that is protecting benefits that are paid to the rich.
Yvette Cooper
Are those constituents equally delighted by the cuts to child tax credit, the cuts to the baby tax credit that is paid in the first year, the cuts to the Sure Start allowance, the cuts to their Sure Start centres, and the huge cuts that are hitting low-income women across the country? I bet they are not. I bet the hon. Lady did not ask them about those things when they came in and she started talking to them just about child benefit for higher earners.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Those same women—we are talking about these abstract women—are also extremely unhappy about the massive deficit left behind by the previous Government. Whether someone is a mother or a father, their children are facing an enormous debt. This Government are tackling the debt that the right hon. Lady’s Government left behind.
Yvette Cooper
If we had not had the increase in the deficit during the global financial crisis, we would have seen recession turn into slump. We would have seen huge numbers of women lose their jobs and be stuck in long-term unemployment. We would have seen women and their families lose their homes and savings, so it was right to support the economy during the recession. As a result of our decisions, the economy grew and the deficit came down. Unfortunately, the Minister’s Government have decided to put a political timetable for deficit reduction into place far ahead of the interests of the economy. They are hitting public services far faster than they needed to, but they are also hitting jobs and pushing far more women out of work and on to benefits and the dole, so that they cannot support their families.
Even if the Minister for Women and Equalities believes that the Government should cut the deficit this far and this fast, how can she possibly think it is fair for women to be paying £11 billion of the £16 billion reduction that is coming from tax and benefits, while men pay £5 billion? How can it be fair for women to pay twice as much as men, despite the fact that they still earn less and own less?
Sometimes I think that the Prime Minister has a blind spot about women, but most of the time I think the truth is probably far worse. This is an ideological problem for the Tories and Liberal Democrats. Despite the fact that there are many women in both parties who strongly want to see greater progress for women, the overall ideology of both parties at the moment is that the public sector should not worry about supporting families, about who gets the money within families or about what happens to families, because that is a private matter that the public sector should not engage in. They believe that such things as tax credits are bad, because they breed dependency. The truth is that for millions of women, pension payments or tax credits create not dependence but independence. They give women greater choice about how to balance work and family life, and about whether they can afford to stay at home while the kids are young or cover their child care payments so that they can go out to work.
I know that this is not easy for the Minister, because she does not control what happens in other Departments. She did the right thing at the very beginning of the Government’s time in office when she warned Ministers of their obligations to consider equality and the impact of policies on women. Unfortunately, few of those Ministers seem to have been listening. Several may indeed have told her to calm down.
Even if the right hon. Lady is not fully aware of what is happening across the Government, she does have responsibility in her own Department, the Home Office, and there are serious grounds for concern there. The committee on women in policing, for example, did not meet for more than a year. It would be helpful if she told the House whether it has yet met, and whether it is now doing any work to support more women to get into the police.
The right hon. Lady has followed the previous Government’s example of announcing a cross-Government strategy to tackle violence against women, which we welcome. We also welcome her support for rape crisis centres, but she does not seem to be reflecting what is actually happening on the ground, with one in five domestic violence courts closing; specialist domestic violence officers in police forces up and down the country being cut as a result of her 20% cuts to the police; refuges having to close their doors; DNA not being held in rape cases in which charges are not brought; and sentences for rapists potentially being halved if they plead guilty. We have seen her refusal and reluctance to sign the trafficking directive until pressure mounted in the House, a U-turn on anonymity for rape defendants only after pressure from the House, and her resistance, still, of the Council of Europe’s convention on violence against women.
Those matters have deep consequences in practice. The POPPY project has told me of the story of Lucy, who was heavily pregnant and being treated for a life-threatening disease, and who had been severely beaten by her father. Lucy’s doctor was trying to find accommodation for her. Due to the squeeze on local government budgets, the homeless persons unit said that it could not treat Lucy as being in priority need, and social services wrongly said that they did not need to help her because the baby had not yet been born.
Lucy was getting ready to sleep on the street for the weekend. The doctor could find only one refuge space, but it was too far away. The worker explained to the doctor that Lucy needed a legal letter telling social services and the homeless persons unit that they had a duty of care to her. Experience showed that only that legal threat would make the services act. Unfortunately, as hon. Members know, legal aid cuts are now biting, and solicitors were scarce and none had the space to take Lucy’s case. In the end, her doctor persuaded the hospital contract doctor to write a letter. It was not his responsibility, but he did so, and Lucy was given temporary accommodation. It came in the nick of time, because the refuge workers said that on that day, five other women fleeing domestic violence came in and asked for help, and were not as lucky as Lucy. They tell me that some ended up sleeping on the street. That is the reality of what is happening to vulnerable women at the sharp end of the cuts.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend mentioned in passing the fact that 65% of public sector workers are women, so they will be hit disproportionately. In my constituency, some 40% of workers are in the public sector. Does she accept, given what she has just said, that further cuts will tend to generate more domestic violence because of the economic pressure put on family life? There is a disproportionate impact on women not just economically but through domestic violence and the lack of funding to support increasing demand for services at a time when there are also cuts to the police budget. That is terrible for communities such as the one I represent.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. There are increased pressures on services, as well as cuts to many resources. Women workers in public services are feeling the strain, too.
The Minister for Women and Equalities will doubtless tell us about the good work that she and the Minister for Equalities are doing to improve women’s lives, which we welcome, but we believe that we need to go further and do more. We want to support them in their work, but we need them to do much more than they are doing now. We need them to start standing up for women in the Government. We will back them if they do, and we will support them even if their colleagues do not. However, they must act. They cannot just stand on the sidelines. They have a duty to stand up for women in this country, and to get in there and fight. They need to undertake some proper, independent research on the impact of the cuts and their reforms on women. They should use the work that has been done by women’s organisations in Coventry with the university of Warwick, because if they do not, we will. We will work with local groups and institutions to monitor what is happening to women across the country.
The truth is that equality for women is not just about women, it is about everyone. A fairer society for women and an economy that uses women’s talents is better not just for families but for everybody. I have always believed that every generation of women would do better than the last, have more opportunities and choices, break through more glass ceilings and challenge more conventions. However, I fear for our daughters and granddaughters as a result of what the Government are doing. We owe it to them to further the march for women’s equality and not to be the generation of women who turn back the clock.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)
Yet again, we have heard a speech from the Opposition Benches that included no recognition of the economic mess that the last Government left us, no constructive suggestions and no positive policy proposals for the future of this country. That is not constructive opposition, it is shameless opportunism.
Let me remind the Opposition once more why we are having to take action to restore sanity to our public finances. They left us with the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, and they left us spending £120 million every single day just on paying the interest on the debt that they racked up. That is more than we spend each day on policing, schools or child benefit. They left us with a deficit higher than that of Portugal or Greece, which have had to go cap in hand to the EU for a bail out. The experience of those countries shows that the risks of not dealing with Labour’s deficit are not imaginary but very real.
Yvette Cooper
Does the right hon. Lady think that the Labour Government should have cut public spending in the middle of a recession, and not allowed additional support for those who were unemployed and for businesses? If so, does she think the economy would have been growing at the time of the election if that had been done?
Mrs May
The Labour party, and the right hon. Lady as a former Treasury Minister, knows full well the risks of failing to deal with the deficit today. That is shown not just by what we are doing, but by what the Labour party itself said it would do if it was in government. I am talking about the position that we are in today, which was left us by the Labour Government, and the actions that we are having to take to deal with it. She must recognise that if the Labour party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 that the current Government are cutting.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Opposition understand that the deficit must be dealt with and we want to get growth moving, but does the right hon. Lady think that that will happen if women are forced out of their jobs because they cannot pay their child care costs?
Mrs May
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s claim that the Opposition understand dealing with the deficit rings false when we hear what they say the Government should do about the deficit. On the one hand, the Labour party tries to argue that what the Government are doing to address the deficit is wrong, and on the other hand Labour Members remain silent about the fact that a Labour Government would cut £7 of every £8 that this Government are cutting this year. We hear nothing from the Opposition about where those cuts would fall.
Kate Green
The issue for the Opposition is exactly where the cuts fall. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, not only is the bulk of the Government’s deficit reduction programme hitting women, but women’s unemployment is increasing disproportionately compared with men’s unemployment.
Mrs May
In the last three months, the increase in employment for women was greater than the increase in employment for men. Opposition Members, including the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), have said today that what the Government are doing is wrong. We hear that in debate after debate. Opposition Members stand up and tell us that the cuts in virtually every area of public sector expenditure are wrong. If they were in government, they would be making cuts. In that case, the question for them is where they would make those cuts.
Geraint Davies
Does the right hon. Lady accept that the deficit was the price we paid to avoid depression? The choice for the Government is whether to make deep and savage cuts that will stop growth, and to increase VAT, which will stoke inflation, or to focus on growth and make more balanced savings over time, and, obviously, to make the bankers pay their fair share. In the case of the police, the Opposition would cut 12% rather than 20%. That is a more balanced approach that would not undermine growth or increase the deficit in the process.
Mrs May
The premise on which the hon. Gentleman began his intervention was incorrect, because he failed to recognise that we are dealing with a structural deficit. This is not about the world recession, but about the structural deficit that was built up by the previous Labour Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must remember that this is a debate about women. We do not want to go too far talking about the deficit. I know that the two tie in, but we are in danger of having a deficit debate rather than ensuring that the women’s debate is heard.
Geraint Davies
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that something like a third of the deficit was excess investment—
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Answer came there none to my challenge to the hon. Gentleman.
The Government’s action is taking Britain out of the danger zone, but we are also taking action to deal with Labour’s record deficit in a way that protects the most vulnerable, whether they are men, women or children. We have therefore had to take some difficult decisions on public spending, but in a way that has allowed us to protect the public service on which women most rely—we are increasing spending on the NHS in real terms every year. The Opposition cannot say that they would do that, because they would cut spending on the NHS.
Yes, we have had to implement a public sector pay freeze, but that has allowed us to protect against more public sector job losses. Even as we implement the pay freeze, we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers, almost two thirds of whom are women. Again, the Opposition cannot say that they would do that.
Yes, the Government have had to make tax changes, but as we have done so we are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether, the majority of whom are women. That was opposed by the Labour party, which is surprising given that it claims to be committed to redistribution.
Mrs May
I shall make some progress.
Yes, the Government have taken the difficult decision to remove tax credits from higher earning families, but that has meant that we can increase child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against increases in child poverty. In fact, that decision has meant that we can increase child tax credits by £180 and then £110 a year over and above the level promised by Labour. Those policies are not just about helping women, but about protecting the most vulnerable.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady said that the increase in tax allowances helps women. In fact, the figures produced by the House of Commons Library show that the increase in the tax allowance benefited 13,500 women and 16,800 men. Even what she did to benefit households benefited more men than women. In addition, her cuts—in child tax credits, child benefit and so on—all came from women. That is the point. She is taking far more from women, but when she gives some back, she gives more back to men.
Mrs May
It is absolutely clear that the majority of the lowest-paid workers are women, as are the majority of workers who were taken out of tax. The right hon. Lady refers again to the House of Commons Library figures—she keeps quoting them—but they were produced on a remit that she gave to the Library. Interestingly, she earlier spoke of the distribution and sharing of incomes within households. However, the assumptions on benefits made in the figures that she quotes go against what she was saying about what happens within families.
For the first time, people will have the information to judge for themselves whether they think the Government’s decisions are fair. We have been making some difficult decisions, but for the first time the Government published an overview of the impact of the spending review on groups that are protected by equalities legislation, including women. The analysis demonstrated that our decisions mean that services used by women are protected. With our Budgets in 2010 and this year, and with the spending review, we published unprecedented distributional analysis of our proposals, as the IFS has acknowledged. Such analyses were never published by the previous Government. Perhaps if they had thought to publish such information, they would have avoided policies that hit some of the poorest the hardest, such as scrapping the 10p tax rate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned.
I reject the Opposition notion that we can judge the value of a policy simply by looking at the number of men or women who are affected by it. We should not reduce the amount that we invest in tackling youth unemployment just because more young men than young women are unemployed, but that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. They say that spending on tackling youth unemployment would be unfair on women.
We should not stop investment in policies that will return Britain to growth, such as cutting corporation tax, because more men run companies than women. However, again that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. I reject that argument. We need to ensure that more women can start businesses as we invest in getting Britain’s economy going. In fact, one symptom of the inequality between men and women is that more women than men rely on state spending.
We need to continue to support all women who need it, which is why we have ensured that we have protected child benefit and tax credits for women on low incomes, and why we will increase the value of the state pension, and protect benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for older women. However, if the previous Government taught us one thing, it is that more state spending might help to deal with the symptoms of inequality, but it does not address the causes. This Government are determined to get to grips with the causes of inequality between men and women, from job opportunities to the number of women in top, senior positions, to tackling the shameful levels of violence against women, and working to reverse the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will know that some of the key causes of inequality come into play during the very earliest years of a child’s life. Can she explain why her Government are cutting £5 million from the early intervention grant in Leicester, which covers children’s centres and Sure Start, which are crucial to giving all children the very best start in life?
Mrs May
We agree that early intervention is very important and, as the hon. Lady will know, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) produced a very significant report for the Government on the whole issue of early intervention. The Government are ensuring that, within the early intervention budget, there is sufficient funding to provide for a network of Sure Start centres. We are also ensuring—as we are in other areas, as I have mentioned in terms of focusing what the Government spend on the most vulnerable and those most in need—that Sure Start is returned to the early focus it was intended to have by the last Labour Government, which was helping those who are most in need, those on the lowest incomes and those who most need access to the sort of provision that Sure Start and children’s centres can provide.
I want the Government to take a new, more mature approach to engaging with women. I want to see women’s voices in government strengthened. That is why we launched a consultation on how the Government listen to and engage with women, which has already received nearly 900 responses. In today’s world, we need to make full use of communications technology, social media and other techniques to allow us to talk to women directly.
The Government are focused on giving opportunities to women. We need to move beyond just protection from discrimination and help women to get on in modern businesses and modern workplaces. Many women have benefited from the introduction of the right to request flexible working for parents and carers, but by restricting flexible working to certain groups, the idea was perpetuated that this is some sort of special treatment. We will therefore extend the right to request flexible working to all employees. This will not only shift attitudes, but will help to shift behaviour away from the traditional 9-to-5 model of work that can act as a barrier to many women and that also does not make sense for many modern businesses.
Another stereotype we need to shift is the idea that women should do the caring and men should earn the money when a couple decide to start a family. Our policy to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will make a real difference to working women who want to have children. For the first time, it will allow both parents to choose what is right for them and what is right for their family. If fathers want to take more of a role, they can. If mothers want to return to work earlier, they can. If parents want some time at home together after the birth of their child, they can have it. What matters is that they will have a choice.
Helen Goodman
I agree with the Home Secretary that we want to maximise people’s choices, but she must be aware that most non-resident parents are men and most parents with care are women, and that the latter have lower incomes. How can she justify putting a charge on those parents with care when the non-resident parent is not paying up on child maintenance?
Mrs May
As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a consultation on how we deal with the child maintenance issue. I hope that she would agree that despite the efforts of both Conservative and Labour persuasions over several years, we have not got the child maintenance system right in this country. There are too many people who do not see the absent parent paying child maintenance and we need to do everything we can to get a system that will work. As she will know, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), is looking at this issue and the alternatives available under the child maintenance proposals.
As well as giving all women better opportunities in the workplace, we need to do more to help those who aspire to the very top. Last year, only 12.5 % of all FTSE 100 board members were women. That is simply not good enough, and that is why the Government commissioned Lord Davies to look at how we can increase the number of women on company boards. We have made good progress in implementing Lord Davies’ recommendations. In May, the Financial Reporting Council launched a consultation on changes to the UK corporate governance code in order to help to achieve more diverse and more effective boards. The head-hunting industry has agreed a voluntary code on diversity, and we are building a strong sense of ownership and action in FTSE 100 companies. We have agreed with them a plan for how company aspirational targets should be published by September.
The latest figures suggest there has already been an improvement in FTSE 100 companies, just by our shining a light on this area. Some 31% of new board members appointed since Lord Davies’ report have been women, up from just 13% last year, and the number of male-only boards has dropped from 21 in October to 14.
We are also helping women to break through the glass ceiling by providing an all-age careers service. The new service will be fully operational by next April, and will provide high quality, professional careers guidance that will be open to all young people and adults. That will help women to make the right choices for themselves and for their careers. For the lowest paid, we will raise the minimum wage to £6.08—two thirds of those on the minimum wage are women.
In other areas we are also making the right decisions to help the most vulnerable. On pensions, again we have had to make some difficult decisions. Yes, we have proposed accelerating the rate at which the state pension age for women becomes the same as the state pension age for men. With life expectancy rising—and one in nine women pensioners is now expected to live to more than 100—and with the overwhelming need to reduce the deficit, this was a decision we could not duck. But it means that at the same time we have been able to commit to a triple guarantee, which will increase the basic state pension by earnings, prices or by 2.5%, whichever is highest.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford claimed that the earnings link had been restored by the Turner report. Of course the Turner review referred to the earnings link, but the last Government did not restore it. This Government have restored the earnings link and gone further with the triple guarantee.
Dame Anne Begg
Do I take it from what the Home Secretary says that the reason for the acceleration of the state pension age to 66 by 2020 is that the Government can pay for the triple lock on today’s pensions? It cannot be about deficit reduction because it comes after the deficit is supposed to have been abolished.
Mrs May
In fact, by the end of the comprehensive spending review period we will still have a debt of £1.4 trillion, which is three times the debt in 2006-07, so we will still need to look carefully at our public sector finances. It is this Government who have introduced that triple lock on pensions that will benefit today’s pensioners. For too long under the previous Government, older women had to rely on means-tested benefits, with many not claiming their entitlements at all. Our triple guarantee will help to improve the value of the state pension, giving real security and a decent income for all women pensioners. Although women will experience the rise in the state pension age more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the state pension for an average of 23 years.
Dame Anne Begg
To be clear, is the Home Secretary agreeing that the triple lock will be paid for by the 500,000 women who will have to wait longer for their state pension in order to reduce Government debt? That returns us to the essence of this debate—why should women bear a higher proportion of reducing the deficit than men?
Mrs May
It is not the case that there is a simple link between the acceleration of women’s pension age and the expenditure on the triple lock. What is happening with pensions is more complex. Two things are happening in relation to the state pension age. The first is the overall acceleration for men and women, raising the age of state pension entitlement. That will bring in significant sums of money and is a reflection not only of Government finance issues but of increased longevity. When the state pension was first introduced, people lived for a very short period, comparatively speaking—a matter of two to five years—beyond their retirement. Today, people live for a significant length of time beyond their retirement. The Government therefore need to raise the state pension age, as has been recognised by previous Governments—the initial decisions to accelerate the rise and raise the state pension age were taken by previous Governments. We have had to take these difficult decisions. As I said, however, although women will experience the rise more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the pension for an average of 23 years.
Claire Perry
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of this point, but in the proposals for 2016 and thereafter will we not be addressing the long-standing problem of women who have taken career breaks being ineligible for a state pension, which is a travesty that we should have sorted out before? Under the proposals we will bring forward, there will be much more parity in that area.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point that I was about to deal with. In the longer term, we want to take reforms even further. The state pension Green Paper proposed a single-tier state pension combining the state pension and the state second pension to provide an estimated £140 per week, which would be of particular benefit to women who have had to take time out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities. The coalition Government are not just talking about this—we have actually made proposals to help women in this regard.
On health, we are pursuing policies that give real help to women. We have stuck to our promise to increase health spending in real terms; we are sticking to our coalition agreement commitment to increase the number of health visitors by 4,200 by 2015; and we are making available £400 million over the next four years to support breaks for all those hard-working carers, many of whom are women.
I have made it absolutely clear, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, that tackling violence against women and girls is one of my top priorities, which is why in March we published an action plan to tackle the problem; it is why we have provided more than £28 million of stable Home Office funding until 2015 for local specialist services; it is why we have provided £900,000 until 2015 to support national helplines; and it is why for the first time we have put funding for rape crisis centres on a stable footing. We will provide more than £10 million over three years to support their work, and we will open new centres where there are gaps in provision. This should not be a party political issue. It is about helping the 1 million women who suffer domestic abuse each year; the 300,000 women who are sexually assaulted; and the 60,000 women who are raped. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, and that will often be accompanied by years of psychological abuse. That is why the Government take violence against women and girls so seriously.
We will only change damaging behaviour, however, after we have changed the underlying attitudes that cause that behaviour. Those attitudes are fundamentally affected by the culture and society in which children grow up. We share the concern of many parents that children are now being exposed to sexualised images and an increasingly sexualised culture from an early age, which is why we commissioned Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union, to lead an independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. He has listened to parents’ concerns about explicit music videos, outdoor adverts and the increasing amount of sexual content in family programming on television.
Reg Bailey’s recommendations call on businesses and broadcasters to play their part, and they include putting age restrictions on music videos, covering up explicit images on the front pages of magazines and newspapers and restricting outdoor adverts near schools, nurseries and playgrounds. He also recommends that retailers sign up to a code of practice that checks and challenges the design, display and marketing of clothes, products and services for children. There has been a great deal of goodwill from the broadcast, retail and advertising industries throughout this review. They know that family-friendly practices make good business sense, and the Government will now look to work with business to implement the review’s proposals.
As well as helping women in this country, we are doing more than ever before to help women overseas. We are putting women at the heart of our international development policies, because in development there are few better options than investing in women. In Ivory Coast, for example, an increase of just $10 in women’s income achieves the same nutritional and health outcomes for children as an increase of $110 in men’s income. On international women’s day, the Department for International Development published its new strategic vision for girls and women. It sets out that, by 2015, our international development work will have saved the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies; will have allowed at least 10 million women to access modern methods of family planning; will have supported more than 9 million children in primary education, of whom at least half will be girls, and 700,000 girls in secondary education; and will have helped 2.3 million women to access jobs and 18 million women to access financial services.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
The majority of part-time students studying for first degrees are women. Ten years ago I graduated as a mature part-time student—and I was pleased to note then that the majority of students were women. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s decision to extend loan support to part-time students, which will give women the opportunity to advance their careers through further education?
Mrs May
I commend my hon. Friend on his experience and how he got his qualification—I am choosing my words carefully, given what he said about the number of females on the course. However, it is important that we support part-time study, because it is an option that people are increasingly considering. The extra support that we have provided and the way we have dealt with the issue are important steps forward. As he said, such support will have a particularly significant impact on women, given that many part-time students are women.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
On students, women in my constituency often tell me about the need for good English language schools. The Home Secretary will know that the co-financing proposals for speakers of other languages will affect women disproportionately— 74% of those affected by the proposals will be women. What conversations has she had with the relevant Minister about that issue?
Mrs May
I have had a number of conversations over time with the relevant Minister on the issue of English language schools and colleges.
I wish to finish the point about tackling violence against women and girls overseas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has also been appointed as our overseas champion for tackling violence against women and girls. We have a moral duty to act to support women around the world.
The Opposition’s record on women speaks for itself. They left government with 1 million women unemployed and 200,000 more women unemployed than when they came to power—and that is without even mentioning the deficit. We are sorting out their mess and protecting the most vulnerable, even as we deal with Labour’s deficit, and we are giving women the opportunities they need to be successful: flexible parental leave; more women on boards; careers advice for all; flexible working extended; NHS spending protected; resources for violence against women defended; international development spending centred on women; low-paid people taken out of income tax; pay rises for low-paid public sector workers; child tax credits higher than under Labour; a triple guarantee on pensions; and the minimum wage up. Which of these policies do the Opposition disagree with? Where is their plan to deal with the deficit, to sort out the public finances, and to get Britain back up off its knees? They have no policies that would benefit women, no positive ideas, nothing to say to protect the most vulnerable, and therefore no credibility. All they offer is empty opposition, and that is why their motion deserves to fail.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree that discrimination and prejudice have blighted women’s lives for many decades and centuries, and we will all have stories of how our own families have been affected by it. In the 1950s, my grandmother, who was a midwife, was nearly forced out of work purely because she got married and started having children. In the 1970s, when my mother was pregnant with me, she was sacked because she was pregnant. She took the case to court, but was unsuccessful. Furthermore, it was only 20 years ago that marital rape was criminalised. It is incredible and horrific to think that until 1991 a man could rape his wife without her having any recourse to justice.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, much progress has been made in recent decades. However, it has been hard-fought, and I worry that it is fragile. Much more remains to be done. Girls do better at school and university than boys, but that is not filtering through into the labour market. Women earn less than men, and women own less than men. Men dominate the FTSE 100 companies, and one in four women at some point in their life will experience domestic violence. I also have to say that for every five men in this Parliament there is only one woman.
The case for gender equality is often expressed in the language of fairness and social justice, but there is also a powerful economic case for gender equality. It simply does not make sense to under-utilise the potential of half the population. A gender-equal society is not just fairer; it will be stronger, too. My worry is that the Government are complacent about the progress that has been made and that their policies might set us back years, or perhaps decades. The devastating economic impact of the Government’s policies on women is particularly distressing. Let us face it, the Government did not get off to a great start. This time last year, they failed to do an equalities impact assessment of their emergency Budget.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford set out, the deficit reduction measures are going to hit women much harder than men. Just as I am worried that the midlands and the north will be less able to cope with the economic gamble of this Government’s deep cuts, with the private sector less likely to take up the slack in those areas than in the south, I am also deeply concerned that women’s employment and pay will be disproportionately hit by the Government’s policies. Of the 500,000 jobs estimated to be lost in the public sector, an estimated 65% to 80% will be women’s jobs. It is not clear that the loss of jobs held by women in the public sector will be offset by an increase in the private sector. Therefore, the employment gap between men and women is likely to widen. Moreover, the gender pay gap is also likely to widen, as the private sector has a much higher pay gap than the public sector, with men earning over 20% more than women.
Dame Anne Begg
I have to give my hon. Friend the bad news that in some areas the gender pay gap is even wider. In my constituency the gender pay gap is 30%, partly because a lot of the men have high-paid jobs in the oil industry, whereas the women generally work in the service industry.
Emma Reynolds
The gender pay gap has been a problem for decades. Even though we legislated in this country in the 1970s, there has not been enough movement to narrow the pay gap.
Let me turn to the commitment in the coalition programme to
“promote equal pay and take a range of measures to end discrimination in the workplace.”
When the Minister winds up, I would like her to explain exactly how the actions that I have described will further that commitment. I fear that we will go backwards, not forwards.
The benefit cuts and changes also have a disproportionate effect on women. I support the eventual equalisation of the pension age for men and women, but again, we have seen the Government’s total disregard for the 500,000 women aged between 56 and 57 who, at very short notice, will have to wait two years longer before receiving their pensions. Also, cuts to child benefits and the working family tax credit, which involve help for child care costs, will make it harder for women to combine parenthood and work. For women with children, those benefits do not create dependence, but give them independence and a real choice of whether to stay at home or work part time or full time. Now that choice will only get harder.
Nicky Morgan
My constituents have told me that one of the problems with the current system of tax credits—and the reason why the universal credit is needed—is that a number of women in receipt of tax credits found that if they worked even one or two hours extra, they immediately started to lose more benefits than they were gaining. The point is that we want to encourage women’s independence, as the hon. Lady says, which means the ability to be flexible and take on more work if it is available, yet the current tax credits system seems somehow to stop that.
Emma Reynolds
I share the hon. Lady’s sentiments, but I do not agree with her conclusions. The child care element of the working tax credit is particularly important, especially for parents on middle incomes, yet it is being cut quite substantially. Those cuts in particular will reduce parents’ opportunities to work if they want to. I want both parents to have the choice of working, if they so desire, as well as balancing family commitments. Indeed, a civilised society should provide that framework, so that both parents can, if they want to, combine work with parenthood. Again, this is not just about fairness; it also makes economic sense.
However, this Government are guilty not just of attacking women’s economic empowerment, but in their work on tackling violence against women. We have seen many ill-thought-through policies that seem to be targeted at women. For example, this time last year, when considering anonymity for defendants, the Government chose to introduce it for rape cases. I know that they have dropped the idea since, but why choose rape, a crime predominantly committed against women? We also had an interesting debate about whether the Government should increase the plea bargaining discount, and again, the crime chosen to illustrate this was rape. Again, why choose a crime that affects more women than men?
I also have deep concerns about the Government’s reluctance to do anything concrete about the modern slave trade. Although I am pleased that they have finally seen the light and signed up to the EU human trafficking directive, I fear that it took them so long that they are now behind, rather than leading from the front, blinded by a degree of Euroscepticism. I also want to know what the Government are preparing to do ahead of the Olympic games next year. Unfortunately, international sporting events are magnets for pimps and traffickers. I would like to know what specific measures the Government are putting in place to stem the probable increase in trafficking due to the Olympic games. There is also much evidence that the national referral mechanism used to identify victims of trafficking is not fit for purpose. The UK Border Agency is in control of the mechanism, often treating women as illegal immigrants instead of victims—that seems to be the assumption made even before the women involved are interviewed.
In opening, I talked about the discrimination that my grandmother and mother suffered, and the progress made since. I sincerely hope that this Government will start to take seriously the risk that their policies will make women’s life chances worse, not better, for the next generation.
Mrs Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
I am very glad to be called to speak in this important debate. Let me start by saying how much I agreed with part of the concluding sentiments of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), when she said that this debate is not just about women, but about everybody. That, of course, is where all the Opposition’s arguments fall down, because they fail to perceive—she said this was ideological; I agree with her: it is ideological—that by returning the country to prosperity, we will be returning women to prosperity. She fails to perceive or acknowledge what the former Prime Minister and Member for Sedgefield, Tony Blair, has acknowledged—along with James Purnell and her right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—which is that her Government failed to reform the welfare system, and in doing so, failed so many of the women and children in this country, who suffered from being below the poverty line.
What a shocking indictment to hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the right hon. Lady’s Government left office with 1 million women unemployed. We heard a list in the right hon. Lady’s opening arguments of all the ways in which women had fallen behind men in equality. I would say to her and other Opposition Members that Labour had 13 years in power to do something about the inequalities that women suffered, about the welfare system or about children below the poverty line, yet they signally failed to do so, just as they signally failed to tackle our structural deficit. Again and again, we heard her right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) talk about taking tough decisions for the long term, yet he never took any of them. It has taken the two parties on the Government side of the House to fix the mess that the one party on the other side left behind.
How astonishing that the Labour party actually dared to call for an Opposition day debate on women’s issues. When I look at my research brief from the Government I see measure after measure designed to protect children and families. I see a relentless focus on women, children and the most disadvantaged among the dispossessed. This Government must try to perform the incredibly difficult balancing act of fixing the deficit while protecting the most vulnerable, and we are coming up with creative and flexible solutions to a problem that was left to us entirely by the Labour party.
Labour Members talk of Sure Start provision. It is a fact that under Labour 50% of Sure Start centres were failing to reach out to the most disadvantaged children. It is a fact that Sure Start provision had moved away from its original purpose, and was failing to reach the most needy and the most vulnerable. Our proposals for Sure Start provision will include payment by results, and rewards for incredibly effective Sure Start centres such as the Pen Green centre in my town of Corby in east Northamptonshire, which has just received a massive amount of investment for research from the Department for Education. We will see extra health visitors, and we will see a relentless focus on children.
I find it amazing that, yet again, what we are hearing from Labour Members is naked opportunism. My right hon. Friend made a point that has been made many times on the Government Benches and has always gone unanswered: Labour’s spending plans involved cuts of £7 in every £8. When asked for specifics, Labour Members always respond with platitudes. They get to their feet and say, “We agree that the deficit needs to be tackled”, but when Government Members ask them precisely how they would tackle it, they reply, “We would not make your cuts.”
The women of this country are not stupid. They know that a blank piece of paper is no answer, and they know that we are fighting at every level for women. They see that there are to be new rape crisis centres in Hereford, Devon, Trafford and Dorset. They see stable funding for rape crisis centres: £10 million a year for the next three years. The Government are dealing with the important issue of violence against women, and they are taking action against rape. We are seeing deeds rather than words from this Government.
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady talks about fighting for women. What assessment has she made of cuts in legal aid that will have a hugely disproportionate effect on women once family law cases become ineligible for funding? Does that constitute fighting for women?
Mrs Mensch
I believe that the proposal to reduce legal aid funding was in the hon. Lady’s party’s manifesto. She will know, or she should know, that the legal aid system is incredibly inefficient and incredibly costly. Once again, we hear from Labour Members objections to a particular cut; once again, it is a particular cut that Labour also proposed in its manifesto; and once again, Labour Members have no specific proposals whatsoever to offer the women of this country on how they would implement their policy.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, universal credit is an attempt to tackle not the symptoms but the root causes of women’s poverty. According to statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions, it will take an estimated 350,000 children and 1 million people out of poverty. That is genuine progress. We know that women and children suffer in workless households, and we are finally grasping the nettle and tackling the problems that Labour refused to tackle.
As I look through my statistics, I see programme after programme directed at women. We have talked about the massive investments in existing rape crisis centres and the new ones that are being built. We have talked about the increase in the minimum wage—and so many of the 890,000 people affected by the increase to £6.08 will be women. Under Labour, it was perfectly legal for Jobcentre Plus offices to display advertisements for sex workers. It is absolutely appalling that Labour allowed that to continue, but this Government have stopped it.
What about the extra investment in the national health service? Labour is very quiet about the fact that it would cut funding for a service on which women increasingly rely. How bizarre to sit here—
Helen Goodman
Before the hon. Lady gets too high on her horse, may I point out to her that all the ground work and all the legal advice for changing the rules about which jobs could be advertised in jobcentres were produced under the last Government?
Mrs Mensch
May I please tell the hon. Lady that ground work is simply not good enough? For 13 years under a Labour Government, you allowed sex worker jobs to be advertised in Jobcentre Plus. The hon. Lady is embarrassed about that, and so she should be. It is an indictment of her Government that it was ever allowed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I assure the hon. Lady that I was not responsible for sex workers. I should be very grateful if she would put that right.
Mrs Mensch
I apologise profusely for ever having suggested such a thing, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to mind my language in future, as my mother taught me to.
It is this Government who are looking at ways of challenging inequalities in the workplace—
Mrs Mensch
I shall be happy to do so after I have made a little more progress.
Fiona Mactaggart
First, at no point were what the hon. Lady describes as “sex worker jobs” advertised in jobcentres. Secondly, the advertisements were not displayed for the entire term of the last Government. There had been a court decision that jobs in the broader sex industry ought to be advertised in jobcentres, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I pressed for it to be changed. I think that the hon. Lady’s claim that that was an achievement by the present Government is fundamentally dishonest, and that it was equally wrong for her to say that the advertisements continued for 13 years. [Interruption.] I am sure that it was done by accident.
Mrs Mensch
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I must tell her that I reject her assessment. In the Welfare Reform Bill, the Government have introduced legislation to close the loophole. If the Labour Government did not like the direction in which the courts were moving, it was always open to them to introduce legislation and to do so quickly. They would have been supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but they chose to sit on their hands.
I commend the hon. Lady for having done some of the work, but I condemn her party’s Government for not having done it quickly enough. Labour Members cannot escape the fact that it is this Government who have put right that shocking affront to women’s dignity. It is also this Government who are introducing flexible parental leave between parents, and this Government who are working with businesses to bring about transparency in pay so that the massive gap between men’s and women’s wages—which was 16.4% under Labour—can be reduced.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made an opportunistic reference to plea bargaining and shorter sentences for rape. It may be an idea that will not go very far, but the present Government are at least trying to introduce measures to tackle the appalling rates of rape conviction that we saw under the hon. Lady’s party. We saw zero ideas from that Government, and zero action to tackle those conviction rates.
Emma Reynolds
Does the hon. Lady think that the policy that the present Government have just abandoned of increasing the discount from 33% to 50% would have had an effect on the number of defendants pleading guilty? The Sentencing Council did not.
Mrs Mensch
I believe that it might have had an effect, but I also believe that the root cause is the fact that sentences overall for violence against women, rape and sexual offences are far too low, and that if necessary the House should direct the Sentencing Council to increase those overall sentences. In that wider context, the proposal might have made more sense. Let me point out to the hon. Lady that the entire left-wing press, including The Guardian, roundly condemned her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for his naked opportunism over the issue of sentencing and rape. As with rape crisis centres, it is this Government who are trying to do something about it.
Since December the number of mixed-sex wards has fallen by some 77%, and many women are no longer having to suffer that indignity. There is more investment in the NHS. Sure Start centres are protected under law from arbitrary closure by local authorities, which now have great flexibility to spend their budgets as they wish. Extra intervention means that there will be new health workers to help mothers to breastfeed, and to help the most vulnerable families. Sure Start is being targeted at the women who need it most.
When we look at the overall reforms of the economy, universal credit, the lifting of women out of poverty and the creation of opportunities, we see a Government who are not anti-women but, in fact, relentlessly pro-women, and who are doing all the things that the Labour party failed to do during its 13 years in office. Let me say to Labour Members that if they are not satisfied with the position of women in our society today, they have only themselves to blame.
On the issue of women as on so many other issues, it is the two parties in the coalition Government who are taking action and making progress. When an Opposition Member gets to their feet and levels with the House and the country about where precisely they would make some cuts, they might begin to have some credibility.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
It is only a tiny little budget, but it appears to be the only one that has not been cut at all: the grant for the Prime Minister’s second kitchen.
Mrs Mensch
I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and we have great fun serving together on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so I will go easy on him by saying that I will take that intervention in the light-hearted spirit in which it was intended, because the country is in a very serious state, and the state women are in is very serious too. The fact that we have to make these cuts is a serious matter, and it does affect women, yet all we hear from Opposition Members is excuses and all we see is blank paper; there is no admission that they would cut too, and no notion of where they would cut.
In conclusion, how unutterably strange it was to hear a good portion of the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and of the contribution of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—who is no longer in her place—spent trying to defend the payment of child benefit to prosperous women such as me. If that is what they have got to say to the women of this country, it is frankly no wonder that they are sitting on the Opposition Benches rather than the Government Benches. It is this Government who are committed to women; it is this Government who are making progress for women; it is this Government who are committed to tackling the deficit and at the same time protecting women and the most vulnerable. The Opposition have nothing to say, and I am sure their motion will be defeated in the resounding manner that it deserves.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call the next speaker, who will be Jonathan Ashworth, may I remind Members that his will be a maiden speech?
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a tremendous privilege, and perhaps a little daunting, to have this opportunity to speak in the Chamber for the first time, not least because this is a debate on women and Government policy, and I do hope that I do not turn out to be the token male in the debate—although as a father of a two-week-old baby girl, and as someone who has just returned from paternity leave, I feel slightly more confident about speaking in it than I might have done a fortnight ago.
As is the custom, I start by paying tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Peter Soulsby, who stood down from Parliament to contest the election for Leicester’s first directly elected mayor—which, indeed, he won. Sir Peter was much admired in the House for his independence and integrity, and although I make no criticism of those who remain in this House while seeking election to other bodies, it is testament to Peter’s devotion and commitment to the city of Leicester that he resigned his seat before seeking election as Leicester’s mayor, not after. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will wish him well—and look on enviously at his 37,000 majority. I look forward to working closely with Sir Peter in the years ahead.
I also want to say a few words about Parmjit Gill and the late Jim Marshall. Parmjit Gill served briefly as Member of Parliament for Leicester South. He was also very briefly my opponent in the recent by-election. I and many others were sorry when he withdrew as a candidate, as he is respected across the constituency, but I know he has a young family and I wish him well for the future. I never knew Jim Marshall, but throughout the by-election campaign I met many who did. Jim served Leicester South for nearly 25 years in total, with an unfortunate four-year break thanks to the will of the electorate. Many still speak warmly of Jim’s compassion and commitment to social justice. He is hugely missed across Leicester South.
I am privileged to represent a constituency of huge diversity, vibrancy and tolerance, and while we must never be complacent, our communities generally live harmoniously together. We are part of a city renowned across the world for welcoming incomers. Families have come from across the globe to make their home in Leicester South, such as our Asian communities from Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan, east Africa and Bangladesh, as well as our Caribbean community, our communities from Somalia and, most recently, those from elsewhere in Africa, the middle east and eastern Europe. Our diversity enriches our cultural, social and civic life, and contributes immensely to our economy, too.
For many of my constituents, faith is important. A sightseer on a tour through Leicester South would no doubt visit our cathedral and beautiful churches, numerous mosques, gurdwaras, Hindu temples, synagogues, and the Jain temple. We are all proud that all our faith groups promote mutual understanding and solidarity, focusing on what unites us, not on what divides us. There can be no greater example of this than what happened when the English Defence League came to Leicester last October in an attempt to stir up hatred and division. The people of Leicester—all faiths, all cultures and all backgrounds—united in rejecting the EDL and what it stands for. Our community leaders, our city council leadership, the police and, most importantly, the people of Leicester should be commended for what we have achieved in Leicester. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is not in his place, I also want to pay tribute to him for his outstanding contributions on these matters over many years. As the Member for Leicester South, I will play my part in celebrating our diversity and promoting mutual understanding in the years ahead as well.
Many people from across the world and the UK come to study at our two great universities—Leicester and De Montfort—both of which are situated in Leicester South. Our universities help to make Leicester the dynamic city it is today, while our student population is considered so significant that just over 12 months ago the Deputy Prime Minister visited the campus of De Montfort university to make a certain pledge on tuition fees, to much student acclaim. My by-election campaign was boosted by no less than three visits from the Deputy Prime Minister, but on each occasion he seemed somewhat reluctant to return to the campus he visited a year ago; I can’t think why.
My constituents rightly take the NHS very seriously. Many of them hope that the Prime Minister will drop his proposed changes to the NHS, and are deeply worried about his “top-down reorganisation”. Although Glenfield hospital is in Leicester West, many of my constituents have told me how strongly they feel that the children’s heart surgery unit at Glenfield should remain open, and I agree with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has, along with the Leicester Mercury, been at the forefront of the campaign to keep the unit open, and today I want to make clear my support for that campaign and assure my constituents that, alongside my hon. Friend, I will do all I can, locally and nationally, to back efforts to maintain the children’s heart surgery unit at Glenfield.
My constituency boasts much cultural and sporting heritage. The ’60s playwright Joe Orton grew up on the Saffron Lane estate, and I believe that the singer Engelbert Humperdinck—the legend who made the song “Quando, quando, quando” so popular—grew up in Leicester South too. As a sports fan, I am lucky that my constituency contains the grounds of Leicester City football club, Leicestershire cricket club and Leicester Tigers rugby union club. I look forward to visiting them all regularly in the future—on constituency business of course—although I hope Tigers fans will not hold it against me that I was brought up a Salford rugby league fan; I know you will approve of that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Although there is much to celebrate and we are proud of our achievements, many families are, as I heard in the by-election campaign, uncertain about the future. My constituents—and women in particular—are feeling the brunt of the coalition’s fiscal policies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) so eloquently outlined in her opening remarks, many women are feeling the effects of the tax credit changes. In the by-election campaign I met a family living off Aylestone road who are feeling the squeeze thanks to a VAT increase, rising inflation and tax credit changes, and who are now worried about their jobs as well. They told me they were “doing just nicely” until this Conservative-Liberal Government came along.
We have many Sure Start centres in the constituency. Thankfully, because of our Labour council, they are being saved, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West outlined in an earlier contribution, the Government are cutting the early intervention grant. I heard many heart-breaking stories from younger people—many of them young women—from poorer backgrounds who are doing well at school but now think university is not for them. Many of my constituents hope that the Government will think again and introduce a fairer and more equitable way of funding higher education.
Our jobless rate is too high; it is the highest in Leicester. Traditionally, Leicester has had a good record in employing women, but with the public sector cuts set to hit us, many women in my constituency face a precarious future. Tackling our unemployment problem will require the Government to implement a strategy for growth, with investment in skills, training and work-readiness schemes. I especially hope the Government will reconsider the cuts in ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—which will have a detrimental effect on the ability of many of my constituents, particularly women, to move into work.
Pockets of my constituency too often show up in annual surveys of high deprivation. Poverty and lack of opportunity too often blight lives in St Matthew’s and parts of Highfields, Spinney, Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell. Many of those will be women. It is a matter of great shame that in Leicester we have one of the highest levels of child poverty in the UK. With the changes to the tax and benefits system that have already been discussed, I fear things will get worse. Pushing for measures to tackle child poverty in Leicester will be a priority of mine, as I know it is for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West, as well as our mayor, Peter Soulsby, and his able deputy Rory Palmer.
However, the people of Leicester South, whether living on those estates or living elsewhere—in Aylestone, Knighton, Stoneygate or Castle—are a proud people. We are at our strongest when we are united in supporting one another, and we are proud that we can boast of countless voluntary organisations that do just that—the Sharma women’s centre, the Pakistan Youth and Community Association and the Bangladesh Youth & Cultural Shomiti, to name just a few—or when we celebrate together, whether at a religious festival or a community event such as the one held this past weekend, celebrating national family week, at Eyres Monsell’s “picnic on the park”.
I come to this House from a modest background. My mother and father, when they had work, were employed in low-income jobs—they might be described as the modern working class—but I was lucky in life. I did well at my comprehensive school and I am the only one in my family ever to have made it to university. Before I was elected to this House I worked within it for a previous Prime Minister and for the current Leader of the Opposition. I also worked briefly for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)—which perhaps explains why I chose to speak in this debate.
I am honoured to have been elected as the Member for Leicester South. I will dedicate myself to representing all my constituents, to fighting for those across Leicester South whose voices too often go unheard, and to playing my part in articulating the concerns and aspirations of those in my constituency, many of them women, who know that there can be and must be a better way.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth)? He demonstrates, as in so many cases, that often there is a lot more that joins us than divides us in this House. He spoke about his constituency, and defended it, with great passion—and I have heard almost every Member of this House do the same thing in terms of their own constituencies. The hon. Gentleman might also be interested to know that we share more than that. My family hails from 19 Narborough road south, my nephew is studying at De Montfort university, and I remember many a trip to Leicester market to buy vegetables—from Gary Lineker’s parents—and eat Eric’s ice creams. I therefore suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I will have a lot to talk about in the Members bars over the years to come.
I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech—until the point where it got rather political. We Government Members were sitting on our hands in order not to contravene the policy of not intervening on maiden speeches. But when I heard him say that his former employer was the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), all became clear, and I understood why he could not help himself. However, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman.
I want to ask the question: why are we here today? It seems from what we have heard from Labour Members that we are here to listen to a bandwagon. All we have heard from them so far is a desperate and disparate series of criticisms of individual policies, in an attempt to create a fictional narrative about this Government targeting women and those who need help most in society. It is a fictional construct that I reject entirely, as I think every Government Member does.
There is also a flagrant disregard for the mistakes and missteps that the Labour Government made in 13 years. We heard a tiny apology from the shadow Home Secretary for the 10p tax rate fiasco, which caused so many people on low incomes, particularly women, such incredible hardship.
Claire Perry
It was a disaster, and was recognised as such. However, we have not heard much about the hollowing out over the previous 13 years of the health visitor profession. The health visitor is often the only point of contact that a young mother, particularly one from a disadvantaged community, will have with the medical profession. Health visitors are the most trusted people involved with pregnant women’s and young children’s lives, yet that profession was hollowed out and almost entirely disregarded. Indeed, its professional status was completely downgraded by Labour.
We have not heard anything about the complex, byzantine welfare system that was built up over 13 years—a welfare system that now costs every family in this country £3,000 a year. Yet in my constituency, it appears to trap people on welfare—particularly single mothers who would love to get back into the work force—and trap them in poverty.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that it was in fact Labour’s policies that got 350,000 single parents back into employment? Yes, before that we had a very bad record compared with other European countries—I fully endorse that point—but it was Labour’s polices that made inroads into that.
Claire Perry
I agree with the hon. Lady, who I know has campaigned on this issue for years, that some progress was made, but it was not enough. The welfare system is incredibly complicated and provides huge disincentives to work. Yes, women were helped back into the work force, and the hon. Lady and I both completely support that. However, we hear time and again about women who do not know if it is even worth their while to work—who cannot work out, given the complexities of part-time and voluntary working, whether they should even look for child care for their daughter or son in order to go to work. It is simply an expensive mess that has not helped the women and men across this country in the way that it should.
Helen Goodman
Will the hon. Lady temper her rhetoric just a tiny bit and recall that every person who goes to a jobcentre gets a “better off in work” calculation to inform them by how much they will be better off, and what their other entitlements are?
Claire Perry
I would be interested to know whether the hon. Lady has actually gone through a “better off” job calculation, as I have. It is one of the most complicated, ridiculous pieces of analysis I have ever seen. In many cases, the jobcentre advisers simply say, “We actually don’t know.” It can take 45 minutes to make a “better off” calculation, and if someone’s circumstances change by one or two hours a week, they have to go back to the starting point. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that the “better off in work” calculation is something to be proud of after 13 years in government, may I suggest that she fundamentally misunderstands what we need to do to get men and women back into work? In fact, the work that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is doing will massively reform the system.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the adoption of the universal credit and its 65% taper means that people can now be absolutely certain that they will be better off in taking on more work, particularly on the other side of the current 16-hour barrier, beyond which so many benefits drop away?
Claire Perry
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As a mother of young children, I cannot emphasise enough how difficult it can often be for women to take those steps—to think about child care for their family if they are not sure that it makes sense financially. As he says, there will be far more certainty under the system that we are proposing.
We are here today, therefore, because of a mass outbreak of bandwagonism on the Labour Benches. We are also here because of a heavy dose of hypocrisy. As I think most Labour Members acknowledge, the Labour Government would have had to make £7 of spending cuts for every £8 of cuts that we are making this year. Are they telling us that they would somehow have ring-fenced those spending reductions, or made them in a different way?
Claire Perry
If they are, we are all ears. [Interruption.] Tell us! The only thing we have heard is that they would restore child benefit for families with a median income of £75,000 a year. I do not think that that is fair or progressive; nor do hard-pressed working women and women on benefits in my constituency. They think it is outrageous—and that is the only Opposition policy we have heard today that would deviate from what the present Government are doing.
I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), and then to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds).
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I was going to make exactly that point: we have heard today that for someone like me who is making £65,000 a year, it is Labour party policy to restore my child benefit after 2013.
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend is right. Moreover, despite the state of the public finances—for every £4 we spend, £1 is borrowed—Labour would like to borrow that money from other countries in order to restore my hon. Friend’s child benefit, thereby putting that debt round the necks of all of our children and grandchildren. How can that be a rational policy? It is sheer, rank hypocrisy—and on that point I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for such a kind introduction. The Government plan to fund the deficit reduction through a proportion of 20% tax rises and 80% spending cuts, whereas our plans are for 60% to come from tax rises and 40% from spending cuts. Does she accept that because women earn less and own less, the spending cuts being introduced by her Government hit women much harder than ours would have done?
Claire Perry
It would be helpful if we understood a little more about what the hon. Lady’s spending reductions would be. Only the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor’s wife think that Labour’s economic policies are correct. Everyone else, including the International Monetary Fund, the CBI and the OECD, thinks that what the Government are doing is the way to restore the health and credibility of the British economy.
Claire Perry
I wish to make a little more progress, and then I will be happy to give way.
We are hearing a lot of hypocrisy about spending cuts and about pension ages. Let us not forget that the Labour party commissioned the Turner review, which recommended a rise in the state pension age for men and women, and pointed out that the disproportionate longevity figures for men and women meant that the age for women had to rise more quickly. We must ask whether there is an alternative proposal. Does something need to happen about state pensions? We would love to hear Labour’s plans, but we never do.
The Labour party also missed more than 50% of its own equality targets. We know that the Labour party loves targets, but we do not hear very much about the fact that it missed 50% of its targets in this important area. We have also not heard much from Labour Members about Sure Start. I love Sure Start, and I am incredibly proud of the three Sure Start centres in my constituency. They are doing incredibly good work, particularly in places such as Tidworth, an area to which dozens of soldiers and soldiers’ wives come. The centre provides a real lifeline there. We have just opened the Sure Start centre in Pewsey, and thanks to the financial management skills of Wiltshire council it will remain open and funded.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Can the hon. Lady, or any of her colleagues who wish to contribute, tell us why previous Conservative Governments never introduced anything like Sure Start? Sure Start is an amazing achievement of the Labour Government, and she should bear that in mind.
Claire Perry
One might just take the hon. Lady’s intervention back a little. Sure Start was invented in the United States in the early 1990s, where it was targeted, as she knows, at the children who needed it most, and it was a great success. If I had been in Parliament when Sure Start was introduced I would have supported it in its early incarnation. It is a very sound idea, but of course it had to grow from something that was very useful when targeted to something that became a universal political point.
Let us hear what happened. In 2010 the National Audit Office found that
“there was no reduction in inequality between child development achieved in the 30% most disadvantaged communities and in the rest of England, against a target to reduce the gap by four percentage points”.
We must remind ourselves that Sure Start was introduced to intervene in the lives of the most vulnerable and needy children and families, and that that target was completely missed. Did any discussion take place about how to target Sure Start better? Was there any acknowledgement that one of the huge issues related to the lack of trust going out and reaching in to the most disadvantaged communities? We know that more than half of the Sure Start centres were failing to reach out to vulnerable families. What should people do in those circumstances? Should they think about how to change that, or should they keep spending and criticise a Government who want to target the money better? The 4,700 extra health visitors jobs—almost 5,000 of them, which will largely be filled by women—represent the way to get from the Sure Start centre out into the community and really help the most disadvantaged children, who absolutely need that intervention. That is what we are planning to do, but we hear no support for it. Again, that is because of the rank hypocrisy that we are hearing from Labour Members today.
The other thing we are hearing today is that the Government have no policies in the area of equality. This is a House of very intelligent people—I keep saying that so it has to be true. There are Members in all parts of the House who work on a cross-party basis on unbelievably important issues, be it child protection or trying to stop the pernicious influence of pornography on the lives of our families. We should be working together on how to make Sure Start centres more effective —on what we can actually do to make a difference—instead of getting involved in this bandwagonism. I find it incredibly demeaning for the House to be participating in that.
We are dealing here with unbelievable hypocrisy, given that it is coming from a party that maxed out on the nation’s credit card. Its approach means that we are spending 39 times the annual operating budget of Sure Start on servicing Labour’s debts. That is the legacy that we are having to deal with. Do we hear any innovative or sensible suggestions about how to deal with it? No, we do not.
We have a benefits system has been created to trap many women in the sorts of poverty from which we would all want them to get out. We know that the benefits system is costing everyone £3,000 a year, but do we get any positive recognition and support for our welfare reform policies and the universal credit that we are proposing? I do not think so. Let us put aside this bandwagonism and hypocrisy, and let us talk about what this coalition Government are actually doing.
First—this is obviously the elephant in the room—the Government are taking action to pay off the previous Government’s crippling debts, which did not pop up overnight as a result of the credit crunch. The Labour Government spent more than they took in taxes every year from 2002, wishfully thinking that post-endogenous growth theory—I went to Nailsea comprehensive school and do not have a clue what that means—would somehow bring us out of the mess. Well, guess what: it does not. A Government have to live within their means if they are not to burden our children with debts, as the profligacy of the Labour Government did. This Government will live within their means. We are making the spending reductions that the Labour party left us with in a way that focuses the scarce resources on those who need them most.
We are facing a public sector pay freeze, and that is tough. Some 35% of the employment based in my constituency is in the public sector, so Members should not think that I do not get a lot of letters about that. However, I also hear from the women, many of whom work part time, who are grateful to be excluded from the pay freeze because they are low earners. They recognise that in these scarce times things have to change, but they think that it is important that the pay freeze excluded the lowest paid, and so do I. The Government have also taken 880,000 people out of taxation completely and definitively with a one-off move—it was not the fiasco of the 10p tax rate—and that benefits lower-income women and families in this country hugely.
We have heard a lot from Labour Members about child tax credits—I am confused, because I thought that the Government were raising child tax credits in absolute terms and ahead of indexation for the most disadvantaged families, who need them the most. I believe that that benefits 4 million of this country’s poorest families. We are examining Sure Start centres, ring-fencing the funding and investing in 5,000 additional health visitors, who can stop Sure Start centres being a nice thing thrown on the wall and make them work.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Can the hon. Lady tell me which Sure Start centres have their finances ring-fenced?
Claire Perry
As the hon. Lady knows, it is for the local authority to decide what it does. I do not know what her local authority is doing, but in Wiltshire not one Sure Start centre is closing and funding is being maintained completely. I might submit that political machinations further down the system are leading to these changes, but the funding and the additional investment is certainly there. If her local Sure Start centres would like to operate better and have some additional health visitor investment, that money is also there.
We have also heard about a Government who are protecting NHS spending. We know that in general women consume more NHS resources, and that money is being protected. International development spending, which I particularly support and about which we heard so eloquently from those on both sides of the House during the international women’s day debate, is also being ring-fenced. It is my belief that investing in schools for women in Pakistan is a sensible thing to do locally and it will increase overall economic security and prosperity. Having a women-focused aid policy, as we have, is the right thing to do.
We have heard about the universal credit, which will bring 1 million people, including 350,000 children, out of poverty. We have also heard about the sustainable funding for the rape crisis centres. I have been involved in some of the discussions that have taken place on rape, sentencing and tariffs and the policy person from the head of the UK rape crisis centres says, “This is the first time we have had sustainable funding for our centres for as long as we can remember, and we absolutely support this.”
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that over the next three years nearly £250,000 will be put into developing a rape crisis centre in Exeter, serving the women of Devon, who have been disgracefully under-resourced over the past 10 years?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, under the previous Government nine out of 10 local authorities did not have a rape crisis centre. At a time of significant fiscal constraint, we are managing to find new money to invest in that incredibly important area and I thank her for her intervention.
Finally, as regards an area on which many of us in this House have campaigned together, the Government are taking active steps to deal with the oncoming tide of sexualisation and the commercialisation of childhood, whether by getting retailers to act in a responsible way or by getting internet service companies to consider a system that allows us not to have pornography piped into our homes and makes getting it a choice. Work is happening under this Government that I applaud.
This is a bit of a depressing debate to be involved in. Many Members share many of the same aspirations and campaign on important issues, but all we have is the bandwagonism and hypocrisy of the Labour party. What I have enjoyed most in this debate has been listening to Ministers who have told how we are focusing scarce money on those who need it now while taking steps so that the profligacy of the previous Labour Government does not leave our children and our grandchildren with debts to pay off.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me tell hon. Members that we have six speakers to come and the winding up will speeches start at 3.55 pm. Can Members bear that in mind?
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth). He was passionate about his constituency and warm in his praise of his predecessors and colleagues in the city. May I thank him for his support for Salford Reds? Among the many football and rugby clubs in his constituency that he could have talked about, he still remembered Salford Reds. I hope that he will enjoy visiting the clubs he mentioned in his own constituency and he will always be welcome in my constituency, where the new Salford Reds stadium is fast taking shape. Each week when I go back there is more of it. He is very welcome to come back to Salford.
On a more serious point, let me refer to a letter from a constituent affected by the pension age change. My constituent wrote:
“Recently I applied for a pension forecast and found that I will not receive any pension payment until I am 64. I am worried and appalled. I have worked full time since leaving school, progressed my nursing career so I could remain employable and reared 2 children. I do not drink or smoke and I have paid for our children’s university fees so that they could enter ‘the big society’ with something to offer, ensuring their employability. I have not been given any time to plan for receiving my pension at 64. Successive governments have encouraged people to save for their retirement which I have done with the view of retiring at 60. I cannot stress strongly enough how I feel let down by people who are supposedly managing our country. I will certainly join in a campaign opposing this”.
She also said:
“How can I stop this happening? It is unfair and penalises all those people who are loyal and hard working.”
Women such as my constituent are worried and appalled and it is time that Ministers listened to them.
Harriett Baldwin
Is the hon. Lady talking about a constituent whose retirement age is rising to 64? Is that not a policy that her Government brought in?
Barbara Keeley
I did not intend to touch on that, but wanted to take the opportunity to read out my constituent’s comments so that Ministers understand the worry and concern.
I want to focus more on women and jobs and social care. I share the concerns expressed by many organisations and individuals about the disproportionate and unfair impact of the Government’s policies on women. As we know, women make up 60% of the public sector work force. Nationally, 40% of women’s jobs are in the public sector compared with 15% of men’s jobs. In my constituency, women’s jobs in the public sector are in local government and the NHS—in the primary care trust and in local hospitals. Local councils are now having to manage the swingeing front-loaded budget cuts made by this Government and thousands of jobs are being lost. Salford council, my old council, will have to cut 500 jobs this year. Wigan council will lose more than 800 jobs and Manchester council 2,000. All the interventions made by Government Members have not made much mention of those swingeing front-loaded cuts to council budgets, but they are very important and they are affecting things.
George Hollingbery
Will the hon. Lady illuminate the House with how many of the job cuts to the various councils she identified are redundancies or post eliminations rather than straightforward compulsory redundancies? Can she tell us about the profile of those people? Are they at the top, middle or bottom level of the organisations?
Barbara Keeley
It hardly matters, I think. We are talking about three or four years of cuts and this year’s cuts will be followed by similar cuts next year and the year after. I am surprised that Government Members can look with such equanimity at something such as the 2,000 job cuts that are happening in Manchester.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) talked about protecting the NHS, but in reality hundreds of jobs are being lost in the NHS, as they are in local councils. Jobs are being lost through the abolition of our primary care trust in Salford and that change is also causing turmoil to local services and decision making. At Salford Royal hospital, 720 jobs are being cut, including those of 146 nurses. The Christie, our regional county hospital, is to reduce its staffing by 213—one in 10 of the current work force—including 40 nurse-grade jobs and 50 health care support or assistant jobs. I am sure that none of us would look with equanimity at that level of job loss.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that her own party did not campaign on the basis of ring-fencing or protecting the health budget? Does she not accept that it is highly likely that the situation would be far worse had her party been elected?
Barbara Keeley
No, I do not accept that. The turmoil that has been caused by the unnecessary top-down reorganisation, as well as the £3 billion cost of that reorganisation, is not helping.
Finally, and close to home in my constituency, Royal Bolton hospital is losing 60 posts, including 32 nurses, with 92 jobs going next year and 95 the year after. At Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh hospital, 533 jobs are going—a 13% reduction. These are the jobs and careers of my constituents, and women’s jobs are disproportionately affected because all those organisations employ significantly more women than men.
In recent months, there has been quite a focus on women’s jobs that are being lost, but the cuts also mean the loss of services that women use more than men. Women, as we know, are more likely to use libraries and health services and they need support from social care for family members and themselves as carers. Women will carry a disproportionate burden of the spending cuts that are affecting social care services as 58% of carers are women, and of those carers who combine caring with part-time work, 89% are women.
Next week is carers’ week, which has great support across the House, and the theme will be the true face of carers. Carers are being asked to talk about the reality of their lives as carers—how hard they can find it to be a carer and what could really make a difference to their lives. A report by the Care and Support Alliance in March showed that levels of unmet need were increasing even before the cuts to local council budgets. That is a great cause for concern. In the alliance’s survey of 1,000 people, nearly seven out of 10 respondents felt that they needed more support, more than two in 10 said that services had been cut back even though needs might have been increasing, and more than two in 10 said that the person cared for needed support but was not receiving any services.
That is not surprising, given that councils have been cutting their eligibility criteria for social care for some time, increasing charges for services and removing caps on charges. I am proud of the fact that, despite the swingeing 27% cuts to council budgets at Labour-run Salford city council, it has managed to retain eligibility criteria for social care at a level to help people with moderate needs as well as those with substantial or critical needs. Salford is now one of only 15% of councils that provide that level of care. That is in great contrast to councils such as coalition-run Birmingham city council, which recently tried to set its eligibility criteria to a new level of “personal critical”. More than 10,000 people would have seen their care packages downgraded and more than 4,000 people would have had no care services or support whatever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) reported the distress of constituents who came to him for assistance: people who were extremely vulnerable themselves or caring for someone who was elderly, ill or disabled. Women carers were disproportionately included. The Care and Support Alliance survey revealed that changes to services that happened even before the cuts had led to
“a negative impact to the person with care and support needs.”
The report quotes one female carer talking about the impact on her life. She said:
“I am unable to go out with my husband because one of us needs to remain at home with my mother. Unable to go out with my sister (also disabled) because if I go out she needs to stay home to support my husband in caring for our mother. Unable to visit friends, have a weekend away or take a holiday. Feel abandoned by the state—Carer’s Allowance withdrawn when I reached 60 last year, Carer’s grant reduced by Local Authority from £400 pa to £100 pa this year, top-up fees now payable for the 3 hour respite per week, no extra help available.”
Of course, such extra stresses also put further pressure on the health of many women who care. Another female carer is quoted in the Care and Support Alliance report as saying:
“I care for two and I am disabled myself. Although they have increased the care for my father, he still needs extra care from me. I get no help with my husband, who is also becoming more demanding and no help for myself. So my life gets harder and harder and my health is deteriorating as a consequence.”
Women who are carers are also worried about the Government’s plans to cut £1 billion from disability living allowance over five years by reducing the number of people who are eligible. Tightening the eligibility criteria for DLA will mean that many carers will not be eligible for carer’s allowance, which will be available only for those who look after someone who is in receipt of the middle or higher level of DLA. As three quarters of the recipients of carer’s allowance are women, that is yet another area in which women will bear the brunt of the cuts.
Carers UK has estimated that seven out of 10 women will be carers in their lifetime. We know that social care services for older people are underfunded and that the number of over-80s is increasing, so the pressure on family carers, who are mainly women, is bound to increase. Once again, women will be disproportionately affected.
Women are more reliant on the services that the public sector provides and therefore stand to lose more from cuts to services and from the loss of jobs that I have talked about. That affects my constituents and women who are carers. I have campaigned since I have been in the House to improve services and support for carers, six out 10 of whom are women. More could always be done, but Labour gave primary care trusts extra budgets to fund respite care, introduced the carers grant and provided £770 million in new funding for disabled children.
Claire Perry
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work in this area, which many of us recognise. Surely she will welcome the £800 million commitment that the Government announced last year to provide really important respite care for parents with disabled children.
Barbara Keeley
Of course, every move to provide extra respite care to help carers is beneficial, and all those moves were started by the previous Government in support of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign. As I said earlier, there has been very little mention of the fact that the swingeing cuts to council budgets cancel out everything else being done. Perhaps that is not the case in places such as Wiltshire, but it certainly is the case in the north of England.
Finally, let me mention some things that were going to happen but will not now happen.
Barbara Keeley
I am just about to finish.
The Government have abolished the measures in the Personal Care at Home Act 2010, which would have helped 400,000 of the people in the greatest need, and they have cut the budgets to local councils, as I have mentioned, which will potentially have a great impact. Those changes come at a time when we know that more services are needed given the horrendous cases we have heard about in recent months. It is time to develop unanimity across the House. I know that many hon. Members on the Government side are concerned about social care, but the impact of the changes that I have mentioned will cause a loss of quality of life for carers, as I have outlined.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Let me begin by adding to those of others my congratulations to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth). I can see that he is no token man, as I know that he has a two-week old baby and I can see the shadows under his eyes from here. I welcome his comments celebrating the cultural diversity of his constituency. Clearly, he is going to be a great advocate for Leicester South.
I think that the previous Labour Government and this coalition Government have a lot in common. We both want to redress the imbalances between men and women through public policy. It is fair to say that Labour did many things that benefited women, such as increasing the maximum age for children at which parents could apply for flexible working. That change followed a very similar private Member’s Bill that I had introduced the year before, which would have extended the right of request to the parents of children up to the age of 18. My Bill was unceremoniously voted down by Labour, which then reintroduced the measures in a form that applied to the parents of children up to the age of 16. I do not mind the previous Government’s doing that: they saw a good idea and grabbed it. Indeed, I think we should all work together more to pool our best ideas, particularly in the current, grave economic circumstances. That might be too radical a notion for this debate and this Parliament given the way things have been going so far but it is an aspiration of mine. I am very glad that this Government are consulting on extending the right to request for all employees. That will remove the stigma when some staff have a right that is denied to others. It will also acknowledge the fact that employees are more loyal and productive when there is an acknowledgement that they should be able to have a reasonable work-life balance.
Another thing that Labour did that particularly benefited women was allowing any years they spent caring for others to count towards pension entitlements in future. Why the Labour Government never restored the earnings link during their 13 years is beyond me. Why would they not have done that if they believed that the economy was strong, not knowing that the so-called growth was based on a house of cards and unsustainable debt? How much more difficult has it been for us, while we are trying to deal with the biggest deficit in peacetime history, to redress some of those injustices at the same time? We put our actions where our mouth was and immediately committed to restoring the earnings link with the triple guarantee. A much fairer and better pensions system that will raise the level of a single person’s pension to £140 in today’s money will be introduced by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who has responsibility for pensions. That system will help the poorest pensioners more than anything that was introduced by the previous Government. Of course, the poorest pensioners are mostly women. Two thirds of people on pension credit are women and the average woman receives £40 less per week in her state pension compared with men. Even with the changes brought in by Labour, it would have been 2050 before pensions were equalised between the sexes.
Something else that will greatly help is the move to the universal credit system of benefits, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, rather than the complex system that we currently use. That change will mean that work always pays and will encourage people to return to work rather than stay at home on benefits because that is more financially beneficial.
Sheila Gilmore
But surely even in the Government’s projections and the impact assessments of the Welfare Reform Bill, it would be an exaggeration to say that work will always pay, particularly for those people who have child care costs.
Lorely Burt
The Government are investing more than £3 billion in this, but every single factor cannot be taken into account in determining whether the outcome will be better or not. The Government are looking into what we can do about child care costs. The hon. Lady raises an important issue, which I know is being taken very seriously by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
Under the proposed system, 31% of women who are entitled to benefits will be better off than they are at the moment. In addition, women returning to work after having children will be able to build up their hours gradually without being unfairly penalised by the system. It will also help take-up. In 2008-09 only 80% of people took up child tax credits. There has been much discussion about that today. I hope that changing to a simpler system will ensure that those who need the money get it.
However, I agree with the sentiments expressed in the motion about the disproportionate effect of the planned increase in the pension age on women born between December 1953 and October 1954. I am delighted to see that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, has come into the Chamber. I declare an interest: I am one of those women. Although I expect still to be going like a train at the age of 70, I entirely understand where those women are coming from and the unfairness of imposing change too late for many to do anything about it. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister to do all he can to ensure that the proposal is reconsidered and a measure introduced that will be a little fairer to that tranche of women.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad the hon. Lady has made that plea to her party colleague, the Pensions Minister. I am sure that many other colleagues will make the same point. Does she agree that women who are upset and worried about the change need a decision soon? It is causing many of them great anxiety and stress, and they cannot be expected to go on for months wondering whether there is to be a change or whether they will have to put up with the unfair increase in their pension age.
Lorely Burt
I agree, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister listened to every word that the hon. Gentleman and I have said.
Let me move on to Sure Start centres. I am amazed that the Opposition have the temerity to accuse us of closing centres, when the centres that have been closed were predominantly in Labour-run council areas. The Government are not cutting Sure Start centres and have made sure that there is enough funding in the early intervention grant to retain a network of Sure Start centres. Not a single Liberal Democrat council has closed a Sure Start centre, and in my own patch, in Solihull, we have extended their remit from the narrow strictures prescribed by Labour.
Barbara Keeley
Does the hon. Lady think there might be a connection with the fact that many Labour councils, particularly in the north, had seen cuts of something like £100 million in their budgets? It is hard to protect any services in that situation, and no services can be left out.
Lorely Burt
Perhaps it is a matter of priorities. Economic inequalities still abound in this country. Despite the good old Equal Opportunities Act now reaching its fifth decade, women working full time still earn, on average, 15.5% less than men. That is not good enough. Raising the tax threshold has helped women, who made up 60% of the 900,000 people lifted out of tax altogether. In the spending review we ensured that the lowest paid public sector workers, 65.5% of whom were women, were protected from the public sector pay freeze, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned.
The world of work is therefore one area of public policy that we can use to try and level the playing field between men and women, but let us also consider self-employment and women-owned companies. We know that a third more women-owned start-ups fail in the UK than in the US; we know that 20 years ago the US took affirmative action on procurement; and we know that today there are proportionately twice as many women-owned businesses in the US as in the UK. One area where the Government have taken action is in the field of procurement, with reference to small businesses. We aspire to achieve 25% of goods and services procurement for Government Departments from small businesses.
But women-owned businesses are not even on the Government’s radar. If we are spending taxpayers’ money, should we not know who we are procuring from? If we are measuring how many small businesses we are procuring from, how much more difficult would it be to measure how many women-owned businesses we are procuring from? It makes good business sense to procure from companies run by people who look like those being supplied to. It makes good business sense for boards of directors to have a critical mass of people who think with the left side of their brains, as well as those who think with the right side—I caricature.
We have had the Davies report on women on boards, and I wait with bated breath to see whether companies will respond. The Home Secretary said that the early indicators are positive, but companies had better shape up, otherwise I will be pressing the Government to get tough with boards that think that certain people have a monopoly on innovation, creativity and plain old common sense.
I have already mentioned flexible working. I want to commend the Government for their work on flexible parental leave, for facilitating better solutions for parents and companies in how that leave is taken and for modifications to the working time directive affecting the interaction of annual leave, sick leave and family-friendly leave. It is good news that the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 100,000 more women started work, compared with 18,000 men, so it is not all doom and gloom.
There is probably no single aspect of Government policy that does not affect women in some way. We are short of time so I will refer to only one more point: the suggestion in the media today that we are to rethink the proposal to reduce sentences by half for those who plead guilty to rape charges. I worry about that policy. Of course it is good to have a confession that avoids the added trauma for rape victims of having to testify and be cross-examined, but halving a rapist’s sentence just for confessing sticks in my craw. We must consider why only 6% of rape reports result in a conviction. There is no glory for any Government in this respect. We must do better and there has to be some kind of cultural change.
We all want the same thing: a more even playing field for women. The Government are striving to maintain and increase fairness in the most difficult and trying circumstances. I certainly do not think that we have everything right, but with a little good will on all sides we can work together to do this. I will be lobbying my hon. Friends to do the right thing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The winding-up speeches will begin at five minutes to 4 and four Members wish to speak, so they each have a shade under five minutes in which to do so.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth), who is no longer in his place, for making his maiden speech. I will keep my remarks short and so will not take interventions.
Some people may wonder why we are having this debate and considering the impact of the Government’s policies on the needs and issues facing women, rather than any other group, and they have a point. When we develop policies, we should consider the differential distribution of their effects on a range of different population groups, not just women, but obviously including them. Importantly, we should look at whether those policies improve the circumstances for those groups and how that might happen, whether by improving their educational and job opportunities, through access to minimum income standards or through opportunities to achieve a healthy life expectancy and so on.
Most importantly, we should look at ensuring that those policies reduce rather than exacerbate the inequalities that persist between different population groups in our society. It is about ensuring that those policies are fair and that our society is fair. On that basis, it is appropriate for us to debate the issues that women increasingly and disproportionately face as a result of the Government’s policies. That is the crux of the debate. It is about how the policies are affecting women now. We should not be harking back to the past. The policies are unfortunately affecting women in an unfair, unjust and even discriminatory way and we must be mindful of that.
We have already heard that, more than 40 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, women are still more likely to be paid less than men for the same work and to live in low-income households. Although Labour did much to address income inequalities in recent years—there is evidence to prove it—the pay gap between men and women remains, at around 16.4%. We have heard different figures today for the pay gap, but it is even worse for women in high-paid jobs. Women are also more likely to work part-time, and half of all part-time workers, both men and women, are paid less than £8 an hour. One in five women, compared with one in 10 men, earns less than £7 an hour, but whichever low-pay threshold we use, we find that the number of low-paid women is approximately double that of men.
On top of that, Equality and Human Rights Commission research shows that approximately 30,000 women a year lose their jobs as a result of pregnancy. Those income and other inequalities persist for women throughout their lives. Lone mothers and single female pensioners are more likely to be in low-income households than their male equivalents, although the evidence indicates that that situation improved under Labour.
This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, but unfortunately it has been exacerbated by the policies that this Government have introduced. Despite earning less and owning less, women are set to lose an average of £8.80 a week, compared with £4.20 for men, because of the Government’s deficit reduction programme. Reductions in tax credits, benefits, pensions and attendance allowance will all hit women harder, and, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows, last year’s regressive spending review saw families most detrimentally affected, with lone parents worst affected of all.
This year’s Budget did nothing to compensate part-time working mothers, and women pensioners got nothing from the increase in tax allowance. The threat to universal, affordable quality child care, including the removal of ring-fenced funding for Sure Start, is a major hit to women as well as to their children. Child care is probably the biggest issue for women juggling work and family, and similarly the provision to exempt some organisations from the requirement to provide maternity and paternity leave is a retrograde step.
The measure in the Welfare Reform Bill to incentivise separated parents who currently use the Child Support Agency to make private arrangements in the future for child maintenance, and to place financial penalties on them if they do not, is another example whereby support for women is being eroded. Ultimately, support is needed to address the latent discrimination that women face.
Pensions are another crucial area where this Government have penalised women. In the past few weeks, hundreds of women in my constituency have contacted me about the Government’s decision last September to accelerate the equalisation of the state pension age for women to 65 years old in 2016 instead of 2020.
The Government also announced an increase in the state pension age for men and women to 66 years old by 2020 instead of 2024. The Library estimates that in my constituency the changes will affect 4,300 women, compared with 3,800 men, with a notional loss of income from state pensions of up to £10,700 for approximately 200 women.
We all agree that women are living longer, and that we need to change the state pension age, but the issue is about the time being taken to do so.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) is no longer in his place, but I too pay tribute to him for a very assured and interesting maiden speech. It was a privilege to be in the Chamber to hear it.
I had not planned to speak today until I saw this patronising and paternalistic motion on the Order Paper—this drivel that we have had to debate all afternoon. I am absolutely incensed by it, because the way in which we address the fact, which we all acknowledge, that women earn and own less on average is not by ensuring that they continue to receive a stream of benefits throughout their lives or only state-sponsored child care options.
From some interesting points that Opposition Members made, we learned that at the next general election the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will stand on a platform of restoring their household’s child benefit, which is worth £2,400 a year tax-free, despite their combined income being well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. That will be a difficult message for them to sell on the doorstep, but it was certainly a fascinating insight into planet deficit-denial on the Opposition Benches.
I also thought that I was living on a different planet when we heard no acknowledgement of the fact that over the past 12 months more than 530,000 jobs in the private sector have been created, with 400,000 more, net of the necessary reductions, in public sector employment. How is it good for families and women to be paying £120 million a day in interest? How is it good for families and women if Opposition Members put their heads in the sand and refuse to identify a single cut or alteration that they support? This Government are introducing welfare reform that will incentivise the economic choices of women in recognising that at the end of the day only additional work will help them to address the earnings gap and the asset gap.
As someone who has fought all my life for greater equality for women in the workplace, I feel somewhat differently about pensions. I think that we should welcome the fact that men and women will be retiring at equal ages and that women and men will be treated equally as regards pensions.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I agree that the equalisation of pension rights and ages is an important and necessary thing that we should all support. Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that the real crux of the issue for Opposition Members is the amount of time that certain women will have to prepare for the change because the goalposts have been moved so quickly?
Harriett Baldwin
We should bear in mind what these women are preparing for. An average 55-year-old woman today will live to 88, on average, and many more women will live to see their 100th birthday. Having the extra year to prepare for saving for that very old age is not at all a bad thing. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), I have absolutely no intention of retiring in my early 60s, and I welcome the fact that men and women will be treated equally regarding pension age.
Harriett Baldwin
I am sorry—I do not have enough time to give way.
I acknowledge that equalising the pension age means that there is a group of women who are disproportionately affected, but I would like to hear proposals on how we could avoid that and still end up in what we all agree is the right place, where we have longer to prepare for a much longer old age.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Some newspapers have an item where they talk about the word of the day or word of the week. For the Government Whips Office, the word is presumably “bandwagon”, because expressing opposition is suddenly seen to be jumping on one. I do not think that the Government have necessarily gone about a deliberate policy of targeting women, because I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but some of their policies, when added together, are having precisely that effect. Perhaps people have not realised or noticed.
I want to take a slightly different tack. I will be very brief in the hope that I get other opportunities to amplify these issues, because they are important. What happens to women, in particular, when they separate from a partner in coming out of a relationship? There is a lot of research that says that women in that situation end up worse off anyway, but some things that are happening will exacerbate it. For example, legal aid is going to be taken away from family cases. In my experience as a family lawyer, it is not going to court and getting embroiled in some dramatic procedure, but good, solid legal advice that will get people the kind of financial settlement that enables them to get back on their feet more quickly. If that is not available, they will be financially worse off.
In addition, there are changes to child support that will require people to go through an obstacle race to get it. I urge the Government to remember why the child support system was introduced in the first place—precisely because people were not getting that form of support.
As well as not getting a good financial settlement and not getting easy access to child support, what else is going to go wrong? The big thing that people need when they are separating is housing, because two into one will not go, so what is happening on the housing front? People in the private rented sector who need housing benefit will get less of it. We are not even sure how mortgage costs will be covered under universal credit. The homelessness rules are changing so that more people will end up in the private rented sector. That costs more money, so it is not actually a cost-saving measure. It will also not give people the long-term security that they want. Women who separate from their partners will therefore find themselves in a more difficult position in terms of housing.
Finally, I turn to benefits. Women will have to re-enter the work force at a younger age because the age at which the youngest child will affect their benefit is being reduced to five. There are also changes to tax credits and to the amount of money to cover child care.
If one thinks about the journey that a woman makes from separating from her partner to re-establishing herself in her new life, I contend that the effect of those Government policies will make her much worse off. I am sorry that I do not have time to amplify those points, because I certainly could. I look forward to having another opportunity to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Mary Macleod, to sit down at five minutes to 4.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) on his excellent maiden speech. I commend him for choosing this debate in which to make it. By doing so, he will have kept half his constituents happy. That is a positive thing for any Member.
I will make a few brief points because there is not much time. First, I want to say how disappointed I was at the speech of the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities. All we heard was a rant of negativity about what was not being done, instead of a recognition of the positive things that the Government are doing for women. Labour Members kick-started the work that has been done for women, and I congratulate them on that. I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is in her place, for her positive, inspiring and visionary speech about what the Government are doing to make things better for women, no matter who they are or where they come from.
The shadow Minister for Women and Equalities said that the Prime Minister had a blind spot when it came to women. That is a scandalous comment given that it was the Prime Minister who put his name on the line before the last election to get more women on to the Conservative Benches. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who helped to campaign in my seat, and other people all helped to increase the number of women on the Conservative Benches from 18 to 49, and I thank them for that.
I believe that the Government are working hard to support women and families, and to promote equality. We are focusing on giving what we can to the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Of course, the majority of those people are women. We have heard much today about financial support. The key area for me is that the Government are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers, the majority of whom are women, out of income tax. I look forward to the time when we increase that even further, because these are the people who most need our help.
We have discussed the welfare reforms and the way in which we are trying to incentivise and encourage people to get back into work. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) discussed that matter eloquently. The coalition agreement states that we will look at ways to encourage shared parenting such as flexible parental leave. That is real equality. I have worked for 20 years in business, and for people such as me, these policies are about bringing real equality into the workplace.
Having women in business is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) spoke about Lord Davies’ important report. I was pleased to hear from the Minister for Women and Equalities that progress has been made on that. I will be one of the people who follows this matter closely to ensure that more is done. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) spoke about the new flat pension rate, which will come into effect in 2016. That will take account of the fact that women take career breaks and will ensure that doing so does not affect their pensions, which is very good. We also have to consider women in small businesses, of whom we want more. If we were setting up small businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 150,000 more businesses, so there is much more to be done.
There is a lot of great work on domestic violence, about which we have heard today.
In summary, I believe that the Government have demonstrated their full commitment to women through financial support for families, by helping women in business and by protecting vulnerable women. We have amazing women and fabulous female role models across the country, and the Government will build on what they are doing to create a much stronger, safer, fairer and more equal society for all of us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the last four speakers, who ensured that everybody on the list got in.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
This has been a lively and welcome debate, and a rare occasion on which women have outnumbered men in the Chamber. That said, it was a privilege to be here for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth). He will be a tremendous asset to the House, and he is one of my longest-standing friends in politics. I congratulate him on his election, and also on the birth of his daughter. It will be a busy time ahead for him.
My hon. Friend feared that he would be the token male in today’s debate, and overall the debate has been sisterly, although when my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was referred to by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) as simply the shadow Chancellor’s wife, that was language that one would perhaps have expected more from the Justice Secretary. [Interruption.] Members are saying that that is cheap, but I think it was the hon. Lady’s comment that was cheap rather than mine.
One thing is clear: whether by ignorance or design, the Government are disproportionately hitting women with their cuts, their pensions policy and what is happening in the jobs market. Until now, every generation of women have enjoyed greater opportunity than their mothers or grandmothers. My great-grandmother was a cockle picker on the south coast of Wales, my grandmother worked in shoe factories and my mother is a primary school teacher. However, that expectation that women of the next generation will do better than those of the one before is now threatened, largely by the choices that the Government are making. They risk turning back the clock on women’s equality.
I wish to address some of the specific points that have been made today. My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) all mentioned the state pension age for women, as did the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and for Belfast East (Naomi Long). Earlier today, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) challenged the Prime Minister about it.
The changes that the Government plan will mean that women have to wait up to two years longer for their state pension, whereas no man will have to wait more than a year longer. They will mean a loss of income of up to £15,000 for up to 33,000 women, yet the coalition agreement states that the parties agree to
“hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than…2020 for women.”
Yet under plans in the Pensions Bill, the state pension age for women will start to rise to 66 in 2018.
As the hon. Member for Belfast East said, MPs of all parties can show that they understand the fierce concerns and aspirations of women by opposing the Government’s proposals to increase the state pension age at such a pace. A petition with more than 10,000 signatures has been presented to the Prime Minister, and Age UK and Saga are calling on the Government to think again. I welcome the chance to hear what the Minister for Equalities has to say about that, and I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), is also in his place. I hope that they will listen to the concerns that women are raising.
As for incomes, either by accident or by design the Government’s policies on tax and welfare changes will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth mentioned, have twice as much of an impact on women as on men. All incomes are being squeezed during these difficult economic times, but some are being squeezed more than others. That is particularly the case for women and children. Does the Minister for Women and Equalities really believe that it is fair that women are paying the highest price for budget deficit reduction? If not, will she look again at some of the Government’s policies?
My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Worsley and Eccles South spoke passionately about Sure Start and its tremendous work in all our communities. Many mothers and children rely on the services that Sure Start and our children’s centres offer, and although the hon. Member for Corby (Mrs Mensch) thinks they are failing families, the women and children I talk to in Leeds West and across the country believe that they are making a massive difference. The Government say that that money is protected, but in reality, particularly in northern cities where there are cuts of up to 27% of total spending, it is not possible to ring-fence that money. I ask the Government to look again at ensuring that vital services such as children’s centres and the Sure Start offer are protected.
The latest job figures show that jobseeker’s allowance among women is at its highest level since 1996. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, 474,000 women are now claiming it. Those problems are only likely to get worse. Sixty-five per cent. of public sector workers are women, as are 75% of those working in local government. If the Office for Budget Responsibility’s predictions of 310,000 job losses in the public sector in this Parliament are correct, we can expect a large proportion of those to be among women, meaning that the highest unemployment among women since 1996 will get worse, not better, in the years ahead.
Jane Ellison
Given that the deficit is in the public finances, and given what the hon. Lady said about the proportion of women who work in the public sector, how would the Labour plan, which we have yet to hear, address that problem?
Rachel Reeves
There are three issues. First, the speed at which we cut the budget deficit; secondly, the timing of the cuts; and thirdly—this is critical to today’s debate—whether the cuts are made fairly. I do not believe that it is fair that two thirds of the cuts fall on women. All Members of the House believe that that is unfair. That is the key point.
The cuts to women’s pensions, Sure Start, child benefit and local services are not inevitable; they are choices that the Government have made. As hon. Members have reminded us this afternoon, they are unfair choices—they penalise women pensioners, mothers, women students, women carers and women in the labour market. By choosing to cut too far and too fast, the Government have embarked on a slash-and-burn approach to the services, protections and benefits that provide the most support—in good and bad times—to women up and down the country.
The Minister will have a chance to respond shortly, but surely the question is this: where was she when the Chancellor decided to slash child benefit? Where was she when the Secretary of State for Education decided to cut Sure Start?
Harriett Baldwin
Will the hon. Lady confirm that the restoration of tax-free child benefit of £2,400 for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will be in the Labour manifesto?
Rachel Reeves
I will perhaps ask the hon. Lady—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I will answer the question, but does the hon. Lady believe it right that a family in which one person in work earns £45,000 should lose their child benefit, while a family in which two people earn a total of £80,000 still get their child benefit? If the Government’s plans for a fixed-term Parliament go ahead, the election is four years away, and as we do not know what the circumstances of that time will be, it would be inappropriate to write our manifesto now. The hon. Lady would not write hers now.
Where was the Minister when those choices were made? Given those policies, she was not campaigning and fighting for the women whom she ought to represent. If, as some have suggested, women’s equality is a blind spot for this Government, I hope that their eyes have been opened today. I hope not least that the Minister has had a chance today to hear the strength of feeling about the effect on women of the increase in the state pension age. Will she send a message of hope to the 500,000 women who face a delay of more than a year before they receive their state pension, with just five or so years to prepare? If the Government can U-turn on forests—and today they have U-turned on sentencing—surely they can listen and act to protect women approaching retirement with fear and trepidation.
Women must no longer be the shock absorbers for this Government’s cuts. I urge Ministers to move forward in a fairer way—in a way that does not turn the clock back on women’s equality, for which generations of women have fought and will continue to fight.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
We have had an interesting and lively debate, and I thank Members on both sides who made contributions, including the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), and my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mrs Mensch), for Devizes (Claire Perry), for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). We also heard a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth). I thank them all for their contributions and I will address as many points as I have time for, although I do not have that much time.
It is a bit sad that we have heard some inaccurate and empty speculation about the impact that Government policies will have on women. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate, and draw a line under the myths that are endlessly perpetuated by Opposition Members. As the Home Secretary made clear, this Government’s commitment to women is clear and unequivocal. From the moment the coalition was formed, we stated our determination to tear down the barriers to opportunity and build a fairer society for all. It is not just that we believe equality to be the right of every individual: we believe it goes to the very heart of our ambition to build a better society and a modern, prosperous economy of the future which genuinely draws on the talents and abilities of all. In fact, we are clear that unless we capitalise on the contributions that women can make, our chances of full economic recovery will be seriously hampered.
Of course, because of the mess we inherited—Labour Members hate us repeating that fact—we have been forced to make some difficult decisions. Let me be clear, for those who have not yet managed to get to grips with the state of our public finances, that the mess I refer to—as many of my hon. Friends have mentioned—is the biggest structural deficit in Europe and the biggest peacetime deficit we have seen in our history. But fairness will always be at the heart of all these decisions.
Yvette Cooper
Does the Minister think that public spending should have been cut in the middle of a recession—and if it had been, will she tell us whether she thinks that we would have had growth by the time of the election?
Lynne Featherstone
The point is that we are dealing with the structural deficit. If we do not get our house in order now we never will, and it will be future generations who suffer because of Labour’s failure to address it—[Interruption.] Chuntering away at me will not help the right hon. Lady.
Fairness is the reason why in April we lifted 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax—and it does not stop there, because more will be added to their number every year of this Parliament. It is why we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers—the majority of whom are women—from the public sector pay freeze, and they will get pay rises. It is why we are increasing child tax credits for the poorest families by more than the level promised by the last Government. And it is precisely why we are getting to grips with the deficit so that we do not fritter away more and more on debt interest, and destroy the crucial public services that so many women need and depend on.
Cuts—and the impact that Opposition Members say they have—are not all that we care about for women. We care about being ambitious and about taking them out of poverty. We care about giving them the tools to lift themselves out, not just continuing what went on before. If fairness were simply a matter of benefits, taxes and snapshot comparisons of income, it would be easy to achieve—
Lynne Featherstone
No, I do not have time.
I echo the Home Secretary when I say that it is extremely patronising, and frankly absurd, to lump together 31 million women in this country as the prime victims of the deficit reduction. Women are not a homogenous group, but different individuals affected by different experiences and coming from different walks of life. So no matter how well intentioned, packaging out prescriptive solutions that fail to recognise that reality will not work. What do work are policies designed for all the roles that women play, tackling not just the symptoms of inequality but its causes. I shall try to address some of those points.
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester South, who made his maiden speech. I thank him for his kind words about Parmjit Singh Gill and congratulate him on being in the Chamber while he has a two-week-old baby. When shared parenting comes in, that could have been his wife, if she were able to walk. And as for Engelbert Humperdinck and “Quando, quando, quando”, I would have liked to say that I did not know what the hon. Gentleman was talking about, but sadly I did.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East mentioned impact assessments. I have to say that Labour never published equality impact studies for its Budgets, and I do not think it did one on the 10p tax or the 70p pension rise. She also mentioned the gender pay gap. Yes, we are introducing voluntary pay reporting, but that was started under Labour in the Equality Act 2010. However, we will also impose mandatory pay audits on anyone found guilty of discrimination, if it is appropriate, and we have introduced the gagging clauses in the Equality Act. She also asked about trafficking and the Olympics. Work is being undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Service, which has a specialist unit that has received extra funding to prioritise activities to disrupt and monitor trafficking in the run-up to the Olympics.
Hon. Members asked about whether we were opting in to the European directive on trafficking. Well, we are opting into the directive, but we wanted to consider the matter and get it right to ensure that we could deliver on it. However, the coalition Government are going even further with our own human trafficking strategy, which will be announced shortly, and which will aim to disrupt activity in the country of origin, and then on our borders and in this country. As we have heard from many hon. Members, we are putting that support in place. We have also extended the Sojourner project
Lynne Featherstone
I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady—[Interruption]—as a special treat.
Margot James
Briefly, I would like to remind the hon. Lady that the Government are actually investing more money in the safeguarding of trafficking victims. That is a very good result in the current financial climate.
Lynne Featherstone
No. I forgot that I was not going to give way. I was seduced by the siren voices behind me.
An important point was made about the Government’s commitment to women. Extending the Sojourner project, and finding a long-term solution with the Department for Work and Pensions, mean that such women will not again be put in the position of not knowing where the support is coming from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said that we should work together. Well, I am very happy to work with her, and I am happy to work with Opposition Members too, because we need to get past these attacks about blind spots and what they say the coalition Government are and are not doing to women. We all care passionately about the position of women in this country. I find it difficult to accept Opposition Members’ criticisms, given how much we are doing. The Home Secretary laid that out quite clearly in her introductory remarks when she gave a long list of things that we are delivering for women.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby on what was a powerful speech, if not a tour de force, in which she pointed out Labour’s failure to reform the welfare system. She talked of our relentless focus on children’s well-being, and the fact that we are taking 1 million children out of poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes talked about health visitors and the importance of Sure Start, and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull pointed out that not a single Liberal Democrat council has closed any children’s centres—[Interruption.] Sometimes it is quality, not quantity. Much as I would like to work with Opposition Members, I am afraid that it might not happen.
I wanted to respond to all the points that have been raised, but unfortunately I will not have time. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked about support for carers. The Government have provided £400 million to the NHS for respite care over the next four years.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
National Crime Agency
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the new National Crime Agency. Last year’s national security strategy recognised that organised crime is one of the greatest threats to our national security. The social and economic costs are estimated at between £20 billion and £40 billion per year, and its impact is seen on our streets and felt in our communities every single day. The drug dealing on street corners; the burglary and muggings by addicts; the trafficking of vulnerable young women into prostitution; the card cloning and credit card fraud that robs so many—all are fundamentally driven by organised criminals.
Our law enforcement agencies assess that there are some 38,000 individuals engaged in organised crime, involving 6,000 criminal groups; and yet, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said last year that law enforcement is impacting in a meaningful way on only 11% of those 6,000 organised crime groups. We must do better.
For too long, central Government micro-managed and interfered in local policing, but at the same time national and international crime was neglected and our borders became porous. There was no cross-government strategy to tackle organised crime, no national tasking and co-ordination, and no co-ordinated border policing. Different agencies had varying responsibilities for policy, prevention and investigation, and there was a tendency to operate in silos. The overall effect was a fragmented and patchy law enforcement response, and we are putting that right.
By introducing police and crime commissioners, we can get central Government out of the way of local policing. We are putting the Government’s focus where it should have been all along: on securing our borders, and tackling national and international serious and organised crime. So we will shortly be publishing the first ever cross-government strategy on tackling organised crime and we will establish a powerful new operational body—the National Crime Agency.
The National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation. It will tackle organised crime, defend our borders, fight fraud and cybercrime, and protect children and young people. With a senior chief constable at its head, the NCA will harness intelligence, analytical capabilities and enforcement powers. Accountable to the Home Secretary, the NCA will be an integral part of our law enforcement community, with strong links to local police forces, police and crime commissioners, the UK Border Agency and other agencies.
The NCA will comprise a number of distinct operational commands. Building on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—SOCA—the organised crime command will tackle organised crime groups, whether they operate locally, across the country or across our international borders. Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders, and help to prevent terrorism, drug smuggling, people trafficking, illegal immigration and other serious crimes. It will ensure that all law enforcement agencies operating in and around the border work to clear, mutually agreed priorities. The economic crime command will make a major difference to the current fragmented response to economic crime. Working to a new unified intelligence picture, the economic crime command will drive better co-ordination of cases, and better tasking of resources, across agencies such as the Financial Services Authority, the Office of Fair Trading and the Serious Fraud Office. That will mean that a greater volume and complexity of economic crime cases can be tackled. In due course, we will review the relationship between the economic crime command and the other agencies.
Building on the significant contribution that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—CEOP—already makes within SOCA, CEOP will, as a key part of the NCA, be able to draw on wider resources and support to help protect even more children and young people. The NCA will also house the national cybercrime unit, which will have its own investigative capacity and help local police forces to develop their own response to the online threat. Each command will be led by a senior and experienced individual, and will manage its own priorities and risks, but, crucially, capabilities, expertise, assets and intelligence will be shared across the entire agency and each command will operate as part of one single organisation.
Intelligence will be at the heart of what the NCA does. Learning from our experience of counter-terrorism, the NCA will house a significant multi-agency intelligence capability. It will collect and analyse its own and others’ intelligence, building and maintaining a comprehensive picture of serious and organised criminals in the UK: who they are and who they work with; where they live; where they operate; what crimes they are involved in; and what damage they cause. The NCA will then use that intelligence to co-ordinate, prioritise and target action against organised criminals, with information flowing to and from the police and other agencies in support of tactical operations. Using this intelligence picture, the NCA will have the ability and the authority to task and co-ordinate the police and other law enforcement agencies.
For the first time, there will be one agency with the power, remit and responsibility for ensuring that the right action is taken at the right time by the right people—that agency will be the NCA. All other agencies will work to the NCA’s threat assessment and prioritisation, and it will be the NCA’s intelligence picture that will drive the response on the ground. That will be underpinned by the new strategic policing requirement.
As well as having the ability to co-ordinate and task the response to national crime threats by the police and other agencies, the NCA will also have its own specialist operational and technological capabilities, including surveillance and means to deal with fraud and threat-to-life situations. This is a two-way street; the NCA will be able to provide its techniques and resources in support of the police and other agencies, just as it will task and co-ordinate the response to national-level crime.
NCA officers will be able to draw on a wide range of powers, including those of a police constable and immigration or customs powers. That will mean that NCA officers, unlike anybody else, will be able to deploy powers and techniques that go beyond the powers of a police officer.
The agency will be an integral part of the golden thread of policing that runs from the local to the national and beyond. At home, the NCA will work in partnership with police forces, chief constables, police and crime commissioners and agencies such as the UK Border Agency. Overseas, it will represent the UK’s interests, working with international law enforcement partners. It will also provide the central UK contact for European and international law enforcement.
The agency will come fully into being in 2013, with some key elements becoming operational sooner. The total cost of the organisation will not exceed the aggregate costs of its predecessors. The combination of a single intelligence picture, the tasking and co-ordination function, the specialist operational support and the operational commands will result in a dramatic improvement in our response to national and international crime.
Organised crime, border crime, economic crime, cybercrime and child exploitation are real problems for real people. All areas of the country suffer their effects—from the very poorest communities to the most affluent, from the smallest villages to the biggest cities—and it is often the most vulnerable in our society who suffer the greatest harm. We owe it to them to do more to tackle the scourge of drugs, better to defend our borders, to fight fraud and to protect our children and young people. The National Crime Agency will do all those things and more and I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for providing an advance copy of her statement. We have already had another day, another debate—now it is another day, another statement. Once again, to listen to the Home Secretary one would think this was year zero, that everything failed in the past and that everything will be nirvana in the future. Yesterday, she told us that the Labour Government’s Prevent strategy had failed and her new strategy would make no mistakes. Today, she claims that there was no cross-Government organised crime strategy and no effective work on organised crime before, but that for the future we will see a dramatic improvement in the fight against national and international crime just as a result of these changes. There is no end to this Home Secretary’s hostages to fortune.
The right hon. Lady also contradicts herself. She says that there was no cross-Government strategy on organised crime, but then she says the organised crime command will build on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which was set up by Labour in 2005 to take the fight to organised crime. It had a conviction rate of more than 90%. She says that the National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation with intelligence at the heart of what it does, with the combined powers of police, customs and immigration officers, but that is what SOCA is. Whereas yesterday we had control orders and son of control orders, today we have SOCA and SOCA plus. It is hardly year zero and hardly a new nirvana.
We think we should build on SOCA. Sometimes, it became focused too purely on intelligence and it makes sense to do more to reform national policing. There are considerable benefits that can flow in this area, but reforms also need to be handled effectively or they can go badly awry—and they have already gone awry. Child protection experts have resigned, counter-terrorism plans have been publicly slapped down by the Met and the Serious Fraud Office has been put in a state of suspended animation. That has all happened at a time when 12,000 police officers are being cut across the country and the Government are pushing ahead with American-style plans for police and crime commissioners whom nobody wants. The truth is that these plans have been dogged by chaos and confusion. From her statement, there is no sign that the Home Secretary has a grip. Let us consider the individual points that she has made.
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency had good results this year, but Jim Gamble, its successful head, resigned from the agency after seeing the Government’s plans to merge CEOP with the NCA. He said today:
“I don’t believe that the rebranding or the submerging of CEOP within a far greater entity will allow the critical child protection focus that we need.”
He made the point that CEOP will also suffer a 10% reduction in its budget by 2014 and said that he hoped the Government would release the submissions to the consultation on the merger, because they were overwhelmingly against it. We hope too that the Home Secretary will release them, because she has clearly not persuaded the experts on those plans.
On financial crime, the grandly titled economic crime command is a far cry from the Home Secretary's plans to merge the Serious Fraud Office and parts of the Financial Services Authority. Instead, do we have a co-ordinating committee? Or is this just another agency to work with the many already in the field? Does this risk limbo for the SFO, whose director has already said:
“This is a distraction and it is important that a clear direction is made as soon as possible so that the SFO is focused on delivering results for the public.”
The Home Secretary has clearly not persuaded the experts or the Chancellor of her plans.
On the border command, the Home Secretary says: “Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders, and help prevent terrorism”, but the coalition pledge was for a border police force, not just a command. In the Conservatives’ manifesto, it was more boots on the ground. They were talking about 10,000 people a few years ago. Has that been replaced simply by a board to oversee better cross-agency working?
Plans to move counter-terrorism from the Met have been ditched after the commissioner said that national security is “too important” and
“must be based on more than mere structural convenience”.
Can the Home Secretary confirm that she does not plan to destabilise matters by revisiting this issue during the important period in the run-up to the Olympics?
On the National Policing Improvement Agency the Home Secretary has said nothing at all, but she is disbanding it in 2012—a year before the NCA starts. We still do not know what is happening to the DNA database or to a whole series of other functions. The chief constable of Derbyshire has said:
“We face an issue that there are absolutely critical services provided by the NPIA that, at the moment, have a date that is going to drop off, with nowhere to go.”
What will happen to them? The Home Secretary has not explained how tasking will work, what will happen if chief constables disagree and who will make the final decision when resources become overstretched.
On resources, the Home Secretary says that the total cost of the organisation will not exceed the aggregate costs of its predecessors, but she has not commented on set-up costs. Peter Neyroud has estimated that this top-down reorganisation will cost between £15 million and £20 million. When that is added to the cost of police and crime commissioners we have £120 million being spent on top-down reorganisations while 12,000 police officer posts are being cut, putting the fight against crime at risk across the country. There is a risk that chaos and confusion will make it harder for the police to cope given the drop in resources that they are experiencing.
For this renamed crime agency to be successful, it needs steady leadership, clarity and the resources to deliver. In the end, reorganisation is no substitute for police officers on the ground doing the job on national and local crime and going the extra mile to catch criminals and keep communities safe. That means we need an end to the confusion and a bit more realism both about the past and about the detail of the reform. We need to start closing the gap between the rhetoric and the reality on the ground.
Mrs May
Yes, another day, another Home Office statement and, sadly, yet another similar response from the shadow Home Secretary. Indeed, she repeated many of the phrases that she used in her response to yesterday’s Prevent statement. She really needs to go away and think very carefully about what we mean by a cross-government organised crime strategy. She said that the previous Government had such a strategy because it set up SOCA and because SOCA existed, but we are talking about bringing together all the strands of law enforcement, including law enforcement agencies and police forces, that deal with organised crime. We are developing a comprehensive, coherent cross-government approach to dealing with organised crime. That is an organised crime strategy, which is not what the previous Government had.
I accept that SOCA has been doing good work and we want to build on that as part of the organised crime command within the new National Crime Agency, but there are other areas of crime that we need greater focus on. Yes, we need to look more closely at what is happening on our borders and to enhance our ability to bring together various agencies that have responsibility for and operate on the borders. We need to do that in conjunction with organisations such as the organised crime command and CEOP to ensure that we have the advantage of using not only the intelligence capability that will be at the centre of the NCA but the synergies that will be available when those agencies work properly together.
We will also be setting up a new economic crime command. There is a need in this country to look much more closely at economic crime. There is a whole swathe of what could be called middle-level economic crime that we have not dealt with appropriately and properly in the past, and the economic crime command will enable us to put a clear focus on that. It will enable us to ensure that the various agencies dealing with economic crime are working together, are co-ordinated and are working to the same priorities. It will also enable us to ensure that resources are being put in the right place, at the right time, where they are needed. This is a new development and a very important one in enhancing our work on economic crime. Indeed, it will not wait until the NCA is set up. Within the next few months we will establish a co-ordinating board on economic crime which will already start that important work. This is a powerful new crime-fighting body which I believe will make a real difference to our ability to deal with organised crime.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the focus that the NCA will place on tackling organised crime, and the creation of the border command. We need the NCA to be set up seamlessly. Can the Home Secretary set out how the Government will minimise the disruption caused by the structural change and maximise the speed with which the NCA becomes fully operational and effective?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for an important question. The establishment of the NCA will require legislation. We aim for that legislation to be in place so that the NCA can be fully operational in 2013, but we believe that this is an important area and that we need to start working before then. The transition to the NCA can be eased by work such as developing the organised crime strategy, starting to develop the co-ordination capability on organised crime within the Home Office, which we are doing and, as I have just indicated, starting to develop the co-ordination capacity in relation to economic crime. These are the precursors for a more seamless transition to the NCA.
As we develop the agency, we intend to establish a position for an individual who will head the work. An individual at chief constable level will be appointed fairly soon—within the next few months—and will be able to work within the Home Office over the period before the NCA is set up. At that point there will be a transition for a permanent individual to be established as the head of the NCA.
We want to learn lessons—for example, from the setting up of SOCA, where there were some difficulties in terms of personnel and their move over to SOCA. We will be looking at the lessons to be learned from that.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on the prettiest little speech rewriting history that the House has heard for some time. I plead guilty to having been responsible for launching the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I had hoped for a 50% remission, but I will have to settle for a third instead.
The truth of the matter is that SOCA has had enormous successes but was bedevilled by the over-emphasis on intelligence rather than on enforcement, yet this afternoon the Home Secretary once again placed intelligence at the centre. In the new economic crime directorate, the new border directorate and the relationship with Customs and Excise, who will be responsible for the emphasis on economic and, by its very nature, cybercrime—the Treasury directing the policy or the Home Office laying it down? We had problems with that, and I did not hear any explanation of how the present Home Secretary intends to get round that difficulty.
Mrs May
I am sorry about the approach that the right hon. Gentleman took in his comments. If he had listened carefully both to my statement and to the response I gave to his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, he would have heard me make it clear that I think SOCA has done good work over the past few years, but I believe, and I think those involved in SOCA would agree, that we can do more. We can build on the experience that it has built up. By making SOCA the organised crime command within the National Crime Agency and being able to take advantage of the synergies across the law enforcement agencies and police forces, we will be able to do a more effective job in the future.
On the intelligence issue, yes, there will be an intelligence capability at the NCA. That is important, but the difference is that the NCA will clearly be a crime-fighting body and the commands within it will be crime-fighting commands.
In relation to cybercrime, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, there will be a cybercrime unit at the NCA which will cross all the commands, because cybercrime is both a crime in itself and a tool for the execution of other crimes.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. On the role of the NCA with regard to human trafficking, it is estimated that more than 2,500 trafficked women were victims of sexual exploitation in 2009 alone. Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the border policing command will go further to clamp down on this unacceptable practice?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that this is an area in which she takes a particular interest. We recognise that a lot has been done in relation to trafficking in recent years, but more can be done. The great advantage of the border command is that it will be able to bring together resources and task resources within both agencies and local police forces. It will work with other command organisations within the National Crime Agency, such as the serious organised crime command, in a way that has not happened until now. One of the problems we have had until now is that the Government have too often approached this with silo thinking, but criminals do not think in silos. The human trafficking gang probably also deals in drugs and might be involved in other things, such as child exploitation, so we need to look across the whole swathe when dealing with criminals.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has said that the aggregate budget will not be more than the budget for the organisations comprising the new agency. Could she indicate what it will be, and if it is less will she guarantee that key functions now undertaken by the National Policing Improvement Agency, such as the Missing Persons Bureau or the DNA database, will not slip off the edge during the reorganisation?
Mrs May
It will not cost more than its predecessors. It is possible that some of the current functions of the NPIA, such as witness protection and threat to life issues, could move into the NCA, but if they do so they will move as funded functions so that the funding already available will be used for the operations of the NCA. The NPIA will cease to exist, as we have set out very clearly. We are looking at the functions that it is right to bring into the NCA, but, given that it is an operational crime-fighting body, it is not right that all the NPIA functions should come into it.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
With regard to law and order and tackling crime, does the Home Secretary agree with Phil Collins, who said that Labour do not have a particularly strong position on crime of any kind? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have made this point several times before: statements are about questioning the policy of the Government, not that of the Opposition. I call Mr Stewart Jackson.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I am sure that she, like me, would congratulate Cambridgeshire constabulary on the work it is doing to combat people trafficking through initiatives such as Operation Sodium. On a specific point about people trafficking, how does she see the priority for the NCA in respect of the sharing of criminal records data across the European Union, an area that, regrettably, was ignored by the previous Government?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and am happy to join him in congratulating Cambridgeshire constabulary on its work and the operations it has undertaken on human trafficking. In relation to all those issues, the National Crime Agency will be looking to operate across international borders as well as across police force borders in the UK. The sharing of information within the European Union, and indeed the sharing of information in other ways, as he knows, has been and is a matter of discussion within the European Union. The NCA will be the key point of contact for both European and wider international co-operation.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
The Missing Persons Bureau provides a single database of all missing adults and children, a valuable national and international resource. In addition, it continues to provide advice and support to some families of missing children, although some services have gone to CEOP. Will the Home Secretary give some more information on where the Missing Persons Bureau will sit operationally, particularly in relation to CEOP, in 2013 and between now and then?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. As she says, we have already announced that the missing children aspect will be going to CEOP. We are now looking at the wider work on missing persons to see where it is appropriate for that to sit. It might be that it is appropriate for that to be within the National Crime Agency. We will ensure that decisions are taken so that there is no opportunity for this to slip between two stools, because it is an important area of work.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s admission that the agency will pull together a lot of strands that had a silo mentality within the previous Government. On illegal immigration, given that under the previous Government many illegal immigrants came into the country, disappeared and could not be found, could it be that through this new overarching structure we will now have a greater way of informing intelligence, so that anybody with local information on the ground will be able to help and feed in information to the correct place?
Mrs May
Yes, indeed. We will be looking to create a situation with the border police command in which it will be possible to use greater intelligence in relation to the issue that my hon. Friend raises—in due course, of course. Through our borders work, we are in the process of further developing our understanding of individuals who are in the United Kingdom, but of course those who come to the UK to work do have to have a biometric residence permit.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What discussions did the Home Secretary have with the devolved Administrations when she was setting up the agency, and what relationship will it have with devolved police services?
Mrs May
We have had a number of discussions on the matter with the devolved Administrations, and the National Crime Agency will deal with some aspects of crime which are reserved matters, but we are very conscious of working with the devolved agencies. In relation to Scotland, we expect the NCA to work with, for example, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish police forces—or force, should there be a single police force in future. In working with the devolved Administrations, we will respect the primacy of law enforcement agencies in the devolved nations.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I represent a large port in a county with a long coastline. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the border police command will ensure that all agencies responsible for the nation’s coastline and ports work together to prevent illegal immigration, drug and people trafficking and tax evasion?
Mrs May
I am happy to give that confirmation to my hon. Friend. Given her constituency, I realise that the issue will be of particular interest to her. Crucially, the border police command will be able, not only by itself but working with other commands in the National Crime Agency, to provide much better co-ordination of all the forces and law enforcement agencies that need to be brought to bear in order to deal with the issues that she raises.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Online crime against children and the exploitation of children are growing in prevalence, and I know that the Home Secretary is concerned about that and wants to do something about it. CEOP is a very successful organisation, with many admirers throughout the world and, from what I can tell, very few critics. Given that it does not just detect crimes but assesses whether a crime has taken place, how will the Home Secretary assess whether her decision to merge it is the right one?
Mrs May
CEOP will continue to do the work that it has been doing, but it will be able to be even more effective because it will be part of that wider agency. The CEOP brand will continue to exist, and we have made it absolutely clear—we have talked to CEOP and to Peter Davies about this—that CEOP will continue to operate as it does at the moment, because an important part of its work is its links with the private sector. It will be able to continue to do that work within the National Crime Agency, but on top of that it will have the advantage of access to intelligence capability, of access to that prioritisation of work and of working with those other commands.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement. I am comfortable that the National Crime Agency will be able to deal well with serious and organised crime, but what about serious but not organised crime? What about serial killings, rapes and issues like that, which the NPIA currently deals with? It still seems unclear where its injuries database and all its other services in relation to serious but not organised crime will sit. What will happen to all that?
Mrs May
Of course, one of the difficulties in all such issues relates to the definitions that one uses for those types of crime, but serious crime that is not undertaken by organised crime groups is predominantly dealt with by individual police forces. As a result of the National Crime Agency being set up, however, I believe that it will be possible to share intelligence on serious crimes of that sort. It will encourage greater regional co-operation among police forces, so it will be possible to deal better and more effectively with serious crime that is not related to organised crime groups.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Home Secretary bravely claimed that the new initiative will result in a dramatic improvement in our response to national and international crime. May I therefore ask her how the performance of the NCA will be measured and how it will be reported to the House?
Mrs May
As I have made clear, the National Crime Agency will be accountable to the Home Secretary. We will look at the procedures that we can put in place to ensure that there are appropriate timed reports to the House on this matter—although, as I observed to somebody who asked me that question earlier today, I have every confidence that the Home Affairs Committee, apart from anything else, will show an interest in it. The measurement of success is one of the issues that has dogged SOCA, because SOCA’s role is not only about finding and prosecuting criminals and seizing assets but preventing crime from taking place. Indeed, the success of such agencies often lies as much in what they prevent as in the number of criminals that they catch. We will be looking very carefully at the measurements that can be used because, as I say, SOCA has suffered from the sort of measurements that have been applied to it.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
This is an extremely positive move. Criminal gangs do not operate in the context of 43 forces, and for too long we have lacked a proper link between the forces in terms of intelligence and operations. Will the Home Secretary be looking for a similar model to that of the counter-terrorism hubs whereby local forces can collaborate and link into a national network?
Mrs May
Counter-terrorism is a good example of where there is a national organisation that deals with a matter at national level. When the National Crime Agency is in place, it will want to look at how it chooses to operate with the different commands that are under its remit.
My hon. Friend’s question reminds me that I did not respond to one of the points that the shadow Home Secretary made about counter-terrorism. I will do that now, if I may, because it is an important issue. We have never said that counter-terrorism would come under the remit of the National Crime Agency. We have made it clear that we will not do anything to disrupt the current counter-terrorism arrangements before the Olympics, and we will not do anything to disrupt those arrangements before the National Crime Agency is up and running. There will be a point at which it will be appropriate, in the new landscape, to look to ensure that counter-terrorism is still being dealt with in the most effective way possible.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The UK’s only land border is with the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland. Given the particular and specific challenges that that border raises, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with my colleague, the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, about how to implement this in the Northern Ireland context and how to ensure that the NCA benefits from the very positive working relationships between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana?
Mrs May
We have been talking to all the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland, about the establishment and operation of the NCA. We are very conscious of the particular issues in relation to Northern Ireland, particularly given the existence of the common travel area in relation to border issues. We are also conscious of the very good relationships between the PSNI and the Garda in dealing with a number of issues that affect both sides of the border. Obviously, we respect the relationships that have been established and will continue to work with and talk to the devolved Administrations about how the operation of the NCA will affect them and how we can all work together.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
From speaking to police, head teachers and other community workers in my constituency, it is clear, without question, that the biggest cause of crime, poverty and deprivation is drugs. With the best will in the world, having more police on the streets will not tackle the root cause of that problem—it is about tackling the dealers, the traffickers and the low-lifes who most benefit from the proliferation of drugs on our streets. Can the Home Secretary expand a little more on how the NCA will effectively tackle that?
Mrs May
Yes, indeed. We need to tackle the drugs threat at all levels. In relation to those who are drug addicts, we have already issued our new drugs strategy. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to look at the organised crime groups that are plying this trade and bringing drugs into the country. We will be putting a focus on the disruption of activity upstream. SOCA has had some success on this in relation to a number of countries, including Colombia. We will want to build on that to ensure that we can cut off the supply before it reaches our streets.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Many Members and development non-governmental organisations are extremely alarmed by the Home Secretary’s apparent decision to put the Serious Fraud Office on 12 months’ notice. The uncertainty about the SFO’s future has led to key staff leaving in recent months, which has undermined the fight against crime and corruption. Will the Home Secretary explain what is the point of prolonging the damaging uncertainty and instability in this organisation?
Mrs May
I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that she should not believe everything she reads in the newspapers. There is no suggestion that the SFO has been put “on 12 months’ notice”. What we have said has been absolutely clear. The SFO is continuing to exist and to operate as it has done. We will set up an economic crime command in the NCA. In the interim—very soon, within the next few months—we will set up a co-ordinating board, initially chaired by SOCA, which will bring together those involved in dealing with economic crime, including the SFO and other agencies, to see how we can develop better co-ordination among the agencies to improve the way in which we deal with such crime. In due course, we will consider what is the appropriate relationship between the NCA, the SFO and other agencies that deal with economic crime.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
It is often said that an organisation is only as good as its leadership. It is therefore important that the new head that is appointed is of sufficient quality. Has my right hon. Friend appointed a new head? If so, perhaps she can share with the House who that person is and what their experience is.
Mrs May
No, I have not appointed a new head, but an advertisement for the post has been published today. As I indicated in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), we intend that the head of the NCA will be a senior chief constable who is at the top tier in terms of salary and rank. It is important that they have crime fighting experience so that they can drive the NCA as a crime fighting body.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
The convicted private investigator, Jonathan Rees, who was contracted to News International, targeted the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for covert surveillance, as well as at least one former Home Secretary. It is likely that witness testimonies have been available to the Metropolitan police for a number of years. Given the seriousness of this case, is it the sort of case that the Home Secretary would take from the Metropolitan police and give to the new National Crime Agency?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on an ongoing investigation, but it is not appropriate for me to do so. As he knows, because he asked this question at Prime Minister’s questions today, an investigation is being carried out by the Metropolitan police. We have made it absolutely clear that they should follow the evidence wherever it goes.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the statement. Cyber-security is a growing concern. It is fair to say that Britain has been slow to recognise this threat. Every day, there are more attacks on Government Departments. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the NCA will co-ordinate the response to this growing threat?
Mrs May
There is a cyber-security office in the Cabinet Office that looks at cyber-security from a national security point of view. The NCA will focus on cybercrime. It will have a specific cybercrime unit that will develop our capability to deal with such issues. The mistake is often made of talking about cybercrime as if it is something completely new. Sometimes cybercrimes are new forms of crime, but sometimes it is simply that cyber-techniques and technology, rather than physical means, are used as tools to commit normal crimes such as fraud or robbery. That capability will be developed in the NCA.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but I echo some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, in highlighting the success of CEOP. I ask for reassurance that CEOP’s excellent work, such as its leading global role in tackling international child abuse networks on the internet, will continue under the NCA.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend absolutely has my confirmation and reassurance on that point. We are very conscious of the excellent work of CEOP, and nothing that we are doing will upset it. CEOP will continue to work in the way that it has, but it will also be able to build on its work because of the links that it will have with other commands under the National Crime Agency. I suggest that if he has any further concerns—I hope he will not, following my reassurance—he look at the comments that the chief executive of CEOP made a couple of weeks ago on the “Today” programme. He was absolutely clear that moving to the NCA would in no way degrade or affect CEOP’s ability to carry on doing its work.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make a statement yet again? It is a real improvement in parliamentary form. At this late hour, Members on both sides of the House have still been very interested in hearing what she has said.
Will the NCA effectively lose responsibility for human trafficking? The non-governmental organisations are very concerned that after the specific trafficking centre in Sheffield went into SOCA, it may now get lost. I know that the Government are keen to move forward on human trafficking, but that is a concern.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend obviously has a particular interest as chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking. I know that he is waiting, I hope with some interest and excitement, for the Government’s publication of our human trafficking strategy in a matter of weeks, when we will be able to set the matter in more context. The aim is that human trafficking will come within the National Crime Agency’s remit. Whether it is in a specific unit in the organised crime command or dealt with in another way will be a matter for the NCA when it is set up, but once we have an individual in place who is driving the creation of the NCA, I expect that to be exactly the sort of issue that they will want to examine.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the National Crime Agency will build on some of the good work of SOCA in tackling organised crime?
Mrs May
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. As I have said in response to a number of hon. Members this afternoon, SOCA has done good work, but we believe that more can be done. The organised crime command being within the NCA will enable greater synergies of operation both across law enforcement agencies and with police forces’ activities. I believe that we will be able to build on our work in dealing with organised crime. As I indicated in my statement, Sir Paul Stephenson has said that sadly, at the moment we are not doing enough in that area and need to do more.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Crime is often linked with terrorism. Will the National Crime Agency have primacy over other agencies when several agencies have an operational interest?
Mrs May
It will for those matters that are under its remit, but as I indicated in a response a few minutes ago, the counter-terrorism policing structure will not be changed—certainly not before the Olympics, and not before the National Crime Agency is set up. That is staying as it is. There will be links between the NCA and the Association of Chief Police Officers’ terrorism and allied matters committee in dealing with terrorism, and when there are links between organised crime and terrorism it is obviously important that those bodies work together to ensure that they deal with them effectively.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to make the NCA a crime-fighting organisation, but can she say at this stage how many officers she expects will serve in it and what the balance of resources will be between the various commands?
Mrs May
By definition, we are bringing a number of existing agencies into the NCA, so it is expected that those who are in those agencies at the moment will come into it. The exact disposition of the numbers and those individuals among various commands is not yet set in stone. It will of course be considered in the transition period, once the individual who will head up the NCA in its transition is in place.
Petitions
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
This petition is from the residents of Nelson, Lancashire, and the surrounding area. It is signed by more than 500 residents.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Nelson, Lancashire, and others,
Declares that there is a need for a post box outside the main Post Office in Nelson.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Royal Mail to take all possible steps to ensure that a post box is provided outside the main Post Office in Nelson.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000924]
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Last week, I had the great pleasure to attend a protest meeting in Little Harrowden about the No. 24 bus—or lack thereof. We nearly overflowed into the car park because there were so many people there. A petition has been given to me to present to the House to get Little Harrowden reconnected with Wellingborough. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall read the petition to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of residents of Little Harrowden, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth
That the decision by Stagecoach bus company to eliminate most of the bus services between Little Harrowden and Wellingborough due to cut backs in subsidy from Northamptonshire County Council has led to considerable hardship to the old, disabled, vulnerable and young in isolating the village from Wellingborough and necessitating a difficult and dangerous walk along a busy and partly unlit road.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to liaise with Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to find a resolution that will lead to the Number 24 bus service being re-established between Little Harrowden and Wellingborough.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P000925]
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am proud to present a petition of more than 6,000 residents of west Cornwall, which was gathered by my constituents who have been, and remain, justifiably concerned about the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill. They have gathered support for their petition over the past few months, before and since the Government’s “pause and listen” process. They look forward to the formal outcome of that process and hope that the Government will have been encouraged to scrap the Bill and start again. I have also been given a disk copy of a similar petition undertaken by 38 Degrees. That amounts to a total of 300,000 signatures.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of West Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and St Ives, and others,
Declares their opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament as it will take away their single Cornwall National Health Service and replace it with consortia led by GPs. Further, the Bill will allow the increased involvement of profit-led companies in our health service.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons rejects the Health and Social Care Bill.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000926]
Greenock Coastguard Station
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I am very pleased to have secured this debate today on a topic of concern to many in my coastal constituency who rely on the service provided by the Clyde coastguard service at Greenock. Of course, the debate takes place in the context of the consultation on the future of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which was announced to the House in a written ministerial statement on 16 December 2010. The consultation proposes the closure of more than half the current coastguard stations and the loss of approximately 248 jobs.
A number of my constituents work at Clyde coastguard station at Greenock, and many of the points that I shall put to the Minister today, and the questions that I will ask him, come directly from them. The House will be aware that coastguards have recently been prevented from giving evidence directly to the Select Committee on Transport. Operations room staff at the Clyde coastguard station have, however, authored a response to the consultation, which was submitted on 5 May. I hope that the Minister will look at that submission and ensure that it is considered constructively. It makes many detailed points in support of retaining a coastguard station at Greenock.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I am a member of the Transport Committee and, as she rightly says, we are conducting an inquiry into the future of coastguard stations. Although we were not able to take evidence formally from the staff at Greenock, we visited the station and met the staff informally as part of our inquiry. I pay tribute to the officers. The views they expressed were noted, and will be helpful in formulating the response to our inquiry.
Katy Clark
I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that the views expressed by coastguards at Greenock and other coastguard stations are listened to by the Government, and I strongly welcome the fact that coastguards were able to speak informally to the Committee. They have made many technical points which it is helpful for Members of Parliament to listen to.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on the future of Greenock. Does she know whether staff or former staff at Greenock were involved in drawing up the proposals that inform the consultation? That is a concern that has been raised with me by staff at the Crosby coastguard station, which is also under threat in this review.
Katy Clark
The constituents of mine who work at Greenock and other members of staff—I have spoken to them on several occasions over the years—were not involved in any way with the proposals, and that is one of the concerns that has been expressed up and down the country. The proposals do not seem to be based on the experiences of those who have been actively involved in providing the service.
If the proposed closure of the Clyde and Forth coastguard stations goes ahead, it will leave the central belt of Scotland without a coastguard station. Indeed, if the proposals go ahead as originally announced in December last year, there will be no coastguard stations south of Aberdeen or north of Bridlington in Yorkshire. My constituents are concerned that it is far from clear what criteria were used to develop these proposals, so it is not clear why Clyde has been proposed as one of the stations that will close. That is also far from clear to my constituents who rely on the service provided by Clyde coastguard station. I hope that in the reply to this debate we will get more information on that point, so that we can try to rebut some of the arguments.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the characteristics of this debate in so far as it affects Greenock—and the constituents of mine who sometimes work out of the Clyde station and other coastguard stations—is that strong and reasoned arguments have been made against closure, but similar arguments have not been made by those who propose closure? That is why it is important that the whole process should be rethought.
Katy Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend the work that he has undertaken in relation to the Forth coastguard station. In this debate I will be asking a number of questions specifically about why Clyde has been proposed for closure, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have questions about many of the other coastguard stations. As I look around the Chamber, I see the familiar faces of hon. Members who have been campaigning on behalf of their constituents and the coastguard stations on which they rely. I hope that answers will be forthcoming from the Minister. This debate concerns the Greenock site, and he might be unable to reply today to some of my points. If not, I would hope to get written responses later.
Clyde coastguard station is the busiest station in Scotland and, depending on how the figures are read, it is also one of the busiest in the United Kingdom. My figures have been provided by those who work at Clyde coastguard station. They have used their knowledge to provide those figures, although one of the problems is that it has not been easy to get much of the information. According to the figures I have been given, Clyde coastguard station seems to be the top coastguard station in Britain for urgency calls; second behind Falmouth for distress calls; third for search and rescue hours; and fifth for incident numbers in the United Kingdom. Whichever way we look at it, it seems to be one of the busier stations in the United Kingdom.
The station has the largest coastline to look after, because of the number of islands and the length of the sea lochs in the area for which it has responsibility. The station has 41 coastguard rescue teams under its control, and has more ferry routes—28, including four in my constituency—than any other district coastguard station. In many ways, the seas for which it is responsible are getting busier, despite a significant reduction in the number of fishing vessels owing to the seas in the part of the world in which I live having been fished out. There are more fish farm support vessels, and there will be an increasing number of vessels for offshore renewable projects as well as a considerable number of cruise vessels, Navy vessels, submarines, including nuclear submarines, and a significant increase in the number of small leisure craft.
We have heard a lot about local knowledge in the debate about the future of the coastguard service. I believe that Clyde, as one of the largest stations, must have developed a significant amount of local knowledge about the huge terrain for which it provides a service. I cannot see any sense in closing such a large station and losing staff with so much local knowledge, and having other stations take on the work. The economic reality is that Greenock staff are unlikely to be able to transfer from low-cost areas such as Inverclyde or north Ayrshire to high-cost areas such as Aberdeen and the south of England, which have comparatively expensive house prices. When stations such as Greenock close—if that is allowed to happen—such knowledge is lost. It will not move with them.
As I said, many aspects of this matter do not seem to have been given proper consideration. In particular, as far as we can tell, the costs involved in the different coastguard stations do not seem to have been given detailed consideration. The relevant figures, however, many of which are quoted in the response of the operational staff to which I referred the Minister, suggest that Clyde is a cheaper station, because it is situated in a low-cost area with cheaper property prices. The figures also show that there is a large number of applicants whenever posts are advertised there, because it is an area with high unemployment and few quality available jobs. Furthermore, when people get those jobs, they tend to stay, so the retention rate is far higher than in other stations. As I say, detailed work has been done on that—work to which I refer the Minister. However, I would also ask him to say whether that issue was taken into account before December, when the proposals were made.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend talked about whether staff would relocate. I have heard no indication in the comments made to me of a significant relocation package for staff. Does she have any information from staff who have approached her about whether that has been offered or mentioned, or does she know whether it is part of the consultation process?
Katy Clark
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The terms of the civil service relocation package do not necessarily make relocation an attractive option, particularly for those living in areas where accommodation is comparatively cheap and for whom the available options are probably not attractive.
Mark Lazarowicz
Given the age profile, will not many of those working in such stations have done so for many years and often have family commitments and other connections? They cannot simply uproot and move 200, 300, 400 or 500 miles away. They will not go, and that expertise will be lost and they will be unemployed.
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend is obviously correct that, often, not just one individual working in a household will be affected. Relationships will be complicated, and frankly, many people will simply not be in a position to move. Indeed, I suspect that that will probably more often be the case at coastguard stations with experienced long-term staff. We also need to be aware that coastguards are already on very low incomes.
The Minister will be aware that Inverclyde and North Ayrshire are areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Have the economic impacts of the proposals been considered, in particular on Clyde and the wider community? The decision to close Clyde, but keep open the other large coastguard station in Scotland at Aberdeen, seems to be based on current leasing arrangements rather than on operational reasons—or, indeed, on the ongoing running costs of each station. The lease for the Clyde station comes to an end in 2012, with the Aberdeen lease coming to an end in 2020. It has been put to me repeatedly that this seems to have been a major consideration in the proposal to close Clyde. Will the Minister confirm whether that was a factor in coming forward with the proposals, and if it was, will he say how large a factor it was? Has any work been done on the comparative costs of the various options of keeping one coastguard station open as opposed to another?
Mark Lazarowicz
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I assure her that this is my last intervention. On the question of having one or two coastguard stations, just to make it clear, I am sure that she does not mean to suggest that we want the Aberdeen station to close instead Greenock. The whole point is that we do not want the entire coastline of Scotland and parts of the north of England to be served by just one station, which is clearly not a practical solution.
Katy Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am trying to get the Minister to provide more detail on the reasoning behind the proposals. I am strongly of the view that we need a geographical spread of coastguard stations and that we need more than one in Scotland. I have not necessarily looked at the detail of every coastguard station, but I suspect that some hon. Members in the Chamber have.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Perhaps the hon. Lady’s concern about stations on all parts of the coastline echoes her comments about the transferability of staff. Does she agree that local knowledge is critical to the successful operation of coastguard services?
Katy Clark
I agree with the hon. Lady. I am in no way trying to set one coastguard station against another; what I am trying to do is put points on behalf of the Clyde coastguard station that I do not believe will be put in any other forum. There is huge frustration about the fact that it has not been possible to make those points, and we know that very few reasons were given for the proposals.
In every debate about the issue that has taken place in the House, members of all political parties have strongly made the case for local knowledge. There is a considerable distance between the constituency of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and mine. At present that local knowledge is held in the Clyde coastguard station, and if Aberdeen were to take on the work, the acquisition of such knowledge would take a number of years. That point has been made to the Minister a number of times.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend made the same point about local knowledge when speaking about the growth of shipping in the Clyde estuary. It is a crucial factor. While the technology on the larger ships will enable them to make the most of the new technology that the MCA is proposing to introduce, many smaller vessels—including fishing vessels and, in particular, pleasure craft—will not. It is particularly important to retain local knowledge in areas such as the Clyde, where there will be much more shipping than there is at present.
Katy Clark
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. In my constituency, a number of marinas have opened in recent years. We have the largest marina in Scotland in Largs. There has been a huge increase in the use of our seas for pleasure activities and sailing of all types, but with that come many inexperienced users, with whom coastguard station staff will find it more difficult to deal.
Submissions put together by the Clyde staff, with the assistance of Inverclyde council, contain costings for a site at Greenock. The lease at Greenock will expire in 2012, and a number of other local options have been costed. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that they will be considered. The Driving Standards Agency recently decided not to close its Cardiff office after the Public and Commercial Services Union was able to make proposals for a cheaper site, and I wonder whether a similarly open-minded approach will be adopted in this instance. Will the Minister ensure that the submissions from Clyde staff and Inverclyde council are given proper and careful consideration?
As I have said, it is far from clear what criteria were used for the proposals that were announced on 16 December. I hope the Minister agrees that it is only fair for there to be a transparent process, and for proper responses to be provided to questions such as those that I have asked today. The Clyde coastguard station has provided an excellent service, and I hope that once the Government have an opportunity to consider the issues in detail, they will decide to reconsider the proposals and keep it open.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). It is one of many debates on the subject in which we have engaged in the last few months, and that is right and proper, because the Government are making a very important decision.
May I take the first opportunity that I have had to pay tribute to David Cairns, whose Inverness constituency contains the Clyde maritime co-ordination centre? He was very active in the campaign as it is now, but long before these proposals were made he had engaged considerably with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and had visited the station on many occasions, particularly when the Ministry of Defence indicated that it was likely to withdraw the lease and that, in this respect, we would be homeless in that part of the world. His attitude to his constituents was exemplary, as was the way in which he conducted himself during our debates. He will be sorely missed by the House, and whoever replaces him—I understand that the writ for the by-election was moved today—will have a very large pair of shoes to fill.
Although I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate—and I also congratulate the hon. Members who are present for sticking around when they could have disappeared this afternoon—I should point out that the consultation process has ended, even though we extended it considerably, and all representations from all parts of the coastguard community as well as from the public and colleagues in this House will be carefully considered.
All the information will be looked at, as will all the concerns. Let us take the costings, for instance. It is difficult for a coastguard representative or member of the Public and Commercial Services Union to work out the modelling costs. That will be undertaken by the Department, and we will publish all the consultation documents on the website. There are a lot of them, and we will publish them online because we do not want to chop down too many trees. We will also reopen the consultation for a very short time to allow for the Transport Committee report to be taken into account when we draw our conclusions. Finally, the Secretary of State has announced that we will make our announcement before the summer recess.
We realise how emotive this subject is. I come from an emergency service background, so I know very well how emotive issues involving the emergency services in general are. I am enormously proud to be an ex-fireman, and it is a great honour and privilege to be the Minister responsible for Her Majesty’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency and everything to do with it. The MCA is world-renowned. If my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was not being so nice, I am sure she would want to tell me about the fantastic international work done at Falmouth on behalf of the coastguard nationally in this country.
But we are talking about a co-ordination centre, and we are in the position we are in today because a set of station cuts and closures were made over a series of years. I do not think anybody in the Chamber or in the country would claim that the current structure has any logic at all. I have gone around the country visiting stations, and my chief executive, Sir Alan Massey, has been to every single coastguard station during this process, and we have had some robust discussions; I had such a discussion when I was up by Liverpool. Everybody knew that these sorts of changes were coming down the line, however. The previous Government had the current proposals on their desk, and they have been discussed with the PCS for almost two years; I have a record of the dates when those meetings took place, and I myself met and held discussions with PCS representatives before these announcements were made.
We knew in advance, therefore, that we needed a reconfiguration of the coastguard service, so that we have the resilience, training and communication systems that are required, as well as a pay structure that is fit for the 21st century. Anybody who has visited a coastguard station in this country will know that one of the first subjects the staff talk about is pay and career, because £13,500 a year as a basic salary in an emergency service is unacceptable. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at this reconfiguration and realignment of the way the service works. That is a fact; this topic was discussed with me because there was a dispute that I inherited when I first became the responsible Minister, and which had been going on for several years. It is unacceptable that such a dispute went on for such a long time.
We must also look at the geography—at where the co-ordination centres are located. We are talking specifically about the Clyde today. The Clyde station is twinned. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran might be aware that each of the coastguard stations, apart from the Western Isles and Shetland, is twinned with another station so that they have some resilience. The Clyde station is twinned with Bangor in Northern Ireland, so if the systems go down in the Clyde and the local knowledge—which I accept is there—disappears, Northern Ireland will look after that coastguard area. I have visited Bangor and put the following point to its staff: if local knowledge is so important—and I accept that it does have importance—why are there such huge geographical distances between twinned co-ordination centres? Interestingly, in other parts of the country twins are ridiculously close, such as Brixham and Falmouth. That makes it very difficult to have a national co-ordination facility, and we do not have it; there is no national resilience within the coastguard service in the UK today. We need to look at that.
The very first visit that I made—I know I am going to repeat myself, but some of these comments need repeating—was to Liverpool, on 13 January. A robust and free debate took place, and I do not think I held much back; nor did some of the coastguard representatives, who included volunteers as well as full-time staff. Interestingly, during that debate—the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was there—one of the senior members of uniformed staff said to me, “But Minister, we’ve been talking about nine co-ordination centres for years.” I said, “Please put that in writing—be part of the consultation.” I also went to Bangor, where a very detailed report was put in.
Bill Esterson
I remember the exchange about the nine co-ordination centres extremely well. It was an informal proposal put forward by members of staff there some years ago. It is important to put it on the record that they had suggested it to the agency at an earlier date.
Mike Penning
That is exactly the point I am trying to make: this has not come out of the blue. The coastguard representatives there, in front of the hon. Gentleman, me and everybody else assembled there, said that they had previously suggested having nine centres around the country. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, I said to them, “I’m talking about eight, you’re talking about nine. We’re not that far apart, are we?”
On 9 March, I visited Bangor, in the Province, where a detailed presentation and submission was put to me suggesting having 10 centres around the country. As I have said before, three types of submission have been made in this lengthy consultation process. One suggests that we should leave things alone, and that everything is okay. Another says, “Leave us alone”, without making any real comment about anybody else. Then, there are the really detailed submissions, such as that from Falmouth, which I also visited. They say, “We know there needs to be change—standing still is not an option. We’ve said that since day one, when we started the consultation, but actually, we think the figure for the country as a whole should be about 10.” There have also been discussions about how many national co-ordination centres, or maritime operations centres, there should be. The suggestion arising from the consultation is two; others have suggested one. I do not think anybody is suggesting that there should be none—at least, not in the detailed submissions. There is no national co-ordination at the moment, and I think everybody accepts it is needed.
We are proud of our extended coastline, and we should perhaps look at how other countries are dealing with their co-ordination centres. I must stress that this issue is purely to do with co-ordination—the wonderful volunteers who carry out the rescues, and the RNLI and others, are not affected. In fact, we are going to enhance those services by providing them with more investment and more full-time staff. So, naturally, when I first looked at our proposal, I examined how other countries with an extended coastline structure their co-ordination centres. I looked at other English-speaking countries that might have replicated our approach, and Australia, for instance, has one centre. Spain, I believe, also has one; Norway has two; France has seven. It is not feasible for us to stand still and say that what we have today, in this ad hoc procedure, is suitable going forward.
The consultation was put out and there were discussions with the PCS. These proposals, in one shape or form, have been around for about four years. Evidence was given to the Select Committee, and a letter was published in The Guardian only the other day from the former chief executive of the MCA, saying that Ministers had fudged this issue for years and it had not been addressed. We are determined to bring the coastguard service and the MCA into the 21st century—to have a fully resilient service with a pay and career structure that is fit for the service and its dedicated staff.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing this debate. I very much welcome, as I am sure coastguards all around the UK do, the fact that this was a genuine consultation exercise. You have repeatedly said that the current proposals are not a done deal and the Secretary of State underlined that only a few weeks ago. It would be of enormous help to coastguards in Falmouth and all around the UK if you could share with us what is going to happen once your response to the consultation is published—you promised this before the recess. Will alternative proposals be introduced? If so, will they be further consulted upon?
Mr Speaker
I cannot share anything and I cannot offer any response, but I have a feeling that the Minister might.
Mike Penning
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that we understand exactly what my hon. Friend is trying to say to the House.
It is very important that we understand exactly what the Government’s position has been from day one. Of course I am going to be accused of doing U-turns, cartwheels and so on, but I said, and the Secretary of State said, that these proposals were not set in stone and that the consultation is a proper one. We said that we wanted everybody to be fully involved in the future of the coastguard service. I said from day one that what comes out the other end of this consultation process will not be what we go in with, but that we cannot end up with the status quo. The service has to modernise, it has to have proper resilience and it must be fit for the 21st century.
Katy Clark
I asked a number of questions about the criteria that were used. The Minister might not be able to give a response today, but will a response be given at the end of this process outlining the basis on which decisions are being made? It is not at all clear to those working in the coastguard service why particular stations have been chosen and others have not, so will the criteria be made publicly available?
Mike Penning
Of course. I was still responding to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and when I have finished dealing with it, I will discuss the points that the hon. Lady has raised. In that intervention, I was asked specifically what will happen later in the process. We will announce our proposals once we have taken into consideration the Select Committee’s report. That means that I will have to reopen the consultation, but I stress that that will be just to allow that report to be taken into consideration. If I did not do so, I would be insulting the Select Committee and there is no way I intend to do that. The Government will announce their conclusions before the summer recess—as we have said all the way through, they are likely to be different—and then I will reopen the consultation. That is the right and proper way to proceed if we want to work with the public, with the service and with Members of this House. It is different from the way in which a lot of consultations have historically been carried out over the years, but I do not think this will be a one-off; I think that the Government will take this approach on a regular basis. I recall a consultation on my local general hospital in which 85% of respondents said they did not want the hospital to close, yet it was closed in any case. No consideration was given to people’s concerns. Does this approach mean that everybody is going to be happy? No, of course it does not. However, proper consultation will take place again once we put forward our proposals.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving so late to the debate and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It would be very helpful if he gave a commitment at the start of that consultation to avoid compulsory redundancies at every stage in the process from there on in.
Mike Penning
I hope that there would not be compulsory redundancies, but I cannot give that commitment and I am not going to stand at this Dispatch Box and mislead people. The PCS has known that all the way through. It is important to understand that there will be job losses if we reduce the number of co-ordination centres, although I hope that such job losses will not be compulsory. I have gone through redundancy, despite my union fighting to help me, so I understand where people are coming from. However, if I am going to increase salaries, training and career prospects, I have to find that money from somewhere and that money will come from the savings we are finding. There are quite significant costs up front, particularly for the resilience we want to put into the system. The Treasury has been generous and I have money, but I cannot carry that forward—I must make savings. To be fair, the union—
Mike Penning
I want to clarify the point that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned in her intervention, because if I am not careful I will not finish one intervention before I take another. I know we have a few hours, but everybody will understand if we do not speak for the whole time.
It is really important that we do not get bogged down by the fact about the Select Committee because, as anyone who has been a Minister knows, a civil servant cannot go before a Select Committee and criticise Government policy. That is not the protocol; it is not what happens. The job of a civil servant, if they go before a Select Committee, is to support Government policy. That is why civil servants at the grade of those we are talking about do not go before Select Committees. I took advice from the Cabinet Office and I ensured that we were in absolutely the right position. I bent over backwards to ensure that the Select Committee could go to any station it wished and talk to any member of staff, but I could not have uniformed staff criticising Government policy. They are fully entitled to fight through their union representatives for what they think is right, but a Select Committee is not the right and proper place to do that. Anybody who has served as a Minister knows that. We can go back through Westland if we want, and see those differences.
Dr Whiteford
I agree with the Minister that it is very important that we have a coastguard service that is fit for the 21st century, but I would put it to him that all the other emergency services in Scotland are devolved and one way to protect smaller stations, such as Inverclyde, might be to amend the Scotland Bill to devolve the operation of the coastguard agency in Scotland. That would mean that the services could properly address our vast coastline, in line with people’s expectations in Scotland.
Mike Penning
I do not want to disappoint the hon. Lady, but the Scottish National party has absolutely no chance of my breaking up a national emergency service such as this one. That will not happen. If we go down the avenue of saying that we can break up the service and that it can be operated in a completely independent little station, we will move completely away from the needs of the service. The service needs national resilience. If we do not have that, we are not offering the service that our constituents—including the hon. Lady’s constituents—deserve. It cannot happen.
When I visited the Western Isles, I saw that when the power goes down—I understand that it does so on a fairly regular basis—volunteers go up to the wireless towers on the hills and operate them manually. That is the situation we are in in the 21st century. There was a lightning strike at Falmouth and they luckily managed to keep going, but there is no proper resilience to lock in the service. In our part of the world, the police love the VHF system we operate because they operate on Airwave and although we use some of it we have a very good radio system. However, what we need is networking.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is aware that at Clyde we have a hub that comes into the existing building, but we cannot stay in that building. That is one reason for the decision. We have talked about costs, and of course costs are involved—there is no illusion about the fact that costs are involved and there would be significant costs if we had another station in Clyde that was not in that building. Even if we stayed in that building, there would be considerable costs, and we cannot do so, as the Ministry of Defence has decided that it wants to be gone from that building in Clyde by 2013. We will have to move from that building. There are significant costs that we will publish and put out there, but I am in the middle of the consultation and I will not jeopardise that. Judicial review or something similar could be pushed against me if I broke into the consultation in the middle of it. I am trying to be as open as possible.
Bill Esterson
I assume that the Minister has finished with the previous interventions. Let me make a few points about learning lessons regarding future consultations and advice. First, there is grave concern among coastguard officers that at one point he advised them that they could give evidence in public to the Select Committee.
Bill Esterson
Well, he will get his chance in a moment to answer my points, but that has categorically been stated by a number of coastguard officers. I think there is a lesson to learn there about the advice given by Ministers.
The other point is that we should listen to front-line staff when drawing up proposals on such important issues as these emergency services and we should include their ideas. The Minister mentioned what happened at Crosby when he visited: the ideas of those staff were not put into the consultation document and were not part of the proposal, and that is of concern to staff there.
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Minister is winding up the debate on the future of Greenock coastguard station.
Mike Penning
May I just place it on the record that I openly said at Crosby and as I went around the country that I wanted coastguards and the public to engage? I am quite careful about my words, even though I regularly speak without notes, as I am doing now, and I did not say that those staff could give evidence to the Select Committee in oral session, but I did say that they could submit written evidence. I also said that to the Chair of the Select Committee when I went before it last week in what was also an interesting session.
I have just been informed, a few moments ago, that there will be another Adjournment debate on this issue—on a slightly different subject very close to this one—for an hour and a half next Tuesday morning. It is key to this issue that we make sure that things are done correctly and I am willing to take into consideration all the submissions, but keeping the status quo is not an option. Nearly every detailed submission has accepted that and it was accepted by the previous Administration before I became the responsible Minister. I have been very impressed by the time and effort that many of the stations have taken not just to say, “Look after me, guv,” or “Protect me,” but to suggest what the service needs to look at and look like in the 21st century, and I pay tribute to everyone who has submitted evidence to the consultation. It will reopen just to allow the Select Committee report to be considered, and the Government will make an oral statement to the House before the summer recess on the future of the MCA.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
New Social Housing
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
22. What estimate his Department has made of the likely number of new social housing starts between May 2010 and April 2015.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
We are investing £4.5 billion in new affordable housing over the next four years, with the hope of producing 150,000 new affordable homes.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for his reply, although I note that he referred just to affordable housing, not to affordable social housing. Given the imminent publication of the Government’s child poverty strategy, what conversations has he had with colleagues in other Departments about the impact of the lack of affordable social housing on achieving our child poverty targets?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is right to draw the subject to the House’s attention. It is sadly true that there were 45,000 fewer affordable social homes in this country following 13 years of her party’s being in power. I have had extensive conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that, in the next 13 years—or at least in the next four—a significantly greater number of social, affordable and all types of homes will be built across the social and regular housing sectors because this country needs homes, for which the new homes bonus will provide a significant boost.
[Official Report, 4 April 2011, Vol. 526, c. 737-38.]
Letter of correction from Mr Grant Shapps:
An error has been identified in an oral answer given on 4 April 2011. The correct answer should have been:
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is right to draw the subject to the House's attention. It is sadly true that there were 50,000 fewer affordable homes in this country following 13 years of her party's being in power. I have had extensive conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that, in the next 13 years—or at least in the next four—a significantly greater number of social, affordable and all types of homes will be built across the social and regular housing sectors because this country needs homes, for which the new homes bonus will provide a significant boost.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wild Animals (Circuses)
(13 years, 5 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
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am disappointed that I had to ask Mr Speaker for this morning’s debate, disappointed that the Minister has had to come to the House to try yet again to defend his position and disappointed that the Government are all over the place on the question of wild animals in circuses.
I am grateful for the support of Members from both sides of the House, and I know that many loyal Government Members will be saddened that they should have to raise the matter. I thank those Members who are here today and those who have sent apologies for not being able to attend; this debate clashes with other business of the House and some Members who wanted to attend cannot do so. However, the hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and others are present, and I am grateful to them for attending.
I realise that after the forestry U-turn, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot see the wood for the trees, but are Ministers really saying that the thousands of people who have signed The Independent’s online petition are wrong, that the 94.5% who responded to the consultation are wrong, or—dare I say it—that the vast majority of the British public are wrong? I understand that the Secretary of State has said that most people would prefer not to see wild animals performing in circuses. The British Veterinary Association has said that
“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus; especially in terms of accommodation and the ability to express normal behaviour. A licensing scheme will not address these issues.”
Despite all those people saying that 21st century Britain is no longer willing to allow wild animals to perform in travelling circuses, we have a Government and a Department that are dithering and scrabbling to find the flimsiest of arguments to avoid a ban. The Secretary of State is looking to implement a licensing scheme. It is likely to cost £1 million, but it will not resolve the issue—and I thought that the Government were opposed to new regulations and wanted to save money.
Why can DEFRA find time to bring in a new licensing scheme and £1 million to underwrite it, but it cannot pursue a ban? It cannot still be awaiting the consultation results, because they were available more than a year ago. It cannot be starting from scratch, as I understand from the Minister responsible for animal welfare in the last Labour Government that all the paperwork was in the Department’s red box last March. Is it that the Minister does not know his Annies from his Nellies? No; I think that he has learned that lesson. Perhaps it is because a huge number of circuses and animals are involved. No, only four circuses are involved—not 40 or 400, but four—and about 40 or so beautiful wild animals. At least, that is how many there are now, but under this marvellous licensing scheme it could well become 60, or 100 or more.
Are someone’s human rights being violated? The Minister of State seemed to think so, given his answer to an urgent question in the House on 19 May, yet DEFRA’s impact assessment, which was undertaken as part of the consultation, states that there are no human rights aspects. The thought that someone’s human rights could be infringed by banning wild animals from circuses would make a mockery of all rights.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Is there a reason why the previous Labour Government failed to address any of these issues in 13 years of government?
Robert Flello
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but he is not correct. When the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was going through the House, we debated banning the use of wild animals and concluded that a report—the Radford report, which I shall come to in a moment—should be commissioned. Indeed, by March 2010 a ban was on the cards.
Robert Flello
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take part in the debate or just sit and heckle all morning?
Is the problem that the European Circus Association may—or could, or is thinking about, or is sabre-rattling, or has thought up a good ruse, or just might—take a case to the Austrian court? Is Parliament now bound by the whims of a lawyer acting for a European association?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman will know that Governments have been given legal advice saying that it would be impossible to ban the import of cat and dog fur, and the same was said of seal fur, yet when Governments challenged that so-called legal advice they were able to make those bans happen. Does he agree that we should challenge the legal advice in this instance, thus ensuring that we ban this cruel practice once and for all?
Robert Flello
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Indeed, I was coming to that very point.
How long does the Minister intend to wait to see whether that hypothetical court case actually starts? If the legal advice from DEFRA officials is so overwhelming, I am sure that the Secretary of State will be only too pleased to publish it. Does the Minister have a copy with him, or will he place it in the Library later today? Legal advice supplied to me suggests that the UK is entitled to make its own domestic legislation on this matter.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman may recall that, on the day of the urgent question, I asked the Minister if he would publish the legal advice that he had received. I am pleased to advise the House that I received a letter from the Secretary of State yesterday; the Minister has followed through on his commitment to discuss the matter with her. However, I am disappointed and frustrated that, in line with practice elsewhere in government, the Secretary of State has declined to publish that advice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we cannot see the advice from Government lawyers, it places a greater burden of responsibility on the Minister to argue the merits of that position?
Robert Flello
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it does indeed place an extra burden, an extra duty, on the Minister. I repeat the point that, if the legal advice is so overwhelming, we should be able to scrutinise it.
I shall take a step back and set out our recent journey to this point. Circuses existed long before wild animals became a feature. Indeed, it is often said that the Roman circuses were the foundation for what we know today. The use of animals in circuses probably dates back to the early 18th century, when exotic animals were put on display. The year 1833 is often cited, as that was when big cats were first seen in a cage act at a circus. Interestingly, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed in that year, as was the Factory Act that limited child labour—a connection that is slightly ironic.
During the passage of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it was agreed that the use of wild animals in travelling circuses should be banned, subject to there being sufficient scientific evidence. The circus working group, chaired by Mike Radford, concluded that there was not sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban. However, on a closer reading of the 2007 report, the conclusion seems to be that there is almost no evidence to consider—no evidence to support a ban, and no evidence to support the status quo. My reading of the Radford report is that there is no scientific data for either side to rely on.
There is another argument, however. Do we really need a report to tell us right from wrong? Does a report that says there is insufficient evidence override our moral sense of what is or is not acceptable? In the 20 years leading up to 1833, did Wilberforce say in the face of so-called evidence against him, “Oh well, that’s okay. I’ll give up now.”? No, of course not, and neither should we. I do not suggest that the owners of travelling circuses are cruel or that they mistreat their animals, but I fail to see—and looking around me, I note that colleagues who are here in support of a ban, fail to see—how keeping wild animals in mobile cages as they travel around the country, even with some respite in exercise areas, is for the best welfare of the animals concerned. Perhaps it is me, but I find it plain wrong that wild animals should be used in travelling circuses.
As an important aside, I believe that it is wholly unacceptable for circuses to be targeted for vandalism and worse. We should not descend to that level but should win the argument instead.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is absolutely right to push this issue. The Government should re-examine the legal case, so that we can move towards a ban as speedily as possible. Does he not think that a further Back-Bench debate, which many are pushing for at the moment, would give us the opportunity to re-examine the legal argument and the apparent legal impediment to a ban? We need to ensure that the Government are given the tools and the encouragement to move towards a ban as quickly as possible.
Robert Flello
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Radford report suggests that, because of the lack of scientific evidence, the legal impediment comes from the use of secondary legislation. It says that the ban could be implemented if Parliament passed primary legislation. Having not seen the legal advice, I can only speculate that that is the problem and that the Ministry is unwilling to go down the route of primary legislation.
Andrew George
I was referring to the EU services directive and the debateable position of the Austrians. If we can learn lessons from that, we could ensure a smooth passage towards a ban.
Robert Flello
Indeed, but coming back to the European services directive, the legal advice that I have seen suggests that that was not an issue. The complaint against the Austrian Government was made in 2008. The European Circus Association took Austria to the European Commission and made a complaint. The case was folded and no further action was taken. The ombudsman looked into the matter and felt that reasons should have been given. Ultimately, though, he found that the European services directive did not apply in this circumstance and that it was up to nation states to bring in their own legislation. Again, I come back to my initial point: if the Secretary of State made available the legal advice, it would be far easier to mount a challenge and for lawyers on both sides to determine whether or not it was robust. If there was a problem, they would at least be able to see it in the open.
The 2007 Radford report noted that circuses have hesitated to update cages and facilities because of the uncertainty. It said then that the status quo was unsustainable, and that was getting on for four years ago. It says that we cannot continue in this way. The Government’s own impact assessment says that human rights are not an issue and legal advice says that the European services directive is not an issue, so what is the issue?
As Members already know, circuses are exempt from the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 does not address the welfare requirements of performing animals, and as I have mentioned previously, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be hard to bring to bear when circuses are travelling around the country. Where does that leave us? In my view, it leaves us quite rightly pushing for a total ban on wild animals in travelling circuses.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. This issue has been of interest to me from my time at Belfast city council when we banned animal circuses from using council property. I am interested in one of the challenges that is presented by exotic animals being permitted in circuses. Under regulation, or self-regulation, people are required to go through constant retraining as new species are introduced into circuses. Is there not a chance that that is just impractical in protecting animal welfare and that a complete ban on all species would be better?
Robert Flello
The other thing that that raises is a widening of scope. If it was difficult to use a type of wild animal because it was mentioned in regulation, would circuses effectively be encouraged to start looking at other species to get round the cumbersome and burdensome regulations? All this leaves us pushing for a total ban on wild animals in travelling circuses, as discussed during the passage of the 2006 Act and as proposed at the end of the previous Government. Although the lack of scientific evidence for or against the ban would seem to preclude using secondary legislation, it is for Parliament to use primary legislation to give weight to the ethical issues, the will of the British public and the rights and needs of wild animals themselves.
In conclusion, we have a situation in which DEFRA is once again in disarray and out of touch with the public. The Minister has been given another chance today to get this right. I hope that he will announce today that his Department will introduce a ban without further delay and that the use of wild animals in circuses will be another Victorian legacy that can be properly assigned to the past.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Does any other Member want to speak? Members have to stand if they want to speak.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I did not realise that there would be so little competition for the opportunity to enter the debate. I have already thanked the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for securing it for us. My timidity was purely because I thought that it would be ill-mannered of me to seek an early speech in the debate given the fact that I will need to leave before it concludes, but as I do not seem to be preventing others from speaking, I will proceed.
I mentioned earlier that by asking the Minister to bring out the legal advice that supported his position, I seek only to aid him. It would certainly shed a lot of light on the situation for many Members. It is a matter of disappointment to me that that will not be possible, but I am sure that we all look forward to the Minister’s comments as he tries to explain his position.
Various legal impediments have been presented to the case for bringing an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. Some people have spoken about human rights issues, but the Government, in their consultation, made it clear that they did not believe that was an impediment. Others have looked at the European services directive, which is an interesting case but not one that prevents the UK from legislating as it sees fit on the matter of animal welfare; I recognise that it would require primary legislation.
Given that a ban is in place in Denmark and that Austria has taken measures, we would not be standing alone in that respect. We are not in the position that our views are wholly out of line with those elsewhere in the European Union. Forming public policy to protect animals from cruelty is certainly a legitimate ground for taking legislative action. We have yet to see the legal advice that has prompted this case. It is not for me to claim to be a legal expert on the matter, so I look forward to hearing further clarification.
The key issue about taking action, which has emerged from our discussions both here and in the main Chamber, rests on the potential exposure of the UK to a legal challenge. That is clear given what happened to the case in Austria. I urge the Minister to keep the situation under constant review. If the facts and the threat of legal challenge change, we want the Government to be able to take action. Will the Minister tell us if he is willing to look at the issue as events unfold, or indeed fail to unfold, in other parts of Europe?
At the end of the day, for many of my constituents, this is not a matter of legal nicety. It is about expressing our values in our society. We are prepared to do that on other matters of animal welfare, and there is no reason why circuses should not come under such concerns.
Andrew George
Like my hon. Friend and doubtless many others, I would have liked to contribute further to this debate but unfortunately I too have to be elsewhere shortly for another meeting. Nevertheless, I wish the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who secured the debate, great success in advancing the cause.
I want to respond to the point that my hon. Friend has just made. Leaving aside the legal debate around the issue, there must be a debate across all Departments about whether a policy of working towards a ban on wild animals in circuses can proceed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for DEFRA to say, in due course, whether it is minded to introduce a ban if all the other impediments to imposing a ban can be overcome?
Duncan Hames
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that a statement of intent—of desire—by the Government would be helpful, so that our constituents would be in no doubt that the refusal so far to countenance the introduction of primary legislation to end the practice is not a political judgment but a practical one, in light of the legal impediments. A statement from the Government to express that view would certainly be very helpful.
However, in response to the urgent question that was put last month in the main Chamber on this issue, we had a somewhat more laissez-faire piece of encouragement from the Minister, when he said:
“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 499.]
I am happy to take the Minister’s advice, but to be honest I do not think that his response is sufficient. That type of response has certainly not been considered in relation to many other issues of animal welfare. For example, when it comes to the regulation of practices within abattoirs, it would not be sufficient simply to tell people not to eat meat. People who eat meat expect good standards and I know that the Minister’s Department is keen to ensure that good standards are upheld. In recent months, concerns have been expressed about other animal welfare issues, for example in horse racing, and it would not have been sufficient for people simply to have turned off the television set that Saturday afternoon in April.
There are other examples of animal welfare issues when such a response would not have been sufficient, for instance in relation to the fur trade. Yes, consumers, members of the public and society as a whole can take a stand and make their views clear. However, to do that alone ignores the fact that we are all part of one democratic society where we want to be able to set standards that we should all have confidence in, regardless of our personal choices, as I said just now in relation to the meat industry.
I hope that the Minister will accept that there is widespread support for action on the issue of wild animals in circuses. In the Government’s consultation, 94% of respondents wanted an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. In addition, 26,000 people signed the petition that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to in his speech. That petition was also supported by many respected organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals Protection Society. I hope that we can find a way through the current impasse.
Caroline Lucas
Like others, I have a meeting to attend shortly. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing the debate. I want to reiterate the European experience. When I was an MEP and we were trying to progress animal welfare issues in the European Parliament, we were always told to go back to member states and galvanise them. When a number of member states are calling very strongly for action on something, that is precisely what enables the EU position to be much easier. If there is any suggestion that the EU is somehow preventing us from moving on the issue of wild animals in circuses, I reiterate that if we look, for example, at the action that was taken, first, on dog and cat fur, and then on seal fur, on both occasions it was action by member states that enabled the EU to say, “Yes, go ahead”, and then the bans on those types of fur could go forward. There really should be nothing stopping us from moving on this vital issue of wild animals in circuses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Duncan Hames
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I certainly agree. It is my view that this matter is not controversial and it is not one on which we stand alone. There is support for us from citizens not only in our own country but in other countries in Europe, and as a consequence we should not be timid about expressing our views.
In fact, there have been many other areas where regulation and action by Government has been far more controversial than in this case, whether in relation to the endless debate—as it was—about hunting or to the delicate balance that must be struck between competing interests around animal experimentation. Certainly there is an argument to be made about the use of animal experimentation for medical purposes but action has been taken to outlaw animal experimentation for the use of cosmetics, where there is much less justification for such experimentation. Indeed, even in relation to some of the issues that we discuss in this place about farming practices, there are much more complex and difficult matters to weigh up when we are considering action to protect animal welfare than in the case of wild animals being used in circuses. It seems to me that the argument for banning wild animals in circuses is very much about protecting animals and we would miss an opportunity if we did not take that action. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement in that respect in his response to the debate.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing the debate.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), I had not intended to make a speech because I am unable to stay in Westminster Hall until the end of the debate. However, given the fact that everyone else here this morning seems to be in exactly the same position, I will briefly take the opportunity to say a few words.
The debate is timely and I am pleased that as part of Back-Bench business, we may have an opportunity to vote on the issue. My impression is that across the House, in all parties, a majority of people probably want a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, which is in line with the view of the general public; as has been said, 94% of people seem to be in favour of a ban. I very much hope that we will get the opportunity to debate this important issue in the main Chamber, with the opportunity for a vote in the Chamber, so that Back-Bench MPs can express their views and the Government, hopefully, can listen to those views, because I think we actually represent the views of the vast majority of the general public.
My real concern is that the action proposed by the Government might inadvertently legitimise the use of wild animals in circuses. Over a number of years, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of wild animals used in circuses. However, by proposing some sort of licensing scheme, there is a real danger that we might legitimise the use of wild animals in circuses. Indeed, it may actually be extended. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South suggested that we might end up seeing more wild animals in circuses if the Government’s proposals go ahead and I do not think that anybody wants that to happen.
In the Minister’s closing remarks, will he give us an indication exactly where the decision has come from? It has been suggested that it was actually a decision from the top—from the Prime Minister—and that DEFRA would have been quite happy to go along with a ban but unfortunately the Prime Minister seemed to be strongly in favour of not introducing one. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that is indeed the position of DEFRA and whether the Prime Minister has had personal involvement in this case.
For me, a ban is a no-brainer. I recently went to the cinema to watch the film, “Water for Elephants”. I am quite happy to plug that film, because I thought it was great. I accept that the conditions in which the vast majority of animals in circuses are kept are very different from those in the film, but I do not believe that wild animals can be looked after appropriately in the sort of cages and the kind of environment where they have to live in circuses. Although there have been massive improvements over the decades, I think that we would all generally agree that that environment is not appropriate.
I would also like the Minister to explain why the decision was made not to publish the legal advice. As a coalition Government, we have argued that we are more open and transparent than previous Governments, but I am afraid that refusing to publish the legal advice gives our opponents the opportunity to argue that we must have something to hide.
Finally, I want to plug the organisation 38 Degrees, which contacts all Members of Parliament. It has recently been asking them for suggestions about what its next campaign should be. I think it should concentrate its efforts on the campaign to ban wild animals from circuses because the vast majority of people support it—it is a no-brainer. I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision about the advice and bring it to the Floor of the House. Let us see what MPs think and let us ban wild animals in circuses.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing the debate. I should apologise for referring to him earlier, I think, as my hon. Friend. Members may not know that we recently spent a week together in a tent in the Falkland Islands, where I became friendlier than I had perhaps intended—[Interruption.] That is reflected in his comments.
I am not here to make a speech in favour of wild animals in circuses. Such spectacles hold no great attraction for me—I would not go to one myself or take my children to see one. However, I have always been fundamentally opposed to the politically tempting prospect of abolishing things because it suits a particular political narrative. We have seen that total bans do not necessarily result in actual total bans and do not necessarily produce the welfare benefits that some passionate and articulate advocates suggest. Having listened to the debate so far, I am concerned that we are confusing two things which, to my mind, are absolutely different—the welfare of wild animals in circuses and the legality of abolition.
It is right and proper that we should debate the welfare of wild animals, and part of that debate should be about separating cruelty from suffering. Something that has beset animal welfare debates in this House for some time is the fact that we sometimes complicate the emotive description of the treatment of animals in the context of cruelty, which is not a scientific measurement, with that of suffering, which is or can be. We should perhaps put ourselves in a position to legislate on the back of reports and debates on the issue of wild animals in circuses, but that is entirely different from the debate on the legality of abolition.
It is absolutely proper that any Government take the legal advice that they are offered. We simply cannot go around ignoring legal advice on the basis that using expressions such as “total ban” plays to our popular instincts. People will sue us, and the taxpayer will pay if we get it wrong.
Simon Hart
I am sure that the Minister will come to that. There is always sensitivity when it comes to the publication of legal advice, particularly when cases are, or are possibly, in play. I do not think that there is necessarily anything to be suspicious about; I do not necessarily smell a conspiracy just because a Department fails to publish advice when we demand it. I am sure that the Minister will, as usual, give a compelling answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
The Department is absolutely right rigidly to stick to principle and evidence when it comes to decisions on legislating in favour of abolition or of regulation. In many debates on animal-related issues in this House over the years, Ministers have stood up and thumped the table, stressing their commitment to evidence and principle, and have then promptly gone and legislated in the absence of both. That has had long-term consequences for the animals concerned, which have failed to benefit from the legislation, and also for the taxpayer, who has been forced to pick up enormous legal bills—several of which I have been unashamedly responsible for—as the process is challenged in every court in the UK and further afield. It is absolutely proper that the Department should avoid getting itself into that particular pickle.
I can see us moving to a situation, over a period of time—a time scale with which I would be entirely comfortable—in which we no longer see wild animals used in circuses but neither do we subject the taxpayer to undue expense as a result of our over-enthusiasm to do something that is simply popular on the back of an electronic campaign that might catch the mood of the day.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the taxpayer. The taxpayer comes in a variety of forms, one of which is the council tax payer. The scheme that DEFRA has proposed would place an additional burden on council tax payers, because it would fall to local authorities to license and to inspect but, ridiculously, they would not have the power to prosecute.
Simon Hart
I am grateful for that contribution, but I am not entirely sure that I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s position. The local authorities are in a more powerful position than he suggests in that they have the ability, presumably, not to regulate or not to license. Despite what the Government may say, that is, to some extent, a local authority decision. I do not want to steal the Minister’s ground on that issue as well, because he will almost certainly deal with it himself.
Naomi Long
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such a late stage in his speech. He has said that he wants to move to a situation in which wild animals are no longer used in circuses. It is hard, however, to see how regulation would bring that about, because its use would almost be an acceptance that it is appropriate to have wild animals in circuses and that the only issue is the regulation of welfare. My argument is that it is inappropriate for wild animals to be held in such circumstances, because the circus environment is by its very nature not an appropriate place for them.
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady’s point is fair, but it goes back to my earlier comment about having to separate the moral, ethical argument about the appropriateness of wild animals in circuses from the legality of abolition legislation. Those things are entirely different; they always have been; and there is nothing particularly new about that. I am fundamentally not an abolitionist—I dislike banning things. I happen to dislike abolition not because I am a 1960s liberal but because I often see examples of the consequences of legislation not being the same as the intention of those who proposed it in the first place. It would be fine for me if we moved to a situation in which the circuses—I think there are only two or three—that use wild animals were not using them in five years’ time without our having to go through various legal challenges. Hon. Members and the Minister might take a different view, but that is my position, which I think strikes the right balance between trying to attain the highest possible welfare standards and not compromising the taxpayer’s interests.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I have great sympathy with what he has said about finding a pragmatic solution that is good value for the taxpayer, but does he accept that even if the legal advice is correct, a legal challenge might be unlikely? I have a unique perspective on the issue, because I used to be a magician’s assistant. That was my first job, before I gave up that sensible career path for this crazy world, and I am happy to report that the only creature harmed in the shows in which I was involved was, frequently, me. I have some knowledge of the sector, and I think that a legal challenge would be unlikely. We have a pragmatic opportunity. Fewer than 40 animals would need to be rehomed. A ban seems to be the most pragmatic way forward.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes an interesting contribution, particularly regarding her downward career path from magician’s assistant to politician. I must confess that I am not overly sympathetic to the process, for the reasons that I have given. Part of me is hugely resistant to the theory that the most pragmatic approach is simply to strike a red pen through an activity, because it suits our political agenda to do so. History is littered with examples of our having fallen for that temptation only to regret it at our leisure and expense.
I will finish on this point. I do not like making cheap political observations too often, but I will make another one now. We cannot ignore the fact that we have lived through 13 years of Labour Administrations who made a lot of noise about such subjects yet failed to do anything about them. Nothing much changed over those 13 years as far as wild animals in circuses were concerned. I hope that my south Atlantic colleague the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South will forgive me for saying that it is a little rich to come here and lay the blame fully at the foot of the current Administration, when his party had such an opportunity to deal with the matter itself.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I was not expecting to be called so quickly, Mr Betts. I was also not planning to speak, as I believe the debate finishes at 11 o’clock and I cannot stay. I hope that you will forgive me for leaving before the debate finishes. I will make a few brief remarks.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I accept that Members have other, pressing engagements, but the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about coming in halfway through a debate and leaving before the end. It means that he is not really engaging in the debate, but simply coming to make a speech by himself. I am giving him a bit of advice for the future on that point.
Zac Goldsmith
I will take that on board and will stay as long as I can. I think that the debate finishes at 11 o’clock, and there is a chance that I can stay until then; I will do my best.
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have had a huge number of letters from constituents, and the issue clearly resonates with the public at large. I do not believe that there are any circuses in my constituency that use wild animals, but nevertheless the issue has caught people’s imagination. Like previous speakers, I put on record my support for a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.
I am confused by the Government’s position. I do not see any real arguments against the ban, other than abstract ones. It seems to come down to an argument about the vague threat of a possible challenge by the European Union at some point in the future. That seems to be what the arguments boil down to. Alternatively—I do not want to paraphrase or caricature the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart))—it boils down to an in-principle opposition to the very notion of prohibition. I share my hon. Friend’s antipathy to the use of bans—we have had far too many bans over the past 13 years that could rightly and usefully be repealed—but there are situations in which a ban is the most clear-cut and straightforward solution, and I cannot offer a better example than this one.
I will not rehearse the arguments for a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, partly because they have already been laid out clearly but also because they are blindingly obvious. The public have an overwhelming appetite for the clear-cut solution of a ban, and the law should reflect the general wishes of the public. If the opinion polls are accurate or even half accurate—92% or 93% of people say that they favour a ban—surely the law should adapt to reflect the interests of that vast majority of people.
I also suspect that if the issue were put to a vote in the House, irrespective of the various positions taken by different parties, Members of Parliament would overwhelmingly support a ban. It would be interesting to see what would happen. I understand that moves are afoot to negotiate a votable motion with the Backbench Business Committee, and it would be interesting to see the result. I suspect that if the Government were to maintain their position, they would lose that vote, although they would probably realise that in time and reverse their position. I wish the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South all the luck in the world in achieving that opportunity, because the debate would be fascinating.
I encourage the Government to rethink their position, which does not make any sense to Members of Parliament, our constituents or those involved in the campaign for a ban. It seems totally illogical. I will do my utmost to remain here for the rest of the debate in order to hear the Minister’s substantive points in favour of the current position, which seems extraordinary.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. It is evident that he speaks for thousands of people up and down the country. We have heard from Members from various parties in support of a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. I thank them for showing interest, attending this debate and making such a strong case, which is valuable.
Members’ support reflects the views of the country at large. As we have heard, Labour’s public consultation last year found that close to 95% of the public want a ban. More than 25,000 people have signed The Independent petition calling for one, and every one of us will have had constituents write to us to support taking that strong, simple, pragmatic, clear and logical action.
The Minister’s answer to those concerned individuals—I am sure that he will regret it—was:
“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 499.]
How disappointing.
From the moment when this Government took office, their record on the issue has been weak and ineffective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has said, proposals were in the red box of the previous Government’s animal welfare Minister, ready to go after the election, so the work and heavy lifting have been done, but for more than a year after the end of the consultation, the Government have dithered and delayed in the trademark fashion of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They suggested in answers to Members that they were carefully deliberating, but a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) confirmed that they had not held a single meeting with animal welfare groups or circus representatives since July last year.
The process went on. Finally, in April, the Secretary of State leaked to the Sunday Express that she would be introducing a ban. It appeared that the Government had at last listened to the public and to common sense, and Members from all parties welcomed the news. Unfortunately, as the public are beginning to realise, we made the mistake of thinking that this Government do what they say they will do.
A month later, in another answer, repeated in oral questions and in a written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government could not implement a ban due to an ongoing case in which the Austrian Government had been taken to court over a breach of the EU services directive. Wrong again; there is no ongoing case against the Austrian Government’s ban on wild animals in circuses. That has been confirmed by the Austrian constitutional court, the European Court of Justice and the European Circus Association.
Will the Minister apologise for misleading the House? I hope that he will take this opportunity to do so, but I doubt it. The hasty statement rushed out by the Secretary of State said that she
“would like to avoid any misunderstanding”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 27WS.]
and pointed out that the Government had got their information from a European Circus Association press release. That Government policy should be determined by a circus press office is unbelievable.
The Minister will now claim that although the Austrian Government might not have been taken to court, they are about to be, which is why the Government cannot introduce a ban, much as they would like to. The issue, however, has already been decided at European level. The European Circus Association submitted a complaint against the Austrian protection law to the European Commission, but the Commission closed the case in 2006, categorically stating that
“animal welfare questions are better left to Member States”.
The circuses looked to the European ombudsman to overturn the decision, but instead, just last year, the ombudsman upheld the Commission’s decision. The Commission, responding to the Government’s announcement against a ban last month, again stated:
“The EU rules ensure services can be easily provided across borders. But there are of course valid reasons for exceptions to the rules and restrictions are allowed”.
Since Austria’s ban in 2005, other countries, including Luxembourg, Hungary and Greece, have introduced similar arrangements without challenge. The answer is therefore clear: Europe is no reason not to introduce a ban. What other excuses will the Minister provide for the Government’s failure? Will he repeat his assertion that a ban requires primary legislation? That is not true. DEFRA’s own impact assessment states:
“Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act allows the Minister/Secretary of State to make such provisions as he thinks fit for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible. Under this legislation a complete ban on wild animals in travelling circuses could be introduced.”
That is pretty conclusive. It is no wonder that that assessment is no longer available on the DEFRA website. Instead, it has been hidden away in the National Archives.
The very same impact assessment dispels the other myth suggested by the Minister, namely that a ban would somehow contravene our obligations under the Human Rights Acts, an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has already put to bed. Without hesitation or ambiguity, the assessment states:
“There are no human rights issues raised by these proposals.”
That is a black and white rebuttal of the Minister’s ludicrous suggestion from his own Department.
What are the Government proposing instead of a ban? A strict licensing regime that is so strict that the Minister claims it will be as strict as if a ban were in place. If that is going to lead to the same outcome, why not have a full ban? This is absolutely baffling. This is the world of DEFRA today. The Minister must explain why he did not follow his own Department’s advice from its own impact assessment, and why DEFRA will not publish the legal advice.
The Minister claims that a licensing regime can be introduced quickly, so that animal welfare can be improved as quickly as possible. However, in the Secretary of State’s statement to the House outlining the policy, she proposed further consultation on the nature of the licence. More consultation means more delay. It is hardly a speedy resolution or a prudent use of taxpayers’ money.
Zac Goldsmith
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulatory approach would not only fail to solve the problem to which the public are demanding a solution, but be far more bureaucratically cumbersome and expensive than a ban? Given that there is no real public demand for wild animals in circuses, does he agree that a ban is the cheapest, cleanest and simplest solution?
Mr Reed
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He makes the case succinctly, logically and clearly. The situation is precisely as he has described it, and I agree entirely.
Animal welfare organisations, which we must listen to, are absolutely clear that it does not matter what strict rules would be established under a licensing regime. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association agree that a licensing regime is unworkable. They are joined by Animal Defenders International, the Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals’ Protection Society in supporting a ban. Not a single animal welfare organisation supports a licensing approach; the only ones that do are the circuses themselves.
A licensing regime would be practically unenforceable. Even if inspectors were appointed by the Department, the regime would still be overseen by local authorities, if the system continues to be based on that used for assessing welfare standards in zoos. Circuses, unlike zoos, move around, making it impossible for councils to enforce the strict welfare standards that the Minister says that he wants to see introduced.
Even if local authorities wanted to take action, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has just closed a consultation on burdens on local authorities, where he proposes to remove their powers to prosecute for animal cruelty. Not only has DEFRA been forced to implement the biggest cuts of any Department, but it is now being sidelined and ignored by other Ministers. DEFRA has become a laughing stock, an embarrassment and a figure of fun. For every stakeholder and everybody who cares about the DEFRA agenda and environmental politics in this country, it is a disaster.
It is no wonder that DEFRA has been sidelined. We have already seen the humiliating debacle over the sale of our forests, delays to the water White Paper, cuts to the flood defences and confusion on waste, and now we have this excuse for a policy. DEFRA is a Department in special measures and I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has intervened. However, he needs to get a grip and stop treating this Department as the political equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. Intervening to prevent a ban is a mistake. Animal welfare organisations want it; Members in all parts of the House want it; and the public want it in overwhelming numbers. It has been implemented successfully in Europe. There is no need for new legislation, and the Human Rights Act certainly does not have anything to do with it.
The Minister knows this, so I urge him to stop digging and to print the legal advice, or risk accusations of there being none. If he will not print and publish it, why not? Would it be, as has been suggested, because of the hidden hand and influence of No. 10? Is this not more about saving face than animal welfare? This is an opportunity for the Department to do the right thing, to begin the climb out of special measures and to implement the ban. It is what the House wants; it is what the country wants; and I suggest that the Government get on with it.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am happy to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Betts. Surprising as it may be, I am happy to welcome this debate, because it allows me to put on the record a lot more information than I was able to in response to the urgent question a few weeks ago. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing the debate, but his introductory speech was full of innuendo and somewhat puerile humour and did not really address some of the key issues that I want to address. I am sorry that several Members have left the Chamber after asking me to discuss particular things in my wind-up speech. Nevertheless, I intend to address their comments, and I hope that they will read my words in Hansard.
The whole issue of animal welfare is extremely emotive and creates huge public concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has said, it can sometimes lead to mistakes or unforeseen consequences, but we cannot and should not ignore the fact that it is a matter of huge public concern. We also have to recognise that Governments, like everybody else, have to operate within the law, whether it is law that they themselves have passed or international law to which they are signatories. As I will explain in a moment, it is European law that is significant to this issue.
I have a little more time than is usual in such debates, so I will try to address fairly and squarely all the issues that have been raised. The timetable between primary and secondary legislation has been mentioned. Using secondary legislation to introduce a licensing regime—I will discuss that regime in more detail later—would enable us to consult informally with all the animal welfare and interested groups over the next few weeks and months. A formal public consultation would start at the end of the year, and the regulations would be in place well before the end of next year. It is not feasible to expect primary legislation to be fitted in and to go through the parliamentary process in anything like that time. We would, moreover, also have to allow a period of grace before that primary ban could be put in place, for the animals to be re-housed or for any further action to be taken.
The second issue that I want to raise is that about numbers. I do not think that there is much disagreement that the number of animals concerned is in the order of 39. I saw some figures yesterday that might indicate the number is considerably less than that, but it is in that region. We believe that only one circus is using the big cats—tigers—and that the others have zebras and camels. However, of course, a ban on wild animals full stop would include reptiles and everything else. I think that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) referred to Denmark, where only certain species have been banned and there is no complete ban on wild animals. That raises the issue of licensing and regulation.
The debate is about whether the matter of animal welfare can be accommodated within a circus. I fully understand those people who believe that the interests of a big cat cannot be accommodated in those circumstances, but that might not apply to everything that comes under the heading of a wild animal. We take the definition of a wild animal to be the one used in the Radford report:
“a member of a species that is not commonly domesticated in the British Islands; that is to say, a species whose collective behaviour, life cycle or physiology remains unaltered from the wild type despite their breeding and living conditions being under control for multiple generations.”
It is worth emphasising that we cannot be absolutely sure, but we believe that all the animals concerned come from several generations of domestic captive breeding. However, they are still wild animals.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, have referred to the previous Government’s work on this matter, the Radford committee and so on. As he and other hon. Members will know, Ministers of this Government are not allowed to see the papers of a previous Administration, but the impact assessment was, of course, published and is a public document. It was based on an initial view of the legal powers available to impose a ban. However—this is the key point and why I am afraid the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) is somewhat adrift in his criticism—the impact assessment does not give any legal advice at all because that was provided separately. I will return to that issue of openness. As he rightly says, the impact assessment makes the assertion that, under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it would be possible to introduce the legislation to impose a ban, but it does not then provide advice on whether that ban would be upheld if it were challenged in the courts. I will return to that point. The impact assessment should not be seen as being the same as the legal advice, which I obviously have not been able to see.
We should remember that the Radford report summarised the issues as follows. It stated that the scientific evidence that welfare was being compromised was not compelling and, as I said, that although section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 permits legislation to “promote animal welfare”, it does not enable legislation to be made on the basis of ethical or moral judgments about the acceptability of using wild animals in circuses. The welfare argument is given by many people, but—this is the critical bit—the report stated that a ban imposed on welfare grounds would be disproportionate in the absence of evidence that welfare was compromised and that an outright ban might be beyond the powers in section 12 anyway, even if the welfare case was made. Radford concludes:
“it is submitted that to introduce a ban on the use of any type of non-domesticated animal presently in use by circuses in the United Kingdom…by way of a Regulation made under the authority of section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be vulnerable to legal challenge”.
That is printed in the advice given to the previous Government.
It is worth making the point that, during the debate on the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for which I served on the Bill Committee, attempts were made by hon. Members—I have not checked who they were—to introduce a ban through that primary legislation. Labour Ministers at the time—the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was the Minister responsible then—clearly opposed that. In the House of Lords, Lord Rooker spoke for the Government and clearly stated that any measures would have to be based on science. Labour Ministers endorsed the approach that Radford subsequently supported in his report, which was commissioned after the 2006 Act.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised the issue of human rights. I will not resile from the point that it is perfectly correct that the impact assessment stated that no human rights issues were raised by the proposal for a ban. For the reasons that I have given, no Minister in the present Government can see the legal advice that led to that statement in the impact assessment. All that I can tell hon. Members is that that is not the legal advice that we have now received.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to advice that he had received. He did not attribute it, but I guess that it was from Animal Defenders International. We also received that advice yesterday and our lawyers are considering it. Obviously, our lawyers need to take time to consider that advice, but it seems on first examination that it concludes that, in principle, England—I stress that it is just England and that this is an English measure—could ban wild animals in circuses if it were a proportionate measure. However, the advice does not appear to provide any idea about whether it would be a proportionate measure. It does not refer to the Radford report, proportionality or, indeed, the ombudsman, to whom I now come.
I will take a few moments to consider the ombudsman, because it is important that hon. Members fully understand the sequence of events during the mid to late noughties, as they are called, in the European context. That issue was raised in the urgent question, and I am afraid that some of the assertions made were just incorrect. The ban in Austria came into force on 1 January 2005, following which a circus association submitted a complaint to the European Commission on 25 May, arguing that the ban was a breach of the principle of the free movement of services. The Commission wrote to the Austrian Government on 12 October, expressing concern that the ban might infringe the principle of the free movement of services and asking Austria to explain why a ban was a proportionate response to the problem. At that point, the Commission did not regard the question of how to protect wild animals in circuses as one to be left to individual member states, otherwise it would not have asked that question.
Austria replied that a ban was the only way to deal with the issue, and it is perfectly correct that the Commission subsequently decided not to pursue the matter. However, the complainant asked for an explanation and received a letter from the Commission in October 2006, purportedly explaining why it had taken such a decision. That letter restated the general principle that restrictions on the provision of services need to be justified, but it concluded that, because animal welfare was so important, the question of how to protect wild animals in circuses should be left to member states.
The matter was then referred to the European ombudsman. In a letter of 19 February 2008, the ombudsman sought a more detailed explanation of the very limited reasoning in the letter, particularly in the light of Austria’s failure to provide any detailed explanation of why more limited measures might not be sufficient. On 3 June 2009, the ombudsman made the following draft recommendation:
“The Commission should evaluate the proportionality of the Austrian law. In light of its analysis, if it considers that Austria has not demonstrated that it complies with all the conditions set out in the Gebhard test”—
the conditions that are now in the services directive—
“the Commission should a) pursue its infringement proceeding against Austria or b) provide valid reasons for dropping the case.”
In September 2009, the Commission replied in vague terms and the ombudsman therefore made a final decision on 8 March 2010. It is really important that hon. Members read these reports, rather than just taking the selective extracts that we have heard this morning.
I will read out what the ombudsman said. He concluded:
“The statement used by the Commission in order to justify its political stance in the present case, that is, that ‘animal welfare questions are better left to Member States’ appears to be tantamount to acknowledging that, in all matters concerning animal welfare, the Commission is ready to abdicate from its role as guardian of the Treaties. Such a statement does not comply with the duty to provide correct, clear and understandable reasons to justify the exercise of the Commission’s discretionary powers to close an inquiry on an infringement complaint. This was an instance of maladministration.”
I therefore suggest that there is ample reason to believe that although that case had to close—the ombudsman could do nothing more than make that finding—in a further application the Commission may well find itself in a very different position.
On our recent legal advice, I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Chippenham has returned to his seat, as he challenged me on this issue. I am pleased that he has received the Secretary of State’s letter, which stated that we will not publish the advice itself. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chippenham has not long been a Member, but it is a convention, under all Governments going back over a long period, that legal advice is not published any more than any other advice from civil servants to Ministers. Indeed, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, passed by the previous Government, ensured that that remained exempt, so that is the principled reason. I am, however, happy to share an element of detail with the Chamber, with your forbearance, Mr Betts.
Our advice is that any ban on travelling circuses would be vulnerable to a legal challenge both from a circus in another member state on the basis that it contravened the services directive—it is worth emphasising that although I referred earlier to the number of circuses that have their own animals, we believe that circuses buy-in or hire acts from other circuses for part of the season, so that could apply to overseas circuses—and from both European and UK-based circuses under the Human Rights Act 1998. Without strong evidence that a ban is needed for welfare reasons, it is likely that a challenge would be successful. Radford concluded that we do not have that evidence on the welfare reasons.
Article 16 of the services directive requires that we would have to meet three legal tests for a ban: non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality. A ban would meet the non-discrimination test, but we believe that it would fail the necessity and proportionality test because there are means of protecting animals other than with an outright ban. A ban based solely on ethical grounds would be difficult to justify under the services directive, for public policy reasons. A ban can only be used if there is
“a sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society”.
That is not met when we are considering approximately 39 animals in three or four circuses. Under the Human Rights Act, circuses could mount a challenge under article 1 of protocol 1. Any limit on the use of a person’s possessions must be proportionate to the aim of the action being taken. It is difficult, on the basis of the welfare evidence, to justify a ban as a proportionate response.
A number of hon. Members raised the issue of licensing. I do not intend to take all the time available to me, but I want to place a number of points on the record. As has been repeatedly said, there are only a few circuses involved in this situation, and a limited number of animals. We will, therefore, not need the kind of big inspection regime that we have for zoos. This is not an issue for local government—I have to emphasise that to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who raised that point earlier. We will use appropriately qualified Government-appointed veterinary inspectors who are independent, obviously, of industry interest groups. It is conceivable that there may be some local involvement in the inspection process, but they will be DEFRA inspectors. The clear basis of the whole scheme—obviously, we are yet to develop the detail—is that it will be self-funding and that there will be no cost to the taxpayer, contrary to assertions made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Licence fees would be charged on a full cost recovery basis. We will, as I said, publish proposals, and having had informal conversations with relevant parties—
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I apologise for my late arrival to the debate. As part of those discussions, has the Minister spoken to the devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Naomi Long
The Minister indicated that there have been no discussions. I am aware that the previous Minister with responsibility for agriculture and rural development in the Northern Ireland Assembly contacted DEFRA about this issue, because I raised it with her. Her officials had been advised that consideration of the issue was ongoing. It is being followed closely in Northern Ireland and in Scotland.
Mr Paice
I am happy to correct my statement if I am wrong. As I said, this is an England-only matter. [Interruption.] I have just been informed that, incorrectly, I said that there had been no contact. We have kept them informed of what we are doing, but in terms of discussions about structure and so on, the answer is no.
Mr Russell Brown
The Minister mentioned zoos earlier, and I seek a point of clarification. Do we keep solitary elephants, camels or big cats in small enclosures in zoos, or is that something that only happens in Scotland? Do we keep solitary animals in zoos?
Mr Paice
I have to confess that I cannot answer that question off the top of my head. The zoo licensing regime stands alone from the subject of circuses. As I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is not my responsibility in the Department, so I am afraid that I am not familiar with the detail of the zoo licensing regime.
Mr Paice
That is a perfectly reasonable presumption to make. I have to come back to the point about how animals are kept, which was raised by the hon. Member for Copeland, and the comments that he attributed to me from an urgent question. In the informal consultation that we are now embarking on, which will lead to draft regulations for formal consultation, we clearly need to take the advice of all interested parties—not just the circus community, but welfare bodies, a number of which have been mentioned today—on what would be appropriate arrangements to ensure the welfare of the animals in a circus, species by species. Obviously, that will vary. We will have to listen to that advice and, presumably, take it. Whatever that advice will lead to will go into the final regulations.
It is quite possible—I can say no more—that the proprietors of circuses, rather than facing the licensing regime, may say that they cannot provide those facilities and stop keeping the animals. I think that the hon. Member for Copeland was trying to ridicule that point, but it is perfectly valid. It could well be—we do not know, because we have not got to that stage in the consultation—that some, if not all, proprietors may say that the costs of licensing, facilities and the area of ground or size of the pen or enclosure are such that they cannot provide them at a reasonable cost and will stop doing so. I cannot pre-judge the outcome, but that is quite possible. What matters—we must not forget this—and what is right at the core of the debate is the welfare of the animal. It is about how we can move, as quickly as possible, to ensure the best welfare for those animals.
I return to my references to the Radford report. Following Radford, the then Government asked two zoo inspectors—I stand to be corrected, but certainly two experienced people—to visit I am not sure how many circuses but at least one to see whether a licensing system could deal with welfare in circuses. They reported that it might well be possible, which is why such a system was considered.
I have no more knowledge of what was in the Minister’s red box before the election than anyone else, but if the then Government were proposing a ban, it is for those Ministers to defend why they wished to override the Radford report and the two inspectors. All that I can say is that our advice is that a serious challenge under two pieces of legislation would be likely. I have tried to be open with the House today, and as helpful as I can be, given the constraints.
We can bring in a system of regulation and licensing that would not cost the taxpayer and would swiftly improve the welfare of wild animals in circuses, and that might well lead to a reduction in animal numbers. I find it difficult to believe the suggestion that such a system could lead to an increase in numbers, certainly of the types of animal that we are discussing—camels, zebras, big cats and so on. Someone used the phrase “no-brainer” earlier, and it is clearly a no-brainer that the conditions that we lay down will be pretty rigorous and robust, and therefore expensive to provide, so expecting them to lead to more animals in circuses I find very difficult to understand.
I have taken a little more time because, fortunately, it was available. I have tried to respond to the various points made by Members in all parts of the House. I fully understand that the subject is highly emotive and that the public are seriously concerned about the welfare of animals, as well as about the ethics and morals. As I have tried to explain, however, that alone cannot provide a basis for legislation because we and Governments of all persuasions must accept the legal conditions in which we operate, whether under legislation previously passed by the House or to which we have become signatories as part of international law. We therefore remain of the view that the quickest, best and most effective way of dramatically improving the welfare of animals in travelling circuses is by the system of regulation and licensing announced by the Secretary of State.
UK and Georgia
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under you, Mr Betts.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Georgia. I have just returned from Georgia’s European week, which I attended with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the shadow Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). Other friends in the Georgia group, from other parties, were in the country earlier this year.
It is also a pleasure and honour to have the Chairman of the Georgian Parliament, Mr David Bakradze, with us. He has already met Mr Speaker, and we will be meeting the Foreign Secretary this afternoon.
I have a series of questions to put to the Minister, and I hope that he will write to me if he cannot deal with them in his speech.
Ninety years ago, Georgia was a peaceful, social democratic nation, which had escaped the clutches of imperial Russia. Schools, trade unions, co-operatives and votes for women were all established on the Black sea, but that was intolerable to that son of Georgia Mr Stalin, who sent in the Russian army to crush the spirit of freedom and to re-colonise Georgia.
Fast forward eight decades, and Russia looked unhappily on the rose revolution in Georgia, just as it looked unhappily on the orange revolution in Ukraine and on efforts in the other Baltic nations once occupied as Russian colonies to establish their freedom fully. In 2008, matters came to a head with the invasion of Georgia by Russian land, sea and air forces. The tiny Georgian forces fought valiantly and actually shot down a number of Russian aircraft.
However, having occupied large swathes of Georgian territory, Russia did not seek a repeat of 1921. One reason was the courage of the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, who flew to Georgia in August 2008 with other European leaders to show personal solidarity. At the time, the Prime Minister told the “Today” programme:
“One of the most important things we continue to do is stand by Georgia, give Georgia support—support in terms of rebuilding the infrastructure that’s been smashed and broken, support in saying ‘You will be welcome as members of the EU and NATO.’”
I believe that the Prime Minister was speaking for the broad mass of the British people in 2008, when he referred on the BBC to the
“alternative of appeasing Russia and saying, ‘All right then, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states, these are your backyard, you can do what you like there and we’ll just turn a blind eye’. I think that would make our world far less stable, far less secure. Russia has to understand that she has lost an empire, just as we lost an empire. You have to come to terms with that and it does take time.”
I am not sure whether, during the remainder of this Parliament, I shall again quote at such length and with such agreement the words of the Prime Minister, but he was right then, and his comments remain right today. Will the Minister repeat the Prime Minister’s words, and confirm that the Government’s view is still that the presence of Russian troops and the de facto annexation of the territory of a sovereign UN member state—Georgia—is not acceptable?
The Prime Minister will be aware that two small countries, which were no doubt offered suitable inducements, have offered to recognise the occupied Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. One is Nicaragua, which is currently seeking to negotiate an EU association agreement. Will the Government make it clear to our good friend, Baroness Ashton, that the UK will veto any such association agreement while Nicaragua maintains its recognition of the illegally occupied sovereign territory of Georgia? Might is not right, and the fate and future of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia require careful handling and a new approach. It cannot be right, and does not serve the interests of the people who live there or the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, notably from Abkhazia, who are keen to return home, to maintain the fiction that these are independent states.
There will soon be elections in both Russia and Georgia. On past visits, the Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, told me that he would not seek to stay in office or imitate Mr Putin, who seems to alternate between being President and Prime Minister of Russia in the time-honoured way of pre-1989 Russian rule. I hope that Mr Saakashvili maintains that principled decision, because one of the curses of the post-Soviet political space is the failure to understand the need to have what the French call alternance—a change of Government and a change of leader. The desire of leaders to stay in power for ever debilitates all democratic politics.
There is a genuine problem with the lack of coherent opposition in Georgia. Many are opposed to Mr Saakashvili, but even the most diehard of his opponents would find it hard to disagree that the opposition spends as much time in opposition to itself as to Mr Saakashvili. It seeks short cuts to power, such as staging street protests with windy claims that Mr Saakashvili will be ousted.
Last year, I was in Georgia when the opposition created a tent city around the Parliament, and stopped Georgian MPs attending to their parliamentary business. I listened to the speeches then, just as I saw with hon. Friends the demonstrations last week. I gently pointed out that it is a denial of democracy to try to prevent elected parliamentarians from attending their Assembly, Congress or Parliament. The demonstrations 10 days ago turned nasty when a handful of opposition militants covered their faces in cagoules—we might call them balaclavas—which are the symbol of the extreme right throughout Europe’s political history, and used sticks to attack people and the police. The police certainly overreacted and tragically there were deaths, just as there was a death at the London G8 demonstration three years ago.
The Minister for Europe rightly called for an investigation, and there must be no effort to brush what happened under the carpet, but equally the message must be that deliberate provocation aimed at inducing an overreaction with a view to destabilising the country is the antithesis of democratic European politics. I should be grateful if the Minister will write to me with details of the serious allegations that the people who were arrested in Georgia, some of whom were carrying explosives, were apparently sent on the order of forces outside the country to plant small bombs as part of a deliberate strategy to create tension and destabilisation in Georgia.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend referred to the demonstration in Tbilisi some 10 days ago, and to elements of the demonstration who were intent on causing trouble. Will he confirm what I saw there: individuals with sticks, weapons and balaclavas who were clearly intent on making trouble rather than having a peaceful demonstration?
Mr MacShane
My hon. Friend is right. He never misses a good demonstration if there is one to witness or take part in, and his witness statement is an important correction to the view that the violence came only from the state security services, even if in my judgment—I have spent too much of my life at too many demonstrations—there was an overreaction by the state authorities.
A strategy of deliberate tension will not help the people of Georgia, who need bread and roses, jobs and freedom, and the patient establishment of democratic norms and values. This morning, Mr Speaker did his opposite number, the Chairman of the Georgian Parliament, the honour of receiving him, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House today that the Minister for Europe plans to visit Georgia shortly. We must not forget the sacrifice of Georgian troops standing side by side with our own in Afghanistan. Five have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot, has recently paid a visit. As we approach the third anniversary of the Russian invasion and the Prime Minister’s solidarity trip to Georgia, I hope that he will go there again soon. Will the Minister say something about the plans that the Foreign Office might have for a ministerial visit?
Georgia is a loyal friend at the United Nations, and when I met President Saakashvili 10 days ago, I urged him to recognise Kosovo because, for understandable if mistaken parallels, Tbilisi is on the same wavelength as Moscow, not its Euro-Atlantic friends. It would be an important diplomatic step for Georgia to line up with this country, and the bulk of the European Union and the world’s democracies, by offering diplomatic recognition to Kosovo.
Mr Saakashvili has insisted that Georgia will never be the first to use force in the event of further military aggression or pressure from Russia. He has said that he is willing to meet President Putin and Prime Minister Medvedev in any place and at any time to negotiate a settlement. Will the Minister assure us that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow in September, he will urge the Russian leadership to meet Mr Saakashvili and negotiate on a Government to Government basis, instead of continuing with the highly ad hominem abuse that Moscow directs towards the Georgian leader in a manner that demeans the honour and dignity of a great nation such as Russia?
Will the Minister speak to coalition Members of Parliament who serve on the Council of Europe? Many members of the Council were shocked to find that Conservative MPs sit in the same group as Kremlin-controlled Russian MPs, and thus failed to support moves to hold Russia to account for its invasion and occupation of Georgia. As the Minister is a Liberal Democrat, perhaps he will have a word with one or two—at least one—of his Liberal Democrat colleagues at the Council of Europe who take a similar position and seem keen to get into bed with Russia.
Will the Minister confirm that the installation of S300 missiles in Abkhazia is in violation of the ceasefire agreement that was signed with President Sarkozy on behalf of the European Union in August 2008? Will he confirm that the EU, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and other international monitors, are denied full access to Russian occupied territories in Georgia, in violation of the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreement? I have seen the new internal line of occupation and European division deep in Georgian sovereign territory. How sad to look through sandbagged bunkers over barbed wire, at Russian soldiers under a Russian flag glaring down their gunsights at me. Surely that is not the Europe in which we wish to live two decades after Soviet communist tyranny came to an end.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
In case the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks suggested that there are differences between the parties on this matter, let me say that a few months ago I went to Georgia with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I, too, visited the internal border with South Ossetia and saw the Russian troops through binoculars. Admittedly, they were standing around looking rather bored, but I agree that it is wholly unacceptable that such a throwback to the old Soviet empire exists today, with Russian troops occupying part of an independent sovereign state.
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman is right. I wish that more people could see that Russian occupation, and the sandbags, barbed-wire divisions, checkpoints and full-scale occupation that we thought had disappeared 20 years ago. It is a shocking sight in contemporary Europe.
Will the Minister convey to the Minister for Europe my request, and that of many hon. Members, that he goes to Georgia to see the situation for himself, and will he ask the Prime Minister to reaffirm UK support for Georgia? Why has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cut the grant to the British Council in Georgia by nearly 50%? Surely we need more contact with Georgian civil society, not less. The Georgian economy is doing well and growing by more than 6% a year. As Professor Neil MacFarlane of Oxford University noted in a recent paper for the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, on whose council I have the honour to serve:
“Economic performance since the 2008 war has been better than expected.”
That, he argues, reflects
“the Government’s improvement in economic governance since the rose revolution. The Saakashvili Government did a very impressive job of stabilising the political situation after the war.”
There are opportunities for UK business, especially in tourism, education and services, and I am seeking to establish contacts between the scrap metal industries in both our countries. It may be little known in London, but Britain and Georgia are experts in the business of scrap metal. Due to great demand, more steel was produced last year than in most of the previous century, so there is some economic opportunity for the northern regions of the UK and Georgia.
Georgia is wisely opening its borders to investment and abolishing visa requirements for its neighbours, and it is time that Britain liberalised its visa regime. In the current issue of The House magazine, Members can read an article by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston about the visit she went on with me and our hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly to Europe week in Georgia. She states that the EU should offer a type of European Free Trade Association deal to Georgia. It is for the four remaining EFTA member states to decide who can join them, although EFTA countries have to accept most EU directives and regulations, which may not be appropriate for Georgia at this stage of its development. My hon. Friend is right, however, to underline the need for Georgia to develop good relations with the EU. As ever, it is strange to go to a small nation such as Georgia and hear positive words about the EU, and then come home to listen to the whine of Europhobic comments from the Conservative party and the Europhobic media. Luckily, the Minister is a Liberal Democrat, so we will hear no such nonsense from him.
Russia’s policy is clear: Russia up, America down, and Europe out. I want to see a common EU policy in the Black sea region, and a common EU policy towards Georgia that aims to bring the country fully into the community of European nations. I hope that the Minister will instruct his officials to work towards that end.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr Betts, for the opportunity to conclude this short but important debate; it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) on introducing the topic with his customary panache and considerable wisdom; it is an important opportunity for hon. Members to consider our relationship with Georgia. We all benefit from the right hon. Gentleman’s long-held interest and active approach towards Georgia, and I am pleased to join him in welcoming the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament to this short debate. I am also pleased that the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament has had the opportunity during his time in London to meet the Speaker of our Parliament, and that he will meet the Foreign Secretary this afternoon.
Georgia matters to Britain, and its stability, democracy and prosperity are important. The Government are keen to build on our excellent bilateral relationship and help Georgia to become a leading example of a country that has made a successful transition to democracy and an open market economy. Georgia is a key energy transit route and provides a corridor from central Asia to Europe, which importantly bypasses Russia. That makes Georgia an important partner and offers good prospects for United Kingdom trade and investment. The right hon. Gentleman also touched on existing economic opportunities, and the Government are alert to those opportunities and are working to develop them.
Since the rose revolution, President Saakashvili’s Government have embarked on an ambitious reform programme that combines modernised law enforcement bodies, market liberalisation and the building of democratic institutions. Georgia has made a great deal of progress in a relatively short period of time.
Mr David
Does the Minister agree that one of the most impressive changes to have occurred in Georgia is the transformation of the police force? The Georgian Government have acted speedily in that area to bring about not only change but a transformation in a short space of time.
Mr Browne
I have not had the same opportunity as the hon. Gentleman to see those matters at first hand, but I am delighted that he feels that important progress has been made. Such progress is a key trait of a country that is increasingly embracing those values to which we in Britain attach importance.
Mr Whittingdale
On that point, I concur with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. As the Minister may know, I am chair of the British-Ukraine all-party group. One of the greatest problems afflicting all former Soviet states is corruption. I am hugely impressed by the progress that Georgia has made in stamping out corruption, which is the greatest barrier to the development of industry and trade with those countries.
Mr Browne
I am further reassured by that piece of expertise. It is important to have police forces which are not corrupt, which the public have confidence in and which strike the right balance in maintaining law and order without inappropriately extending the power of the state.
Although considerable progress has been made, I am sure our Georgian friends will readily agree that Georgia must keep up the pace of economic and political reform to realise her Euro-Atlantic aspirations. With parliamentary and presidential elections in 2012 and 2013, Georgia will be stronger for vigorous debate between the Government and the democratic opposition.
We are saddened by the loss of life and injuries caused on 26 May, when a demonstration in Tbilisi turned violent. The right hon. Member for Rotherham has given his analysis of that situation. The British Government are concerned about allegations of excessive force used against some protesters and journalists, and we urge the Georgian Government to ensure that there is a prompt and transparent investigation.
Equally, we are concerned by reports that some protesters were more interested in violent confrontation than peaceful protest. As the Minister for Europe has said, there is a place for legal protest and demonstrations in a democracy, but there can be no place for the organised violence that some, including the right hon. Member for Rotherham, believe was the characteristic feature of the protest on 26 May.
We strongly support Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity and its continued progress towards European Union and NATO integration. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). As we can also see in the Balkans, there are many countries around Europe that are not members of the European Union but aspire to be members, which is an important lever for ensuring progress in those countries. We should bear that in mind during our internal debates in Britain. We are arguing Georgia’s corner strongly in negotiations on closer integration with the European Union, and in NATO we are backing Georgia’s efforts to meet the standards required for eventual membership.
We stand firmly with Georgia in its ongoing dispute with Russia over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. When the Prime Minister, as the then Leader of the Opposition, visited Tbilisi in August 2008 in the immediate aftermath of the conflict with Russia, he highlighted the importance of holding Russia to account for its actions. More than two and a half years after the conflict, we continue to press the Russians to comply fully with the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreements that ended the fighting in 2008—in particular, by allowing access for the EU monitoring mission to Georgia’s breakaway regions and withdrawing troops to pre-conflict positions.
Mr MacShane
May I reiterate the importance of making the position clear to Nicaragua? Vanuatu, wherever that is—it may still be above the sea somewhere—has also recognised South Ossetia. But in the case of Nicaragua, which is a serious country, it cannot expect to have full agreement with the EU while it is still playing these childish games of interference in the Black sea region.
Mr Browne
Perhaps I will gloss over the right hon. Gentleman’s observations on Vanuatu. I accept that Nicaragua has a foreign policy that is occasionally erratic. I will ensure that his points are understood and that the people in the Foreign Office who consider Latin American policy do not do so while divorced from considerations about Georgia and, more widely, European issues.
The British Government work hard to keep the unresolved conflicts on the EU’s agenda and continue to fund the secondment of UK personnel to the EU monitoring mission. That mission has played a crucial role in promoting stability and preventing renewed fighting in the region. However, Russian pressure on Georgia is persistent and persistently provocative. We remain concerned about the Russian military build-up in Georgia’s breakaway regions. Georgia has shown admirable restraint, and we encourage it to continue to do so as a solution is sought.
Georgia’s conflicts will not be resolved overnight. Resolution will require patience and engagement from all sides in the long term. We continue to encourage the Georgian leadership to engage the South Ossetians and, in particular, the Abkhaz. Direct dialogue with the breakaway regions is the only way to prevent their de facto absorption into Russia and to lay the foundations for a negotiated solution, however distant that prospect may appear at the moment.
The United Kingdom has worked alongside other international partners to encourage a policy that does not isolate the breakaway regions but gives them incentives to maintain links with Georgia. We will continue to support projects that provide people-to-people contacts that help to improve understanding between Georgians, Abkhaz and South Ossetians; support confidence building and conflict resolution; and improve the human rights and welfare of the affected populations. Again, we recognise that that will not be easy, but we will encourage Georgia to take a pragmatic and flexible approach to engagement that will help to persuade the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that they stand to benefit from co-operation with Tbilisi.
The United Kingdom continues to support fully the Geneva talks, which remain an important tool for conflict resolution. They remain the only regular forum at which all parties to the conflict meet. The regularity of the meetings, combined with the local-level incident prevention and response mechanism meetings, helps to manage tensions among Georgia, Russia and the breakaway regions. Despite the slow rate of progress, we believe that it is very important to continue the talks, thus keeping open the prospect of building on areas of common interest—in particular, human rights and internally displaced persons.
The British Government believe that the European Union plays a crucial role in preserving stability in Georgia through the presence of the EU monitoring mission, an EU special representative and a comprehensive package of financial assistance. The UK continues to offer strong political support to the EUMM, currently providing 17 monitors and headquarters staff. The presence of the EUMM has been a crucial stabilising factor, helping to defuse any potentially serious situations along the administrative boundary lines. With the demise of the United Nations observer mission and the OSCE mission in Georgia, the EUMM is the only remaining international observer mission on the ground, although it does not have access to the breakaway regions. We continue to raise that with Russia.
The prospect of greater integration with the European Union, particularly on trade and visas, remains a key driver of Georgia’s reform programme, as I have mentioned. Negotiations on an EU-Georgia association agreement started last year. We look forward to further progress on that and towards achieving a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement, while encouraging and assisting Georgia to meet the necessary technical requirements. Progress in those areas will help to improve trade and prosperity and bring about closer ties through culture and education.
On that note, I acknowledge the points made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham with regard to the British Council. I value the work of the British Council. It is very important that Britain’s values, if I can put it in those terms—I am talking about our soft power—are extended through the work of many institutions, of which the British Council is one. Georgia’s culture and traditions are part of the European heritage, and the younger generation in particular are attracted by what we might describe as broad European values. There is a particular interest in learning English, which is now officially the second language of Georgia. It is obviously in our interest that that interest is encouraged. I am pleased to note that the British Council is working to take advantage of that demand, building on its strong reputation locally. I hope that the British Council will be able to continue to exercise a strong presence in Georgia.
I reiterate the United Kingdom’s strong support for Georgia. The Prime Minister underlined that when he met President Saakashvili at the Lisbon summit last November. Only this week, the Minister with responsibility for international security strategy, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), was in Tbilisi to discuss Georgia’s NATO aspirations and to thank Georgia for its invaluable support for our joint efforts in Afghanistan. The right hon. Member for Rotherham rightly recognised that, and the Minister for Europe—the right hon. Gentleman also asked about this—plans to visit Tbilisi later this year.
All that adds up to a strong bilateral relationship, which we hope to develop even further as we continue to support Georgia’s desire for deeper European Union integration, assist the Georgian reform process and work to enhance trade links. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for Rotherham for the opportunity to discuss these issues. I also thank other hon. Members who take an interest in Britain’s relations with Georgia and matters in Georgia more generally, and I encourage them to continue to take an interest.
In conclusion, I again extend a warm welcome to our Georgian friends who are here in London. I know that the Foreign Secretary is very much looking forward to meeting the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament here in London this afternoon.
Victim Support
(13 years, 5 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
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I am pleased to have secured this debate on the support for victims in the judicial system. Many Members are interested in the subject, and some might wish to take part in the debate. I made it clear to both the Minister and the shadow Minister that I wish to focus on the tragic case of Claire Oldfield-Hampson, which I raised more than 10 years ago in a parliamentary debate on 8 January 2001.
I have been working on the case with Joanne Bryce and her family, who come from my constituency in St Ives. We have pursued a number of issues that have arisen from the killing of Claire Oldfield-Hampson in 1996. Unfortunately, those issues have never resulted in any kind of closure for the family and many remain unresolved. I am pleased to say that my constituent was able to visit me in Parliament today and will be monitoring this debate.
I wish to bring this issue to a number of general conclusions that may be relevant to other cases in today’s debate. I have given the Minister advance notice of the background to the case and the issues that arise that are relevant to his portfolio. A range of concerns fall under the broad umbrella of victim support. No doubt, Members will find that a number of those concerns differ from the ones that they want to raise, but some will be similar.
We are debating this issue on a day when the consultation on the Government’s sentencing policy has come to a close. Although that is not directly relevant to the issues that I raise, there are some indirect references to the manner in which the cases are dealt with. In this instance, the case was mounted in mitigation. In other words, the convicted was prepared to accept a manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge.
I come to this issue in support of my constituents. I have no legal training or any experience of the court system, particularly the criminal justice system. Looking at the issues that have arisen from this case, I have to say that I was overwhelmingly shocked at what I considered to be an absolute travesty of justice. As I said in the debate more than 10 years ago, this is the case of an innocent victim who was treated by the judicial system as if she were the perpetrator of the crime and her husband the victim: the trial primarily dealt with the case in mitigation and did not address any of the points that would have challenged that.
The people whom we are talking about today are the victims of a series of events, which, if their case gets to court, could be described as life-changing, life-defining or, tragically in the case of Claire Oldfield-Hampson, life-ending. The justice system uses as a metaphor the image of the scales—the scales of justice—which have to be balanced. Yet the debate that takes place is often remote from the events themselves and can be conceptual and intellectual. Those engaged in the system never wish to appear to prejudge any case. None the less, the case that I wish to present today shows that victims are often treated in an imbalanced manner by the system itself.
Let me explain the background to the case. According to the courts, Claire Oldfield-Hampson was unlawfully killed by her husband with a hammer on 25 September 1996. He buried her body in a shallow grave in the garden in the early hours of the following day. Within two days, he was using her bank accounts and leading a life of deception involving their seven-year-old child, Felicity, who provided excuses for her mother’s absence.
The deception was perpetrated for two years. Calls in person and by telephone were received by Hampson and further excuses were given. Regular contact was maintained between Felicity and her grandmother, Mary Oldfield, who became a constituent of mine, but who sadly died a few years ago. At that time, she lived only five miles away. Mary met the child on a fortnightly basis. She baked cakes to send to Claire, knitted for her and exchanged Christmas, birthday and wedding anniversary cards. They had been very close. Mary Oldfield gave a cheque for £3,000 to David Hampson to give to Claire to help them through some difficult times and she offered them a car. The family was supportive to the Hampsons in many ways.
The deception continued until the family—Joanne Bryce and her husband, Alex—became increasingly concerned and encouraged the commencement of police investigations in December 1998. Hampson confessed to killing his wife only when it became absolutely clear that there was no other possible explanation for her absence.
Hampson was tried at Northampton Crown court in October 1999. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because he alleged that he was depressively ill as a result of his wife’s constant nagging.
Judge Francis Allen concluded by accepting that Hampson’s wife behaved in a way that was calculated to impact on his mind. The judge gave Hampson a six-year prison sentence that was then reduced to four years on appeal in July 2000. He was released in December 2000, only 14 months after the original trial.
During the two-year deception, Hampson plundered Claire’s bank account, shares and insurances to the tune of £11,000 and fraudulently claimed benefits. The intention of seeking a conviction for fraud was dropped on the grounds that Hampson would ultimately be tried for a more serious capital offence. Four days before the original trial, the Crown Prosecution Service accepted a plea for manslaughter. No witnesses were called; there was no jury; and the trial took under an hour. If anyone wishes to read an example of what I consider to be injustice, they should read the transcript of that trial, which was purely a case in mitigation.
Claire Oldfield-Hampson was killed by her husband in 1996 and then she was exhumed by the state from the garden that she had been buried in, dragged along to the court and slaughtered again in public—verbally. It was a travesty, frankly. I urge people to look at this case. If it is an example of what our judicial system does, we should be ashamed of what we do in the name of the victims of capital offences, such as murder and manslaughter.
In fact, there were several travesties in the court, beginning with the opening words of the defence counsel. The defence counsel said that Hampson was
“a man of good character”.
Hampson killed his wife; buried her in the garden; took her money from her; deceived her family and the world; involved a child in that deception; attempted to defraud the benefit system; fraudulently accepted money from his mother-in-law; and he only accepted his guilt at the 11th hour. In addition, he had a less than impressive—in fact, it was rather dubious—employment record. Apart from all that, perhaps he was a man of good character, but the rest of it does not look very good, does it? Nevertheless, we were told that he was
“a man of good character”.
We were also told that Hampson was depressively ill and that there was a causal link between that illness and the killing. Two years after the killing, he was seen by two psychiatrists. Basically, the case for prosecuting him for manslaughter rather than murder was based on what I described at the time and still describe now as the flimsy science of retrospective psychiatry. Somehow, it is thought that a psychiatrist can determine the state of mind of someone two years previously—someone who, as the evidence shows, was known to be very successful at deceiving people—yet Hampson was able, in my view, to deceive everyone involved in the whole system into believing that he had taken those actions and killed his wife as a result of her constant nagging, which we were told had impacted on his mind. In fact, we were told that the nagging was calculated to impact on his mind. So we were told that Claire was constantly nagging Hampson, making him depressively ill. Once again, however, there was little corroborative evidence and no opportunity for proper cross-examination.
Perhaps what was most hurtful of all were the claims made in the case that Felicity, Claire’s seven-year-old daughter, had
“received very little love or affection from her mother”.
The transcript of the case continues, saying that Felicity
“turned very much more to her father, who was a warm, kind and loving parent to her.”
I sent the Hansard report of the 2001 debate in Parliament on this case to the then Director of Public Prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith, and subsequently I met him to take him through what I considered to be some of the inadequacies in the system. We went through some of the issues and indeed he wrote to me again in August 2001 to try to contradict some of the claims that I had made to him. The claim that Claire’s daughter received very little love or affection from her mother might sound like a rather subjective assessment, but I felt that it was very significant and that I should say so. Joanne Bryce and her husband demanded a police investigation, which was undertaken by Bedfordshire police, as a result of the complaints that were made about the way that Claire’s family were treated.
Then David Calvert-Smith wrote to me out of the blue in December 2002 with a letter of apology, which I thought was very noteworthy. In that letter, which is dated 24 December 2002, he said:
“Specifically, in my letter of 7 August 2001 third paragraph I asserted there was no evidence on the prosecution file to support the statement “that Claire loved her daughter very much”. At the time of the prosecution and indeed at the time I wrote to you that was correct. What has now become apparent from the Bedfordshire enquiry is that had other witnesses been seen and interviewed during the original investigation and other sources of information examined and revealed to the CPS, then that assertion (that there was no evidence that Claire loved her daughter) should not, and would not, have been made. Although not directly privy to the Bedfordshire Police enquiry, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Cambridgeshire and his staff have been assisting that Force’s investigation in every possible way. I do not know and cannot anticipate what the eventual outcome of that enquiry will be”—
etc, etc. He continued:
“My statement will understandably have caused distress to Mr and Mrs Bryce. I am sorry that you and they were given what has now been revealed to be wrong information.”
The fact is that one of the fundamental arguments in mitigation was the charge that Claire was an uncaring and unloving mother and a nagging wife. Of course, just a small amount of additional investigation proved that charge to be untrue.
Quite apart from what, in my view, was the travesty of justice meted out to the memory of Claire Oldfield-Hampson by two courts of law, a number of other issues need to be addressed. Some of them have been addressed by the Government since the trial. The Crown Prosecution Service at Huntingdon had said that the charge would never be downgraded from murder to manslaughter, yet Claire’s family were told only five days before the trial that the charge would be manslaughter rather than murder when the CPS phoned to let them know, giving them no opportunity to have a discussion or to challenge why.
My constituent, Joanne Bryce, points out:
“There was no trial only a hearing with no jury and no witnesses, and no-one to challenge the information that had been taken from Hampson.”
Only Hampson’s argument was heard. Joanne also pointed out:
“There was a complete character vilification of Claire – 9 out of 11 national newspapers ran with the headline “Nagging Wife killed by husband”. It seemed that nagging was the capital crime and the killing just a minor incident. All this went unchallenged…Claire’s personal diaries must have evidence of family relationship”.
There was certainly a lot of material in Claire’s diaries that was never made available at the time or shown to the court. There was also video evidence about Felicity’s relationship with her mother and Joanne notes that
“there were 66 exhibits which had there been a trial would have been in the public domain.”
I have already mentioned the flimsy science of retrospective psychiatry. The police failed to provide a Home Office information pack; they did not provide a family liaison officer and there was a failure to identify the senior investigating officer, so Claire’s family were never told who that officer was. There was a failure to provide information about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in respect of the funeral expenses; there was a failure to obtain evidence of Claire’s character; there was a failure to investigate fraud and theft; and the family were denied access to Felicity, who had been placed in the care of the murderer’s family.
There are other issues that have arisen that I want the Minister to address, particularly the fundamental right of a murderer to remain the next of kin of their victim. As a result, the murderer still has the right to access the estate of the person they have murdered, in the case of a domestic killing such as this one, so my constituent, the sister of the woman who had been killed, had no right of access to the house, whereas the murderer’s family could go in and help themselves to what they wished. She had to plead with the murderer for access to the death certificate to proceed with the funeral. The murderer had full access to all the family heirlooms and to Claire Oldfield-Hampson’s records from way before they first met, but all of that was denied to the blood relatives.
I think the Minister knows the question I wish to ask today. Is it not right that someone charged with a capital offence, but not yet convicted, should have such rights at least suspended, if not removed entirely? I cannot understand how this kind of situation can occur in this country, with a murderer having control over the estate and life memory of the person they have murdered. Should we not be addressing ourselves to these issues?
There was a swathe of other failings in the case, many of which were identified by the Bedfordshire police investigation. The report of the investigation was submitted in December 2002, but even now, nearly 10 years on, the family are seeking to gain access to the full version, which contains more than 100 redactions.
Before today’s debate, I sent the Minister my notes, and I urge him to look carefully at the case and address the issues that I have outlined. I had hoped that the Claire Oldfield-Hampson case was a one-off, but since then other people have contacted me about similar ones. Recently, Angela Geddes of Carnoustie in Angus contacted me. She spoke out after her father Roger admitted killing his wife Ann at the couple’s home there. She gave me a newspaper cutting, which states:
“The daughter of a woman killed in a horrific axe attack by her husband has hit out at a decision to allow her father to plead guilty to a reduced charge of culpable homicide. Speaking after her father Roger Geddes admitted killing wife Ann, the couple’s daughter Angela Geddes said: ‘The family are devastated at the lack of justice and the charade we have seen in court’.”
That case is in the different legal context and judicial system of Scotland, but the killing took place only last year and the same argument applies. Angela Geddes says:
“I do believe he has managed to deceive the psychiatrists who do not know his true colours and only hope he shows them before he is released and becomes a danger to my family and the wider public.”
Again, just last year psychiatric evidence was used to mount a case in mitigation.
It is a good thing that this Government and the previous Government have committed resources to Victim Support and other advocates for victims. There is also the code of practice for victims of crime, but even Victim Support has contacted me to complain that although the code covers most of the issues,
“Local Criminal Justice Boards have now been asked to stop reporting on it to the Ministry of Justice, meaning it’s now essentially not being enforced. This bodes very badly for victims”.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman paints a very vivid picture of the trials of his ongoing fight for justice for his constituents. I was interested to read the extract from Hansard that he sent us, of a speech he made in the House in 2001:
“First and foremost, our justice system should consider the victims and their families. After all, it is primarily on their behalf that our society seeks to uphold the law and administer justice. Victims are already grieving and aggrieved parties. The process should not leave them more aggrieved.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 852.]
In my constituency, James McVey, a young man of just 18 years of age, lost his life to what is sometimes termed “a one-punch assault.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at times far too much emphasis is placed on the rights of the perpetrators of acts of violence and not on the rights of their victims?
Andrew George
Although I say it myself, I could not have put it better myself. The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely right. The conclusion that we draw from these kinds of cases is that the perpetrators appear to be treated with a great deal more respect than the victims. I do not think that we have the balance right; the scales of justice have tipped over too far in some cases.
I am aware that many other people wish to take part in the debate and I apologise for having spoken at such length, but I feel very passionately about this deeply concerning matter. I have these questions for the Minister. Does he agree that the issues raised by this case and by the difficulty that we have had in trying to secure justice, clarity and closure, would benefit from a departmental review? What progress has been made in the 10 years that have passed since I first raised the issues, and what progress still needs to be made? Although the introduction of victim statements has helped, they have been rather intermittent and not widely used, so what further proposals are there to ensure that victims and their families receive fair treatment? Does the Minister agree that it is appropriate to suspend the rights of people charged with murder and manslaughter, including their entitlement to be next of kin, hold the death certificate and handle the victim’s estate, and finally, does he agree that claims made in mitigation should be open to challenge in court by victims and their families?
My constituents have been unable to achieve what they seek: closure. In fact, the further they look into the case the further they appear to be from closure. We would certainly welcome an opportunity to meet the Justice Minister to ensure that lessons are learnt from this and the many other cases in which we believe justice has not been served.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship, Mr Scott, and I hope that I do not disappoint. I assure both you and Members who are hoping to speak that I intend to make only a very short contribution.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)on securing the debate, and I am afraid that with my contribution I shall further demonstrate that his constituents’ experience was not a one-off. This is a very timely debate because yesterday one of the men convicted of murdering Russell, the son of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Crookes, was released from prison after serving a 12-year sentence. The murder of Russell Crookes by Graham Wallis and Neil Sayers was brutal and sent shock waves through the local community, but it is the experience of the victim’s family, who have lived the past 12 years at the mercy of the criminal justice system, on which I wish to focus this afternoon.
As I read the Hansard of the debate secured by the hon. Member for St Ives a decade ago, I was struck by his words:
“I simply want to make the case for greater consideration in the courts of victims and their families, especially in cases involving capital offences in which victims cannot be present in person to defend themselves against accusations that may be made against them.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 848.]
Russell was a victim who could not defend himself. In the blink of an eye, his family lost their son. They will grieve for ever, but they lost more than their son; they lost their faith in a system that has, in their view, consistently put the rights of the perpetrators before their own. That system promises on paper to protect and support victims, but sometimes fails to do so in practice. The charities that do an excellent job of supporting victims’ families emotionally are being undermined by mistakes that could be avoided easily if the system were improved.
I do not have time to discuss in detail all the errors experienced by the Crookes family, but Mr Crookes has been left in no doubt that the victims of crime and, in his case, murder are treated with little or no thought whatever. It is clear from my constituents’ experience that communication and co-operation between the various units working within the criminal justice system are poor and need complete overhaul. In his case, the left hand and right hand did not always know what the other was doing. Unfortunately, as a consequence, the Crookes family lost the opportunity to provide a victim personal statement to the parole board reviewing Mr Wallis’s conditions, an incident that a previous Justice Minister called “unacceptable”.
As the family of the victim, they have experienced additional trauma due to communication failures and have often been left feeling that the system is loaded in favour of the perpetrator of the crime, with little or no understanding for the victim. A recent example occurred when the Crookes family requested that a particular London borough be included in the exclusion zone when Mr Wallis was released, as a member of the Crookes family regularly works in and visits the borough. Their request was not granted, as the perpetrator has family of his own in the borough, which would apparently assist greatly with his rehabilitation into the community. The decision has left the Crookes family feeling as though asking for their views was merely a tick-box exercise. Although they recognise that their natural desire for the men who killed their son to stay in prison for ever is an impossible one, they feel that it is unjust that their rights should appear secondary, and that is what makes them angry.
Finally, I turn to the financial impact on victims’ families. The issue has been in the news recently, and I know that the Government and the victims’ commissioner are considering it, which is welcome. Understandably, the families of those who are murdered can be left severely traumatised during difficult periods such as parole boards or release dates and may need psychiatric assistance. It is an expensive service that they would not need if it were not for the actions of others. Yet again, it is the victim who is punished. I hope that when the Government and the commissioner consider victims’ financial losses, they consider counselling costs.
The Crookes family have suffered from a system that they think has not served them well. Over the years, they have made useful suggestions through my predecessor and me for reform to increase equality for victims. They include proper consultation and listening exercises with victims rather than tick-box exercises; better training for those involved in offender management and victim liaison so that victims know, for example, that they are entitled to submit statements in advance of parole boards; and a system that makes it apparent to the panel in cases when no victim personal statement is made that it is because the victim has decided not to submit one, rather than because a mistake has been made in the process.
We must gain some sense of justice for victims. Mr Crookes said to me in an e-mail yesterday that
“we miss Russ greatly but as victims his and our human rights are being violated all the time to suit the criminal”.
If that is how a family feel at the end of the process, the system has failed, and the Government need to recognise and reform that failure before they let down the family of another murder victim.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I apologise for the hoarseness of my voice, Mr Scott. Hopefully, with the help of a glass of water, I will be able to proceed.
This debate is on support for victims of crime. I want to raise the issue of a group of British victims who have received no material support from their Government—British victims of terrorist attacks overseas. Those victims deserve support from their Government not only on the practical level—travel insurers are usually unwilling to cover the costs associated with death or injury resulting from a terrorist attack—but, more fundamentally, because British citizens remain British citizens wherever they may be, and particularly because of the context of Britain’s central role in the fight against global terrorism.
For those reasons, British victims of overseas terrorism deserve the state’s support, yet British victims of attacks in Bali, Sharm el Sheikh, Turkey and Mumbai have received no material support from their Government. They have been left to struggle with the costs of repatriation of dead or injured loved ones and the costs imposed by serious injury and disability. That is wrong. Our Government’s obligations to citizens do not cease outside our borders, and it is fair to say that Britain’s central role in the global fight against terrorism creates added risk for British citizens. The Mumbai attacks are one example. As I am sure that hon. Members are aware, the Mumbai terrorists specifically sought out those with US and British passports. British citizens must not be intimidated out of travelling the world freely by the threat of terrorist attack. We, as a state, and our Government should do everything in our power to minimise the risks associated with terrorism overseas.
The absence of Government support has been deeply frustrating for victims and their families. In the aftermath of attacks in Turkey and Egypt in 2005, survivors and bereaved relatives were initially told to look to the perpetrators of the attack for damages, or to the Government of the country where the attack occurred. Neither of those options is credible. One can imagine the difficulties in trying to receive compensation from the terrorists themselves, and although we have reciprocal agreements with some foreign countries, particularly within the EU, we have no such agreements, or no effective agreements, with many other countries. Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and India are but a few of those countries, and threats in those countries to British and western tourists are growing.
Since 2005, groups of families have run sustained campaigns to change the situation. The families have worked with Members past and present from all parties to bring the issue to the Government’s attention. Those Members include Ian McCartney, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who as Minister with responsibility for the issue set up the previous Government’s humanitarian assistance unit.
After many false starts, the previous Government instituted a victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme in January 2010. Sections 47 to 54 of the Crime and Security Act 2010 made full provision for the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce the scheme. Compensation would have been payable to all victims of overseas terror attacks occurring from 18 January 2010 onwards. In addition, the previous Government promised one-off, ex gratia payments specifically to survivors of the Bali bombings. Many terror survivors received letters informing them about their compensation signed by the former Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and the former Cabinet Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. We know that the practical and legal obstacles to a terror compensation scheme can be overcome. It is possible to give British victims of overseas terrorism the support that they deserve.
Of course, with a change of Government, the landscape often changes. After an election, families are forced to go back to square one with a new Government—one cannot complain about that, because that is what happens in a democracy. However, families have had to ask for an explanation of the new Government’s position on the statutory scheme and the ex gratia payments to survivors. They were told to wait first until after the comprehensive spending review and then until after the current review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. As hon. Members will understand, that was a real blow to survivors and families when they felt that their battle had been won.
MPs of all parties have been pushing the Government on this issue. In a recent Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), the Minister signalled that the review of the CICS would be completed by the summer recess, and that is welcome news. However, that leaves many unanswered questions, which survivors would like the Minister to address, so let me put them to him. First, what aspects of the overseas terror compensation scheme will be covered by the review? Secondly, will the Government make a decision on the implementation of those clauses of the Crime and Security Act 2010 that relate to this issue? Thirdly, will they make a decision on ex gratia payments to existing terror victims in the course of their review? Fourthly, if they are unwilling to fund compensation, what work are they doing to persuade insurers to extend their coverage to include acts of terror? Finally, what contact have they had with British victims of recent terror attacks in Morocco, Israel and Russia, who would have been eligible for compensation had the previous Government’s legislation been acted on?
I hope that the Minister can throw some light on those and other issues. I know for a fact that the families of British victims of overseas terrorism will be delighted if the Government can push forward on this issue.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. He set out the tragic case of his constituent, Claire Oldfield-Hampson, which he has clearly pursued relentlessly over the past 10 years.
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention, and possibly that of other Members, to a number of issues. For example, when the defendant attacks the victim’s character or reputation, the victim or their family should have the opportunity to defend it. Defendants should also be made fully aware of the fact that if they accede to a guilty plea, any claims they make against their victims will be open to full and proper scrutiny. My hon. Friend also made a number of points about who can control the estate. All of them are strong points, and I am sure that the Minister will give them detailed consideration when he responds. Incidentally, it is one of the strengths of this Chamber that Members have time to raise such issues in detail, given that the time to do so is often not available to us on the Floor of the House.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far to support victims, such as their proposals to ensure that the victims fund is supported through deductions made from prisoners’ earnings while they are working in prison. At the beginning of this year, the Secretary of State also announced funding that organisations such as Victim Support could bid for, and that is very welcome.
I want to raise a couple of cases that are relevant in general terms. They involve victims of crime abroad, although not victims of terrorism, which was the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont). I understand that this is the responsibility not of the Minister, but of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I hope that he will be able to respond, because the issues are pertinent to victims. There are also issues about whether UK victims of crime abroad could access victim support services here, so these things have a UK bearing.
I shall refer to two cases, which I have raised previously in this Chamber, most recently on 3 November 2010, when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), responded. The first involves Robbie Hughes, who is a British citizen. He was on holiday in Malia, in Crete, when he was allegedly attacked by a group of British tourists, and left severely brain-damaged as a result. The second involves Neil Juwaheer, the son of a constituent, who died in suspicious circumstances in a Brazilian police station. According to the autopsy carried out by the family, he had been bound with cable and had suffered serious injuries, including head injuries. The police allege that he had drugs on him, but the evidence they say they had went missing and suspiciously turned up a number of months, if not years, later. The family have been trying to have DNA tests made on the package of alleged evidence, about which they are very suspicious, to see whether it was ever inside Neil Juwaheer, as the police allege, or whether the police in fact produced it subsequently because they thought they needed evidence to substantiate their allegations about what happened, which seemed to be in direct contrast to the family’s autopsy.
I know that at least one other Member is seeking to get into the debate, so I will make just two points. First, the Minister may not be aware that work is going on at European level on victim support systems. The European Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, is looking at new laws to require victim support systems in every EU country. This is the sort of thing the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might be inclined to intervene on, so before he does, let me just say—he might be surprised to hear this—that I do not support the initiative. I do not think the EU should set EU-wide laws on the victim support systems that should be required in every country. However, the EU may have a role in trying to ensure that other European partners learn from best practice here. As I understand it, victim support in the UK is indeed very good, compared with virtually anything else that is happening in Europe.
The Minister may want to take the issue up with the FCO to see what discussions have taken place on the initiative. It has been pushed by Maggie Hughes, the mother of Robbie, my constituent, and it has received a lot of interest around Europe, including in Germany, where it is likely to feature shortly in a television programme. As a result of Maggie’s work, the victims commissioner in this country has looked at the support that could be provided to UK victims of crime abroad, and the FCO website has certainly been improved as a result. I hope the Minister will want to pursue that matter with colleagues.
On the second case, undertakings were made in a previous debate in response to a number of queries that I raised. I asked about the information that can be provided to UK victims of crime abroad, the support that can be given to them and members of their family and the help that can be given to ensure that crimes are properly reported. One of the biggest problems for victims of crime abroad is getting the crime recorded in the first place. If the police abroad are not willing to register the crime, the FCO might need to ensure that it is properly registered. I also mentioned the need to tackle police corruption, as and when it is encountered, and the need for additional support for victims of crime who are seriously injured.
The Government are improving services for those who are killed, which I welcome, but they are not improving them for those who are seriously injured. In the Neil Juwaheer case, the Government could argue that he was, perhaps, a criminal and therefore not entitled to support; but, first, that has never been proven in the eyes of the family and they are pursuing the matter, and, secondly, even if it were true, the family need support, because there is no suggestion that they are involved in any criminal activity and they are UK citizens.
Those are the two points that I leave with the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made some very strong points about support for victims of crime in the UK. Equally, we heard about victims of terrorism abroad, but the Government could be more proactive in supporting the large group of UK citizens who experience other crimes abroad.
Mr Lee Scott (in the Chair)
It is my intention to call the shadow Minister and the Minister to speak at approximately 3.40 pm.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this much-needed debate on the support available for victims of crime.
I want to raise two separate points. The first relates to victims of car theft. BBC “South Today” recently contacted me about a constituent of mine who had had his car stolen. When the police informed him that the vehicle had been recovered, he was obviously pleased, and he agreed to the police request to fingerprint the car in an attempt to find the perpetrator. When he had managed to recover his vehicle from the police, one can well imagine his surprise when he, as a victim of crime, was also presented with an £80 parking charge and a release fee of £150. That is not an isolated incident—it is Government policy and has been since 2005. Victims of crime are treated as if they had parked incorrectly or abandoned their vehicles, which have then been towed. In this case, Sussex police responded that it acts in accordance with the law. I am sure that hon. Members agree that such a policy merely adds insult to injury for the victims of crime and needs to be re-evaluated. I ask the Minister to review the guidelines urgently.
My second point is rather longer and relates to issues that have come to my attention in my capacity as chair of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on retail and business crime. I will focus on victims of crime in a business context, with particular reference to the small business sector, which is disproportionately targeted and for which less support is available. The APPG inaugural meeting on 29 March was attended not only by an impressive number of hon. Members, but by business representatives who sit on the National Business Crime Forum, whose members collectively represent hundreds of thousands of businesses across the UK, and by the press, including representatives from Crime Reduction Partnership News, Retail Newsagent and Retail Express.
At the meeting, we heard that the trade magazine Retail Newsagent carries weekly stories about shopkeepers who have been victims of crime, ranging from systematic shoplifting to assault, robbery and murder. Many of us remember the high profile murders last year of convenience retailers for little more than the cash in their tills, cigarettes and candy. Indeed, Retail Newsagent reported:
“It is now true that running a corner shop is statistically more dangerous than joining the police force when it comes to losing one’s life in the course of the working day”.
The Sentencing Council needs to recognise the vulnerability of shop workers to assaults by establishing clear guidance, which does not exist now, to protect retail workers. Retailers rightly feel that their cases are relegated to the realms of victimless crime by the justice system.
We heard from Crime Reduction Partnership News that crime and disorder reduction partnerships incur nominal costs to operate—it can cost £350 a year to gain the necessary professional indemnity and public liability insurance coverage for a village or town. In some cases, towns and villages find it hard to raise that sum, and Crime Reduction Partnership News reported that if the Government underwrote CDRPs, as they do neighbourhood watch, it would be a huge help. The challenge would normally be developing appropriate insurance models, but such models already exist for neighbourhood watch. The precedent in underwriting neighbourhood watch schemes can realistically be applied as the model for underwriting CDRPs. It would have a huge impact on levels of crime for a relatively negligible cost, so the Government should look into doing so.
The increasing devolution of power to local authorities carries its own problems. Issues exist with a lack of standardisation from one police authority to another in reporting crime. That has an impact on businesses that work nationally or across several local authorities, and the lack of a joined-up approach manifests itself in a difficulty in meaningfully tackling organised crime. When the Localism Bill is enacted, we will all have to be vigilant to ensure that the unintended consequence in our communities is not that victims see bureaucracy getting in the way of a collaborative approach to bringing organised criminals to justice.
Who is most at risk? A recent Federation of Small Businesses report shows that community-based, convenience retailers are significantly more vulnerable than any other category to high-value robberies, with 41% of the total sector losses, and almost double the value is stolen from them as is stolen from supermarkets. That is unsurprising considering that independent businesses are likely to be open at unsociable hours with fewer staff and fewer sophisticated security measures than supermarkets. A discussion needs to be had with police representatives across the country to build a strategy specifically to address the disparity in vulnerability to crime of large and small businesses and how that disparity can be combated.
One huge concern is the under-reporting of crime. Businesses often fail to report crimes as they feel an inadequate amount is done to justify taking the time to respond. Retailers report that crime is often lost in crime reporting figures and there is little practical recourse to bring criminals to justice.
It is not all bad news though, because there is some support available to victims of crime provided by both the private and the public sectors. In the case of the former, there are instances of industry providing solutions in the spirit of the big society, such as Facewatch. That initiative is designed to help victims of low-level crime and create an online partnership between premises, such as bars and shops, and the police. Using Facewatch, a victim can not only get an instant crime reference number from the premises, but can also call CPP card protection, which will arrange for the cancellation and reissue all of their cards for free, even if they are visitors to the UK, with just one call.
I referred to the reluctance of businesses that have been victims of crime to report it, and that is not just anecdotal. Victim Support, which does tremendous work supporting victims of crime on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, concedes that it has trouble connecting with victims, and the way in which crime is recorded often lets victims fall through the support net. For example, if a shopkeeper lives above their shop and a crime is committed in the premises below, it is recorded as a business crime, whether or not the retailer has been assaulted, but the premises is also their home, and in any other circumstance the victim’s details would be passed to Victim Support to give the appropriate advice and assistance. That is but one concrete example that demonstrates that more needs to be done to bring police representatives, organisations such as Victim Support and business representatives together to discuss how police reporting can change for the better, so that existing resources can be adequately utilised.
Unfortunately, victims of crime have few statutory rights within the criminal justice system, and what rights they have are under threat. Victims of crime have the right to receive a basic level of service from each criminal justice agency under the code of practice for victims of crime. Everything victims are entitled to under the code is pretty basic—the sort of things that one would assume victims would receive automatically from the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, the code is under threat as part of a Ministry of Justice review of support for victims and witnesses. The Government have already removed the duty on local criminal justice boards to report on their compliance with the code, which means that no one is monitoring compliance with it or holding agencies to account where they fail to comply. There is a danger that the Government will downgrade the code or abolish it altogether, which would mean that victims of crime would have no statutory right to receive a decent level of service from the criminal justice system. Abolishing the code would be a serious retrograde step and would turn back the clock on victims’ rights.
The issue is not only about how we deal with crime and its victims, but about the perception of crime, which is paramount. It has a huge detrimental effect on the confidence of people who enter or remain in the independent business sector. Following the murders of Gurmail Singh and Jashbhai Patel in Huddersfield last year, a survey of retailers’ perceptions of crime by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents gathered some startling results: 51% of respondents stated that they expected crime to increase; a staggering 31% were unsure as to whether their business could even survive the next two to three years; and 57% thought that the police could do more to deter crime. However, the report demonstrated a high level of contact with neighbourhood policing units, which is a positive indication of the big society at work.
I draw attention to the work of Baroness Newlove, the Government’s champion for active safer communities, and her report, “Our vision for safe and active communities”. She says:
“The report calls for a change of culture on the part of communities, no longer seeing crime and ASB in their neighbourhoods as ‘someone else’s problem’; and on the side of services, going beyond simply asking communities what their problems are, to seeing them as equal partners in dealing with them.”
My hope for the newly formed all-party group is that it becomes the bridge that fosters the necessary dialogue that business is so desperately calling for. I welcome every colleague present to come along to our next meeting to discuss the experiences in their own constituencies.
Tom Brake
There will be a statement later today about the national crime agency, which will have, among other things, a command that will look at economic crime. What expectations, if any, does the hon. Gentleman have of how that may be able assist the businesses that he is talking about?
Mike Weatherley
Businesses, as I have been explaining, have a real problem with crime, but the justice system does not seem to address that in the same way as it recognises individuals. I look forward to the statement and will review it with interest to see how it can assist.
I will close my remarks with three key questions to the Minister. First, what are the Government’s plans to re-evaluate the manifestly unjust policy whereby police treat victims of vehicle theft as if they had been irresponsible in abandoning their cars by charging them parking and release fees? Secondly, what measures do the Government propose to put in place to mitigate the impact of reduced provision of services to victims of crime, with particular reference to Victim Support’s recent appeal to the Department for transitional funding to oversee the period of restructuring to ensure that services are not drastically or adversely affected? Thirdly, will the Minister attend and perhaps address an upcoming meeting of the all-party group to discuss how the Government could support victims of crime in non-domestic cases, where support is even more lacking?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I begin with an apology to you, Mr Scott, and to the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). I may not be able to stay until the very end of the debate, because I have to meet some constituents. I apologise for that discourtesy. I will keep my remarks brief, because some excellent points have been made. I commend the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate, which deserves as much time as possible, so that the Minister can address the points that have been made.
I want to focus on a few areas that may not have been brought out by the debate so far. One of the main areas that we should surely focus on is how we prevent people from being victims in the first place—how we prevent future victims of crime. Different things are important to victims: prevention from being one in the first place, and if someone is a victim of crime, they want the person responsible to be detected, punished properly for the crime that they have committed and not go on to commit further offences. I am worried that, on most, if not all those issues, the Government are in danger of heading in the wrong direction.
On preventing people from being the victims of crime, one of the things that I am most concerned about is what happens when people are released from prison before the end of their sentence. I might not be present to hear the Minister’s closing remarks, but I hope that he will be good enough to tell the Chamber how many people are victims of crimes committed by people let out early from prison before the end of the sentence that was actually handed down. We now know that people are, at the very most, released automatically halfway through their sentence and that some are even let out before that. It would be interesting for the public to know how many crimes are committed by people who have been released from prison at a time when most people would consider that they should still be in prison serving the full sentence handed down by the court.
It is perfectly reasonable that the police cannot prevent crimes when people who are unknown to them commit them for the first time. It seems, however, that our criminal justice system is creating so many unnecessary victims of crime by releasing people early from their prison sentence, only to see them go on to commit further offences. If we want to stop people being victims of crime, we should focus on that first.
What about the things that people want when they are the victims of the crime? Presumably, the first thing they want is for their crime to be detected by the police. Two of the best tools that the police have for detecting crimes are CCTV and the DNA database. An enormous number of crimes are solved by using CCTV footage, technology and the DNA database.
We have also heard recently that the Government are concerned about preventing victims from having to go through the trauma of giving evidence in court. That was supposedly the genesis of the idea to give people a 50% discount on their sentence if they pleaded guilty early. I say to the Minister that I do not believe that the reason for giving a 50% discount to people who plead guilty early had anything to do with trying to prevent victims from having to give evidence in court. It was simply a way of having fewer people sent to prison or fewer people in prison at any one time. That was the motivation. The view that it was a benefit to victims was a positive bit of spin to put on it.
If we want to prevent victims of crime from having to go through the trauma of giving evidence in court, one would have thought that the Government would be anxious to use the benefits of CCTV and DNA. CCTV gives an unbiased account of what happened for a court to see, devoid of anybody’s spin, recollection bias or mistake. Often, when CCTV is viewed by defendants and their solicitors, it leads to a change of plea from not guilty to guilty. That certainly happens when defendants were drunk or on drugs at the time of committing a crime. It not only saves courts time and money, but prevents witnesses from having to go through the trauma and stress of giving evidence in court. The Government, however, appear to be trying to make it as difficult as possible for the police to use CCTV. They are trying to introduce extra regulation for the use of CCTV. If the victim is our top priority, surely the Government will rethink that and make it easier for the police to use CCTV evidence.
CCTV actually prevented Richard Whelan’s girlfriend from having to testify against his murderer, Anthony Joseph, who brutally stabbed Richard on a bus while he was attempting to defend his girlfriend. The attack was caught on camera and Joseph was jailed.
DNA is also one of the main ways in which the police can find the perpetrator of a crime, yet the Government are hellbent on taking people off the DNA database, and that will presumably make it harder for crimes to be detected. In fact, there have been 150,000 cases in which a DNA sample has been taken from the crime scene but there has been no match on the DNA database. Obviously, if everybody was on a DNA database, all those crimes would be solved at a stroke. Will the Minister explain why the Government are going out of their way to try to make it as difficult as possible for the police to use such technology to find the perpetrators of crime in the first place? I am sure that victims of crime do not understand it, and neither do I.
What I want to know most of all is why so many repeat offenders are not sent to prison, because that is the one thing that creates more and more victims of crime. Last year, 3,000 burglars and 4,500 violent offenders with 15 or more previous convictions were not sent to prison. If somebody goes before a court with more than 100 previous convictions behind them, they are still likely not to be sent to prison. Those are the things that really irritate the victims of crime.
My final point is about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service. I think that the hon. Member for St Ives touched on the issue—he certainly implied it—of the CPS undercharging people by charging them for a lesser offence that they did not commit, rather than prosecuting them for the more serious crime that they did commit. That is one thing that particularly infuriates victims.
The calibre of the CPS is also an issue, and I will end with a tale of what I think is the most depressing day that I have ever spent, sitting in Bingley magistrates court watching the day’s proceedings. I saw CPS lawyers reading cases for the first time—they clearly had not read them beforehand—while the defence solicitor was briefed up to the nines. On one occasion, the CPS lawyer did not have the file in front of him and prosecuted the case from the file handed over to him by the defence solicitor. This is British justice in 2011. We should be ashamed of ourselves. If the victim of that crime had turned up, they would have been horrified to see what was going on. The Government really need to get a grip and put the victim—not the criminal, as happens now—at the heart of the justice system.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Chamber, Mr Scott. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing today’s debate on an extremely important issue that has troubled him for more than a decade. Even though it is some 15 years since Claire was murdered, I should like to take the opportunity to express my condolences to her family for the ongoing pain that I am sure still results from her death.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of very good points. Certainly, his concern is not lost that, in circumstances such as those that he described, rather than the scales of justice being blind, they are weighted against the deceased. Indeed, how can it be correct that a murderer remains in all circumstances the next of kin? I find it incredible and horrifying that, where a prima facie case exists, those rights are still in existence and are not suspended. The point made that the criminal justice boards no longer need to file certain reports is also very worrying.
The relevance of today’s debate is heightened even more in the light of the Government’s review into the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the role of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. In the time available, I should like to bring to the discussion the issue of financial support for the victims of crime and the wide-ranging financial consequences that a crime can have on victims and victims’ families.
The impact of crime affects each person differently and can have various wide-ranging emotional, physical and financial implications. As we have heard, organisations such as Victim Support play a fantastic role in providing victims and witnesses of crime with both practical support and varying forms of emotional support. The valuable support and advice that Victim Support and others provide victims with should not be understated. Victim Support contacts more than 1.5 million victims of crime each year, but it and other voluntary organisations cannot provide the financial support and compensation required to help victims recover from the financial impact that crime can have on them and their families. The effects of crime can take many forms and, as I said, crime impacts on each individual differently. Victims can become isolated and suffer from anxiety, depression and amnesia. They are scarred and can become scared or reluctant to leave the house.
Victims of crime can also find it difficult to take pleasure in activities and social events that they previously enjoyed. That can have a damaging effect on a person’s family and social life and can therefore have a harmful effect on their relationships with family and friends. Many victims of crime develop anxiety or depression, which can lead to dependency on alcohol, tobacco or even precipitate drug use. Although crime rates have fallen significantly in recent years, one in five people is still likely to be a victim of a form of crime. Of course, for those people who are victims, the overall decrease in crime does not make their own experience as a victim any less traumatic. Given the wide-ranging emotional and physical impact that crime can have, it is imperative that financial support is provided to cover its direct financial impact—for example, as we have heard, the costs of counselling and other remedies such as emotional support therapy and health costs for any rehabilitation.
The commissioner for victims and witnesses, Louise Casey, recently revealed ahead of the publication of her policy review that families bereaved through murder, manslaughter or culpable road death face costs of an average of around £37,000. That includes costs for trials, legal fees, court proceedings, counselling and loss of earnings. Figures from a specific survey of 36 bereaved families show that legal costs range from between £280 and £150,000, with the majority of families meeting the costs themselves and only one family receiving legal aid. The survey found that the total estimated costs incurred for the 36 families were £1.3 million, which rises to a higher figure if loss of earnings is included. The annual figure of costs incurred is around £37,000 or, indeed, £113,000 if loss of earnings is included. Counselling costs for those surveyed averaged around £2,500, and 35 out of 36 of the families surveyed experienced loss of earnings.
The majority of victims of crime were unable to work, in some cases because of post-traumatic stress disorder. Some people lost their jobs; some had to leave work; and some got unpaid leave from their employer. Bereaved families also have the costs of child care to think about when a parent or guardian is murdered. One example of how a bereaved family can suffer a loss of earnings is provided by the situation of Barry Mizen, whose son Jimmy was tragically attacked and killed in a horrific attack in London, with which all hon. Members will be familiar. Barry Mizen was a self-employed shop owner. He had to shut his shop in the wake of his son’s murder and therefore had no money coming in for a substantial period.
Freedom of information requests made by the Daily Mirror show that the average amount of compensation received by the families of the 12 people shot by Derrick Bird, the gunman who murdered 12 people in Cumbria, was around £12,250. The figures highlighting the costs incurred by victims and victims’ families put into context the financial compensation awarded and shows how it would be, to say the very least, regrettable—indeed, it would be a severe blow to victims—if the Secretary of State for Justice approves cutting the Government’s payment awarded to victims and victims’ families, as is feared will happen. That would be highly regrettable and, as we have heard, says much about the Government’s attitude towards the victims of crime, particularly when they have still not implemented the compensation scheme proposed in the Crime and Security Act 2010, which had cross-party support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said, although British victims of terrorist attacks in the UK are eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, that does not extend to the victims of overseas terror. Hon. Members will also be aware that travel insurers in the vast majority of cases do not pay out to victims of overseas terror attacks. The victims of overseas terrorist attacks are all still to be compensated by the Government—for example, Will Pike who was paralysed in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, the victims of the Bali bombings and the victims of the 2005 Sharm el Sheikh bombings.
It cannot be right that, when the rights of prisoners and criminals appear to be enhanced all the time and the Lord Chancellor constantly has to defend his position, British victims of terrorist atrocities overseas are still waiting for compensation promised to them by the Government. If a terrorist attack should happen somewhere in the world tomorrow—heaven forbid—UK citizens and their families would be ineligible to receive Government compensation. The Government must re-evaluate how they treat victims of crime both here and abroad. If they cut the financial support offered to the victims of crime and do not compensate the victims of terrorist attacks abroad, it will have a devastating effect on the well-being of both victims and victims’ families, as well as sending the message that helping the victims of crime is not viewed as important by the Government.
I should like to take a moment to comment on a few of the speeches that have been made so far today. Hon. Members from all parties have made very good contributions. In the few moments remaining, I shall mention the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I find it extremely worrying when I agree with much of what he says. I am not sure whether I find it more worrying than he does—I suspect he finds it more worrying than I do. The use of closed circuit television and the DNA database is extremely important. When we were in government, we were great advocates of those systems, and it is surprising that the Government do not seem to be continuing with that. On the 50% discounted sentence, perhaps sometimes through gritted teeth the 33% discount is there, but the push to make it 50% seems very strange indeed. Victims will see an extremely worrying trend.
Overall, the Government must finally put the victims of crime at the heart of their justice policy. They cannot prevaricate any longer; they must take action to do so. The rights and well-being of victims and victims’ families should always come before those of the criminal. Sadly, that is something we are not seeing and have not seen for a while.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this timely debate about the wider topic of support for the victims of crime and the narrow case he raised. He is a doughty champion of his constituents and for a decade he has worked on their behalf on the case he mentioned. We should respect the determination with which he represents his constituents.
I begin by making it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to placing victims and their families at the front and centre of the criminal justice system. I view my remit as the Minister responsible for victims and for the wider issue of offender management through the prism of victims. Let us consider the system changes we are trying to deliver around, for example, work in prisons. What are they for? They are to generate the resources for offenders to compensate their victims and to create more resources to assist the victims of crime. One proposal in the Green Paper is to make it a duty for sentencers to consider a compensation order as the first point of departure in their sentencing. Hon. Members will have to wait until we formally respond to the consultation and introduce the legislation, but I do not see anyone demurring from strengthening that duty. That is the direction of policy—to ensure that victims are our consideration.
The future victims of crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made clear, are absolutely at the centre of concern. That is why we are advocating a rehabilitation revolution and a complete step change in how offenders are dealt with and managed by our system. If we fail to effectively rehabilitate them while they are in our system, they will go out and reoffend again, and we have to address the dreadful reoffending rates. I suspect that he and I are in the same place on that. The Government face the constraint, of course, of the legacy of the financial position we received from our predecessors.
We are committed to ensuring that criminal justice agencies work to help families through the process of the investigation and trial, and afterwards. We are committed to providing families with a voice in the criminal justice system. We are committed to providing them with the support and the help that they need to deal with the consequences of crime. It is deeply unfortunate that the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives was mishandled. I understand the pain that such a traumatic experience can cause for bereaved families, but I accept that as much as I might understand the pain, it is beyond the power of any Government or Minister to repair that trauma. All Governments, however, will want to do their reasonable best to continue to improve the service to victims.
Support to victims and their families has improved dramatically since the case described by my hon. Friend. He referred to the work of Joanne Bryce, which, over a prolonged period, has contributed significantly to that improvement. Many of the things that she identified in association with the case have led to direct improvements, which I will cover if I have time. Constantly improving the system will continue.
During the debate, my hon. Friends made some suggestions that I will want to look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) suggested that there should be a positive duty to explain the absence of a victim impact statement to the parole board hearing. I undertake to look at that extremely good suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) drew attention to an anomaly concerning retailers who live above their premises, the recording of crime and the sort of support triggered by victim support in cases of assault. We will constantly look at such suggestions, with the objective of improving the system.
I want to be clear to the Chamber that the law is on the side of the victim and the victim’s family. In the case of homicide, there are safeguards against the offender benefiting from the crime. Under the rules of forfeiture, any person found guilty of murder is automatically disqualified from inheriting property from their victim. In the case of manslaughter, they are disqualified unless a specific court order is granted in their favour. The bereaved family can make an application to the court to ensure that the killer is not responsible for the administration of the victim’s estate, under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. I understand fully that people who have just suffered such a tragic loss are likely to find the process confusing or complicated. That is one reason why the improvements in support are so important, and why, since October 2009, the Ministry of Justice has supported an advice helpline to provide legal advice to relatives who have been bereaved by homicide, and advice on associated personal and social issues.
Andrew George
That is an encouraging reply. Will the Minister clarify whether those rights were in place at the time of the trial that I referred to today? If so, do victims now get a level of support and advice, through those procedures, to ensure that their rights can be enforced and that the perpetrators of homicide are not entitled to determine the outcome of the estate of victims, as happened in the case I raised today?
Mr Blunt
That is the case. The right to apply to the court is in the Senior Courts Act 1981, so the right was in place. As my hon. Friend pointed out, however, the family were in ignorance of it. In the spirit of constantly trying to improve the service we provide victims, there is now an advice line for bereaved people in such situations to draw their attention to their rights under the law.
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a great deal of work to improve the experience of victims and their families in the criminal justice system. Criminal justice agencies are more victim-focused and more readily able to take account of victims’ wishes and needs at every stage of the justice process. The courage of victims in coming forward to report crime and giving evidence is central to a strong, fair criminal justice system. Coming forward can sometimes be daunting for victims, especially those who are vulnerable or intimidated. It is therefore right that there are protections for victims in the system and that there are services to which they are entitled and safeguards against further victimisation. We are not complacent, however. There is more work to do and I am currently reviewing the support that victims are given at each stage of the process—investigation, prosecution, trial and beyond.
In 2006, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service worked together to introduce witness care units in every police force area in England and Wales. Witness care units are dedicated teams that keep victims and witnesses updated and informed about developments in a case from a suspect being arrested to an offender being sentenced. They provide victims with vital information on bail conditions, court dates and outcomes. In the same year, the code of practice for victims of crime was introduced. It sets out the services that criminal justice agencies must deliver for victims of crime. It specifies how victims should be kept updated, how often the police and other agencies should contact them, and ensures that the criminal justice system as a whole recognises the central role of victims in the delivery of justice.
I am conscious, Mr Scott, that I will not be able to do justice to the debate in the time that I have available. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me.
Other individual agencies have their own initiatives to help to ensure that victims are kept informed and engaged and, above all, kept safe. The police provide bereaved families with specialist support and a single point of contact through nominating a family liaison officer—a specially trained police officer who will explain the criminal justice process to the family, and act as their first point of reference for any questions. I should point out that in 2008-09, the last year for which we have figures, victim satisfaction with the police was 83%.
The CPS has introduced the victim focus scheme for bereaved relatives. Under the scheme, the prosecutor will write to the bereaved family through the family liaison officer, and offer to meet them to explain the role of the CPS, the court process, the charges faced by the defendant and the role of the victim personal statement. If I have time, I will say more about victim personal statements in a moment.
Under the victim focus scheme, prosecutors will meet bereaved families again if a defendant is convicted, in order to answer further questions. Meeting relatives when there has been an acquittal, which can be equally traumatic, is also being piloted.
The National Offender Management Service operates the victim contact scheme. Victims are eligible when an offender is sentenced to 12 months or more in custody for a violent or sexual crime. The scheme makes sure that victims of serious crime are kept informed if there are developments or changes in the offender’s sentence, and that they have an opportunity to submit evidence to parole board hearings and request licence conditions.
Throughout the criminal justice process, there is support for victims that did not exist in the 1990s. Criminal justice agencies have embedded consideration for the welfare of victims in their ways of working and in their internal procedures. A good example of how that works across the full range of victim contact with the system is the victim personal statement, which was introduced in 2001. It is the determination of this Administration to ensure that the victim personal statement will count for more than it does now. Governments of either colour will want to continue to improve support to victims of crime.
I am conscious, Mr Scott, that I have not been able to respond as fully as I would like, but there is much more to come from this Administration regarding support for victims of crime, making sure that offenders are the ones who will be held accountable; the burden of dealing with victims of crime will fall more on them. Victims will be receiving appropriate support from the state as well.
Single Payment Scheme
(13 years, 5 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
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is an honour to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Scott.
I will keep my remarks shorter than normal, because several of my hon. Friends wish to intervene and comment on the subject, which is important. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister, who is such a doughty champion for agriculture.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to debate this important subject, which is vital not only to farmers in my constituency and throughout the country but to ensure that food is on the table of every person at an affordable price. Food production has long been taken for granted in this country and elsewhere in the world, at least since the green revolution. Until recently, it has not been the subject of much political debate in Europe, but it is no coincidence that this year President Sarkozy has made food a top priority at the G20, which is particularly appropriate for a Frenchman.
Recent headlines from around the world highlight the importance of food production: “Devastating food shortage said to be looming in Kenya”—all these headlines are from the past week or two—“Tanzanians debate rising food prices”, “Drought affects rice production in two central China provinces” and “Regional bank warns Caribbean of impact of rising food prices”. At last, we are waking up to the importance of food security, and it is about time, too.
In our own country, according to the Office for National Statistics, the population is expected to reach 65 million by 2018 and 70 million by 2028. With 7 million more people to feed in the UK alone over the next 15 years, we must act now to ensure that we can meet our needs sustainably. We cannot consider our own needs alone. Another 2 billion will be added to the world’s population in the next 40 years, yet uncultivated land is perhaps as little as 10% to 12% of what is currently cultivated, leaving little room for manoeuvre. That presents a huge challenge, which will only be met by better yielding crops, irrigation, fertiliser and so on. It also brings opportunities for the UK.
The UK has a competitive advantage in food production. We have a temperate climate, excellent yields, efficient farmers, high standards and a strong food manufacturing industry.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to focus on food production, which it is appropriate to discuss in the light of reform of the common agricultural policy. We need to focus on our profitability and the production of food, as well as, correctly, on protecting the environment. We have to strike the right balance. Does he agree?
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that in a moment.
The strong food manufacturing industry is the largest manufacturing sector in the country and a vital customer for our raw materials. My own county of Staffordshire, along with Gloucestershire, Devon and many other counties represented in the Chamber today, views agriculture and food production as a business of the future and not of the past. Whereas other counties have sold off much of their farm estate, Staffordshire has largely retained its own, and continues to invest in it.
I have to declare a local interest, as about half of the county-owned farms—some 50—are in my constituency. They provide a start for the many young people who wish to farm but do not have the land or capital to do so. South Staffordshire college recognises the need for training young people on the land, and I welcome its application to establish a land-based academy at Rodbaston in my constituency, along the lines of the excellent JCB academy for technical subjects in nearby Rocester.
Last year, UK food and non-alcoholic drink exports topped £10 billion for the first time. If ever we needed a reminder of the importance of Ireland to our economy, it lies in the fact that Ireland is our No. 1 customer, followed by France, the Netherlands and Germany. Our recovery depends substantially on export growth, and agriculture is making a strong contribution. We also import £31 billion a year in food and non-alcoholic drinks, leaving plenty of room to increase market share at home. Food is also of increasing importance to the cost of living, in particular for those on low incomes. As with fuel, the more we produce ourselves, the less we depend on sources of supply over which we have no control on price, quantity and, I must say, quality.
Given the apparently rosy outlook for agriculture, why am I concerned about the single payment scheme or direct payments to farmers? Surely agriculture can survive on its own, without support. I have no doubt that it will, eventually, but that day has not yet come.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
If my hon. Friend can see a future without subsidy, can he outline how that would happen in a global context? It is one thing for the European Union to withdraw subsidy to agricultural food production, but that can only happen if the rest of the world follows suit. It would be unfair for European farmers to be disadvantaged by an American system that subsidises its farms.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I entirely agree with him. I will come on to how I see the future and how we can eventually get to a stage at which no subsidy is required. However, that day has not yet come. As the National Farmers Union has stated:
“while we are looking forward to the day that farmers no longer need state support, this is unlikely to be within the next few years and it is vital that we maintain and develop the industry now.”
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On subsidies, does he agree that hill farmers in particular represent a special case, given their incomes relative to those of lowland farmers? If we are to encourage young people, to whom he has referred, to get involved in farming in such a context, it is important that we do more.
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree. That is a particular concern in my hon. Friend’s constituency in Devon. I do not have hill farmers in my constituency—I do not have enough hills—but in nearby Staffordshire Moorlands we do. If I understand the statistics correctly, hill farmers have suffered the greatest decline in income in recent years—the decline is greater than for any other form of farming. The problem with the single payment applies in particular to smaller farms in the livestock sector. It has been estimated that in 2009 59% of all farms would have been loss-making without their single payment; in the livestock sector the figure was even higher at 87%.
Last week, I had the privilege of attending the Staffordshire county show in my constituency. At the same show, some years ago, I met the Minister for the first time—he kindly came along and showed his support for Staffordshire farmers, as he does for farmers up and down the country, which all of us welcome. Talking to farmers at the show, many of whom have smallish holdings, it was quite clear that without the single payment they would eventually go out of business.
The single payment is essential for the short-term sustainability of agriculture. In the longer term, one might argue that farmers should look to diversify their income so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the need for support, and that that continuing support somehow makes them put off that evil day—or that day. However, no hon. Members who have farmers in their constituency agree with that. Farmers are constantly looking at ways of diversifying their income away from food production. They are taking matters into their own hands, and they do not want to rely on subsidy, in the same way that any other private business man or woman does not.
In any case, the single payment is not simply a subsidy. The payment recognises the vital public functions carried out by farmers: the management of the land in a way that provides an attractive and diverse landscape for those who live in the countryside as well as for visitors; and sustainable production, which meets the highest standards of food safety, traceability and animal welfare.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does he not agree that the direct single payment is also a buffer against volatile commodity prices? While commodity prices except for milk are reasonably buoyant at the moment, there could come a time when they are in decline, which would be difficult for farmers to sustain.
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He speaks with vast experience from his own Brecon and Radnorshire constituency which is one of the largest, if not the largest, in England and Wales. I ask the Government to recognise the importance of maintaining direct payments to farmers at the heart of the common agricultural policy after 2013. I recognise the importance of environmental management, but it is vital that the primary need to produce high-quality, safe food is kept firmly in mind. Schemes must be flexible and practical to operate for smaller farmers, as well as large landowners.
Julian Sturdy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has touched on food security, and I agree entirely with him on that. He has said that farming is going through a rosy patch at the moment, and that is certainly so in arable farming, but not in livestock farming. Does he believe that, despite the need for subsidies, certainly in the short term, supermarkets will play a key role in driving up incomes for farmers and how they are dealt with in future?
Jeremy Lefroy
I agree that livestock farmers have been going through a difficult time for many years. Arable farmers, particularly on the eastern side of the country, are seeing better incomes, but that is not so for all farmers. I will address my hon. Friend’ comment in a moment.
We must ensure that markets work more efficiently, so that there is less need for support. Increasing demand from Britain and around the world will do much of the heavy lifting in the long term, as it raises prices.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
As my hon. Friend’s neighbour, I know that Staffordshire farmers appreciate his work to raise their profile and their issues. We have heard about the problems for arable farmers and livestock farmers, but we have not yet mentioned the terrible situation of dairy farmers, which has been an ongoing problem for many years, driven particularly by the supermarkets forcing down the price of milk as a loss leader to tempt people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we desperately need to do something to support our dairy farmers if we are to have a sustainable industry going forward?
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Bill that proposes a supermarket ombudsman is welcome, but we need that as soon as possible, because in some parts of the dairy industry, despite recent small improvements in prices, there is a crisis, with people going out of business every week.
Neil Carmichael
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that only Government Members are here today to support this debate?
Jeremy Lefroy
I thank my hon. Friend, but I will not comment on what he has said. This is an extremely important matter, and I am sure that many hon. Members who would have loved to be here are not in their seats because they are otherwise detained.
I shall conclude, because I know that at least one other hon. Member wants to speak, and I must rightly give him time. The discussions about the future of the CAP after 2013 are critical for Britain. If the outcome is right, British agriculture will thrive and deliver high-quality, fairly priced food to the British people and to the world. There will be increasing employment in rural areas, with increasing exports and a narrowing of the trade gap. We will also ensure our own food security and that of those to whom we are net exporters of cereals, as we are in many years. Essential to getting the CAP right, in my view and that of many others, is the maintenance of direct payment to farmers, which keeps so many of them in business through the ups and downs of farm-gate prices.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this debate and on all his work for farmers in Staffordshire and more generally throughout Britain. I shall speak briefly, and begin by saying that the issue is enormously important, as my hon. Friend has emphasised. Not only does it make all the difference to lifestyles, to communities and to preserving farms through price volatility, but it is a good long-term bet in terms of food security.
Rory Stewart
I have little to add to the brilliant exposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford of why single farm payments are so vital to everybody. We see that every day in Cumbria, where such payments are vital for the support of our hill farms; in some areas, about 93% of farms would go bust if they did not receive the single farm payment. The entire agricultural economy depends on those payments and, as my hon. Friend suggested, they stretch into every area including the governance of agricultural colleges. The fight in my constituency is to protect Newton Rigg, our agricultural college, from having its assets stripped in a takeover.
I do not need to emphasise the problems faced by all farmers. There is no need to talk today about the horrors of the Rural Payments Agency, but all strength to the arm of the Minister for the steps that he has taken to sort it out. The system is totally unacceptable and debilitating for so many of our farmers.
Mel Stride
On the RPA, farmers in my constituency constantly complain about bureaucracy and red tape. Does my hon. Friend welcome Richard Macdonald’s recent review on cutting red tape and its 200 recommendations, and will he urge the Government—as I will—to take up those recommendations with some vigour?
Rory Stewart
Absolutely. The second area connected with red tape is, of course, the effects of these environmental schemes. Whether we are talking about cross-compliance or stewardship schemes, we exist in a world often of craziness, of indigestible tufts of grass emerging, of self-seeding oak plantations that never self-seed and of floodplains that never flood, because of a lack of local flexibility, so I again congratulate the Minister on pushing for more local flexibility. However, the short point that I wish to make is about our diplomatic initiative.
The really big game in the end is not the red tape; it is ensuring that we get 2013 right, that we team up with the right partners in Europe, that we are there with the Germans, that we understand the French position and that we are winning that diplomatic fight. That will not be done just by the NFU or by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it will be done by the Foreign Office. We must invest in our embassies. We must invest in ensuring that the European countries are not ahead of us in that game—in ensuring that we get the best deal possible for British farmers through diplomatic enterprise in Europe.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I endorse what I have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart).I also very much approve of the line that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been taking on agriculture. We must ensure that we get the kind of farming that is needed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on his approach to the matter. To add one other note, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border whether he thinks that it is important that the badger population is kept properly under control, because that is vital in areas such as my own.
Rory Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is vital that we deal with tuberculosis. We have just had our first incident in Penrith and The Border—a shocking incident. Much of it seems to be about the movement of cows from areas that are already TB-infected. That infection then can get into the badger population. Any measures, including proper control of badgers, must be taken. TB in our cows is completely unacceptable.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am delighted to speak under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Scott, and to have the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I am sorry that it has been only a brief and an interrupted debate, because the issues that he and other hon. Friends have raised are central to a huge part of Britain’s rural economy. The debate comes at a time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, a range of issues are before us. There is no doubt that there is an emerging global challenge as to how we will feed the world in the future.
The Foresight report produced a few weeks ago by the Government’s chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, considered all the challenges and how we can deal with them. It went through the statistics relating to population growth in the UK and the world that my hon. Friend referred to in his excellent speech. We are talking about something approaching a 50% increase in the world’s population by 2050. The report identified hunger and environmental degradation as key problems that we face.
Last week, DEFRA published the national ecosystem assessment, which began for the first time a full analysis of the environmental challenges that we face and how that feeds through to our natural capital and ultimately to our ability to exploit that natural capital for the production of food.
For all the reasons that have been given, we should all be able to agree that a do-nothing approach is not an acceptable option. There will be far more people in the world. Many of them will be much wealthier. In the emerging economies, people are demanding better and more extensive diets, often involving more animal protein. Competition for water, energy and land will increase as economies grow. All that is compounded by the impact of climate change. Water will be a particular issue, but some of the projections show that in addition a lot of current global arable land could be taken out of production. When we remember that one third of all the world’s arable production land is within 1 metre of sea level, we realise just how little sea levels have to change before we face serious problems.
In the meantime, we already have the price volatility to which a number of hon. Members have referred. I am delighted to say that the French Government have seized on that as a key issue during their presidency of the G20, which, as hon. Members probably know, meets in a couple of weeks’ time. We are wholly behind the French Government in their efforts to find ways of reducing the risks of international food price volatility.
There is no option but to change. Equally, there is no option but for every country to do its bit. For the last 13 years or at least for the first 11 or 12 of them, we had a Government who basically said that British food production did not matter and we could import it all. It is fair to say that in the last year or so, they changed tack, but far too late—a lot of damage had already been done. Our self-sufficiency—the proportion of the food that we consumed that was produced domestically—had fallen by some 10%, which is horrendous. We have moved on from the days when we worried about self-sufficiency in terms of every egg, every apple and every piece of wheat, because trade is so much more important and our modern diet is so much more international. However, the position does mean—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the trade deficit and so on—that there is huge potential for our food and farming industries, which after all are part of the same industry, to do a great deal more for our economy.
There are issues to do with research. I am thinking of the development of precision farming for better use of resources, the phrase “sustainable intensification” and the concept of producing more from less. All those things are relevant, but my hon. Friend focused, as I will now, on the single farm payment and CAP reform. There is no doubt that that gives us a great opportunity, but it has to be seen against the background that my hon. Friend and I have described. There are those who advocate a return to the coupled payments that existed until six or seven years ago. Although production needs to increase, I do not believe that turning the clock back and simply linking payments to production is the best way to encourage efficiency, leaving aside the fact that that would be outside the World Trade Organisation agreements.
There might be slight dissent among my hon. Friends and me about the single farm payment. The Government believe that the CAP should provide a framework that enables farmers to raise their competitiveness and produce food, while rewarding them for their role as stewards of the environment. My hon. Friend referred to the single farm payment as doing some of that work in rewarding farmers to care for the environment. He also mentioned a number of other issues. If we look at it in those terms—of course, cross-compliance exists—it is an extremely blunt instrument. It does not focus on any form of outcome. That is why the Government take the view that reward for public goods, whether environmental or otherwise, is better achieved through what is currently pillar 2—the rural development programme for England—rather than being achieved much more bluntly and less effectively through the single farm payment.
The reform that we seek of the CAP must involve a twin-track approach. It must build the competitiveness of the industry—the ability of the industry to respond to the challenges that my hon. Friend and I have described in relation to both domestic production and increased exports—but also reduce its reliance on subsidies over time to ensure that it can better deliver the food and environmental goods that we need. The competitiveness issue is at the heart of our efforts on CAP reform. We want to be able to focus more of our resources on assisting competitiveness, which is why we believe that pillar 2—the rural development programme money—is the more effective way. As a result of the abolition of regional development agencies, we are bringing that money back in-house as of July this year, so that we can focus it more effectively on industry competitiveness.
I need to deal next with what I hope was not behind my hon. Friend’s speech but which is clearly a myth in some circles. It is that the Government are somehow calling for the abolition of the single farm payment. We are not, and I cannot over-emphasise the fact. The Government recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that the single farm payment is critical for today’s farmers. The figures that he gave were correct, and I would not dream of countering them. However, the background that my hon. Friend sketched out, and to which I have added, provides us with the opportunity to develop a trajectory for beginning to phase out the single farm payment.
The NFU is right to say that farmers cannot live without it today. However, although it is reasonable to say that, over time—I do not mean over the next seven years, but over a longer trajectory—we should be looking at how to phase out that direct form of support against the background of world shortages that will inevitably lead to higher prices. That is how we want to achieve it.
I share entirely my hon. Friend’s view that the industry needs to be more highly regarded and to have a higher reputation both here and abroad, not only because of its ability to produce our food but because it is an important part of our economy. Food manufacturing is the biggest sector of our manufacturing industry, and farmers also act as carers and managers of our natural environment, rather than assailants of it, as they were sometimes painted in the past. I emphasise that we are not calling for the scrapping of the single farm payment tomorrow, nor over the next seven years of this CAP period, but we do want genuine and far-sighted reform.
The Commission has published its early proposals. After much discussion and consultation, it will produce regulations later in the year, so we do not yet know what will happen. For the first time 26 member states are now involved, and for the first time the European Parliament is a co-decision maker, so the crystal ball is extremely murky on what will happen. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the single farm payment will be continued. Whether it is a straightforward payment, whether it will include the Commission’s proposal for a green element, whether there will be further cost compliance, whether the payment could be construed as simply paying for something that is already being done or whether it will provide real added value for the taxpayer, I do not know.
I turn quickly to some of the other issues raised during the debate. They were all relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—I think that it was him—mentioned dairy farming. Only yesterday, we spent an hour and a half in this Chamber debating that subject, so I do not wish to repeat myself other than to emphasise that the Government are fully persuaded of the crisis affecting the dairy industry. There is obviously a limit to what we can do. We cannot force up the price of milk; but as has been said, we shall introduce a supermarket adjudicator as soon as we can.
Hill farming was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon and for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). The payment is most important in those areas. Indeed, it is important to our whole livestock industry. Again, however, we believe that the right way to support it is through the use of pillar 2 payments, as targeted support for the benefits that hill farms provide the nation. Those farms are important to the social structure of rural communities in our uplands, but there are other factors. They store carbon and water in their peat and are marvellous centres of biodiversity, and the ecosystems assessment to which I referred provides us with the tools to recognise that fact.
Finally, on the question of TB, all that I can say is that the Government intend to make a full announcement on the matter before the House rises for the summer recess.
Machine-to-Machine Communication
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott.
I believe I have the privilege of being the first Member to raise the matter of machine-to-machine communication in Parliament. Interestingly, the internet was first mentioned in the House in February 1990 by Emma Nicholson, a Conservative MP. At that time, only 3 million people worldwide had access to the internet, mainly academics and the military, three-quarters of them living in the United States. Twenty-one years later, there are an estimated 2 billion regular internet users, only 13% of whom live in the US and 44% of whom are Asian. Those figures will grow.
The internet has revolutionised our world. Machine-to-machine communication is the next stage in the internet revolution. Having connected people, we shall move on to connecting machines and things.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Lady speaks of having connected people. May I remind her that 30% of people in this country do not have good access even to a 2 megabit connection? Currently, for only 90% of the time for 95% of people is there decent access to mobile communications. Without infrastructure investment in good fixed and mobile broadband, it will be very difficult to deliver the things that the hon. Lady so rightly mentions.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. He does well to remind us that although we shall be connecting machines, we have not yet connected everybody. Given the limits that have been set on mobile spectrum availability, he would not want to share it with trillions of devices, as I shall explain.
Machine-to-machine communications enable the internet of things. Ericsson estimates that by 2020, 50 billion things will be connected to the internet. Other analysts put the number of connected devices in the trillions. What will these devices be doing? Some will be doing what they already do; there will BlackBerrys and iPads, but we will also see, for example, lamp-posts with sensors that detect the level of light and save energy by turning themselves off. We will see smart fridges telling our chosen supermarket that more vegetables are needed. We will see water heaters monitoring the water temperature and deciding that it could be a little less hot for a few minutes because we are stuck in traffic and the national grid is overstretched. We may even see cholesterol monitors embedded in our bodies telling the doctor that it is time for another check-up.
As a self-confessed technophile, I see the internet of things helping to take the dull and the difficult out of our lives so that we can get on with what human beings do best—whatever that may be.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I commend her for raising this enormously important subject in Parliament for the first time. Does she agree that the development of machine-to-machine communication raises profound questions about security and privacy? Firm and effective standards on both will be needed if industry and the wider public are to embrace this revolution, which will clearly be of advantage.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is right that machine-to-machine communication raises a number of important questions about the way we live our lives, which I shall talk about later. We should be aware across Government of what the issues are, so that we give ourselves an advantage in addressing them.
The question today is whether the Government are doing all they can to ensure the UK economy will benefit from this trillion-pound market of the future? Why is spectrum not being made available, as it was recently in the US, so that UK companies can get on with innovating in this hugely important area and ensuring we reap all the rewards? I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government aim to ensure that the UK benefits from machine-to-machine communication, because we are in danger of being left behind.
In some areas, the UK leads in machine-to-machine communication; it is otherwise known as M2M, which sounds rather like a pop group. Ofcom, my previous employer, has worked hard to ensure that spectrum is available for machine-to-machine communication. M2M can be divided into three broad areas: near field, home and personal, and wide area. I shall describe each in turn.
Near field means near or short-distance communications. Probably the best example is the Oyster card system. Every morning, at Westminster station, I see commuters holding various purses, wallets, gym cards and, occasionally, parts of their body up to the readers. There is no direct contact with the Oyster card. The reader operates it using radio frequency identification—RFID—over very short distances. Oyster saves us the time and trouble of carrying money, queuing and purchasing tickets for every journey. A few months ago, my local transport authority, Nexus, launched the north-east’s very own Oyster-type system called Pop. We will all be “Popping” about the north-east without having to wait at ticket machines.
We can increasingly expect to see RFID used in many other applications. Oyster has already been extended to support contactless payments for small purchases. In 2008, the St Louis-based Somark Innovations tested an RFID tattoo on cows to monitor stock movements, and RFID devices are being implanted in salmon, so that we can track how they are responding to changes in the environment.
Exciting innovations are possible in the area. In 2005, Ofcom deliberately chose to make spectrum in the 865-868 MHz range available for RFID applications on a licence-exempt basis. Licence exempt means that companies do not have to pay to use it, which means that small companies can think of exciting new ideas without having to pay out huge amounts to buy spectrum. That is why innovative businesses can try out new applications, and we can expect to see UK companies playing a big part in the RFID revolution. Therefore, when it comes to near-field communications, the UK is good to go.
The next area of machine-to-machine communication is home and personal, which is still over short distances, but more than a few millimetres. It enables personal area networks, which are networks around the human body, as well as home networking.
We all now think that it is a basic human right to be able to browse the internet from the garden thanks to wi-fi. There are other protocols that enable communications between devices in the home and in the office. For example, many of us use Bluetooth headsets, which wirelessly enable us to go hands free. There is also a protocol with the lovely name of ZigBee, which has been developed to enable wireless lamps. Increasingly, it might also be used by our fridge to tell our smart meter how much electricity it is using and whether it would be okay to turn the freezer off for a few milliseconds so that we do not have to bring on another gas power station every time “EastEnders” finishes.
ZigBee, wi-fi and Bluetooth all operate in licence-exempt spectrum. There are challenges in home and personal networking. In some cities, people are finding that the wi-fi is often congested. Interestingly, that is not because there are too many people uploading photos on Facebook. It is caused by people using wi-fi to transmit satellite or cable programming around their home, so that can be a disadvantage of licence-exempt spectrum. Some new application can come along and hoover up all the bandwidth. None the less, in general, we have a home environment with innovative applications competing to improve our lives.
Unfortunately that is not the case for wide area communication, which is everything from down the street to across the world. Mobile broadband, smart meters and the global positioning system are forms of wide area communication. Wide area applications are really where the huge innovative potential is. Smart cities need wide area machine-to-machine communication. I want to live in a world where the traffic lights on the Tyne bridge going into Newcastle can respond to traffic conditions on other bridges in the city so that we avoid gridlock. I would like to know exactly when the Number 10 bus will get to the bottom of Kenton lane.
It would be progress indeed if people with chronic illnesses could lead more independent lives because their condition was constantly monitored, and help was immediately on hand through telemedicine applications. I want a smart national electricity grid, where sensors in turbines on wind farms in the North sea calculate our energy production moment by moment and change the level of usage in homes across the country as a result. That is the obvious big win. Every form of energy production now has big costs and risks associated with it. We have the technical complexity, cost and unpredictability of wind and solar power; the emissions associated with coal and gas power stations and the potential dangers and long-term costs of nuclear power.
We need to ensure that we are using as little energy as possible. Machines use a hell of a lot of energy—whether in industrial processes, all the kettles switching on every time a soap ends, electric cars and transport or the giant server farms around the world that support cloud computing.
By using machine-to-machine communications to reduce the amount of energy being used, we reduce the number of power stations we have to build. To a certain extent, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is aware of that. It acknowledges the importance of smart meters and ultimately of smart energy grids.
My concern is that in this area, unlike in the others I have spoken of, we have no suitable licence-exempt spectrum and no well developed plans to bring it about. One reason for that is the very success of mobile telecommunications, which are everywhere—though not so strongly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Everyone has a mobile phone; many people have two. Given that, why would we possibly want more wide area communication? Have we not got enough? The answer is no, and I hope that the Minister will be good enough to acknowledge the reason. In fact, I hope that he will acknowledge all my points, but on this one, I specifically expect a response.
The Minister is not a machine. He does not look like a machine. He does not carry out his duties like a machine and he certainly does not communicate like a machine. Why then should he think that machines communicate in the same way as he does? Machines do not get annoyed when there is a busy tone. They do not become upset by congestion, or infuriated by delay.
Putting billions of machines on to mobile networks designed for people is an incredible waste of valuable infrastructure. That is why we need spectrum, which allows machines to communicate with each other. We need some of that spectrum to be licence exempt so that we have innovation.
Will the Minister tell me what assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits of machine-to-machine communications? Does he agree that it is important that there should be licence-exempt spectrum to support them? Does he agree that we urgently need clarity from Ofcom about when spectrum will be made available?
The Minister may say that it is not for the Government or Ofcom to determine the use spectrum should be put to, but for the market. He has said that before in response to questions that I have tabled, but the market cannot determine the use spectrum should be put to if it is not made available.
Rory Stewart
Given the enormous importance of these machine-to-machine communications, surely the hon. Lady agrees that we should not exclude large parts of the country and millions of people from accessing all the incredible benefits that she has listed. Surely, it is about not just making spectrum available to machines but making it available to people in those areas of the country, otherwise we will have real social exclusion.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Once again I agree with him; access to the internet will be an important part of enabling humans to reap the benefits of M2M communications. He is absolutely right that discussion of M2M communications is part of a wider argument about ensuring that the benefits of technology are available to all our citizens.
The Minister may claim that Ofcom should not intervene to support particular technologies but, as I have already suggested, I argue that M2M communication is not one technology but a huge market—in fact, it is a range of markets—and that the purchase of spectrum is a huge barrier to entry by small innovative firms. The Minister may also say that he does not have a stream of people coming to see him to ask for this spectrum, but the small innovative firms that I talk to do not have that kind of access to Departments.
Personal and near-field communications have licence-exempt spectrum in which to innovate, so why is there none for wide range applications? I yield to no one—not even the Minister—in my praise of Ofcom. Under the Communications Act 2002, Ofcom is required to encourage investment and innovation, and specifically to use spectrum for that purpose, so I would like the Minister to tell us and Ofcom about the importance that he places on that requirement to encourage innovation, especially given the cross-party consensus that innovation will help to secure the recovery. Will the requirement to encourage innovation be retained and indeed strengthened in the new communications Bill, which is currently being drafted?
I am sure that the Minister shares my view that M2M communication is a very important area and I look forward to hearing how he will encourage the innovation and the economic benefits that it will bring.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful to you, Mr Scott, for giving me the opportunity to speak. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and it is a great and significant honour to do so.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for securing this debate. She knows, from remarks that I have made about her before in the House, that I am not surprised that she is the first MP to raise this important issue. She has referred to the last innovative MP, Emma Nicholson, who raised the issue of the internet for the first time in Parliament. I only hope that the career of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central does not follow that of Ms Nicholson and that she does not end up as a member of the Liberal Democrat party. I say that with all due respect to the coalition, of which I am a full and supportive member.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central is an expert in the House on this issue—she had a distinguished career in Ofcom. I mean it as a compliment when I say that this debate has perhaps been more like a seminar than the type of rambunctious debate that we are used to in this Chamber.
The hon. Lady has discussed machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. As she has rightly said, M2M sounds almost like a pop band, perhaps one that was competing in the Eurovision song contest. We also talk about M2M as “the internet of things”. It is an incredibly important subject and in some ways it is the “new new thing”, if I can put it that way, of the internet. It is something that people are now starting to talk about. As she elaborated on in her excellent speech, the possibilities of the internet of things are almost limitless, and they will transform how we live our lives. However, as both the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) have rightly said, the internet of things will also bring complex social issues that will attract the interest of politicians, notably privacy issues but also other important issues such as social exclusion.
Today the hon. Lady has shown that she has another string to her bow. She managed to secure this debate, and we know how difficult it is to secure a debate in Westminster Hall, let alone a particular timing for a debate. However, she has secured this debate on M2M on IPV6 world day. For those MPs who do not know what IPV6 is, it is internet protocol version 6. Effectively, sitting behind the internet addresses that we all use is a string of digits, like a telephone number. At the moment, we use internet protocol version 4, or IPV4, and we are about to run out of IPV4 addresses. I do not want anyone to panic about that for a moment, but this autumn the wholesale sale of internet addresses in Europe will come to an end and in the next two years we will experience a shortage. Consequently we need to move to IPV6, which is a longer string of digits.
I held a seminar this morning with key figures in the UK who are involved in this transformation to IPV6. One of them described the transformation to me in a very clear way, by saying that moving from IPV4 to IPV6 in terms of increased capacity is like moving from a golf ball to the sun. We might not need all the capacity that the sun would bring, but we will certainly need significantly greater capacity. Given that IPV4 only has 4.3 billion internet addresses, the increase in capacity in the future will be driven by the internet of things. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, that will include things such as smart homes, smart meters and connected cars. For example, I learned today something that is pretty obvious once you are told it, namely that every new car that is sold has its own internet address, to allow it to communicate with computers. There will also be e-health, smart cities and many other variations of things.
As the hon. Lady indicated, a number of companies have made predictions about the number of internet addresses that we are going to need. Ericsson has said that we will need 50 billion internet addresses by 2020 to cope with the internet of things. Some people talk about trillions of devices or connections. The debate is very fast-moving, and nobody can be certain what will happen. To be frank, predictions are fairly pointless, except to say that we will need a lot more internet addresses.
I want to use the opportunity that this debate provides briefly to speak out to those watching, particularly companies and businesses, and ask them to start preparing their websites and information systems for IPV6. Although that change is not an immediate issue for them, they will need to be on top of it in the next few years. In fact, the slogan that I came up with this morning, which I thought was rather neat, was, “Don’t panic, but do start to prepare”.
The hon. Lady has asked me whether I have estimated the economic value of the internet of things. I have not done so, and as far as I am aware Ofcom has not done so either. However, as one might imagine, various estimates are knocking about. Some people have estimated that the value of the internet of things is about €200 billion a year. Again, however, I say with some caution—given that we are, as it were, in the “known unknown” territory—that it is impossible to put a realistic value on the internet of things. As she has indicated, however, virtually any device that business or consumers use will be internet-enabled in the coming years. For example, the most immediate example that right hon. and hon. Members will probably be aware of is the idea of smart metering, which the hon. Lady has discussed at length. Other examples include radio frequency identification, which relates to the near-field issues that she has discussed.
The thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech was about whether or not we should make spectrum available, particularly for entrepreneurs to take advantage of the growing internet of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has rightly reminded us of the need to set in place proper infrastructure for the internet of people. Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will be fully aware of the Government’s plans to support broadband roll-out and that we have set aside about £500 million for that programme. Our objective is to bring superfast broadband to 90% of homes and businesses, and a minimum of 2 megabits per second broadband to all other premises, by the end of 2015. My hon. Friend is also making firm representations about the forthcoming spectrum auction and the need to increase coverage in that respect. As the hon. Lady has indicated, wireless will also be an important part of M2M communications, and, as she knows, we are well on track to get that spectrum auction up and running at the beginning of next year.
As the hon. Lady has said, spectrum is absolutely vital for the future of the internet of things, and it is incredibly important that we make as much spectrum available as possible. As I am sure that she knows, we have committed to releasing a significant amount of public spectrum to the private sector. In March, just after the Budget, we published our detailed plans to release 500 MHz of public sector spectrum below 5 GHz by 2020. That will be a complex task, bringing together a number of Departments. We must also ensure that the spectrum that we make available is internationally compatible and that we make it available with the minimum of disruption to the public sector, be it transport, security or defence.
As the hon. Lady has predicted, although I believe that much of this spectrum will be suitable for M2M communications, it is not for me, nor indeed, in my view, for Ofcom, to decide how best to use both the spectrum and the infrastructure available to meet the demands for communications. That is for the market to decide. She is right to point out that the United States is making advances in this area, but I think that we are keeping pace.
The hon. Lady is well aware of the duties of Ofcom and of its light-touch approach to regulation, and those duties include encouraging investment and innovation in relevant markets. In addition, the European Union’s radio spectrum policy programme, which we debated at the Telecoms Council last week and which is currently generally under discussion, also includes the principle of promoting innovation in telecoms. Ofcom is the independent regulator charged with managing spectrum in the UK, using licences when users want rights and unlicensed spectrum when rights are not needed. The use of wi-fi is a very good example of successful unlicensed spectrum use.
The hon. Lady made it very clear in her speech that Ofcom has made spectrum available for M2M use, such as that which allows intelligent transport systems to operate without licence in a European harmonised band, aiding the development of those systems. Ofcom is also considering whether the 872-+876 MHz spectrum paired with the 917-921 MHz one might be suitable for M2M communications, and it is working with the European Commission and European regulators to see whether such services could operate without interference to adjacent bands. We also have, of course, the so-called white space spectrum, which might be suitable for machine-to-machine communication.
Ofcom frequently consults on spectrum matters. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point that a lot of the small entrepreneurial businesses that could make use of this spectrum are not necessarily in a position to lobby Ofcom, but I assure her that there are many organisations out there that bring their thoughts about spectrum availability and how it can be used to the table. I hope that this debate will also highlight the fact that this is a very live issue and that it is perfectly possible to contact me or the hon. Lady, or indeed Ofcom, to make points. In my experience as a Minister, small and entrepreneurial businesses are often the ones that come forward with radical and interesting thoughts, so I encourage businesses engaged in this issue to make their views known not only to me but to Ofcom.
It is absolutely right that we should be ahead of the curve, aware of what is coming and looking beyond the horizon regarding how this spectrum could be used, but as well as first-mover advantage there is potentially first-mover disadvantage with spectrum. We, as the United Kingdom, have to align ourselves with our European partners, and being the first to make a band available for unlicensed spectrum use could end up being costly, if decisions are then made to harmonise different bands. I do not want to give the hon. Lady the impression that we are complacent; we are absolutely not—this is a very live issue. I do not, however, want to be in the position of rushing forward with decisions that we later regret. Our planned release in 2020 of the 500 MHz is a very good example of that, because we are pushing ahead our plans but are very conscious of the fact that we have to keep in step with our European partners, while at the same time pushing European member states to move on spectrum decisions.
I am confident that Ofcom’s approach to innovation and to spectrum management will continue to take account of its duties and will be both proportional and appropriate. It is important to recognise that machine-to-machine—
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Minimum Wage
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Government have today written to the Low Pay Commission setting out the remit for its 2012 report.
The Government support the national minimum wage (NMW) and have asked the Low Pay Commission (LPC) to evaluate and make recommendations in the areas set out below, taking account of the economic and labour market context, including pensions reform.
Specifically, I have asked the Low Pay Commission to:
1. Monitor, evaluate and review the levels of each of the different minimum wage rates, with particular reference to previously identified groups and sectors, and make recommendations for October 2012.
2. Review the labour market position of young people, including those in apprenticeships and internships.
3. Consider whether NMW regulations can be made even simpler and easier to administer. This might include the removal, simplification or consolidation of any elements of the NMW.
In addition, as part of the simplification agenda, I have requested that the LPC considers the implications of the proposed abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, pending the outcomes of legislative process and consultation.
4. Consider the best way to give business greater clarity on future levels of the NMW, including the option of two-year recommendations, and implement the chosen solution as part of the 2012 report. Also, consider whether any of the other recommendations could be introduced more promptly.
Timing
The Low Pay Commission has been asked to report to the Prime Minister and me by the end of February 2012.
Copies of the remit have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council: 19 May 2011
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 19 May 2011 in Brussels. The United Kingdom was represented by the UK deputy permanent representative to the EU, Andy Lebrecht.
This was a single-issue Council on the subject of Roma integration. On 5 April, the European Commission published a communication on an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020. Based on this, the presidency invited the Council to hold an exchange of views and adopt a set of Council conclusions and an opinion from the Social Protection Committee.
The presidency stressed the importance of member states taking effective action to tackle Roma exclusion, while emphasising the added value of EU-level action. The presidency noted that the situation of the Roma differed considerably between member states and so the conclusions provided latitude to member states to tailor their approaches to national needs by committing them to preparing either national strategies or sets of policy measures. The chair of the Social Protection Committee underlined the Social Protection Committee’s willingness to continue work on this issue.
The European Commission emphasised the need to step up efforts against discrimination. They said that strong commitment was needed by all member states, but acknowledged that member states’ efforts to promote Roma inclusion should be proportionate to the size and situation of the Roma population on their territory. The Commission also emphasised the link with the EU2020 strategy and underlined the importance of member states’ strategies or policy approaches, focusing on the four priority areas identified in the Commission’s communication—health, housing, education and employment. They called on member states to submit their strategies or policy approaches by end of 2011. The Commission would then report annually to the European Parliament and Council on progress made.
The UK outlined the fact that in this country we have a strong and well-established legal framework to combat discrimination and hate crime and that this protects all individuals, including Roma, Gypsies and Travellers, from racial and other forms of discrimination, and racially motivated crime. We also acknowledged that the UK’s Gypsies and Travellers none the less experience inequalities. We summarised the policy approaches being undertaken in the different parts of the UK to deal with this, including, in England, the ministerial working group on reducing Gypsy and Traveller inequalities, chaired by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
We also acknowledged the importance of co-ordination between member states to tackle organised crime, particularly the issue of human trafficking, which can affect Roma, especially Roma children, and we noted the opportunity that EU funds provide to member states to add value to their policies to improve the situation of Roma and other disadvantaged people.
Other member states welcomed the conclusions and highlighted the need for concerted action to improve the situation of the Roma. Some said they already had national or regional Roma strategies or programmes; others said they tackled Roma issues through mainstreaming into wider social inclusion programmes; while others had specific initiatives designed to address particular issues. Though most member states focused exclusively on socio-economic issues, some also made specific reference to the problem of human trafficking. Several member states, including the UK, highlighted the fact that different member states faced different situations both in terms of the size and situation of their Roma populations. Closing the debate, the presidency noted, among other things, that some member states had developed national Roma strategies while others were dealing with the issue through general inclusion policies.
Following the debate, the Council adopted conclusions on an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies. It also endorsed the opinion of the Social Protection Committee on an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies. The presidency will now seek endorsement of a Roma presidency progress report at the June European Council.
Local Enterprise Partnerships
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I, together with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), would like to inform the House that today we have written to the proposed Humber local enterprise partnership inviting it to put in place governance arrangements.
The Government have moved quickly to recognise the Humber local enterprise partnership proposal, submitted last week, so that they can drive forward their economic ambitions. The Humber local enterprise partnership will focus on strategic opportunities for growth around renewable energy, ports and logistics, chemicals, international trade, strategic transport, infrastructure and innovation and aims to create upwards of 20,000 jobs.
Local enterprise partnerships are a real power shift away from central Government and quangos and towards local communities and the local businesses who really understand the opportunities for, and barriers to, growth in their areas.
This announcement brings the total number of partnerships so far invited to put their governance arrangements in place to 35. Taken together these represent 1.9 million or 95% of all businesses (active enterprises) in England, 22 million employees (employee jobs figures) or 96% of all employees in England, and a population of 49 million or 96% of England’s population. We will continue to work with other areas with a view to establishing further local enterprise partnerships across England.
Military Low Flying 2010-11
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The amount of low-flying training carried out in the UK low-flying system during the training year 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. A total of 49,151 hours of low-flying training were conducted across all low-flying areas. In comparative terms, there was an decrease of 8,369 hours, or approximately 14.6% on the previous training year due to the withdrawal of Harrier GR7/9 from service, and the additional operational deployment of Tornado GR4s to Italy as part of the NATO force conducting operations in Libya. The amount of operational low flying (between 250 feet and 100 feet) by fixed wing aircraft was 248 hours, accounting for 0.5% of all low flying activity.
I have today placed in the Library of the House a document giving detailed statistics of the low-flying training that has taken place in the UK low-flying system for the training year.
“1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011”. This statistical appendix may be read in conjunction with the master document “Military Low Flying in the United Kingdom” that is already in the Library of the House.
Additional copies are available on request from the following address:
Air Staff
Complaints and Enquiries Unit
Ministry of Defence
Level 5 Zone H
Main Building
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2HB
EU Energy Council, Luxembourg: 10 June 2011
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
In advance of the forthcoming Energy Council in Luxembourg on 10 June, I am writing to outline the agenda items to be discussed.
The first item on the agenda will be a report on the state of play of the draft regulation on energy market integrity and transparency, on which the presidency is aiming to reach a first reading agreement between the European Parliament and the Council by the end of June. The UK supports the Commission’s draft regulation, which will increase market liquidity and confidence and enhance competition across the EU. We have made good progress in the negotiations and have found reasonable solutions to those areas which gave us concern.
The Council will then adopt conclusions on a Commission communication on an energy efficiency action plan. We broadly welcome the conclusions and expect them to be adopted without discussion.
The presidency will report on the debate that took place on the Energy Roadmap for 2050 at the Informal Energy Council in May in advance of the communication that the Commission is planning to issue in the autumn. There will also be a report on the state of play of the risk and safety assessment (“stress tests”) of nuclear power plants called for at the European Council on 24-25 March, following events in Fukushima. The UK is content with the scope of the test.
The Commission will then update the Council on a number of EU external energy relations issues. The Swedish delegation will present information to the Council on sustainability criteria for biomass and the Polish delegation will outline priorities for their forthcoming presidency.
Over lunch Ministers will discuss a Commission report on the investments that are likely to be needed for energy infrastructure in Europe. The UK agrees that measures must be taken to remove obstacles to infrastructure investment but that planning regimes are issues for member states to decide.
Justice and Home Affairs (Pre-Council Statement)
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on 9 and 10 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary of Justice, Kenny MacAskill and I intend to attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed:
The Council will begin in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The Commission will give an update on the roll out of the central VIS (Visa Information System). The UK is not bound by the VIS regulation because it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.
Next there will be a presentation by the Commission on amendments to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, which lists third country nationals who must possess visas to cross the external borders of the Schengen area and those exempt from this requirement. The amendments include provisions for a “safeguard clause” allowing the temporary suspension of existing visa waivers. The UK is not bound by this regulation as we do not participate in the migration aspects of the Schengen acquis.
The Council will seek a general approach on elements of the amending Frontex regulation. This amending regulation builds on an evaluation of the first five years of Frontex’ performance and is intended to extend the remit of Frontex in areas that will allow it to be more operationally effective in future. The presidency remains optimistic that they will reach agreement of this co-decision measure before the end of June. The UK is excluded from the regulation.
There will be an update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II); the UK will reiterate support for the continuation of the current SIS II project.
The Council will be asked to adopt draft Council conclusions on the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to join Schengen. The conclusions confirm that evaluation visits have been completed and that both countries have met or exceeded the agreed Schengen criteria following a series of peer evaluations. The UK has actively participated in discussions within the Schengen Evaluation Committee and helped Bulgaria and Romania to meet the required standards. Bulgaria and Romania will join once a Council decision has been passed; this is not foreseen until at least the autumn.
The presidency will seek a general approach on the regulation creating an IT agency to manage existing IT systems. The UK supports conclusion of the regulation having secured amendments to ensure our participation.
The Council will discuss EU-Western Balkans JHA relations in relation to the post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism. Since 19 December 2009, the citizens of Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and since 15 December 2010 Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina enjoy visa-free travel to the EU member states if they hold a biometric passport. The follow-up mechanism set up at the beginning of 2011 covers border management, document security, combating organised crime, and fundamental rights, as well as the effective implementation of readmission agreements. The mechanism allows the Commission to engage with the countries concerned, under the framework of the stabilisation and association process, in a dialogue for the assessment of the consistent implementation of all reforms launched under the visa liberalisation roadmap. The UK does not participate in these elements of Schengen or the common EU visa policy.
Following Mixed Committee the main Council will begin with the Commission expected to present amended proposals to recast the asylum reception conditions directive and asylum procedures directive. The UK takes part in the existing directives but did not opt in to the original proposals to replace them that were brought forward in 2008 and 2009. Those proposals were strongly criticised by member states because of the significant additional regulation to which they would subject their asylum systems, and because they would grant asylum seekers additional unnecessary entitlements that would attract false claims for asylum. The Commission is therefore amending them in order to make agreement more likely.
Next the presidency will update the Council on progress of negotiations on three legal migration directives which the UK has not opted into. The first measure would establish common rules for the admission of third country nationals onto the territory of the EU where they are seeking admission on the basis of an intra-company transfer and make provision for intra-EU movement of such personnel. The second measure would establish common rules for the admission of third country nationals onto the territory of the EU where they are seeking admission for the purpose of seasonal work. The third measure would establish a single procedure for the issuance of a residence permit to, and a common set of rights for, third country nationals admitted onto the territory of the EU for the purpose of work.
Council conclusions have been proposed on borders, migration and asylum; these will be discussed in the context of recent Commission communications on migration and on a dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the southern Mediterranean, as well as the second annual report on the implementation of the migration pact. The proposed Council conclusions are intended to prepare for the European Council on 24 June, which will focus on migration with particular reference to the developing situation in the middle east and north Africa.
There will also be a discussion on Council conclusions regarding the EU’s strategy on readmission. These conclusions follow the recent evaluation by the Commission on the operation and effectiveness of readmission agreements currently in force. The UK welcomes the Commission evaluation and supports a number of recommendations made in it.
The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (EU CTC) will present his six-monthly discussion paper on EU CT strategy. The discussion paper aims to provide a stock-take of the current CT threat and proposes specific policy initiatives under the following headings: prevent, transport security, research and CBRN. The UK will promote the importance of co-ordinating internal and external CT activity. The Commission will also present its air cargo security progress report on the implementation of the EU action plan of 30 November 2011. There will be a vote on implementing the new EU cargo security regime at the Transport Regulatory Committee on 8 June. The UK supports the proposals in the EU action plan.
Next the Council will be asked to adopt draft Council conclusions on establishing priorities in the fight against organised crime over the next two years. The UK supports the priorities identified in the conclusions which have been drawn from Europol’s organised crime threat assessment. There will also be a presentation of complementary approaches and actions to prevent and combat organised crime: A collection of good practice examples from EU member states. This practical approach to tackling organised crime is supported by the UK.
The justice day will commence with the Council seeking a general approach on the directive on combating attacks against information systems. The directive seeks to repeal and replace the current framework decision on combating attacks on information systems and bring member states’ legislation up to date with technical developments and threats in this area. The UK has opted in to the directive which remains under parliamentary scrutiny in the House of Commons.
Next the Council will discuss the European Investigation Order (EIO). The EIO is draft directive aimed at streamlining the process of mutual legal assistance between participating EU countries. The UK has opted in. The presidency is seeking to agree a partial general approach to articles 1-18. While we believe that there have been significant improvements to the original draft of the EIO we continue to have a concern in particular about the handling of coercive measures in article 10. The EIO also remains subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The presidency will also seek political compromise on the main issues on the European certificate of succession. This measure aims to establish common rules and procedures relating to cross-border inheritance matters. The UK did not opt-in to the measure, but is playing an active part in negotiations.
The presidency had planned to seek agreement on a regulation on the possibility of attributing legal value to the electronic version of the Official Journal. However a number of member states, including the UK, have placed scrutiny reservations on the text and it is clear that political agreement will not be possible at this Council. Therefore we expect this item to be removed from the agenda.
The Council will then agree a resolution on the roadmap for strengthening the rights of victims. The roadmap is a statement of political intent, and sets out the basis for future legislative measures. The UK hope to be able to agree to this resolution.
There will be a progress report on e-justice provided by the presidency. The aim of e-justice is to promote the use of IT in the justice area—in particular through the provision of information.
The presidency will give a state of play report on EU accession to the European Convention of Human Rights. The accession by the EU will mean that the EU and its institutions are directly bound by the convention. The negotiating mandate was agreed at the JHA Council on 4 June 2010.
The Commission will make a presentation about the victims package which they published on 18 May. The package included two draft legislative instruments: a draft directive to replace the 2001 Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA) and a proposal for a regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. The Commission also published a communication setting out further work that it intends to undertake in this area.
It is anticipated that the Commission will also present an EU anti-corruption package. One of the expected documents is likely to include consideration of the modalities of EU accession to the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
The presidency will also agree Council conclusions on the memory of the crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe. The draft conclusions reaffirm the importance raising awareness of the crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe and promoting a shared memory of them; and encourage member states and the Commission to promote their memory in various ways.
The Council is also expected to adopt Council conclusions on the ninth Eurojust annual report (calendar year 2010).
The Commission will present its approach to future work towards protecting EU public money against all forms of criminal conduct, including fraud. Its communication focuses on an integrated policy to protect EU financial interest by criminal law and by administrative investigations, including effective and equivalent legal action in member states and strengthening the institutional framework at European level. The Government are determined to see action taken to tackle fraud more effectively in relation to EU funds. For example, they broadly supports the aim of strengthening OLAF’s operational efficiency and improving its governance. However, this communication covers a wide array of policy proposals, which the Government will need to scrutinise closely in forthcoming working level discussions.
There will be an information point on the Missing Children Europe conference 25-26 May 2011 and under AOB there will be a presentation on the conference of Ministers of the Western Balkans countries requested by Slovenia and a presentation of the project “Police Equal Performance” requested by Austria.
NATS (Government Share Ownership)
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Today I am publishing a call for evidence to support my decision making in whether to sell all, part or none of the Government’s 49% shareholding in NATS—formerly National Air Traffic Services.
It was announced in the Budget March 2011 that the Government
“intends to realise value from its shareholding in NATS, subject to considering the views of key interested parties”.
This commitment reflects the Government’s policy that assets held in the public sector, where there is no policy requirement to do so, tie up state resources that could deliver better value for money for the public if used elsewhere. We are seeking evidence through this process from key interested parties including the regulator, employees of NATS and the wider aviation industry, to establish whether or not there is a policy requirement to retain a shareholding in NATS.
NATS provides strategically important services to the UK and as such, I want to ensure that the overall aviation policy objectives of safety, security, economic regulation, civil/military co-operation, environment and supporting the Single European Sky programme are not compromised by any decisions we take over future share ownership. The call for evidence document outlines the controls and protections that exist in NATS’ operating environment independent of the Government’s shareholding and seeks evidence from consultees on what, if any, protections would be required on top of these to allow the delivery of these objectives.
The call for evidence will be open from today until 6 July and we aim to publish the results shortly after the closing date. The evidence collected will support my final decision about whether to sell Government shares in NATS.
Ship-to-Ship Transfers
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I wish to inform the House of a further development concerning the Government’s legislation to regulate ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo.
As I explained in my written ministerial statement on 30 March 2011, Official Report, column 26WS amending regulations have been drafted, and work is in train to ensure that these amending regulations take account of representations made—including representations arising from an extension, over the period 9 February to 10 March 2011, of the review of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 for the benefit of Suffolk residents and bodies.
The conclusion that I drew from the main review which was carried out in July-September 2010 was that the provisions prohibiting all ship-to-ship transfers outside harbour authority areas will be replaced by provisions restricting ship-to-ship transfers outside harbour authority areas to a single designated area within the UK territorial sea and establishing a system of permits issued by the MCA, giving effect at the same time to the new chapter 8 of annex I to the MARPOL convention.
Having taken account of all the representations made, both in the main review and in the extension of the review in February and March, I have again come to the conclusion that this is the appropriate course of action and that the designated area for ship-to-ship transfers (other than in harbour authority waters) shall be the waters off the Suffolk coast where ship-to-ship transfers are already carried out.
The recognition of these waters off the Suffolk coast as a suitable area for carrying out ship-to-ship transfers is based on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s and the industry’s actual experience of the successful use of these waters for ship-to-ship transfer operations over a number of years without pollution of the seas and coasts. The MCA will continue to monitor such operations closely to ensure they are carried out to the highest possible safety standards.
I shall place an addition to the analytical table previously provided in December 2010, which summarises the points of substance made in the written representations and the meetings held with interested parties during the period of the extension of the review in February and March, in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.
As I also indicated in my written ministerial statement on 30 March, the amended Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 are intended to come into force on 1 October 2011. In common with other new domestic secondary legislation, these regulations will contain provisions setting an automatic expiry date and requiring them to be reviewed in a specified number of years.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, it has been agreed that should any of the Questions for short debate not run for their allotted hour this afternoon, the Committee will adjourn during pleasure until the end of the hour. Therefore, each of the Questions for short debate will start at a quarter to the relevant hour. In the likely event that there are Divisions in the Chamber, this Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes. If any noble Lord is in full flood at the time, they will of course be given injury time after the 10 minutes are up.
War Widows’ Association of Great Britain
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain as it reaches its 40th anniversary.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this morning I attended a most moving and uplifting service in the Guards Chapel to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows' Association. Quite understandably, and quite rightly, much time is given in this country, in the way we do best, to remembering all those who we have served in the forces, those who have died and those who have been wounded—some very seriously. The service on this memorable day allowed time to reflect on a group no less important: those who are left bereft and devastated by the loss of loved ones serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force—the widows and widowers, of whom there are over 30,000 in the UK. It is therefore a great privilege for me to open this debate this afternoon on the association, which by happy coincidence—or by design, I am not sure which—falls on the same day as the service. It is the first debate in the House of Lords on this important subject, and it provides a good opportunity for me and for all speakers to help to raise the profile of the association, to assess its achievements and to set the stage for its future, looking forward to the next 40 years.
The term “war widows” is an evocative catchphrase and is a broad description, carrying considerable meaning, for an association that represents not just those women who have lost husbands in conflict but husbands who have lost wives. A loss can be the result not just of war in the Armed Forces but of general service, whether by accident, illness, of wounds suffered many years ago or indeed of friendly fire.
The War Widows' Association, which gained charitable status in 1991 and has a strong regional network supported by a dedicated team of volunteers, has come to be recognised as the arms of embrace in waiting, after the immediate family, for comfort, support, understanding and camaraderie. The main event of the year is the AGM, staged over four days, when there are excursions, a dinner and some entertainment.
The War Widows' Association was formally recognised in 1972 under the formidable leadership of Mrs Jill Gee from Liverpool. This followed a high profile stand-off between another lady, a Mrs Laura Connolly, and the tax authorities, over her refusal to pay tax on her widows’ pension. She had arrived from Australia, where there is 100 per cent exemption. Prison was threatened, but she succeeded in receiving important media coverage for the widows’ cause. However, it was not until 1976 that the Labour Government cut the tax on widows’ pensions by 50 per cent, and Mrs Thatcher in 1979 abolished the tax altogether.
In 1982, war widows were included for the first time in the remembrance service march past at the Cenotaph. This tradition is now a proud and important annual event for the association, and 2010 was no exception when the march was led by the president, my noble friend Lady Fookes. In 1989, another milestone was reached when the war widows were represented for the first time at the Royal British Legion remembrance service in the Royal Albert Hall. Further achievements included equal rights afforded to war widowers in 2003. Such national recognition has been hard fought. Most people would argue that the care, understanding and provision, material and financially, for war widows should be top of any national list and should be unconditional and total. This is surely true, but the reality is that improvements for war widows have often been halting over the years.
I welcome the work undertaken by this Government. On 16 May, the Armed Forces covenant was announced, and the sentiments are encouraging. I quote:
“The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it”.
The Statement said that the,
“families and those who have lost a loved one in service, all deserve our support and respect”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/11; col. 25.]
The covenant is a result of ideas drawn up by Professor Strachan, who reported last December and highlighted the need, inter alia, to introduce a community covenant for forging new links with and between the Armed Forces, local authorities and communities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said:
“The armed forces covenant is not just about words; it is about actions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/11; col. 26.]
An external reference group has been established to monitor progress. We should expect such progress and actions to include the needs of those represented by the War Widows’ Association. References in the paper are not obvious, but I welcome the introduction of scholarships for children of the bereaved service families. I ask my noble friend the Minister what specific plans there are for supporting war widows in the covenant.
There are several further issues to raise. Following a bereavement, a widow is likely to experience extreme emotion from a broad range—shock, trauma, grief, denial, anger, loneliness and depression, to name a few. The Ministry of Defence and the three services handle with great sensitivity the immediate aftermath of loss. However, it can take much more time—if they wish it at all—for the bereaved to accept an invitation to join the War Widows’ Association. Not least, many do not wish to be labelled a widow. Many do not even wish to venture out.
It is partly this challenge of engagement and a technical firewall created by the Data Protection Act that may explain why only 3,000 members are registered with the association out of a total of 30,600. It is therefore a circuitous process to transfer contact details of those recently widowed to the War Widows’ Association, despite the fact that it represents a vital link in offering help from those who are best placed to help. Surely data protection laws can be bypassed to allow a near-seamless link to be made from the bereaved, via the Ministry of Defence bereavement services, to the association.
The opportunity for a widow to visit the grave of a spouse—a so-called pilgrimage—is vital. The Government have provided a one-off subsidy for those who wish to visit a grave. I ask my noble friend if it is the Government’s intention to continue or to extend this provision.
The Government’s announcement last year that pensions and benefits would in future be pegged to the consumer prices index, not to the retail prices index, has had a negative impact on vulnerable groups. To what extent are the Government considering exempting certain groups in the UK from this change, including widows of policemen, firemen and Armed Forces servicemen?
However, the overriding issue for war widows remains the receipt of a fair pension. This is as relevant now as it has been in the past in the light of the number of young widows arising from the prolonged and challenging war in Iraq and, of course, now in Afghanistan. There are two specific issues to address. From 2005, war widows whose bereavements occurred prior to April 1973 are eligible to continue to receive a pension if they remarry or cohabit. It was in 2005 that the Armed Forces compensation scheme was set up, with widows receiving a pension for life. However, payments are not retrospective. Thus, there is a group of widows, currently numbering 4,100, whose bereavements fall post-1973 and pre-2005 and who still lose their pension if they remarry or cohabit.
Finally, a government consultation paper proposes changes to the pension age-related increments awarded to war widows. This would include abolishing the increment at age 65, retaining those at age 70 and 80, but providing a final lump sum of £1,000 at age 90. The War Widows’ Association rejects this proposal on the grounds that the award at age 90—more than 8,000 widows are nearing this milestone—is minimal and is more likely to be given away to grandchildren than to be used for necessity, such as funding future care needs. I trust that under the auspices of the covenant these specific issues will be given due attention and acted upon.
The War Widows’ Association has worked tirelessly to develop a strong national voice. It is clearly heard. Its objectives now should include recognition within the covenant, ensuring ease of contact with new widows and increasing membership from the current 10 per cent of total. This will help create more impact in seeking further government help for this determined, proud and resilient group. I wish the association every success.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for bringing this important issue forward for debate today, the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows’ Association. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the War Widows’ Association, about which I feel extremely privileged and humble.
Debates are the bread and butter of what we are about in this House. Having been a Member for just under 20 years, I could never feel as privileged as I do today to be standing up and taking part in this debate. This morning, we had a very moving service at the Guards Chapel. It brought home to everyone there what amazing women are part of the War Widows’ Association and how they have stuck together like glue. The saying “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” really applies to those ladies and, as the chaplain said, they know how to enjoy themselves as well. One of their great assets is that they have never portrayed themselves as victims—the majority were widowed during the Second World War—but they include among their ranks many younger widows because of recent operations. They portray themselves and act as proud individuals—proud of their spouses and what they did for their nation, and indeed for their paying the ultimate price. They are prepared to stand up and be counted and do what they can do to help each other. They have done that for many years, which is an enormous credit to them.
The widows have many ways of expressing that support for one another. This morning was one of them; the annual remembrance activities in London are another. They also have their annual get-together. I have been privileged to go to one or two—it is not just a day but several days. They all meet up, look after each other and catch up on news, too—that is very important. And then on the Saturday evening, when the hair comes down, the frocks go on and the band starts up, you really start to ask, “Are they really that old?”. There is also the arboretum. The previous Government strongly supported the role of the War Widows’ Association, and I am delighted to say that the current Government are building on that. We are privileged to have with us today the noble Lord, Lord Astor—without sparing his blushes. Along with his fellow Minister in the MoD who is responsible for veterans’ issues, he is very committed to supporting what the war widows are doing.
The magazine Courage—a great title; it has been going for years—provides another way for them to keep in touch with each other. I was reading earlier today a newsletter dating back to 1987. It talked about how you could win a Marks & Spencer’s voucher for the ladies. Last year, the association was able to give one to each of its members.
The War Widows’ Association is also a democratic organisation, having office and committee elections. It does that because it wants to try to make sure that it makes progress on behalf of the people whom it represents. That includes lobbying Parliament. This House has always given good support to the work that the War Widows’ Association has done. We all remember Baroness Strange, who was a wonderful advocate of the association. In fact, it was through her that I got involved with speaking in the Chamber on issues affecting war widows. She was ably followed by the current president, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who was at the service this morning and who is present everywhere whenever there is an event. She gives marvellous representation for, and support to, this amazing organisation.
However, the work goes on and there is still a lot to achieve. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, mentioned the covenant. The legislation will be coming to the House of Lords in the coming months and I can assure the Minister—he would be disappointed if I did not—that we will be on our feet talking about issues affecting the war widows and making sure that they get their fair share of both representation and adjustments in the covenant where needed.
There is one area—the noble Viscount touched on it—that I would ask the Minister to address, if he can. It is a difficult area because of the legislation. The Data Protection Act is a barrier to reaching the newly widowed wives and husbands of serving personnel. We have to find a way around that because the law is being an ass in this case and bureaucracy is preventing us from giving the comfort and support that those women and men may well need.
As has been mentioned, the organisation started in 1971 and came out of the case of a war widow, Laura Connelly, who came back from Australia. At the service this morning the association prayer was sung—I do not intend to sing it, your Lordships will be relieved to know. It was written by a war widow, Mrs Kay Todd, and even today, 40 years later, it encompasses what the organisation is all about. It goes like this:
“We will recall
Our yearly tribute placing
The hopes and dreams that slowly had to fade
We will go on
The lonely future facing
Knowing too well the sacrifice you made.
We will forget
The loneliness and worry
The pain of parting and the tears we shed
Forget as well
The aching and the longing
Keeping our memories of the times we shared.
We will remember
Head held high with pride
We will keep vigil
With our men who died”.
The war widows have kept faith with that commitment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood
My Lords, in introducing the debate, the noble Viscount has given us an opportunity to learn more about the development of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain since its inception in 1971 and to make some comments on the current situation.
Of course, 1971 was the year Laura Connelly returned from Australia, where the war widows’ pension was tax free, only to find that her war widows’ pension was taxed in the UK. She refused to pay the tax on her pension and was supported by 14 women who battled successfully to remove the burden of paying taxes on their pensions. A letter from Joyce Maxwell, one of the founder members of the association, allows us to see more of the story. She tells us of her anger at the removal of tax from her pension, which she characterises as,
“never enough to support a family, except in the meagrest of fashions”—
which I think is a wonderful phrase.
Campaigning by the association has resulted in significant improvements in the situation: the removal of income tax from the war widows’ pension; reinstatement of the pension to war widows on cessation of second or subsequent marriage; and retention of the MoD occupational pension on remarriage. However, it took many years of sustained campaigning to achieve this position. I do not think that the results that were achieved in those days reflected very well on society’s attitude to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. We hear a great deal about sacrifice at this and other times of the year—and it is a true sacrifice—but to make a kind of flowerpot out of it does not suit me very well.
Today, however, there are still financial problems to be faced by wives and families when husbands are killed or disabled—and, of course, large numbers of heavily disabled young men are now being returned from Afghanistan and other places. The widow may see a marked loss of income—this is quite common for women pensioners. SAGA evidence clearly demonstrates unfairness between men and women in general. In particular, SAGA has highlighted the fact that pensions are to be uplifted more rapidly for male than for female pensioners. This is despite the fact that women rely more heavily on the basic state pension as a result of having to do most of the childcare in the family.
Meanwhile, the armed services are being warned that they cannot be spared from government cuts leading to changes in military expenditure that could cost families thousands of pounds. Lobby groups and MPs are working to achieve a rethink. The Royal British Legion and the Forces Pension Society have given evidence to the effect that some forces families should be exempt from the payment of pensions. The expected change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index will hit the military pensions hardest. That is especially true for widows and invalids.
Despite the splendid efforts of the War Widows’ Association, we may still need to press for improved pensions for members of the armed services and their wives and partners. Therefore, while I pay tribute to the tenacity of the association, it seems to me that this did not reflect well on society’s attitudes to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Many people—the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke about them—have put tremendous effort into supporting armed services personnel and their wives in trying to achieve the appropriate recompense for tragic circumstances, which they so thoroughly deserve.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on obtaining this debate. I was going to congratulate him on happily achieving it on the day of the service, but he modestly told me this morning that that was not necessarily so. However, I am extremely glad that we have this opportunity to pay tribute to the War Widows’ Association on the very day that it held the moving service I was fortunate enough to attend.
I want to mention two things about that service. First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the indefatigable president of the association, that she read Sir William Tyndall’s timeless translation of “Corinthians” about charity quite beautifully. It is something that I shall never forget. Secondly, I was sitting alongside a window whose inauguration I shall also never forget. It is in commemoration of a young grenadier who was killed in Belfast in 1980 when he was commanding my SAS troop. I remember its unveiling and the dignity of his young wife widowed in the first year of marriage. It was moving to be sitting alongside that particular window.
Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces have come across colleagues and friends who early in their career have left widows. I am extremely grateful that the noble Viscount mentioned the problems of those who risk losing their pension because of marrying and cohabiting. I remember two colleagues in particular. One was killed in Aden three weeks after leaving the staff college, where for a year we had lived opposite each other. He left a wife and two young children, who had the most terrible problems trying to look after them. Another was the widow of a colleague who died on Bloody Sunday, after being shot in Londonderry six months before. In order to be able to bring up her children, she could not afford to give up her widow’s pension. It is timely to bring these things out.
I also warmly support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. It seems quite wrong that the charities and others which are trying to help people are having difficulty obtaining information that will enable them to contact the people who need help. Something is wrong here and it needs to be put right.
I want to say a few words about the context of the Armed Forces covenant, which is totally new to me, because in all my service it did not exist; there was no such thing. Indeed, “Armed Forces covenant” is a very new phrase. A military covenant has been talked about in the Army for the past three or four years, but is unknown to and unrecognised by the Navy and the Royal Air Force. I do not wish to appear to carp, but I must admit that one word makes me slightly cross when I read the introduction to the thing. It talks about rebuilding the Armed Forces covenant, but we are not rebuilding anything; it has never been there before. “Rebuilding” defines something that has been bust and requires repair. What we actually require is a covenant to be built—to be made. It would be much more dignified if we dropped the word “rebuilding” and set about trying to develop the covenant as it ought to be.
I draw attention to one aspect of each of the three parts that illustrates what I mean. The Armed Forces covenant itself describes the levels of support on page 5. The greatest level of support is due to those who are “bereaved due to Service”. That implies that the most should happen for them. However, the second document, The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, far from listing all the support to bereaved families has two pages that are very largely given over to discussing what help they might need from the inquest advice service when they go to an inquest. I suggest that there is a disconnect here. I seriously believe that any support that needs to be given to bereaved families, who are listed right at the heart of the covenant, needs to be spelled out much more clearly.
Recommendation 4.3.2.d in the third document, The Government’s Response to the Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant, refers to,
“a ‘shopping list’ of areas of greatest need”.
I ask the Government whether, in close contact with the War Widows’ Association, they could draw up a shopping list of what the association recognises to be the areas of greatest need, insert them into the covenant and then set out in the covenant that the Secretary of State should be required to report every year to Parliament on how that shopping list is being met. It seems to me that that would be the best way in which to repay the debt that we owe to these remarkable people, whose bravery and fortitude, frankly, I admire and am humbled by every day.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, my first duty is to declare an interest as the president of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain. However, it is not only my duty but my pleasure so to do, because I have found this one of the most rewarding tasks I have ever undertaken, and my admiration for these ladies and a few gentlemen knows no bounds.
Indeed, I am amazed when I look at the strength of the association now and remember the humble beginnings 40 years ago which other speakers today have already touched on. Sadly, most of those pioneering ladies have now gone, but I am delighted to name one, Mrs Kathy Woodside, who is alive and very much aware of the work of the association. She is a real pleasure. I spoke to her only today; she was at the service, at the reception and at the luncheon afterwards.
It has been a very hard road that they have had to travel. We have had some indications of their achievements so I will not rehearse them in a short speech. I stress that none of those various achievements over the years was brought about without a great deal of effort, work, disappointment or various authorities’ obstinate refusal to listen. None of this has come easily—it has come very hard indeed. I hope that in more enlightened times it will be easier to get done the things that need to be done. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in principle I very much welcome the building of the covenant, of which he reminded us, but I am also aware of that old phrase, “Fine words butter no parsnips”, and we shall want to see whether the fine words and aspirations actually come to anything in terms of deeds. I shall therefore look to my noble friend the Minister to see whether these fine words are actually translated into action. The War Widows’ Association will be anxious to help in this regard and I hope it will be consulted.
The association operates at two distinct levels. One level that is important to this debate is what I call the campaigning arm, which tries to make things better and redress wrongs. In the course of doing so, it has also been very wise in making sure they have representation on all the various bodies that advise Governments or make their points. That is very important, and I hope that if ever a new body is created or some consultation has to take place, the War Widows’ Association will always be at the forefront of those who are consulted. I make that as a general point since we do not quite know what the future may hold.
The other arm, which was already touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is the highly valuable social networking that goes on, including at the AGM which over the years has developed into a mini-holiday, which is absolutely splendid. I go each year for the full four days and I join in with everything. It is extremely worthwhile and enables anyone on the outside, as it were, to really get to know people, hear their stories—some of them almost unbearably moving—and to see how they can enjoy themselves. To see them dancing is quite something, and those who cannot dance sit there and tap their feet. It is a remarkable way of bringing people together who have suffered such losses.
I want to deal now with several issues of concern that have been touched upon this afternoon, and one that has not. One of these, of course, is the Data Protection Act. I make no apology for saying again that if ever the law of unintended consequences were working with an Act, it is this one. It is ludicrous beyond belief that the Act should stand in the way of the War Widows’ Association making contact with women—or in some cases men—who have just had the most appalling experience of their lives and everything they hold dear being turned upside-down, or offering the comfort of those who have gone through exactly the same process. None of us who has not been through such a trauma and come out the other side is ever able to do that as well as someone who has. I am not sure what the way around this is, but I do believe that if there is a will there is a way. I strongly urge my noble friend the Minister to look at this again and to overcome any objections from those who think it is more important to have data protection than it is to help people.
I also want to touch upon the issue of the chief coroner. My noble friend the Minister will recall that in the dying days of the previous Administration we asked, and got it put into a Bill, that there should be a chief coroner with a responsibility and a duty to make sure that those coroners looking at military inquests were fully prepared and trained, so that they understood the ethos and the particular circumstances in which people die in war and conflict. That office has been put on ice—that is probably the right expression—but I want to see that those duties are not forgotten while the office is not in existence. I end with that plea to my noble friend.
Finally, we are very fortunate in the association in having such an enthusiastic patron as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who was present at the service today and took an immense amount of time to meet, I think, practically every war widow at the reception. We are indeed fortunate in that royal patronage. Who would have thought it when it started, 40 years ago?
Lord Loomba
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Leckie, for securing this debate. The issue of widows is very close to my heart. Before I start, let me declare my interest: I grew up as a widow’s son. I set up a widows’ charity in 1997 in this country in honour of my mother. It has now become a global charity, which was accredited by the United Nations in 2008. The issue of widows is global and the war widows are suffering so much that we should pay attention to their problems. My mother was not a war widow, as my father actually died of disease, but no matter how a woman loses her husband—through poverty, disease or conflict—her plight is exactly the same. She has to deal with the bereavement and financial insecurity in her life.
The emotional turmoil faced by widows after the loss of a spouse is not a sentiment which can be altered. However, financial provision for those widows and widowers who have lost spouses in the Armed Forces is a step towards helping them rebuild their lives and provide a positive future for their children. Members of the Armed Forces past and present placed their trust in the Government as they previously declared a commitment to preserve the military covenant, as we have heard earlier. Yet to state now that members of the Armed Forces need to understand they cannot be exempt from the big picture is degrading to those risking their lives every day, serving our country in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is understandable that temporary cuts need to be made in relation to the deficit. However, the long-term effect of losing hundreds of thousands of pounds will be felt by many widows for generations to come. It is unfair to make a decision hastily, especially in the case of widows. Treating people who work in the Armed Forces in the same way as those who work in the public sector is simply unacceptable and quite frankly it is an unfair proposal—not to mention the impact this decision will have upon the credibility of the Government.
The other issue is whether widows’ pensions should be linked to the retail prices index or the consumer prices index. The Government are well within their rights to use either the CPI or RPI. However, we are all aware that CPI inflation is significantly lower in comparison with that of the RPI; and that will result in hundreds of thousands of pounds being taken away from deserving widows. Furthermore, the proposal to discontinue a widow’s pension if her partner died before 2005 and she wishes to remarry or cohabit with a new partner also cannot be dismissed. It is unjust to force a widow to choose between living alone with a pension or cohabiting with or marrying a new partner without the financial aid that they are accustomed to receive.
My charity, the Loomba Foundation, which works to raise awareness of the plight of widows around the world, gained support from the United Nations which, about six months ago, declared 23 June as International Widows Day. Perhaps I may add that on 23 June this year, the United Nations is hosting a conference at the UN to raise awareness of the plight of widows all around the world. There are war widows in every country. The number of widows who have lost their husbands through conflict is incredible. Recent research has shown that there are 245 million widows in the world. That is why the UN is taking up their case, and the British Government should also do so seriously.
We are aware that financial aid is not something that can erase the emotional and internal turmoil faced by widows, yet it permits widows to regain some independence and allows them to live out their lives with the dignity and respect they deserve. The War Widows’ Association is supporting the unfortunate women whose husbands have fallen while fighting for our country. The association not only helps the bereaved to overcome loss and to resume a normal life, but works with the Government to ensure that the war widows receive the benefits and pensions to which they are entitled.
Widows suffer their own sorrows. We must do everything not to add to their suffering.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount for securing this timely debate. It was a real honour to attend the service at the Guards Chapel this morning to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain. This remarkable association, now under the chairmanship of Mrs Rosalind Campbell, has achieved much since it was established and it is right that it now has proper recognition and a voice in all of the appropriate fora.
The aim of the association, to improve conditions for all war widows, is a noble aim and, sadly for a civilised nation in the 21st century, still they have to do battle. However, the members of the association are passionate and resilient; they inspire and give hope to one another and to tomorrow’s war widows. When their brave and patriotic husbands were alive, before they had given their precious lives for our country, life was already challenging for these women. I used the term “husbands”, but I am aware and delighted that in 2002, war widowers were officially recognised by the Government and are entitled to be full members of the association. The widows and widowers were the ones who had to care for the children as single parents for great stretches of time. They had to manage the household and juggle finances and commitments—all the time worried about the safety of their loved one. The death of a partner is always painful, but the death of a partner on active service must increase the pain. We, as individuals and as a society, owe these widows and widowers a great deal. Their partners paid the ultimate sacrifice.
While saluting the work of the association and the courage and tenacity of the widows, I, too, have some questions to put to the Minister. First, I associate myself with the concerns already expressed about the retention of pensions for those war widows or widowers who remarry. It is wonderful that some whose spouses have died find a new loving relationship and, as someone who values the institution of marriage, I can understand why they would wish to remarry. It is wrong if this decision is coloured by the consideration of the loss of a pension.
Secondly, while acknowledging the need for restraint in public as well as private sector pay and pensions, I simply do not understand why the decision was taken to reduce the value of pensions for soldiers and war widows. By linking forces’ pension rises to CPI rather than RPI, members of the Armed Forces and their loved ones will see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives. It cannot be right that the men and women who give their limbs and their lives for our country, and the families that they leave behind, should suffer in such a way. We are told that these measures are necessary in order to reduce the deficit, but the deficit is temporary while the impact on war widows will be felt for the rest of their lives.
Finally, I come to the issue of the Government’s plans to abolish the post of the chief coroner, already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. As noble Lords will be aware, we had major debates on this issue during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. With the strong support of the Royal British Legion, we secured an amendment to the Bill which reversed the decision of the Government. This was an important step for many in our society who had made the argument for years in favour of a chief coroner’s office and who were devastated to learn of the Government’s plan to abolish it. It was especially important for bereaved Armed Forces families who have first-hand knowledge of the difficulties currently faced through the Independent Inquest Advice Service. The Government's arguments in favour of abolition were based on cost and accountability, but these were comprehensively rebutted in the House of Lords by many noble Lords who are in this Room today.
I have heard from various sources that during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill in the Commons the Government intend to introduce an amendment securing the abolition of the office of the chief coroner, precisely overturning what was decided in the Lords. This would not only fly in the face of the very substantial vote in this House, where the amendment was agreed by 277 votes to 165, to preserve the office of the chief coroner, but also be a huge disservice to the Royal British Legion and to the War Widows’ Association, which rightly believe that the role of chief coroner is vital to ensuring that bereaved service families receive the help they deserve when the deaths of their loved ones are investigated. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not seek to counter their wishes. I also warmly support the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in respect of the covenant and reports to Parliament.
Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting the partners of many who are bravely serving our country. It is possible that some of them will now be widows or widowers. I owe it to them, to my Aunt Jean who has been a war widow for many years and to the thousands of others whom I have not met to do everything possible to support the association. It is a privilege and an honour to do so, and I wish it continued success.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already offered to my noble friend on securing this debate on the very important work of the War Widows’ Association. It is clear that the whole House recognises the importance which we as a nation must continue to attach to supporting grieving families. The pain of losing a loved one is lifelong, and many take great comfort from others who have had similar experiences. I pay tribute to them all, and I am very honoured to take part in this debate today.
Like the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I and my fellow Ministers will do all we can to support the very important work of the War Widows’ Association. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Fookes, who spoke with the authority that one would expect of a president of the War Widows’ Association. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, as a vice-president, spoke in an equally informed manner. With their combined knowledge and support, the association is very well represented in this House.
Like many organisations, the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain was founded out of conflict. When Laura Connelly read an article in a newspaper in 1971 highlighting the plight of Britain’s war widows and decided that action must be taken, she could not have foreseen the impact that her stand would have on the future policies of all Governments of this country. Her endeavours have been carried on by the association’s 13 chairmen. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all for their tireless work on behalf of their members, and to welcome Mrs Rosalind Campbell as the association’s newest chairman. I am sure that she will continue the great work of her predecessors.
Only those who have suffered the sudden loss of a loved one can truly appreciate the hole that this leaves and the unexpected problems that can arise as they try to rebuild their lives. Today’s war widows are no longer the stereotypes that we remember from the war—though their numbers are still significant—but are much younger and often with young children. Of course, this is extended to include widowers and civil partners who must not be forgotten. They have very specific needs of their own, and we have an obligation to do all we can to meet them.
Our Armed Forces are currently deployed to the most demanding areas of conflict in Afghanistan. They are performing magnificently. Together with our allies, they are reversing the momentum of the Taleban. But, sadly, tragedy does occur. We will do all we can to support a family and help them through these difficult times. But we recognise that we cannot do everything, which is why we partner with charities and other organisations to deliver a full range of support. For example, the willingness of the War Widows’ Association to adapt to the different challenges facing our war widows must be applauded. I know that its role in shaping recent Ministry of Defence policy, its work with the previous Government on the Service Personnel and Command Paper, and its input into the review of the Armed Forces compensation scheme by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, was valued and appreciated. It can be rightly proud of its achievements. Its contribution to the review has ensured that the partners and dependants of those tragically killed received payments of hundreds of thousands of pounds over their lifetime in the shape of the survivors guaranteed income payment. While we understand that this will never replace a loved one, it does help to ensure that life can be made more comfortable and the future more secure.
This Government are rightly proud of the work we are doing to build the Armed Forces covenant, mentioned by several noble Lords. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about “rebuild”. On 16 May, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the publication of a covenant and outlined how, with the passing of the Armed Forces Bill—due to be debated in your Lordships' House soon—he will be required to report annually on how the Government are performing against the measures we are committed to put in place. In doing so, he will be able to call on members of the external reference group, on which the War Widows’ Association is represented. I am particularly pleased that it is at the heart of holding the Government to account. I will take back to my department the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the association’s shopping list as it is an excellent suggestion.
I know that an area in which the War Widows’ Association shows great interest is coroners’ inquests and ensuring that improvements to the system continue to be made. That was raised by several noble Lords.
A Ministry of Defence familiarisation event was held last May to provide coroners with awareness of the equipment and procedures used in theatre. We intend to repeat this event annually. Induction and continuation training for coroners and their deputies—this relates to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Fookes—will also continue and the Ministry of Justice Coroners Training Group is planning training for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked whether the chief coroner’s position would be abolished. I have no brief on this today but I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and to put a copy in the Library.
Support is made available to bereaved families before, during and after an inquest, and families are kept fully informed of preparations through dedicated single service teams. We also make funding available for the attendance by three family members at inquests into deaths deemed attributable to service. We have produced a DVD to try to improve the understanding of what to expect from and at an inquest and to make the whole process less daunting and stressful. I would like to assure all service widows that the interests of bereaved families will remain at the heart of any legislative changes.
The Government are aware of the need to ensure that families receive appropriate support, especially during the most difficult times. Each of the services offers ongoing practical support for the next of kin of the deceased. However, while each service provides its own support networks, sometimes the best and most valuable support can come from those who have endured a similar situation and a tragic loss. That is why the Government and the House recognise and appreciate the invaluable support of the War Widows’ Association over the past 40 years and the vital role it will play for many years to come.
I have answered one or two noble Lords’ questions and I shall do my best to answer the others. If I do not, I undertake to write.
My noble friends Lord Younger and Lord Loomba asked what we were going to do about the widows who lose their pension because they fall into the gap between 1973 and 2005. I know that the area of pension provision for widows is one of the association’s top priorities. However, it must be remembered that it is a general principle of public service pension policy—one that has been upheld by successive Governments—that improvements to pension schemes should not be made retrospective. The issues raised by service widows are not limited only to the Armed Forces but are common to other public service schemes which have similar provisions.
Resolving legacy issues across the wider public sector would be extremely costly, with estimates running into hundreds of millions of pounds. However, in some specific circumstances—often at the behest of the War Widows’ Association—we have been able to make changes, and where it is possible we will of course continue to do so.
My noble friends Lord Younger and Lady Fookes, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised issues about data protection. I can confirm that my department would welcome any suggestions on this issue from the War Widows’ Association. On the data protection issue, a dedicated visiting officer will work very closely with the bereaved family and will assist in making pension and compensation claims. As part of that process, a widow will be invited to give her permission for her details to be released to the War Widows’ Association. In addition, the association is brought to the attention of a bereaved family through a variety of means. We believe that these steps give the association visibility to those who most require its help.
I have run out of time. My noble friend asked about visits to graves and I can confirm that visits to graves will be continued.
Migrant Domestic Workers
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to address the exploitation of migrant domestic workers, including those employed within diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords speaking in this debate today on a subject that demands our attention both for the heart-rending predicament of many domestic migrant workers and for the urgent need for action to remedy the situation, which renders them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. In addition to those who will be speaking, there are colleagues who cannot be here but who share our concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, has especially asked me to say that she much regrets not being able to participate in the debate.
My first awareness of this very disturbing situation came from meeting Mende, a young girl from Sudan who had escaped from the Sudanese embassy. She had been abducted into slavery from her home village in the Nuba mountains in Sudan in a raid typical of many that I encountered there during the war that raged until the peace agreement was signed in 2005. Tens of thousands of women and girls have been captured and sold into slavery there; we had the opportunity to rescue many hundreds, and their stories were heart-breaking in the details of the cruelty inflicted on them.
Mende's story was no exception. After being captured, she was forced to work as a slave in a diplomat's house in Khartoum and then brought to London to continue her servitude here. She managed to escape, and it was my privilege to do a little to support her as she tried to find freedom in this country. Her story is recorded in the very moving book entitled Slave: The True Story of a Girl's Lost Childhood and Her Fight for Survival.
In preparing for today's debate, I have been grateful for excellent briefings, including those from Anti-Slavery International and from Kalayaan—justice for migrant domestic workers. The debate is particularly timely, because this month the International Labour Organisation is celebrating its 100th anniversary. As we meet here today the ILO is meeting in Geneva, working on standard-setting in relation to decent work for domestic workers, with the intention of adopting a new international convention on domestic work by the end of the month. This represents an historic opportunity to provide greater international protection for domestic workers and highlights the ILO's recognition of the critical need to do so.
Domestic work is generally poorly regulated and undervalued. Many domestic workers are subject to serious abuses, which often include forced labour and slavery. They frequently work excessively long hours, without breaks, days off or holidays. The pay is often very low, and wages are frequently delayed. Some are not paid at all, or only receive payment in kind, such as food or accommodation. Many also suffer verbal abuse such as insults and threats, as well as physical and even sexual abuse. Some experience a lack of food and poor living conditions, such as having to sleep on the floor in a utility room.
Many migrant domestic workers often make great sacrifices to live away from their families to earn money for their dependants back home. Their exploitation by unscrupulous employers renders their sacrifice doubly painful; the sadness of poignant separation is exacerbated by denial of appropriate remuneration to send home. In the UK in 2009, 14,898 migrant domestic work visas were granted. Also, in the UK in 2009, the group Justice for Domestic Workers interviewed 111 of its members and found that over 50 per cent of them were expected to work over 55 hours a week and 95 per cent of them were not paid even the minimum wage. Almost half had not had a paid holiday in a year.
Domestic workers are exploited behind closed doors in private households and therefore fall outside the normal regulatory and inspection framework applicable to other places of work. They are especially vulnerable when working in residences of foreign diplomats, who can use diplomatic immunity to prevent scrutiny. While welcoming the fact that UK migrant domestic workers have access to visas in their own right, I must say that some employers keep control of their passports, denying them access to the papers needed to seek alternative employment without fear of deportation.
Real-life stories illustrate the suffering behind the statistics. I have time for only two, but they are sadly typical of countless others. The first is about the plight of a sub-Saharan African woman trafficked by a diplomat from her own country. In the UK he withheld her passport. Whenever she asked about it he became angry. Twice she was severely beaten. She was refused medical care. The employer told her that in the UK he was extremely powerful in their community. He also refused to allow her to call home on the grounds of expense. She was not paid any salary. She believed the diplomat was claiming an allowance for her work because she was told what to say if the office ever telephoned and asked her about her work there. She worked for 15 hours a day, sometimes more. At one point she became so disillusioned at how bad her life was here that she asked to go home. The diplomat said she could not leave until his family did. He told her if she tried to go home without his permission he would cause serious trouble for her family. She had been too scared to approach the authorities and had been living in fear.
The second story is in the words of the domestic worker herself:
“At first I was really excited to move to London and work for an African diplomat and his wife. The plan was that I would live with the family and be a nanny to their young son. I hoped to learn English and I thought I could earn enough money so that when I go home I could study. I moved to London with the diplomat a couple of weeks before his wife and child arrived. I quickly realised I had made a terrible mistake. From the very first day I was treated like a slave. It immediately became clear he wanted more from me than just to look after his son. He sexually molested me and would become angry when I refused his advances. Life became even worse when the diplomat’s wife arrived. I was forced to work 17 hours a day, doing all the cooking, cleaning, nanny work, never allowed a day off. The wife would get violent and throw things at me as well as shouting at me. I was completely trapped like this for six months. One day the diplomat was drunk and furious. He became really violent, threw me against a wall and started bashing my head against the front door. I was so scared I knew I had to escape. I ran into the street. I didn’t know anybody, didn’t have any identity documents, no money. I was crying uncontrollably and bleeding from my head. I was lucky that a man who spoke my language spotted me. He took me to the police to report what had happened. They sent me to the hospital and Kalayaan agreed to help me seek justice … Seeking justice comes at a price. The diplomat and his wife are connected and I knew after making the allegations against them my life would be in danger back in my home country, so I applied for asylum in the United Kingdom”.
What should be done to remedy such problems? In 2010 the ILO voted by a comfortable majority to adopt a binding convention, supplemented by a recommendation, recognising the urgent need to protect this vulnerable category of workers. Although the UK did not vote in favour of having only a recommendation, it has maintained its initial reservations about the need for a convention. In the latest round of tripartite consultation, the UK found itself quite isolated on the international scene in its official response. Despite recognising that domestic workers are undoubtedly a vulnerable class of worker who require particular attention, it did not express its support for a strong convention and invoked legal exemptions in relation to the labour rights of domestic workers.
The Government are objecting, inter alia, to the regulation of domestic workers’ rights to working time and occupational safety and health. The Government stated that the working time regulations do not apply to domestic workers, making it clear that they want to exclude them from the protection they need and which the overwhelming majority of other workers enjoy. Anti-Slavery International is concerned that the UK is considering maintaining its position by invoking a number of possible exemptions to the EU working time directive. The regulation of working hours of domestic workers, especially those living in with their employer, is at the core of what this international standard has set to achieve: that is, to redress the legal gap that leads to so many abuses of domestic workers’ rights. May I ask the Minister if Her Majesty’s Government is reconsidering their position so as to enable working hours for domestic workers to be regulated in ways comparable to those of other workers?
The UK Government have also raised their opposition to Article 13 of the draft convention, invoking the exemption allowed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to domestic workers. Domestic workers often incur burns, cuts and exposure to hazards from handling toxic and boiling liquids and lifting heavy loads. Surely they should benefit from the same protection in their workplace as other workers do. Will Her Majesty’s Government discontinue their policy of applying exemptions regarding core labour rights for domestic workers to ensure that they work under health and safety circumstances in the home?
I have two more specific questions for the Minister. Are Her Majesty’s Government considering extending the right to change employers to domestic workers in diplomatic households, and is the Minister aware of the recent report, Ending the Abuse: Policies that Work to Protect Migrant Domestic Workers, by the charity Kalayaan? It gives support services to these workers, including victims of trafficking. Will the department be considering its recommendations?
I conclude by asking whether Her Majesty’s Government will take a leadership role during these weeks in Geneva and join the wider international community, employers and trade unionists to demonstrate that we will no longer turn a blind eye to the maltreatment of vulnerable domestic workers. Many of them are paying a high price for a better future for their children. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships that we will support and protect them in their endeavours.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for securing this debate. She works tirelessly to secure the rights and liberties of disadvantaged people in many parts of the world, and I am delighted that this time she has drawn attention to the plight of domestic migrant workers. This debate is timely; the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations agency that concentrates on labour rights, draws its strength from having national Governments, workers and employers participate in its decision-making process and, as part of its international conventions on slavery, a new international convention on domestic workers worldwide is likely to be adopted shortly. We want to ensure that our Government are a signatory to this and, more importantly, that they have policies and procedures in place to ensure that we give real meaning to such a convention.
I thank Anti-Slavery International and Kalayaan, as the noble Baroness has done, for the briefing material that they have supplied. I urge the Minister to study their publications, which identify policies that work to protect migrant domestic workers. Their research was undertaken to inform the current Government in their review on the domestic workers’ visa. Kalayaan submitted a research report in March 2011 to the government team conducting the review. The UK Border Agency has said that the review will not be a public consultation, but I hope that it takes a serious look at it and at today's debate. In the mean time, I ask the Minister for the exact timescale of this review and whether she will publish the ultimate article when it is completed.
We in this country have been pioneers in promoting legislation on human rights and equality, which has served us well. It is no surprise that other countries have followed our example. Those of us who have read cases highlighted in the media and taken up cases with the Government can vouch for the fact that domestic work is poorly regulated and that inadequate legal protection is afforded to workers. Some basic human rights are denied. The predominant groups are women and girls, who are most vulnerable to abuse. Poverty compels vulnerable people to accept jobs where basic rights are denied. In many cases, the circumstances and conditions of their employment amount to forced labour. I have come across cases in which women have been forbidden to leave the home where they are working. Violent threats have become an everyday reality and their passports are withheld by their employers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said. Add to that the other ingredients that make their lives a living hell.
The job offer often bears no reality to the actual tasks they have to perform. Often, transportation and living costs are deducted from their wages, making it almost impossible to sustain a normal lifestyle. The worst cases are those in some diplomatic households. Domestic workers are not afforded adequate protection from exploitation and do not have the right to change employers. They are most vulnerable when fleeing from abusive employers.
Of course we can and should take action when such practices are exposed. Should we not seriously consider a domestic worker’s right to change employment in a diplomatic household? When visa applications have been made, should we not supply applicants with information about their rights and responsibilities? We should also mention who to approach when employment conditions are breached. I know that we are treading on sensitivity when dealing with overseas missions enjoying diplomatic immunity, but surely if the ILO convention on decent work for domestic workers is ratified, it will put such missions to shame, and rightly so.
We also need to pay special attention to our own immigration rules. Migrant domestic workers are dependent on their employers for their work and accommodation. There is no oversight of what happens in the private household, which is almost always invisible. A comparison with forced marriage is appropriate. None of us was aware of the size of the problem until recently, and now we have adequate machinery to ensure that victims receive all the help both here and at British high commissions abroad. I was a member of the first working party established by the Home Office, and I am glad to say that good practices have followed.
Surely it is possible to monitor visa conditions on a small sample of domestic workers without the presence of their employers. The number of migrant domestic workers entering the UK is estimated at nearly 15,000. This is not a small number, and I accept that in many cases the relationship between the worker and their employer is sound, but it is rogue employers that we are after. We need to pay particular attention to child labour. Children are the most vulnerable to slavery.
There is evidence at an international level that many who are separated from their families are inherently easier to coerce and control. An ugly feature here is that some are trafficked, while others are bonded labour forced to work to pay off debts that their parents have accrued.
I started by saying that a new international convention on domestic workers is likely to be adopted shortly. This will set out the employment rights of this category of people. As the Minister knows, all countries that ratify the convention will have a legal obligation to ensure that these rights are granted. I want our Government not only to support the convention but to take a lead in its implementation. We must move away from the notion that it is only informal labour and not proper work. We must ensure that domestic migrant workers have the rights and liberties that other workers enjoy. We must strengthen our existing legislation, including the Race Relations Act, to ensure that no exceptions are made in the employment of such workers. We must not underestimate the role that trade unions can play. In the final analysis, let us work towards a society where individuals’ human rights are upheld. In many cases, domestic migrant workers have lost almost everything. They are right at the bottom of the ladder. Let us not strip them of their dignity as well.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister to our debate on immigration, which again includes some of the usual suspects. Thanks are also due to my noble friend for introducing this debate with her characteristic and well-known enthusiasm for human rights and justice. I also thank my noble friend Lady Young, who takes a lot of interest in this subject but who was unable to be here today. She initiated the longer series of discussions that led to this short debate. Some of us have benefited from the advice given by at least two specialised voluntary agencies working in London and alongside the ILO in Geneva.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the principal purpose of today’s debate is to encourage Her Majesty’s Government, and the noble Baroness in particular, to support and ratify the new ILO convention on decent work for migrant domestic workers. The term “decent” work for domestic workers was unfamiliar to me, but its purpose seems clear. It is spelt out in Article 5 as being fair terms of employment, decent working conditions and decent living conditions.
The convention recognises that many domestic workers are migrants or members of historically disadvantaged communities and are therefore especially vulnerable. As a former Anti-Slavery International council member I have spoken more than once in the past on behalf of these workers, and I have had to inform the House of some almost desperate cases reported by them or by Kalayaan, the campaigning agency that works most closely with them. We heard about some of these cases from the noble Baroness.
I have worked with a number of voluntary organisations, but I especially admire the style, focus and balance displayed by Kalayaan in its commitment over many years to this important element of our workforce. Kalayaan’s research shows that nearly two-thirds of migrant domestic workers surveyed over the three years to last December had to work seven days a week without a significant break. That testimony in itself shows the degree of unseen exploitation of these workers. Then you learn from the survey that about the same number had their passports withheld, and nearly as many were psychologically abused and were paid only £50 a week or less. These are scandalous figures, which have not improved since we last debated this subject.
It might be assumed, in the present climate of reducing the rate of immigration, that these migrants are seeking asylum. In fact, only a very small number—less than 5 per cent—are able or willing to settle in the UK. The vast majority wish to return home. Yet they could be targeted under new immigration rules so that even this number may not be awarded an ODW visa in the future. This visa, apart from giving them the temporary permission to stay, also protects the worker’s right to change employer in the case of exploitation or abuse. The removal of this right could only add to their sense of insecurity.
The visa has been described by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on human trafficking as,
“the single most important issue in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers”.
It provides them with a recognised immigration status and ensures that they are recognised as workers and protected by UK employment law. Can the noble Baroness assure us that there will be no reduction in the numbers currently protected by the ODW visa?
I have read through the detailed comments of Anti-Slavery International on the draft convention. One of these deals with the old dilemma of international development specialists: child protection and the right to work. Provided that young people are not working in exploitative or hazardous conditions, they should be allowed to earn money as domestic workers provided they are below the minimum age for compulsory education. In other words, education is not automatically the best place for a child unless the state has made it compulsory. This seems to be the argument of Anti-Slavery International in amending Article 4.2 of the draft convention, and I support it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned, another concern to ASI has been Article 10 on working time. The UK apparently wants to exclude domestic workers from this protection because it believes that the nature of domestic work makes it impossible to regulate and it has enshrined its objection in the EU directive on working time.
As has been mentioned, discussions about the convention are going on in Geneva. I understand that two days ago the United Kingdom, along with other EU member states, sought to weaken the protection offered by Article 10 and the result has been new wording that states,
“shall take measures towards ensuring equal treatment”,
instead of simply “to ensure equal treatment”.
I understand that this is not the only example of the UK watering down some of the wording in the convention. It seems, for example, that we were the only country to express our opposition to Article 13 on occupational health and safety. Do the Government, who ostensibly support the convention, really want to be seen as the only one unwilling to ensure that domestic workers are protected against hazards and accidents at work? It would seem so.
This coalition Government have already taken the lead in many initiatives in international development in this first year, both in Europe and elsewhere, and have been able to change their mind, most notably on the recent opt-in to the trafficking directive, which will be greatly welcomed. However, it is a major concern to the rest of the world that the EU as a bloc has put on the brakes and subscribed to more than 100 amendments to the text of this convention alone. I therefore very much hope that the Minister, having heard the various comments today, will confirm that from now on she will at least speak to the UK team in Geneva and persuade it to take a more positive direction.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I join in the congratulations that have been expressed by others to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who not for the first time has raised the issue of rights for migrant domestic workers, as have my noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in previous debates. This problem goes back a long way, as noble Lords can see from the fact that Kalayaan, which has been quoted by everybody who has spoken so far, goes back for more than 20 years. In fact, its briefing quotes from a debate we had on the subject in 1990, by no means the first of its kind, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to whose determination and persistence we should pay tribute.
Throughout the whole of the two decades, the abuse of foreign workers has followed a similar pattern to the description by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton: there are no written contracts of employment or contracts are arbitrarily changed, and wages are often withheld or paid in kind. Then there is compulsion to work excessive hours; inadequate food; denial of privacy; denial of access to friends or often to the outside world; and, in extreme cases, physical attacks, sexual abuse, and credible threats of violence. These things are still with us.
It is true that Kalayaan statistics comparing 1,000 MDWs in a survey done in 1996 with the workers registered with the organisation in 2010 shows some improvement, but from a totally unacceptable baseline. In the earlier year, 100 per cent were being made to work for 17 hours a day, while last year nearly half had to work 16 hours or more. In 1996, 38 per cent were not given enough to eat, compared with 26 per cent in 2010. The only statistic that got worse in those two years was that employers are now withholding the passports of nearly two-thirds of MDWs, compared with 62 per cent in 1996. The ability of the MDW to change employers and in 2008, the extension to MDWs of official status as workers under the points-based system, for which Kalayaan must be given a lot of the credit, should make a big difference in the longer term, but we need to know why a substantial proportion of employers are still ignoring their obligations.
Should not there be a provision in the rules that when an employer is found to have committed serious abuse of an MDW by the employment tribunal, his right to employ MDWs should be suspended for a period to be decided by the tribunal? The Kalayaan statistics on tribunal cases demonstrate that all too many employers are unfit to be given the power over the lives of domestic workers that allows them to break the law with impunity. While two-thirds of those registered with Kalayaan were made to work seven days a week with no time off, for instance, only 14 such cases were reported to the tribunal, so there is still a huge penumbra of abuse which the oppressors successfully conceal. The threat of not being allowed to have domestic servants might be an effective deterrent to the widespread defiance of the law that is continuing.
Another possible way of improving compliance would be to produce an explanatory leaflet in the principal languages of MDWs, and hand it to employers and MDWs at the port of entry. It is all there on the UKBA website, but I doubt whether many of the workers have access to the internet or have adequate knowledge of English to understand that advice.
The treatment of some MDWs equates to trafficking for domestic servitude, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, demonstrated, and these cases are brought to the attention of the national referral mechanism, established in 2009 following the Council of Europe's Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Up to the end of last year there were 175 adult referrals under the domestic servitude heading, of which 55 were from Kalayaan. Could the Minister give us a breakdown of the agencies that reported the other 120 cases?
What is revealed in the statistics is that 246 of the NRM referrals were of children, of which 104 led to conclusive grounds decisions—a really shocking picture, particularly when you consider the difficulty and danger for a person making the initial complaint while still under the roof of the oppressor. What happens when it is first established that the referral is of a child, bearing in mind that the average time taken to reach a conclusive decision is 190 days, compared with the 45 days reflection period? One would expect that the child would be removed from the employer and fostered pending the NRM decision, but suppose the employer claims to be a close relative, as in the case of Victoria Climbié, for instance. Do we ever allow children to enter the UK now with a person who claims to be a relative but not a parent? Does the NRM refer all the cases reported to it of children to the UKBA with a view to checking on their immigration status? The children obviously did not qualify for admission under the overseas domestic worker regime, first introduced in 1998 and now part of the immigration rules. But one reason given by abused workers for not agreeing to be referred to the NRM is that it would lead to excessive focus on their immigration status. This means that the NRM statistics are the tip of the iceberg, because only those who entered legally as ODWs are likely to register. With an ODW visa, the migrant is free to change employer and frequently does so with minimum support. For the undocumented, Kalayaan recommends the issue of a three-month bridging visa to enable the exploited MDW to find new employment and to apply for an ODW visa, paying tax and national insurance, and eliminating the expense of treating the victim as an illegal entrant.
Finally, I turn to the knotty question of MDWs brought here by diplomats, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. These workers are not allowed to switch to another employer without losing their immigration status, and the employer's immunity means that although the levels of abuse and exploitation in diplomatic households are similar to those in private households, the FCO does not ask to be informed of trafficking cases identified by the NRM, which itself is a woefully incomplete record. The Austrian Government interview diplomatic MDWs annually, and it would be useful to know how many cases of abuse are thereby uncovered. Does my noble friend think we should have a similar procedure, or better still, that it should be made part of European law?
The annual interview could be an important tool for uncovering abuse throughout the whole of the MDW population. To minimise the bureaucracy involved, the employer could be obliged to complete a form detailing the hours of work and hourly pay; the additional hours the worker is expected to be on standby and the hourly rate for those hours; the details of rest breaks, days off and annual holidays; and the details of tax deducted and national insurance contributions paid. This form should be countersigned by the worker as correct, and it should be available for rechecking at the annual interview. When the worker is said to be treated as part of the family, and to be covered by the family worker exemption, this should be clearly specified, but Kalayaan recommends that the statutory minimum wage should apply to these workers as to all others. Seeing that half of all MDWs are paid less than the minimum wage, it seems likely that the exemption has been widely abused.
The Kalayaan report is a competent and thorough piece of work, and its recommendations demand well considered replies from the Government. In the quarter of a century since the abuse of domestic workers from overseas first became a subject of concern to your Lordships, there have been several attempts at reform, but the extent and nature of the problem has remained the same. It is intolerable and unthinkable that we should fail to act against the criminal employers who treat vulnerable domestic workers, many of them children, like slaves, and I hope that this debate will enable us to signal the determination to stamp out abuse and bring criminal employers to justice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and, like other noble Lords, thank her for the important work that she undertakes in this area. This has been an interesting debate and we all look forward to the Minister’s response.
Exploitation is clearly a serious problem for thousands of people living in our country. I was struck particularly by the introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, when she talked about the heart-rending circumstances of some migrant domestic workers and the need for action. She started by quoting a number of examples of people forced to work here, as she described, as slaves. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, some of the abuses suffered by people working in this country at the hands unscrupulous employers; for example, seven-days-a-week working without a sufficient break, passports being withheld—which gives those employers huge leverage over the people concerned—gross underpayment or no payment at all and physical and mental abuse.
The thorny issue of diplomatic employers’ abuse of their diplomatic status was raised again. It is a particularly difficult and serious problem. The noble Baroness spoke also of workers who sought justice both here and in their country of origin. Members of their families may be put under threat by people who, after all, are likely to be very powerful there as well as enjoying diplomatic status while they are here. There will be great interest in the Minister’s response.
I, too, have some questions for her. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a very important issue about employment tribunals and cases that have been brought before them. He asked whether tribunals would be allowed to rule that persons who exploited migrant workers were not suitable to employ workers in the future. I do not know whether it is possible to extend the remit of employment tribunals, but it is well worth looking at. To be of any real use, that would have to encompass diplomatic families. It is clear that diplomatic immunity will need to be looked at; we cannot escape that. It might be argued that those people are not fit to be diplomatic representatives in this country. I would have thought that there was a strong case for encouraging the FCO to consider whether those diplomats ought to remain in this country.
Point-of-entry advice was also raised. What about children? The case of Victoria Climbié was mentioned. I well recall the report on the tragic circumstances leading to her death. It showed that about eight or nine agencies were involved in dealing with her. If just one person in one of those agencies had taken the necessary action, she would probably still be alive today. The role of officers at the point of entry needs to be looked at very carefully.
A few months ago, Mr Bob Russell asked some questions in the other place, one of which was whether there was a mechanism at the point of entry to ensure that those entering the UK were not destined to work in domestic service which was either unpaid or paid less than the national minimum wage. He also asked whether the Home Office has been able to estimate the number of foreign nationals working in domestic service who are unpaid or paid less than the national minimum wage. I know that the Home Office has considered and answered this issue, and I know that it has stated that border officers are trained in identifying signs of trafficking, of which domestic servitude is a part. However, I wonder, in the light of this debate, whether this is a matter that the Minister will ask her officials to look at again.
I should also mention a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, some months ago, about the Life in the UK Test. He asked whether migrant domestic workers will be able to undertake volunteering or study to pass the Life in the UK Test, in the light of their possible working conditions. I know that before an employer is able to employ an overseas domestic worker they are required to provide a statement of the terms and conditions of employment, and that as part of that statement the employer is required to confirm the level of annual leave and free time that the domestic worker will be entitled to. Therefore, there should be sufficient time in order to prepare for and undertake the Life in the UK Test. However, the problem is that this does not stand up to the reality of the situation if such workers are employed under the conditions mentioned by other noble Lords.
In May 2009, the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place published an interesting report entitled, The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK. One of the issues raised by the committee was the difficulty experienced by migrant domestic workers because the police do not always understand their special status, and the immigration authorities frequently fail to follow the correct procedures for issuing visa procedures that would help to identify abuse. I realise that the report was produced when my party was in government, and I fully accept that there are issues here that will cover the periods of both the previous Government and this Government. It was interesting that the report noted that migrant domestic workers frequently experience difficulties in securing the return of their passports from former abusive employers and in obtaining assistance from the police. The committee said that there was,
“a need for greater awareness training in police forces”.
Has the Home Office looked into these matters as a result?
Finally, as to the EU directive, I understand that the Home Office’s position is that the directive would make very little improvement in the way that the UK tackles this problem. However, even if that view were absolutely correct, there are arguments to be made in terms of the UK contributing to European-wide policy. I should be interested in the noble Baroness’s views on that.
Overall, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made a persuasive case for action, and all noble Lords will be interested in the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject, which invokes passionate and sincerely held views. I will respond to as many points as possible.
I start by answering the noble Baroness’s question on whether I am aware of Kalayaan’s recent report and considering its recommendations. I am aware of it, I have it here, and we will consider its recommendations, particularly in the context of a forthcoming consultation, to which I shall return later. Perhaps I may at this point pay tribute to the work of Kalayaan. I am new to its work, and when I saw the report it was the first time I had any reference to what it does. Clearly, its contribution is invaluable in this field.
I begin by summarising the relevant immigration provisions. There are two routes of entry to the United Kingdom for overseas domestic workers. One is for those accompanying their employer to work here in that employer’s private household. Most such domestic workers arrive for short visits of up to six months. The second route is for those coming to work in the private household of a diplomat posted here.
Before I continue, let me make one observation. The Question in this debate refers to “migrant domestic workers”. The term used for the private route in the Immigration Rules is “overseas domestic workers”. Forgive me if this seems mere pedantry but my reason goes beyond strict adherence to the formality of the language in statutory rules. I accept that “migrant domestic workers” may be convenient shorthand. It may also be an appropriate description for people who, by and large, come and go. However, “migrant domestic worker” can also be used intentionally to convey the impression of an independent right of entry and stay in the United Kingdom. The point that gets lost, though, is that the route is called “overseas domestic workers” in the Immigration Rules for a reason. The worker is from overseas. Their usual residence and employment is overseas. They are here because the employer whom they work for overseas is here, and for no other reason. They do not have an independent right of entry into the United Kingdom.
The Question asked in this debate is how the Government intend to address the exploitation of this group of people. Let me respond in terms of the immigration provisions and UK employment law, and conclude briefly by mentioning the forthcoming consultation that will invite views on the overseas domestic worker routes and on wider proposals, including reform of employment-related settlement in the United Kingdom. We realise that there are serious issues around this whole subject, many of which have been raised by noble Lords this afternoon.
In the private household route, the potential for exploitation is addressed through a specific condition of entry that has to be satisfied: that there is evidence of an employment relationship of 12 months’ duration. This is intended to be a safeguard, prior to entry to the United Kingdom, by demonstrating that the relationship is genuine. It establishes a degree of longevity. Sadly and worryingly, given what is sometimes reported once people have arrived here, it is plainly not an adequate or foolproof form of prevention. Once here, protection is available under employment law. Foreign workers, provided they are working legally, have exactly the same basic employment rights as anyone else working in the United Kingdom.
I qualify that by adding that there are some exemptions to the payment of the national minimum wage, which have been mentioned, one of which relates to people living and working within the family. The exemption is a limited one and turns on how a person is treated rather than any label put on them. If they are not treated as a member of the family, they will of course be eligible for the minimum wage. Perhaps I might mention, because it has been raised in the debate, that there is a pay and work rights helpline, which has rapid access to helpline operators through the language line, which provides accurate, live first-person interpretation. We have continued that route and have worked with the helpline staff to ensure that they provide as accurate a service as possible to overseas domestic workers.
Returning to immigration provisions, both routes currently permit extensions of stay and have a route to settlement in the United Kingdom. Also, all domestic workers may change their employer for whatever reason, although in the case of those in diplomatic households, working only for another diplomat in the same mission as the original employer is permitted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether we are considering allowing a change to employment outside the mission. As I have said, a consultation inviting views on the overseas domestic worker routes is imminent. I cannot pre-empt the detail, but suffice to say that it will include a reassessment of the current provisions. In response to other points made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it will be a full three-month consultation and the results will be published.
I should add that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 entitles foreign diplomats accredited in the UK to employ domestic workers, foreign or British. Under that convention, diplomats have a duty,
“to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”.
This applies to the terms and conditions of employment for all domestic staff. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly reminds all foreign missions based in the UK of their obligations.
The question has been raised as to what happens if a diplomat is accused of abusing those working for them. The police investigate any allegation that the law has been broken by persons entitled to immunity. Given the number of people entitled to immunity in the United Kingdom, around 22,500, the number of serious offences allegedly committed by diplomats has remained proportionately low in recent years. Just two cases that were reported by the police in 2010 to the FCO involved a domestic worker. The FCO treats very seriously any allegation of mistreatment of domestic workers in diplomatic households. When an allegation of mistreatment is brought to the FCO’s attention by the police, it will write to the diplomatic mission in question about the matter. If the police decide that an allegation warrants further investigation, the FCO will request from the diplomatic mission a waiver of the diplomat’s immunity. Failure to provide a waiver will usually result in a request to the mission for withdrawal of the diplomat from the United Kingdom.
All domestic workers, whether private or diplomatic, have access to the national referral mechanism for victims of trafficking. The NRM is a multi-agency framework involving the police, the UK Border Agency, local authorities and designated NGOs to help in the identification and support process of victims of trafficking. It was introduced in April 2009, and since then more than 1,250 victims have been referred for confirmation of trafficking-victim status and provision of care and support. Serious abuse by an employer of a domestic worker is assessed through the NRM to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for someone to be regarded as a victim of trafficking. Victims receive a minimum 45-day recovery and reflection period and support such as accommodation or access to legal assistance. If there are reasonable grounds for a person to be regarded as a victim of trafficking, NRM decision-makers go on to decide conclusively whether the individual is a victim of trafficking under the Council of Europe convention. If so, the victim may, in certain individual circumstances, receive a period of 12 months’ discretionary leave, such as to assist with a police investigation or prosecution, or in compelling compassionate circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked three questions about the Government’s position on the ongoing International Labour Organisation’s discussions on a new international convention on domestic work. This matter was also raised by other noble Lords. I shall be brief. We support the principle of a new convention and accompanying recommendation. As ever, the detail of the new instruments will be crucial. In the negotiations and in developing our position on the final texts, we will take into account a number of factors, including whether the convention will provide suitable protection and whether it is formulated in a way that helps it to be widely ratified.
In respect of working hours and working in healthy and safe circumstances in the home, we take the view that domestic workers should be afforded appropriate protection, in common with other workers. However, the position is complex and negotiations on any international agreement need to have regard to practical implementation and effective enforcement.
We also recognise that some workers may be more vulnerable generally, not because they lack protection but rather because there are unscrupulous employers who have denied employees rights or information about their employment rights and how to assert them. We are doing more to provide literature at the point at which visas are issued to make sure that workers are aware of those rights. The remedy lies not with new legislative requirements but with improved awareness of rights, and confidence in how to assert them. Therefore, no changes to existing provisions are foreseen. To include in the provisions domestic workers who live in private households would require the application of criminal sanctions to such private households, which is considered inappropriate.
This has been a valuable debate. In closing, I should confirm that tomorrow the Government intend to publish a consultation document on their next phase of immigration system reform. I hope that the Committee understands that I cannot pre-empt the detail, but I can say that the context is around breaking the link between temporary migration and settlement. The consultation will reassess employment-related settlement, including other overseas domestic worker routes, and take into account our recognition of the problems associated with the treatment of individuals who are brought here to work for others. That will be a three-month consultation. I would be very happy within that period to meet noble Lords who have an interest in the matter or who wish to make representations so that their views can be discussed in more detail.
Disabled People: User-led Organisations
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the continued support of user-led organisations that support disabled people and the personalisation agenda.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate. As one who is still very much a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I am proud that this subject marks my first success in obtaining a QSD and realise that patience really does pay off. I am also pleased to have supporting the debate noble Lords who have done so much to campaign and support disabled people. I particularly want to thank my noble friend Lady Wilkins, my office mate and a great inspiration, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, whose work and contribution to championing the right of disabled people to take control of their own lives is fully recognised by the House. I pay tribute to her formidable record and achievement, but also for personal reasons. In 2007 I became the carer of my partner, who is now disabled. I was fortunate enough to have a very good friend who put me in immediate touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and her help and support was invaluable. She introduced me to the work and role of user-led organisations. The subsequent support that I have had from advisers in local ULO groups in Surrey, where I live, has been so important, helping me navigate the minefield of information and pathways to health and social care provision for users and carers. What really helped was that I was talking to advisers who were themselves users of the care and health systems that they were advising on or signposting to. This is one of the key strengths of user-led organisation, and what led the Labour Government to make a major investment in their continued development and to ensure that they had a key role in the transformation of social care and personalisation agenda.
The Social Care Institute for Excellence emphasised that personalisation starts with seeing the person as an individual with strengths, preferences and aspirations and puts them at the centre of indentifying their needs and making choices about how and when they are supported. ULOs for disabled people are organisations where service users determine their own needs and planning support and themselves have expertise which they utilise in the advice and services they provide. SCIE underlines the importance of ULOs having a rightful place in the social care and community marketplace, promoting equality and reaching out to people who need social care support, especially supporting marginalised people.
Personalisation goes beyond giving personal budgets or direct payments to individuals, and ULOs help to ensure access to the right information, advice and advocacy. This is why the Labour Government invested heavily in promoting the setting up and development of ULOs for disabled people, and provided substantial support funding for local authorities to invest and work with them. Under the transformation of social care agenda, ULOs have developed a particular role and expertise in supporting people using direct payments or personal budgets, assisting with the self-assessment process and in the recruitment and employment of personal assistants for disabled people. This is a key role for a number of ULOs, and there are many excellent examples of ULOs working with local employment advice organisations and trade unions to ensure fair pay rates and good employment practice, standards and conditions for personal assistants.
There is no national data collection on the number of ULOs, although I understand the National Council for Independent Living, the umbrella organisation for ULOs, is currently undertaking a sector audit, which will give a much needed clearer picture. ULOs by their very nature are developed locally to reflect community needs. The strong support for ULOs by a number of local authorities has been in the form of direct grants and contracts to provide services, including information provision, advocacy and supporting self-directed care programmes. My own area in Surrey has a strong ULO organisation in the excellent Surrey Independent Living Council, the Surrey Disabled People's Partnership and the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People. These groups are typical of ULO organisation, in that they are active groups in themselves as well as the umbrella supporting groups for local hubs representing a range of specific health or disability interests, such as Surrey's Vision Action group, or the Surrey Deaf Forum or the Surrey Autism Partnership Board.
This is just one local authority area where strong ULO organisation has had a major impact on the development and shape of services, and there are many similar local examples of the work and impact of ULOs of disabled people which I am sure noble Lords will highlight in this debate. However, direct government funding to ULOs ceased at the end of 2010, when the 2008-10 programme ran out, although some funding is still provided to the NCIL under Section 64 powers and through the Office for Disability under the Right to Control trailblazers work. In the current climate, for ULOs to survive, to continue to undertake their vital role and for their operation to extend into other localities, there needs to be continued and active support at a national level.
There is increasing concern at the impact of cutting the current local authority grants and contracts with the ULOs. The Disability Rights Partnership has highlighted, for example, the recent closure of DPAN Northamptonshire after two other non user-led organisations won contracts for work it was previously involved with. This came shortly after the demise of another user-led organisation, Ability Northamptonshire. Cutting grants and shrinking contracts will only shrink the potential pool of providers at a time when it needs expanding.
I would like to ask the Minister how the Government will ensure that commissioning requirements create a level playing field between small user-led mutuals and organisations and their larger either voluntary or profit-making counterparts. Existing commissioning services favour large providers and often overlook the added value of ULOs. This inhibits user-led entry. Commissioning requirements should provide a level playing field for ULOs, including accessibility in bids and tenders. ULOs face entry costs due to disability-related expenditure and other barriers for which they need to be supported to overcome. Service agreements, payment by results and preferred provider lists need to be reviewed and sub-contracting to micro-providers needs to be incentivised. We need to ensure that ULOs have the requisite capacity and support to enable them to bid for key public service contracts.
I welcome the Government's recent announcement of the ULO fund of £3 million for disabled people's organisations and would like to ask the Minister how it will be administered and how disabled people will be involved in its design and implementation. Also, what other measures will the Government be taking to encourage innovative social enterprise by ULOs? The ULO fund, while welcome, amounts to little more than £5,000 per year per local authority in England for the next three years.
Also, within the Government’s plans for localism, the big society, the right of independent living—and within their oft-repeated mantra that local authorities must make their own decisions on local priorities in the light of local needs and resources—I ask the Minister what steps they will take to encourage local authorities to co-produce innovative services with ULOs and to support service provision by way of user-led social enterprise.
Can the Minister advise how the services relating to the personalisation of social care, which the Government continue to support and is currently provided by ULOs, will be provided where ULO funding has been cut or stopped? These services include essential advice and administrative support for people using direct payments and personal budgets and for users employing personal assistants.
I close by paying tribute to one of the pioneers of the independent living movement and of user-led organisations who died recently, Nasa Begum. I did not know her personally but I do know about her enormous contribution and inspirational work. Nasa was a professional social worker and she brought her professional skills and personal charisma and energy to the first National Centre for Independent Living. As a disabled woman from a BME community and also a mental health services user and “survivor”, Nasa particularly championed the greater involvement of BME communities in the creation of more inclusive communities. She was a prolific author of many books and papers and her book, Towards Managing User-led Services, had a major impact in providing the framework for a new partnership approach which encouraged all sections of the community as active partners in designing services and support that are personalised and culturally appropriate. I am sure noble Lords will join with me in paying tribute to Nasa and expressing our sorrow at her untimely death.
Lord Addington
My Lords, when I saw on the Order Paper the subject we are debating today and put my name down for it, I immediately thought of one thing: that it is sensible that user groups,—the people who suffer from disabilities—should be heard first. This is for selfish reasons for everyone else because, if you get a good idea of what the problems are, you stand a chance of taking the right action to address them quickly and concisely and thus save the costs involved in getting it wrong. Mistakes can, in certain cases, result in legal activity and often mean that the benefits and medical services have to pick up the pieces further down the line. Wear and tear on carers is another consideration. It is trying to get an understanding of where most mistakes in the system tend to be made. It is safe to say that there is good will from everyone involved, but people often make decisions and try to implement them but do not quite understand how to do so. They then find themselves in a corner and without the right amount of communication to be able to back off when they have made mistakes.
This is a Treasury Bench problem, no matter who is in government. The previous Government did their best to try on occasions. Sometimes they got it wrong, sometimes they got it right. I do not think at any point they were looking to get it wrong. We who have been giving advice in Parliament, through the contact we have with outside groups, have been able to reassess what is going on. Occasionally fashions in ideas may change but mainly it is based on practicality. That way we avoid those “does he take sugar?” mistakes. That way we try to get the correct information to those who are in power and making those decisions. User-led organisations are often a very good way of addressing these problems. They are not a magic bullet—in my own world of dyslexia, I have often met people who say, “We will do everything”. I am afraid dyslexics do not make terribly good secretaries of groups or good managers of diaries. People must make sure that they learn to ask for help; there have been occasions when they have failed by not being prepared to ask for enough help. If you experience problems, you will know when to ask for outside help and when to do something. We are talking about people with disabilities and once again—I have said it dozens of times and I will say it again—if any dyslexic says to me, “I am differently abled, not disabled”, I hand him an insurance form to fill out quickly and under pressure. When he has failed at that I say, “This is why we have legislation, this is why we have a framework, this is why we do the stuff we do. You are going to have to try to access support and help”. If we are going to fulfil our agenda of getting people into jobs, we must make sure people know how to give the correct assistance at the right time. We must talk to those who understand the problems to find out the correct way to make a change.
Having said all that—and here endeth the sermon—I say to the Government, “What are we doing to make sure you drag in this pool of expertise to make the job of Government easier?”. That is the big question. If we are not to continue with the previous model, how else do we do it? The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, spoke about sub-contracting and feeding into smaller groups as one way forward. Making sure that people who apply for these support jobs actually have contact with disabled people, and that it is seen as a benefit, would be a very sensible way forward. Thus, you may be able to combine the best of both worlds. Cats and skinning come to mind here, but it is making sure we get the correct information in. Those groups with outside experience will always have at least a very useful perspective on how to do this. We should also study how this will get through to the interface.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has had experience of this and I would be interested to hear what his take is from his own experience in office, when we had to deal with similar problems. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will not think me presumptuous by saying this is one occasion when you should listen to your political opponent because he has experienced it for quite a long time and indeed I bored him for a quite a long time on these and similar subjects. How can we encourage that interface? How will we make sure that we work properly to drag in the information? If we do not, we will make costly mistakes that will sometimes end in litigation and will always end in on-costs further down the line. How can we encourage people—and this is the big challenge to operators—to say, “I do not know the answer, can I go and get somebody who does?”. I find this is one of the most difficult parts of dealing with any government official, encouraging them to say, “I do not know, I will find out, let us figure out something else”. This is something that is very difficult to do by diktat. It is almost counterintuitive but it is vital to make sure it works properly. If the Minister can say something on this subject I will be eternally grateful.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for giving us this opportunity to debate the future of ULOs. I shall try not to get confused and talk about UFOs, because there is a practical joke in the disability movement about this. I shall talk particularly about ULOs and their relationship to the personalisation agenda. I also thank the noble Baroness for her very kind words.
I should start by declaring an interest as a trustee and co-founder of the National Centre for Independent Living. NCIL is one of the largest user-led umbrella organisations in the UK. It pioneered the personalisation agenda long before it was adopted by social care professionals and civil servants—and long before politicians did so. One of the first user-led organisations in the UK was the British Deaf Association, which dates all the way back to the 1890s. User-led organisations have one central principle, which is summed up in the slogan, “Nothing about us without us”. This phrase does not belong in the NHS and did not come from a politician but originated in the early 1980s at an eastern European conference of disabled people. They were fed up with others making wrong decisions about their lives by not involving them, very simply. From then on disabled people's influence over their situation escalated, becoming a social movement touching on all issues that affected their lives, such as transport, access to the built environment, social service support, healthcare, housing and so on. I was very privileged to be a child of that liberating time.
There are now a whole range of ULOs led by all sorts of people who use services, including mental health service users, young and older people, people who have been in care, carers, people with long-term illnesses—not, as many would think, just physically disabled people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, or me. That is, not just wheelchair users.
ULOs represent an ongoing challenge to stigma, as they demonstrate not only what service users are capable of doing for themselves but, more significantly, what they can do for society. For example, Hampshire Centre for Independent Living pioneered the blueprint for direct payments, again long before it became part of an Act of Parliament and long before any politician had even heard of the words.
Shaping Our Lives is a notable example of a national ULO. It has been funded by government and NGOs, such as the Rowntree Foundation, to conduct research and evaluation, led by service users. The high quality of its evidence has informed public policy and practice for over a decade. In 2009 alone, it carried out studies and developed practice guidance for the Crown Prosecution policy on witnesses and victims with mental health and learning disabilities, on user-led involvement in social work, and on future housing services for older people. Most of the work is overseen by Professor Peter Beresford. Here is the big society at work.
At this point, Baroness Wilkins continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.
The ULO ethos has been particularly important in the development of personalisation, so much so that it became a key objective in the 2005 Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People strategy, which said that there should be a user-led organisation in every area with social service responsibilities by December 2010. There have been some notable advances, but the funding and policy push came almost entirely from the Department of Health. That funding is now coming to an end, but there are over 60 areas still waiting for a ULO.
Lack of funding, of course, is only one part of the problem. Another has been linking ULOs so strongly with social care services and the Department of Health. ULOs are not solely about social care, and neither is personalisation. The majority of ULOs were established to further the broader goal of supporting disabled people to live independently, working across a range of life areas other than social care: transport, housing, health and leisure. So, if the Government want to deliver the personalisation agenda, ULOs have to be understood, resourced and supported from across national and local government.
The Essex Coalition of Disabled People recently conducted a study, resulting in the report on key issues facing ULOs. Interestingly, it identified the narrow social care approach as one of the major reasons why ULOs have struggled to succeed. I know that the Minister for Disabled People in the other place has been particularly impressed by this ULO as a role model for the future. It and others rightly say that personalisation can be delivered efficiently and effectively only with joined-up thinking and resourcing responsibility.
At this point Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed.
I was privileged to chair the Government's Independent Living Scrutiny Group for two years. It looks across government for evidence of this kind of delivery. I know how difficult this is to achieve, but we really need to crank up the mechanisms to do this. Can the Minister tell me what plans he has for this?
ULO personalisation services require an enabling framework that helps them to be more self-sufficient. Small pushes can help—for instance, with the use of the EC Article 19 procurement directive, which allows for public contracts to give preference to businesses with a workforce that is over 50 per cent disabled. If local authorities were encouraged to do this, it would help ULOs enormously in the bidding market. The Essex study and previous research conducted by Leeds University clearly shows that when an organisation involves disabled people throughout, the support costs are higher than for those that do not. The commissioning culture has never really factored that realism into its procurement processes, so ULOs have lost out. Will the Minister assure us he will liaise with the Minister responsible for local government on how this enabling power could be incentivised within local authorities? This will enable ULOs to survive better in the marketplace.
We have heard a great deal about the Government's £3 million over the next four years to help build capacity and support ambassadors. This is welcome, but as I think I have shown, disabled people have demonstrated their ability to provide the solutions to their own problems, against the odds, since as far back as the 1890s. What we need more than ever is money to pay the rent on accessible offices, computers and wages for staff—yes, that old chestnut—infrastructure funding that cannot be found from service contracts alone.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s imaginative plans to help disabled people continue to help themselves and others through the dynamic network of ULOs. Personalisation will never happen without them.
Baroness Wilkins
I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for her kind words, and for securing this debate on a subject that, at its heart, is one reason why I became a Member of your Lordships' House. I declare an interest as vice-chair of my local borough disability user-led association—Hammersmith and Fulham Action for Disability, or HAFAD. I would like to say how delighted we are that, following the debate on 5 May, the Minister accepted our invitation to visit.
I became disabled the year the Disablement Income Group, known as DIG, was formed by two women who had developed MS and found that they, and thousands of others, had no right to any income support. That was 1966. That user-led organisation is seen by many as the start of the disability movement in Britain, a movement that has led millions of disabled people to recognise that our position in society is politically driven and that society could be changed to accommodate our needs.
Unless you have experienced disability, you cannot understand its daily living reality, and I came to it with the same ignorance as most non-disabled people. DIG, a mass movement of people over the whole range of impairments, was fighting for the extra costs of living with a disability to be recognised and for an income benefit to be given regardless of the cause of impairment. There were rallies in Trafalgar Square, petitions to Parliament and lobbying of Ministers. DIG introduced me to political campaigning, but, most importantly, it welcomed me to a world of people who had faced and were living with the same experiences as me. It was to those people whom I turned for help and information about housing, about how to get around, about places that were accessible and about how to find equipment that I could use, whether it was an accessible car or a manageable ironing board. My fellow disabled people had been there before, knew the real barriers to be overcome and had found solutions.
It is this shared lived experience that is the unique value of user-led organisations. It is a value to which policy-makers pay lip service but which is far too easily overlooked and jettisoned when it comes to the crunch, especially funding. It is very hard to convey how important this is, but it provides a quality of help and support that no one else can give. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has eloquently expressed how important it was to her. The Government need to understand and constantly reinforce its value if services are truly to meet people's needs.
This is the unique value of the small user-led local organisations for disabled people such as HAFAD, many of them centres for independent living. As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, its importance was recognised by the previous Government's Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, which recommended that there should be a user-led organisation, modelled on existing CILs, in every social services area by 2010. Does the Minister still see the value of that recommendation, and would he support it?
I shall concentrate on the experience of these small local organisations and on what the Government can do to support them. The local disability organisations have been the drivers in developing the independent living services throughout the country. The take-up of direct payments succeeded because user-led organisations understood what was needed in order for them to succeed. They provided the necessary assistance in recruiting and employing personal assistants, payroll services, information, advice and advocacy, but, crucially, they provided the confidence through peer support and local networks.
Since direct local authority grants dried up, HAFAD, like many borough organisations, has derived the majority of its funding from providing these services to the council through service level agreements. However, the larger profit-making providers see the market in this work and constitute a major threat to our existence. With their lower overheads, they can undercut small user-led organisations such as HAFAD.
Now, to save money, local authorities are increasingly banding together to award contracts. Currently, HAFAD's direct payment support service is faced with the prospect of tendering for a new contract to be spread over four boroughs—Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Brent, and Hillingdon. It would be impossible for us to cover that area or for anyone to provide the essential local support.
One of the most important things that the Government can do is to ensure that the importance of local user-led support is given its proper value in competition for contracts. Perhaps I may echo my noble friend Lady Wheeler in asking the Minister what the Government will do to ensure a level playing field between the small user-led organisations and their larger, profit-making counterparts when it comes to commissioning.
HAFAD’s excellent employment project, which was succeeding in getting disabled people who had never had any prospect of work into work after long periods of unemployment, has already been lost to the big contractors that won all the Work Choice and Work Programme contracts. As a result, we had to lay off all the staff except the manager, and we are using the organisation’s reserves to fund his search for subcontracts. In west London, the Work Choice contract went to Seetec, which has subcontracted to Leonard Cheshire, among others. Leonard Cheshire has now approached HAFAD for help with its delivery in west London and has asked for training in our access-to-work expertise, as it does not have specialist knowledge. So the user-led organisation is bled dry of funds and staff, while supporting others to provide a service, when it could have been given the security of a contract in the first place. User-led organisations can provide this expertise only if it is properly recognised and valued, and the Government could have helped by making it a requirement on the winning contractor to work with specialist organisations at a local level.
The problem is that the small user-led organisations survive only by a jigsaw of funding of these projects. If one project goes to the wall, it undermines the framework of the whole organisation because it is almost impossible to get funding for the running costs of an organisation either from trusts or local authorities, so a charge has to be made on each project to cover those costs. If a major project is lost, the whole organisation becomes vulnerable. Yet the organisation has to have a director and finance officer if it is to be competently managed and have proper financial control. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to address this problem?
Like many organisations, HAFAD has been trying to become self-sufficient through social enterprise schemes and partnerships. Not only is there the problem of the extremely stretched management framework of the organisation, which leaves little time to develop social enterprise, but small user-led organisations have no assets to provide collateral for bank loans. Major fundraising requires a massive investment of time, and these organisations can turn only to government to provide the seed money required. I hope that the Government are listening.
I add my tribute to Nasa Begum for her wonderful contribution to spreading understanding of the value of user control, and most especially for being the only wheelchair user I have known who went bungee-jumping in a wheelchair in Australia.
Lord Ramsbotham
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for obtaining this debate. I shall be brief. I declare an interest as a former adviser and now vice-president to the former Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health—now the Centre for Mental Health—because I wish to comment particularly on the mentally disabled. I want to concentrate on an area in which the treatment of the mentally disabled is not good, has not been good, but—it has been announced—is going to be better. My concern is that what appears to be happening in the user-led agency is likely to deny a way of putting that right. I refer to the well of psychiatric morbidity in Her Majesty’s prisons, where it is reckoned that at least 70 per cent suffer from some form of identifiable personality disorder—and some a great deal worse.
For the past four years, the centre has been concentrating on two aspects of work—the treatment of those who are mentally disordered in prisons, and the problems faced by those with mental disorders in obtaining employment. The employment issue is linked with prisons, but the centre has more generally been looking closely at the employment of people with mental health problems in the community. It has become abundantly clear that the key area for achieving independent living for the mentally disabled is employment, and that the best way of achieving that is through individualised support based on their sort of sustainable lifestyle and what they can actually do. That requires careful identification and then placement. The Centre for Mental Health is currently supporting nine centres of excellence, which are using an individual placement and support model across the country. That model is based carefully on this business of finding out what each individual needs. What also applies to it is having people trained as individual placement and support workers who have been attached to user-led and other organisations because they can advise those organisations on how best to look after people who come and work with them.
One problem in prisons at the moment is that no structured mental health treatment is available for this vast number. I was much heartened by the Government's paper, Breaking the Cycle, in which the Justice Secretary said that they were at last going to tackle this problem. Indeed, I have had discussions with the Department of Health as to how this might be done. However, having heard what the centre had come across, particularly about the user-led organisations, one idea that struck me was: what better thing to do than to localise this by employing local user-led organisations to go into prisons and help people who, after all, will come out of prison and whose employment will be out of prison. I was therefore very concerned when I heard that there were threats to the user-led organisations, which looked like being one of the key tools in resolving a problem.
I was encouraged to speak because one of the great messages that I got from the Sainsbury centre was that my noble friend Lady Campbell was challenging the Government on the cuts that were being imposed and asking them to spell out the impact that they might have on user-led organisations. Always being happy to support my noble friend, I felt that I would add this other area, which I would be most grateful if the Minister could look into—not least to alert the Ministry of Justice that there is a potential problem here, which could be solved before causing more problems than it deserves.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for securing this debate today. I did write out a bit of a script, but having just listened to some powerful contributions I think I will discard most of it. My noble friend says that this is her first Question for Short Debate; I feel sure and hope that it will not be the last. I was particularly pleased when she referred to Nasa Begum and the work that she has done, because when we talk about social workers it is all too often when there is a problem and somebody is being challenged. There are many people in that field who do fantastic work, day in day out. They are unsung heroes and it is nice to have an opportunity, even given the circumstances, to be able to join in the praise for somebody who has achieved a great deal.
When I saw that the list of speakers contained the usual suspects, I knew it was going to be a powerful debate. If there is any benefit in not being a Minister, it is that I am not responsible for answering such questions these days. Picking up on a couple of points in the contributions so far, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is generally not about lack of good will. Government policymakers and local government do not set about their task to get it wrong or to damage and hurt people. It is about understanding. The noble Lord talked about the need to encourage an interface. If he was looking to me for pearls of wisdom on that, I may disappoint him but there is no overall prescription for how you deal with it. You have to work at it hard and recognise the need for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has an effective way of chiding politicians to remind us that we came in at the end of this process and that people had been engaged many years before we even woke up to the issue. I accept that, while the mantra of “nothing without us” carries through from the 1980s until today. The issue about ULOs challenging stigma is particularly pertinent. We all agree that ULOs need to be properly understood, resourced and supported.
There are issues about infrastructure funding and I turn now to the £3 million fund that has been announced recently. The noble Baroness referred to the Localism Bill and the opportunities it presents.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I was going on to localism but, before I do so, perhaps I may recap. I walked out to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I think that what he was seeking for me to say earlier was not to report some success I had had with working with colleagues from dyslexia groups but to report the failure; that however much one had tried, it had not succeeded. So perhaps I can clarify that.
Before I get to localism perhaps I should refer to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which I found fascinating. I went to a seminar at the Centre for Mental Health earlier in the week. The seminar was about getting people into employment, although not necessarily through user-led organisations. It emphasised the key importance of having a mentor who stays with a person and how the one-to-one relationship makes an important difference. One can see the added benefit if that person comes from a user-led organisation as well.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins made the incredibly telling point that if you are not disabled you cannot understand the daily living reality of being disabled. That is why it is so important that we have user-led organisations. She expanded on some of the difficulties of getting funding and winning contracts. I have seen that locally in Luton in relation to a case where, although the process is not yet complete, small organisations have already missed out because they are competing against big organisations which are used, on a national basis, to getting the process right; they know exactly what is required and smaller organisations are therefore missing out.
This actually ties in with issues around localism because if localism is about empowering individuals, local communities and local groups to have a greater say over their lives, the rights in legislation have to be real for people and not just nominal rights. Some are fettered by quite a few powers held at the centre by the Secretary of State, but that is for another debate. People must be supported in being able to take up and make real use of those rights and funding should be attached to doing that.
Briefly, and to reiterate points other noble Lords have made, questions were put about the commitment that the previous Government made. The Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People report said that,
“by 2010 each locality (defined as an area covered by a council with social services responsibilities) should have a user-led organisation modelled on existing CILs [centres for independent living]. This recommendation has been taken forward as part of the cross-government Independent Living Strategy”.
I am right to ask the Minister whether that is still part of this Government’s approach to these matters—is that still a commitment they would wish to take forward? Putting People First talked about the transformation of adult social care and stated that,
“councils should have an enabling framework to ensure that people can exercise choice and control and have access to advocacy, peer support and brokerage systems with strong links to ULOs. Where ULOs do not exist, a strategy to foster, stimulate and develop ULOs locally should be developed”.
Is the noble Lord, Lord Freud, able to say anything further on that matter? Reference has been made to the £3 million-worth of funding that has been made available. I join others in supporting and congratulating the Government on doing that. But that funding is spread over four years and it has to cover things such as a new national head and somebody to be seconded to the Office for Disability Issues from a ULO, and the document talks about ambassadors and experts to provide skills and training support. It also refers to there being a facilitation fund for ULOs. Does all of that have to come out of the £3 million over that four-year period? Specifically, is that fund part of the £3 million? The press release that accompanied the announcement said that the facilitation fund would be,
“available for ULOs to bid for small to moderate amounts of money for specific projects”.
Might the noble Lord, Lord Freud, let us have his interpretation of what “small and moderate” might mean in these circumstances? I conclude on localism by referring to the community right to challenge. There is an opportunity there for ULOs but it must be a real opportunity. They must have the capacity to be able to do that, and perhaps the noble Lord might be able to say something further about that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for the opportunity to discuss disabled people’s user-led organisations and the broader personalisation agenda. I would also like to thank those who have contributed to this short debate this afternoon. It is a crucial area of work and I know that for many noble Lords—many more than are here—it is an area of utmost importance. I also join in the tributes that have been paid to Nasa Begum.
Let me begin by agreeing with everyone who has spoken in support of disabled people’s user-led organisations and of their importance. I will use “the organisations” as shorthand, otherwise I shall use up much more time than I have available. These organisations have a unique insight and are a powerful voice for disabled people, and the Government recognise their important role in shaping future service provision. We want to secure their continued involvement by developing their skills and building on their experience. With the current need to reduce the deficit and rein in public spending, budgets everywhere are tight.
We know that many local authorities have decided to reduce grant funding for these organisations, leaving them to rely on other means of generating income, such as the supply of services. However, with a new emphasis on personalisation and localised delivery of services, there are opportunities for these organisations to develop alternative sources of income and continue to be involved on the ground in support of disabled people.
This Government have to spend wisely. We are not in a position to throw money at these organisations, and the investment we are making in cash and time must be targeted so that a little will go a long way. Working closely with these organisations, we have devised a package of support designed to get the most out of the money we have put in. I will outline the details of the package in a moment, but let me just put this approach into a wider context.
The work that organisations such as these have been doing—bringing people together, volunteering their expertise and influencing policy—is exactly the kind of thing that the Prime Minister means when he talks about the big society, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. For groups such as these, the big society is already a reality. We want to use the limited funding available to build on this good work and develop an even bigger society, acting professionally, delivering services and working alongside local and national government to deliver more for disabled people.
The advantages of working with organisations such as these are clear. They are the experts in their own disabilities; they are organised, knowledgeable and in many cases already provide support and services alongside those provided by the public sector. Often those services are more innovative, work better for their users and cost less to provide than the public sector alternative. Essentially, these organisations already know what works and they have clear ideas about what does not. The Government want to tap into that knowledge.
However, our experience of working with these organisations has also demonstrated that some groups are lacking the professional, business and leadership skills they need to drive their organisations forward and to weather the current economic climate. That is why we have devised a package, working closely with representative organisations, to deliver £3 million of support designed to build capability, communicate best practice and bring in voluntary expertise. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the £3 million encompasses the full support package. It is doing what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, called for—making sure that we have a way of dragging in the expertise of these organisations to help disabled people.
The money will fund a national lead role shared by a civil servant and a disabled people’s representative, and link government and disabled people’s organisations at a high level. This will create a central, national focus for these organisations and cement their national presence. Beneath the national lead there will be a network of around 12 ambassadors, broadly spread out geographically. This will be complemented by a range of expert volunteers matched to organisations in their area that need their skills. All too often these organisations have told us that they lack the specific skills needed to run a successful organisation—skills ranging from accountancy and financial management to human resources support and business planning.
Finally, there will be a facilitation fund providing small grants for these organisations to address specific needs. This cash-limited fund will be managed by the national lead and a group of ambassadors, and be used to pay for things that support the sustainability of these organisations. Recruitment for these posts closed last week and we have received a great deal of interest, with around 10 applications for the lead role and 81 applications for the ambassador positions. The package will formally be launched next month, when we will announce who has been appointed. It will help these organisations to develop their skills and expertise.
Let me pick up on some of the points raised. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Wilkins, both asked how we will encourage local authorities to commission through these organisations. We are looking to the ambassadors to work with local authorities and to help local authority commissioners understand the added value that can be gained from working with these organisations. That support will allow the organisations to compete more effectively. We will emphasise through the ambassador network the added value that they can bring above and beyond what more commercial entities can offer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, asked what plans the Government had to crank up the delivery of the personalisation agenda. Our figures show that in September last year 248,000 people were receiving a personal budget. That is a good increase of 100,000 on the previous April, but it is still pretty patchy and we are determined to boost what is happening on that front.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, I can confirm that we want disabled people to have access to a good, strong organisation in their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, asked what local authorities might do to compensate for the extra costs. I shall write to the Minister at the department with that question.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made an interesting point about mental health. This is an enormous and very complicated area. I am extremely conscious that we have not got this right, particularly in prisons. We are talking to the MoJ. I take very seriously mental health issues in this area, but I find it very hard to find a coherent set of solutions. However, I am conscious that this is something that we need to get on with in the months and years to come. I take the noble Lord’s point.
I know that many noble Lords are champions of disabled people’s user-led organisations. I leave the Committee with the simple message that so are this Government. This is an area that we want to champion. We will continue to support and encourage those organisations’ involvement and help them develop into the professional operations that we know they can be.
Anti-Semitism
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to tackle anti-Semitism and what assessment they have made of the success of the cross-government working group on anti-Semitism.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, some noble Lords may be aware that in another place I participated in the all-party inquiry on anti-Semitism which sat in 2005 and reported in 2006. I should make it clear that I did so neither as a member of the Jewish faith nor as a Member of Parliament who had then taken much interest in, or at least shown overt commitment to, the political affairs of the Middle East. It would be fair to say that that degree of detachment was not confined to me; among the 14 members of the committee there was that general pattern. It informed the nature—I hope dispassionate nature—of the conclusions of our work.
I should begin with a confession to the Committee. After waiting six months for this debate, I booked the date when offered it without realising that it fell on the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which has precluded a number of noble Lords who are religiously observant, including the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, from participation. All I can say in mitigation is that I still felt that it was right in the circumstances to proceed because these issues needed airing. I also realised that if I could be so careless in my respect for others when I trusted my motivation was impeccable, how easy it is for us to neglect cross-cultural issues and the sensitivities that there are; and how easy also it is, for example, for a university academic, who might be less benignly disposed, to overlook the legitimate claims of Jewish or other students in the setting of exam dates and somehow finding that they coincided with a religious festival and created difficulties for the students. We all need to sharpen our act, and I shall be one of those. My overwhelming message to the Committee is that we need to be alert in these issues.
Beyond the strict remit of my Question, I do not feel that any views that Members may have on the Middle East situation or on the position of the Israeli Government—and I do have some of my own—should in any sense condone issues around anti-Semitism, although they are often used as a proxy.
Our concern here should primarily be with our domestic situation within the United Kingdom. This is rightly the concern of Members across the House. It is also important, and perhaps a useful piece of symbolism, that I speak as a Christian. My noble friend the Minister happens to be a Muslim and there will be others who participate who may have no act of faith at the moment. And so it should be. We should all engage on issues of intolerance involving our Jewish population because such acts and attitudes tarnish and diminish our society as a whole—and, of course, they are easily transferrable, in one nexus of intolerance, from one community to another, and that is intolerable too.
I am a member of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I should early on in the debate draw the Committee’s attention to a worrying upward trend in anti-Semitism internationally. As with our own British situation, this may from time to time burst out overtly into the public gaze. I remember going past synagogues in Vienna and seeing the police guard and so on and finding it depressing.
I am concerned equally by the Holocaust deniers, who tend to be rather noisy, and by what I might call the anti-Semitism deniers, who tend to be less open about it. We in Britain, at least in our Committee’s work, were honest enough to confess to our problems, but I become concerned when I hear other countries deny that contemporary problems exist or perhaps define them as merely extensive with those who happen to hold views that are critical of the Israeli political system or policies. With perhaps the exception of Germany because of its own ghastly history, accepted by nearly all those in responsible positions in Germany, too many other European countries turned a blind eye to pressure on their resident Jewish populations. This is perhaps partly because those populations—sadly, but it needs saying—have been reduced by the Holocaust, and they are now often by no means the largest faith minority. Nor in many cases do they have direct political clout.
I turn now to the specific issues raised in our 2006 inquiry and the government response. I have to say that there is much to celebrate and commend here. Under both the previous Government and the current coalition Government there has been a determined and positive response at both ministerial and official level. This has spanned a wide range of government departments, through the cross-government working group, and has drawn in partners from the agencies of the Jewish community. This dialogue has already led to three successive government responses, reporting to parliamentarians of all kinds in the light of that inquiry. One benefit of the occasion is to be seen when you revisit the latest White Paper that came out last December; for a government document it is, dare I say, quite a meaty response, with a lot of facts in it as to what has been achieved and what still needs to be achieved. Parliamentarians across the House and in the other place have maintained focus on that area and, in certain cases—and I include myself in relation to Holland—have taken the example of our work to a number of other Parliaments. This culminated in the first international conference on the subject in London, in February 2009.
I shall now comment briefly on a number of outstanding issues. First, hate crime itself—and these are crimes, whether they are attacks on individuals, buildings or cemeteries—continues in Britain at historically high levels. However, there is now better public articulation of the policing and other issues around them, and there is valuable co-operation with the community support trusts. Having as part of our inquiry visited a Jewish school in a Paris suburb which had been burnt out before we were there—and which, I found to my distress, was burnt out again after we visited—I welcome the money that the present Government have been able to find for school security. I hope that that will continue. It is appropriate at this point to mention, in difficult times, the money that the Government have recently made available to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation—a good international lead.
Secondly, we know that there is an outstanding issue in higher education. I am sure that others will want to comment on this. As a former Minister in that field myself, I cannot remain silent. Universities are one of our glories, and they flourish through the pursuit of light and liberty. We can never be content for them to act as agents for academic boycotts or the denial of free speech on any reasonable or sensible arrangements, let alone the fostering or condoning of violent attacks. Of course, I know that most academics would take exactly the same view as I do. Very valuable work is being actioned through the Equality Challenge Unit and the vice-chancellors themselves, but there are still cases where individual Jewish academics are targeted, and Jewish students may feel chilled or deterred from attending particular institutions. Universities have a public sector equality duty, and they should follow it.
At a more demotic level, I welcome the work of community leaders such as Gary Lineker and what is being done in sport. There is identification of some clubs with the Jewish population, not just in Britain, and we need role models. Political parties also have a job to discharge at election time, and to criticise those who do not.
To summarise, I hope that, as a result of our work, parliamentarians and the Government are now engaged in an integrated approach to pushing intolerance in this country to the margins where it deserves to be. There cannot be any complacency or let-up in the process of reviewing this and there is no amnesia for the lessons of the Holocaust. Old hatreds may be buried but they have not gone forever. Our task is to create opportunities to tackle specific abuses while setting a moral tone which is wholly intolerant to extremism. We need to express respect for individuals and to meet their problems but, above all, we need to be ready at any time to take a stand on this.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, as a fellow Christian I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I can call the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, my noble friend as he has a proud record in the other place and here—and, I may say, in the Council of Europe, which takes hate crime very seriously. I follow him and I congratulate him. Indeed, in terms of the Council of Europe it may well be that one of the priorities of this Government when we assume the presidency later this year will be to raise the issue of hate crime to a high profile. I hope that the Minister will note that.
I confess from the beginning that I had been somewhat complacent on this issue. From my background, which I perhaps romanticise, during my schooldays in my native south Wales, not one of a number of Jewish friends mentioned having in any way suffered forms of anti-Semitism. That complacency was punctured when I noted a few years ago that the synagogue in my home city of Swansea was damaged. Indeed, last December I noted that among the cities where groups had been arrested because of their targeting of rabbis and synagogues was Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, so that complacency is no longer.
It is obviously easy to target or mention the BNP but we delude ourselves if we do not recognise the role of Muslim extremists, certainly in my part of south Wales, who have been responsible for the change in atmosphere. It is surprising in a way, given that hate crimes affect mainly ordinary Muslims and Jews. Rationally, one would hope that there would be some form of co-operation between the victims. Much of the hatred is directed at Jews indirectly because of Israel. The Community Security Trust shows a correlation between, for example, the Gaza incident last year and the incidence of attacks on the Jewish population, where attacks on Israel are often a proxy for attacks on Jews.
It is interesting to read the valedictory article by Ron Prosor, the outgoing Israeli ambassador, in the Daily Telegraph last weekend. He stated that as an Israeli ambassador—and indirectly, no doubt, as a Jew—he was barred from many campuses, which is wholly contrary to the tolerant traditions of our universities. That must be in part because of the weakness or unwillingness of vice-chancellors to confront this problem. What is clear when university academics and trade unions criticise Israel is that they fail to notice that the Israeli universities are by far the freest in their region and that the Israeli trade unionists are by far the most vocal and free in that whole region. It is absurd that Israel should be singled out in that way.
Returning to the UK, obviously the problems include hatred on the internet, which is extremely difficult to regulate. It is not the time today to go into the Prevent strategy, published yesterday, but I am sure that there will be another debate on that.
We end on good news. The all-party report of 2006, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made a good contribution, received a positive response from both the Labour and coalition Governments. All its recommendations have been taken seriously, including the cross-government working group which has built up expertise and has ensured that there is a joined-up government response. Both Governments have given an important lead. I noticed when we prayed this afternoon that one of the phrases that we often use is “the tranquillity of the realm”, which is highly relevant to the attacks on hate crime. I hope that the Government’s work on hate crime will continue in the Council of Europe, and that we can try to promote greater understanding between Jews and Muslims. The law and central government can only go so far. The battle must be fought in hearts and minds; it must be fought among churches working at a local level and among community groups. We must be ready as individuals to confront examples of anti-Semitism in particular and hate crimes in general. I applaud the initiative, I applaud the response of the Government and I look forward to hearing an update on the current position when the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, speaks.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Boswell on obtaining this debate and so helping us in this House to keep to the forefront of our minds the scourge of anti-Semitism. It is very important that we do not let it be pushed to the side when there are many other pressures on our time and thoughts.
Growing up, I was, like many others, very aware of the question of anti-Semitism. I learned as a schoolboy about the Holocaust but also read about the Dreyfus case in France and other such events. I came from a community that always felt an instinctive sympathy with Jewish people. Irish Presbyterians, particularly in the north, always felt quite an identification with Jewish people and felt a little bit beleaguered at times, as often they do. Then I started my work in psychoanalysis and very many of my friends were of course from Jewish backgrounds. I became aware of the difficulties of their experiences—indeed the founder of psychoanalysis, Freud himself, wrote about his difficult experiences at the hands of Christians. That was one of the distressing things: the recognition that throughout the millennia, not just the centuries, much anti-Semitism actually came from the Christian community. More recently we have tended to associate it with other communities but we must not forget that historically that is where much of the anti-Semitism has come from. All sorts of rationalisations were given for it but it was just prejudice and bigotry.
What became clear when I talked to my colleagues was the range of views, not about faith so much—of course, that was the case as it is in every faith community—but the attitudes to the state of Israel. There were some who were not actually very supportive of it. Freud himself, when he was asked to give support, refused and said it would be a very troublesome business. He was not supportive of the idea of a state of Israel at all. The vast majority are supportive of the notion of a state of Israel, a place where Jewish people can feel at home and comfortable, safe in their own culture and community. Then there are those within that community who support the state of Israel but have from time to time very serious questions about the particular policies of particular Governments.
My old friend Amartya Sen has pointed out that when the pressure comes on, the important differences between people tend to be squeezed out and we see them all as a single bloc. It seems to me that under the pressure of prejudice and bigotry—or of economic crisis, which is always a bad time for tolerance—there has been a tendency to see all Jewish people as falling into one group. That is unfair and inappropriate and justifies, in the minds of some people at least, a critique against Jewish people as a whole, when it is quite clear there is a very healthy diversity within that community, not only within Israel but within Jewish communities right across the world.
It is extremely important that we do not allow people inside or outside the Israeli community to portray it as inappropriate that Jewish people should have a range of views. It is also extremely important to keep being clear that Jewish people have a range of views on every subject under the sun, not only because those views are often eloquently written about and enrich our culture, understanding and science but because politically it is the best detoxification of the notion that if you do not agree with the current policies of the Israeli Government, that in some way justifies an anti-Semitic attitude. Whatever the Government do, we must continually point out that not agreeing with the current policies of the Israeli Government is not a justification for anti-Semitism and does not go along in any way with the notion of it being justified. It is a very important distinction that we must keep hammering away at, because in times of crisis these differences tend to be squeezed out.
That is one of my anxieties at present. In the past few years, we have seen a rightward shift in the politics of Europe. You can see it in almost every election in almost every country. When you see that shift, you see more intolerance, a lack of pluralism and, almost inevitably, a resurgence in anti-Semitism. I say resurgence because it has always hovered there under the surface. I even noticed that there were nasty phrases and words during the financial crisis—“It’s all about money and the banks and you know who is at the back of that”. Sometimes it was even said, “It’s the Jews, you know”. You got that horrible, sinking feeling that we were experiencing a serious and dreadful rise of anti-Semitism. We must be clear that this is completely unacceptable and I welcome the fact that our Government are coming back, as have previous Governments, to remind us of that problem.
Apart from pointing out that anti-Semitism is wrong in principle and does not recognise the extraordinary richness that the Jewish community in this country has brought to us all, in almost every field of human endeavour—culture, science, medicine, the law, Parliament, and everywhere—I wish to make one other remark on this subject. My wife and I love to get away for as much time as we can down in the south of Burgundy. We love it very much there, and we love the vineyards. Some of you will know that every so often at the end of a row of vines a rose is planted. I was a little puzzled about this in my ignorance, in the early days when I started going down there many years ago. Then I discovered what it was. The rose is much more susceptible to mildew than the vines, so if the mildew starts to appear on the rose the vigneron knows that he must get out and spray the vines. The rose is the canary in the mine, as it were. The Jewish community is the rose in the vineyard because you can be sure that when you see the rise of anti-Semitism, it is merely the first sign of a dreadful prejudice and intolerance in our community. Never forget that the Jews are the rose in our vineyard and that when we see anti-Semitism arising, it will call for all our minorities and damage our country.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, this is the first time that I have used this technology, so it had better work.
I have never been described as a rose before and I quite like it, actually.
The inclusion of this debate today is very timely, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for introducing it this evening. I have the privilege of being the chair of the Coexistence Trust, whose principal remit is to engage with Jewish and Muslim students on UK campuses, with a view to lessening the undoubted tensions that exist between the two student communities.
I thank my noble friend Lord Janner, who founded the trust and whom I succeeded three years ago. He is our co-president; the other co-president is His Royal Highness Prince Hassan of Jordan, whom I must also thank.
Right from the beginning, it has been important to our trust that we strike a balance between Jewish and Muslim participants. Our employees are both Jewish and Muslim and so too are our donors and trustees. In particular, I am pleased to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who will speak later, is one of our trustees. I must also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who has been hugely supportive of everything that we have done since our early days.
There can be little doubt that our university campuses have allowed many forms of extremism to take hold. This week’s announcement by the Home Secretary on the successor to the Prevent agenda bears witness to the seriousness that this Government attach to the problem. The fact that international terrorists with murderous intent have been students at our own British universities is chilling. At the Coexistence Trust, we seek to bring Jewish and Muslim students together. Social engagement is the best way to dispel preconceived views. In January, we launched our campus ambassadors programme. These are students, one Muslim and the other Jewish, from both communities who operate at each of 12 pilot campuses. Their job is to engage students from both communities and encourage them to begin dialogues and work on joint programmes. For example, we look at issues that are common to both communities, including mutual threats. We discuss the BNP, which sees Jews and Muslims in much the same light as does the English Defence League. Most of all, we seek to encourage students to realise that we are none of us all that different from one another and have much to learn from each other. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism exist on campus; they emanate from certain students and certain faculties which are neither Jewish nor Muslim. But, sadly, they come, respectively, from Jews towards Muslims and Muslims towards Jews.
Fortunately, during the three years that I have been chair of the Coexistence Trust, I have noticed an improvement on campuses. For example, in the immediate Gaza aftermath, we were encouraged not to be present at the universities of Manchester and Nottingham. It was judged that the situation was too inflammatory and that we would only worsen it. Today, I am pleased to say, we are welcomed and work closely with them. Manchester in particular has issued a powerful code of conduct instructing administrators and faculty how to deal with the conflict. The issue is clear: universities are places to learn and experience new thoughts and ideas. Free speech is an integral part of our national life, and students must expect to hear views and opinions that may make them uncomfortable. Equally, universities have a duty of care to their students and they, too, must abide by the laws that this Parliament has passed to protect everyone from hate, speech and racism.
I should like to quote from the all-party report:
“The Government expects universities to have measures in place to ensure that their students are not subject to threatening or abusive behaviour”.
Recently, two Jewish protesters went to SOAS to protest against Israeli Apartheid Week, where they were set upon. One of them was bitten on the cheek and was told that the best thing that the Jews had ever done was to go into the gas chambers. This behaviour is simply unacceptable and the universities need to be much more robust in preventing its repetition.
Why cannot universities take a look at the calendar of religious holidays for some of the minority religions and try to avoid having exams on those days? As has been said, this very day is the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. It is a prime example. Here we are, smack in the middle of the school and university exam period, and there are students who are precluded from taking their exams or have to take them on different days.
One of the rules that we have at the Coexistence Trust is to avoid discussing the Middle East. The reasoning is simple: we cannot change the conflicts, but we can change how we interrelate in this country. But I must address one aspect of this conflict that does affect us in this country. What gets to many Jews is the way in which Israel is singled out in the media and by those in power. Clearly, it is both wrong and illegal to attack Jews for being Jews, but somehow it seems perfectly acceptable to attack the only Jewish state simply because it is Jewish. I must confess that I am no great lover of the current Israeli Government and am highly critical of their behaviour. Criticising them is totally legitimate, but how about some of Israel’s neighbours? Let us take Syria as an example of how double standards apply. Even as we speak, a massacre is in the making. A thousand Syrians have already been murdered by Assad and his henchmen. Very shortly and very sadly, more will be slaughtered in cold blood. It is simply awful. Where are the demonstrations in London? Where are the protests outside the Syrian embassy? Where are the Socialist Workers Party and all the other protestors who turned out in such force against Israel at the time of Gaza? There is a not a word on Syria, on Libya or Iran, but when Israel overstretches the mark, everyone goes nuts. Many Jews think, and with good reason, that anti-Israeli invective is often anti-Semitism masquerading under a different name. The fact is that to criticise Israel is not anti-Semitic, but to single out Israel simply because it is a Jewish state surely is.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I appreciate this opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has given us to discuss this situation.
If we each look back at our history, there were massive turning points or milestones. I was a boy of nine at the end of the war in 1945 when I went to the local cinema that was showing a newsreel of Belsen, Mauthausen, Treblinka and Auschwitz. I saw the mounds of skeletons, and those who still existed were shuffling their way to a dream of freedom. I am sure that I was not the only lad who said that this must not happen again; this horror must not be allowed to repeat itself. That is one reason why it is so important that what happened then is not allowed to be forgotten by the current generation in our schools and colleges—the horror of 6 million Jews, as well as many of other ethnic origins, executed in Hitler’s Europe.
Fairly recently, I was in the Parliament in Warsaw looking at the plaques for those parliamentarians who had died in 1939 and 1940. You could see, one after the other, how they had died in those concentration camps and death camps. I was glad that those plaques were there to keep reminding us of the horror of what had happened. Those sorts of events make me what I am. They guide you in your political direction and your religious conviction—to build a world in which every person is honoured and respected, whatever they are and whatever their background. We have to work together, which is one reason why I am such a strong supporter of Europe. The more that nations are bound together and work together, the less likely we are to experience the hurt and destruction of past generations. That is the most valid reason, among others, for my support for the European project.
Karl Lueger was mayor of Vienna and chair of the Christian Social Union and Anti-Semitic Union of the Diet of Lower Austria. As has already been mentioned, he represented a Christian anti-Semitic element. He saw anti-Semitism as a way of channelling public discontent to his political advantage. Goebbels spoke of the,
“parasites of the Jewish race”.
On the other side, there was Judah Leib Pinsker, who in 1882 said he believed that anti-Semitism was hereditary and, as a disease transmitted for 2,000 years, was incurable and an,
“inherited aberration of the human mind”.
We need time to think that through for ourselves.
We should have learnt the lesson of the Holocaust. I am sorry that the Chief Rabbi is not with us today. He said in 2006 that a “tsunami of anti-Semitism” was spreading globally. The Boston Review in 2009 stated that 25 per cent of non-Jewish Americans blamed Jews for the financial crisis of 2008-09. According to a study in 2004, Germany, France, Britain and Russia have the highest rate of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe.
There were victims, of course, even before Hitler. I believe that the survivors of the camps and those who came out of the pogroms have a fear, a deep-rooted suspicion, “What might happen because I am Jewish? What might happen in the future?” Pogroms have taken place over more than one generation and the parents and grandparents who have survived bear the scars and tattoos of that persecution.
I am a Welshman and a Christian, I hope, and when I see the film footage of those little kids being loaded onto the transport wagons and taken away to the death camps, I think of my own seven grandchildren and I say to my family, “This could have been us”. I was looking at television coverage of it only a couple of days ago, where Jewish toddlers in the camps were lifting their sleeves to show their tattoo numbers.
This is an important debate but I must not go over my time. Ours is an awesome responsibility; we must act and legislate so that no future generation suffers in this way. Our own attitudes and conversation can undermine not only the Jewish people but other vulnerable people in our communities such as asylum seekers and refugees. I wish the newspapers would stop demonising people who come to this country. Their headlines create suspicion and hostility and I hope that, without legislation, we will see an end to this demonising.
So much more could be said. For instance, the curriculums in our schools could cover the history of what has happened so that children can learn. I am grateful to the Holocaust Educational Trust for giving youngsters and others the opportunity to go to Auschwitz and other places. Much has been and must be done. In doing it, I hope that we will create for Jewish and other people a generation the like of which they would never have known in past centuries.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I never thought that in my lifetime in this country, to which my family has reason to be so grateful, I would have to say that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that there is a need to speak out. I welcome the Government’s actions in response to the inquiry, in particular the excellent appointment of Sir Andrew Burns as the envoy for post-Holocaust issues. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has been a brave exponent of the truth and a defender of minorities, and I thank him.
The Government have not been able to influence the way in which anti-Semitism is taking hold in higher education and the way in which anti-Zionist rhetoric is being used to cloak anti-Semitism. The old language of prejudice is once again manifested, for example, in West Dunbartonshire Council banning books from Israel.
One should be rational about these issues but I cannot help but be passionate about what I see around me—in particular the way in which the minds of young people are being infected. The National Union of Students recently issued an interim report on hate crime. It surveyed 9,000 students and reported that 31 per cent of Jewish students had experienced a hate incident—more than any other religious group.
The unhappy plight of many Jewish students was first exposed nationally by the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group in 2006, with accounts of harassment and attacks, often in the name of Israel. There was a dramatic rise in national anti-Semitic incidents to nearly 1,000 a year in the period of the Gaza operation. Students paid the price too. Universities are in denial about extremism and radicalisation and have not addressed the very real problems of anti-Semitism that exists on campus. Only yesterday the Government issued their Prevent strategy, highlighting the dangers of extremism in universities.
There is a considerable overlap there with the topic of tonight’s debate because where there is Muslim extremism there is usually extreme dislike of Jews. Our priority task should be to save young minds from being indoctrinated with this ancient hatred, whether it is by the preaching of inferiority at some faith schools for the young or the doctrine of exclusivity at universities. I am pleased to be a trustee of the Coexistence Trust, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, which is doing pioneering work.
Baroness Deech
Since 1986, universities have been required to issue a code of practice on freedom of speech within the law, enabling control of speakers where a breach of the law is likely. Universities are subject to the law of the land, including the Equality Act and the Protection from Harassment Act, which should be sufficient to protect students. But most universities have failed to operate their codes, and they emphasise freedom of speech at the expense of ignoring its limits.
There is no legal freedom of speech that involves hatred of minorities, racial and religious abuse. There are egregious examples of universities failing to protect Jewish students. Ironically, one of them was the LSE, which was content to make financially rewarding links with Libya. It hosted a speaker late last year called Abdel Bari Atwan, who was already on record as having glorified the killing of Israelis and rejoicing over the assassination of Jewish students. The university could have used the code to ban this, having been forewarned, but did not, with sad consequences. Given the increasing dependence of universities on raising funds, one hopes not to find links between those universities that have received funds from extremist regimes and their unwillingness to control such speakers.
Students may feel reluctant to report anti-Semitic incidents to their lecturers, whose union, the University and College Union, has officially decided that anti-Semitism cannot occur in the context of Israel-related activity and is obsessed with Israel. The European working definition of anti-Semitism states that the singling out of the state of Israel for criticism not levelled at other countries, the denial of Jewish self-determination and comparison with Nazi policies may be anti-Semitic. In its recent motion 70, the UCU resolved not to use this understanding of anti-Semitism in its own internal complaints procedures, so that it can cry Israel in order to stop Jews talking about the racism that they have experienced. Many Jewish members have resigned from the UCU, but the union has rejected a motion to investigate that as well. In its actions, the UCU is denying the Macpherson definition of racism, reached in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, as,
“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim”.
UCU's actions, including this latest motion, show it to be an organisation which is institutionally racist against Jews.
This is the union that has spent years trying to establish an illegal boycott of Israeli academia. This is the union that hosted a South African called Bongani Masuku as a speaker, despite the fact that the South African Human Rights Commission had found him guilty of hate speech against Jews. This is the union that would now deny Jews the ability to complain about racism by denying their perceptions of victimhood if the topic of Israel is in the frame.
Universities should now consider breaking off recognition of UCU. Universities have a statutory duty to promote good race relations on campus and a public sector duty of equality. The Government should insist that they carry out their legal responsibilities and apply their codes of practice on freedom of speech; and I call on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the UCU.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on securing this debate. The date is perhaps a little unfortunate, but at least we are in the right Room, because the picture on the wall is actually of the event that the festival celebrates.
Anti-Semitism has variously been described as the oldest hatred based on religious differences and as the socialism of fools, with its appeal to the far right and to the far left. Now, as has been said, it is often linked to anti-Zionism. Martin Luther King said:
“When people criticise Zionists they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism”.
Actually, that is too broad a generalisation, although certainly the two can overlap and, as we have heard, moral relativism is all too frequently found in these arenas.
A few months ago, I met a delegation from the Union of Jewish Students who relayed to me the concerns that other noble Lords have expressed about what they have to face on campus. As a result of that, I tabled a Question for Written Answer that, among other things, asked the Government what representations they had made to university authorities concerning invitations to speak, and what steps they would take to protect Jewish and other students from anti-Semitic, Islamophobic or other racist behaviour on campus. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Minister replying, did not really take matters very much further than to refer to guidance already issued. I hope that in replying the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, may indicate an intention to take this further, because the response of university vice-chancellors has been, frankly, rather feeble in this respect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has pointed out.
There are real grounds for concern about what is happening in various parts of the country—not least, rather surprisingly, in the Greater Manchester area, which appears to have been the scene of about 30 per cent of the recorded serious incidents investigated by the Community Security Trust. The trust finds about two-thirds of the complaints to be justified. They are not finding every complaint to be justified, but they take a serious look at these matters. It is extraordinary that Greater Manchester appears to have such a high proportion. Perhaps that is something that the Minister might ask her department, or a department, to look into.
At election time, there is sometimes a temptation for people to stray into this rather dangerous territory. In 1967, when first a candidate for the ward I represented for longer than I care to remember, I was subjected to some anti-Semitic campaigning by the Conservative candidate. In fairness to the Conservative Party, they very publicly and very rapidly repudiated him and his actions. This May, another Labour candidate in another ward, opposed by a Muslim candidate for the Conservative Party, was also subjected to an anti-Semitic campaign, partly conducted on the internet. It was a little odd because the Labour candidate was not actually Jewish, but nevertheless anti-Semitism was deployed. Again, in fairness, the local Conservative Party has taken up this matter and I have no doubt will deal with it very seriously. However, it indicates that the same disease can still abound, perhaps in different circumstances.
Apart from these domestic issues, some wider issues are of concern. For example, I understand that Press TV, the Iranian Government’s broadcasting outfit in this country, has been guilty of repeated breaches of the Ofcom code—not least latterly in giving airspace to publicity for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I am not asking the Minister to give an immediate response to this, but I wonder whether the Government might look again at making representations about whether Press TV’s licence should be continued in circumstances where it so frequently breaches the code.
Another matter arises from the tendency in some countries of eastern Europe—I think notably of Latvia and Lithuania—to present an equivalence between the Nazi occupation and the subsequent Soviet occupation, which entirely leaves out the question of the treatment of those countries’ Jews. I recall visiting the Riga museum and seeing a great deal of suffering portrayed under both regimes, but there was no mention at all of what had happened to Latvia’s Jews or, indeed, to other Jews who had been deported and killed.
However, there are some positives in the situation. Reference has been made to the Holocaust Education Trust and I am grateful to the Government for continuing the financial support for its work, which is to bring home to young people in particular the terrible period of the Holocaust. There is also the Anne Frank Trust UK, of which I declare an interest as a patron. Drawing from Anne Frank’s experience and her very moving diary, the trust goes beyond referring simply to the Holocaust and works in schools and prisons more generally to promote tolerance, encourage community cohesion and to help young people in particular to deal with instances of bullying and behaviour management. I hope very much that the trust’s work will be supported. I am sure that the Government will continue to support it and perhaps even slightly increase their support.
It occurs to me that we have in this country many councils of Christians and Jews but not many organisations embracing the three Abrahamic faiths. That is not a matter for the Government, but as we will have had, once the noble Baroness speaks, a representative of each of the three main Abrahamic faiths speaking in this debate. A message to encourage that kind of interfaith co-operation would be very helpful. I am glad that the present Government are continuing the work of their predecessors and look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho on securing this extremely important debate. My noble friend was an integral part of the initial all-party parliamentary inquiry in 2005 and, since the publication of the report, he has worked tirelessly to challenge anti-Semitism. Today’s debate is a valuable opportunity to demonstrate our strong and enduring commitment to tackle anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred. I am grateful to Members from all sides of this House for their wise and insightful contributions to this important debate.
As my noble friend Lord Boswell mentioned, this debate is taking place during the Jewish festival of Shavuot, so many Peers including the Chief Rabbi are not with us today. That said, the ongoing fight against bigotry and hatred falls on all our shoulders, whatever our background. It is an issue that crosses party lines. As my noble friend mentioned, I am pleased that Muslim, Christian and Jewish people, those of different faiths and none, are here today discussing this important issue whatever our backgrounds. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, whom I have had the pleasure of working with on many occasions for his kind remarks.
As many noble Lords have highlighted, anti-Semitism regretfully remains a factor in the life of the British-Jewish community. The Government continue to share the community’s concern about the rise of anti-Semitism, both at home and abroad. In particular, we are concerned about the rise of hate on the internet, the growth of extremism on university campuses, the security concerns of Jewish faith schools, the low levels of hate crimes brought to justice and the existence of extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun, the English Defence League and the British National Party. I cannot be clearer; wherever and whatever the roots of anti-Semitism, it must be confronted, challenged and condemned. Since the all-party inquiry in 2005, the Government have made significant progress against the initial 35 recommendations. The police and other bodies have become better at dealing with violence, threats and the desecration of synagogues and cemeteries. However, we recognise that progress still needs to be made, especially when anti-Semitism is less explicit and when there is lazy acceptance of Jewish stereotypes.
It is almost six months since we published our three years on progress report and, despite the progress outlined in the report, we have not been complacent. We will continue to take practical, effective action to stamp out anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it occurs. I am extremely pleased that noble Lords have referred to the specific work of the cross-government working group, which brings together civil servants from across Whitehall and representatives from three leading Jewish organisations: the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, and the Jewish Leadership Council. The working group gives members of the Jewish community direct access to central government and is a vehicle to raise concerns—and I assure noble Lords that these concerns are heard and that the concerns of the community are acted upon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised a very important point about the UCU and the motion not to use the European Union Monitoring Centre's definition of anti-Semitism. That issue was raised by the Jewish community through the working group late last week. A teleconference took place to discuss the issue this week and an urgent group meeting has been scheduled for the week beginning 20 June. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall keep her updated on the progress of that particular matter. The group has been cited as an example of best practice across Europe and the Americas by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, among others, raised the issue of extremism on university campuses. Noble Lords will be aware that yesterday the Government published an updated Prevent strategy, and this issue was referred to particularly. Universities and colleges promote and facilitate the exchange of opinions and ideas, and promote debate as well as enable a learning environment. However, universities and colleges have a legal and moral obligation to staff and students to ensure that the place of work and study is a tolerant, welcoming and safe environment. Universities and other higher education institutions are charities and therefore they must comply with charity law. The Charity Act 2006 requires all student unions to register with the Charity Commission by the end of June 2011. Legally, all charities must work for the public benefit and must act to avoid damage to the charity’s reputation, assets and associated individuals. Higher education institutions and student unions must therefore give due consideration to the public benefit and associated risks when they, or one of their affiliated societies, invite controversial or extremist speakers to address students.
We accept that universities and colleges of further education will need guidance, information and best practice to address these issues. Therefore the Government will continue to support the sector to improve its capacity. The National Union of Students is already in the process of developing guidance to student unions on free speech and tolerance, which will be published later this year. Moreover, the Equality Challenge Unit will publish outcomes from its major religion and belief study later this year. The Jewish community has been directly involved in the project’s development.
Ofcom and its role in relation to Press TV was another issue that was raised. Officials from the cross-government working group meet Ofcom regularly to discuss issues of concern, and to date I can inform noble Lords that Ofcom has recorded four breaches against Press TV; the first three relate to breaches of the due impartiality requirements by not including viewpoints arguing the position of the Israeli state. However, at this stage I am not aware of any breaches against Press TV in relation to anti-Semitism.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the issue of extremism during election campaigns. We have initiated meetings and correspondence with the Electoral Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the hope of getting clarity on this issue. The cross-government working group that tackles anti-Semitism has been tasked with taking this matter forward. As politicians, we are renowned for having different opinions on a whole host of issues, both domestic and international. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Alderdice made an important point about a diversity of opinion within and between religious communities. However, while we regularly oppose and contradict each others’ ideas, it can never be right that a person standing for high office, such as a Member of Parliament, should be campaigned against simply because of their race or religion.
My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno referred to Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is a place that I visited in 2008 with the Lessons from Auschwitz project. The systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of 6 million Jews and other minorities by the Nazi regime and its collaborators makes the Holocaust a unique and unparalleled horror in Europe’s history. I am proud that this Government have contributed £2.1 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau restoration fund. This contribution, alongside our commitment to continue to fund the Lessons from Auschwitz project in 2011, and the £750,000 that we are providing to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the 2011 commemoration, will ensure that the Holocaust has a permanent place in our national conscience and that the memory of those who perished is honoured and preserved.
This Government are committed to building on the foundations laid by the previous Administration. In the past 12 months, we have appointed Sir Andrew Burns as the UK envoy for post-Holocaust issues. We have agreed to provide up to £2 million to fund security measures for Jewish faith schools within the state sector. We have committed £2 million during 2010-11 to Faith in Action, a small grants programme to support local interfaith activity. In particular, we have supported to the tune of around £275,000 52 projects that are bringing together people of the Jewish faith and other faiths. The Government have also supported Interfaith Week to the tune of £200,000 in 2010, including funding for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Three Faiths Forum, the Council of Christians and Jews, the Joseph Interfaith Foundation and Mitzvah Day UK. The UK also regularly contributes to international efforts to tackle anti-Semitism, and we play a key role in developments in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism.
All police forces must now record anti-Semitic hate crimes, and in November ACPO published the first official anti-Semitic hate-crime statistics. This action has received specific praise at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s High Level Meeting on Confronting Anti-Semitism in Public Discourse, held in Prague in March 2011. The Government have also produced and delivered occupational standards for police officers handling hate crimes, and we have published a diagnostic toolkit to enable local criminal justice agencies to self-audit their performances in the handling of hate crimes, from initial call handling through to prosecution. We have also supported the Community Security Trust, with funding from the Victims Fund. The grant was awarded to support the CST’s work to improve the reporting of anti-Semitic attacks in London and Manchester. The funding also helped to develop a guidance booklet, A Guide to Fighting Hate Crime.
International agencies and monitoring bodies have regularly praised the UK’s approach and are often held up as being at the forefront of state responses to tackling hate crime. However, as I said earlier, we cannot afford to be complacent, and I can assure the Committee that we are committed to continuing this work and to offering whatever support we can in the ongoing fight against anti-Semitism. As I have said before, and will say again, anti-religious bigotry and hatred should not be tolerated whenever and wherever they manifest themselves.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate and in particular to my noble friend Lord Boswell for his efforts in securing this debate and his commitment over the years in the other place and now here to tackling anti-Semitism.
House of Lords
His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty The Queen as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave
To assure Your Majesty that this House looks forward to the ninetieth birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh;
To convey to Your Majesty the admiration that is felt by this House for His Royal Highness; and
To express the hope that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh may long continue to enjoy good health and happiness.”
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that I invite the House to agree this Motion today and thereby to place on record, on behalf of this House and the nation, our sincere admiration for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and our gratitude for his unswerving contribution to our national life ahead of his 90th birthday this Friday. The longest serving consort in British history, for over half a century the Duke has both steadfastly supported Her Majesty the Queen in her important work and at the same time created a distinctive and much valued role for himself in our national story. Like his predecessor a century before, Prince Philip has served our institutions with great dignity and honour. His role at the heart of a partnership that has helped to bequeath a glorious reign has been something both fundamental and very special.
Few of us can fail to admire Prince Philip when he comes to the State Opening of Parliament and sits quietly but resolutely next to Her Majesty on the Throne, with a twinkle in the eye and a profound understanding of the values of duty and service; and with an intrinsic grasp of our national character and spirit. Prince Philip has remained constant to this country and its people, and today we are going to recognise and thank him for that.
Born on 10 June 1921, a prince of Greece and Denmark, Prince Philip and his family were evacuated from Greece in 1922 by a Royal Navy ship, subsequently settling in France. Educated in Germany and the United Kingdom, he joined the Royal Navy as a cadet in 1939 at the onset of the Second World War. His appointments included that of first lieutenant of HMS “Wallace”, which took part in the Allied landings in Sicily in July 1943, and first lieutenant of HMS “Whelp”, which partook in the surrender of Japan. He then went on to attain the rank of lieutenant commander in 1950 and of commander in 1952, by which time his active naval career had come to an end following the untimely and premature death of his father-in-law King George VI.
Following his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth in November 1947 and her accession to the throne in February 1952, Prince Philip, who had by then become the Duke of Edinburgh, began his new role in public life in support of the many duties, engagements and responsibilities carried out by Her Majesty the Queen. He is patron or president of some 800 organisations, foremost among them the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, a charity which has touched the lives of more than 4 million young people in more than 60 countries since its inception. He maintains an active interest in industry, conservation and the environment, most prominently as the first president of the UK arm of the World Wildlife Fund. He is also a proud father, a grandfather and most recently a great-grandfather, achievements and accolades sometimes too obvious to mention, but nevertheless sources of immense pride. He is a keen sportsman, a tireless collector, a passionate supporter of the arts, of education, of our Armed Forces and of the Commonwealth—to do full justice to Prince Philip’s achievements and interests would require a litany.
He is a man of extraordinary range, commitment, involvement and passion. The Duke has been at the heart of what this country is about for almost his entire adult life. We owe to him a significant debt of gratitude for all that he has done and continues to do and I know that the whole House will wish to join me in conveying our warmest congratulations to His Royal Highness on the occasion of his forthcoming 90th birthday. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, it is a very great privilege for me to have the honour to associate the Opposition Benches and myself with the tribute that the Leader of the House has paid to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of his forthcoming 90th birthday. The country holds Her Majesty the Queen in very high esteem and regard, all the more so since the royal wedding in April and the success of the extraordinary visit by the Queen to Ireland last month. A fundamental part of that esteem is the role played by His Royal Highness as the Queen’s consort—indeed, the longest serving royal consort in British history. In doing so he has virtually defined the role, at least since it was carried out for Queen Victoria by Prince Albert.
In a BBC documentary for his 90th birthday, to be broadcast tomorrow night, I understand that the Duke says of his role:
“It has all been trial and error”,
but as his son, the Duke of Wessex, says in the programme:
“That kind of view is typical of him. He is very modest about himself”.
While the Duke of Edinburgh may indeed be modest, his achievements are not. For many people all over the world, the words “Duke of Edinburgh” are inextricably linked with the award scheme which carries his name. Since 1956 when the scheme to help the development of young people began, a staggering 7 million young people have taken part in it across 132 countries—an astonishing achievement.
As he approaches his 90th birthday on Friday, we give heartfelt thanks for all that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has done for Her Majesty the Queen, for his service to this country, including his own fine naval record of service, for all the causes which have benefited from being associated with him and especially for the many millions of people who have participated in the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award programme and whose lives have, as a result, been immeasurably altered and improved and whose volunteering has, in turn, altered and improved the lives of so many others.
The Motion before the House today speaks rightly of the outstanding service to the nation given by His Royal Highness in supporting the Queen, and his own deep contribution to our national life. Those are exactly the right sentiments and exactly what we on these Benches wish to support.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I am delighted to associate the Liberal Democrat Benches with the humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty the Queen, and the message to be conveyed to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on his 90th birthday. The essential feature of our democracy is the strength and stability of our monarchy. Whereas in other parts of the world presidents and prime ministers come and go, we can take great pride that next year we will celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.
The Duke of Edinburgh has been the longest serving consort and the oldest serving spouse of a reigning British monarch. During all this time he has accompanied the Queen to various countries abroad. The Commonwealth, particularly the new Commonwealth, takes great pride in its loyalty to and respect for the Queen and the Duke. It is because of our Royal Family that the Commonwealth has continued to be an important political voice on the world stage.
As a person born in east Africa, I take great pride in one other matter. Prior to the Queen’s accession in 1952, the royal couple visited Kenya. She came to us as a princess and we sent her back as a Queen. We wish His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh many happy returns and thank him for his services to the United Kingdom.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, nine decades is a long time and covers a great deal of ground and change. It is my happy task, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers, to wish His Royal Highness a very happy birthday and many congratulations on reaching such a venerable age, while at the same time confounding all the stereotypical views we hold of someone facing his 10th decade. Far from being a gnarled old man, the Duke has retained his bounce and his interest in life. His robust sense of humour has added a welcome informality to official occasions. A reported conversation at a press reception to mark the Golden Jubilee in 2002 went something like this. The Duke said to a journalist, “Who are you?”. “I’m the editor in chief of the Independent, sir”, replied one Peter Kellner. “What are you doing here?”. “You invited me, sir”. “Well, you didn’t have to come”. How can exchanges of this kind not but add to the gaiety of nations?
More seriously, the Duke of Edinburgh, with his originality of thought and readiness to challenge accepted truths, has played a key role in modernising the monarchy, encouraging, as we have heard, millions of the young to undertake challenges. He has made significant contributions to conservation and undertaken the patronage of more than 800 organisations, as we have also already heard. Above all, he has been a steady and ever present consort to Her Majesty the Queen. Long may he continue in this and his many other roles.
Once again, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers, I am privileged to join all sides of your Lordships’ House in offering our congratulations to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, and to support wholeheartedly the humble Address and the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I express the warmest congratulations to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of his 90th birthday. As the embodiment of devotion, duty and loyalty in service to our country, the Duke has been a model example to us all.
As someone who shares a birthday with the Duke, I look with admiration and—if it is allowed in someone from these Benches—envy on his stamina and resilience. Until 2006, he was still pursuing his passion for carriage driving and competing with fell ponies. We have witnessed his tireless energy again in recent days with the royal wedding, the historic visit to the Republic of Ireland and the welcome to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on his state visit. I have had particular cause to reflect on these qualities over the past couple of weeks during a stay in St Thomas’s Hospital, where, in the words of the consultant surgeon, Mr Simon Atkinson, I had to have “a nasty appendix” removed. I was discharged from hospital only this morning. In my somewhat fragile state, the question in my mind has been a very simple one: how does the Duke do it?
His Royal Highness’s long record of service to our nation began before his marriage to Her Majesty the Queen. As for many who risked their lives in the cause of freedom during action in the Second World War, the Duke’s record of military service was a distinguished one. As an officer in the Royal Navy, his quick thinking in distracting a Luftwaffe bomber saved the lives of many on board HMS “Wallace”. After the war, his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth brought much happiness and hope to a nation during what were still uncertain and straitened times. The recent wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has been a reminder of how much the spirits of our nation can be lifted during difficult days by events that capture the imagination and draw on the symbols and heritage that underpin our history and identity.
Since giving up his 14-year naval career, His Royal Highness has acted, as we have heard, as patron to some 800 organisations, as well as being chancellor of the University of Cambridge. In particular, I pay tribute to his passionate commitment to the welfare of our nation’s young people, notably through the award scheme which bears his name and which has been an inspiration to so many similar schemes overseas. The award scheme’s emphasis on physical achievement and service as ways of building confidence and character reflects the Duke’s own experience and values. Underpinning those values has been his rootedness within the Christian religion, first within the Greek Orthodox Church and now for many decades within the Anglican branch of,
“the one Catholick and Apostolick Church”,
giving steadfast and tireless support to Her Majesty in her role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Not everyone is aware that His Royal Highness has a keen interest in theological questions. Bishops who are invited to stay and preach at Sandringham face a barrage of serious theological questions over lunch—and there is nowhere to hide. He listens appreciatively but never uncritically. In my case, the sermon was based on Jesus turning water into wine at Cana in Galilee. In conversation, the Duke suggested many possible explanations for the miracle as opposed to the one that I was giving. He even included a Uri Geller-type explanation. He produced a spoon that Uri Geller had bent for him. “You see this?” he said, “That could have been it”. To my rescue came that still, small voice of calm from Her Majesty the Queen, saying, “Philip and his theories!”. Secondly, among the Duke’s theological interests are several publications that he co-authored, including “Survival or Extinction: A Christian Attitude to the Environment”, a work that incorporated another of his enduring concerns—wildlife preservation and care for the environment.
In ecclesiastical affairs, as on other issues, the Duke of Edinburgh likes to cut to the heart of the matter. My right reverend friend the current Bishop of Norwich recalls that, on first arriving at Sandringham, the Duke asked him, “Are you happy clappy?”. To that, he responded, “No, I’m smells and bells”. I am pleased to say that, following this robust exchange, they got on fine.
Humour is ever one of the Duke’s characteristics. The Duke is in fact a tease par excellence. For example, when showing me around the restored chapel in Windsor Castle after the devastating fire, he said, “Come and see my new piece of modern art”. I looked at it but could not work it out and had to ask, “Who is the artist?”. With a big laugh, he said, “That’s a piece of wood saved from the fire”. Later on, in writing to him, I suggested that he send that piece of modern art to the Yaohnanen tribe, in Tanna, who regard him as a god. I will leave noble Lords to imagine his response.
We, the Lords spiritual, wish His Royal Highness the Duke many happy returns and associate our sentiments with all sides of the House.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That a Message be conveyed to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as follows:
“Your Royal Highness,
We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, warmly congratulate Your Royal Highness on Your Royal Highness’s forthcoming ninetieth birthday;
We express our gratitude for Your Royal Highness’s outstanding service to the nation, not only in supporting Her Majesty The Queen throughout Her Majesty’s reign but also in making Your Royal Highness’s own deep contribution to national life, in particular in Your Royal Highness’s distinguished naval service in the second world war and in Your Royal Highness’s creation of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award which has done so much to encourage the development of young people;
We wish Your Royal Highness many happy returns.”
Oil Prices
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans HM Treasury has to ensure that inflation is reduced and consumers derive benefit when there is a reduction in oil prices.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, the MPC, is responsible for maintaining price stability. It sets policy to meet the inflation target in the medium term. The MPC continues to judge that inflation is likely to fall back through 2012 and 2013. Petrol retailing is a competitive market. It is that competition which should see reductions in oil prices passed on to consumers.
Lord Barnett
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am conscious of the fact that he has a propensity to quote what I said some 40 years ago. I thought of checking this time, but on reflection I realised that the Government have inherited a different policy from that of my time. In 1997, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, as the noble Lord has pointed out, introduced a new policy involving the transfer of power from the Chancellor to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee. The Government do not particularly like the then Chancellor but I assume that they are happy with the inheritance. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that. I know that he does not like talking about interest rates but will he also confirm the extreme national and international importance of interest rates and that the Chancellor still has absolute confidence in the governor and his policy for dealing with inflation?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am very happy to confirm that this Government are entirely comfortable with the structure around the MPC and have complete confidence in the governor. I could go on. I have quotes from 40 years ago. I was going to use quotes from 30 years ago but if the noble Lord would prefer me not to use them on this occasion I will not do so. However, his words of wisdom are always my guide.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I agree with the Bank of England in keeping interest rates low to support the economy but on the other hand we have rampant inflation: food inflation is 5 per cent; wheat has gone to 70 per cent; corn is 100 per cent. The consumer is being squeezed because we have wage deflation. Does the Minister agree that the Government are between a rock and a hard place? In that situation, should not the Government consider reducing taxes to help the consumer and encourage growth?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I completely agree with the figures given by the noble Lord for the very considerable increases in commodity prices over the past year. Those are, of course, driven by global factors, but they impact very severely on consumers and businesses in this country. That much I agree with. He referred to low interest rates. This is absolutely critical. We have almost record low interest rates on our 10-year gilts at the moment—3.33 per cent, I think, last night. That is a recognition of the confidence that the Government have in the underlying fiscal policy but it also reinforces that the Government’s contribution is to make sure that we continue to have a prudent view on public finances and do not deviate from the course that we set for reducing the fiscal deficit that we inherited.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, is it not clear that the mechanism set up by Mr Gordon Brown for controlling inflation is not working and that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is taking a number of other factors into account in addition to inflation? That being so, would it not be appropriate to revise and improve the remit given to the MPC rather than the Governor of the Bank of England having to write letter after letter after letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why inflation is above target?
Lord Sassoon
Well, I am always reluctant to disagree with the analysis of my noble friend who has considered these matters for many years, but I do disagree because I think that the medium-term target that the Bank of England has been given and the framework within which the MPC operates continue to be entirely appropriate. Of course, it is a medium-term target, and the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast from March shows inflation coming down to 2.5 per cent in 2012 and 2 per cent in 2013.The comparison of independent forecasters shows a very similar picture—2.3 per cent next year and 2.1 per cent in 2013. This shows that the Bank of England has the confidence of the commentators and the forecasters to continue to work to its mandate successfully.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
Is it not the case that inflation is never going to reach the benign figures that the Minister says? Yesterday we were warned of a gas price increase of 19 per cent, an electricity price increase of 10 per cent, and all the other companies will do the same. How can the noble Lord possibly think that inflation is under control? Is he simply going to let the spiral continue until we land in bankruptcy?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, of course we would not wish to see inflation at the 4.5 per cent it is now. As has been explained, this is very largely driven by global factors with regard to commodity prices. We are not only keeping to our tight fiscal policy, which underpins the ability of the Bank of England to stick to its mandate, but giving help to the most vulnerable—whether that is the Budget announcement that gave a £630 increase in cash in personal allowances for the under-65s, whether it is in the arrangements that we made to cut fuel duty effectively by 6p per litre from what the plans of the previous Government had been, or whether it is increasing the state pension by 4.6 per cent. What the Government must do, and are doing, is to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Newby
My Lords, with the Chinese economy, the Indian economy and many other economies still growing strongly, is it not likely that the price of oil and other fossil fuels will remain high for the foreseeable future? In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that the Government’s carbon reduction strategy assumes an even greater importance? In that context, can he tell us when the Government plan to bring forward the Bill formally establishing the green investment bank?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we will bring forward the Bill in due course when it is in good shape. I take my noble friend's point about commodity prices. It reinforces the fact that we need to ensure that all energy users get advice to use energy efficiently in order to reduce their household bills. That is part of where we are targeting government help.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, when energy prices and oil prices rise, the price to the consumer rises very quickly. When world prices fall, the price to the consumer falls very slowly. What are the Government going to do about that?
Lord Sassoon
I have no idea what the noble Lord’s evidence for that is. The most recent intervention taken by the Government was to cut fuel duty, as I explained, by 1p per litre on Budget day. The price at the pump over the following few days fell by 0.8p per litre, despite rising oil prices over those same days. The market was investigated by Ofgem or the OFT. The competition authorities looked at the market for oil prices in 1998 and have not sought to look at it again. If the noble Lord or anyone else has evidence about prices, Ofgem, which looks at the market, has dealt with them recently and I am sure that the OFT will as well.
Businesses: Regional Growth Fund
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many small and medium-sized enterprises have been helped by the Regional Growth Fund, and what other plans they have to help such businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, about one-third of the £450 million conditionally allocated for successful bids in round 1 will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. Our expectation is that at least 1,000 SMEs, located in areas where there is not already a vibrant private sector and culture of enterprise, will benefit directly from round 1. The second round of the fund is bigger, and we expect further bids that will benefit SMEs.
Lord Harrison
Given that only one-third of the successful submissions are from small businesses, whereas the regional growth fund was designed to help small businesses, does the Minister accept that a flaw in the design of that fund is that you had to submit a minimum bid of £1 million, which is out of reach for many small businesses? Does she accept that the advice on the BIS help site is absurd, given that the proposal that you should spatchcock together lots of different projects from small businesses not only increases bureaucracy but means that projects are brought together which are unnatural neighbours? Is it not time that the Government thought big about small businesses?
Baroness Wilcox
I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about: the threshold value of £1 million seems very high for very small businesses. We recognise that £1 million is too high a threshold for the smallest businesses. Sadly, it would take much time and resource to deal with a very high number of very small bids. We have addressed that point by conditionally allocating funding to organisations with experience of the SME sector, so that they can work with it to deliver the grants. Projects below £1 million can join up with other projects to form a coherent package and can bid together to meet the threshold. I come from a business background and know that if you cannot get a grant or a loan for the business the first time round, you go out there to find another business that will join you so that you can get it. This is a competitive process, which is what we want it to be, and I think it will succeed.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, the credit crunch which started four years ago was as a result of the sub-prime crisis. After the credit crunch came the financial crisis then the recession and then the sovereign debt crisis, but the biggest domino effect was that lending to small businesses all but froze. Are the Government really doing enough to compel or encourage the banks to lend to small businesses, given the support that we have given to the banks over those years?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State, is for ever speaking to and with businesses. Yes, of course we know that we need a predictable tax system to reward endeavour; we know that we need better access to both debt and equity finance; and we know that we need to reduce red tape. We are working hard on all of that.
Lord Cotter
My Lords, other support for small businesses is intended to come through local enterprise partnerships. Will the Minister take on board concerns that not enough small businesses—not in sufficient force—are being involved in local enterprise partnerships throughout the country? This is of great concern. Surely this should be part of the approval process that the Minister has to go through when he sets up the local enterprise partnerships in the first place.
Baroness Wilcox
The evidence is that we have been overwhelmed by the number of bids that have come in. For the second round that we are in now, there is an enormous number of bids, which is very heartening. It is competitive, and people are doing awfully well with it. I hope that I can speak later to the noble Lord and reassure him on this with the evidence that we have.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, given the record levels of youth unemployment, is the Minister aware of the newly released data from the Federation of Small Businesses showing that only 8 per cent of small businesses have taken on an apprentice in the past year? This is concerning, given that in 2009 more than half of the apprenticeships took place in businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Furthermore, the federation believes that allocated funding to apprenticeships must be used to benefit micro-businesses—that is, businesses that are likely to take on their first apprentice with the potential to grow. It believes that the Government should better promote group training agencies or apprentice training agencies.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I expected this question to come from the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, whom I see is in the House today. My answer to this question is that this is a challenge fund and projects can cover whatever the bidders want. The aim of the fund is to create jobs and these could include apprenticeships—a key part of this Government’s growth agenda. We look forward to bids coming forward for apprenticeship growth.
Lord Sugar
My Lords, my question for the Minister is not the one that she was anticipating. She will recall that in my short stint at BIS as an adviser to the Government, I concentrated on the business link centres. At the end of that period, I concluded that they were, frankly, a waste of money. I was told that they cost £250 million per year. Will the Minister give us an update on the status of the business link centres and indicate whether she has come to the same conclusion? Will the money that was given to the business link centres be deployed somewhere else?
Baroness Wilcox
I was not prepared to answer a question on that, but I will of course send an answer to the noble Lord. I would like to reassure him that I think that he would approve of the system that we are using here. It is working. The bids have already levered in £2.5 billion of private sector funding. Maybe he would like to follow carefully how we are proceeding with this sum—and maybe even support us in some ways.
Allotments
Baroness Sharples
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of allotments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lord, it is local authorities that have a duty to provide statutory allotments. The Government are keen to support local communities that want to use local spaces for community food growing, and to protect existing land for this purpose. New neighbourhood planning provisions in the Localism Bill will provide a new right for communities to shape their local areas, including the means to boost allotment provision.
Baroness Sharples
I thank my noble friend for that reply. I realise that the Localism Bill will help, but are local councils playing by the rules in providing alternative sites when those present sites are needed for development or whatever? An enormous number of people who write to one now are looking for allotments and cannot get them. They have to wait years.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we already know that there is a 50 per cent extra requirement for allotments. Local authorities can, of course, make land available if they have it for allotments. The neighbourhood planning provisions in the Localism Bill, to which my noble friend refers, will enable neighbourhoods to identify land where they think allotments could be provided within their neighbourhood plan and have that agreed by the local authority. There are, therefore, methods by which new allotments can be provided, but I recognise immediately that there are far too few for those who want them.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that, in the 19th century, the Bishop of Bath and Wells was one of the founders of the allotment movement. I have to say that there are questions about why he founded the allotment movement, but he did. The Minister may also be aware that under the present development of the Bishop’s Palace in Wells—in opening it more effectively to the public—the palace hosts not only the city allotments but a new community garden. I note that the National Trust has pledged some 1,000 allotments on its premises by 2012, and ask the Minister to encourage the development of land on all suitable estates open to the public as allotments or community gardens.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that is a fascinating bit of history from the right reverend Prelate, which I did not know but I enjoyed hearing about. Of course, he is right that the National Trust has already started developing allotments and, yes, wherever allotments can be provided and wherever authorities or bodies are able to provide them, we could encourage that, because too many people who would like to grow their own food are waiting for allotments. The more provision, the better.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Does the noble Baroness agree with me that allotments have many virtues, among them the fact that they provide an important habitat for honey-bees and other kinds of bees? Indeed, some allotment users keep bees on their allotments. Are the Government ensuring that research funding is being sustained in order to monitor and, if possible, to reverse the decline in the honey-bee population in this country? If she cannot tell the House now perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, bees are a little beyond my brief and a little beyond my department’s brief. I am extremely happy to refer the question, probably to Defra, and to ensure the noble Baroness has a reply.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a local councillor; I am pleased to say that we have just provided some new allotments in my ward. In areas with town and parish councils, the town and parish councils are the statutory allotment authorities and very often run all the local allotments. They are often very good at managing the allotments and running them in an economic and financially viable way. The problem of producing new allotments is providing the capital funding in the beginning to set up the allotments before they can be managed. That is a real problem for town and parish councils. Will the Government look again at it?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is right that local authorities have the statutory responsibility for allotments, and it would be up to them if they wished to put aside a capital sum to provide more in their area. I do not think that the Government can direct them to do that, although we recognise that many people want allotments. I certainly do not think that my department would tell local authorities that they had to provide them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does the noble Baroness think that we would have such erudite questions about allotments and bees if we had an elected second Chamber?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity in getting such a question into Question Time. I shall not spend any more time trying to answer it.
Lord Harrison
As with the regional growth fund and inflation, on allotments have the Government lost the plot?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not sure who has lost the plot and it is not an issue I want to address this afternoon.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, my family have some allotments in Surrey—I live in Devon. They are run by the allotment holders, who provide everything that is needed to keep them running; they do not need the local authority. Is this not an example of the big society?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, self-help and people working for themselves, producing their own answers and working without government intervention of course is the big society at its best. After all, the big society is just about that; it is about local people working for themselves and for others and looking after their neighbours. In that regard, what could be better than working on an allotment?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the neighbourhood planning regimes of the Localism Bill and how they may be beneficial to allotment development. What protections are in the system to prevent aggressive development of allotments by narrowly focused neighbourhood forums?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, allotments are protected: one cannot just come in and take them over. Land is made available for allotments and it is a statutory right for them to be there. It would only be if allotment owners did not want those allotments that they could be addressed within a neighbourhood plan and with the wish of the neighbourhood that they should change hands. I do not believe that anybody can aggressively take over allotments.
Travellers: Dale Farm
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what amounts have been promised, by which government departments, as contributions towards the costs of policing proposed evictions at Dale Farm.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Home Office has agreed to set aside contingency funding, up to a maximum of £4.65 million, to assist with the costs of policing the proposed evictions at Dale Farm. The final grant awarded will be agreed after the operation and will only cover the costs incurred. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government has committed to provide up to £1.2 million to Basildon Borough Council to support the evictions at Dale Farm.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the decision to spend £117,000 per family on eviction of these people from the Dale Farm site considering that there are no other sites in the county to which they could be directed? Does this policy not simply mean that another £18 million will have to be spent by local authorities down the line on evicting the same families from even less suitable locations, to say nothing of the downstream costs on health, education and the social costs arising from these evictions?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue which my noble friend has worked on to good effect for decades. He suggests that this is an inappropriate use of potentially several million pounds of public money. However, there will be no need for any expensive police operation if those served with eviction notices leave within 28 days having exhausted all their appeal rights under our well developed system of justice and the rule of law. Why should one community group be allowed to flout our planning laws by suggesting disorder and thus an unaffordable police operation while a lone family or individual is easily required to comply?
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, does the local authority not have a responsibility to have concern for these families? I believe there are 100 children involved. Surely there is an obligation on the council to look after their welfare: indeed, I believe there is an EU resolution on the stocks which would commit the local authority to doing precisely that. Why are these people being deprived of their homes after all the years that they have lived on this site?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Basildon Borough Council had to make an undertaking to the High Court that the matters which the noble Baroness referred to would be dealt with properly.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether Basildon Borough Council has undertaken an equality assessment of its decision to evict the Gypsies and Travellers from this site?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if Basildon Borough Council had not carried out a proper impact assessment of all the consequences of its action, it would probably fail in the courts.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the deep concern that many Traveller children are not being well engaged in the education system, that they are being failed and that the generational impact of continued failure is being perpetuated? Is consideration being given to the education of these children and what steps can be taken to ensure that they have continuity of education and, if possible, stay in the same school?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely important point. If we carry on not properly educating Traveller children we will never break the cycle, because it is very difficult for Traveller families to engage in fully legitimate economic activity if they have not been properly educated. I referred to undertakings in my answer to the noble Baroness: the local authority has to deal with these issues.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, can my noble friend explain where these people are supposed to go, considering that there are no other sites in Essex, and no sites in the county plan?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the local authority has obligations under the law of homelessness, as the noble Lord fully appreciates. I go back to my original point: we cannot allow people to flout our planning laws.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the original Question was about cost. The noble Earl will know that currently we are debating the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which proposes to party-politicise our police force through the election of police commissioners. Would it not be true to say that the money being spent on those elected commissioners would be better spent on ensuring that our police forces are properly staffed?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would raise the issue of police and crime commissioners; I would have been very disappointed if he had not. We do not intend to limit the influence of central government on policing decisions only to see the same restrictions imposed by PCCs. They will provide the community with a voice and local accountability that is currently non-existent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, it is clear that this is a very complex issue. I hope that the House and noble Lords will appreciate that if this site is occupied illegally, action has to be taken to remove the occupiers. If the law is not upheld in this instance, how on earth can it be upheld in other instances which may be just as important?
Earl Attlee
I am sure that all noble Lords agree that the noble Lord has made a very good point.
Winterbourne View
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement, whether they will ensure that the terms of reference of the serious case review into the abuse at Winterbourne View encompass the question of the appropriateness of placing people with learning disabilities in private hospitals.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I declare an interest as a psychiatrist who has spent much of the last 30 years working with people with learning disabilities who have similar needs to those of the subjects of the shocking “Panorama” programme. I am also the carer of an adult man who has a learning disability and whose behaviour at times challenges those who support him. I have also been a policy adviser on learning disability to the Department of Health on two occasions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the safety and quality of care of those with learning disabilities are of the highest importance. We will discuss the terms of reference for the serious case review with South Gloucestershire Council. We want to ensure that the terms of reference for all of the reviews by the local authority, the strategic health authorities and the Care Quality Commission will give us the evidence that we need to answer the serious questions raised by the events at Winterbourne View. We have asked Mark Goldring, the chief executive of Mencap, to work closely with us in reviewing the evidence.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The national picture needs to be thought about. This matter is not happening just in south Gloucestershire. I understand that there may be as many as 150 private hospitals. I consider that to be unacceptable given the three decades of work to close NHS long-stay hospitals, which was finally achieved just two years ago. Will the Minister consider reversing the decision to end the employment of the national director for learning disabilities, who, as a policy adviser to the department, could have responsibility for overseeing the implementation of government guidance? The Mansell report gives guidance on how to manage and support people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour in the community, rather than exporting them a long way from home to private hospitals.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She raises some important issues. I am aware that the chief executive designate of the National Health Service commissioning board and the current chief executive of the National Health Service, David Nicholson, will be looking at the whole question of national clinical directors and leadership in clinical care in the coming months.
The noble Baroness is right about care in the community. That has been the direction of travel under the previous Government, as it is now. She will know that many Winterbourne View residents were sectioned under the Mental Health Act and had challenging behaviour, an area I know she has experience of. I believe that privately provided care can be trusted; if the commissioning is right, if regulation is right and if the arrangements for oversight are right, it is not intrinsically less likely that privately provided care will be delivered at the right levels of quality.
Baroness Thornton
I am seeking assurance from the Minister that there will be a wide-ranging and independent review of this matter, held in public, that will shine a light on what happened at Winterbourne View and allow the wider lessons to be learnt. We need to know whether the CQC’s failure to monitor the treatment of residents was due to the fact that there was a shortage of CQC staff. Does the CQC have sufficient powers to act in this case and, if so, is it using its powers adequately? Could the Minister also comment on the wisdom of placing more regulatory tasks with the CQC, as the Government are proposing in the process of reorganisation? Surely we need to see that the CQC is carrying out its current functions adequately.
Earl Howe
My Lords, first, there is a criminal investigation under way and it would not be appropriate to launch an inquiry, even if we were minded to do so. As the noble Baroness knows, the CQC has launched its own internal investigation. It has admitted that there were failings in its processes. South Gloucestershire Council will lead an independently chaired serious case review, as has been mentioned, involving all agencies, which will look at the lessons to be learnt. The strategic health authorities involved have instigated a serious untoward incident investigation. The department will, after these reviews have been concluded, examine all the evidence and report to Parliament.
We want to understand not only the immediate facts and why things went wrong at Winterbourne View but also whether there are more systemic weaknesses in the arrangements for looking after people with learning disabilities and who exhibit seriously challenging behaviour. It is very easy to make the CQC into a scapegoat. It is difficult to ask of the CQC that it polices every room in every hospital at every hour of the day. We rely on the CQC and have been supportive of it. It does much good work and clearly it will want to review its own processes as part of this.
Baroness Barker
Does the Minister agree that when this abuse was taking place, a number of professionals, including nurses and doctors, must have gone into that establishment and that these professional bodies should start to conduct their own inquiries into what their staff were doing in there at the time? Secondly, a bad provider of care has everything to fear from an unannounced visit, while a good provider of care has nothing to fear. Does the Minister agree that as a temporary measure the CQC could consider conducting only unannounced visits in the foreseeable future?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My understanding is that all patients at Winterbourne View have been regularly reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical team in the past six months on behalf of the primary care trust that commissioned their care, and most of them in the past three months. I am sure she is right to say that those who have conducted such reviews should examine their processes and my understanding is that that is exactly what will happen.
We have endorsed the CQC’s proposal to launch a programme of risk-based and random unannounced inspections of a sample of the 150 hospitals providing care for people with learning disabilities. They will work in conjunction with local government improvement and development, ADAS, Mencap and with experts with experience of this programme. The spirit of my noble friend’s question is amply addressed in the programme.
Lord Laming
Will the Minister encourage the Government to reinforce messages about managerial accountability wherever vulnerable people are being cared for and about the fact that the greater the degree of vulnerability, the greater that accountability must be held by the managers of the service?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is quite right. There has clearly been a serious failing in management here. We are looking at that urgently and, no doubt, important lessons will be learnt. All agencies have acted immediately on being alerted to the situation by the “Panorama” team and, as I have mentioned, appropriate inquiries are under way.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
I agree with the Minister about the response around the Care Quality Commission. When such a result as this comes out, the undermining is quite damaging right across the whole spectrum of its work. In hospital trusts and everywhere else, the CQC’s inspection and report are held in great esteem if they are good and are very worrying if they are not. I wonder whether that is denigrated by this unfortunate incident and this awful opportunity that it has had and missed.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I take the noble Baroness’s point. It is very easy to blame the CQC whereas we should in fact first point the finger at those who perpetrated these awful acts and at the management of the hospital. There are a number of other agents involved besides the regulator. We are committed to developing the role of the Care Quality Commission to make it a more effective regulator of health services in England. Those efforts can be supplemented by the role of HealthWatch, which she will know we proposed in the Bill before the other place to strengthen the arrangements for the patient and public voice. I am sure that there is more that we are able to do, but it is important that we learn the facts first before pointing the finger at the regulator or anybody else.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we have reached 10 minutes and should progress to the next item of business.
Syria
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are proposing the United Nations Security Council should take against the Government of Syria in the draft resolution they are putting before the Security Council later today.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, today in New York, Britain and France, along with Germany, are asking for Security Council support for a resolution condemning the repression in Syria and calling for the Syrian Government to meet their people’s legitimate demands, release all prisoners of conscience, lift restrictions on the media and the internet and co-operate with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The violence being meted out against peaceful demonstrators in Syria is an appalling response to the people demanding their basic rights and freedom. It is time for the Assad regime to stop the violence and reform or step aside.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full response—but is it really enough? There are hundreds of Syrian civilians who have died in terrible circumstances; worst of all is the report of a 13 year-old boy who was tortured, emasculated and murdered. There are thousands pouring over the Turkish border and reports of police officers being executed for refusing to fire on crowds of civilians. Does not the Minister believe that the situation in the town of Jisr al-Shughour is so like that in Benghazi that similar measures should be taken to protect the civilians there? Does he agree with the French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, with whom the British Government are sharing the platform today, who said that the process of reform in Syria is dead and that Syria’s president has lost his legitimacy to govern?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the situation is far from getting better: it is getting worse. The reports of atrocities are disgusting. We have all been shocked by the news of the apparent treatment of a young child—indeed of many young children—in the mayhem of violence. All these questions are being debated today at the United Nations. We and the French—the noble Baroness mentioned Monsieur Juppé—are putting forward sentiments very similar to those that she suggested. It is a question of carrying all opinion in this direction in order to get effective co-operative and co-ordinated action. Not everyone, particularly in the Arab world, has yet reached the point where they have united in seeing that further measures are required beyond those that we are already proposing. I myself was able to consult with a number of Arab and Gulf leaders last week in that region and had some mixed opinions on whether this was the time for more forceful action. The noble Baroness can be assured that Her Majesty’s Government hold this matter in the strongest-possible and deepest concern. We believe, and fear, that stronger measures will indeed be needed.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I congratulate my noble friend on the new tougher resolution that the Government are trying to secure through the United Nations Security Council. Let us, however, speak plainly. We know that China is one of the countries that is likely to veto this resolution. My noble friend will of course be aware that Chinese workers in Libya had to be taken out on a Chinese frigate, and that China now has interests around the world. Will he urge the Chinese Government, as they engage around the world, also to build alliances around the world to promote the interests of their own citizens if not for nobler purposes such as democracy and human rights—which, alas, they do not respect?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend makes an extremely good point which has certainly occurred to me in discussions with senior Chinese diplomats. The traditional or conventional stance of the Chinese authorities and Chinese Government is that they do not interfere in foreign countries. The reality is that because of extended Chinese influence and involvement throughout the world, whether the Chinese authorities like it or not, they are involved and do have to move towards taking a responsible position as they become a world force and a world power, an active member of the World Trade Organisation and a responsible authority and influence in the world. If this is the role that they want to play, they will have to be involved in a much more positive way, as my noble friend says.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, it is now 30 years since I left Damascus as British ambassador to Syria. Of course I accept that we are absolutely right to condemn these appalling reports on what is happening in Syria, just as I hope that we condemned in 1982 similar reports of terrible massacres of people in Hama under the present president’s father’s rule. However, does the Minister accept that whatever its other faults, Ba’athism as a system of government is a secular system of government? I believe, and I hope that the Minister agrees, that we should be extremely careful to do nothing that could desecularise that wonderful country.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Those are clearly very wise remarks. I suspect that the noble Lord has more experience than I do of exactly how we reacted to the atrocious murders in Hama in 1982, which were conducted by the brother of the then president, Hafiz al-Assad. The noble Lord is right that Syria is a secular pattern. It is also a tribal pattern, and the tribal and family groups who have ruled Syria are of course not a majority; they are a minority, among many others. They have ruled by methods that we regard as reprehensible, and that are becoming even more so. I accept the noble Lord’s analysis that one could see a very serious disintegration of a country of many tribes and various religious groups and, indeed, a pattern that could develop a far greater infection of jihadism and extreme religious activity. For the moment we will have to see how events unfold. We hope that they will take a better course, but at present there is not much room for optimism.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I also welcome the steps that are being taken today at the United Nations and I understand the limitations that this Government and the French and German Governments must feel about how far they can go. This is, as the Minister has said, a savage regime, conducting brutal behaviour towards its own people. Can the noble Lord tell us what steps are being taken to engage Arab support in the region and whether consideration is being given to the International Criminal Court, which must certainly be looking at these as crimes of concern to humanity?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As Syria is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court it would need a UN resolution to direct such a course. I have no doubt that the idea has been circulated but no action has been taken on it. As for gaining the support of the surrounding region and the leading Arab powers, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are in direct contact with a range of leaders in the area. Our posts are in constant contact with the area. I myself had contact last week with a number of leaders, including, although not directly an Arab leader, Mr Najib Mikati in Lebanon, which is directly affected by what is happening in Syria. We keep lines as open as we can with all the major influences and parties, not least the Turkish Government and Mr Erdogan who have some direct line of influence over Bashar al-Assad, but so far their efforts have been to no avail.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 were built on the platform of the Arab League agreement, and that provided a degree of cover, preventing Russia from vetoing the resolutions. What is the working assumption of the Government in respect both of the Arab League generally, which presumably is fairly pessimistic about support, and the way in which Russia will now react?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord, with his experience, is describing precisely the modalities and parameters that my colleagues in the British Government and other diplomats are having to cope with in New York at this moment. There is some hope that a resolution can come forward. There are varying views within the Arab League and among Arab leaders about which way to go and how much pressure to apply. There have been in the past first the traditional Chinese attitude of non-interference, which I have already described, and secondly some reluctance from Moscow to be involved. But this could be changing and there comes a point in this transparent interconnected world where the sheer volume of the atrocities means that there is a unity of intolerance to the continual misbehaviour. We may get to that point soon.
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [HL]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.
European Union Bill
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:25 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 216 - Amendment 5 agreed.
19:35 - Division on Amendment 5A - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 5A disagreed.
Lord Liddle
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment in a purely formal way. I anticipate that, in speaking to Amendment 2, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will give us assurances that will enable us to withdraw this amendment, but without further ado I would like to hear what he has to say.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have sought, through the tabling of these amendments and in Committee, to clarify the spirit of the provisions in the relevant clauses of the Bill by tabling all but one of the amendments before us in this group. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who has just indicated that he is moving his amendment formally in order, quite rightly, to elicit from the Government our case for the amendment that we have tabled within the group.
As my noble friend Lord Wallace made clear in Committee, it has not been and nor should it be the Government’s intention to tie the hands of Ministers and their officials who negotiate assiduously in the development of European Union legislation in order to protect and maximise the UK’s interests and priorities. The fact is that Ministers and officials have participated constructively for many years in the earlier stages of the development and negotiation of various EU measures, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that from continuing in the same way. When it comes to the point at which the final decision is taken in the European Council or the Council, what the provisions of the Bill are designed to do is to prevent a Minister from voting in favour of a treaty or other measure specified in Part 1 at this final stage, or otherwise allow the adoption of a treaty or measure to happen, unless and until he or she has the approval specified in the relevant clause of the Bill. As we know, this may be an Act of Parliament or it may be an Act and a referendum where there is a transfer of competence or power. The Bill does not prevent the Government from signing up finally to and participating in anything at the EU level, but Ministers would first have to have the support of Parliament and, where necessary, of the British people before doing so.
The amendment tabled in my name in the Marshalled List makes the position crystal clear, and I hope to the satisfaction of noble Lords. The effect of the amendment will of course govern the use of the phraseology we are concerned with throughout the whole Bill, and therefore not oblige us to table a series of consequential amendments because this change to Clause 1, which is interpretive, will govern the whole Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Wallace explained in Committee, the words we are concerned with, “or otherwise supporting”, are included to make clear that, at the point of the final and formal decision in Council or the European Council, a Minister would be unable to allow a measure to be adopted in Council or the European Council through means other than a positive vote, which under this Bill would have to be preceded by the necessary national procedures—namely, an Act and a referendum, if required. Articles 235(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 238(4) make clear that abstentions at the point of final and formal decision in Council do not serve to block, but rather are treated as support for the adoption of a proposal requiring unanimity. Therefore, letting a measure through by abstention in the Council and then claiming by way of excuse or explanation, as it were, that although it transferred competences or powers and should have had national approval somehow it slipped through and Ministers could not help it, would not be allowed.
In addition, as many of your Lordships know, in Brussels matters often do not proceed to a formal vote. The chairman may just seek the sense of the room, and if no one dissents, take it that the proposal has been finally agreed unanimously. It is then ticked and it goes through. That could happen only after national procedures, which would require parliamentary approval, while if competences and powers are being transferred, it would of course require a referendum. So the phrase “or otherwise supporting” seeks to ensure that Parliament and the British people can be confident that there is no possibility that any inaction on the part of the Government of the day could allow a measure to be finally decided and agreed without the proper approval of Parliament or the people or, indeed, both. To allow a measure to be adopted in such a way would represent a sleight of hand that would cheat both this Parliament and the public out of their rightful say.
My noble friend also made the point that, in this way, the Government were replicating the phrase used by the 2008 Act, which was introduced by the previous Government when Parliament was approving the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. However, we accept the point—made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford—that, although that was the position before, there is no reason why we cannot improve the drafting of provisions from the past, as indeed we can improve on much else that went on during the past Government and seek to do so.
We have reflected further on this point, as we have on all the amendments tabled in Committee, as we should. For the reasons I have given, we have tabled a government amendment to spell out, in the interpretation in Clause 1, exactly what is meant by “or otherwise supporting” and to explain when and where it applies: to wit, that it is only at the final and formal stage in the Council, or the European Council, that the bar on voting for or abstaining on—in other words, otherwise supporting—measures applies, unless or until there is parliamentary and, where necessary, public approval, in which case of course the support could go forward.
We feel that providing this amendment to the definition provides the clarity that noble Lords were seeking in their amendments. It spells out unambiguously the limitations on Ministers and in doing so makes clear—and I make clear now—that this and future Governments may negotiate proposals in future in the same way as they do now and they should seek the views of the scrutiny committees of both Houses in the same way as they do now and undertake any other existing national approval procedures that are required before finally agreeing to a proposal in the European Council or the Council.
That is the position. I hope noble Lords will accept that clarifies the concerns we all had in Committee on this matter and therefore I will beg to move the Government’s amendment. This will confirm to noble Lords that we have heard and addressed their concerns. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, which seeks an exactly similar effect.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps we could be just a little clearer. I thank him very much for the letter he sent me and other noble Lords about what I described as the chicken-and-egg situation, which is part of this nexus that he has been dealing with. That was a very helpful letter and I would be most grateful if he could agree that that letter should not only go to noble Lords who participated in this debate but could also go in the Library of both Houses, because I fear that sometimes the other place does not take very much cognisance of what is said by Ministers in this House. On this occasion, what is said in that letter, in particular about nothing in this Bill inhibiting Ministers from participating in negotiations other than on the final decision, is very important. I hope he can agree that the letter should go in the Library of both Houses.
On another point arising from what the noble Lord himself said, I have to confess to some slight confusion about how many of the instances of “or otherwise support” get taken out and how many get left in and whether there is not a degree of potential ambiguity from leaving any of them in at all. Perhaps he could just clarify that point. I had at first thought, and from what he initially said this afternoon, that he was actually saying that all the references to “or otherwise support” were going and that the statement would simply be that we would not allow any decision to be taken. That is, I think, the sense of what the Government have been trying to do and what those of us who have been trying to amend this provision are trying to do. However, I am still not quite clear where we are on that point.
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the first point, I will certainly endeavour to see that the words and wisdom of your Lordships’ House are spread as widely as possible and that the correctness of our view is recognised, in the way that we are changing the phraseology of the past in an improving way.
As to the question of what is amended by our proposed amendment, I think that I said that by changing the definition in the interpretative Clause 1, that change governs all references to the particular words we are concerned with throughout the Bill. It simply overrides and governs all those references, so that there is no need for your Lordships to be bothered with the task of going through each clause amending or adding the amendment at every stage of the Bill. By putting it in Clause 1, in the interpretative section, we are governing and rendering effective in the light of the amendment everything that is said throughout the entire Bill. That is the position as I would like to put it to your Lordships and I believe that that is the correct one.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Government for listening with such deep concern to what seemed to me to be perfectly acceptable phraseology, but which gave noble Lords opposite considerable difficulty. It seems to me odd that something that is comfortable, which we already passed in the UK 2008 Act, should somehow become a discomforting phrase here, but I am none the less absolutely delighted to see that the Minister is able to come forward with what is clearly to other noble Lords a major concession and clarify a phrase which to some of us seemed perfectly adequate. It is always good that we should have a consensus in this House—your Lordships are known for a consensual approach—and I congratulate and thank the Minister.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I would not go as far as the noble Baroness in describing this as a major concession in the Bill. However, in the spirit of good will in the consideration of the Bill on Report, we are prepared to withdraw the amendments in my name in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, subject only to two points of clarification: first, that his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will be deposited in the Library; and, secondly, that we are absolutely clear that the amendment to the interpretative clause, Clause 1(7), does therefore govern all the other references to “otherwise support” in the rest of the Bill, and that no one is going to turn around at a later stage and say that a Minister cannot publicly advocate a position, either in the Council or in a wider forum, until the point at which a formal decision has to be taken, so it is possible for Ministers publicly to advocate their support for a position, subject to the final decision having passed all the requirements of this eventual Act.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, as a final word I repeat that the definition will apply to any use of this wording elsewhere in the Bill. That is the definitive statement I am making, and that applies.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
If Amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 3.
Amendment 2
Lord Howell of Guildford
“(a) voting in favour of the decision in the European Council or the Council, or(b) allowing the decision to be adopted by consensus or unanimity by the European Council or the Council.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 7. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, will regard this too as a major concession by the Government. These two amendments are intended to address a point raised by a number of Peers during our debate on the first day in Committee some weeks ago on what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, described as a probing amendment. The noble Baroness, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised the question of the correct interpretation of Clauses 2 and 3 with respect to the application of the referendum provision to Gibraltar. They raised the concern that the provisions as drafted could result in the need to hold a referendum in the UK even if the proposed treaty change happened to apply solely to Gibraltar and not to the United Kingdom. They said that this would be nonsensical. I agree that in such unlikely circumstances it would be nonsensical.
As your Lordships’ House is aware, the Bill concerns only the future transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU. As I promised at the end of that debate, we have reflected further on this issue. Our view remains that the requirement for a referendum to be held in Gibraltar under the provisions of the EU Bill is not self-standing but is dependent on three things: first, that there is a treaty change which applies both to the UK and Gibraltar and, secondly, that the treaty change would result in a transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU. Then and only then does the third condition arise; namely, whether the treaty change would also represent a transfer of competence or power from Gibraltar to the EU.
That said, we recognise that it is important to be as transparent and clear as possible. That is the Government’s intention. Consequently, we have tabled these two simple amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 to make sure that the meaning is clear beyond doubt. The amendment makes explicit that only if a treaty change were to apply to both the UK and Gibraltar, and the referendum is to be held in the UK, would that referendum also be held in Gibraltar. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I hoped to intervene before the Minister sat down but I missed my cue. I shall be very brief. As the noble Lord and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have been courteous enough to mention me in the context of our debates on these matters in Committee, it would be wrong of me not to say that we on this side appreciate that the Government have genuinely reflected on the Committee stage debate on these two matters, relatively minor though they may be. That is encouraging for us and the hope that we can all take part in improving this legislation and that the result of our labours will not be entirely nil. Does the noble Lord have in mind any specific contingency in which there might be a proposal involving the transfer of powers from Gibraltar to the EU, or is this whole subject merely theoretical? Have the Government provided for it as a purely theoretical possibility, or do they have any issue in mind that might be triggered by this clause?
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I appreciate the tabling of these two amendments by the Government. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that they will probably not be thought of as huge concessions almost anywhere. He put that rather generously and he is quite right—they will not. More to the point, they are wise amendments. It may well be that on some future occasion he will wish to land in Gibraltar. He would not want to receive the sort of frosty reception that he would receive if he had done anything to the people of Gibraltar other than what appears as a result of these two amendments. It is a helpful clarification. We are satisfied with it and thank him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
If no one else wishes to intervene, I ought to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which there would be proposals that would represent a transfer of powers or competences from Gibraltar to the EU. However, I have not looked back at Protocol 3 of the 1972 Act which ratified the treaty of accession and the extremely complicated circumstances in which Gibraltar is treated as a member of the EU but does not take part in all aspects of EU policy. For example, it does not take part in the common agricultural policy, but it takes part in the freedom of movement.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Would the Minister recommend to other European Union member states that have territories that are not specifically part of their geographical parameters—such as Spain and the Canary Islands, and France and her piece of territory in north Africa—that they follow the lead of the United Kingdom in drawing more fully into their embrace the territories that belong to them?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long. The question of the different relationships between the Crown dependencies and the EU, and Gibraltar and the EU, is a deeply arcane subject. I read an extremely long report from the Government of Jersey some 18 months ago about the relationship between Jersey and the EU. It is very good bedtime reading for anyone who does not wish to go to sleep. These are very complicated areas. However, I and our advisers cannot at the moment envisage the likelihood of a referendum. We nevertheless hope that this amendment clarifies the situation.
Lord Williamson of Horton
(d) the Electoral Commission have issued a certificate stating whether or not it appears to them that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it. ( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the treaty may be ratified.
( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that fewer than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the treaty may not be ratified unless—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to ratify the treaty, and(b) each House has agreed to the motion without amendment.”
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, Amendment 5, and the similar Amendment 8 that is grouped with it, are both in my name. Although these amendments are relevant to the European Union Bill, they are not about European Union policy. They are about the way in which we deal with referendums in this country and the role of Parliament, if any, in relation to referendums. Perhaps this might have the unique result that, when we continue the discussion on this amendment, we might find that Europhiles, Europhobes and Eurosceptics are all on the same side, which would be rather unusual. The amendments have a good—indeed, a noble—parentage, since they are in substance the same as the much discussed amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
The effect of Amendment 5 is quite simple. The Government have proposed that, if, as a consequence of the referendum lock set up in the Bill, a national referendum were to be held on any of the about 50 cases covered by the Bill, that referendum result would be mandatory and Parliament would have no role. This amendment would not change that situation if at least 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote had voted in the referendum. However, if there were a poor turnout and a smaller percentage of the electorate voted, the result would remain valid but would have to be confirmed by a Motion in each House of Parliament. This will give Parliament its proper representative role if there were, for example, a derisory turnout.
This amendment is particularly relevant to the Bill because all the potential decisions or transfers of power or competence to the European Union covered by the Bill are already subject to our veto and the Government have stated that they do not intend to make any of these decisions or transfers in the current Parliament. Unless, therefore, a sunset clause is inserted—the subject of later amendments—or, if it becomes an Act, a future Parliament repeals the Bill, the legislation has the potential to require national referendums for many years ahead.
What would be the circumstances of these potential referendums? First, they would be about issues where the UK Government had concluded that it would be in the national interest to act. If not, the Government would simply veto the proposal under existing powers. Secondly, a referendum might be about a change to qualified majority voting. There are 40 different cases listed in Schedule 1 on subjects which voters might find of little interest or importance. An example might be a change in the method of voting for the appointment of advocates-general of the European Court of Justice. Such a bizarre national referendum would probably attract a miserable turnout. This amendment would give Parliament an opportunity to take stock. Alternatively, a future referendum might be about a serious treaty change or a group of changes. In Committee, the Minister speculated that in the future this might be the case, although I personally consider it improbable, but in any event there would clearly be a significant turnout in such circumstances. This amendment does not affect the mandatory nature of such a referendum decision.
To conclude, this amendment would bring back a role for Parliament in those cases, and only in those cases, where the British public had demonstrated their lack of interest by a very low turnout in a referendum. I beg to move Amendment 5.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, I can add very little to the lucid presentation made by my noble friend Lord Williamson. I start from premises which I have described to the House before. My first premise is to regard referenda as unreliable things. The more complex the subject, the less reliable they become. I have said many times that the referenda which I have always been enthusiastic about were those which I was able to introduce at a meeting of the Welsh area council of the Conservative Party in the 1960s—namely, to determine, on a county basis and at seven-year intervals, whether public houses should be open on Sunday. That was put into law within a short time by Henry Brooke and remained there for 35 years, because after five seven-year lapses every county in Wales had finally been liberated, Caernarvon being the last. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris was then able to repeal the legislation. Nobody can argue with that.
Between 1974 and 1979, when I was on the opposition Benches in the other place and was able to do other things, I was on the board of a company called AGB Research, which was one of the largest and most effective market research companies in Europe, specialising largely in the measurement of television and broadcasting audiences. The whole process depended on trying to determine what people thought. In so far as we were dealing with quite simple things about broadcasting, it was easy enough to decide. In so far as we were measuring relative enthusiasm as between butter and margarine, we felt that we could rely on a referendum-style questioning and answering analysis. But unlike many of our competitors, we were always clear that we would never touch political opinion polls with a bargepole because we felt that in that area, however well one tried to do it, the outcome was likely to be less than lucid and less than decisive. For that reason, throughout this legislation I have been wholly lacking in enthusiasm for the introduction of referenda in substitute for decisions taken by Parliament.
We have reached the point when referenda seem likely to remain in legislation, but the least we can do is to try to make those referenda less ill founded than they might otherwise be. If we do not prescribe a minimum along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, then we are at the mercy of decisions being taken by almost invisible percentage votes. I do not regard there being much wisdom in a 40 per cent referendum, but I am delighted to be able to follow an example set by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was a colleague in the other place for many years and who, the House may remember, was also the author of the Rooker-Wise amendment on income tax legislation. So for the second time, although it is not like that Rooker-Wise legislation and his name does not even appear on this amendment, I am glad to endorse his wisdom, particularly when it is reinforced by the lucid, compact argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. It is the minimum we can do to exclude the unreliability of this unattractive device. It should be in the hands of Parliament. This amendment enables it to come back into the hands of Parliament if certain conditions are not fulfilled. I speak in support of the amendment.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I speak in partial support of this amendment. I cannot say I am very enthusiastic about part of it, but nevertheless I agree with the general thrust. Before I turn to the amendment, I would like to say how much I admire the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, particularly his actions in the 1950s in persuading the Conservative party in Wales to agree to a set of referendums on whether pubs should be open on Sundays. I say that because in the valley where I was brought up there was a Labour majority of 35,000, but the club with the biggest membership of all was the local Conservative club. Why? Because it was open on Sundays. He deserves to be commended for his altruism, which deprived the Amman Valley’s Conservative party of a considerable amount of beer money.
My Lords, I am not too keen on this amendment for one reason. We have a figure which, if it is not reached, then prima facie at any rate the referendum should not be valid. However, in those circumstances where the turnout does not reach 40 per cent, the result is deemed to be valid because the matter will come back to Parliament and, if each House passes a resolution saying that, despite the turnout being under 40 per cent, the measure should go through, then it will go through. I question the value of that. If you have that in the Bill, it seems to me it is slightly pointless having a 40 per cent plateau. If one is going to have a figure that the turnout must reach for the referendum to be effective, why should Parliament give the Government a second chance of getting their policy through? If there is a condition that you must have 40 per cent, surely if you get that 40 per cent the referendum is valid; if you do not, the logical conclusion is that the referendum is not valid. If it were as simple as that, I would support the amendment entirely. On the other hand, I must say that if the amendment is one the House is prepared to accept, I would certainly go along with it rather than not have anything like it.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, I find the amendment rather strange. I certainly agree that a poor turnout may be taken as complete lack of interest in having a referendum on the issue, but a poor turnout certainly could not be taken as support for the measure in question. One must remember what sort of measures we are talking about: these are measures that cede more power to the European Union. So if there is a low turnout, the one thing that is absolutely certain—along with the fact that there may be lack of enthusiasm in voting at all—is that there is minimum support for ceding more power to the EU. That seems to me to be an absolutely rotten reason for handing the whole matter back to Parliament. Half the trouble at present, and the reason there is so much distrust over this whole area, is that people feel that, over the years, Parliament has been far too fast to cede more powers to the EU.
As I have said before, it seems extraordinary that when the people give to our parliamentarians the opportunity to use certain specific powers they then spend the whole of a Parliament handing over those powers to other people. No wonder there is a lack of understanding of what is being done in the people’s name. It is pretty nonsensical to say that if there is a low turnout in the referendum, we should hand the whole matter to Parliament, which is half the cause of the trouble in the first place. After all, it is Parliament which the public feel, with fairly good evidence, cheated them of the opportunity of a referendum when Lisbon turned up as a rehash of the European constitution. That is one of the causes for the Bill. We are having a Bill now to try to rebuild some of the lost confidence in the EU, and we should judge the amendment by that problem. As far as I can see, the amendment would add to the problem rather than reduce it.
Lord Tomlinson
When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, speak about nonsenses, that seemed to be a cue inviting me to participate in this debate. The noble Lord talked extensively about ceding powers to Europe, but the very essence of the Bill is that the issues subject to referenda are issues that require unanimity in the Council of Ministers. The Government have every power that they need; they have only to say no and by that process they can stop any ceding of powers to Europe or anywhere else. They can deny unanimity. That is not what it is about. The idea that the Bill is the last bastion defending the rights of Englishmen, to stop his rights being transferred to Brussels, is really the argument of the knave who knows better, because it does not do that at all.
If we are to have what I believe to be nonsensical referenda inflicted on us, there has to be at least some measure to give a minimum standard of credibility to the referenda. Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I am not particularly happy about the amendment, although I will support it. The idea of putting to a referendum an issue where people can vote for or against does not really transfer sovereignty to the British people. I would far rather see a question with four options: “For”, “Against”, “Don't know” and “Don't care”. If we had that, considering some of the issues which will be subject to referenda, I suspect that it would be a combination of “Don't know” and “Don't care” that would win in every case. The amendment would not give us a great deal of protection, particularly as, as I said, power already rests in the hands of Ministers. If there is such a reluctance of Ministers to use the power that they already have, an honourable retreat is available from Government to the Back Benches, so that they can continue their impotence from there. When the Government have every power that they need, they also need the political will to use it, not to use a fig-leaf argument trying to bind a successor, in circumstances where they seem to be predicting their imminent defeat at the next election.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, which is a Tory amendment. I am surprised to find myself sounding more Tory than the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, which is a feat I had not expected to attempt. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, comes from the West Country, and I suspect him of being a Burkean. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, took us through John Locke. The Taverne view against referenda was derived from Locke, and he contrasted that with the evil Rousseau, who led the French in the direction of referenda. I would have preferred to have dinner with Fox, but Burke impresses me on the role of Parliament. The reasons I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, have nothing to do with the European Union; they have to do with the position of Parliament.
Burke’s speech in 1774 was to the Bristol electors who had just elected him. He had the guts to say:
“The wishes of the people should have great weight with their Representative, their opinion his high respect, their business his unremitted attention. It is his duty…to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to them…Your representative [in Parliament] owes you, not only his industry, but also his judgment; and he betrays you, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
That seems to me to be the core of Tory philosophy on parliamentary democracy. I agree with all that; it seems to me to be 100 per cent correct.
This Bill is a constitutional innovation. It says that once an Act of Parliament has been passed, it will be struck down by the people if they say no in a referendum. This is not the alternative vote referendum scenario. As Conservative noble Lords may remember, we did not vote for the alternative vote; we voted for a referendum on the alternative vote. In the case of this Bill, the treaty amendments that would have been considered by Parliament, and the 57 varieties of decisions—the baked beans can of decisions—that would have been considered by Parliament would have been subject to Acts of Parliament. They would have received parliamentary approval and then they would go to referenda. That is the first time, I think, that has happened in our constitutional history.
Lord Tebbit
I am grateful to the noble Lord for lecturing me on conservative principles. Does he think that when Locke was making that speech—
Lord Tebbit
Does the noble Lord think that he envisaged a day when Parliament would be transferring sovereign powers from the people of this country to those of another country, to people who they could not elect and could not dismiss?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am sure that Burke was not thinking of the situation of the EU Bill which is before us. The noble Lord is absolutely right. He may have been thinking of a situation in Ireland which developed in ways that bore some resemblance to that during his lifetime, but I am sure that when he was addressing the Bristol electorate his concern was simply with explaining to them how he saw the role of Parliament and the sovereignty of Parliament. It is because I think that he was right about that that I think that we should vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, which I hope he will press to a vote. It does not restore full parliamentary sovereignty, but in a situation where—in his words—a derisory turnout had voted, the question of whether Parliament’s will should be overruled would be raised. That is a little bit of Burke that would be rescued from the mess of Rousseau that we are in.
Lord Dykes
I rise briefly to speak enthusiastically in support of this amendment and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for his remarks—I agree with them all. I was, like others may be, a little startled when the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, began to say that he rather agreed with the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. But I understand what he was getting at. The beauty of the amendment is that it can appeal to a whole range of Members of this House in deciding, irrespective of their own particular views on the virtue of referendums, or referendumitis, or the danger of referendums, or whatever, that this would be a good way of making more respectable a given referendum result with a turnout requirement—following the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a totally different context—and would make sure that we were not trivialising the exercise in a way that would disconcert the public in a big way. The beauty then is that, if the threshold is not reached, the power goes back to Parliament and the Government as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would always wish.
On 5 April, in the early stages of the Committee of the whole House, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, in referring to Schedule 1, said:
“if we present to the electorate the sort of issues in Schedule 1 and ask them … to turn out at the polls”—
in referendums—
“we are being not only completely unrealistic but deeply insulting to them”.—[Official Report, 5/4/11; col. 1694.]
I have left out a few of the smaller words, but essentially that is what he said.
The electorate would say that that is what they elect parliamentarians to decide. We could easily have participation rates of less than 20 per cent, and we would return, therefore, to the Vernon Bogdanor example. I believe that this matter is important for parliamentarians in both Houses, but particularly here, as this House has an opportunity to improve the Bill in a way that government Ministers have already started to do with their generous amendment. We must work hard to restore public faith in the public’s ownership of first-rate parliamentary standards of tradition, work and devotion to the public good. My personal view is that I am very fearful of referendumitis and this Bill would deliver a lot of it in the future if the situation were allowed to get out of hand.
Most sensible citizens are highly intelligent and quite rightly regard subjects other than mere politics as far more important and crucial. I often do. I would cite family and children, the local community, jobs and job prospects, football and—even better—rugby, holidays, the kids’ results at school and music. Very many of those things are more important than politics. The public want to enhance political quality by leaving the political decisions to their elected representatives, even if some of them in the other place are sometimes rather nerdy people, like Bill Cash or John Redwood. We have to remember the warning words of my noble friend Lady Williams when she spoke of the disastrous example of California, which had become a bankrupt state as a result of excessive referendumitis and foolish populism. This amendment provides a pragmatic way of making the results of referendum—if there has to be one—more respectable. I hope that this House will support it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, would not describe people who oppose his points of view in such terms as “nerds”. It does not enhance debate and it is quite unnecessary to lampoon one’s opponents.
The amendment has a certain superficial attraction, but we need to be extremely careful what we do. If you say that a decision on an item on which a referendum is to be held can take effect only if 40 per cent of the electorate vote, you could say that about almost every election we have. People are elected to the House of Commons—certainly in by-elections—on a turnout of less than 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. Why on earth should that be legitimate and a referendum on a matter which is to be transferred to European governance not be accepted? We have to be very careful not to create a precedent here which might be used in other circumstances that may be inconvenient to Parliament and certainly to local authorities, where the turnout is very often far below the 40 per cent of those entitled to vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, talked about the various alternatives that might be put on the ballot paper. If you pass this amendment, there is another alternative which is that you can campaign for people not to vote. That is good democracy, is it not? Or is it? If you encourage people not to vote to get the decision you want, that is extremely bad democracy. I do not want to delay the House any further, but I believe that before we vote we should be very careful about what we are doing.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as always, made a very careful and thoughtful speech which places me in a slightly awkward position. I find it surprising that there is so much enthusiasm for this amendment from those who accuse the Government of obstructing the process towards greater European integration. They have said that the Government have been putting locks on moves towards further European integration. Here they are putting a padlock on the lock; they are putting another obstacle in the way of European integration. Let us not forget that one will get a referendum only when the Government are proposing to acquiesce in a step towards European integration. Therefore, I find it a little strange that those who are enthusiastic about more integration and think that the Government are being obstructionist about this want to put up another obstacle.
I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that there is a danger that we will have lots of referendums on trivial subjects such as the number of advocates-general or the voting system for having advocates-general. There are several reasons, which we went through in Committee, why we will not get a whole series of trivial referendums. First, these sorts of changes tend to come along in packages after major treaty revisions and we have been assured there will not be major treaty revisions. It seems unlikely that any one country is going to invest a huge amount of political capital pressing for a change in the voting system for choosing advocates-general. If some power has not been given to Brussels even after the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty—the series of constitutional treaties we have had—if powers are left to individual countries, there is a very good reason for that. Obviously in previous negotiations countries have not wanted to cede those powers. The idea that we are going to get a lot of referendums on trivial matters is unrealistic and is a chimera. If that was the basis of the noble Lord’s argument I would not accept it. There are many subjects that are by no means trivial, such as our borders and our criminal justice system, where it would be wholly appropriate to have a referendum. That is why I am broadly a supporter of the Bill.
I said at the beginning that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, places me in a slightly awkward position because I was, as some of my noble friends will remember, a very strong supporter of the 40 per cent threshold for the referendum on AV. Indeed, I voted twice against my party on it. I do not like to make personal comments but I got to my feet largely because of my noble friend Lord Dykes, who I have known for many years. On the AV question, my noble friend was a very firm opponent of the 40 per cent threshold to which he has put his name on this occasion. As I am placed in an awkward position and he is also exposed in an awkward position, I am prepared to do him a deal. If he will not support this amendment, I will vote for it.
Lord Risby
My Lords, it is worth pointing out that the referendum is now part of our political culture. Indeed, it is not only part of our political culture, but right across the European Union referendums are deployed to get people’s views. It is now a fundamental part of the whole democratic process. However, the potential effect of this amendment is to make the referendum advisory. That is the point because if it is below 40 per cent the decision is referred back to Parliament. The essence of that argument is that the result ceases to be mandatory and effectively becomes advisory. That destroys the whole point of the reconnection process.
We are trying through the Bill to reconnect the people of this country with the European Union. It is a big challenge. If we are going to re-engage people in that process we must recognise that, if there is going to be constitutional change, the vast majority of people will want to feel that their voice is represented in the process. We owe that to them. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the 40 per cent figure is arbitrary. It would be absurd in a local or European election, when sometimes the figure drops below 40 per cent, to reject the result. That is not the way we do things. We must remind ourselves that the vast majority of people will want a referendum if there is going to be an important transfer of powers to the European Union.
The AV referendum showed us that on an important constitutional issue, the people of this country will be fully engaged. They took it seriously and voted in great numbers. I have the greatest confidence that in a matter such as the one before us, the potential transfer of additional powers to the European Union, they will of course be very interested. Therefore, I feel that turnout would be quite high.
We must make sure that people feel that when they vote, their vote counts and is decisive. Otherwise, it will destroy the point of the referendum. The referendum lock should be given without qualification; it is in the spirit of what the Bill is about. The fullest acceptance of the referendum result voted by the people is something that we should recognise. It is our duty as parliamentarians to do so.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I voted on two occasions for the Rooker amendment on AV. It is tempting to join the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in taking the position that there may be a similar argument for supporting here an amendment that requires a 40 per cent turnout. However, the position is not at all analogous. In this situation, the aim is to protect the people of this country from having the powers of their Parliament and Government further diluted and given away, as has sadly happened in the recent past, with Parliaments breaking their word to citizens and acting in a way contrary to that which they promised—I refer, for example, to the recent Lisbon treaty.
It is very clear that the Bill is there as a protection for the British people, and it would be made meaningless if we said to them, “We are going to give you this lock and protection, but if less than 40 per cent of people vote, we will give power back to the Government of the day who command a majority in the House of Commons”. It is not an analogous situation to changing the voting system, where there were powerful arguments requiring an adequate turnout. It is not a situation that Burke would have supported in the slightest; he would have been absolutely against giving away the powers of the British Government and Parliament to another organisation. Either we give citizens a meaningful lock or we do not. Therefore, I feel no discomfort in opposing these amendments, having supported the Rooker amendment on AV; it is the whole point of the Bill.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I find myself in disagreement with both my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord behind him. I am opposed to referenda in any case and do not think that we should judge referenda, even if we are in favour of them, by the particular amendment that is before us. We should judge referenda as referenda. Therefore, to vote for a 40 per cent division between compulsory and advisory on one subject and not to vote for it on another seems not to hang together. The issue is not about the European Union. Everyone knows where I stand on that. It is about an issue which comes from before that. Long before there were these debates on the European Union, there were debates about referenda. I enjoyed debating them and I have not changed my view on them.
The parliamentary democracy which we have is the greatest gift which we have been able to give to the world as a whole. Irrespective of the comments of my noble friend Lord Risby, parliamentary democracy and referenda do not go together, as a matter of fact. The one comes from a different tradition and I am not going to be one of those who besmirches the tradition by referring to the use of referenda by such people as Louis-Napoleon. That would be wrong. But referenda do come from that tradition and not from our parliamentary tradition.
Therefore, I was much enlightened by the reminder which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gave us of the great conservative thinker, Edmund Burke. He said that the embarrassing fact of being a parliamentarian is that you do have, in the end, to make up your own mind, even though the popular press, the women’s advisory committee of your association, the local doctors’ alliance and a whole range of other people tell you that you have got it wrong. I remind noble Lords of what happens if you take that away. It means that nobody with a strong view on abortion, for example, would be able to uphold his or her view in those circumstances. If he or she were to follow the views of the electorate, he or she would not be able to uphold what he or she thought was a moral position. The same would be true about capital punishment. No one would have voted against capital punishment if they had listened to the average elector over the past 30 or 40 years.
Let us not be too easily lulled into that simple concept of the referendum now being part of our democratic heritage. Referenda have always been used—I say this as a committed Conservative—in a way which has tended to favour those who take a very conservative attitude. My noble friend takes a very conservative attitude, so I am happy to give way to him.
Lord Tebbit
May I assume, therefore, that in defence of parliamentary sovereignty and all that of which he has been speaking, my noble friend will assert the right of Parliament, and none other, to decide whether prisoners should have any voting rights at all? Will he be on side in this matter or will he defer to some agency outside Parliament?
Lord Deben
I am always worried when my noble friend intervenes upon me but I am very pleased on this occasion to say that I agree with him entirely. This is an issue for Parliament and Parliament should make up its own mind—I have no doubt about that at all. He need not worry. I am a great defender of Parliament. But I ask this House not to allow itself to get into the situation which the Swiss got into. After all, Switzerland was the last country in Europe to allow women to vote. Why was that? Every time they passed it in Parliament, it was the referenda which defeated it. I ask noble Lords to be very careful about this.
Let us look at this amendment. I have great sympathy for the view which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, expressed. It seems to me that this is a very simple concept. We who are arguing for it have accepted that in our view, for bad reasons, we are going to have referenda. We are unlikely to have a referendum on something trivial—I do not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson; I think it will be likely to be on something of note. It will be on something which the Government have decided not to veto. It is going to be quite a rare occasion. It is going to be something which the Government have presented to Parliament, Parliament is going to vote for it, and it will then be placed before the public. All we are saying is that if less than 40 per cent of the public think it worth while voting, Parliament can reconsider the matter. It can take into account what the public have said and then ask itself what should it do.
I finish by saying that I would say this about a proposal for a referendum on something that I believed my side would win in all circumstances. This is not a matter about the subject; it is about the mechanism. It is that which we should face. May I suggest to noble Lords that this House has got to do its duty in ensuring that when there is a major change, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we ensure that it is not one with unforeseen circumstances? All we are saying is that if enough people vote, then it is mandatory; if not enough people vote, it is advisory. That seems to me to be a sensible compromise, so I ask the Minister to help those of us who find this Bill very difficult indeed and at least allow us to have this compromise, which is in the best tradition of British parliamentary democracy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, seldom have I been made glummer than I have been made by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and indeed, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and those who tabled this amendment. They have encapsulated perfectly the disdain of the political class for the people of this country.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I am indeed a member of the political class, but I think I see it perhaps with more objectivity than those who tabled this amendment. If your Lordships' House has a vote and less than 40 per cent turn out for it, the result is still valid. If 10 per cent of your Lordships' House votes, perhaps rather late at night, the result is still valid.
I say that those who tabled this amendment really do not understand the disdain of the people of this country for the political class, and that disdain is justified. Look at the position into which our political class has led this country over the past 50 years—since Suez, perhaps, and we got that wrong. Our children cannot learn to read; our prisons are overflowing with the illiterate; our hospitals are dirty; we are failing the old, most of whom end their lives in misery and loneliness; our streets are dangerous; our transport is creaky; our police are overburdened and overbureaucratised; even our Armed Forces are being asked to do too much with too little, and their morale is beginning to crack; immigration is out of control; Islamism is on the march; and our economy is in terrible trouble, the pain of which will, of course, be visited upon the people. I think the British people are justified in thinking very ill of their political class.
Noble Lords may remember that for about two minutes last year I was the leader of the UK Independence Party and, rather against my will, we consulted focus groups, which I always think should be completely unnecessary. Even I was surprised by the answer to the question about what people thought about the political class. Every class of the British people in every area of this country said that they regarded the political class not with dislike, not with disdain, not with distrust, not even with anger, but with hatred. I believe that our system of representative parliamentary democracy, which those who tabled this amendment and the leaders of our political class like so much, is no longer supported by the people, and therefore has broken down.
Do not let us forget that up to the 19th century and the early 20th century most people in this country could not read, so it was reasonable to send representatives to Westminster to take decisions for them. But now people can read. On the whole, they are very much more sensible than the people who represent them and they want referendums. They want referendums not only on the European Union but perhaps across the board, which might be the only way to reconnect the people with their democracy. I believe that their decisions—even if only 15 per cent of them turn out to vote—will be very much wiser than those of our failed political class. Therefore, I oppose these amendments.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I shall speak specifically on the 40 per cent threshold and will start by reaffirming the point made by other noble Lords on these amendments going against the Government’s objective of re-engaging with the British people, particularly on major EU issues about transfer of power and competency. I want to reassert the coalition’s intentions on referendums in other parts of our life. The Localism Bill, which we discussed yesterday, has many arrangements in place for referendums.
It might be helpful to remind the House of the other referendum that took place a couple of months ago. I am not referring to the AV referendum but the one in King’s Lynn about an incinerator. After a strong campaign against a local incinerator, the turnout was 61 per cent. It was interesting that there was a division between a county council view and a district council view about whether there should be such an incinerator. The county council view ignored the will of the people. I am afraid that my Conservative colleagues and my noble friends on these Benches suffered some significant defeats in the local elections. Nine councillors were rejected because the people felt that their voice had not been heard after they had been allowed to give it. We miss that opportunity at our peril. I have given that specific example because, in Committee, I raised the issue of the Scottish referendum in 1979 after which there was a significant disconnect. It has taken many years to address it. Some would argue that there is still a legacy of distrust between Westminster and Scotland.
I would prefer the political parties and other groups involved in campaigning for referendums to engage with the public, rather than there being a threshold which, as others have mentioned, could skew the result. You may get not just the “don’t knows” and the “don’t cares” referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, but those who do not support the motion actively being asked not to vote in order to skew the result. Then the public debate becomes about voting and not about the issue. That would be wrong.
The contrast between these two types of referendum is striking. In the first, a real referendum resulting in engagement with the public undoubtedly has helped the public’s perception. The 1975 EU referendum benefited the perception and understanding of the EU for many years. But in Scotland there was a real contrast and, as I have mentioned, serious damage is still there.
Finally, last year, the Lords Constitution Committee stated that there should be,
“a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and super-majorities”.
Let us heed that sage advice and not support the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I find that I am afflicted by the quite well known advice once given to me by the Whips. It was, “Never listen to the debate on any issue”. When I saw this amendment I was rather dismayed because, as my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, it replicates exactly the proposal which he, I and others put forward on the AV referendum. I found myself thinking, “Now I have got to be against this because I am against Europe taking more powers from Britain. How am I going to reconcile this in my mind?”. My noble friend Lord Deben has been very helpful in this regard because it is not about the issue of European powers or the role of the European Community. It is about the relationship between Parliament and referendum.
I am going to upset a number of my noble friends by being on an unpredictable side in this argument. My noble friend Lord Risby said that it is now part of the culture in Europe to have referenda. I am rather alarmed by that, because we have a parliamentary democracy. I support this Bill in its intention, which is to give the people a say before a power is transferred, if that should happen. It seems very dangerous to get into a position where we have what is a constitutional innovation—the concept of drop-dead referenda. The moment the vote is cast, that is it. It has become enshrined in law and Parliament no longer has a say. That is a new concept which has crept into our constitution. When we joined the European Union, we did not have a referendum of that form. The Scottish referendum, with all due respect to my noble friend, was not of that form, either. Parliament was still in control and had the final say. My noble friend Lord Deben has been consistent throughout all the time I have known him in his opposition to referenda. I am not against referenda but they must be supported by a substantial group. We could argue about whether 35 per cent or 40 per cent or 50 per cent is the right number, but there ought to be a clear view expressed by the people.
Perhaps I may take up an earlier point. I know nothing about the incinerator but I have been involved in public life long enough to know that if you want to put an incinerator anywhere, you are going to get a majority in a referendum against it. That is why we have elections and that is why we have Parliament. It is in order to take difficult decisions, which, as my noble friend has said, may very well be unpopular. So I am rather inclined to support this amendment for that reason. It seems to be consistent in supporting the constitutional principles which this House should be concerned about. Tempted as I am by the expediency of the case, I think that argument ought to prevail.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
In supporting this amendment, is my noble friend comfortable with the concept of a turnout of less than 40 per cent, which is therefore null, and a no vote by a narrow majority? Bearing in mind that the Government will have instigated this referendum because they want a yes vote, if they get a no vote by a narrow majority and the House of Commons reverses it to a yes vote, is my noble friend comfortable with that idea, because that is what he is advocating?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am not advocating that at all. It would be a matter for the House of Commons to decide. The House of Commons and this House would have to take account of the nature of the campaign and the strength of the vote and the arguments that are put forward. The pressure of a referendum in itself, however big the turnout, will be a major factor in the considerations which are taken by the elected Members. I am not comfortable with the idea of cutting Parliament out when there may have been a low turnout. By the way, I was also not comfortable with accepting these arguments when I rejected them not many weeks ago in the context of having a threshold on the AV referendum.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I want to make three short points. First, I refer to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who always argues his case with great force and effectiveness. However, on this occasion, it seemed rather strange. He said that if there is a low vote, it simply proves the lack of enthusiasm for the European Community, and the fact that people will not vote is equivalent to a no vote. The circumstances, as has just been pointed out, will be whether the Government support a change in the law. Suppose the next Government are a Conservative Government. They are not likely to make a major transfer of powers to Brussels. On some of these minor matters in Schedule 1, they might see the advantage in not having a veto and make that part of their case. If there is a very low vote, it is a toss-up as to which way it will go, but a 10 per cent vote in favour of a transfer of power and 9 per cent against is a quite a likely result. In effect, the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that it makes a transfer of power more likely.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says that it is not likely that there would be an individual vote on some of the minor matters set out in Schedule 1 because they would be packaged, which is also what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has told us on a number of occasions. But a package is particularly unsuitable to the referendum process. Let us suppose that some people in the country are passionately concerned about joining the European public prosecutor’s office, while others are passionately concerned not to have an extra judge in the European Court of Justice. Yet others may be very concerned about not having a new protocol for the deficit procedure. All those issues may be part of a package. Which way should people vote if they are in favour of one and against another? What should they do? It makes a nonsense of any sort of referendum.
The second point I want to make is that if this amendment is not passed, we are likely to be left with referendums on some of these minor matters. Are they really going to bind this country closer to Europe and reconnect the public with Brussels? Are they going to make Brussels more popular? Of course it is a result that I do not necessarily approve of, but would it not make referenda less and less popular with the public?
That brings me to my last point. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to Burke. I should like to comment on that since I was the first person to bring Burke into the argument. In his doctrine, Burke says that the will of the people should always prevail; it is the anti-Rousseau argument. What is interesting is that while there have been some tests of it, although only a very few, they suggest that Burke is actually quite popular. I shall give two examples. In my speech at Second Reading, I referred to a by-election in which I resigned on an issue over which I was unpopular in the sense that a local poll showed a majority of three to two against our joining the European Community. But I argued for the principle of Burke that I was entitled to exercise my judgment, and Burke prevailed by a substantial majority. I can give another example. One of my neighbours where I lived until recently was a Conservative MP I greatly respected. He was the late Norman Miscampbell, who was a Member for Blackpool. Many people will remember that a police superintendent was murdered in that town, and a campaign was launched by his widow to restore the death penalty for the murder of a policeman. It had overwhelming support in Blackpool, but Norman Miscampbell, on principle and very bravely taking the Burke view, voted against the restoration of the death penalty. His fellow Conservative MP in Blackpool, the late Peter Blaker, supported the petition and voted in favour of it. At the next election, Norman Miscampbell’s vote increased by somewhat more than that of Peter Blaker. Burke is not unpopular. When they reflect on it, people think it very reasonable that Members of Parliament should exercise their own judgment and not act as puppets.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, perhaps I may make a few remarks in support of this amendment. I find some of the arguments that have been used against it quite bizarre. The noble Lord, Lord Risby, said that the vast majority of people in this country want these referendums. If so, he has nothing to fear from the amendment. If the vast majority of people in this country want referendums, more than 40 per cent of them will vote when a referendum question is put, and this Bill, as amended, will then provide mandatory outcomes. It has been suggested that this is all about engaging with the British people, but if we cannot get 40 per cent of the people to vote, is that not a failure to engage with the British people? Surely that is precisely what it is, which is why having a threshold makes sense.
I argue that we should not go down the primrose path of thinking that the referendum fashion is sweeping across Europe. First, we are not talking about Europe; we are talking about Britain. I do not see why we should accept that argument as valid in our case. In any case, I have a strong feeling that most people who have supported referendums around Europe now bitterly regret it. In the most recent one, last weekend, the Slovenians voted against raising the pensionable age to something quite a long way below the pensionable age in this country; not, I would have thought, a very sensible thing to have happened—something rather like the incinerator case, I suspect. I am very much in the same group as the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Forsyth. It is not a very good idea to have these referendums. The Government could quite easily have avoided most of the petty referendums by drawing up a much simpler Bill, but they chose to throw in the kitchen sink. Given that, the case for a threshold is really rather compelling and I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that the power of the Executive has got much stronger in the House of Commons? We all talk here about parliamentary democracy in terms of the other place, but how many times have the Government actually been defeated over the past 20 years?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
It is not the time of night to go into a lengthy disquisition on British constitutional history, but we still live in a representative parliamentary democracy and we still accept that a Government who have a majority in the House of Commons can make laws. However, we are seeking to contradict that with this provision. The amendment that is being moved is a small, modest palliation of that.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
This amendment is not in fact about the absolute underpinnings of this Bill, although it is a very tempting set of red herrings that have been laid in front of your Lordships’ House. This set of amendments is about whether or not there should be a 40 per cent threshold and, with your Lordships’ permission, I would like to comment purely on that point.
The 40 per cent threshold seems to me, as a former Member of Parliament and of the European Parliament, to be a rather odd thing for noble Lords to be considering today. We do not have a 40 per cent threshold in the general election or in the European election, for example. We are perfectly comfortable with assuming that 50 per cent of those who come out to vote is the threshold on which the electorate are exercising their wisdom. I find it extremely difficult to see why, just for this Bill, some noble Lords are so adamantine in their perception that a 40 per cent threshold—and no less—is the absolute minimum they will accept if a referendum is to give a valid answer from the British people.
All noble Lords who have commented on the imperative of parliamentary democracy and Parliament’s primacy are, of course, absolutely right. I think that it is Clause 18 of the Bill that, for the first time ever in many generations in Parliament, absolutely clearly defines that it is only through the primacy of Parliament that EU legislation can be accepted at all. It is our responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made the point in his very thoughtful intervention—and I fully support this—that we have been far too fast in ceding power from this Parliament to the European Union. However, I would perhaps remind him that that is our responsibility, certainly in the House of Commons and Government but also, to a much lesser extent, here. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, is in his place, representing the several generations of outstanding work by EU sub-committees in your Lordships’ House. That has not been the case in the House of Commons, which has let slip piece after piece of legislation pouring in from Brussels. Indeed, it is the Ministers of the day, from every single Government—from the previous Government and the ones before that—that have fed the House of Commons so little material that somehow it has unwittingly, or in some other mode, let through all of this legislation and the growing burden of all these regulations which are, I believe, oppressing the peoples of the European Union and particularly the peoples of the United Kingdom.
This modest Bill, although it is relatively lightweight, does contain two or three very important points, the first of which I believe is the primacy of Parliament over EU legislation and therefore surely over the outcome of any referendum. It also gives the wonderful possibility of a downhill-driven knowledge base to the British people and some small modicum of authority over what will happen. I very much support the Bill because of those two points.
Coming back to Burke, to the point that was raised in the context of representative parliament, I cannot help but comment, because the flavour comes through so strongly, that some of the arguments that noble Lords are putting forward tend to resonate with those of us whose female forebears fought for the vote for women. In other words, somehow some elements of the population are not fit to bring their judgment to bear on important matters affecting the United Kingdom. It is difficult. Burke, of course, was wonderful, but before him and at his day women did not have the vote. Academics had more than their current bundle of votes per person, so did the landed gentry, so did the aristocracy; well, wonderful, but today is different.
One of the key differences is that today we have modern technology. Only the day before yesterday I had five e-mails, no less, from the great Steve Jobs himself urging me to discard my newly purchased iPhone and my iPad of the week before last in favour of iCloud, where all my data are going to be parked for ever and a day. Modern people, men, women and children of all backgrounds, all income brackets, all of us—I leave aside prisoners because I do not want to interfere with the debate between two prominent powerful members of the Conservative Party on that one—all those people have knowledge now, absolute knowledge, just as much as we do, and they have time, they have energy, they get involved.
My noble friend Lord Dykes commented that—despite the absence of cricket in his tremendous tour de force of commenting on what the British public are interested in—the British people trust their political representatives to make political judgments on their behalf. Noble Lords know full well that the British public have no trust in any politician at all at the moment, although I believe that they have greater trust in your Lordships’ House than in the other place. What they do have confidence in is the knowledge that they take, albeit false knowledge, from Wikipedia, from iCloud and from other data that are now so readily available 24 hours a day and which people take, commandeer and use. Therefore, they want to be involved; they are able to be involved; they are knowledgeable about being involved and that is why the heart of the Bill is a good idea.
The 40 per cent threshold is a very odd idea, unless we are going to carry it right forward into the European Parliament, into the general election, into local elections, presumably—we can have a dismal turnout, yet we respect the council that is elected none the less and the mayors that are elected, if they are. I expect that there will be a pretty low turnout if we have elected police, for example. So we do accept that low turnout and we take just over a 50 per cent threshold as a majority. That is the way in which our parliamentary system works, that is the way in which our electoral system works. I can see no rationale, no reasonable argument that has been laid in front of your Lordships’ House so far this afternoon, which tells me that I should support this set of amendments. These referenda will be few and far between—probably once every 10 years if the European Union actually proposes a further transfer of sovereign power, which at the moment is highly unlikely. It is busy with the euro, it is busy with the superabundance of enlargement; it is not going to propose anything very important for the moment on these grounds. Maybe once every 10 or 15 years there will be a referendum. Is this of such profound significance that it outweighs the normal way in which we vote in general elections? I think not. The logic is against it because the Bill says that the primacy of the British Parliament overrides everything coming from Brussels in any case. I oppose the amendments.
Lord Triesman
It has been a long debate and I suspect that there has been a very full review of most of the issues. I am very pleased to be associated with the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Dykes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in this amendment. I also find myself in very strong agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Forsyth. I too have been thinking about Burke. It may completely destroy any prospect of my ever sitting successfully on these Benches again, but the reality is that those are the key arguments.
There was such strong support for my noble friend Lord Rooker’s original concept of thresholds and the feed-through to the parliamentary system—there are some differences here that I shall explore in a moment—because it was felt strongly that when there were to be significant changes to our constitution or the arrangements under which we are governed, there ought to be a demonstrable degree of legitimacy. Goodness knows, 40 per cent is a pretty modest figure when looking at a level of legitimacy for changes that profound. None the less, it was an attempt to say that there should be some authority for the decision, and that the figure gave at least that degree of authority. One of the arguments adduced at the time was that in the commentary on the turnout in local elections, in particular, dipping below 40 per cent, as it often did, people made very severe criticisms of the quality of our democratic life. When it was higher than that, people tended to think it was healthy. I do not want to say that that seems to be the key reason. I just make the point that on turnouts of less than 40 per cent, results were routinely disparaged. Anybody looking back over the press and other commentary at the time would come to same conclusion.
The constitutional debates in this House were interesting. Many of your Lordships said that once the decision is taken in a referendum we should not try to second-guess the electorate. They will have spoken, however small the turnout and however profound the issue. None the less, they will have spoken. That was never a convincing reason not to look at the prospect of some threshold. That is why I agree so strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Unfortunately, we look at it from where we are now, with this legislation in front of us.
The reason why I assert that we may be in a slightly different position now is that most of the arguments that my noble friend Lord Rooker produced are still very good. However, the argument today has a slightly different salience. It has been argued that, in relation to Europe, the people of this country have felt disenfranchised. That may well be true; I do not particularly choose to argue that it is not the case. They may well resent having had less say than they believed they should. What is needed in these circumstances may be the indelible mark of people’s approval for changes that might have a significant effect on their lives. I can see that. If it is true that we need that new kind of indelible mark, let us make sure that it is a credible mark, which has some authority and dignity and has not gone through on very small figures.
The reason why I believe that this is significantly different from the arguments about, for example, local elections, and different—with the greatest respect to former Members of the European Parliament—from European parliamentary elections, is this.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
I was merely making the general point that 50 per cent-plus is our normal modus operandi. It is impossible to see why it should be any different for this referendum.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, the argument for 50 per cent plus has been widely canvassed recently among the people of the United Kingdom, who formed a very clear view of it, which I agree with. I make this point because it goes to the heart of the difference that we are discussing. The difference seems to be that Parliament will have taken a decision to put the matter to the electorate. The question is: what size or degree of opposition should there be before Parliament is overridden and its decision—the decision that has been advocated by the Government of the day—set aside? The decision that forms the fundamental proposition being put to the people will have been argued for from government Benches, and may well have been argued for from opposition Benches as well, before it ever gets to the point where it is put to the people. The constitutional innovation is that people are being asked to set aside whatever Parliament, and indeed whatever the Government that they have elected, have said. This is a very profound difference from any arrangement that we have seen at any time in the United Kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, before the Minister gets up, I have a point of order.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I will make the point of order whether there are interruptions from other parts of the House or not. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said that we had had enough of this debate and that, when he got up, no other noble Lord would be able to speak. This is not in accordance with the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords. If noble Lords turn to paragraph 8.139, on page 152, they will see that, as long as the House accepts that they should do so, noble Lords may speak until the Minister gets up. After this, there shall be no speeches. However, before the Minister or spokesman gets to his or her feet, with the permission of the House, any Member of the House may speak
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct, as I have got up, this debate now comes to a close.
As always, it has been a fascinating debate with many profound remarks. It has predominantly been a debate about referenda, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the debate has been entirely separate from the Bill. Speaking as one of the, I suspect, rather few ex-Ministers who have taken a referendum Act through the other place in the distant past—the Northern Ireland referendum Bill—I suppose that, in the eyes of my noble friends Lord Deben and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, I am damned before I start.
Nevertheless, let me set out one or two of the arguments that have perhaps not been exposed as clearly as they should. We know that the purpose of these amendments is to include a minimum turnout threshold for any referendums arising as a result of the Bill. If the threshold is not met, regardless of the result, hey presto, the referendum would become advisory and not mandatory. This proposition has a whole string of disadvantages, which are not all obvious but become clear if you think about them. First, as many of your noble Lords have pointed out, instead of it being mandatory on the Government, it leaves the British people in real doubt about what the effect of their vote will be. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is incidentally entirely wrong that it will be mandatory on Parliaments; it will be mandatory on Governments, though it is true that Governments often, but not always, control Parliaments. However, this goes by the board if we pass the amendment. It will be the end of the British people’s mandatory certainty and they will be back where they started, passing the ball back to Parliament and the party and Government controlling Parliament. This is where the record has, frankly, not been brilliant or reassuring. This is one of the reasons why we are facing these problems.
We have the glorious assertions of excellent and eloquent spokesmen like the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Triesman, that the only need is for the Government to say no. However, they have not said no. They have said yes, when many people have felt that this yes was the wrong and inappropriate proposition. The fear is that, now that we have said yes to Lisbon, we have said yes about handing many important powers to the European Union. We work with the European Union and believe that they should have powers. However, will it be a no or yes in future? The doubt remains. The doubt must be removed. The reassurance is not there. For the vast majority of the people, the call is for the reassurance to be there. Though the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not agree with me, I suspect that the vast majority in this country want us to be good Europeans and to be effective in Europe and effective in allowing Europe to use—and not have us unravel—its vast range of existing competences. They are, however, worried as to whether it will be a yes or a no in future. The noble Lords do not seem to have grasped this central point. It is simply not right to lead people in doubt about what their role will be. It leaves them with a doubt—a dangerous doubt—about whether they will be listened to, about the lack of clarity and about whether their views will count.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, brought us back to Edmund Burke. I love Burke. He is one of my favourites. However, he is not particularly my favourite when he warned that democracy only works if, as he put it, there is a policeman within each one of us. It is slightly different from the proposition about parliamentary democracy. We all know perfectly well that Burke was not operating in today’s situation. He perhaps did not foresee the iron discipline of party politics, where some parties get a complete grip on Parliament. Has the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, recently read—or ever read—Lord Hailsham on elected dictatorship? In it he would find a heavy antidote to the glorious idealism of the Burkean age, in which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and Mr Burke could speak out to their conscience freely unaware of any party restraints. I have spent 31 years in the other place and I am afraid that every day I was aware of party restraints.
I cannot see that this 40 per cent threshold would reconnect the British people with the decisions being taken in their name at the EU level; it certainly would not do so. These devices do not serve to solve the problem, as astutely identified by a great many commentators day after day on the radio or in the newspapers. I see that my brief refers to the BBC’s Europe editor, who said the other day that,
“Across Europe voters feel insecure, suspicious of an elite with its own vision of an ever closer union but which doesn't necessarily address their hopes or fears”.
I would hope that this wise House of Lords, where we wear our party allegiances somewhat more lightly, would support efforts to resolve this concern and to see the European Union on a more solid basis than, frankly, it is today, not only for lack of popular support but because it is facing very serious policy issues as well. For those of us who want to build a better relationship between the British people and the EU and, indeed, people generally and the EU right across the 27 countries—soon to be 28 or more—I would have thought that this is the way to go.
By the same token, the amendment before us undermines that whole aim of the Bill. That is the first point which must be taken into account and cannot be dismissed, unless those who do so think that popular support and consensus are irrelevant, do not arise and that parliamentary wisdom is so entrenched and admired that anything decreed by Governments in Parliament will be immediately accepted—it will not. Secondly, the point has rightly been made that thresholds of this type encourage game playing during a referendum campaign rather than a proper presentation of the arguments to achieve a desired result. For example, if supporters of the yes campaign know that Parliament supports the treaty change in question, they have a huge incentive to keep the vote down below 40 per cent rather than going out and making the case for change.
Thirdly, the Government believe that we should encourage public participation rather than providing reasons for keeping that down. We could wish that the internet age had never occurred and that the days of massive and wide public consultation had not developed, but they have. As my noble friend Lady Nicholson rightly pointed out, are we saying that local elections are not legitimate? We can wave a hand and say that they are different but that is just an assertion. I do not think that they are all that different. Are we saying that the European parliamentary elections are not legitimate? What does it do to the trust in the body politic if a majority have voted no in the referendum but Parliament decided, because it has the power to do so, to go ahead anyway? That would be extremely damaging.
Fourthly, the Lords Constitution Committee, to which some of my noble friends referred, in its wisdom—it is a very wise committee—shares opposition to thresholds. Its report on referendums in the UK concluded that,
“there should be a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and supermajorities”.
Thresholds are bound to distance voters from the issues on which the British people want to have their say. Incentives to campaign to abstain would be vastly increased.
There is a further question. During our first days in Committee on the Bill, the wise noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that during the debates on the EEC Referendum Act 1975, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—then Margaret Thatcher—had objected to the possibility of the referendum being mandatory. She also said:
“The Government might regard themselves as bound, but the result could not fetter the decision of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/1975; col. 315.]
That, of course, is exactly our point. That is why I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is wrong. These referenda, or the referendum that might occur—I think that it will occur only once every few years, but I will come to that in a moment—are mandatory on government. That is the whole point of the Bill. However, they are not mandatory on Parliament. They cannot be. Parliament’s view of the treaty will be taken during the passage of legislation for the referendum. If Parliament did not support the treaty, it would not pass the legislation, so Parliament has its say and remains supreme in every sense.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, it is traditional to say we have had a wide-ranging debate. On this occasion it is true. When I put the amendment forward, I hoped I would get a measure of support from different parts of the House. I have done that, but of course there has been a good measure of disagreement as well. I have also succeeded in doing something I did not set out to do: I have clearly split the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. That will, perhaps, give me a reward in heaven, although I will go on a little longer to say that I will be first to have a reward here in the Chamber.
I would like to make one or two very brief points. The first is that this amendment comes forward because of circumstances that have been dictated by the Government’s Bill. They are nothing whatever to do with a blank space about how we are going to deal with Europe. We have a Bill on the table that potentially introduces more than 50 referenda. I do not think we will get those, but in any event what is happening in the near future, to which the Minister referred, is not relevant because the Government is not going to take this action during the current Parliament.
What we are discussing is what sort of referendum regime we want to build into our constitution for the medium term and what role we think Parliament should play in that. I think Parliament should play some part, particularly in those cases where the British public has shown a complete lack of interest in—or even their disagreement or contempt for—the Government’s attempt to hold a referendum by voting in negligible numbers. I think it is perfectly reasonable, in those circumstances, for Parliament to take responsibility. That is the basic approach and I stand by it.
I do not want to go into all the other details because I know nothing about the incinerator in King’s Lynn. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that we have reached the death of the political class. I know they are a bit threatened, but I do not think they are dead. All those issues are beyond me.
One final point is that there have been a good number of comparisons with elections, local elections and so on, which have no 40 per cent bar. I think all those arguments are totally irrelevant. In particular, we had a Second Reading of a Bill yesterday that made possible a large number of referendums on local government. Every one of those referendums was going to be advisory, not mandatory. The position of the Government, particularly the Liberal Democrats, is in favour of advisory referenda and I cannot see why they wish to act differently in this case. I think I have said enough, and I wish to get my reward here and not in heaven. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Liddle
“(a) a referendum does not need to be held in accordance with section (Process for determining the necessity of referendums); or(b) ”
Lord Liddle
My Lords, after that great victory for Parliament—let us thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for moving the amendment and being the moving spirit behind it, with other Cross-Benchers—I now speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Triesman, which are also about the role of Parliament, about strengthening Parliament and substituting the discretion of Parliament for the automaticity of the referendum locks that the Bill contains.
The amendments do not drive a coach and horses through the basic principle of the Bill, which is a requirement for referendums on the big issues affecting Europe's future, but they set up a special Joint Committee of Parliament: the European Referendum Scrutiny Committee. In cases where Parliament had passed an Act under this legislation, that committee would be there to consider whether it was necessary to have a referendum on that Act. In making those judgments it would take account of the criteria in subsection (4) of Amendment 5B. Those criteria include whether the matter was significant, whether it was urgent and where the national interest would lie. It would come to a judgment on whether it felt that a referendum was justified. If a referendum was justified, it would be up to each House, in a Motion, to approve that recommendation. It is important to emphasise—because this is a change in the amendment that we moved in Committee, perhaps to make it more acceptable to sceptics in the House—that if there was not to be a referendum, it would require both Houses to say no to the recommendation of the Joint Committee that there should not be a referendum. In other words, it would meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, makes that with executive control over the Commons, it would be possible for a whipped vote to defeat the idea of a referendum, because they would have to go against the recommendation of the committee and win that position in our Chamber as well.
What is the point of putting in place this proposal? It is to inject proportionality into the Bill. The Bill contains no proportionality whatever. It is a “thus far and no further” Bill as far as the European Union is concerned. It assumes—and it is an extraordinary assumption—that a Government can today foresee all the circumstances in which change in the European Union might be necessary over the coming years. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, keeps telling us that he sees very little prospect of a referendum occurring in the near future. However, within two years of the approval of the Lisbon treaty we have already had a proposal for a revision of that treaty, under the simplified revision procedure, to create a European stability mechanism, which is necessary to deal with the crisis in the euro area. That is not the result of an attempt to deceive people after it was thought that there would be no treaty changes immediately after Lisbon. That is not the reason. The reason is that, due to the crisis in the euro, circumstances have occurred which no one foresaw and it is necessary to make this minor amendment to the treaty.
As it happens, that does not affect us. However, if there was a change which in a similar set of circumstances did affect us, it would require a referendum. Yet it is hardly the kind of major issue about the nation’s destiny that would justify having a referendum. It would therefore be up to the Joint Committee that we would establish to decide on the proportionality of these questions as to whether a referendum was necessary. It is a strengthening—an affirmation—of the rights of Parliament, just as we have voted for a few moments ago, and an important one to make.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to me that it addresses an issue which desperately needs addressing in the Bill, and that is flexibility. The structure of the Bill, particularly in its elaborate nature, with the 56 possible incidences of referenda, is, frankly, a couch of Procrustes, on which we are busy stretching ourselves and on which, no doubt, our feet or our heads will one day be lopped off. It is very rigid indeed. It leaves very little appreciation to the Government of the day, although of course the Government of the day will have had to agree in Brussels that, in principle, subject to the proceedings in this Bill, they will go along with it. However, then the rigidity comes back in. It is not surprising in a way. The Government proudly call this Bill a referendum lock, the key of which they have taken out and are now throwing out of the window.
I think this amendment is one way to deal with the issue and earlier today we discussed others. I very much welcome the fact that the Government recognise that, in the handling of this “or otherwise support” issue, they needed a bit more flexibility and they have now moved an amendment, which I was delighted to see went through unopposed, which gives a little more flexibility. It enables a Minister in Brussels to say that he would take something back to London and subject it to the procedures under the Bill, but that he would support it. It enables him to say that but, of course, it does not allow it to go through in any legal sense. That is an increase in flexibility. We have just voted for an increase in flexibility for Parliament because, if less than 40 per cent of the British people are prepared to get off their backsides and vote, then Parliament will be able to take a decision itself and the result of the referendum will be only advisory.
It would be splendid if the Government would think a little more about how to introduce more flexibility into the Bill, while not removing the essence of it. I accept that it is supported by a majority in the House of Commons and that it is in the coalition agreement, which says that, if there are major constitutional changes, there will be a referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, the recommendations of our own Constitution Committee are rather clear on this point but were ignored by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted the bit he liked, but did not quote the bit he did not like in the Constitution Committee’s report. That was a much longer bit, which said that referendums should be used only for major constitutional innovations. If you look at the various clauses of the Bill, you will see that there are stacks of things there which are not major constitutional innovations. This provision will give a little more flexibility there, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider that because flexibility will be needed somewhere down the line. The more care taken with the legislation, the better that legislation will be for the interests of this country.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I say to noble Lords opposite that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise that this amendment is intended to enhance scrutiny and to improve propositions that might be put forward by the Executive. We also accept the spirit of what noble Lords opposite are trying to do. For the record, I do not find, in the copy that I have just looked up, the elements of the coalition agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred as endorsing this amendment. I would not want to tempt him to read out the entire section on Europe in the coalition agreement, as the hour is late.
I shall speak to the substantive elements of the amendment. We do not believe that it would be right to take such a dramatic step to remove from the Executive, the Government of the day, the decisions about what they will support or not and to give them to a committee of both Houses. We have had a long debate about Parliament and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and so on. In Committee, we heard a lot of argumentation across the House regarding urgent situations and what would happen because decision-making was so late and would be so stymied. I find that the methodology proposed here would certainly add to the amount of time that would be taken to deal with measures if a Joint Committee had to rule on them. There would also be the issue of reintroducing some rather subjective concepts: urgency and national interest. We have had debates on those subjects; both are highly subjective. We are also conscious of the judicial review implications contained in the Bill.
Finally, the amendment seems to miss the underlying theme of the Bill, which is that the Executive make a call on a proposal, bring it to Parliament, Parliament agrees it and then the public are to ratify that decision through a referendum. As we have repeatedly heard from the ministerial Bench, the Bill is designed to reconnect the British public with these policy issues that emanate from the European Union. The public will be empowered, through the processes proposed here. To take that away and to give it to a Joint Committee of both Houses seems to me to entirely miss the point of the Bill. On that basis I suggest that it goes contra to where we had got. Before I conclude I give way to the noble Lord,
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Baroness has said that one of the reasons why she did not want to support the amendment was that she was worried that it would raise the possibility of judicial review on the decision about whether a referendum was necessary. According to this amendment, that decision will be taken by a parliamentary committee—in this case a joint parliamentary committee—so how could there possibly be a judicial review? That would be contrary to the Bill of Rights.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I think I can see the point that the noble Lord is making. I wonder whether he is interested in hearing my reply, as he is now engaged in another conversation. As I understand the amendment, the committee would make a recommendation to the Government on the basis of urgency, significance and national interest. I think the decision of the Minister, in accepting or not accepting the recommendation, would be subject to judicial review.
For the reasons I have enunciated, I can see that the amendment is well meaning but I urge my noble friends to oppose it.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the clause makes no reference to the Joint Committee advising the Government. The Joint Committee would have the responsibility for making a decision. By definition, if the decision is made by a parliamentary committee—a Joint Committee or other parliamentary committee—it could not be subject to judicial review.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Since the noble Lord continues with the matter, I will detain the House for a moment. What is the point of a recommendation coming out of a Joint Committee if the Government ignore it?
Lord Empey
My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate and there is one thing that we can say about ourselves: we are at least consistent in our inconsistency. We were talking earlier about 40 per cent thresholds and yesterday we were talking about 5 per cent thresholds, and some of us have been subjected to referendums over the years whether we like them or not. Therefore, the important argument about parliamentary democracy which was put forward eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others does not quite register. I fear that this amendment suffers from the same weakness that it is the purpose of the Bill to try and resolve—that, effectively, Parliament is making these decisions. We hide behind the words “major constitutional significance”—some people may say they are weasel words—because what is major to me might not be major to the noble Baroness. We then take away from the Government of the day any significant role unless they rely on their party positions to whip people into particular positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to the fact that the Government had to be able to respond and be a good partner to our European colleagues. I believe that the United Kingdom has been an exceptionally good partner over the years. However, simply because we have particular constitutional architecture concerning how we take decisions that affect us in no way invalidates us as a good partner nor does it invalidate a Government’s ability to respond. There are many decisions that require an urgent response. I see no reason why that cannot continue.
It is only when there is actually a change of substance that time will be taken to ratify that. Even when we have been talking about the current economic position in Europe we have been looking at the stability arrangements and others, and we know that these are going to take 18 months to 24 months to get through on existing arrangements. Therefore, I do not believe that this country would be unable to respond and act as a good partner. Nor am I frightened by the prospect that if we enhance our constitutional arrangements our European partners will take the huff and stop dealing with us. I do not believe that for one moment. It is our business. I believe that the Commission accepts that it is our business to decide whatever structures should be put in place. That is the way of the world. Other countries do it. Other countries have referenda; other countries have a variety of constitutional locks. As the European Union grows, I suspect we will enhance the variety of different decision-making processes that come in. Why should we be worried about that?
I do not think that people on the street are running around saying, “I wonder if we are a good partner with our colleagues in Paris or Bonn”. I do not think this is something that registers with the people. What does register is if they are told one thing and then something happens that is the opposite of what they were told or promised. That comes back to why there is a need for such a Bill. Whatever its inelegancies—and I can see that there are many—it is there because we have broken a trust. There is a huge gap between what we as politicians think and what the public think of us. It has only been the recent financial crisis and the situation with bankers that we now have somebody we can look down upon. Until then, we were really at the bottom of the pile.
The truth is that we are, and have been, inconsistent. We have chopped and changed on referenda. Burke was quoted extensively—I am no scholar on Burke—but he was operating in the 18th century.
Lord Empey
Yes, and all the better for it. However, time has moved on and things have evolved from what we did when kings were able to come into this building and chop people’s heads off. Our constitution continuously evolves. Just because we are attracted to the idea that a representative should be free to come into Parliament and express his or her opinion on behalf of those they represent—and people believe that to be a sacrosanct position—in the way the modern world has developed, the referendum genie is out of the bottle whether people like it or not. You are not going to be able to push it back in so the question is, what triggers it? Do we leave the trigger with the institution which has led us to the position where this Bill is on the table or do we put in some safeguards so that people know they will get their say?
I think that there is little alternative but to give this a try. It is not something that will last for ever—it might change. After 10 or 20 years it might no longer be sustainable and we need to improve it. We have moved on, people have moved on, communication has moved on and, thank God, people are educated to a much greater extent. Years ago, when people came into these buildings they represented the masses outside who could not read or write. Perhaps very few people had any grasp of what was going on around them. Their world was confined to their farm or, in more recent years, to a factory. Today, the people out there are much more sophisticated and probably know more than many of us in here. We have to respect that and trust the people.
We all make mistakes and sometimes referendums produce results that we do not like. The same happens in elections: it is the peril of the democratic world. However, we should look at the alternatives around the world. Whatever faults we may have, ours is a better system, but it has to evolve. I fear that this amendment, if passed, short-circuits and defeats the whole purpose of the legislation. Therefore, I am unable to support it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, because the purpose of the Bill is to give the people of this country the final say on what happens in terms of our relationship with Europe. If we allow this amendment to go through—and I totally oppose it—the effect will be to open it all up again so the discretion is left with Parliament. That is where the whole problem started. Successive Governments have misled this country about the implications of the treaties that we have signed. They have always been understated.
I spent much time as a Government Whip in another place saying to my colleagues, “Don’t worry about this, it is just tidying things up and putting things in order. It does not really have any impact on the way we do business here.” Every single time I said that I was lying through my teeth. Government have been lying though their teeth from the very start when we entered the economic community. We said to everybody, “Don’t worry, there are no issues of sovereignty here. We are joining a free trading area. A free trading area is a wonderful idea and we want to get into this as quickly as possible”.
Baroness Quin
When we joined the European Economic Community, we were already in the European free trade area. I am old enough to remember that the debates focused on the difference between a free trade area and the treaties that established the European Economic Community.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
That was not the story that I was told. If I had realised the massive implications for the transfer of sovereignty as a result of signing, I would not have supported the referendum on the question of our membership of the European Union.
There has been a tremendous amount of deception. Not only is it an understatement of what we have signed up to, but it is a process of grandmother’s footsteps—a little bit at a time, always understating the implications. Therefore, with reference to the amendment, if we leave it with Parliament to make the decisions about whether the implications of the business are worthy of a referendum, we are right back in the position of deceiving the people of this country and will merely sow more mistrust and undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to reassure the British people that if there is any question of us being drawn further into the European Union we will put it to them to decide whether it should happen.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, there is another reason to disagree with the amendment. Any Joint Committee composed of Members of your Lordships' House and the other place is bound to be stacked in favour of the Europhiles. In your Lordships' House, we now number some 800 Members, of whom I think only eight are prepared to say, more or less in public, that we should leave the European Union. That compares with some 84 per cent of the British public who want a referendum on whether we stay in the European Union at all—which has nothing to do with the Bill—and more than 50 per cent who believe that we should leave outright. In recent years, I have often pointed out that the composition of your Lordships' Select Committees is skewed in favour of Europhilia, even by the standards of your Lordships' House. I have not made a recent examination of the members of the main European Select Committee or its sub-committees, but I am prepared to bet that not a single member of those committees agrees with at least half the British people, and perhaps only two or three of them could be regarded as vaguely Eurosceptic.
In the House of Commons, some 26 Members have joined the joint Better Off Out group and have voted in a refreshingly Eurosceptic direction on the Bill and other matters. The Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament of course will be stacked by the Whips and will, in the recent tradition of both Houses of Parliament, get wildly out of tune with the British people—something that the Bill is supposed to do something to correct. The amendment goes in entirely the opposite direction and I hope that it will be resisted.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I need to recant. In Committee, I was against the amendment on the grounds that it complicated things. However, now it seems that it may be the only hope for dealing with a problem that I had hoped would be dealt with by another route. I was young, innocent and idealistic; I did not realise that we would end up cheering a government concession that means that, in the Bill, “support” is a term of art defined at the beginning, and the various prohibitions on Ministers of the Crown in any way supporting X, Y and Z does not mean that they cannot propose, advocate or support them in Brussels—just that they cannot vote for them. This is a huge advance and I am beginning to understand how difficult the legislative process is.
Clauses 2 and 3 have two different procedures, depending on whether the treaty amendment emerges by the classical method plus a convention, or by the accelerated method that is meant to deal with emergencies. We have two different procedures, and one of the paradoxes is that we have a significance test in the second but not in the first. Therefore, we envisage that any treaty amendment by the first, traditional method plus the convention must be significant. The second curiosity is that I thought that a treaty amendment was a treaty amendment, whichever route it came by. The third curiosity is that the accelerator method, covered in Clause 3, is meant to be used in an emergency, but we do not have any emergency or urgency test built in.
The charm of the amendment, as I now see, is that it brings in these tests. It would get significance into the traditional method, where it is not at the moment. It would also bring in urgency and the national interest, which perhaps is not a bad idea. It is a complication and it is a great pity that we have not had any clear rationale for the separate methods that depend on the origin in Brussels of the treaty amendment. However, we are where we are and clearly the Government are not going to give us any concessions on that. Therefore, faute de mieux, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I begin by dissociating myself entirely from the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that somehow the Bill gives encouragement to referenda and public votes “on anything and everything”. That was his phrase, but it could not be further from the truth. It would be impossible to think of a proposition that is more remote from what the Bill is intended to do. The Bill is about transfers of power and sovereignty—over a wide range of issues, I concede—from the United Kingdom and this Parliament to the European Union. I am left almost speechless; what is unimportant or trivial about that? These are issues that we have dealt with again and again—the famous red lines that successive Governments have found to be of extreme importance to Britain. The argument is not that we should not be involved with the European Union in all these areas, but that we should retain a veto power if we are pressed too far; that all the powers that are needed have been conceded under the Lisbon treaty; and that those that were left out—the remaining issues where unanimity must prevail, where the veto must be kept in place and where no further treaty competences should be transferred—are all the important remaining ones, which many of the 27 countries insisted on preserving.
These are the important issues: defence and security, national security, military issues, national tax, fiscal and energy policy, provisions under the EU budget, financial management of the EU, citizenship and elections, foreign policy and social security. These are not trivial issues that can be dismissed. What prevails in these comments is a devastating lack of understanding of the importance of the remaining issues that are not within the competence and power of the EU because the nation states do not feel that it is necessary for them to be there—and, on the contrary, think that they should remain under national and sovereign control. Therefore, the starting point of many of these comments is so far removed from what is in the Bill and what the Bill is concerned with that I find it very hard to find a bridge of words to link the two, but I will try my best.
Under these amendments, decisions on whether a referendum on treaty change or a decision—these are big issues—should be held would be made by a special committee of both Houses. This is similar, though not identical, to the debate we had on amendments in Committee. They were limited to Clause 6 decisions, and seem to have widened the scope of the so-called European referendum scrutiny committee to cover treaties and Article 48(6) decisions. This is a big assignment of discretion to this parliamentary committee. How this committee would come about, I am not too sure. I have to say in the best of spirits to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that if he thinks that this committee would be free of interference from the Government or party-political pressures of various sorts, then his innocence is not entirely lost.
I am at least pleased that this amendment recognises that consideration should be given to the need for a referendum when treaties or Article 48 decisions are to be made. This is a clear step forward from the status quo, where it was entirely down to Ministers to decide whether a referendum was to be held and where, as we have sadly seen, Ministers and Governments can and do change their minds—hence many of our problems. The amendment appears to have retained the provisions in the Bill—which is good—that all treaties and Article 48 decisions must in future be ratified through an Act of Parliament. At least it retains a greatly increased role for Parliament, which this Bill stretches for and seeks to provide. This is a definite advance.
Moving from ministerial discretion over whether a referendum should be held, to parliamentary discretion over whether a referendum should be held, really is not sufficient. What we would have is an extra step in the process of deciding whether to have a referendum, which I suspect would merely diminish further rather than increase the confidence and trust of the British people when compared to the current provisions in the Bill and to what the Bill is trying to do. It would cut right across, and therefore potentially diminish, the work done by the European scrutiny committees of both Houses, which—despite the overrides, which one must concede have been too frequent—has been valuable in giving some impression to the general public and to the electorate of this country that there are some brakes on the system.
Why would the arrangements for the proposed European referendum scrutiny committee diminish public trust? The answer is that because whereas the Bill is, with the exception of the narrowly defined significance test, very specific about which transfers of power and competence would lead to a referendum—that is what this whole Bill is about—these amendments would do away with the certainty. In agreeing the Bill as drafted, Parliament would be giving a clear signal to the public as to when a referendum would be held. If the amendment were agreed, the whole process would be lost in a whirlpool of subjective political judgments and, I have no doubt, of manoeuvres as well, and of all the pressures that operate through our political system—perfectly properly, because that is the way that a democratic system works. The idea that they would be absent and that an isolated, divinely independent judgment could be reached by this committee is absurd and naive.
These amendments require the committee to assess all treaties and Article 48 decisions against significance, urgency and the national interest. These are highly subjective terms which are capable of a far wider range of interpretation than the criteria in Clause 4, which have been carefully analysed and crafted. This amendment moves the whole debate away from an objective consideration of whether power or competence has been transferred from the UK to the EU. It moves it away from objectivity to subjectivity of precisely the kind which works against trust and against confidence, and against support for the whole European Union project which I thought so many noble Lords wanted to see reinforced.
Government and Parliament will of course take into consideration issues of urgency, importance and certainly the national interest when negotiating a treaty change, and in passing Acts to ratify treaty change. These are centrally important issues, but they are not the right criteria on which to decide whether a referendum is needed before a treaty change or an Article 48 decision is ratified.
The other problem with these amendments is that the decisions on these highly subjective issues will be made, frankly, by a small number of parliamentarians. I have said that we are not quite sure how they would come to be on this committee. The way this committee is set up means that it could only ever deny the public a referendum, which is what is promised under this Bill. I do not like to say it, but when my noble friend Lord Hamilton points it out, it is a fact that the British people’s trust in the institution of Parliament and the political parties within it has, in this area, been eroded over the years, particularly on issues of Europe; I sometimes think that on other issues it is grossly exaggerated. One always marvels at how many people are generally critical of the political class, but when they start talking about individuals—the hard-working Members of Parliament—they say, “Oh no, our person is splendid. It is just the general lot we do not like”. It can be overdone. However, on the issue of Europe, it is quite clear, by every measure that we have seen of the public’s support and the general tenor of the public debate, that a lack of trust is noticeable. People have been promised a referendum on a treaty change, only to see it taken away again. This is reflected in the number of people who do not value the EU, who do not trust it or who simply do not seem to grasp its work, aims or purposes. There is a sense of apathy, because people feel powerless to influence decisions which affect their daily lives. To deny this really is to shut our minds to the good and valuable side of the EU’s work, which I believe is enormous and often underestimated.
The coalition Government intend to address this cynicism, apathy and lack of trust. The aim is to reconnect the British people directly to the key decisions on the EU and assure them that, while there are now vast powers and competences in the EU’s hands, any further expansion of these would have to be very carefully argued and in many cases put to the British people for their approval. It remains a mystery to me why the Opposition still somehow argue that there should be these extra powers—that we are going to need these future treaty changes—but what for? One is left groping the air, trying to understand the mystery of it all. It is a sort of apophatic doctrine, that somehow there are issues ahead so complicated that the people cannot put them into words or understand them, and that these require the flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, keeps returning to.
We know that the British people want a say. The June 2009 survey by the European Parliament found that eight out of 10 people in this country agreed that future EU treaty changes should be decided by referendums. Fewer than one in 10 disagreed. These amendments do not represent the modern reality about transparency and openness that we in the coalition Government want, and which reflects a modern attitude to participatory democracy. They are a step back in time which may be nostalgic and romantic, but they take us away from reality and away from the future.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington, who is not in his place at the moment, for what he said about these proposals in Committee. He said that,
“you are moving even further away from a situation where the general public has any confidence at all that its views are considered when vital decisions are made”.—[Official Report, 16/5/11; col. 1230.]
However well intentioned these amendments, they cannot serve to enhance this Bill or its underlying virtues and purpose. The Bill is deliberately designed to set out as clearly as possible which treaty changes would require a referendum, while avoiding the need for trivial referendums. That seems to me to be a scare story which I hope we are not going to hear repeated because it is not connected with the reality, the intention or the possibilities which arise from this Bill. Leaving it to the discretion of a committee of parliamentarians to decide whether a referendum is needed will do nothing whatever to reconnect, re-engage and regain the trust of the British people. I believe this is an amendment that we could do without and that does not help the Bill or the underlying purposes, which I believe most noble Lords in all political parties and in none basically want reinforced. I think these amendments go the other way and take away from us the purposes and goals that we should be pursuing, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I have to confess that I am staggered by the Minister’s reply. He misrepresents the position of the Opposition, and I do not think he understands the content of the Bill that he is putting before this House. Let me briefly say why. He goes on at length about allowing people to vote on decisions that affect their daily lives. Is he putting this forward as a general principle? Do the Government think that there should be a vote on the merits of their health reforms and the changes to their health reforms? How many people in the country do they think would vote for that? The idea that this Government stand for a general principle of giving people the right to have a say over decisions that affect their own lives is a nonsense.
Why is it that this principle should simply be applied to the European Union and be applied in a way in which the Government do not appear to understand what they are doing? The Minister says that we are saying that this Bill will require referenda on anything or everything. In the case of the European Union, there are 56 instances where this Bill requires a referendum. Is it seriously being suggested that there are 56 issues of profound importance affecting Britain’s future in Europe which would require a referendum? I suggest not. We know what those major issues are. We will have amendments later to confine the referenda to those major issues. It is a nonsense to suggest that we should have referenda on 56 issues. As far as Europe is concerned, that is anything or everything.
There is a point-blank refusal on the part of Ministers to understand the need for some flexibility when we are dealing with the future. I do not think that the government Benches understand the point of an Article 48(6) simplified revision procedure, which is under Clause 3. It is to deal with circumstances which we cannot foretell, yet in every circumstance, apart from very limited exceptions, this legislation says that such an amendment would require a referendum. It is the view of every expert on the European Union that that is going to inhibit greatly Britain’s ability in future years to play a leading role in the European Union.
As for the Minister’s remarks about how parliamentary committees are all fixes and you cannot trust what they say, I thought that he had respect for the workings of Parliament and for the workings of the Constitution Committee of this House, for instance, which puts forward very objective reports, despite the party composition of its membership. I would have thought that if we agreed, as this amendment proposes, to a parliamentary process for deciding what was proportional, such a parliamentary committee would do its job independent of the Executive in such a way that we could all respect its judgment.
I am afraid I am unconvinced by the Government. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Research: Science and Technology Committee Report
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Setting priorities for publicly funded research (3rd Report, Session 2009–10, HL Paper 104).
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, it is often said that the future success of this country depends on our continuing success in science and technology. Although I am not a scientist, I fully agree with that comment. There are clearly a number of other determinants of national well-being, not all of which are in our control. However, success in science and technology is significantly within our control. It is with that element of the nation’s future that we are concerned today.
We start from a strong platform. We have talent and, equally importantly—I shall come back to this—we attract talent to this country. This is a good place to be a research scientist. We have institutions which give civil support to this, most notably the Royal Society, as well as the various academies and institutions, including the Royal Society of Edinburgh, of which I confess an interest as a past president.
We have talented and able scientists who continue to build on the legacy of Newton, Boyle, Harvey, Darwin, Clerk Maxwell, Rutherford and so on. I could go on for half the evening but I shall not. I mention those names and the talent of our scientists to point out that, in forthcoming debates about the membership of this House, I fervently hope we will continue to have the immensely able and informed scientific opinion which, as noble Lords will hear in this debate, we have with us. As the boxing metaphor puts it, the nation has a capacity to punch above its weight in science, technology and engineering. This is not simply an additional national boast and an intellectual luxury in which we enjoy indulging but one of the key conditions of our economic vibrancy as a nation.
This report was prepared as a matter of some urgency in the autumn of 2009 and the spring of 2010, before the impending election, to help the debate about the place of science and technology in our community at a time which evidently was going to be one of financial austerity. For a variety of reasons the report comes fairly late to this House, but there have been significant movements since it was submitted both in the Government’s response and in the development of some of the recommendations that we have made. As a consequence, my remarks will focus partly on the report—some of its highlights and one or two of its key recommendations—and partly on policy developments of the new coalition Government which have real significance for our capacity in science and technology.
Initially, what were our main recommendations? The first is just motherhood and apple pie; that is, spend money wisely. I have to say that usually—I speak here as a chastened former vice-chancellor—scientists come along with their hand out doing a good impression of Oliver Twist asking for more. That is not the point of this report. The point is to use what we have to best effect and to ensure that in policy formulation and implementation the systems that we have are at least fit for purpose. Although we are not asking for more money, I should point out—I think that this will come up later—that we need to keep in mind who our competitors are internationally. Both France and the USA have declared their intention of enhancing the spend on science and technology.
As to the report and spending money wisely, I want to make two points, which I think will be expanded on by some of my colleagues. Evidence given to us suggested at that time a certain flabbiness in co-ordination within government, in policy formulation and in drawing on the best possible advice in this area. I believe, and I think that my colleagues agree, that this led to a limitation in overall vision. Science and technology and its importance for our community is so critical that there has to be a vision that is clear and understood widely by the community at large so that when we are supporting significant spend in science, as we are and which is a good thing, the arguments will be understood by the wider community.
One condition of informed vision, planning and policy is knowing where we are. We asked a key question of our witnesses: what is the total spend, department by department, across the whole of government on research in science and technology? Our witnesses, who came from well-informed sources, could not answer that question. One of them significantly pointed to the difficulties in this country as compared with other countries in putting a total figure on research and expenditure in science and technology across all departments. You can do it for the research councils—that is pretty straightforward—but a significant part of our research activity is funded through departments. “We don’t know” was the answer, and no one at that stage could tell us. I believe that there has been progress since then. I will come back to that in a moment. We need to know what steps can be put in place to ensure that there is such a total picture of the platform from which we start in planning expenditure in this area.
The second point I want to make from the report is that we attach very great importance to the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser. I believe we have an excellent Chief Scientific Adviser at the moment. There are scientific advisers in most departments but not all. I point the finger at the Treasury here. I would like to know when that is going to happen. There was talk of a scientific adviser there. The Chief Scientific Adviser and his colleagues in departments have a critical role to play in policy development and implementation. We believe that the Chief Scientific Adviser should have more access to specific departmental and interdepartmental debates about funding. The condition of this is that they are present in key meetings with the Treasury as these are identified over the months and years to come. The scientific adviser should have input into departmental expenditure, budget creation and discussions with the Treasury. The advice that the scientific adviser gives in the formulation of policy is critical. We also put stress on encouraging scientific advisers to find the best advice they possibly can. This may not seem an obvious point but it was obvious to us on the committee. The recommendations I point to have to do with the chief scientific advisers, their presence departmentally and also, in Sir John Beddington’s case, at key Treasury meetings and departmental management boards.
In the few minutes remaining to me I want to point to two or three policy developments that will have, and are having, an impact on our capacity in science. This has been a constant refrain from the committee over the years. The Government’s left hand must know what their right hand is doing. Understandably, co-ordination sometimes fails. It is a big complex business. However, I will give three examples where I have concerns to ensure that the unintended consequences which could be bad for science are not a reality. I start with the question of science in schools. I thoroughly supported the clear statement by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the importance of funding STEM subjects in universities, both in civil terms and also in terms of the economy. I am concerned that that has not gone along with equally clear statements about whether we will have enough well-qualified and able students coming through to fill the places in universities that are going to be so funded. Put bluntly, I am concerned that that will not be the case. I simply ask the Minister to ask her colleagues in the relevant department what they are going to do about the critical point of the curriculum for science and the attractiveness of science to senior pupils in schools. Good things have happened and I support the Browne proposals and the department’s interest in the Baker-Dearing trust’s initiative on technical education. I think that that is very good and very important.
The second example is the Department of Health. I do not want to intrude on private grief but there are real discussions going on about the state of the current Bill. The Bill contains a clear permissive statement that research can be commissioned. I would like reassurances that the resources will not simply slide away from those who do the commissioning. If the resources move significantly towards a different form of commissioning within the health service, will there be a danger that the major input of the NHS into research might slip backwards—for example, for drug trials which are very important in this country, but also basic research in medical science? It would be good, even if not today in writing, to have some reassurances that this can be done.
The last point is a matter of government policy. When I was a vice-chancellor I was well aware of the importance of looking internationally to recruit the best scientists. Universities have raised concerns about visas and we would like to be reassured again that there is no coyness or truculence in issuing visas to those who have been identified as capable of making major contributions to scientific research in this country. It is easy to turn off the enthusiasm of those who want to come, and plenty of other countries are developing policies and procedures to make it easy for these individuals to go there. So I ask three questions about contemporary policy and how it is developing. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I did not have the pleasure of serving on the committee under the noble Lord’s chairmanship. Interestingly, I was conducting a similar inquiry in another place at exactly the same time on the same subject and coming to the same conclusions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for analysing so admirably the Government’s response to the Select Committee report. The fact that the Government’s response bore precious little relevance to the actual recommendations of the report makes his contribution today even more noteworthy. That said, he is right to say that the Government’s actual record on research is far more positive. Ministers have chosen very wisely to build on the sound foundations laid by the previous Government, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Drayson, even agreeing to include in the Ministerial Code a requirement to take notice of independent scientific advice, which was a recommendation from both our committees. Despite draconian cuts in public expenditure, a flat cash settlement of £4.5 billion is to be welcomed; and the major capital investment at Harwell, at the new Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, for molecular biology at Cambridge and, of course, the fact that the St Pancras development is going ahead, are clear indications of the Government’s commitment to science.
The Treasury is almost on message. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that this afternoon a scientific adviser to the Treasury, James Richardson, was appointed. However, we should not get too excited because his press officer in the Treasury quickly sent a message saying:
“I would like to stress that the post of Chief Scientific Advisor will be taken on alongside James’ current responsibilities as the Director of Public Spending and the chief Micro economist at the Treasury”.
How much time he will have for the job, I do not know.
However, lest we get carried away by the Government’s record, the reality is that despite a decade during which we have seen research funding double, the amount we have spent as a proportion of GDP has actually fallen from 0.69 per cent in 2004 to 0.6 per cent in 2009, and this at a time when the UK was enjoying the most prolonged period of economic prosperity that the nation had ever seen. More worrying is that, while we were spending arguably more in cash terms but less as a proportion of our GDP, all our competitors were outstripping us in terms of their investment. Even more important is that over the coming decade, they are all planning to increase their spend rather than simply hold it where it is.
The Science and Technology Committee report recommended urgent prioritisation of our research effort, a call that has been echoed by most scientific bodies. Since 2004, we have had a 10-year science and innovation framework which has served us well, and we should be honest enough to admit that. But we need another one, and it has to be in place before the next CSR, and we have to do the lobbying for it. A key priority of any plan must be the re-engineering of our research infrastructure, in particular in our universities and institutes, by asking what we expect them to deliver and giving them the resources to do so. By default this is happening, with 90 per cent of our research funding now being spent in around 30 of our universities. But if we are to remain globally competitive, further concentration, probably involving amalgamations of universities or departments, will be absolutely necessary if we are going to remain world class, which is where we have to be.
I shall say to noble Lords what I have said before. We cannot sustain 165 higher education institutions offering master’s and PhD courses. In the United States, only 28 per cent of universities offer PhD programmes, while in the UK the figure is 90 per cent, often with few faculty. Surely the time has come to look at US-style graduate schools in the UK. Further, many say that the new fee regime will make students more demanding customers. Quite frankly, that is no good for science. What we want is our universities to become more demanding providers. They should ask more from their students in order to raise the academic bar. We constantly forget that that is the best way to give value to our students.
Finally, and here I have to declare an interest as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, it is crucially important that we retain links with our charitable research funders. Some 15 per cent of the money going into our universities comes from charities, with the 126 member charities in AMRC spending roughly £1 billion last year. Without the Charity Research Support Fund introduced by the previous Government, it would not be possible to deliver the front-line support that charities provide. I want to ask the Minister about this because the replies I have had so far suggest that the Charity Research Support Fund will last only until 2011-12, with £198 million. I hope that my noble friend will be able to get a message from the Box saying that at least throughout the whole of this comprehensive spending review period, it will remain in place. Without it, we will seriously affect the amount of money going into research from our charities.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, in the spirit of doing the best with what we have, I intend to follow the lead made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in discussing the role of departmental chief scientific advisers. Until a couple of decades ago, the departments for which research was important tended to fund and manage their own research institutes. It was not a perfect world, but Ministers and officials had direct access to scientific advice and technical expertise that was closely tailored to their needs. This situation changed dramatically when a majority of government research institutes were privatised, turned into executive agencies or, in some cases, closed. The consequences for government science have been profound. Perhaps the main one is that today, there is virtually no opportunity to pursue a scientific career within the Civil Service.
New science and engineering graduates are recruited and indeed welcomed, but they bring very little experience of the world of science and engineering with them. The consequence is that when it comes to advice on matters of policy and procurement in these areas, departments may have virtually no relevant expertise or experience. In essence, departments lost at this time much of their ability to be intelligent customers. It was this situation that led successive Chief Scientific Advisers to place great emphasis on the roles of their departmental counterparts. Necessarily, the majority of departmental CSAs come from outside government. They have brought in high levels of recent experience of research and business. However, appointing a CSA is one thing, and using them properly is another.
For a newcomer to be effective in Whitehall, there are several requirements. The most important of these is for the CSA to win the confidence of colleagues and to convince them that he or she can help the department do its job better. This means that the CSA must be seen to bring real expertise and experience to the job, and early on must take the time to get to know their Ministers and colleagues properly, as well as understand departmental priorities and problems. This is very hard for someone who can devote only a day or a couple of days a week to the job. Secondly, the CSA needs sufficient rank to be taken seriously within the department. They must attend senior staff meetings so that problems can be spotted before they arise. Without that, the job becomes simply reactive, so that advice is often given too late and may not be taken seriously. Thirdly, the CSA has to have sufficient resources to do the job. These may be resources of people or of money to bring in external help. I make these points because there may be a tendency, at a time of financial stringency, to think that a departmental CSA is an unaffordable luxury or that savings can be made by downgrading the post. This is far from the truth if the CSA is being used properly.
Against that background, it was a real concern to learn from evidence given at a recent meeting of the Science and Technology Select Committee that the Ministry of Defence plans to reduce the grading of its CSA when the present incumbent shortly retires. I must confess to a particular interest in this post as it was one that I held some 20 years ago. For the moment disregarding the fact that, as our report shows, the MoD has a massive R&D spend that is comparable to that of all other government departments put together and that the department does not have an entirely unblemished procurement record, technology is probably more important to the MoD than to any other department in Whitehall. It depends on maintaining a technological edge to which the CSA should make a vital contribution. This is particularly the case at a time, such as the present, of rapid technological change. At a time when challenges to our armed services appear to widen daily, does it really make sense to risk the quality and level of their technical support? In military matters there are no prizes for coming second. Lowering the grade of the MoD CSA sends a very clear message to the outside world: namely, that lower-calibre and less experienced applicants would be acceptable.
In the present climate, the need for effective departmental CSAs to help ensure good value for money is stronger than ever. I ask the Minister to use the influence of her department to ensure that the role of CSAs in Whitehall departments is not diluted and in particular to ask the Ministry of Defence to reconsider its plan to downgrade its CSA.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for introducing this important debate and for chairing the inquiry of the Select Committee of which I was a member. I should also add that I am the noble Lord’s successor as chairman of the Select Committee, although he is, as they say, a very hard act to follow.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has said, nobody seriously questions the importance of science and technology for the future well-being of this country. I want to add two points to that. One is the inherent unpredictability of identifying where those future significant discoveries will arise. It is famously said—perhaps apocryphally—that when Faraday was asked about the importance of his discoveries, he said “What use is a baby?”. The other point I wanted to make is that our own science and technology base not only enables us to benefit from knowledge generated here but to tap into the global source of knowledge—it enhances our absorptive capacity.
Science is one of the things at which the UK excels. If the Wimbledon tournament that starts in a couple of weeks’ time were a tournament for science, we would certainly not be waiting 75 years for our first male champion and 34 for our first female champion. The figures are very familiar but are worth repeating: we have 1 per cent of the world’s population, invest 3 per cent of the world’s science funding but produce 9 per cent of the scientific papers and 14 per cent of the most highly cited papers. In terms of bangs per buck we are top of the G8 league and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has already said, this is in spite of the fact that our public investment in science as a percentage of GDP is low—about half that of many of our major competitors.
However, we should not rest on our laurels. The global landscape of science is changing very rapidly and the recent Royal Society report Knowledge, networks and nations highlights the rapidly changing global landscape. China, with its R&D spend growing by 20 per cent per year, is predicted to overtake the USA as the leading nation for publishing scientific papers by 2013. The Royal Society also highlights many other developing countries—for example Iran and Turkey—as dynamic rising stars.
In short, unless we not only sustain but increase our investment in science, we will very soon lose our pre-eminent position. The comprehensive spending review, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has mentioned, did secure level cash funding for science programmes over the next four years. This was, in relative terms, good news, but we should not forget that our competitors are increasing their investment. We should also not forget that the settlement included a swingeing 54 per cent cut in the capital budget of the research councils.
I ask the Minister whether she agrees that the funding levels for science in this country do indeed pose a serious threat to our ability to attract and retain the best talent in a global market in the coming years. We should also note that some government departments cut their R&D budgets dramatically: 45 per cent for DCMS and 20 per cent for Defra. We heard from the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, last week in evidence that some departments have not yet determined their budgets for the coming years. Can the Minister confirm that she has the figures for all the departments and can she tell us what those figures are?
I turn briefly in the last few minutes to the question of scientific advice, to which others have already alluded. As we have heard, over the past few years, an increasing number of government departments have appointed chief scientific advisers who are leading experts from academia or other sources outside the civil service. This has been a most welcome development. However, I seek reassurance from the Minister that the commitment to this ideal is not faltering.
Therefore, I want to ask the following questions. First, given the importance of social sciences for many policy matters, will the Government appoint an independent—an independent—chief social scientist to replace Professor Paul Wiles, who has retired? When are the Departments for Transport and for Business, Innovation and Skills going to replace Professor Brian Collins, who was their independent chief scientific adviser? This latter point is particularly important in light of the recent critical reviews of these two departments by the Government Office for Science. The review for the Minister’s own department says,
“the resourcing and organisation of SE evidence and advice has not always been given the priority that is needed in BIS, and is not yet to the standard that we (the Panel) would expect”.
In light of that, I want to hear from the Minister what steps are being taken to improve scientific advice in her own department.
Finally, in an editorial in the leading scientific journal Nature last year, which gave an early assessment of how the new Government were handling scientific advice, the conclusion was:
“It should leave those who promote evidence-based policy feeling anxious”.
Will the Minister assure us that the anxiety expressed by Nature is not justified?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, as one of the few non-scientists speaking in this debate, I should say that I was prompted to speak because the grand challenges that the report refers to and the issues that it raises so powerfully—food security, water security and climate change—concern us all. I was very concerned by the issues which were so well expounded between the chairman and the Chief Scientific Adviser when, on page 43 of the report, they talked about orphan issues. They both agreed that such important issues often fall through the cracks in the system. That is really what prompted me to speak today. It is very worrying to think that such important issues—in critical areas such as biodiversity or climate change, which are the ones that the report quotes—are not being covered.
That perhaps is also why questions that require a cross-departmental response are so essential. There is a non-answer to the key question on page 68 of the evidence, which is really worrying. I want to ask the Minister today the same question:
“Please could you send the Committee copies of papers … on how departments and research councils will work together on cross-departmental issues?”.
The answer was:
“The papers … are internal documents at this stage and we are unable to share them with the Committee”.
So my question for the Minister is: have they now been shared, or can they be? And is the Minister satisfied that cross-departmental sponsorship works well? That question is prompted by my visit to the Natural History Museum earlier this year to see its work in some depth. Its primary sponsorship body is, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because it is a museum. However, much of its work would be sponsored by almost any other department, whether it was Defra or DECC. Its work on a national, European and international level concerned with ecosystems, for example, is absolutely critical. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is not speaking tonight. He made some incredibly important points in this report with regard to systematics and taxonomy. Indeed, the Committee has previously done some very interesting reports on these issues. He said that it is a discipline that is quite critical in delivering biodiversity and conservation commitments.
It is critical also in understanding a swathe of issues around, for example, food security—one of those grand challenges—biological pest control and plant adaptation to climate change, to mention but a few. Last week the Government published the first national ecosystem assessment which underlined how valuable a healthy environment is to our economy. If there are gaps in our knowledge of that ecosystem, it will be very hard to build on the aspirations of the environment White Paper.
It was also interesting to learn from the Natural History Museum’s recent assessment that for each pound of government money invested, £4 in wider economic benefits are delivered. Too often grants for research are seen as a cost to the Government rather than as an investment giving, in this case, a pretty fair return.
I may be a lone voice in today’s debate, but when I look at appendix 5 and see the public funding for R&D, the challenges mentioned—climate change, food security and water security, in one category—and then I look at the spend, I come away with the feeling that our priority is still literally to be able to fight our way out of adversity. The MoD research budget, as has already been mentioned, is nearly twice that of all other government departments added together. We are still at the point of paying lip service to solving problems through the acquisition and application of knowledge, while actually spending too much resource in researching which weapons would be best to use if that approach fails and we literally have to fight for our share in a hungry, water-short, energy-poor world.
I do not think that that is a battle we can win anyway in the long term with weapons. I do think that we could win it with enough investment and effort in understanding the problems and developing the solutions. I understand that this report is not asking for more money, it is asking for it to be spent in a more rational and wise way and in closing those cracks. I hope that, over time, we can look at shifting that investment.
Lord Rees of Ludlow
As noble Lords have emphasised, science is indeed a UK success story, but the UK could pay a heavy price if we lose this competitive advantage. We are up against strengthening global competition for the most talented individuals, the most innovative firms and leadership in high-tech sectors. The CSR indeed cut the science budget less than we had feared, but those who read in the foreign press about trends here do not get a positive impression. We still lag behind our OECD comparators. Our universities are perceived to be engulfed in turbulent restructuring. Mobile talent from eastern Europe or Asia is in consequence less likely to perceive the UK as a favoured destination than was the case a few years ago. Our brightest young people, savvy about trends and anxiously choosing a career, are not getting a signal that the UK offers enticing opportunities in cutting-edge science.
A dangerous feedback operates here: a downward trend of just a few per cent in the UK when other countries are on the rise sends a signal that disproportionately reduces our chances of attracting, retaining and incentivising top talent. To attract academics, access to responsive mode funding is crucial. We must continue to support the best research across all subject areas; otherwise we could lose out on the greatest innovations, which often occur at the interfaces of traditional disciplines. We also need breadth, to provide absorptive capacity so that the UK can seize on ideas from the rest of the world and sustain top-rate university education.
Last year’s Nobel Prize in Physics went to two Russians on the faculty of Manchester University. They created a substance called graphene; a new form of carbon, a lattice one atom thick with extraordinary tensile strength and electrical properties which could lead to transformative technologies. If the UK is to sustain its scientific excellence, our universities must provide a supportive environment for serendipitous breakthroughs such as this. We must continue to be a preferred destination for people like Novoselov and Geim and, of course, our border agencies must welcome them in, wherever in the world they are from.
I want to say just a word about impact as measured in the report. The impacts of science are often felt far away from the time and place where the original research is done. Even in medicine, where research is often highly targeted, the lag between scientific research and health benefits can be anywhere from 10 to 25 years. In other areas of science it can be decades before direct benefits are felt. The lineage of any spin-off can be traced back to a surprisingly diverse range of influences. What is controversial is not whether the impact is important—all scientists realise that and all aspire to make an impact—the issue is whether impact can be appropriately quantified as a measure for allocating specific grant support. Most of us are concerned that it is too long-term and diffuse to serve that role.
The across-the-board public support for academic research comes, of course, from within the ring-fenced science budget, but, of course, when it comes to the development phase, we cannot do everything and prioritisation is essential. The Government have a role here, as emphasised in the Hauser report, in bridging the gap between what is done in universities and what is needed to develop ideas into marketable projects. This is a gap where bodies like the TSB may not be adequate in scale and where something else may be needed. Chief scientific advisers within government departments have a role here, as they have many other roles. This system has proved its worth; excellent incumbents coming from outside the Civil Service, when given access to Ministers and top officials, can really make a difference.
From outside government, it is also the role of bodies such as the Royal Society—where I declare an interest, as a recent president—to provide scientific guidance to government and to the public. Indeed, at a time when, through the Public Bodies Bill, some statutory advisory bodies are under threat, the role of academies has never been more essential in providing independent, authoritative advice. The global developments of the 21st century will be driven by waves of new technologies. We must be equipped to ride these waves and to ensure that scientific advances optimally enhance our quality of life and the environment.
I end with a quotation from a distinguished Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, of Wigton, who lectured in the Sheldonian Theatre last year:
“We are supposed to be the clever country. We used to be the commonsense country. Not for much longer if the politicians continue to undervalue the potency of those Francis Bacon called the ‘merchants of light’, of new knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, which is unarguably the only sure wealth of the future”.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as the other non-scientist and I enter the debate with some trepidation after hearing the contributions. First, I welcome the report and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for his introduction. He said that the UK was a good place for science and technology and our aim should be to keep it that way, but we are in danger of losing our world-leading position in science. The Government only have a three-year spending review period plan for science. We have called for the Government to reinstate a 10-year funding plan for science. This allowed researchers and investors more confidence in the long-term funding landscape and was welcomed by British scientists and campaign groups.
The report states:
“Our first recommendation is fundamental: that the Government should make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their current research funding commitments”.
In their response to the report’s fundamental recommendation, the Government said that,
“funding of science and research will be addressed in the forthcoming Spending Review”.
The Government have repeatedly claimed that the spending review science settlement is a long-term plan for science and refused to reinstate Labour’s 10-year plan for science. However, scientists know that three years is not long-term; it is not even one PhD funding cycle. In a speech to the Campaign for Science and Engineering before the Budget, John Denham called for the Government to put in place a long-term funding plan. He said:
“It’s essential that the forthcoming Budget sets out a clear framework for science funding well beyond the current spending period and ideally for a 10-year period”.
We would argue that the previous Labour Government rescued British science. We introduced the science research investment fund in 2002 to address a historic backlog of upgrading and updating required by the physical university research infrastructure across the UK, left by the previous Tory Government. We also set up the higher education innovation fund. We set up the UKRC, funding for which was withdrawn by BIS this year, to promote the position of women scientists and engineers. We set up the Technology Strategy Board and the RDAs that have successfully invested in British science and innovation. We introduced the 10-year commitment to invest in science and innovation. This gave the research community long-term confidence, as I said. This long-term increase has now been reversed, with a real-terms cut over the next three years, while, as several contributors have said, our international competitors—even those with deficit reduction programmes—increase their investment.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, pointed out, China is increasing investment in R&D by 8 per cent, Germany is increasing investment by 7 per cent, France by 1 per cent, Australia by 25 per cent and the USA by 5.7 per cent. There are major new players in world science, from Brazil to Singapore and from the Gulf states to India. As the Royal Society said in a recent report, we need to keep running just to stand still. The coalition does not seem to understand how tough the global competitive environment is.
Several contributors have said that the cuts under the comprehensive spending review could have been worse. The reality is that the science budget stays the same in cash terms, but has a 10 per cent real-terms resource cut of £450 million over that period. Capital research and development spend takes an enormous 40 per cent cut, which will recreate the huge backlog of building works that built up under the previous Tory Government. Other areas of the science budget, such as funding for engagement and diversity in science, also face large cuts. There is an increasing focus on centralised excellence to the detriment of regional research centres and universities. RDA science funding, which was £440 million per annum, has also been lost. Therefore, I have the following questions for the Minister. Why is the UK reducing its overall spending on research and development when our competitors are increasing their investment? When will the Government set out their plans for investment in British science and innovation beyond 2014-15?
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, made some interesting points when he talked about worrying signs and downward trends. If we want to maintain the UK as a place where people want to continue undertaking research, and to attract such people as the recent Nobel Prize winners he referred to, we have to make sure that we create the right environment.
I must admit that when I looked at the report from a lay person’s perspective, I found a lot of complexity, even in dealing with the terms. I would not have known until I read more carefully what “responsive-mode” research was—I would have referred to it as blue-skies research—as opposed to “targeted” research. What interests me in all this important talk of research and development is something that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said in the conclusion of his contribution. He talked about turning research into applications that become marketable products. We may excel, as one contributor said, in producing the largest number of papers in the world, but if we cannot turn them into marketable products, there is a failure that needs to be addressed. It reminds me of that old advert about what we might call “the appliance of science”.
I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response and thank the committee for producing a very interesting report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for introducing this debate on the report Setting priorities for publicly funded research produced by the Science and Technology Committee, which he chaired. The Government’s response was published in July 2010 and a copy is still available on the committee’s website. I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the limited time that we have for such an important subject, but I will write to any noble Lords whose questions I do not manage to pick up. It has been a pleasure to hear views, advice and questions from some of the finest minds in the country, possibly the world. It is one of the great advantages of this House that we are able to do so. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
There have been many developments since the Government published their response to the report Setting priorities for publicly funded research. In October 2010 the Chancellor announced that science and research programme funding would be protected with a flat cash, ring-fenced settlement for 2011-15. This was a major commitment to science at a time of great pressure on public spending.
I will try to answer questions as I go through. I hope this does not make it too disjointed. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who talked of a charity support fund, the charity support fund is part of HEFCE’s block grant for research and will continue throughout the spending review period, as was announced last December. I hope that is helpful.
In December, the science budget was allocated to the individual research councils, HEFCE and other programmes. In line with views from leaders of the academic and business communities, the balance of funding between research councils and HEFCE was kept broadly the same—here I acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Young. The coalition Government’s long-term vision for science and research was published alongside their plans for science funding to 2011-15.
In the Budget in March, an additional £100 million was announced for science capital projects. This investment will develop infrastructure at national research campuses in Daresbury, Norwich and Cambridge, and the International Space Innovation Centre at Harwell. This is a vital investment in our research base, particularly life sciences and space industries, which are critical for delivering economic growth. This investment is not intended to reverse the announcements in the spending review, but it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to research and their willingness to invest prudently as and when additional funds become available.
The spending review announced that key scientific infrastructure projects would go ahead. There will be a £69 million investment in the Diamond synchrotron at Harwell in Oxfordshire, and £220 million capital funding for the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation in London. Since the spending review, the Government have announced funding for three further projects, including £33 million for the birth cohort study.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the matter of the government Chief Scientific Adviser’s input into Treasury meetings. Sir John Beddington cannot, of course, attend all Treasury meetings, but he meets regularly with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and is working closely with the Treasury on the implications of the spending review for departmental research budgets. I understand from this work that the overall outcome for research spending by government departments also looks good in the circumstances. Sir John Beddington explained this in detail to the Lords Science and Technology Committee two weeks ago.
The Government have emphasised their commitment to health research in the National Health Service White Paper and the spending review. The Department of Health will be increasing its investment in health research in real terms over the next four years. A crucial part of this will be £775 million to promote translational R&D. The department has been very clear on this.
Peter Luff reported recently that the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology budget is, in cash terms, expected to rise over the spending review period. The nature of departmental research budgets and ongoing planning means that we cannot give the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Krebs, the final figures for every department for the next four years. I understand that Sir John will be sending the Science and Technology Select Committee information for departments that are in a position to provide details of their expected expenditure over the spending review period. Each year the Government publish outturn figures on departmental expenditure on R&D in the science, engineering and technology statistics. This autumn the Government will be publishing outturn figures for all departments for 2009-10.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned that some departments have had significant cuts in budget. In general, research spending plans for other government departments are in line with the settlement that they have received from the Treasury in the spending review. Departments are now looking very carefully at their priorities and the resources needed to deliver their science, research and evidence needs. They will not have all the answers overnight and should probably not try to set too much in stone. Going forward, departments will be reviewing and updating their science and innovation strategies to ensure that they reflect current departmental priorities and cross-cutting issues and that policy-making delivery and evaluation is evidence based.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was concerned about science in schools. The Department for Education’s The Importance of Teaching—The Schools White Paper 2010 showed the Government’s commitment to continue to provide additional support to promote the uptake of science. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that Research Councils UK’s cross-council programmes bring together partners across government and business to address global challenges and create growth opportunities for the United Kingdom. As well as the government Chief Scientific Adviser, there is a strong network of departmental chief scientific advisers and departmental directors of analysis across Government that ensure that Government have access to, and use, the best science, engineering and analytical advice, including to address research challenges that cut across departments. These networks work closely with the research councils. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, brought the news that the Treasury has appointed a chief scientific adviser today. I am delighted to support this very welcome news. The fact that the new Treasury chief scientific adviser, James Richardson, has other duties means that he is at the heart of the decision-making process in the Treasury, which should be a very good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, worried about the MoD CSA being downgraded. The MoD recognises the importance of science and engineering to its business. This was considered carefully in planning following the spending review. It has been decided that the MoD’s chief scientific adviser will be at director-general level, rather than permanent secretary. I understand that Sir John Beddington has been closely involved in this decision. He will be a member of the selection panel, which I hope is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about the Government’s chief social scientist. Jenny Dibden and Richard Bartholomew are joint heads of the Government’s social research service. These arrangements work very well—it says here. In response to the noble Lord’s question, “When will the CSA, DfT and BIS be replaced?”—sorry, that cannot be right—I can say that DfT and BIS are currently looking at how the CSA function will best be delivered. This includes exploring the possibility of a shared role with another government department to take advantage of the synergies and overlaps between their science, technology and research interests. The government Chief Scientific Adviser has been involved in these departments’ deliberations about the role of their respective CSAs and will be involved in the appointment process.
Departments also draw upon independent advice from science advisory councils and around 70 scientific advisory committees. In line with the Government’s priorities, it is essential that advice takes place in an open and transparent way. This is why the coalition Government have now included a specific reference to the principles of scientific advice to Government in the ministerial code. Continuing with the theme of independence, the Government restated their commitment to the Haldane principle in December. The long-established Haldane principle continues to work well. It protects scientific independence and excellence and is one of the key factors that makes the UK research base a world leader.
In response to the third point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, despite commitments to reduce net migration, the Government recognise the value that academics and scientists bring to our economy. Recent changes to the points-based system have made provision for this. The truly world class will come through the exceptional talent route in tier 1 where entry is not contingent upon a job offer. Otherwise, others will be prioritised through tier 2 where points are awarded for high-level qualifications.
The coalition Government have continued to demonstrate our clear commitment to evidence-based policy making and to science and research by giving a real boost to our world-class research base. This puts science and research in a privileged position. We will work hard to ensure that investment delivers economic benefit, creating new businesses and improving existing ones, attracting highly skilled scientists and technicians and international business investment and improving public policy and services.
European Union Bill
(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Triesman
Lord Triesman
My Lords, given the debates that we had in Committee and the debate which we had shortly before the dinner break, it is possible to speak to this amendment fairly briefly. Its aim is to take account of circumstances where the Government conclude that it is in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom to act with greater dispatch than would occur if the whole of the processes set out in other parts of this Bill were gone through.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked—I understand the point—“What are the circumstances in which events might take place that are difficult to put into words?”. I shall try to put at least one such circumstance into words, but I recognise immediately that it may be difficult to do so in the context of the judgments that Governments have to make about the interests of the country when events precipitate at a rate which is not anticipated in the normal course of events. However, my ministerial experience, and that of many others in your Lordships’ House, tells us that events happen. I think that I am quoting a former Conservative Prime Minister, and he was entirely right—they do. Events happen and Governments have to respond to them. We will be able to deal with many of them using the sovereign processes of our own political system. Some will occur in a wider context and we will deal with them through international organisations, including the European Union and its existing competences—that is not the subject of this Bill—the United Nations, the World Bank and others. Those are not the issues to which I refer. However, it seems to me at least conceptually possible that some things will happen which require an urgent response and where it will be clear to the Government of the day that they need to act in concert with others in ways which are not covered by current arrangements. Before any noble Lord says that he cannot conceive of such circumstances arising, I assure the House that they will do so. They will arise, for example, around an environmental disaster or a financial disaster. The purpose of this amendment is to make provision for the circumstances in which they will arise.
When we talked about the meltdown of the world banking system, noble Lords rightly pointed out that the emergency arrangements that were made took a considerable time to design and to begin to be put in place. Indeed, they are not in place to this day and we have not reached the end of that process. That is rather regrettable because it seems to me that in international terms we are without a number of the levers which we would probably desire to have, in order to have a real impact on some of those events in concert with others. The G20 made a very good effort at least at one meeting, and arguably at two meetings, to try to work out some sort of architecture to deal with those circumstances. Others may disagree but I believe that if Europe had been able to speak with a more coherent voice in the G20 meetings, it would have been much more likely to have arrived at an authoritative consensus with the United States and with China in particular.
It seems to be within the realms of possibility, and perhaps not so fanciful either, that there could be circumstances—particularly in acute financial crises—where the Government might conclude that emergency conditions applied, they needed to be able to act under those conditions, it was desirable for the interests of the country and the people of the country that they did act under those conditions, and that slight variations in the current arrangements would make that more possible. These are inevitably difficult conditions to envisage largely because every time you try to do so you can usually point to a set of arrangements which have already been designed to take account of them. However, we have surely learnt, certainly since late 2007—we have learnt this rather harsh lesson through 2008 and up to the present—that it is not possible to predict all those circumstances, manage them, say that we have the levers for managing them or say that the other institutions, particularly the G20 in which we put such faith, are capable of doing so, partly because Europe is incapable of acting or speaking in a single and coherent way. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has not persuaded me of the need to include an urgency condition. It seems to me there is absolutely nothing that prevents the UK from co-ordinating with other EU member states in response to any natural disaster. Furthermore, if the amendment were adopted, the ability of the UK to react speedily might even be circumscribed. The amendment does nothing to improve clarity; rather, it confuses the situation, compromises legal certainty and is very subjective. Amendment 10 states:
“The urgency condition is where an amendment under the simplified revision procedure is considered to be urgent”.
“Considered” by whom and in what forum? It is very unclear. I venture to submit that this amendment does nothing to improve the clarity and certainty of the Bill.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I too oppose the amendment, although I recognise that in tabling it the opposition Benches are very conscious of the leap in the dark that we are making to some extent with this Bill. It is about future eventualities at a time of significant flux in the world, and indeed in the European Union. One would need to be a clairvoyant to imagine what might be coming down the road in terms of emergencies and urgencies that would need rather speedier action than the normal pace of change in the European Union. In fact I think one of the reasons why there is a disconnect between the British electorate and the Union is partly because of the very slow and cumbersome methodology and pace of reacting to events. When there is a deep economic recession or a great financial or banking crisis, people out in the country want their leaders and politicians to act speedily to deal with the issues that led to those events, and perhaps would wish us to move faster than we have been capable of doing in international fora and multilateral institutions.
Despite recognising these things, I nevertheless oppose this amendment because I think what defines urgency is so subjective and so much predicated on what the Government of the day, and the policy-makers on either side of the debate, would imagine to be urgent or not. While I think we all know what is urgent when it hits us in the face, and it is quite right that we should and should then act speedily, enshrining it in law seems to raise a host of problems, not least again with judicial review. It also creates a basis of very subjective analysis as to whether something is urgent or not, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in his very helpful moving of the amendment, accepted that we do take quite a long time—that even the European financial stability mechanism is going to take a leisurely pace. This really goes to the heart of the argument; that it is better for us to look for ways to facilitate speed and urgency when the urgent situation arises, rather than to seek to enshrine it in law at this stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I have read the amendment, which would restrict the operation of the Bill to matters of urgency. That is what it is about. I thought that the Bill was about major transfers of power, not just little changes to ongoing, day-to-day matters in the EU; it is about major transfers of competence or powers. Whenever you are transferring powers from this country to another institution, it ought not to be done in haste. There should not be urgency about it.
Those sort of matters, those great matters, should be decided only once all the issues concerned have been examined by the Government and by Parliament; and then by referendum. Why do we want an urgency clause? We cannot afford to have an urgency clause when we are transferring powers from our country to another organisation. I cannot support the amendment, although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, feels that it would be helpful to the Bill. I do not think that it would be helpful to the Bill, because it would undermine its whole purpose, which is to ensure that when this country transfers major powers elsewhere, there has been proper consideration over a proper period by the proper authorities, including the Government, Parliament and the people.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will be very upset. I accuse myself of being nerdish, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that I can be considered in the same class as Mr William Cash.
We are talking about an amendment to Clause 3. Clause 3 is about the accelerated, simplified procedure. I do not know why we have Clause 3 separate from Clause 2, but we do, and we are debating it. The simplified procedure cannot be used for the transfer of competences. That is what the treaty states. Article 48(6) states that the decisions referred to in the second paragraph,
“shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”.
We are talking about urgency and the use of the competences that the treaties have conferred. We are talking about urgency because that is the nature of the simplified procedure. It was invented to move fast in situations where we might want to. It avoids the convention, it avoids the full paraphernalia after Parliament—you still have to consult Parliament under Article 48(6), but that can be quite quick.
This is a modest amendment, unlike the previous amendment on which we voted, which was bigger. This is a modest amendment because it simply suggests that the urgency condition might be written into Clause 3, on the simplified treaty revision procedure, which is about urgent treaty revision and not about competence. It cannot be used to confer competences on the Union from the member states.
It seems to me appropriate and modest to say that, when we are dealing with treaty revisions or decisions taken under Article 48(6)—which, by definition, will happen only in a hurry—we should be able to have an accelerated procedure here in this country. We might accept that the general view was correct: this was an emergency and we needed to move fast. Of course, if you did not accept that, you would have said “No” in Brussels and the accelerated procedure would have stopped, because it still requires unanimity. By definition, you are in a situation where people have thought, “We haven’t got the time to do the whole shooting match”. This is important. The Government think it is in the UK interest—they voted for it. Who would decide whether the urgency consideration applied? It is a question asked in this debate. The House would decide. Parliament would decide. If this provision was in the Bill, the Government would have to explain whether the urgency procedure, in their view, applied. Parliament would vote on that. This is a parliamentary democracy—that is where the decision should be made.
I do not see anything wrong with this amendment. It seems to me that it is appropriate—particularly appropriate—to this clause. I supported the previous amendment—the bigger amendment—which would have written it also into Clause 2, alongside the significance condition, which sadly is still missing in Clause 2, for reasons that I do not understand. Putting it in Clause 3, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, proposes, is absolutely appropriate and I support the amendment.
The Minister commented with approval, as would I, on the evidence that Sir John Grant gave to the Commons committee. Sir John Grant made two points that the Minister quoted with approval. I approve of them too—although, as the Minister delicately pointed out, Sir John is a more recent permanent representative in Brussels than me. There may have been a faint connotation in the Minister’s remark that I might be a bit fuddy-duddy or out of date. I accept that; it is perfectly possible, and Sir John Grant is a very brilliant man.
Sir John said that he saw no chance of serious treaty amendment in the next few years. I agree with him for a whole lot of reasons. Nobody in Brussels wants it; the UK Government have said that they are not going to have it; and it is in a coalition agreement. That seems to me to be fairly conclusive, so I think Sir John Grant was on pretty safe ground with that prediction. He also spoke of the unlikelihood—and the Minister quoted him—of the passerelles being used in the near future. I agree. That seems to me to be implausible too.
What the Minister did not mention—I cannot remember whether Sir John Grant did—is the much more likely scenario in which, some time in the next decade, something will cause people to say, “Jeepers, we are going to have to change something. This is clearly a case for the accelerated procedure”. Things do happen in the world, things change, and the chances are—I do not think this is very likely in the near future, though the monetary example is fresh in our minds—that some time in the next decade there will be a need seen by most people, possibly by us as well, for a change, and if it is to be done quickly then the chances are that people will use Article 48(6) procedure.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
May I, with apologies, ask a nerdish question of the noble Lord? If I understand Article 48(7) correctly, it suggests that urgency can be carried through at the fastest in six months. Is that correct?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I do not think that is what the treaty says, but yes, it is likely that that is the case. Of course, any treaty amendment requires ratification by whatever the national procedures are. I am talking about an emergency situation in which most people think, “We have to do this pretty fast”.
We could still have our referendum. If the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, were accepted, there is nothing to stop the Government of the day saying to Parliament, “Despite all the risks of delay, we actually think this is a sufficiently serious matter to justify having a referendum”. That is entirely open to them, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is accepted. However, that amendment would remove the present danger in the text, which is that there would be an absolute requirement to have a referendum because there is no potential let-out for an emergency, even though that is the most plausible scenario for a treaty amendment and everyone, including us, would have agreed that it was an emergency and therefore justified the accelerated procedure. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
The noble Lords opposite will not be surprised to hear that I find it very difficult to accept this amendment. Coming from the Brussels angle, I remind noble Lords that in Brussels the word “urgency” relates to the French word “urgence”, which means of powerful importance. I recall that week after week, month after month in Strasbourg and Brussels, we had urgency debates which took place many days, weeks and sometimes months after the activity in question, such as a revolution somewhere or the Arab spring. It took me a while to realise that the English meaning of the word “urgency” is quick or hurry up whereas in French it means something that counts, something that is valued and something to which we should pay special attention. It is rather like high representative which does not mean high at all, but important.
I suggest that the transfer of sovereignty falls into the French “urgence” category—it is something of powerful importance—but inevitably Brussels life advances at the pace of a snail; it is very slow. Rather like the mills of God, Brussels grinds exceeding small and it takes a very long time. I have never known anything of importance, high-value, “urgence”, to happen at any speed in Brussels. Nor do I think that the transfer of sovereignty, important as it is, should be done in haste. I honestly cannot anticipate Brussels not taking maybe a decade over something of real value, such as the transfer of sovereignty.
When I joined the other place in 1980, I found myself dealing with a very important piece of legislation on intellectual property. It was data protection and intellectual property in computer software. When I arrived in the House of Lords, a decade later, I found that the Bill had been to Brussels and come back to the Lords and it was still in an active, first-step, consultation process. Two years later, when I arrived in the European Parliament, being lucky enough to be elected there in 1999, I found the Bill was in the European Parliament. It was just about to leave the European Parliament when I left a decade later. Powerfully important things such as that take a considerable length of time. How much longer do we imagine that the transfer of sovereignty would take?
During the past decade, we in the United Kingdom have very actively supported the enlargement of the European Union. It now has 27 states and more are coming in: Croatia tomorrow and the Balkans the day after. As a result, quite properly, the slowness has increased tremendously. It is no longer possible to put things through even at a reasonable speed; now things are slower than slow. That is why I do not see a referendum coming our way even if this Bill goes through in its entirety, which I hope and pray it will, for maybe at least a decade. Brussels is simply not able to think that way. The confusion of the euro, combined with the continuing enlargement, has made the whole system so slow, and I do not think that we will see a referendum in the next 15 years or so. Urgency, in English terminology, is simply not available.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, if you do not mind me saying very briefly, I find the debate that we have been having since dinner of singular unreality. It reached its apotheosis in the last speech, which told us, “Keep calm dear, nothing is going to happen for 16 years. Everything is going so slowly, as they will be translating urgency from ‘urgence’ and back again and making something of it”. I am sorry, but you have to look back only one year to see a circumstance where there was a major crisis, when the Greek economy was on the point of collapse and the European Union, including Britain, decided that something needed to be done about it because otherwise there was a very real risk for the solidarity of the whole European financial structure. It is no good saying it will not happen. It has happened. Please do not tell me that it could not happen again.
So what happens then if you lock all the doors and throw all the keys out of the window, as the Government are absolutely determined to do? Their supporters have explained with enormous eloquence this evening how jolly happy we will all be when we throw all the keys away and we cannot unlock the door—we cannot do anything in less than two or three years or something like that—and we shall all be happy. What happens? They find some other way of doing it. That is what will happen now. And the British Government will help to find another way too, because it will be in our interests to do so.
This debate is a matter of total unreality. It has no meaning whatsoever. If the Government had a bit of common sense, they would see that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, does have quite a lot of sense in it.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I suggest that what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said illustrates the very reason why this amendment is undesirable. It is not in the interests of this country to get sucked into bailing out economies that have gone off the rails as a result of the problems of sharing a currency. Had there been a requirement for a referendum, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the previous Government would not have been in a position to have committed this country to things to which he should not have committed us.
Charming and likeable though the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, may have been, this amendment is just another excuse for watering down the basic principle of this Bill. It is of less magnitude than the last amendment. Urgency is a subjective matter—it could arise; it could not arise—but the basic principle of the Bill is that the elite of British Governments will no longer be able to commit this country to loss of sovereignty and other such matters without the consent of the people.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we all understand that events happen—although I believe that what Harold Macmillan said was, “Events, dear boy, events.” We also understand that in a crisis Governments get together and take the necessary decisions to deal with that crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said that we cannot envisage what sort of crisis we might be facing in five to 10 years’ time or even in two years’ time. The G20 is a very good example of the sort of body which has come to operate relatively effectively, as a form of consultation about a number of global problems. However, the G20 is of an entirely different quality from the European Union. If there were a crisis, the relevant Governments would necessarily get together and have to act, but they would undoubtedly act by consensus. That would be different from agreeing to change the structures and competences of a European Union, which is not simply an international organisation but a structure of law, a semi-confederal institution of which we have become a co-operative member.
Having had some informal conversations across the table with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I note that Article 48(6) states—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I thank the Minister for giving way. Is not the argument that he is adducing one that entirely excludes even the theoretical possibility that the European Union might turn out to be the best instrument for addressing the crisis that we are talking about? If the crisis can be dealt with by consensus with other Governments—the G20 or whatever—that is well and good, but what the Government are doing in the Bill is excluding the possibility that the European Union may be the most effective instrument for solving the problem and might need additional powers for that emergency.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Bill in no way excludes the European Union from being the appropriate body to respond. It is entirely appropriate that bodies such as the European Council and the Council of Ministers in its various forms should take decisions. How those decisions are taken, and what their legal implications will be, are matters probably best not dealt with in an emergency. Where there might be a transfer of competences, one should consider it not under emergency conditions but rather more coolly.
I was about to quote Article 48(6), which states that the decision under the simplified procedure,
“shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.
That is why urgent decisions will take 18 to 24 months to get through the various constitutional requirements, and why the question of what we mean by urgency does not limit the British Government.
It is of course very difficult to foresee what sort of crises we might face, or how and in what framework we and others would respond. The European Union exists as a framework and therefore may very often be used as such, and we and others would work through it. It has plenty of competences and the ability to take decisions by consensus in response to a crisis. However, that does not transfer powers and competences. That is the difference between taking urgent decisions and changing the nature of procedures, structures, powers and competences. With respect, I say that the urgency question is not an important part of the Bill. There would be sufficient time to complete the processes set out by the Bill, by an Act of Parliament and, where required, a referendum of the British people.
The second part of the condition is that the treaty change should be in the national interest. My noble friend Lord Howell said, when debating a previous amendment, that the national interest is not an entirely objective concept. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, agrees that the coalition has come together in the national interest and is acting in what we think is the national interest—although he may have a different view of the national interest from members of the coalition. Politics revolves around our contesting views of Britain's best national interests. Therefore, the concept is not an entirely objective one that we can usefully write into the Bill. No Government would agree to any treaty change at EU level if they were not of the firm belief that such a move was consistent with the national interest. No Administration would ever agree to a treaty change if they considered that it would be against the interests of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I assure noble Lords that the national interest, as we see it, is at the heart of every major decision that this Government take on EU matters—as I assume was the case with the previous Government and will be for any subsequent Government.
Having answered those questions, I urge noble Lords to withdraw the amendment. We have had a useful but general debate about what might happen in a hypothetical crisis that none of us can yet quite envisage, let alone consider what immediate changes in powers or competences it would require.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, just to take any possible lingering tension out of the highly charged environment of this Chamber—I would hate to wind up everybody inappropriately—I will tell you now that, in a few minutes, I will withdraw the amendment. Before I do so, I have to say that, from an intellectual point of view, these have been some of the more depressing arguments that I have heard. I do not mean to say that in order to be rude. I just think that we must allow ourselves the courtesy of being a great deal more rigorous.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, it is plainly the intention of the amendment to provide a means whereby, in circumstances which are very pressing and where we need potentially to adjust our capacity to act—this is about our capacity to act and the mechanisms that we can use to act—we do not deny ourselves the opportunity to do something if it is in the national interest.
I cannot imagine that it really needed any presentation to us, but I readily accept that what constitutes the national interest will not be determined by some objective basis, as would a demonstration of Boyle’s law of gaseous volumes. This is not a point that I have ever attempted to make. The national interest will be defined by the Government of the day, whether a single party or a coalition. We may or may not all agree with one another, but it is in the nature of our parliamentary democracy that the power to arrive at a conclusion about what the national interest is is vested in a Government that enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons and can proceed on that basis. In that sense, from a political point of view, it is a completely objective test. I know whether the Government of the day enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons precisely because I know what would happen if they did not. It is a very simple matter.
Let us not deal with this kind of discussion as though it were incumbent upon us to do something like Boyle did, in showing the way in which the volumes of gases under pressure react to it, which can then be set out in a textbook to be tested to kingdom come in any laboratory in the land. Let us deal with it as political people—I was going to say, if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was in his place, as humble members of the political class. Let us deal with it as political people—with a small p—who understand perfectly well the convention which decides what the national interest is at any time. I am sorry, but I cannot buy that kind of argument. I do not think it treats us credibly.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that it was never my intention in moving this amendment that the Bill should be watered down. I do not like that interpretation being ascribed to what I have said. I have always tried in the House, whether on the government Benches or on these Benches, to be very candid and very frank—it does not always win you friends—about what I am doing and why I am doing it, because it seems to me that life is a lot easier if you try to do it that way. The reason is not to water it down but to make certain that Ministers in any Government have the kind of authority and ability to act in circumstances which come along that we cannot predict.
I am not omniscient, and I cannot say any more than anybody else in the House what I know will happen or what kinds of competence we may require at a particular time to deal with those issues. I will be candid with the House: I did not expect the collapse of Lehman Brothers; I was astonished to know that we were within two hours of the Royal Bank of Scotland collapsing; and I notice that sovereign debt crises are occurring more rapidly and are likely to occur more rapidly. I just say to the House no more than that it is extremely likely that we will face more such circumstances. I do not want to feel that we do not have all the levers at our disposal in order to deal with them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
What I was talking about was the transfer of great powers, which would be permanent; what the noble Lord has been discussing is matters of emergency. Those are quite different because, for example, on the financial crisis that has blown up in the European Union, it is perfectly possible for the Government—indeed, the Government alone, backed later by Parliament—to make decisions that might last for five years, but would nevertheless not be permanent transfers of power. That was what I was trying to get at.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, if I misunderstood the point, I of course apologise.
I conclude my remarks by saying that this does not involve the same sort of transfer of powers as under Article 48(6). It is not intended to do so. We have all acknowledged that it has a different standing.
My key point is this, and I address it to the government Front Bench to think about—even though they obviously cannot respond to it this evening in this particular debate. The G20 was as good an attempt as anybody could make in the circumstances to try to find some way of codifying the responses to the financial crisis across the world. Thinking of it professionally almost—as an economist—I think that it was a pretty poor outcome and the G20 did not do what it was supposed to do. The key players did not play the roles. It may be that a number of people, including eminent politicians from this country, talked up what the G20 was capable of doing and what its successes might be, but when we look at it in the cold light of day, we do not have in the international financial system the protections that some pretended there would be as a consequence of that meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for that is that a number of coherent economies in Europe that were used to mature financial operation found themselves without the tools to respond together, and that had a profound effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Lord Williamson of Horton
(d) the Electoral Commission have issued a certificate stating whether or not it appears to them that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it. ( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that more than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the decision may be approved.
( ) If the certificate issued under subsection (2)(d) states that fewer than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in it, the decision may not be approved unless—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to approve the decision, and(b) each House has agreed to the motion without amendment.”
Lord Liddle
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I hope not to detain the House long on this. In a sense, with this amendment we are trying to skin the same cat in a different way. It is designed to extend the scope of the significance clause in order precisely to give our Government, because we want to support them and make them effective in the European Union, the flexibility to cope with the unforeseen. We have made this point many times in these debates. Basically, the Government point-blank refuse to accept its validity. They argue, first, that all the red lines and every issue in the Bill is of constitutional significance, including the full list of issues in Schedule 1, and that therefore any move on these issues should require a referendum. That is the Government’s position on my first point.
Secondly, they would argue that the EU has plenty of competences to act already in most situations, which is true, but that does not cover any potential new situations which we cannot foresee, to which my noble friend Lord Triesman referred. Thirdly, they argue that when we talk about circumstances that might occur which would require action, we cannot name any of these circumstances and that it is all hypothetical and nonsensical.
This amendment is on the assumption that it is not hypothetical and nonsensical. We can already see brewing in the European Union the makings of another big step forward towards fiscal federalism being considered at a senior level within the Union. One just has to read the—in many ways wonderful—parting speech made by Jean-Claude Trichet last week when he received the Karlspreis in Aachen. It was about the achievements of the European Union and all Members of the House should read it. He said that as a result of the present crisis, not today but the day after tomorrow, there would be a need for the creation of a European finance ministry and for member states to concede sovereignty over economic questions, particularly when they were in difficulties and failing to conform to European rules. I can understand his frustration in dealing with the situations in Greece, Portugal and Ireland.
If I was still an adviser in No. 10 Downing Street, my reaction would be to say, “Gosh, there’s something potentially quite big here coming down the track. We may well have changes of Government in France and Germany in the next couple of years. We have got to do some hard thinking ourselves about how we anticipate the situation”. I would say to the British Prime Minister that if he wants to avoid another big treaty, he has to think about how, on all the relevant issues—economic governance, supervision of the banks, the structural reforms necessary to make the European economy competitive and the advance of the single market—we can make Europe more effective. If necessary we have to be prepared to look at small changes in the treaties which we could make under the simplified revision procedure that would convince our partners that serious action could be taken that would not require another big leap forward. Therefore, that is what I would be doing.
These issues are likely to be right at the top of the agenda in the next two or three years. On page 14 of this wretched Bill, in Schedule 1, we see how it would inhibit any British Government from considering even the slightest change in decision-making processes in these crucial areas. In Schedule 1(2) we see that referenda would be required on any changes in the approximation of national laws affecting the internal market, any changes in the broad guidelines of economic policies, any changes in the adoption of provisions replacing the protocol on the excessive deficit procedure and any changes in the role of the European Central Bank on prudential supervision. These are precisely the issues that are going to be at the top of the agenda in European Union policy-making in the next few years, yet we are putting a ball and chain around the feet of our Ministers, because we know that Ministers are not going to put forward anything that would require a referendum, and we are preventing Britain from playing the role it should be playing in the next few years on these issues.
Some noble Lords may argue that these issues are nothing to do with Britain because we are not in the euro. I think that that is completely wrong. Although we are not in the euro, the success of the Government’s economic and political strategy very largely depends on the success of the euro area to which a huge proportion of our exports goes. If we are going to get a rebalancing of the British economy into exports and investment, we have to put forward policies for the success of the euro area, because we will not succeed in those ambitions unless we engage constructively in that debate. Yet we are hampered completely from engaging constructively in it because of the conditions of this Bill. So let us be pragmatic. Let us give ourselves the ability to act in our national interests.
Lord Dykes
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is not that point even more relevant when one thinks of the very helpful and positive Answer of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, answering Questions on Monday, when he said how important it was to maintain the solidarity of the UK with the eurozone through all the common work that we are doing together? Is that not even more important now that we are going to have the pan-European financial supervisory agency based in London? What if a crisis emerges that needs to be dealt with precipitately by all national Governments together?
Lord Liddle
The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is so right. I actually congratulate the Government in many respects on their attitude. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech in Paris earlier this year in which he said, “We are not in the euro but by gosh we want the euro to succeed. It is absolutely essential to our interests”. This was what Mr Osborne said. Some Members on the Conservative Benches may not recognise that point but that is where Britain’s national interests lie and we have to have the flexibility to deal with these situations. I do not know what precise flexibilities would be required but we have to have that.
In terms of historical parallels, I am reminded of Harold Macmillan’s wonderful quote, “Events, dear boy, events”. Of course it was Harold Macmillan as Chancellor of the Exchequer who had failed to realise the significance of what was happening at Messina and then woke up later to the reality of the treaty of Rome and the threat that this presented to Britain’s position in the European Union.
Harold Macmillan wrote in his diary—using the language of a man who had fought in the First World War and lived through those experiences in a different age from that in which, thankfully, we are living in—that, “If we were to allow the French and the Germans together to create a united Europe with Britain not being a part of it, we would be sacrificing everything that our men had fought for in two world wars”. That was his view in the 1950s. Our view today should be decided on the basis of a proper calculation of our national interest. We need to be fully engaged in all the questions affecting the European Union. We ought not to have this ball and chain, and we should have some flexibility. That is why I urge the Government, even at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill, to think about how it could be amended to give Ministers the pragmatic flexibility they need in order to represent our national interests effectively in Brussels and in order that Britain can live up to its role as one of the leading partners in the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I think that this is what might be called the Rumsfeld amendment, because it has been moved to deal with the unknown unknowns. That is what it is all about. I had not remotely intended to speak in this debate, but the noble Lord’s enthusiasm is so infectious. He looks at the European Union and sees that nothing has ever gone wrong with it. We ought always to be in there and engaging with it. We must be careful not to miss the train. We must always be positive regardless of what is happening. He tells us about the wonderful speech that Monsieur Trichet has made, saying that we ought to have fiscal union in order to save the euro. No mention is made that that comes out of the ashes of the disastrous ruin of monetary union.
I think it was the noble Lord who used the same arguments to try to persuade us to join the euro. He said that we are losing influence. Even though the euro has now itself faced enormous problems and even though some of my noble friends on the Back Benches have said that we shall never be able to have a single currency area without a fiscal union, we are told, “That is ridiculous. Now fiscal union is just another great step forward. We have got to be positive about it”.
The noble Lord also says that the European stability mechanism is another thing that we are missing out on, and that we ought to be involved in it. Of course, the ESM is in complete contradiction to the whole basis on which the euro was set up. It is not because it was an unexpected disaster—it was a predicted disaster. The reason the ESM had to be created was because the treaties totally forbade it. Yes, we do face some unknown unknowns.
I apologise to the House because we should not all give our own views on Europe, but I was completely provoked by the noble Lord, who seems to be like Alice through the looking-glass: every disaster is seen as a step forward. We just ought to take a step back, hold our breath, and think about it a little.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am going to resist the great temptation to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I do so not because I do not think that he is completely wrong, which I think he is. He is quite wrong to write off the euro in this way, and he is wrong to suppose that we would not have had to face a systemic crisis caused by fiscal collapse in Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Whether or not the euro had ever existed, we would have needed to take intelligent and concerted action. The noble Lord, with whom I have debated these matters with great pleasure on many occasions over the years, is as wrong as he has always been. I am happy to give him good money in a private conversation afterwards that the euro is far from being in a state of crisis and that it will survive.
I hope noble Lords understand the very important distinction between a fiscal crisis, which has hit a number of countries that are members of the eurozone and have the euro currency, and a crisis for the euro itself. You can have a fiscal crisis caused by Governments overborrowing irrespective of the currency in which they are borrowing. Even if those countries had been members of the dollar area and had borrowed so much that the financial markets were in danger of ceasing to refinance them, there would have been a crisis affecting them; and because of the number of assets that we inevitably hold in those countries, which are major trading partners of ours here, we could not have been immune to a fiscal crisis irrespective of the currencies involved.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble Lord accept that the ECB is technically bankrupt?
Lord Davies of Stamford
I accept nothing of the kind—the ECB has a triple-A credit rating, as I am sure the noble Lord knows.
Lord Flight
Would the noble Lord give even just a little bit of credibility to the argument that the problem of different economies sharing the same currency is that the costs of some in the southern part of Europe have gone up 35 per cent while Germany’s costs have only gone up 10 per cent, so they have a big competitiveness problem, which is part of their fiscal problem? In the case of Spain and Ireland, the problem is that they have had a low rate of interest that is unsuitable for their own domestic rate of inflation, causing real interest rates to be negative. That caused everyone to borrow too much and the banks to lend too much, so they have had an overlending problem, in part caused by the fact that they are sharing an inappropriate currency. If they had their own currency, they could devalue when they had such a crisis.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am getting signals, quite rightly so, from my Front Bench so I really must not respond to the substance of that because I shall be turning this into a debate—which we ought to have in this House on these important matters—on fiscal and monetary issues in the European Union at present. I hope that the Government take note of the obvious interest on their own Benches in having the opportunity to discuss this matter and exchange our various perspectives on it. I wanted to intervene really just to support my noble friend’s excellent amendment. If it is accepted by the House, it will get rid of a large amount—80 or possibly 90 per cent of the damage—that could be done by this Bill. If this amendment goes through, Clause 3(4) would then read:
“The significance condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the decision states that … the decision falls within section 4 only because of provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and … the effect of that provision in relation to the United Kingdom is not significant”.
In other words, the only exemption from the need to have a referendum would be in relation to matters that were not significant for the United Kingdom. Surely, to accept this particular amendment is a cost-free concession on the part of the Government. I cannot believe that the Government actually want to provide for having a referendum on something that is not significant for the United Kingdom. Am I perhaps wrong about this?
We need to probe the Government’s logic a little here, because what an extraordinary thing it would be if the Government want to take through Parliament a Bill providing for the possibility of having referenda on issues that are not significant for the United Kingdom. The Government cannot turn around and use the argument that what is significant or not might be a subjective and difficult matter to determine at any one point, because they have already accepted in this Bill, as it stands, the need to make a distinction between significant and non-significant. That argument cannot be made. The only argument that can be made is that we need to provide for having referenda on something that is not significant, which does not make the slightest sense. I ask noble Lords to envisage a scenario in which we have a referendum in this country on something that everybody accepts is not significant for the United Kingdom. We ask the electorate to focus their mind on a difficult, technical and perhaps rather abstruse matter—maybe a whole package of such matters, which is what the Government have been suggesting recently; to take the time to master the relevant briefs or at least make up their minds on this matter; and to take time off from their work or from their leisure activities and go to the polls on something that they are told in advance is not significant for the United Kingdom.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Since the noble Lord has such confidence in the judgment of Ministers that he wishes to recentralise the possible decision-making that would come through referenda, why does he not have confidence that the judgment of Ministers would be that something inessential would not come to Parliament in the first place? There is an illogicality in his circular argument.
Lord Davies of Stamford
There is no illogicality at all. There is no need to provide for a referendum on something which is not significant for the United Kingdom unless the Government believe that they might, at some point, wish to have such a referendum, which I regard as an utter absurdity. It would be an insult to the electorate; it would be treating the whole electoral system of this country in a thoroughly frivolous way. I have to ask the Government: what is the purpose—what is the logic, because it is not clear to me at all—in providing for the possibility of referenda on non-significant subjects? It would be an utter contradiction in terms.
I have to mention to the House a matter which I must not go into in any detail for fear of breaking the relevance rule. I shall not do that, but I need to refer to the fact that a week or two ago the Government published a Bill on reform of the House of Lords which provides for fundamental changes to this House, and therefore to the legislature of this country, without providing for a referendum at all. So we have a situation in which the same Government are saying, on one hand, “We have to change the House of Lords in a fundamental way and we cannot have a referendum on it”, and at the same time saying, “We have to have referenda on changing the rules on qualified majority voting on taking decisions about the future of the public prosecutor’s office in the European Union”—something idiotic like that. Now they come forward and say, “No, actually we need to provide for referenda on explicitly non-significant matters”. What an extraordinary contradiction.
I see that, for once, I have the agreement of the noble Lords, Lord Flight and Lord Hamilton, as well as other distinguished Members opposite. Maybe the Government, in responding, should not just turn to me; they should turn to their supporters on their own Back Benches. They certainly need to turn to the country to explain the logic of the Bill, because, whatever it is, it does not appear to be coherent or something that has been properly thought through. I am sure that it is not deliberate hypocrisy—I would not dream of accusing noble Lords of that. Maybe it is some kind of confusion, but we need to know what it is, because what they are bringing forward seems to have no sense at all either from the rational or the pragmatic point of view, or to be credible in any way.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, perhaps it is for me to try to put this amendment back in its box, from which it seems to be rapidly escaping into fascinating issues such as reform of the House of Lords. I am not sure whether that is immediately germane to this amendment, which does not involve any transfer of powers or competencies to the European Union as far as I can see from the debate. I shall, if I may, abandon that and return to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved with fiery eloquence. He was frank enough to admit that the purpose of the amendment was an attempt to say, I think his phrase was, the same thing in a different way. I shall try to avoid giving the same answer in a different way, but I am afraid that the answer I am going to give will not please him very much. Anyway, I will do my best.
The amendment seeks to extend the scope of the significance condition beyond the two types of transfer of power identified by Clause 4(1)(i) and Clause 4(1)(j). We had a similar amendment, did we not, in Committee? I explained at that stage that the significance condition as drafted applies only where there may be a proposal for treaty change under the simplified revision procedure which would result in a transfer of power—I shall come to the competence issue in a moment—from the UK to the EU, as defined by the criteria in Clause 4(1)(i) and Clause 4(1)(j), namely treaty changes which seek to impose or extend a requirement obligation or sanction on the UK. It is only then that an assessment by the Minister is required as to its significance. As I said at the time, the significance condition is applied deliberately to such a limited range of proposals in order to establish a transparent and un-fuzzy, un-grey, unequivocal set of criteria, for Parliament as well as for the people, for which a referendum will be required under the Bill.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect, this amendment is about having a referendum, or not having a referendum, on matters the effect of which—to quote the Bill—
“in relation to the United Kingdom is not significant”.
Nobody in the world would argue that setting up a finance ministry for the European Union was not significant for the United Kingdom; the question is why we should have referenda on matters which are not significant. The noble Lord has cited a lot of possible scenarios, all of which involve dramatically significant events which would obviously be significant events for us, but the big issue concerns why we should have a referendum on matters which are known not to be significant for the United Kingdom.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think that we are arguing in a circle because the Bill provides the significance test and matters in paragraphs (i) and (j) of Clause 4(1), which I have described, might well be ruled by Ministers not to be significant, and therefore there would be no referendum. Furthermore, in Clause 4(1) there is a whole string of exempt conditions where no referendum will occur. Therefore, I do not see what the noble Lord is worried about. As regards issues that are deemed to be insignificant, or issues that are deemed to fall under Clause 4(4)—sorry, I said Clause 4(1), whereas I meant Clause 4(4)—Clause 4(4) states that:
“A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section merely because it involves one or more of the following”.
There is your list. There are the things that are not significant which will not attract a referendum. The noble Lord was speaking with great feeling and fervour but I cannot see that his worry is well founded. I am clear that this amendment would not assist the purposes of the Bill and would undermine certain values and aims of the coalition’s European policy. On that basis, I strongly urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I will withdraw the amendment, but the Government are making a major mistake in not listening to the points made not just from the opposition Benches but from the Cross Benches as well about the necessity to keep open some flexibility to deal with the unforeseen. If the United Kingdom wants to resist major treaty change, we will almost certainly have to propose minor changes which would demonstrate a willingness to deal with the practical realities of the situation that the EU would be facing. It is the Government who are not living in the real world and not facing up to what it is necessary to do if we are to be an effective member of the European Union in the years ahead. I regret very much having to say that, but with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.