House of Commons
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
1. When he expects to implement the remaining provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The provisions relating to the online infringement of copyright have been subject to a judicial review, but following the Government’s success in that case, we hope to announce a new timetable for the implementation of the measures in the Act shortly. We hope that the initial obligations will be proportionate, fair and effective.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but before the general election, his junior coalition partners campaigned fiercely to oppose web disconnection as part of the Act, and firmly pledged to take disconnection off the statute book. The coalition Government are now reviewing whether the disconnection provisions are technically workable. Does that mean that they are okay with the principle of internet disconnection, and what is the time scale for publishing Ofcom’s findings on sections 17 and 18?
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating that great academic centre of learning, Bournemouth university, on expanding its digital economy studies in areas such as media studies and graphic design? Half the technicians who worked on the science fiction film “Avatar” are graduates of the university.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is over a year since this House overwhelmingly backed the 2010 Act, yet there is no sign of the key measures in it being implemented. As the Minister says, the judicial review has come and gone, and there is agreement on costs, so why does he not just face down his critics, put in a programme and get this Act implemented?
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Further to the Minister’s earlier answer, he will recall that Liberal Democrats argued that the web blocking proposals simply would not work. Has he come to the same conclusion, and will he accept that it is vital to find ways to protect the internet protocol of creators from illegal websites? Will he tell us what will happen on that?
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What steps he is taking to ensure that users of British sign language have equal access to telecommunications services; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
We have implemented the revised EU electronic communications framework, including specific provisions relating to disability and equivalence. Ofcom has been given new powers to impose obligations with regard to equivalence on all providers through general conditions. We continue to work very closely with Ofcom and fully support its current review of relay services for deaf and hearing-impaired telecoms users, including BSL users in the UK.
Gemma Doyle
Deaf Connections tells me that there is an urgent need to introduce video relay technology to create equal access to telecoms for BSL users, but as the Minister indicates, Ofcom is about to launch its 11th publication on the issue. Will he meet Ofcom to discuss the pace of progress on access to functionally equivalent telecoms for BSL users?
Mr Vaizey
I can assure the hon. Lady that I take this issue very seriously indeed. It is not strictly accurate to say that this is the 11th Ofcom review. The review, which we look forward to, is being conducted in the light of the revised EU communications framework. Ofcom will publish a consultation document in the summer, but I have met Deaf Connections and constituents who lobby me on this issue, and I take it very seriously.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
3. What plans he has for the roll-out of superfast broadband.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
9. What plans he has for the roll-out of superfast broadband.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
16. What plans he has for the roll-out of superfast broadband.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
When the Government came to office, just over £230 million had been allocated to broadband roll-out; that has now been increased to £830 million. It is still not enough, but we are determined to do what we can.
Claire Perry
The people of Wiltshire welcome the fact that they are among those receiving money in the next tranche of the high-speed broadband roll-out. However, high-speed, superfast broadband raises the spectre of children accessing inappropriate material on the internet more easily, which worries many parents. What pressure is the Minister putting on internet service providers to make access to internet porn an opt-in option? If that work fails, is he prepared to regulate to keep our children safe?
Mr Hunt
I can confirm that the Government take this issue incredibly seriously—the Bailey review on the sexualisation of youth is one indication of that. We are also having a meeting with the trade body United Kingdom Internet Sites to take the issue further. We believe strongly that internet service providers need to behave in a socially responsible way and to do what they can to protect children, so we fully support what my hon. Friend said.
Nigel Adams
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how the roll-out of superfast broadband could support the introduction of universal video relay service in the UK, which would ensure that deaf sign language users have equal access to telecommunications?
Mr Hunt
The kinds of services that my hon. Friend mentions demonstrate exactly why it is important that we have an ambitious programme for the roll-out of superfast broadband. In the summer, Ofcom will be reviewing precisely the matter he raised. I would urge him to join me in encouraging the Labour party to get behind the agenda for superfast broadband. It is committed to 2 megabits; we are committed to superfast broadband. We want to be in the fast lane, not the slow lane.
Mel Stride
In Northlew, a small village in my constituency, a local not-for-profit organisation has ensured that about 200 subscribers now receive broadband using a microwave network. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such technology will be covered under Broadband Delivery UK funding guidelines, so that other villages in my constituency may benefit from it?
Mr Hunt
I can confirm that our policy is technology-neutral. We are asking local authorities to come forward with a broadband plan that will secure 100% 2-meg connection, and 90% superfast broadband, but how they do that is up to them. I am aware that 8% of my hon. Friend’s constituents live in “not spots”, where they have no broadband access at all, and 13% of them live in houses with less than 2-meg connection. That shows what a priority this is. We want to be extremely imaginative, and I hope that we will have the support of the Labour party—
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Many consumers are removing their fixed lines and using mobile telephony to access the internet. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State to say that because of the delay to the spectrum auction, there is a potential loss to the Exchequer of £316 million. Given that O2 is threatening legal action against Ofcom that could further delay the auction, will he consider using his powers under wireless and telephony legislation to ensure that this happens sooner rather than later?
Mr Hunt
We are absolutely committed to proceeding with the spectrum auctions as soon as possible, and we will do everything necessary to make that happen. However, I want to make the broader point to the hon. Gentleman, who is pretty well-versed in technology matters, that we think that mobile is going to play a vital part in the roll-out of superfast broadband. At the moment, the amount of mobile internet data is tripling every year. We need to get that mobile data to a fixed-line fibre point as quickly as possible if we are to deal with the twentysixfold increase in mobile internet data that we expect over the net four years.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recently clarified in a letter to MPs that the £530 million from central Government for the roll-out of superfast broadband will have to be matched by local authorities. Where does he expect this money to come from, and on what basis does he estimate that it will be enough to deliver 90% superfast broadband coverage?
Mr Hunt
We have done a very scientific study, which we will be publishing shortly. It shows the number of areas in each local authority area with either no access or slow access, or where we think the market will not provide access. We have done that calculation, and we know the costs involved in making it possible. We are confident that local authorities will support this agenda enthusiastically, unlike, I am afraid, the hon. Lady’s own Front-Bench team. So far we have had seven pilots in which local authorities have shown precisely that enthusiasm, including Wiltshire, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry).
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Opposition are delighted that the Secretary of State has finally woken up and recognised that there is huge interest in the delivery of broadband services. Why, then, has he put back Labour’s commitment to universal broadband by a full three years? That means that rural constituencies, many of which are represented by Government Members, will lose out in the important race for growth and jobs under a Government not committed to providing the right infrastructure.
Mr Hunt
Let me start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in DCMS questions, and let me answer him clearly. The reason we had to put the date back three years is that there was not enough money in the kitty—something that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury under his party knew only too well and was prepared to write down. However, we have not ditched that commitment; we have said that we will deliver it in this Parliament. Indeed, we have gone further and said that this is not just about 2 meg, because today’s superfast broadband is tomorrow’s superslow broadband. I would urge the hon. Gentleman and those on his Front Bench to get behind this Government’s commitment to a 90% roll-out of superfast broadband.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
4. What steps he is taking to support the promotion of the rugby league World cup in 2013.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I have met the executive chairman and chief executive of the Rugby Football League on a number of occasions. Last November the Prime Minister provided a video message for the official launch of the 2013 rugby league World cup. The RFL is selecting venues with UK Sport’s support. These will be announced in November, and I will work with RFL on its promotional campaign as it develops.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that the World cup gives us an opportunity to promote a sport that is family friendly, in which there is very little trouble on or off the pitch, and which is much cheaper for families to access at the weekend than major football games? Does he also agree that the World cup gives us an opportunity to encourage visitors to some of our northern towns? This could be a win-win situation, so will he pledge to do all that he can to use the World cup to promote those ends?
Hugh Robertson
The short answer is yes. May I thank the hon. Lady for her support both for the sport in general and, in particular, for her home team? As she correctly says, any major sports event is a fantastic opportunity to drive money into the local economy. That is why we have put more money into the major events part of UK Sport, which is standing behind the rugby league World cup, which I am sure will be a terrific success.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
5. What steps the creative industries council will take to help increase employment and growth in the creative industries.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
6. What steps the creative industries council will take to help increase employment and growth in the creative industries.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
7. What steps the creative industries council will take to help increase employment and growth in the creative industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The creative industries council will provide a forum for the creative industries and the Government to engage in a joined-up way. Members will instigate industry-led approaches to boosting the growth and competitiveness of the creative industries, with the Government facilitating and removing barriers where appropriate.
Kerry McCarthy
Bristol is to be home to one of the new local enterprise zones announced in the Budget, with a focus on the creative industries. Will the creative industries council be able to offer practical assistance to make the zone a success, or will it be just a talking shop at the national level? Will it deliver results on the ground?
Mr Vaizey
I was lucky enough to visit Bristol recently, where the astonishing success of the creative industries is a wonder to behold. We certainly do not want the creative industries council to be a talking shop, which is why we set up four or five work streams, which I hope will be relevant to businesses in Bristol.
Mr Bain
UK Music has established that the music industry employs nearly 100,000 people and generates almost £5 billion a year for the UK economy. However, one of the biggest problems for up-and-coming musicians is in obtaining credit or finance from the banks. Can the Minister assure the House that the work of the creative industries council will lead to an increase in the amount of capital available for young musicians?
Mr Vaizey
I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. I recently met important industry figures Sandie Shaw and Brian Message, the manager of Radiohead, to discuss with a specific bank making capital available to musicians. I hope that other banks will take note of that initiative.
Steve Rotheram
The Minister is aware of the devastating impact of the cuts agenda on the cultural sector through lost economic benefit. However, is he aware of the importance of innovations that are directly attributable to music sales, such as X-ray computed tomography—or CT scanners, as they are more commonly known—which were developed by EMI primarily through sales of Beatles records, by four lads who shook the world? Without leadership, is the Minister not putting similar investment opportunities at risk?
Mr Vaizey
I am aware of the huge cultural vibrancy of this country, which is why I will travel to Liverpool later this month to open the Magritte exhibition at Tate Liverpool. Liverpool really is a vibrant and creative city. Returning to the earlier question about the Digital Economy Act 2010, the reason we are so keen to press ahead with it is so that our creative industries can earn money from the content that they create.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key determinants of the success of the creative industries is the strong protection of intellectual property? Is he considering following the example of President Obama and appointing a champion for intellectual property, which would send that signal? Does he agree that what would send precisely the wrong signal is any suggestion from local authorities that the enforcement of actions against pirate or counterfeit goods by trading standards officers should not be seen as a priority?
Mr Vaizey
I met President Obama’s copyright tsar, Victoria Espinel, when she was in this country last week. We had a meeting with the IP crime group, which is very effectively taking forward the enforcement of measures to tackle IP crime. The Minister, Baroness Wilcox, is also an extremely effective champion of the IP industry.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The creative industries in the UK are world leaders but, to continue that trend, we need to ensure that the courses that are studied in our higher and further education establishments are truly robust. Will the Minister pledge to work with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that those courses are fully recognised and really worth while?
Mr Vaizey
In an earlier answer, I praised Bournemouth university. One of the first things that I did as a Minister was to commission the Livingstone-Hope report on skills in the video games industry to ensure that our courses were fit for purpose, and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sir Alex Hope on his well-deserved OBE for that work.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The Government make available about £2 billion to British banks under the enterprise finance guarantee scheme to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the creative industries. Music industry representatives have told me that only two music companies have been successful in raising loan finance via the EFG scheme. One very experienced music manager was successful only on his ninth attempt. What is the Minister going to do to improve the scheme and to support our music industry?
Mr Vaizey
I suspect that the hon. Lady met the same people at the meeting that I referred to earlier. I absolutely understand the issue to which she is referring, and I want to continue to work with the banks to try to educate them on how the enterprise finance guarantee scheme can be used to support the music industry. Important changes in the Budget, such as the enterprise investment scheme, will also help our creative industries.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
8. What recent progress has been made on digital switchover.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Television switchover is on track and progressing extremely well, with almost 36% of UK homes having switched to digital already. A further 17.2 million homes will switch by the end of the programme in 2012.
Andrew Bridgen
Many of my constituents are concerned about the impending digital switchover in the east midlands. Can the Minister assure the House that any issues relating to previous digital switchovers have now been addressed? On a more local point, does he acknowledge that it is important that areas receive the right regional news for their area? That is not currently happening in many parts of North West Leicestershire.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what my hon. Friend says. Regarding regional news, his constituents will receive digital terrestrial television either from the Waltham transmitter, for BBC East Midlands, or from Sutton Coldfield, for BBC West Midlands. Digital UK has a postcode checker that will allow constituents to work out which service they will receive. It will also give them advice on how to re-tune if they want to receive a different service. Digital switchover has proceeded extremely smoothly, except in one area: my own county of Oxfordshire, where the transmitter burned down. I do not expect that to happen again, however.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We in Wales know that digital switchover is a great thing, but it is not quite a utopia. The Freeview package that is available in my constituency and many other valleys communities is greatly diminished compared with the rest of the country. This means that Rupert Murdoch has a virtual monopoly not just on first-view American movies and many sports matches but on the actual provision of television services. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that my constituents get a fair deal?
Mr Vaizey
I would certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss coverage in south Wales. I have learned from many years’ experience that there is no such thing as utopia, but we can strive towards it. As far as Mr Murdoch’s monopoly is concerned, I know that he will have taken note of Ofcom’s investigation into pay TV, sports rights and other such competition issues.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
10. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on future Government support for the UK computer games industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I discussed future Government support for the creative industries—including the video games sector—with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the development of the plan for growth which was published alongside Budget 2011. The plan for growth sets out the specific actions that we are taking to tackle major barriers to growth in the creative industries and to create the right conditions for creative businesses to flourish.
Jim McGovern
I do not know about high-speed broadband, but that was a high-speed answer—and I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that it is not the one I was looking for. He will be aware that games companies in the UK are closing and that many of their staff are going to Canada. Ireland is now looking to introduce tax breaks, but for some reason this Government persist in doing nothing. Will the Minister reassure me, the House and my constituents that the assessment of tax breaks for the industry, as recommended by the Scottish Affairs Committee, will be carried out as a matter of priority before more harm is done to this very important industry?
Mr Vaizey
I am mindful of your desire, Mr Speaker, to crack through the Order Paper, which is why I tend to answer questions in a rapid manner. Let me first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his championship of the video games industry. I know that 150 jobs have been created in the industry in his own Dundee constituency. Measures in the Budget, such as the changes to the research and development tax credit and the enterprise investment scheme, will help the video games industry. I will continue with my vocal and, I hope, practical support for that important industry.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
11. What recent progress he has made on his consideration of News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Following my announcement on 3 March, I am currently considering responses to the consultation on undertakings, and I will announce my decision when the process is complete.
Alex Cunningham
Has the Murdoch empire, with its alleged wholesale illegal activities, not shown itself clearly unfit for an even greater control of the British media?
Mr Hunt
This is an issue about media plurality. I am not legally allowed to consider any other issues, but phone hacking is incredibly serious. The police are following their investigations and they must follow them wherever they lead. If the hon. Gentleman is not convinced by me, he should perhaps be convinced by his own Front-Bench team, as the shadow Culture Secretary has also said that the serious admissions of culpability by News International are not relevant to the News Corp’s BSkyB media plurality issue.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State promised a decision on this matter on 26 April—and we are still waiting. Does he understand why people have no confidence in the integrity of the process or his role in it when, instead of referral to the Competition Commission, he has taken the unprecedented step of personally overseeing negotiations covering the legal, contractual and financial arrangements involved in establishing Sky News as a standalone company? The Secretary of State tells us that he is currently taking lessons in how to be a football referee. I assume he understands that the referee’s job is to be neutral—not to help one of the teams bundle the ball over the line.
Mr Hunt
The shadow Culture Secretary cannot have it both ways. I was accused before of rushing the decision, so now I am taking as long as it takes because we want not a rushed decision, but the right decision. I am not personally overseeing the negotiations. It is being done by Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, and I am receiving independent written advice from them at every stage, which I have either published or will publish. When it comes to the question of dithering, when I made the announcement on 3 March on what I was minded to do, the shadow Culture Secretary said that after talking to relevant parties, he would announce whether he supported my decision or not. We are still waiting to hear whether he does.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Is it not the case that the development of the media market in this country is such that newsprint, internet, TV and, indeed, mobile platforms are coming together? Such common ownership will become more obvious, as reflected in the drift of policy. Would it not be wrong to hold that policy back and oppose that sort of development just because of the Labour party’s hatred of a single individual?
Mr Hunt
We absolutely want media policies that allow convergence. In fact, our local TV policy is a precise example of that, as we want to encourage local newspaper groups to get into other platforms. This particular issue, however, is about media plurality. It is about making sure that no one has too much power in any one part of our media. That is the prism through which we have to look at the issue, and that is what we are doing.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
12. What recent representations he has received on proposals for local television; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We have had 140 responses to our consultation on local TV, including 69 expressions of interest from people interested in providing it.
Simon Kirby
Does my right hon. Friend agree that local TV can be successful in places such as Brighton and Hove, where its funding, its audience and its coherence with the local community are all factors contributing to its success?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely agree with that. My hon. Friend will know that I met Angi Mariani, the publisher of “Latest Homes” magazine in Brighton and “Brighton Lights” online magazine, who has submitted an expression of interest in running a TV station in Brighton—[Interruption.] He will know because he was with me when I met her.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Now that the Secretary of State has been forced to abandon “Hunt TV”—otherwise known as “a new national TV spine”—his plans for local television are in disarray. Does he agree that, given his ministerial responsibility for ITV and Channel 4, there would be serious ethical concerns if he attempted to solicit funding from them for his personal vanity project? Can he confirm that, in the midst of 16% cuts, the BBC will be required to spend £25 million of licence fee payers’ money on supporting local television only if it can be proved to be viable, sustainable and good value for money?
Mr Hunt
Far from our plans being in disarray, we have published plans for about 10 local television stations, and we hope to have double or triple that number by the time the process has been completed. ITV is quite capable of looking after itself.
I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little bit consistent. When his party was in government, it planned to take £40 million from the licence fee to support two regional television channels, and to top-slice the fee. We are taking much less money, and we will create far more local television stations. I urge all Labour Back Benchers to encourage Front Benchers to back this initiative, because their constituents will support it wholeheartedly.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
13. What his policy is on support for a future bid for England to host the FIFA World cup.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Any future bid for a FIFA World cup is some time away, which is probably not a bad thing. Such a bid is unlikely to be submitted until 2030. Any decision would be considered on its merits, but I would expect a far greater degree of transparency and accountability in FIFA before we could consider any future bid.
Damian Collins
Does the Minister agree that without reform of FIFA to give it greater transparency and accountability, any England bid is likely to fail in the world of double-dealing and self-interest that FIFA has become under Sepp Blatter—unless, of course, he wants to get Del boy to front the next England bid?
Hugh Robertson
It is clear, both from our experience of the last bid and from what has happened subsequently at FIFA, that the organisation is in need of radical structural reform, and the principles of transparency and accountability must govern that. The newly re-elected president has set a process in train, and we will watch it carefully, but I doubt that we will consider a future bid until that process has been completed.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Accountability and transparency are also an issue in domestic football. Does the Minister agree that it is surprising and disappointing that the Premier League has withdrawn its funding for Supporters Direct, an organisation that is committed to transparency in football ownership?
Hugh Robertson
As the hon. Gentleman says, transparency and accountability are an issue in English football, and we await the Select Committee’s report with interest. As for Supporters Direct, I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that the language used by the chief executive constituted vileness of an entirely different order, and was quite unacceptable coming from someone holding such a position. That, of course, should not detract from the good work done by the organisation more generally. I believe that a meeting between the new chief executive and the Premier League is scheduled for Friday, and I hope that it will come to a successful conclusion.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
14. What plans he has for future (a) funding and (b) parliamentary oversight of the work of the BBC World Service from 2014.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We have protected funding for the World Service with an efficiency saving, and accountability to Parliament will continue through the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Alun Michael
Does the Secretary of State agree that Britain’s place in the world, and its contribution to the world, are enhanced considerably by the work of the BBC World Service? I have seen that in relation to Somaliland and in eastern Europe. Does he share the widespread concern that is felt about the fragility of the service worldwide, and what can he do to satisfy us that Parliament will be fully involved and that the service is safe in his hands?
Mr Hunt
I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the BBC World Service, which is an incredible jewel in our national crown and a very important part of our soft power. The moving of the service directly into the core BBC presents it with tremendous opportunities. It will strengthen the service’s independence and perceived independence, allow efficiency savings that will ultimately enable more to be invested in programming, and create the potential for improvements in the television service, BBC World News, which I think are long overdue.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
15. What efficiencies in the administration of his Department he plans to make in the next 12 months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
Our aim is to reduce the Department’s administrative spend by 50% during the life of this Parliament. We have already reduced the pay bill by £3 million from 2010-11 through a voluntary redundancy scheme, and a programme to deliver further savings is in place.
Mr Hollobone
What methods are being engaged to expose yet further efficiencies that have not already been identified?
John Penrose
We continually keep everything under review, as would be expected. We have identified a number of particular points that I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend, including Ministers not using the Government car service, which will save about £250,000 a year, reducing hospitality expenditure by about £60,000 a year, and cutting spend on travel by about £30,000 a year. We will continue to scrutinise very carefully to find other such examples.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
17. Whether he has had discussions with the Secretary of State for Justice on the contribution of media training programmes to the rehabilitation of women in prison.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discusses a broad range of issues with his Cabinet colleagues. The Government believe that education and training programmes, such as the prison media centres project at HMP Downview, play an important role in the rehabilitation of prisoners.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that we should roll out rehabilitation models that use culture—such as the prison media centres project, which is run by people in my constituency—more widely, and will he therefore have further talks with the Secretary of State for Justice to ensure there is a national roll-out of such schemes?
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
18. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of recent funding decisions by Arts Council England on arts and cultural organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My Department and Arts Council England continue to monitor the impact of the recent national portfolio announcements. Regularly funded organisations whose applications for the national portfolio were unsuccessful will continue to receive support during the financial year 2011-12, which will enable them to explore alternative sources of support or adapt their business plans.
Mrs Glindon
Given this year’s cut of 74% in arts funding for young people, communities and schools, what are the Government doing to widen access to art and cultural activities for young people and under-represented groups?
Mr Vaizey
The Arts Council has clear proposals to continue to support cultural education in schools, and we have also asked Darren Henley, the managing director of Classic FM, to build on his successful report on music in schools by now looking at the whole of cultural education in schools.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Over the next few weeks, I will have much progress to report on all our five priority areas, including broadband allocations for local authorities, next steps for the awarding of local TV licences, inaugural pilots of the school games, a 2012 tourism marketing strategy and a policy to promote financial resilience for the arts.
The House will want to congratulate Andy Murray on his success at Queen’s on Monday, and wish him success for another tournament about to start a few stops further down the District line.
Michael Connarty
I am sure the Secretary of State supports the idea of there eventually being independent licences for all four parts of the United Kingdom, but at present how can he possibly justify the fact that STV is not recognised as an independent producer, and is therefore denied access to 25% of the production available through the system, as it is treated like other small independents? Surely this must be taken on, and STV must become a qualified independent producer?
Mr Hunt
I am very well aware of the case STV is making. The only point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the outstanding success of our broadcasting industry has been based on the division between broadcasters and producers and that has benefits for Scotland, as it does for the whole of the United Kingdom. Under our local TV programme, we hope to award many more licences for much smaller areas.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
T5. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have been allocated some 9,000 tickets for the 2012 Olympic games. Will he reassure the House that none of them will be provided as free perks either to Government employees in general or, in particular, to UK politicians?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend about the details of those tickets: 3,000 tickets have been allocated to staff associated with the project—they will be purchased and are available through a ballot; 2,400 are being made available to host towns and cities, and they, too, will be purchased; 2,900 will be made available to guests of the Government, including international business guests and dignitaries, to make sure that we secure an economic legacy to the Olympics; and 450 tickets will be allocated as prizes in the school games, to which 6,000 schools have signed up.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The House is grateful for the Secretary of State’s clear exposition, and I hope that this is widely publicised.
I hope that the House will join me in welcoming to our proceedings a delegation from the Dutch Olympic committee. As London prepares to welcome the world to our Olympic games next year, will the Secretary of State recognise the limited scope for the International Olympic Committee to do more than issue invitations to the national Olympic committees of countries around the world? Given the sensitivity about what we would describe as pariah regimes, will he assure the House that all necessary and relevant diplomatic intervention will be taken at the appropriate time to prevent their participation?
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The short answer is that I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady. What was very apparent yesterday in dealing with the Libyan regime was how much easier it is to deal with these situations if the regime is the subject of European Union banning orders. With all such regimes it is a huge help if they are the subject of the relevant international sanctions. Like her, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the delegation from the Dutch Olympic committee. They are close allies of ours in the cause of football reform, an issue close to the heart of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), and I hope that they have a successful trip.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Further to my correspondence with the Minister over the past two and half months following the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Ofcom and the notice I gave him that I would be raising this issue, will he confirm whether Ofcom will use present value estimates on net returns of long-term investments in its 2010-11 annual accounts? Would that comply with Treasury principles?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I do not know, so I will write to my hon. Friend.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. Supporters Direct has not just been helping fan involvement in football clubs; it has also been advising on the bid for the Walthamstow dog track and helping to involve the community in that. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can help to promote fan involvement, not only in football but in a range of other sports?
Hugh Robertson
That is the first question I have ever had on dog racing, but it will not be the last. In the circumstances, probably the best thing to say is that I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to hear more about this.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s earlier comments about the importance of mobile broadband and the role it can play. Does he recognise the current imbalance in the market, with some providers having access to better bandwidth or a better spectrum on the bandwidth? What plans does he have to use the 4G auction to correct the imbalance?
Mr Hunt
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in and commitment to this subject. We recognise that there has to be a competitive market in broadband and that it would be very damaging for the broadband market if we did not have a competitive market in mobile provision. I know that Ofcom is working very hard to structure the spectrum auctions to make sure that we do.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. Does the Secretary of State still believe in localism? If so, why is he undermining local radio up and down the country, reducing morale? Why is he attacking all those third sector arts organisations that are collapsing up and down the country because of a lack of funding?
Mr Hunt
We are not, and I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information from. We have published the most ambitious local media strategy for many years, providing a way forward for local radio stations. We are continuing to support many community radio stations. On local arts groups, we have put in place a big package to try to encourage and help arts organisations to be resilient in difficult financial times.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Crewe Alexandra girls centre of excellence in my constituency has a proud and enviable record of producing first-class international players and it has built a strong reputation, over many years, across the whole of the footballing community and beyond. The Football Association has rewarded that success by deciding to close the centre, leaving many gifted players and their parents dumbfounded and devastated. Can my right hon. Friend look into the matter urgently and take it up personally with David Bernstein, the chairman of the Football Association?
Hugh Robertson
I think that question gives me the opportunity, which I am sure everybody across the House will want to take, to wish the England women’s football team good luck in the forthcoming world cup. In response to hon. Friend, I will of course take the case up if he sends me the details.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
T6. In his response to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), the Secretary of State spoke about his efforts to persuade internet service providers to create an opt-in system so that families can be protected from porn on their computers. Is it not time to abandon his charm and start using the stick of regulation so we can protect families from porn flowing into the home?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
That is precisely what we are doing. We are telling people that if they do not co-operate in bringing forward measures that will deal with this issue fast, we will legislate and regulate.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I welcome yesterday’s announcement that 10,000 tickets for the Olympics will be made available free of charge to members of our armed forces. Will the Minister update the House on who else will benefit from the ticket share scheme and, specifically, on whether it will help school children in my constituency?
Hugh Robertson
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced, a number of tickets will be available to winners of the school games. A further tranche of tickets are available to Sport England through the Places People Play initiative that will go to local sports champions.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T7. I want to thank the Minister responsible for the creative industries for having a productive meeting with me and a delegation this week to discuss the problems that UK musicians are having getting visas to tour the USA. Will he confirm that the Department is behind our efforts to smooth the path for musicians wishing to tour in the US and that he will do all he can to help us?
Mr Vaizey
I thank the hon. Lady. I thought it was a very productive meeting and my Department will certainly do all it can to facilitate relationships with the US Administration and to iron out some of the bumps in the road for musicians as regards obtaining appropriate visas.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister for Sport and the Olympics agree that the Olympics are a celebration of world sport and host countries should be very careful about trying to ban people from coming to this country for the Olympics?
Hugh Robertson
I certainly agree that the games are a celebration of world sport. We touched on this issue with the question from the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). It is really important that when there are regimes that we do not wish to invite to this country, the relevant international sanctions should be in place to back that up. One of the ironies of the current process is that the ban put in place for the 1980 Olympics produced results for two people who did not abide by that ban, Lord Coe and Lord Moynihan, who are, of course, central to the delivery of the current games.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T8. The BBC is in discussions with DCMS over changes to the public value test. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, notwithstanding the freeze in the licence fee and the cuts that the BBC is having to make, no services or TV channels will be allowed to close?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I cannot give that guarantee, because the BBC operates at arm’s length from the Government and, quite rightly, has editorial discretion about what it does or does not do. What I can say, however, is that when we negotiated the licence fee last October, it was on the understanding that the 16% saving in the licence fee in real terms, to be implemented over six years, was an efficiency saving and that we would not expect the BBC to be unable to deliver any of its core services within the agreed budget.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
1. Whether the House of Commons Commission has made an estimate of the monetary value of the residential accommodation provided for officials situated outside the secure part of the Commons estate.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Outside the secure area, the House holds a long lease on a residential flat at 102 Rochester row, which is valued at £540,000 and has an annual rent of £440. A freehold property at 22 John Islip street, which is used as hostel-style overnight accommodation for staff supporting sittings of the House, is valued at £600,000.
Thomas Docherty
Perhaps I could press the hon. Gentleman. Given that we now have far fewer late-night sittings and that after the next general election we will have 50 fewer colleagues, perhaps now is the time to evaluate whether we could move those beds into the estate and make some real savings for the public purse.
John Thurso
The Commission is very alive to seeking savings within the accommodation budget. There are a number of possibilities that may arise in the future and these are kept under active consideration.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
2. If he will bring forward proposals to hold Back-Bench business each sitting Wednesday and Prime Minister’s questions each sitting Thursday.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I have no plans to do so.
Mr Bone
The House sits for 139 days a year excluding private Members’ days. Under the previous Government, Members were encouraged to turn up on Monday evening and leave on Wednesday night. If we are to restore Parliament to the fulcrum of our democratic process, we must restore Thursday to a full business day. Does the Leader of the House agree?
Sir George Young
I certainly believe that Thursday should be a paid-up member of the parliamentary week. There have been 38 sitting Thursdays in this Parliament, for 21 of which my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has indicated that he would like me and, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), to be present. When the Backbench Business Committee has tabled business on a Thursday that has required a Division there has been a good turnout by Members of Parliament, so I am not sure that I entirely accept the view that Thursday is not a fully paid-up member of the parliamentary week.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The question put by my fellow Backbench Business Committee member, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), is about establishing one day every week in the parliamentary calendar as a Back-Bench day, which would surely be helpful to the Leader of the House and the business managers as the Government could then schedule business around us and have the certainty of having one day a week for Back-Bench business.
Sir George Young
My own view is that it is to the advantage of the Backbench Business Committee and the House to have the flexibility of the current arrangements. The Wright Committee, on which the hon. Lady and I both sat, said at paragraph 214 that
“it could be left open to a process of regular discussion and negotiation as to which day of each week would be devoted to backbench business. This would avoid the rigidities referred to above.”
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
If, as some people are proposing and as the Select Committee on Procedure is currently considering, private Members’ business was moved from Friday to some other point in the parliamentary week, there would be an even greater risk of Thursday becoming downgraded. In the nicest possible way, may I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that during his thankfully unsuccessful bid for your seat, Mr Speaker, he himself brought forward the notion of moving Prime Minister’s questions to a Thursday?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is indeed the case that when I was on the Back Benches I could do some blue-sky thinking but my horizons are now more constrained. I say to him that the Prime Minister is more than satisfied with the current arrangements for Prime Minister’s questions.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Is not the real reason why the Leader of the House cannot announce more time for Back-Bench business or give us the date for the end of the Session that the Government are running into trouble with their own legislation? Their Public Bodies Bill has been shredded in the Lords, they have been defeated on police commissioners, their Back Benchers are getting jittery about pensions and they have had to recommit the Health and Social Care Bill. Why do they not stop rushing into botched, ill-thought-out legislation, think things through and allow more pre-legislative scrutiny? Think how that would have improved the Health and Social Care Bill!
Sir George Young
I will take no criticism from Labour Members about the way we handle the parliamentary programme. We are giving far more time for legislation than the previous Government, who frequently guillotined the remaining stages of Bills. We have on several occasions allowed two days for Bills on Report, including this week, and we have extended the Session so that the House has more time to consider the legislative programme, so I entirely reject the hon. Lady’s assertions that we are rushing legislation through the House.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
3. What recent representations he has received on the procedure governing Opposition day debates.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have received no recent representations on the matter.
Greg Hands
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. One of the problems we have at the moment with Opposition day debates is the late notification of the topic and the motion, which deprives Members on both sides of the House of the opportunity to prepare speeches and points. Will he have a word with his opposite number to see how we might be able to improve the procedure to help to improve debate on both sides of the House?
Mr Heath
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is open to the Opposition to table the subject for debate immediately after the date is announced, and it would be a courtesy to the House if it were given an appropriate length of time to know what the debate will be and to allow Members to table amendments, if they wish.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Is the Deputy Leader of the House satisfied with the amount of time the non-Labour Opposition parties get for Opposition days? Surely all the time that was afforded to the Liberals has gone to the Labour party. Why did none of it come to the smaller parties, which seem to get half a day every decade?
Mr Heath
In the allocation of time, we are bound by the Standing Orders of the House. The hon. Gentleman might like to look at the Standing Orders and suggest to the Procedure Committee or others that they should change them, but at the moment we can do only as the Standing Order require.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
5. What recent progress he has made on his proposals to make the proceedings of the House of Commons more topical.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Since the general election, the Government have established the Backbench Business Committee, reintroduced September sittings, increased the amount of time available for topical questions and are making many more statements than the previous Government. I think that the increased level of coverage we have seen of questions, statements and debates in the media is testament to the increasingly topical nature of this place.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. A key step in making proceedings more topical would be to launch Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House. What progress is being made on that proposal? [Interruption.]
Mr Heath
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says from a sedentary position that that is a good idea. It is indeed a good idea. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will shortly write to the Chairs of the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee to seek their views on proposals to allow for short statements and questions from Committees on the day of publication of some reports.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Leader of the House referred to topical questions in his initial response, and we have seen those recently extended to International Development questions. Are there any plans to do so for other Departments that do not have topical questions, such as the Scotland Office, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office?
Mr Heath
There are no current plans for further extensions, but we were very happy to accede to the request, which actually originated with the Opposition, to find time for topical questions on some of the Departments that previously did not have them. There are no plans to extend topical questions at the moment, but we will of course entertain any such requests in future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider reactivating the second Adjournment debate procedure so that when Government business collapses, as it will today, there is an opportunity to use the full parliamentary timetable for Back-Bench business?
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
6. Whether the House of Commons Commission has considered the merits of redistributing used IT equipment to charitable organisations.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
This matter was last considered shortly before the 2005 general election. The House received advice that accounting regulations required the recovery of the residual value of publicly funded assets when they were disposed of. For that reason, the possibility of charitable donation was not pursued and the assets were resold after having any data and software removed.
Stephen Mosley
I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware that the House of Lords allows the redistribution of old IT equipment to charities, and will he ask the Commission to reconsider its 2005 decision?
John Thurso
Perhaps I could point out to my hon. Friend that the total for Members’ equipment recovered to date is £75,000, which is approximately half its total value. The House of Lords has far less equipment, and it is of lower value, and can therefore take a different view. However, we will consider the matter at the end of this Parliament.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
7. Whether the House of Commons Commission has assessed the likely effects of enabling Members of the House of Lords to use facilities of the House of Commons.
John Thurso
Currently, all peers have access to some facilities in this House. Peers who were formerly Members of this House have access to a wider range of facilities here, and the House of Lords has a reciprocal arrangement for former Members of that House now in this House. The recent Administration Committee report on catering and retail services in the House makes some recommendations on widening access for peers, especially in the dining rooms at lesser-used times.
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman will know that that report is quite honestly full of some pretty absurd suggestions about the closure of facilities that this House of Commons values very highly, including the major cafeteria in Portcullis House in the evenings. There are almost 800 Members of the House of Lords, and rising, but there are going to be only 600 Members of Parliament. Our facilities, dedicated to Members of Parliament, are already under great pressure, and to open up all of them to another 800 Members would make life for most elected Members very difficult.
John Thurso
As I understand the report, that is a suggestion rather than a full recommendation. The House of Commons Commission will consider the report in due course, and I am sure that representations from the hon. Gentleman, and from other right hon. and hon. Members who might wish to make any, will be fully considered at that time.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
8. What plans he has to reform arrangements for scrutiny of European legislation in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said in a written ministerial statement on 20 January, the Government are keen to explore new ways of scrutinising European Union issues. He is in discussions with the European Scrutiny Committee and its counterparts in another place, but the Government will of course welcome proposals from other parliamentarians.
Miss McIntosh
From a reply to a written question, I understand that the Government are keen to end the gold-plating of EU directives, but the only way of doing so is by granting MPs the power to amend the statutory implementing regulations as they go through the House—to amend the text and to reject the regulations. Will the Government approve that?
Mr Heath
I understand the argument for amending draft orders. The difficulty is that, if the two Houses of Parliament amend matters differently, we will then need a reconciliation process, and, instead of an order-making process, we will effectively have a small Bill going through the procedures of Parliament. There are some difficulties with the hon. Lady’s proposal, but I will of course pass on her concerns to the Minister for Europe.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
During the final two years of the previous Parliament, the then Opposition railed against the fact that the structure of the European Standing Committees collapsed into basically random Committees. There used to 39 Members on three Committees who debated regularly the issues coming from Europe, and it was promised that they would be reinstated. The level of ignorance about European business in this House has gone through the roof, however, and it is time that the Government put people back on those Committees in order that they learn the business of Europe before they stand up and open their mouths.
Mr Heath
I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman’s final observations, but he is right to say that we need to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise European business appropriately and fully. That is why I am sure the Minister for Europe is very much engaged in talking to him and his colleagues to make sure that we get the parliamentary structures right—and as soon as possible.
Southern Cross Healthcare
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking in respect of the crisis in Southern Cross.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The Government have made it very clear that the welfare of residents living in Southern Cross homes is paramount. We appreciate that recent events and media speculation have caused concern to residents in Southern Cross care homes, to their relatives and families and to staff. I very much regret that.
I should like to reassure everyone that no one will find themselves homeless or without care. The Government will not stand by and let that happen. Department of Health officials have been in frequent contact with Southern Cross’s senior management over the past three months, and that will continue. We are engaged with the company, the landlords and the lenders, and we are monitoring the situation closely.
The Government are acting to ensure that all parties involved are working towards a swift resolution with a comprehensive plan for the future, which must have the welfare of residents at its heart. It is for Southern Cross, its landlords and those with an interest in the business to put in place a plan that stabilises the business and ensures operational continuity of the care homes. That work is happening, and we must let it continue.
Let me be clear: this is a commercial sector problem, and we look to the commercial sector to solve it. All the business interests involved fully understand their responsibilities, but the Government also have a role to play. That is why we are working closely with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association, local authorities and the Care Quality Commission to ensure that robust local arrangements are in place to address the consequences in the event that the company’s restructuring plan failed to put in place a business that was on a stable footing.
Yesterday, a meeting took place between Southern Cross, lenders and landlords in a committee. They agreed to work together to deliver a consensual solution to the company’s current financial problems over the next four months. They also made it clear that continuity and quality of care for all 31,000 residents will be maintained and that every resident will be looked after. That is a welcome development and the Government are encouraged by that positive agreement by the main stakeholders.
The exact details of the restructuring plan over the next four months will be set out over the next few days and the following weeks. The joint statement issued yesterday by the company, the landlords and the lenders provides further reassurance that the continuity of care of the residents is at the centre of this consensual restructuring. The Government will continue to keep close contact with all involved in the process, and I will continue to keep the House informed.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for his statement. In recent months, we have seen a drip, drip, drip of negative news stories about the financial stability of Southern Cross. After yesterday’s meeting with the 80 different landlords, the company’s future is still very uncertain. However, residents of Southern Cross, their relatives and the directors of social services will need further information—sooner rather than later—on what comes next for the company.
Residents and their relatives need peace of mind, and they need it now. The company appears to be hanging by a thread; the numbers speak for themselves. It has reported half-yearly losses of £311 million and its share price has dropped by 97% since 2006. Forty thousand staff work for the organisation, but 3,000 redundancies have been announced. There are 31,000 residents in 750 care homes; this is a UK problem, with 400 constituencies affected in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
The Government have been too slow to get a grip on the situation. The issue has been live since last December, but Age Concern says that the Government have allowed it to reach this crisis point. Questions that need answering include the following. Newspaper reports say that Southern Cross owes Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs £20 million. Will the Government allow the company to be dragged down by that £20 million debt? What banks are owed money by Southern Cross? How much is owed and what actions will the banks be taking? How are the Government working with the company’s landlords—particularly NHP Ltd, whose parent company is hidden in a fog of complex overseas equity holdings? What are the Government doing to ensure financial probity in this crucial sector? We need to stop the get-rich-quick merchants preying on our elderly relatives.
Who will lead on this issue at the very highest level? This is a cross-Government matter that needs health, business and regulatory intervention. We need reassurance that residents will be safe in their homes, that continuing care will be of the highest standard and that, in the coming months, the Government will focus on ensuring stable financial governance for companies that care for our old and our vulnerable.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, some of which are for Ministers and others of which are for the landlords. He asked about NHP Ltd, and he is right to identify the fact that it is the largest landlord. He also asked about bank lending; obviously, the lenders have a key part to play in a solvent restructuring of the business, and that is why they were at the meeting yesterday. He mentioned HMRC, which, as an autonomous Government body responsible for making these decisions, is considering those matters at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the financial problems and the seeds of the problems. I urge him, in looking at the history of this, to look back several years to the restructuring of the company and the business model that was established and that caused the problem, and to ask himself who were in government at that time.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have just one priority in this set of circumstances, and that is to secure the interests of residents? Will he assure the House that he will send a clear message into the system that there will be zero tolerance of any slippage in the quality conditions that are imposed on the providers of care to residents, and that he will continue to keep his eyes firmly focused on the day-by-day quality of care that is delivered to residents?
Paul Burstow
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government’s paramount interest—it is the interest that all of us in this House should have—is to ensure the welfare of residents. That has been the message that I, as a Minister, and officials have been giving, and will continue to give, to Southern Cross and to the landlords, and the CQC will have the responsibility of ensuring that that is carried out. It is absolutely clear that we all have to ensure that the restructuring succeeds, because that is in the best long-term interests of the residents.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, limited though it is. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on being granted this urgent question on an issue of great importance to Members of the House.
This is not the first time that Members have tried to bring the Minister with responsibility for care services before them to respond to their concerns. The lack of leadership and information from him during this period of uncertainty and anxiety for Southern Cross residents and their families, as well as its employees, has been notable. As a result of the agreement reached yesterday, we now appear to have a period of relative stability. However, great uncertainty remains for residents and employees at Southern Cross homes. We have heard that Southern Cross will now begin a period of restructuring, with reports of around 300 homes changing management, but contracts have been ripped up and it seems that 3,000 jobs are being lost. What assurances can the Minister give on security of employment for those working in Southern Cross?
On safety, last week we heard that Southern Cross is making 3,000 people redundant. We have also heard from the Care Quality Commission that Southern Cross has breached standards at 164 care homes—the equivalent of 28% of its English estate. Can the Minister guarantee the safety of and standard of care for residents, and how will he do this? Will the CQC carry out more frequent inspections?
There has been widespread condemnation of the business practices that led to Southern Cross’s financial problems. It is all very well for the Minister to point fingers at what might have happened many years ago, but this problem exists now, and the Minister is in government now. When people are treated as commodities with no thought to the consequences for them of this risky business model it is important that Government step up to the plate and do something about it. Southern Cross is not the only company in this industry to have financial difficulties. We have heard from the Business Secretary that the business model of Southern Cross and others in the residential care industry will be looked at by his Department. Will the Minister provide more details on the timing of this review and how Members will be told about its findings?
On cuts, the Minister says that there will be robust local arrangements, and I am sure that local authorities will step up to the plate if asked to do so. He must recognise, however, that local authorities are already under enormous strain as a result of the cuts imposed on them by his Government, including the cuts that they are already having to make to adult social care. How can they be expected to pick up the pieces of this national problem without assistance nationally from Government? In other words, are they to be given more resources to deal with the problem of Southern Cross if they are expected to be involved in plan B?
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady is long on critique but very shallow when it comes to how she would approach this differently. Last week, I set out in a written ministerial statement the approach that the Government were taking. We also dealt with this extensively at last week’s Health questions.
The hon. Lady asked about the 3,000 job losses that are being proposed as part of redundancy measures by Southern Cross. Let us be clear: it has a statutory obligation to declare a ceiling for the number of job losses that may—I repeat, may—take place in the business. I have asked the CQC to undertake additional inspections to address concerns arising from the proposed job losses, and that has already been put in place.
The hon. Lady talks about cuts in social care spending but glosses over the fact that this Government, through the spending review, agreed to an unprecedented transfer of resources from the national health service to support social care, with £2 billion extra going into social care by 2014.
We might agree that we need to learn lessons from what is happening to Southern Cross, in respect of regulation and how we ensure a stable and successful social care sector for the future. That is why the Government are committed to an overhaul of social care and to bringing forward a White Paper to set out the plans in due course.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the fundamental problem was a flawed business model that was allowed to exist for far too long under the previous Government?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. It is oft commented in the financial pages of our media that that is one reason why this company is in this position and why such a restructuring is necessary. However, I take heart from the joint statement that was issued yesterday following the meeting between the landlords, the company and the lenders. It suggests that a clear route map is being worked out that will ensure continuity of care. That is what all Members of this House must want. We must all be interested, ultimately, in the welfare and interests of the residents in those homes.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
But is it not absolutely clear that the business model deployed at Southern Cross—selling off 750 freehold properties at colossal profit and then leasing them back, the state paying the fees to meet those rents, and the rental income being siphoned offshore by the landlords into tax havens, leaving the homes grossly underfunded for many years, with 164 homes failing basic CQC standards—is a national disgrace that must be replaced? Does that not mean that the Prime Minister’s commitment to sell off all public services to any willing provider must now be abandoned?
Paul Burstow
I think we need a reality check. About 78% of care in the social care sector in England is provided in the private sector. That transfer to the private sector has not happened just in the past 12 months; it is the product of successive Administrations’ policies over many years. We must draw lessons from the experiences of the last few months, but we must focus on the paramount interests of residents and ensuring that this restructuring is successful. That is what I am focused on.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the information he has given the House and congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on his urgent question. There are two such homes in my constituency. This matter is of great concern not just to residents, but to staff. The impact on staff morale has an impact, in turn, on the care given to residents. I urge my hon. Friend to facilitate a speedy resolution as best he can, and to look at the model that we expect local authorities to adopt for buying care. Residents, their families and their advocates should be consulted more and be more involved in the process, so that care is more tailored and there are not such enlarged packages that can be exploited by large organisations, which may not be run as openly and transparently as they should be.
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question, which points to the need for greater personalisation in the delivery of social care in the longer run. At the moment, in concert with our local authority colleagues, we must be clear about what happens in the event of failure, but also focus on ensuring that this business successfully ensures its future, and that of its employees and the residents who live in its homes.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
A lot of people know that running care homes has been a licence to print money. This is the second such case in a fortnight, the first being Winterbourne View. There are billionaires in the background making a ton of money. There is evidence that it is not just Southern Cross that is in this position. The goose might have stopped laying the golden eggs, so it is time to go back to what we had in the old days: local authorities being in charge and owning care homes. What is more, would it not be wonderful if everybody was able to go to care homes, like hospitals, free of charge?
Paul Burstow
It is important to put on record that something that the hon. Gentleman said is not, and never has been, the case. Social care in this country is not free. That is one of the big inequities of our current system and one of the big challenges that the Government are determined to address through the review that Andrew Dilnot is undertaking.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the good old days, I have to say that many people did not see those days as good, because the care was not personalised and individualised, and it was not always of good quality, either.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will the Minister say something more about the specific steps he is taking to see that the Care Quality Commission ensures that standards of care are maintained during the transition period in homes in my constituency owned by Southern Cross? What steps will he take to ensure that the CQC takes its responsibilities seriously?
Paul Burstow
That is rightly a key preoccupation of all Members who have constituents who are Southern Cross care home residents and their family members. We have been very clear in our discussions with the CQC that it has to maintain a clear focus on the behaviour and conduct of those homes during the transitional period, and particularly during the restructuring. As other hon. Members have rightly said, the CQC has already identified problems and is addressing them through its enforcement powers, and it will continue to do so.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that many residents of Southern Cross homes, including in my constituency, have dementia, and that a lot of people with dementia cope very poorly with changes. What may happen is therefore of enormous concern to their relatives. May I therefore press the Minister—he must have had discussions with his officials—on what the Government’s legal position is, what the back-stop is if the worst case scenario develops, and what he will do now to reassure my constituents and many others that the Government really will ensure that their relatives do not face changes that will dramatically affect their quality of life?
Mr Speaker
Order. By my reckoning the hon. Lady posed three questions, but I know that there will be an immaculate and beautifully tailored single reply from the Minister.
Paul Burstow
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I can assure the hon. Lady that, first and foremost, clear arrangements are in place to deal with a catastrophic failure, which I think is now increasingly unlikely. More importantly, we need to ensure that we learn lessons from past care home closures and take them into account in future. However, we can also be clear that the underlying viability of this business is very strong indeed. We need care homes, and that is why we now have a route towards a solvent restructuring of the business.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My concern is for the residents of the two care homes in my constituency, one in Goole and one in the Skippingdale area of Scunthorpe. It would be wrong if anyone tried to use the situation as a shield for making cheap political points.
Given that there are going to be up to 3,000 job losses, what measures will the Government take to monitor the quality of care and the staff ratio at individual homes, to ensure that there is no negative on impact on the residents? We are all concerned about that.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question about the impact on the quality of care if there are staff losses. When it became clear that the company was posting a figure of 3,000 redundancies, I instructed the CQC to undertake additional assessments to ascertain any likely effect and ensure that there is no impact on the quality of care.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What is the Minister doing to beef up the CQC? As I understand it, there have been a number of redundancies there, and if he wants to maintain the quality of care he has to beef it up. Does he know that the Coventry Evening Telegraph recently conducted an investigation into 10 homes in Coventry, which were found greatly wanting in their standards, hygiene and medicine distribution?
Paul Burstow
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the staffing of the CQC, I can confirm that last October I authorised an additional 75 inspectors’ posts to be filled by that organisation to strengthen it in the very way that he asks for.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Given that the change in business model seems to have led to the current difficulties, what procedures have the Government and the Department put in place to prevent similar business collapses? Is the Minister convinced that the CQC has sufficient investigative, as opposed to enforcement, powers should the problem sadly recur in future?
Paul Burstow
There are certainly issues arising from the current situation that we will want to consider as we go about reforming social care. However, I think it would be wrong, while we are in the midst of the restructuring that the company is undertaking, to bring forward a hard and fast set of solutions to ensure the long-term stability of the social care sector.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Tomorrow I will visit Bellevue Court in my constituency, one of the many Southern Cross-run homes around the country. I note what the Minister says about the Government guaranteeing that no one in the care of Southern Cross will be left without care as a result of what is happening. Clearly it is preferable for Southern Cross and its landlords and lenders to reach a solution that ensures that, but may I press him a little harder on what will happen if that does not come about? How will he live up to the guarantee, which the whole House has noted today, that if the rescue plan that Southern Cross is trying to achieve does not come about, the Government will ensure that no one is left without care and no one’s care is compromised either in Bellevue Court or in any of the 750 homes throughout the country?
Paul Burstow
I entirely understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants to press for further details about what would happen in the hypothetical circumstances that he is keen to explore. However, given the nature of the commercial discussions that are going on at the moment, to give credibility to hypothetical situations is to create the possibility of their becoming a reality. I do not want that to happen.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The previous Government’s failure to regulate the banks led to a crisis in that sector. Is the national disgrace of Southern Cross, to which Members of all parties have referred, caused by a similar dereliction of duty through their failure to regulate the care sector?
Paul Burstow
I am entirely focused on ensuring, through the facilities and offices of the Government, that all the parties involved are clear about their responsibilities, which they are, and that they understand the reputational damage to them if they do not do what they must, which is to ensure a timely, thorough and effective restructuring of the business that secures the continuity of care for residents.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In opposing the proposed sell-off of care homes by Nottinghamshire county council, I have been warning the council for 18 months about the crisis in Southern Cross, but that is not the only big care home provider with problems. As Mimosa, another major provider in my constituency, is also now in crisis and threatening to throw people out of Forest Hill care home, is the Minister prepared to meet families from my constituency so that he is ahead of the game on the next occasion rather than behind it?
Mr Speaker
Order. I will of course ask the Minister to provide a brief reply, as I know he will be happy to do, but we must focus on the very specific question of Southern Cross. This is not a general debate, whatever the temptations experienced by the hon. Gentleman.
Paul Burstow
In the spirit in which the question was asked, if the hon. Gentleman were to write to me I would be only too happy to consider his request.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The residents of Brierfield House care home in Brierfield and Hulton care home in Nelson will welcome the Minister’s reassurance that no one will end up homeless as a result of this fiasco. Will he say more about how we will learn the broad lessons of this situation and ensure that something like this can never happen again?
Paul Burstow
As I have indicated, in the work that we are currently doing preparatory to producing a White Paper later this year, we are engaged with many stakeholders in discussing quality and regulation. We want to ensure that we are clear about the right questions to ask in framing policy, and that we then get the right policy to deliver a more sustainable, high-quality social care system for the future.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) made is the key one. The Minister has been very careful not to say what he should be saying, and I understand why—his officials will have told him not to. Will he pledge to the House that if there is a catastrophe of the kind we all want to avoid, every vulnerable person who should not be moved will be able to stay in their residential home? That is the pledge that we need to hear from him today. He needs to show some leadership as the Minister responsible.
Paul Burstow
The pledge that I can give to the House today is that all local authorities with Southern Cross care homes and responsibilities for residents whom they have placed there are clear about their statutory duties to guarantee and provide care, not just for state-funded residents, but for those who are self-funded. That is the clearest guarantee that I can offer—it is the essential guarantee of continuity of care.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents are unclear about what effective regulatory early warning system exists to detect financial weakness in care home providers. In the light of the Southern Cross experience, how can any such mechanism be improved?
Paul Burstow
A number of hon. Members have asked how we ensure that we improve the system. Indeed, one question that the Health and Social Care Bill rightly raises is the future role of Monitor in effective regulation of the social care sector. We are exploring that issue with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and we continue to discuss it with other stakeholders. That could well offer us a longer-term solution.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As the Minister says, the care sector is increasingly reliant on private sector providers. The sector includes not only people who run care homes, but care agencies. I suspect that they will be one of our next problems.
As a significant proportion of care home and care agency income comes from public funds, I believe that the Government and local authorities have both the right and the responsibility to assess the financial stability of providers, which they entrust with the care of very vulnerable people. Why has that not been done?
Paul Burstow
I should take this opportunity, because it has not been asked of me, to say that I have this week spoken to Ministers in the devolved Administrations. My officials maintain contact and dialogue with them. There are real concerns in Wales, where 17,000 residents in 54 care homes are affected.
The right hon. Lady is right that we need to look at wider issues in the sector. Of course, under the current legislative arrangements, the CQC has a duty to examine financial viability. We will look at that issue further.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Following the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), directors have very specific duties in the stewardship of a company. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary about referring this matter?
Paul Burstow
I have not had those discussions—the need has not arisen—but I can be clear that the company feels that the consequences of yesterday’s meetings are important in terms of its ability to carry out a restructuring that safeguards the interests of residents.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
My constituents ask me specifically whether their elderly and sometimes frail relatives face the prospect of moving. I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) raised that issue, but what reassurance are we to give to our constituents in that respect?
Paul Burstow
I have tried to give the House a number of reassurances on that point. I would add that there have been home closures over a number of years, from which we must learn lessons. One lesson is that we must minimise the possibility of closures and ensure that when they take place they are handled sensitively, slowly and carefully. That is why I welcome the work that the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services recently published—it sets out strong, clear, evidence-based guidance to assist local authorities in managing any closures in future.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have one Southern Cross home on Kesteven way in Hull and I am concerned about what the Minister said and the complacent attitude that the Department of Health is showing on the role of local authorities. Is there a co-ordinated plan for the whole country, bringing together all the local authority plans, so that we know that there is coverage for the whole country if the worst happens? I am not sure that there is.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
There is concern among Members on both sides of the House that 31,000 of the most vulnerable people in our country face having to move care home, with all the risks to their health that that involves. The Minister should not introduce a White Paper but sense the urgency of the matter. He should introduce regulations to ensure that the sector is more tightly regulated, and that such a situation does not happen again.
Paul Burstow
I understand the desire of all hon. Members for urgent action and a rapid resolution that secures the interests of residents, but I did not hear the hon. Lady suggest what those changes to regulation should be. When she cares to offer such suggestions, we can look at them.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances, but I am afraid that they ring a little hollow, because I was aware of a great many shortcomings in the level and quality of care in Southern Cross homes in Gateshead before its financial crisis became a matter of public record. It seems that the CQC is looking at homes on an individual basis, and that it is not drawing a national pattern of the rotten care ethos within the whole of that organisation. When will the Minister address this as a national problem?
Paul Burstow
I am doing that, and shall certainly make it my business to look up past correspondence from the hon. Gentleman raising those concerns, so that we ensure that they are properly addressed.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues, but may I remind them of the merits of brevity?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Residents in the six Southern Cross care homes in my constituency will be horrified by the Minister’s opening remarks. He said that this is a commercial problem to be dealt with by the commercial sector, which is absolutely outrageous and will frighten the wits out of each of those 31,000 residents. This is a society problem, and it should be dealt with by the Government. What small crumbs or words of comfort can he give to people in my constituency? When will we stop abusing elderly people and using them as marketplace commodities?
Paul Burstow
Two contributors to this debate have conflated two completely separate issues. Yes, the business is in serious financial stress—it is working its way through to being a viable business in future—but this is not about the abuse of older people in those homes. We should not conflate the two. It is unhelpful. We need to have a sensible debate and secure a sensible restructuring of the business.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I must tell the Minister that he is displaying a remarkable complacency in this crisis, which—like it or not—is his responsibility now. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be holding surgeries this weekend and meeting the families and loved ones of the vulnerable people who live in those care homes. He has failed to give any guarantee about their future and he has not convinced the House of what lessons he has learned in the short term. This weekend, who can we phone—who will be in the Department?—if there is a problem?
Paul Burstow
I made it clear in my statement that the Department has taken steps, working with landlords, Southern Cross and others, to ensure that each party is clear about its responsibilities, and clear on what actions they would take in the event of business closure. However, I also want to be clear that as we move forward, we need to ensure that we learn lessons from this in the context of regulation, and to ask how this was allowed to occur in the first place. Now is not the time for those questions. My focus, as the Minister, is ensuring a successful restructuring of the business, and ensuring that the business remains focused on the welfare of residents.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I am sorry to press the Minister again on this, but I think he recognises that changes to care, even when well planned, have a serious impact on the health of care home residents. Can he guarantee that if those commercial discussions fail, residents will continue to be cared for in their existing homes?
Paul Burstow
The Government have made it clear that in no circumstances will we allow the residents of any of those care homes to find themselves made homeless without good continuity of care. That is the pledge that we make.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
But is not the real question how the Minister will secure that guarantee? There is a real tension between care and commerce, and it seems to me that the restructuring could well affect certain areas disproportionately. We need briefings from the Care Quality Commission to ensure that Members in their constituencies can have feedback and reports on exactly how this matter is being dealt with.
Paul Burstow
I have already said that I take seriously the need to keep the House informed as we progress these matters. I am also clear that the paramount interest—the interest that the regulator has a statutory duty to enforce—is residents’ welfare. That is what we are doing, and what we will continue to do.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comment that every resident will be looked after. Will he further reassure residents of Baytree Court in my constituency that they will suffer no detriment as a result of this situation?
Paul Burstow
I can say that of course we need to make it absolutely clear to landlords and the company that their actions have consequences, and that their actions now must be focused on a speedy resolution to the restructuring of the business that ensures it can continue to employ good-quality staff and provide care for the 31,000 people who live in its homes.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I heard the Minister say that he had had discussions with the devolved Administrations. In his discussions with his Scottish counterparts, was he made aware of the very real concerns of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that should there be a catastrophic outcome, as he described it, they would not have the funding or resources to deal with the consequences? What is he going to offer to help in that respect?
Paul Burstow
That catastrophic outcome is by far the most unlikely of all the outcomes for Southern Cross. The most likely outcome is a successful restructuring with some of the business being moved to other operators that currently are the landlords of some of these homes. When I spoke to Nicola Sturgeon earlier this week, we discussed all the issues that concern her and me, and we agreed on the need to pursue the path of a consensual, solvent restructuring of the business as the best way of securing the welfare of the residents in those homes.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Eighty per cent. of Southern Cross’s income comes from the taxpayer, yet attempts seem to have been made to offshore as much of that money as possible. Age UK says that in the future all care home providers should have to demonstrate to the regulators that they have a solid business model. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the Minister seemed to imply that there had been no suggestions for how regulation could be strengthened. Will he seriously consider Age UK’s suggestion over the coming months?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful for that question because it allows me to make the point that Age UK was very welcoming of the Government’s proposition to look at Monitor’s role in the social care sector. We are in discussions with it and will continue to consider the idea.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I understand that the Department of Health was invited to yesterday’s meeting with Southern Cross. With 31,000 vulnerable people facing the possibility of losing their homes, why did no one from the Government attend?
Paul Burstow
The character of the meeting has changed significantly over the past couple of days. The meeting is now focused on reaching a clear agreement between the lenders, the landlord and Southern Cross. We wanted to ensure that they were focused on that, which is why no representatives of the Department of Health were at the meeting.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
All the contributions today have concentrated mainly on the rights and plight of residents, which is entirely understandable—I would not expect it to be any other way—but we should also think about the work force of Southern Cross. Just yesterday I was in touch with the local GMB organiser in Dundee, John Moist, who told me that at the homes in Dundee the work force are totally demoralised, which I think the Minister would agree is not the best atmosphere in which to provide care. Further to what was said earlier, will he consider setting up a helpline for MPs? Hon. Friends have talked about family members of residents coming to their surgeries this week; I have had employees at my surgeries, and it would help if I had someone to contact.
Paul Burstow
Just two days ago, I had a meeting with GMB officials to discuss their concerns about this and other issues in the social care sector. Of course we will consider the appropriate arrangements that might need to be put in place in the event of the scenarios that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
Academies (Funding)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on funding for the academy programme.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
The errors reported in the Financial Times today relate to mistakes made by local authorities in their returns to the Department for Education, which relies on local authorities to provide accurate information about their spending. Occasionally, individual local authorities make errors that can lead to academies getting too much, or indeed too little, funding. The system for funding academies, which was set up—I have to say—by the previous Government, is unclear, unwieldy and, in our view, unfair. It is no surprise, therefore, that some errors occur, which is why we are proposing changes to the school funding system to ensure that all schools and academies are fairly funded. We are proposing a system without the complexities that lead to these types of problems.
It is slightly odd for the right hon. Gentleman to ask these questions and attack us for the failings of a system created by the previous Labour Government, of which he was a member. We are the ones sorting it out, just as we are sorting out this country’s historic budget deficit. The question for him is: does he agree that we should raise the bar for secondary schools from 35% achieving five good GCSEs including English and maths, to 40% next year? Does he agree that we should further raise it to 50% by the end of this Parliament? Does he agree with our announcement today—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Opposition do not want to hear this. Does he agree with our announcement on extending the academies programme to underperforming primary schools, particularly the 200 worst-performing primary schools, many of which were in that state for a decade while his party was in government?
Andy Burnham
When will the Government learn that they cannot just bat away the question and always blame somebody else for the things that go wrong? Today’s Financial Times writes that the Department has given a large number of academies in England more money than they were entitled to. The news comes just days after the Secretary of State caved in to a legal claim from 23 councils that too much money was taken from their budgets to pay for academies. This raises a simple question: do the Secretary of State and the Minister have a grip on the budget?
But where is the Secretary of State? On a day when serious questions are being asked about whether the rapid expansion of his academy programme is backed up by a properly funded plan, only this Secretary of State could be in Birmingham announcing another major expansion of it. Why is he not here making that statement to the House of Commons? Should he not be here to reassure Members that he can proceed with his academies programme fairly and efficiently without penalising other schools in Members’ constituencies? Will the Minister tell the House how many schools have been overfunded, and what is the total amount paid in error? Will this money be clawed back from schools? It is not good enough for the Minister to stand there and blame everybody else. When will he take responsibility for the budget of his own Department? If it did not spot the mistake before the Financial Times reported it, why not? When will it put in place a proper accounting procedure?
Under threat of legal action, the Government have announced a U-turn on academy funding. Can the Minister set out the details and timetable for a review, and does he accept the need for urgency? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State repeatedly finds himself in these positions because he rushes ahead and fails to consult people on changes? We have been here before on school sport, education maintenance allowance and Building Schools for the Future. The only way people can make him listen to them is to launch a legal action. That is no way to run a Department. We hear that he will pay the councils’ legal costs. In the past year, he has spent more money on solicitors’ fees than Ryan Giggs and Fred Goodwin put together. How much has he spent on legal costs, and is this not a scandalous waste, when every penny is needed for children’s education?
The Secretary of State is today raising the floor targets for secondary schools and focusing the academy programme on struggling schools. These are Labour policies, and we are pleased at his dramatic conversion to them. We support raising standards in our schools; it is the standards of the Secretary of State we worry about. Perhaps the plan we needed to hear today was for poorly performing Departments to be taken over by successful ones. The only trouble is—there are no successful Departments. On the radio today, the Secretary of State tried pathetically to blame Labour for his latest blunder. Is it not time that he took responsibility for his own serial incompetence before people lose confidence in him altogether?
Mr Gibb
Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. First, the Secretary of State is in Birmingham today speaking to the National College for School Leadership, which is a very important part of our system of raising standards, and I am sure that his predecessors spoke every year to those conferences too. We are taking action to tackle the problems, although I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the problem highlighted by the Financial Times occurred every year under the last Labour Government. The difference between the former Government—his Government—and this one is that we are taking action to sort it out. That is why we announced a fundamental review of the school funding system. That review is already taking place, and we will be making further announcements and holding a further consultation on the details later this year.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant—which is about double funding, where central Government are funding both the local authority and the academy for the same central services. Again, that is something that occurred under the last Labour Government, and we are sorting it out. That is why the Department for Communities and Local Government top-sliced £148 million off the funding to local government—to deal with that double funding. We are now looking at the issue again, as a result of the action taken by the 23 local authorities, and sorting it out. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he supports us in our review of the funding system, so that we can create a simpler and clearer system that all can understand, and one that is similar for schools and academies. We want to achieve a per-pupil funding system that is fair and that all can understand, rather than the system over which his Government presided where schools in some local authorities received some £4,000 more per pupil than other schools with the same problems. Those are the problems that this Government are seeking to sort out, and I hope that he will support us in those plans.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is it not the case that this urgent question is a smokescreen for those who oppose academies, given that we have created more academies in 12 months than Labour created in 12 years? Is it not also the case that the last Government left 500,000 children illiterate, and that those who are creating obstacles to academies want to wallow in mediocrity rather than pursue excellence?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. It is not clear where the Opposition stand on, for example, free schools. Since the election, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said that he opposes the establishment of free schools. However, since the news broke that one of Tony Blair’s closest aides is setting up his own free school, the right hon. Gentleman has told journalists that he now supports free schools. Which is it: does he support our academies programme and the free schools programme, or would he close down those schools if he came to power?
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
When I published the original policy paper on academies 10 years ago, it was never intended that they should be overpaid and that local authorities should be underpaid for doing the job of supporting pupils. Can the Minister confirm that the 2.25% that has been withdrawn from school funding generally and the overspend on academies have denied other children the key services that they need to raise standards and give them the life chances that all of us should want for every child?
Mr Gibb
I think it is rich when former Education Secretaries attack us for this policy. We are talking about a system that this Government inherited from the previous Government, and we are trying to sort it out. We will look at every instance of underfunding or overfunding of academies on a case-by-case basis. We want to reach a position where all schools and academies in this country are funded through a fair, simple and transparent process.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
We can all accept that the problems that have occurred are the fault of the regime in place under the last Labour Government, but can the Minister give me an assurance that he will put in place a replacement formula, so that the next tranche of academies will not suffer from the same inconsistencies, and local authorities, which will continue to service other schools, will not experience a detrimental cut in their allowance?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues. That is precisely what we intend to introduce and what the current review of school funding is seeking to deliver. That review is taking place right now, and later in the year we hope to be able to announce a further consultation on the details of its outcome.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that he is in danger of alienating those of us on the Opposition Benches who believe in the academy model for underperforming schools and who welcome announcements that are made to this House? The question asked by Sarah Montague on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning has to be answered: does the incompetence that we are talking about this morning emanate from local authorities, as the Secretary of State said time and time again, or from the Department?
Mr Gibb
As the Secretary of State made clear, we are talking about an error in the figures reported by local authorities to the Department, and these errors happen every year. We are determined to simplify the system, because it is the complexity of that system which results in local authorities making those errors when they report the numbers. The only way to tackle the problem is to simplify the system, which is what the school funding review is charged with delivering.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this urgent question is an extraordinary own goal? Labour either knew about this structural, technical problem and did nothing about it, or else it had no idea. Which does the Minister think is worse: not knowing or ignoring?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which goes to how to handle opposition. That is why I asked the right hon. Member for Leigh the questions that I did. This is not about just jumping on the latest bandwagon of a Financial Times report; it is about working out where the Opposition stand on issues such as raising the bar on standards in secondary schools and how to tackle the 200 worst-performing primary schools.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Since the beginning of the year, at the request of parents in my constituency, I have been trying to find out the funding basis of the several free schools due to open there. I have with me correspondence from the Department giving every possible excuse for not giving that information—it even makes “The dog ate my homework” sound plausible. The last correspondence, from two months ago, concerned my appeal against the refusal under the Freedom of Information Act. I have had no response whatever from the Department, which is concealing the information either because it does not know it because it is incompetent, or because free schools are being treated in a preferential way. Will the Minister please now answer those questions?
Mr Gibb
Details of free schools will be published once they open, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see all that information once that free school opens. We are concerned about disclosing details of proposals for free schools where they have been turned down, because that can cause embarrassment to the individuals who have made those proposals, who will sometimes be teachers who have existing jobs. There are all kinds of reasons why we have to maintain confidentiality for those proposals, but all those details will be made available for any free school that opens.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement about simplifying the system. I hope that he agrees that it is only fair that students in free schools or academies should receive the same amount of funding as that provided to those in LEA schools.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a good point. That is how the system is supposed to work, and how it does work. Academies are funded on the same basis as maintained schools; however, they have more control over that element of funding which is currently spent by the local authority on those central services provided by the academy. That is all that is meant to happen with the funding system. It is the complexity arising from that system and the fact that local authorities are funded by both the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government that has led to problems. However, this is an issue that we are tackling and sorting out.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Even though the Secretary of State is in Birmingham, just in case he does not get a chance to talk to Councillor Les Lawrence, who recently complained bitterly on the front page of The Birmingham Post about significant hidden costs in the academies programme that leave local education authorities out of pocket, can the Minister address those concerns and say what the Secretary of State’s answer to Les Lawrence would be if he has the chance to talk to him today?
Mr Gibb
We have talked to Les Lawrence on many occasions. He raises an important point, which is that when the top-sliced funding for local authority central services is taken away from local authorities, there is an issue about how we allocate those savings across local authorities. That is the issue on which there has been correspondence with those local authorities. We are reviewing the position to ensure that we do not leave local authorities in a position from which they cannot fund the central services that they continue to provide to maintained schools, as well as those that they continue to provide to pupils attending academies.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that the Opposition do not like to listen to the success story that is the academies programme. Why does the Minister think that more than 1,200 schools have already applied for academy status?
Mr Gibb
Those schools are applying because of the autonomy and independence that academy status brings to them. My hon. Friend is right to cite the figure of 1,200. By now, 704 academies have opened, compared with 200 when this Government came into office. They are delivering a very high standard of education, and I hope that the Opposition will support not only our existing academy programme but our proposal to extend the programme to primary schools and, in particular, to the 218 worst performing primary schools.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I feel sorry for the Minister today, because he has clearly been sent here as the fall guy. Speaking as a parent and on behalf of the parents in my constituency, I should like to ask him a question. We have a Secretary of State who botched up the Building Schools for the Future programme, who had to do a U-turn on school sport partnerships and who cannot spot errors in the funding programmes of his own Department. Why should any parent have confidence in his running the education system when he cannot even run his own Department?
Mr Gibb
I know and like the hon. Lady; I have known her for many years. She is trying to create a theme here, but there is no theme. The problem that was reported in the Financial Times today occurs every year. It arises from the complexity of the funding system, which we are trying to simplify. It is as simple as that, and we will sort it out.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on moving the focus on to the 200 worst-performing primary schools. Does he agree with Nick Pearce, the head of the Institute for Public Policy Research and Tony Blair’s former policy adviser, that this is something that the previous Government did not focus on enough?
Mr Gibb
Yes, I do. When we were in opposition, we proposed extending academy status to primary schools. The schools Minister at the time thought it was an appalling idea. However, we have to do something about the 200 underperforming primary schools. Indeed, we have to do something about all the underperforming primary schools, because primary school is where children learn the basics of reading and arithmetic. If we do not get it right in those early years, the life chances of all those thousands of children attending those underperforming schools could be blighted. We intend to sort those schools out.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has made it plain that if schools do not buy a raffle ticket by going for academy status, they will not be able to get involved in the raffle to get capital out of the future school funding. He has already admitted to the House that 100 staff in his Department are engaged in the expansion of the free schools programme. How many staff are engaged in this botched expansion of the academies programme, and how much is that costing the Department?
Mr Gibb
This is an important part of raising standards in our school system; indeed, it is a crucial element. When 9% of boys leave primary school with a reading age of seven or under—they are basically unable to read—it cannot be said that applying staff in the Department to deliver the academies programme is a waste of taxpayers’ money. This is good money that is being diverted to a programme designed to raise standards in our least-performing schools, and I think that it is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary for the Opposition to quibble about accounting errors? Is this not a smokescreen to distract attention from Tony Blair’s comments during the past two weeks supporting this Government’s policies on academies and primary schools?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a point that I was too sensitive to raise with the Opposition spokesman—namely, that our policies were endorsed in The Sun yesterday by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Furthermore, the former schools Minister, Lord Adonis, voted for our Academies Bill in the other place, supporting our expansion of the academies programme. I wish that the official Opposition would now support it too.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Is the Minister familiar with the maxim that a Minister can delegate power but not responsibility? Why does he not just say sorry to parents and pupils?
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
In Great Yarmouth, we have seen the benefit and freedom resulting from the transformation of schools such as the Ormiston academy. Does the Minister agree that it is that freedom and the potential for transformation that are encouraging at least one in three secondary schools to apply for academy status?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Turning underperforming schools into academies in Bristol was, for the most part, a great success. Free schools, however, are not needed and, for the most part, not wanted there. When are the Government going to get their priorities right, get a grip on their finances and help Bristol to address the real problem that it is facing at the moment—namely, the chronic under-provision of primary school places?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Lady seems to be contradicting herself. There is a shortage of primary school places, yet she says that there is no need for the free school programme, which could be used to create more school places. We want not only more school places but more high-quality school places, and that is what the free school programme, in particular, is designed to achieve.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
The Dukeries college in Ollerton and the Joseph Whitaker school in Rainworth are just two of the large number of schools that are applying for academy status. Is not the fact that the numbers have reached such a high level a ringing endorsement of the Minister’s policy?
Mr Gibb
Yes, and it demonstrates that the teaching profession values that autonomy and the trust that the Government are putting in them. That is in enormous contrast to the top-down, prescriptive approach taken by the previous Government. That is why I believe that our system will work. In contrast, Labour did not manage to achieve a significant rise in standards in the schools system during its 13 years in office.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House how many times the previous Labour Government were taken to court over their education policies?
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Financial and accounting errors are a serious matter, and it is not surprising that the shadow Secretary of State for Education has raised the issue, given his direct experience of the catastrophic financial and accounting errors under the last Government. Does the Minister not agree that, on a day when this Government have thrown a lifeline to children trapped in underperforming primary schools, it is odd that Labour has once again turned its back on those children?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State has announced that we are taking urgent action to convert the 200 least-performing primary schools in this country to academy status, transforming those schools and giving the youngsters who attend them a significantly better start to their education, and I would have thought that that should be the issue to be raised today.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Given the Department’s serial bungling, can the Minister tell us how much it has spent on defending legal challenges in the past year?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Three of the 704 new academies are in my constituency. We are seeing an education revolution, so why are we not discussing that and the success of our schools, rather than accounting errors that are a car crash left by the previous Government?
Mr Speaker
Order. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry is that we are discussing this matter because an urgent question application was submitted to me and granted by me. No further discussion of that point is required.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Is it not the case that this urgent question has certainly underlined the need for a full investigation and inquiry into the discredited system that the last Government used for the funding of schools, which was unfair and inefficient? Is it not ironic that this issue has been raised when schools want more autonomy from such systems? Is it not also the case that we should support—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is enough. The hon. Gentleman has had a good outing and I am sure he has enjoyed it.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and asked a good question. Many local authorities have been raising this issue for many years; they campaigned on it and lobbied the previous Government about the unfairness of the school funding system. That is what we are determined to sort out with the school funding review.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I visited Foxwood special school in my constituency on Friday and learned how keen it is to obtain academy status. Will the Minister help Foxwood and other special schools by encouraging them to apply for that status, and will he particularly assist Foxwood school?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the changes proposed in the Education Bill is to allow academy status to apply to special schools as well. I would be very happy to help my hon. Friend; if she and the head teacher of that particular special school would like a meeting in the Department to discuss academy status, I would be delighted to arrange it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The new academies in Kettering are hugely welcomed by local residents. Can the Minister confirm that the proportion of education funding that goes into teaching pupils will go up under this Government, with a lesser proportion being spent on bureaucracy in local town halls and in his Department?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point about bureaucracy in the education system. We are devoting a huge amount of resources within the Department to clamping down on bureaucracy and removing bureaucratic burdens on schools. It is a large amount of work; it involves rewriting reams of guidance. The guidance on bullying runs to something like 400 or 500 pages, and I think it is rarely read in schools. We are streamlining it and slimming it down to about 25 pages, and we are doing the same thing with all the guidance so that it becomes efficient, quick to read and of high quality. Schools will then be able to use it without having to read through reams of lever arch files emanating from the Department. We are putting a stop to that.
Business of the House
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 20 June—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 21 June—A motion relating to the partial recommittal of the Health and Social Care Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Scotland Bill.
Wednesday 22 June—Opposition Day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 23 June—A motion relating to review of congenital cardiac services for children followed by a motion relating to wild animals in circuses. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 June will include:
Monday 27 June—A debate on House of Lords reform.
Tuesday 28 June—Opposition Day [19th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply.
The whole House will have welcomed this week’s successful meeting of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, which showed why the last Government were right to prioritise the vaccination of children from a rising aid budget and why this Government are right to continue to show leadership to save children’s lives.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the current Session will end in March next year, with a Queen’s Speech before the end of that month so that it is all done before the Easter recess and pre-election purdah?
On the Health and Social Care Bill recommittal motion, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be debatable and tell us for how long? The House must have the opportunity to discuss how the Bill will be scrutinised because the Health Secretary has said that only the relevant parts of the Bill will be recommitted. That is completely unacceptable, and it will make life only more difficult for the Government in the other place where, as we know, they already have problems with time. In the case of the last two Bills to be recommitted, the whole of the Bill was sent back. When are we going to see the draft amendments? How many clauses are going to be changed? What about the knock-on effects on other clauses? The reason why the Bill is in chaos is that the Government really messed it up first time round. That is why trust is in very short supply, making it essential that, this time round, the House and all those who care about the health service have the time and scope they need to look again at the Bill in detail.
As well as reconsidering the Health and Social Care Bill, can we also have a debate on why the Prime Minister got this so catastrophically wrong in the first place, with staff being sacked and then re-hired at great expense? As we saw yesterday—and it was really rather embarrassing—the Prime Minister does not do his homework and he does not even know what is in his own legislation. While no one wants to take responsibility for the mess, everyone is trying to claim credit for the changes. The Lib Dems think they have saved the NHS from the Tories, which has irritated those on the Conservative Benches, while the Prime Minister thinks he has saved the NHS from his Health Secretary, who is no doubt pretty cross, too. However, the people who really count, the public, think what we have known for a very long time—that you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.
Following the comments of the First Sea Lord this week about the effects of the Libya campaign on the Royal Navy and bearing in mind that we could have saved both time and money if we still had our Ark Royal and its Harriers, when are we going to have a statement from the Defence Secretary about looking again at the strategic defence and security review? The review has proved incapable of surviving contact with real events, and it has left this country in the extraordinary position of being an island nation that cannot put an aircraft carrier to sea.
Having heard the Government’s pathetic excuses for refusing to bring in a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, during the course of which the House was told, wrongly, that this was because of a non-existent legal case, has the Leader of the House had any indication from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers that they plan to make a statement dumping the policy before next Thursday’s debate? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman join my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Colchester (Bob Russell), me and many other Members in voting to do the right thing?
Finally, can we have a debate on weekly rubbish collections? Although it was the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who answered Tuesday’s urgent question, we really want to hear from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as we all know that this was his pet project and his great cause, so he must be very disappointed. Brimful of nostalgia for the clink of glasses of warm beer, the thwack of willow on leather and the clang of weekly bin collections, he had proclaimed that having the rubbish taken away every seven days was
“a basic right for every Englishman and woman”—
Shami Chakrabarti and Liberty, please note. Jumping heroically on a passing bin-wagon, the Communities Secretary pledged to bring back weekly collections. In fact, he has been defeated by his own Conservative councillors who, after all, have introduced more alternate weekly collections than anyone else—Conservatives like Andrew Nunn, an environment cabinet member in Suffolk, who said bluntly:
“Eric Pickles should spend less time reading the newspapers. He’s got it wrong.”
I agree, but with one exception. After all the policies that the Government have had to throw away in the last few weeks, there is one address that desperately needs to keep a weekly collection of rubbish—No. 10 Downing street, where there is even enough room for a bin lorry to do a U-turn.
Sir George Young
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response. The House will note that his performances at business questions are attracting the attention of powerful friends. Last Friday, he was praised by the Daily Mail, which announced:
“Hilary Benn for Labour leader. The campaign starts here”.
After that intoxicating but unlikely endorsement, I looked up the odds on the right hon. Gentleman becoming the next Labour leader. I was disappointed to see him some way behind the pack at 33:1, but if I were a betting man, I would say it was worth a pony on the shadow Leader of the House.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the conference on Monday. He will have noted the extra £800 million that the Government have invested in vaccination, and he will have heard the Secretary of State’s statement on Wednesday about our overall policy on aid.
The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the press. The end of the Session will depend on the progress that we make with legislation. I remind him that the then Government were not telling us 10 months before March last year—in 2009—when that Session would end. According to my recollection, we did not know when it would end until March, when the Government hit the buffers.
The motion to recommit the Health and Social Care Bill would normally have been taken forthwith under the Standing Orders. We propose to make time available for the Bill to be debated, and to recommit the parts that were amended by the Government in their recent statement.
Sir George Young
I mean the parts that we propose to amend. The recommittal motion will be tabled in good time for the House to debate it on Tuesday.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the Bill, I hope that he read what Lord Darzi said about our policy. He said:
“I certainly don’t see it as a U-turn. I see it as a continuum of reform that the health service has witnessed for the last decade under Labour and it’s moving on into the next decade very much based on the changes in the demand on the health service.”
I hope that that view will be reiterated by Opposition spokesmen as the Bill proceeds through its remaining stages.
The Prime Minister dealt with the First Sea Lord’s comments yesterday when he referred to the statement by the Chief of the Defence Staff that we had the resources to continue the exercise in Libya for as long as it took. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his party in government deferred the conducting of a strategic defence and security review for a long time. We have conducted one, and we have no plans to revisit it.
I announced that there would be a debate on circus animals next Thursday, in Government time, and the Government will make their position clear during that debate. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is yet another issue on which his party in government failed to take any action, leaving us to sort it out.
I was slightly surprised when the right hon. Gentleman raised the subject of bin collection. I remember his rather humiliating U-turn on waste only two years ago when, as Environment Secretary, he had to back down on his own proposals. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are backing local authorities that want to increase the frequency and improve the quality of their bin collections, and we have abandoned Labour’s guidance to the Audit Commission which penalised local authorities that carried out weekly collections.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When can we expect a statement and a debate on sentencing? According to new assault guidelines, an assault on a police officer which involves a punch to the stomach that winds a police officer, when the criminal attempts to evade arrest and has previous convictions for public order offences, can now be punished with only a fine. That kind of soft, lily-livered approach to sentencing is driving my constituents mad, and it is time that the Government got a grip on the issue once and for all.
Sir George Young
I have some good news for my hon. Friend. The Government will shortly be introducing a legal aid and sentencing Bill, which will give him an opportunity to share his views with the House at greater length.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent statement enabling the Business Secretary to explain to the House why the Government are refusing to sign a United Nations convention that protects the rights of domestic workers? On the day of the announcement to that effect, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was supporting an inquiry into modern-day slavery. It is about time that the Government got their act together.
Sir George Young
Questions to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will take place on 14 July, but in the meantime I will draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the hon. Gentleman’s question and ask him to reply to it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport explaining this morning’s decision to award the contract for Thameslink trains to Siemens, which will manufacture them in Germany, rather than to Bombardier, which would have manufactured them in Derby? I think that the whole House would like to understand how we reached the position of having to export those jobs to Germany.
Sir George Young
I believe I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport issued a written ministerial statement today on two subjects, one of which was the award of that contract. Next Thursday, when my right hon. Friend responds to oral questions at the Dispatch Box, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to press him, or more likely her—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)—on the reasons for a particular decision to award the contract to a particular company.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier today, during questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the future of Supporters Direct was raised. Since its creation 11 years ago, that organisation has been at the forefront of community involvement in football clubs, but its future is very much in doubt following the decision to rescind funding from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund. I believe that, whether one is a supporter of co-operatives, a supporter of the big society or just a football supporter, the excellent work done by Supporters Direct cannot be lost.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has applied for a Westminster Hall debate on the subject. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a football-supporting man, but I wonder if he will support my hon. Friend’s request.
Sir George Young
He is. He has supported Queen’s Park Rangers for a very long time, and welcomes its recent promotion.
I understand that during the exchange at Question Time, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) was very supportive indeed of the hon. Gentleman’s proposition. I hope that it will be pursued further in Westminster Hall, and I will ask my hon. Friend whether he can add to what he said earlier.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Many of my constituents have contacted me because they are concerned about the disruptive effect that industrial action by teachers will have on their children’s education. May we have a debate on that important issue?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, which I am sure is shared by many Members on both sides of the House. I think it regrettable that two teachers’ unions have decided to take industrial action at a time when the Government are still negotiating with them about the future of pensions. That will be bad news for the children, and bad news for parents who go out to work.
Responsibility for contingency planning rests with individual employers, and at this stage the Government have no plans to change the legislation, but I will bring my hon. Friend’s concern to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education, and will see whether there is any further action that he can take.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In his Mansion House speech last night, as well as pre-empting the final report of the Independent Commission on Banking, the Chancellor announced the sale of Northern Rock to the highest bidder. I do not know whether that will be considered in the statement that will follow business questions, but, if not, may I urge the Leader of the House to arrange a debate, or indeed a statement, on the issue? That would enable the House to be told why, in this instance, the Government have chosen not to implement the pledge in the coalition agreement
“to foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.”
Sir George Young
Let me respond to the direct question posed by the hon. Gentleman by saying that whether a question about Northern Rock would be in order in the statement that is to follow would be a matter for you, Mr Speaker. I see that you are reflecting on it as we speak.
It has always been the Government’s policy to return Northern Rock to the private sector, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday evening.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games appears to believe that the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 prevents other people from even mentioning next year as a date. It says that the term “2012” is now widely used in the United Kingdom as a reference to the games. My constituent Julie Benson, founder of the Great Exhibition Company, is being threatened by that. She said that her exhibition next year
“will promote the best of Great Britain to the rest of the world —it’s not about a sporting event in London.'”
Can the Leader of the House reassure me—and Julie Benson, and printers of diaries and calendars everywhere—that the Act does not confer on LOCOG exclusive rights to any number or date, and that Members will not have to rely on the privileges of their membership of the House to talk about the date next year?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the ingenuity of the Leader of the House is such that he will fashion a way to relate his answer to the business of next week.
Sir George Young
Or, indeed, next year.
I endorse my hon. Friend’s general proposition: that there is no monopoly on 2012, and we are at liberty to refer to it. However, I would hesitate before engaging in what appears to be a legal dispute between two companies, as I believe that would be better sorted out by the courts than by Ministers.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the fiduciary responsibility of members of boards of directors? Both UK and United States law makes it clear that directors are bound to
“exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence”
in ensuring companies act lawfully, yet this clearly has not happened in relation to News Corporation, the owner of the News of the World, where criminality has gone on extensively. That now leaves people such as José Maria Aznar, Andrew Knight, Kenneth Cowley, Rod Eddington, Thomas Perkins and Stanley Shuman in real legal peril.
Sir George Young
I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just asserted that somebody had acted unlawfully. If that is the case, it is a matter for the police.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
May we have a debate on the ownership and effectiveness of local and regional newspapers—including mine, The Enfield Advertiser and the Enfield Independent—since many editors throughout the country feel they are unable to scrutinise local public bodies? While it is not our role to run newspapers, I believe that, given the pressures on the industry, we should debate the implications of this serious matter.
Sir George Young
I would welcome a debate in Westminster Hall, or initiated by the Backbench Business Committee, on the health of local newspapers, in which we all have an interest. My hon. Friend’s question did not make it clear why they were impeded from reporting on certain matters, but if he writes to me, I will see what I can do, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May we have an early debate on nannies? I think the Leader of the House is now beyond the nanny-using stage of his life, but for many of us he is a kind of generous nanny within the House. However, as I speak, in Geneva, British representatives, instructed by the Prime Minister, are seeking to vote against a vital International Labour Organisation convention to protect domestic workers, and we are the only democracy so to do. This is not a matter for Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions; it goes to the heart of this Government and, as with the EU trafficking directive, their contempt for international conventions to protect the most weak and vulnerable in our nation.
Sir George Young
We did, of course, sign up to the EU trafficking convention. I think the right hon. Gentleman’s question is the same as that asked a few moments ago by his party colleague, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in answer to which I undertook to raise the concerns with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, who has responsibility for these matters, and then to communicate that answer to the hon. Gentleman. I will send that response to the right hon. Gentleman as well.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend support me in getting Ministers to answer questions on the dreadful treatment of my constituent, Julie Roberts? She has worked for Royal Mail for 21 years in the villages of Seisdon and Trysull. She recently had her mail van stolen. She immediately jumped on to its bonnet and held on for a mile while the thief tried to make a getaway. She was able to get the van stopped, and regain control of the vehicle. How does Royal Mail treat this lady? It suspends her, and she is under threat of losing her job. People in South Staffordshire want her back in work and Royal Mail to show some common sense and common decency.
Mr Speaker
I am unsure whether that is a request for a statement or a debate.
Sir George Young
Julie sounds like a courageous lady who was doing her best to defend Royal Mail property, and I will certainly draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Royal Mail chairman, and make sure this lady is recognised, if appropriate, rather than penalised.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It used to be the case that after the G8 summit the Prime Minister would make an oral statement to the House, which would allow us to question him on what he had done on the nation’s behalf, but we appear not to be having such a statement this year. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we reinstate this practice in future years, and not just for the G8 summit coming up shortly in the year that cannot be mentioned, but for other events such as the G20 summit, so we can properly hold the Government to account on what they do on our behalf in the international arena?
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made more statements from the Dispatch Box than his predecessor and has reported after most major conferences, and he is more than happy to hold himself to account. I will make some inquiries, including about the particular point the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but my right hon. Friend is certainly more than prepared to come to the House and answer questions after major international conferences.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a statement on the continuing debt crisis in the eurozone and its effect on our International Monetary Fund contributions?
Sir George Young
I think my hon. Friend might be referring to a wholly misleading article that appeared in The Sun this morning. A resolution referring to our contribution to the IMF is before the House, and it will go upstairs to a Committee. The move to increase the IMF’s resources was first agreed by the G20 in April 2009, which was before any eurozone support, and I am sure the proposition will receive the attention it deserves from the House.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Further to today’s written statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saying that the Government will extend buying standards for food and catering across Whitehall, may we have a debate on such regulation? We need a national framework that applies to all public sector bodies, and it is wrong for hospitals to be excluded, particularly when we have made so much progress in the fish campaign.
Sir George Young
I commend the campaign. The next DEFRA questions will take place a fortnight from today, but in the meantime I will see if I can get an answer to the hon. Lady’s point.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Community groups play a vital role in helping to regenerate town centres and in attracting people to them by holding events such as the Barnaby festival, which will take place this weekend, and to which all Members are welcome. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the important role community groups play in the regeneration of town centres, and will he join me in wishing the Barnaby festival every success this weekend?
Sir George Young
I am sorry that I cannot attend the Barnaby festival, but I am sure my hon. Friend will be present. This is an example of the big society in action. It is an opportunity for the community to come together and celebrate its history, and to promote Barnaby. I hope that the Barnaby festival will create opportunities for further regeneration and renewal, and I wish it every success this weekend.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On recommittal of the Health and Social Care Bill, why should not all Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members of any party have as much opportunity as the Government to table amendments, and to any part of the Bill they choose?
Sir George Young
They will have exactly that opportunity when the Bill reaches its Report stage; any Member will be able to seek to amend any part of the Bill when it comes back to the House on Report.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Saturday marks the 196th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on what plans are in place to mark the day when Britain, led by a future Conservative Prime Minister, defeated the French and ended their domination of Europe—and is there any likelihood of history repeating itself?
Sir George Young
One of my ancestors, Admiral Sir George Young, was a contemporary of Nelson, so I have a particular interest in my hon. Friend’s question. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in order to find out whether there are any proposals to commemorate this important anniversary.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for a debate on the proposed sale of Northern Rock? I understand that the Treasury has this morning told reporters that retention of the Northern Rock Foundation, which does important big society work in the north-east of England, will not be a condition of the sale, which is a great concern to many of my constituents, and to people across the north-east of England.
Sir George Young
I have had a very quick conversation with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is sitting beside me, and I understand that he has the answer to the questions the hon. Gentleman has just posed somewhere in his red folder.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Later this afternoon, a plaque is being unveiled at the excellent Brentham club in Ealing to commemorate Fred Perry, who started his tennis career there. Does the Leader of the House agree that we want more of our young tennis players to get into the top rankings and that it might be helpful to spend some time in a debate working out how we can help to achieve that?
Sir George Young
I have happy memories of the Brentham club, which used to be in my Ealing constituency, and I am delighted to hear of the event commemorating Fred Perry. I also have happy memories of the Ealing lawn tennis club, which I hope is also surviving. I would welcome a debate on sport and how we might do more to encourage young people, not only in tennis, but in other activities. I very much hope that 2012—I hope I may mention that date without getting into serious trouble—will provide an opportunity to raise the profile of sport and encourage more young people to get involved.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the decision that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) took this week to increase the Humber bridge toll to £3 per car per crossing, which is now the most expensive in Britain? The decision was taken without waiting for the Treasury’s review on bridge tolls. Such a debate would allow us to discuss what this will mean for the regeneration of the Humber bridge area.
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady will know that in a week’s time that Minister will be at this Dispatch Box, ready, willing and able to answer questions about the Humber bridge toll.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
May we have a debate about unemployment and jobs growth? Yesterday’s jobs figures showed a substantial increase in private sector jobs growth in the last quarter, which is of vital importance to my constituency, as it needs to get more, sustainable private sector jobs.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend reminds the House of the very encouraging set of figures we saw yesterday, which showed that there were an extra 500,000 jobs in the private sector, more than counterbalancing any decline in the number of public sector jobs. Particularly good news was the decline in youth unemployment—that is now at a lower level than we inherited from the outgoing Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that the demand for Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall regularly outstrips supply, could we have sittings in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoons and Thursday mornings?
Sir George Young
That is an ingenious suggestion. As my hon. Friend will know, the Procedure Committee is examining the calendar. His proposition would certainly be within the terms of reference and I am sure that he has given evidence along those lines.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Chancellor has talked about the need for a cultural change in banking regulation, given the failed system that was set up and led by the previous Administration. What plans does the Leader of the House have to allow a full debate on these issues, given that a White Paper has been published?
Sir George Young
That debate will be initiated in a few moments’ time by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who will make a statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is right to say that we need to reform the financial services regime, which manifestly failed, if the City is to continue to be a centre of wealth, enterprise and encouraging employment. I hope that he will remain in his place for a few minutes longer, so that he can get a more authoritative reply from the Financial Secretary.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As this is carers week, may we have a debate on the support for carers? I understand that the chief executive of Carers UK has welcomed the fact that the carer’s allowance will remain non-means-tested outside the universal credit. In that debate, we could discuss the extensive additional support that the Government are putting into respite care for carers.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that this is carers week. Tomorrow, I will be at the Princess Royal Trust for Carers’ Andover branch, praising those carers, who save this country a huge sum. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we have found additional resources for respite care for parents of disabled children and also for others via the NHS. We have also ring-fenced the carer’s allowance, so that it is not subsumed within universal credit.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on harsh practice by the Royal Bank of Scotland? Louisa Allen is the latest of my constituents to be treated very toughly by RBS, which is risking an unnecessary court case and threatening her with bankruptcy even though she has the funds to pay for a reasonable settlement. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the chairman of RBS to see what can be done?
Sir George Young
I will certainly convey what my hon. Friend has just said to the chairman of RBS. My hon. Friend will know that under Project Merlin a clear commitment was given to increase bank lending. Although the banks are on target to hit the overall figure of some £190 billion, they are falling a bit behind on the small and medium-sized enterprises side of things. We made it clear that we reserve the right to return to the issue and take further measures should that be necessary. Not only will I pursue the matter with RBS, but the Financial Secretary has heard the question.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on energy policy and the performance of the regulator? Like my constituents, I am fed up to the back teeth of a situation where the retail price of gas increases when the wholesale price does, but never comes down when the wholesale price drops. We clearly need urgent action on this because it is combating our work on our inflation targets.
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern that retail prices go up faster than they come down. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to question Ministers from the Department of Energy and Climate Change on 7 July, so this question can be raised then. I know that this is concerning many hon. Members as we read about fuel prices increasing. We have introduced a number of measures to help, including the green deal, which is going through the House.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
The community of Ollerton has for a number of years been seeking to redevelop its former miners’ welfare building. The project is being held up by the siting of a communications mast, which is the property of a company called Cornerstone, a subsidiary of Vodafone. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to discuss the power of communications companies to hold communities to ransom over projects such as this?
Sir George Young
I would be misleading my hon. Friend if I said that I could find time for such a debate, but it does sound to be a worthwhile subject for an Adjournment debate. I am sure that other Members of Parliament have similar concerns to those that he has outlined. I will draw his concerns to the attention of the Minister with responsibility for planning and Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the progress being made by the Government on the essential rebalancing of, and restoring of health to, our economy? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers have time in that debate to address the warnings issued last night by the Governor of the Bank of England that changing the mix of tight fiscal and loose monetary policy would “make little sense”?
Sir George Young
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said and, indeed, what the Governor of the Bank of England said last night, which makes it all the more extraordinary that we heard a speech this morning demanding yet further tax cuts that are wholly underfunded.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on the Independent Commission on Banking report and the specific proposal for more competition in the retail banking sector, so that healthy competition can be a powerful defender of the interest of consumers?
Sir George Young
As I said to one of my colleagues a few moments ago, there will be an opportunity after the Financial Secretary has made a statement for questions about our proposals to maintain the City of London as a thriving centre of enterprise that concentrates on serving its customers. There will be an opportunity to question the Financial Secretary on the ICB’s proposals.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on trade union reform laws, in order to give this House a chance to discuss the appalling way in which unions such as the Public and Commercial Services Union are threatening this country with strike action? That is happening even though that union had a turnout of only just over 32% in its ballot.
Sir George Young
Indeed, under 20% of that union’s members actually voted for industrial action. So far, we have had a good record on days lost through industrial action—the level has been one of the lowest. As of now, we have no plans to reform trade union legislation, but if we see a wave of irresponsible strikes, we would want to re-examine this again very carefully.
Regulatory and Banking Reform
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
It is now well known that the tripartite system set up by the last Government failed spectacularly in its mission to maintain stability. The decision to divide responsibility for assessing systemic financial risks between three institutions meant that, in reality, no one took responsibility. The crisis dramatically exposed that flaw and cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money. We cannot allow another crisis such as the one we have just witnessed. Shortly after taking office, this Government set in train a consultation on reforming our system of financial regulation. Today, after two extensive rounds of consultation, I am presenting to the House a White Paper, including draft legislation, setting out the blueprint for a completely new system of regulation. Let me summarise the main proposals.
A permanent Financial Policy Committee will be established within the Bank of England. Its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, to identify bubbles as they develop, to spot dangerous inter-connections and to stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. It has already started operating on an interim basis and is having its first formal meeting today. Subject to legislative process, the permanent body will be in place by the end of next year.
We will abolish the Financial Services Authority in its current form and transfer its significant prudential functions to a new Prudential Regulatory Authority that will sit in the Bank of England. The Prudential Regulatory Authority will focus on microprudential regulation and will bring judgment to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms that manage risk on their balance sheet, particularly banks and insurance companies. We recognise, of course, that such firms engage in very different businesses, which is why we are proposing to provide the PRA with a specific statutory objective for its insurance responsibilities.
We are also bringing in a new approach to protecting consumers. A financial conduct authority will oversee the conduct of financial services firms, the operation of markets and the protection of consumers, with new powers to ban the sale of toxic products. I can confirm that as an integral part of its mission to secure better outcomes for consumers and investors, the authority will also have a new duty to promote competition. Judgment, discretion and proactive intervention will be the hallmark of our new regulators.
We are bringing forward the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, for which a Joint Committee of both Houses will shortly be convened. We are seeking valuable input from Members on both sides of the House as it is in all our interests to get this right.
Last week, we also established under Sir John Vickers an Independent Commission on Banking to resolve the debate about the structure of the banking sector in the UK. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Sir John and his fellow commissioners for the excellent job they are doing. The commission’s interim report made two particularly important proposals: bail-in, not bail-out, so that private investors, not taxpayers, bear the losses when things go wrong; and a ring fence around better capitalised high street banks to make them safer and protect their vital services to the economy if things go wrong. I can confirm that the Government agree in principle with both proposals.
Of course, we will await the commission’s final report, but I can tell the House that any reforms will need to meet the following principles: all banks should be allowed to fail safely without affecting vital banking services, without imposing costs on the taxpayer, through reforms that are applicable across our whole banking industry and in a manner consistent with EU and international law. I can also confirm today that we welcome the commission’s recommendations on increasing competition in retail banking and we are working closely with it to achieve this aim.
We are also taking the first steps towards normalising the Government’s involvement in the financial sector. One legacy of the crisis is that today’s taxpayers have a direct interest in several banks through large-scale guarantees and shareholdings. We do not believe the Government should be a long-term investor in financial institutions. It will take some time—possibly several years—before we can make a complete exit from our investments in the banks, but today I can confirm the start of that process.
On the advice of UK Financial Investments, we have decided to launch a sale process for Northern Rock. This follows extensive work over the past three months to consider potential options for returning Northern Rock to the private sector while generating the best possible taxpayer value. The sale process will be open and transparent and in line with state aid rules. I have already written to the chair of the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), to reassure him that any interested parties can bid for it, including mutuals. This reaffirms the Government’s commitment actively to promote the mutuals sector. That does not mean that other options to return Northern Rock to the private sector have been ruled out, but I believe that at this point in time a sale process is the most promising.
I also want to make the House aware that following an application by the Bank of England to the High Court today, Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company Ltd, a very small bank, has been placed into the bank insolvency procedure. That follows a decision by the FSA that Southsea no longer satisfied its threshold conditions for operating as a deposit taker. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has been triggered and eligible depositors with balances up to the limit of £85,000 are safeguarded. Eligible depositors with amounts in excess of the insured limit of £85,000 may be entitled to receive a share of their savings above this limit as part of the insolvency process.
Finally, I want to update the House on the ongoing negotiations on international financial regulation. When I was in Brussels yesterday, my message was clear. We must learn the lessons of the crisis and create the foundations for stable and sustainable economic growth without fragmenting global markets. That is why global standards are in our national interest. Much of the debate has focused on the implementation of Basel III and we have been busy making the case for implementing it in full right around the world, including here in Europe. Last week’s International Monetary Fund assessment supported our arguments for minimum standards here in the EU, with discretion for national authorities to increase them where necessary.
When the coalition Government came into office, questions were being asked about the future of banking and regulation but they had not been answered. It has been our job to resolve them. Our goal should be a new settlement between our financial system and the British people; a new settlement where the banks support the people, instead of the people bailing out the banks. The statement today sets out the progress we have made towards building this new settlement and the actions we are taking to complete it and I commend the statement to the House.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
What utter contempt the Government are showing to Parliament by announcing these major proposals first to the bankers in the City yesterday and only today to elected representatives. Time and time again, Ministers give policy speeches outside this place and the House of Commons is merely an afterthought. Why is the Chancellor not here to make these announcements today?
That total disregard for the democratic process is reflected in the draft legislation, which hands vast new powers over the lives of all our constituents to the unelected Bank of England and leaves a gaping accountability deficit, with no mention of parliamentary accountability in all its 408 pages. Why are Ministers still so sketchy about the detail of these new powers for the Bank of England, with nothing on the face of the Bill, and is it true that there may be no further clarity on the toolkit for the Financial Policy Committee until next year?
Why is there still no clarity about the crisis management memorandum? Why have the Government not yet published the consolidated Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 draft for Parliament to see? Why is there no clarity about where consumer credit regulation will fit into this alphabet spaghetti of new quangos? Why are they still fumbling around with the composition of the Financial Policy Committee? Why have they failed to negotiate the flexibility needed from the European Union and the European banking regulators to ensure that all these new UK structures are allowed discretion to use the macro-prudential tools in the first place?
There will be significant concern, especially in the Portsmouth area, about the news on the Southsea mortgage bank—Southsea is perhaps a name that resonates in other ways—but we will need to watch developments closely.
Although there are clear inadequacies in the proposals published today, we will consider them carefully, and there are areas where we agree with the Government. The Chancellor is right that this was not a financial crisis made in Britain. It was caused by a failure in the banking industry in every major financial centre and a global failure in banking regulation. Families and businesses worldwide have paid a heavy price for the irresponsible actions of the banks, but Governments and regulators failed to see this coming and we in the Opposition must accept our part in that. Thankfully, however, we ignored the advice of the Chancellor, who called for lighter regulation and opposed the previous Labour Government’s decisions to step in to prevent financial catastrophe by nationalising Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland and by cutting VAT to get the recovery moving.
Today’s announcement vindicates the rescue measures taken by my right hon. Friends at the time and shows that taxpayers always had a good chance of recouping the lion’s share of the sums involved. But on Northern Rock, can the Minister explain the haste in the sale? We hope he is not playing politics and rushing for a fire sale when a measured approach to maximising value and diversifying the banking system would be better. Why has the Treasury failed to consider mutualising Northern Rock and is the Minister really content to see it return to business as usual as yet another plc without exploring the benefits that a new building society might bring?
There are three tests by which the Chancellor and the Minister should be judged. First, are taxpayers and bank customers adequately protected from future bail- outs by the so-called firewalls in the bank structures? How can the Chancellor say he agrees with the conclusions of the Vickers Banking Commission before it has even published its final report?
Secondly, has the Minister secured sufficient international agreement on regulation and bank restructuring to secure a workable system protecting jobs here in Britain? Sadly, the Treasury has already shown a woeful lack of leadership internationally on pay transparency and bankers’ bonuses, which, by the way, should be taxed to pay for jobs and businesses here at home.
Thirdly, will we end up with a banking system that delivers the goods for our economy as a whole? Are small businesses getting the bank loans they need and why is Project Merlin already unravelling with confusion between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury over so-called “stretch” targets, or capacity targets, how they are going to be enforced and whether the banks are really participating wholeheartedly? We need a diverse banking system, which should include a strong mutual sector—something that was promised in the coalition agreement but that the Government seem uninterested in delivering. We need clear and comprehensible regulatory structures with far clearer lines of accountability, and we need a Government who put customers, taxpayers and the real economy first.
Mr Hoban
That response clearly demonstrated the emptiness of the Opposition’s thoughts on these matters. They have had a year to consider whether these reforms are in the interests of strengthening financial regulation and whether they will strengthen the banking system, but here they are today, a year later, with no idea on the best way to proceed. That is not surprising given that the shadow Chancellor was a champion of light-touch regulation when he was the City Minister and he presented that argument not just in London but across the world. It is time for the Opposition to make their mind up: are they prepared to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and accept the tougher regulatory regime we have proposed, or are they going to cling to the legacy and wreckage of the previous Government’s financial regulation system?
Let me deal with one or two of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. It has been clear from the outset that one of the roles of the interim Financial Policy Committee, which is meeting formally for the first time this afternoon, is to provide advice to the Treasury on the macro-prudential tools that it believes would be appropriate for the FPC. Until the interim FPC has concluded its work it is very difficult to give the House information on that, but what we are doing in the Bill is making sure there is a process in place to ensure there is consultation and that there is discussion in the House. Those tools will not be given to the Bank until we have gone through a legislative process in this place.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Northern Rock. As someone who was born and brought up the north-east, I understand his concern and the importance of Northern Rock to the regional economy. We have, as part of our review, considered remutualisation and our financial adviser Deutsche Bank is reporting to UK Financial Investments on Northern Rock. The advice is to proceed in the first instance with a sale option and the option of remutualisation has been explored with Co-operatives UK and the Building Societies Association, which commissioned the report by Professor Michie. The final decision will be judged against such other options as an initial public offering or a stand-alone remutualisation, but I remind the Opposition that it is important to secure taxpayers’ interests, as we have invested £1.4 billion in Northern Rock.
On the Independent Commission on Banking, we have indicated that we would support the proposal, but we have said that we want to see the final proposal that Sir John Vickers makes. We have dealt with an issue that the previous Government failed to tackle. They closed down the topic of whether there were some structural issues in the UK banking sector that put taxpayers at risk. They were not prepared to confront that debate, but this Government have been prepared to do that and to take some serious and difficult decisions on that matter.
On the issue of bank lending, it is all very well the hon. Gentleman preaching, but the previous Government did not in any way attempt to get the big banks together to talk about increasing lending to small businesses. As the banking sector and the economy deleverage, it is important that those businesses seeking finance have that opportunity. That is why we secured commitments from the banks, and they are held to account on the published targets that were announced earlier this year. The package of measures we have announced demonstrates the progress we are making towards a new settlement on financial regulation and banking, and it is a pity that the Opposition are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities and take part in this debate.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thought that the shadow Minister let the Government off far too lightly regarding Parliament. This place should hear new policy from the Government first. Yesterday, this was published by the BBC first and was then announced at Mansion House. I am afraid that the Government have failed on this occasion. Will the Minister please publish the media grid?
Mr Hoban
I would just point out to my hon. Friend that last night the Chancellor did not read out the White Paper—the blueprint for reform that we have before us today. That is the centrepiece of today’s announcement. We have engaged fully with Parliament on this and he will be aware that what we are doing is starting a process of pre-legislative scrutiny to ensure that Members across the House can take part in debate on this. Throughout this whole process, we have sought to keep Parliament informed of the actions we are taking and to ensure that Parliament has a chance to scrutinise the decisions that the Government have made.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Northern Rock is headquartered in my constituency and my predecessor MP, Jim Cousins, played an important role in saving the bank when the Conservative party had no understanding of the crisis and would have let it go to the wall. Could the Minister explain how the auction will be structured so as to promote Northern Rock’s mutualisation, which he says he wishes to see? Could he also say what guarantees he will offer on the name, headquarters, jobs and community contribution of Northern Rock?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Lady raises some important points about how a potential bidder would seek to maintain employment in the north-east, how they would use the Northern Rock name and how the headquarters would be structured. That is a case that the bidders will need to make in putting together their bid. I would encourage all those who have an interest in bidding for Northern Rock to engage with the people of the north-east and present to them why they believe that their deal would secure the best future for Northern Rock and its employees.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Drawing on my 19 years as a banker—[Interruption.] I was far more popular then than I am now. Drawing on that experience, may I say that the Minister has rightly identified some deep structural problems with the UK banking system? Although over the coming weeks and months he will hear some howls of protest from certain sections of the UK banking community, may I reassure him that the principles he has outlined today will lead to a safer and more stable UK banking system?
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I am not quite sure at times which is the more popular profession, MP or banker, but he has experience of both. He is absolutely right that we need to stick to our course on this. There are some important issues that we need to tackle to make sure that the banking system is safer, to improve the regulatory structure and to ensure that the style of regulation is much more interventionist and proactive than in the past. That will doubtless cause some institutions some difficulty, but we have to recognise that it is in the long-term interests of the stability and sustainability of our economy for there to be better regulation of the banking sector and the financial services sector more broadly.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government set up the Independent Commission on Banking last year. The commission produced its interim findings in June and its final recommendations will not come out until September, but the Chancellor yesterday in his Mansion house speech and the Financial Secretary today in this Chamber have pre-empted two of those decisions, although it was made clear by the commission that it had not reached its final conclusions. Do not the Government owe an apology to members of the commission of inquiry?
Mr Hoban
Is that it? I really did wonder. The hon. Gentleman has played an important role in the Treasury Committee in challenging both this Government and the previous Government and holding them to account on banking reform and I should have thought he would welcome the fact that we are taking action to strengthen regulation of the banking system and to make sure that our banks are more secure. It would have been great if he had supported those measures.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, but may I remind him that the reorganisation of the regulators or, indeed, of the banking structure will do little to stimulate demand quickly? Mortgages were down 9% in April on the same period last year and other sectors are seriously under pressure. Will the Government think more seriously about stimulating demand?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point and one reason why it was important to reach agreement with the banks on Project Merlin was to send a clear signal to businesses that there was credit available to viable businesses, as well as encouraging businesses to come forward to banks with applications for loans. Also important is the work that the British Bankers Association taskforce is doing to commission an independent survey to look at the relationship between banks and their customers. One concern is the amount of discouraged demand in the system and I believe that by looking very carefully at the relationship between banks and their customers, we can see whether banks are putting off businesses from making those applications.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I listened with care to the Minister’s statement, but he has not mentioned the Northern Rock Foundation, which has disbursed millions to deserving causes in the north-east over several years. That disbursement is about 1% of profits, yet Treasury officials told a reporter from Newcastle’s Evening Chronicle this morning that the retention of the Northern Rock Foundation will not be a condition of sale. How will the big society survive in a region such as the north-east, let along thrive, without such a guarantee?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am pleased that he gave prior notice during business questions. We all recognise, particularly those of us with strong roots in the north-east, the important work that the Northern Rock Foundation has done not only in the north-east, but in Cumbria. An agreement was reached that Northern Rock would continue to contribute 1% of its profits to the foundation between now and December 2012, but I am sure that any bidder looking for support from the north-east will think very clearly about the role that the foundation will play in future.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House and to the country that the sell-off of Northern Rock will not proceed unless there is absolute certainty that every penny of taxpayers’ money that was put into it will be recouped, plus interest, and that the proposed transformation of the banking system will begin to give people some trust in the system again?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes two important points. In the process of selling Northern Rock and returning it to the private sector, we are seeking to get the best possible deal for the taxpayer, given the investment we have put in so far. He is absolutely right that one of the challenges is to restore trust and confidence in the banking system, which has taken a blow in recent years for a range of reasons, including the mis-selling of payment protection insurance and the financial crisis itself. There is a big challenge for banks. The best way that they can establish trust and confidence is by demonstrating to the people of this country that they are doing what they should be doing, which is helping families and businesses realise their full potential by ensuring that credit is flowing to our businesses and that our constituents have opportunities to buy their own homes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister, who knows the north-east very well, will be aware that when Northern Rock was a building society it was a highly respected institution, not only because of its prudent lending, but because it was the first choice for many small savers. Although he reaffirmed in his statement the Government’s commitment to mutualisation, will he not be straight with the people of the north-east and say quite clearly that mutualisation is not an option and that Northern Rock will be privatised, as was spun out in the newspapers this morning?
Mr Hoban
As I said earlier, re-mutualisation is an option. The advice we have received is to proceed with the sale process, which could be to a proprietary business or another mutual. Once that process is under way, we will be able to compare that outcome with the other two possible outcomes, which are an initial public offering or a stand-alone re-mutualisation. I am keen that United Kingdom Financial Investments engages with this, as it has done already, to see whether that is a viable option.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s move to put an end to the failed tripartite model. What steps will be put in place to enhance the working relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England, given the Bank’s enhanced role?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) noted in his remarks. It is absolutely vital that the Bank has a good and robust relationship not only with the Treasury, but with this House. I think that we all agree that the relationship between the Treasury Committee and the Monetary Policy Committee, for example, is one of the most transparent between any central bank and any legislature across the world. We want similar standards of transparency and openness to apply in the relationship between the FPC and the House.
The White Paper sets out how the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank will be strengthened and how the Governor will meet the Chancellor to discuss the outcome of the financial stability review. We are also in the process of developing a crisis memorandum of understanding to ensure that the proper channels of communication are open between the Treasury and the Government. That is a much better set of arrangements that will ensure that the House is kept informed and that we can hold the Bank to account for its new responsibilities.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Is there not an inherent contradiction in Government policy? On the one hand there is stricter ring-fencing of banks’ capital reserves, and on the other there are the Business Secretary’s proposals, via Project Merlin, for banks to lend more to small businesses. Who will win this battle of economic policy—the Chancellor or the Business Secretary?
Mr Hoban
There is no dispute between the two. It is very clear that we need banks to hold more capital and, based on the work done at Basel III on the implementation of the higher level of capital, that should not restrict the amount of credit available. Yes, we need to see banks deleveraging and reducing the size of their balance sheets, but that should not be at the cost of businesses in our constituencies and across the country that need capital in order to grow and expand. Banks should be reducing their lending to each other, rather than reducing the exposure to businesses in this country.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome the Financial Conduct Authority if it genuinely gives consumers greater protection. Under the current regulations, a constituent of mine, Mr Joseph Choonos, was pressured into taking out a Barclays loan in the most inappropriate way by a course provider, which then dumped the course. Barclays is now pursuing him dreadfully for the loan, which he has no way of paying back. He has no way of having a good dialogue with Barclays. If the proposals help vulnerable consumers in any way, I will be truly grateful.
Mr Hoban
I cannot comment on the case my hon. Friend raises, but we have corresponded about it. We need to see better outcomes for consumers of retail financial services. As she may be aware, we are also consulting on the future regulation of consumer credit and will announce our response to the consultation proposals shortly. One of the challenges we face is the disjointed regulation of consumer financial services. Credit, in the situation she raises, is regulated by the Office of Fair Trading, and other aspects of financial services are currently regulated by the Financial Services Authority and, in future, the Financial Conduct Authority. Whatever body is the regulator, we need to see better outcomes for our consumers, which will help to restore the trust in regulation that we all recognise is so vital.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point about the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority, will the Minister clarify whether it will have oversight of the consumer credit market, particularly the high-cost credit market, which is a source of concern for many Opposition Members? Perhaps he will take the opportunity to confirm whether the FCA’s powers of intervention could include capping the total cost that lenders can charge for lending where it is detrimental to consumers so that we can deal with the toxicity of the legal loan shark market.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Lady will have an opportunity later this afternoon to quiz me on this in more detail as we are meeting to discuss it. She will recognise that credit, particular the high-cost credit to which she refers, is currently regulated by the OFT, not the FSA. We will announce shortly our response to the consultation on who should regulate consumer credit in future.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Many of my constituents depend on the existence of a thriving financial services industry in London. They are hard-working, responsible and diligent employees and not at all deserving of the opprobrium that is often heaped on people who work in the sector. Like Professor Willem Buiter of the London School of Economics, they are very much of the view that the financial crisis damaged London’s prestige and international standing much more than it did other leading financial centres around the world. Does the Minister share that view?
Mr Hoban
The financial crisis clearly had an impact on London’s standing as a global financial centre, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to note than in the most recent survey of global financial centres London still came top. That is a recognition of London’s continued strength. It is important to ensure that we have a well-regulated and well-functioning financial services sector that can not only meet domestic demand, but serve the interests of an array of international companies. I believe that the package we have announced today, coupled with further regulatory changes being made in the European Union and internationally, will help to ensure London’s continued pre-eminence as a centre for financial services.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Before the general election, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary were involved in a verbal fistfight about who was going to be toughest on the banks, so it is not surprising that neither is here today to make this business-as-usual statement. If the previous Government were charged with light-touch regulation, are not this Government guilty of light-touch reform?
Mr Hoban
The reforms we have set out are proportionate, and the recognition of the need to strengthen the banking sector through structural reform is a significant move. We, unlike many other economies, were exposed to a financial sector challenge of some scale, and it is right to respond to that. We have ensured a proper debate about those issues, which the Independent Commission on Banking has led, and the reforms announced in its interim report have been widely welcomed. That gets the balance right. It is not about being tough or about being light touch; it is about getting things right.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Do the Government agree that the best form of regulation is exit from the market? Does the Financial Secretary agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) that there should be a primary duty on the regulator to promote competition?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point about exit. One area on which we are all working, not just in the UK but elsewhere, is to ensure that, when an institution fails, the matter can be resolved and that the resolution can take place without an impact on the taxpayer. That will help with competition and to tackle the broader issues, whereby taxpayers have to stand behind banks. We need to get that right.
On competition, we need to recognise that the role of regulation in financial services is quite broad. Some of it is about promoting competition, and some of it is about consumer protection when there are asymmetries of information. In the blueprint that we have published today, we see an acknowledgement of the role that competition will play, and that is why we have given the Financial Conduct Authority a primary duty to use competition in pursuit of its regulatory objectives. That gets the balance right between the different roles that the FCA has to play.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
In three weeks’ time, 5 July marks the 20th anniversary of the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The Minister on that day 20 years ago was a young accountant working for Price Waterhouse, the much-criticised auditors of BCCI. For 20 years, the bank has been in liquidation and for 20 years we have been asking for the publication of the confidential parts of the Bingham report, which, as the Financial Secretary will know, was the basis on which we had the system of regulation that he has just changed. Is he absolutely certain that the best way of dealing with these matters is to hand them back to the Bank of England? If he is, will he please do what the previous Government failed to do and ask the Chancellor to publish the confidential parts of the Bingham report?
Mr Hoban
I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s request, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) has made a similar request, to which he did not seem to accede when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new regulatory regime does learn the lessons of the past, and the supervisory style and confused mandate of the FSA mean that we need to change.
The lesson that we have learned from the financial crisis is that, importantly, the Bank of England’s expertise in market surveillance and in understanding macro-prudential trends can best work with the needs of a micro-prudential supervisor by ensuring that that micro-prudential supervisor is an independent subsidiary of the Bank. And, just so the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) does not get the wrong impression, I did not work on the audit of BCCI.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that the financial services industry in this country employs some 1 million people and generates £50 billion a year in tax revenues. Will he assure me that these proposals strike the right balance between protecting the consumer, whom the Financial Services Authority failed so much, and maintaining our leading position in the global financial marketplace?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the numbers of people employed in financial services not just here in London, or in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are well-known financial services centres, but throughout the country. We need to ensure that the industry continues to be a strong contributor to employment, to economic growth and to tax revenues, and to ensure a balance so that it does not pose an excessive risk to the strength of the UK economy. The measures that we have put forward today strike the right balance between encouraging the industry to continue to be a wealth and employment creator and ensuring that the right protections are in place for consumers, so that they buy the products that those companies sell. Those companies will not thrive unless there is consumer appetite for buying pensions, for investing in their futures, for taking out deposit accounts and for buying life insurance policies. We need to get that balance right between consumer interest and business interest, but businesses will be best served if consumers feel happy about buying products from them.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister rightly says that a key part of the recovery of the banking sector’s reputation is an increase in the public’s confidence in the system, and he is putting a lot of power and confidence in the role of the Bank of England. What specific new powers will the Bank have to enable more public confidence in a safer banking system in future?
Mr Hoban
The Bank of England and the FSA published a couple of weeks ago a document setting out the new regulatory approach that the PRA will set. They were clear that, rather than waiting for a bubble to burst and for problems to emerge, they will intervene earlier to force firms to take action to correct problems, and that shift in style—from waiting for a problem to happen to trying to pre-empt its creation—is absolutely vital. We are reliant on the judgment and the discretion of the regulators in following through that new regulatory approach, but rather than waiting until it is all too late, as happened in so many different examples over the past 10 years, giving the regulator the power to intervene early will have a significant benefit on outcomes for our constituents.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that the best way to protect consumers is to have a fully functioning and competitive free market, and that the best way for the free market to work efficiently is, ultimately, for all companies, including banks, to be allowed to fail?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) made about exit from the financial system. That is why it is important that resolution tools are in place to enable firms to be wound up in an orderly fashion, rather than being reliant on taxpayers’ money to keep them going.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Minister is well aware that savers are getting a very low interest rate, while for those who try to borrow there are high interest rates and unattractive terms—not just for individuals but for businesses. That must be stifling the economic recovery. The banks are not meeting Project Merlin’s targets, so should not the Government use regulation and their ownership of banks to address those issues?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that it is important that banks lend to businesses. If the economy is to continue to recover and to pick up momentum, banks need to be able to lend. That is why we introduced the lending commitments under Project Merlin, and we will monitor them very carefully. We have said that we will not be afraid to use any tools at our disposal if those targets are not met.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Continuing the theme of competition, and being mindful that the Vickers report will be published in September, will the Minister assure the House or provide guidance on how any future framework will provide genuine competition? In the US, in particular, banks fail without adverse publicity or at any cost to the public purse because there is a larger proliferation of smaller banks, and that would swim against the tide of mega-super-banks, on which we have been over-reliant.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point about diversity in the financial system. One of the points that the Governor of the Bank of England made in his Mansion House speech last night was about the need to reduce the barriers of entry to the banking system in order to encourage more competitors to come forward. That is an excellent way in which we can promote choice and competition and get a better outcome for consumers, whether individuals or businesses.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I, like many hon. Friends, believe the Government’s decision to proceed so quickly with a sale process for Northern Rock shows that they are willing to miss a golden opportunity to learn the lessons of the financial crisis and diversify the UK banking sector. On remutualisation, will the Minister undertake to release all the advice he has received, information on all the meetings he has been to and all the rest of the paperwork, so that we can decide—Co-operative MPs such as myself, and other Members—whether remutualisation has been taken as seriously as it should have been?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I reiterate what I said before. Yes, Northern Rock has been put up for sale. The purchaser could be a proprietary company or another mutual. An acquisition by another mutual could actually help strengthen the mutual sector. I have made it clear that as the sale process proceeds, we will compare the outcome with either an initial public offering or a stand-alone remutualisation. The challenge that those supporting a stand-alone remutualisation need to address is how we ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money from that.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Although I warmly welcome the long-term direction that the Government are taking, may I press the Minister a little further on the short-term problem of the regulators’ demands for banks to improve their balance sheets? That is leading to deleveraging, which is starving businesses of the funds that they need to provide the growth that we need. Is there any way in which we can force—or encourage, at least—the regulator to go against the cycle and, when times are tough, to be a little more relaxed and allow banks to lend more in these difficult situations?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Chancellor was very clear last night. Yes, we do want the banks to deleverage, but one way of doing that is to reduce their exposure to other banks and to the financial sector. That will give them the capacity within their capital, as they build up their capital levels, to continue to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises and larger corporates. That is one of the reasons why we set out to establish a commitment from the banks to lend up to £190 billion this year to businesses of all sizes, including £76 billion to SMEs. I think we have the right approach. We want a stronger, more sustainable banking system but we need one that will lend to small and larger businesses. Project Merlin helps us to achieve the right balance. We need the banks to deliver on that commitment.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Does the Minister now regret having voted against the saving of Northern Rock?
Mr Hoban
The challenge is to make sure that we tackle the legacy that we have been left and that we get the banking system back on a firm footing. What we have announced today is a process in which the Government will cease to be a long-term investor in the banking system. We would all agree that that is the right approach.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I welcome the reforms, particularly the separation of investment banking from retail banking. However, do we not still have the problem that some of our banks are literally too big to fail?
Mr Hoban
The package of proposals that the Independent Commission on Banking is developing is aimed at tackling that. It is one of the reasons why it proposed a retail ring-fence and increased capital so that the ring-fenced retail business will continue to be strong. But we need to make sure that we have the right resolution tools in place in the event of a bank failure. I commend the previous Government for their introduction of the special resolution regime, to which I referred in my statement in the context of Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company Ltd. We need to continue to work on tools that will help us resolve a bank failure without the taxpayer having to pick up the bill. That is the position that we ought to be in.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents in Kettering want to know that the household savings that they have deposited in their local high street bank are safe from financial speculation and that never again will large banking groups imperil the UK economy through unsustainable banking practices. How far does the Minister’s statement today go to reassure my constituents?
Mr Hoban
My statement today has demonstrated the action that we have taken over the past year to create a more stable and sustainable banking system. That should give comfort to my hon. Friend’s constituents in respect of the safety of their savings. Savers and depositors should be mindful of the limits on deposits imposed through the financial services compensation scheme, but the range of interventions that we are making, through this statement and further reforms, will ensure that we have a safer, more sustainable banking sector in the future—one that does not impose a burden on the taxpayer, but makes sure that it continues to meet the needs of businesses and households across this country.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Financial Secretary share my astonishment at the selective recollection of historical facts by Opposition Members? The run on Northern Rock started well over a year before the global financial crisis, and it was the first run on a bank in this country for more than 100 years. In rebuilding the stability of the financial system, will the Financial Secretary repeat for my constituents the reassurance that their deposits up to £85,000 are now effectively guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes two important points. The first is to recognise the role played by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in protecting depositors up to that £85,000 limit. The other point is that there is collective amnesia among the Opposition about their role in the financial crisis. Yes, Northern Rock took place before the global financial crisis—and they were the champions of light-touch financial regulation and introduced the tripartite system of regulatory reform that was shown to fail during the crisis. The Opposition need to recognise their responsibility; until they do so, it will not be possible for them to move on.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the recent report from the other place saying that the tripartite authorities
“failed to maintain financial stability and were found wanting in dealing with the crisis, in part because the roles of the three parties were not well enough defined and it was not clear who was in charge”?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely vital point. The failure of the financial regulatory system put in place by the Labour party when in government was hard-wired into the system. It was destined to fail because of the failure to identify a clear match between the people who had the power and those who had the responsibilities for managing financial stability. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous system was destined to fail. We have learned the lessons from that crisis; I am not sure that the Labour party has.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the announcements today. However, will my hon. Friend elucidate on the expected time frame for the setting up of the new regulatory bodies? There must be at least a risk that one or more bodies that are being abolished will take their eye off the ball while they are doing their work, and there will be a time frame before the new bodies are set up.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We hope that the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill will start shortly. It is programmed to take 12 sitting weeks. We want to make sure that the legislation progresses through this House and the other place as quickly as possible and that it is properly scrutinised. We need to make sure that we do not make mistakes in haste that we repent of at leisure. It is also important to recognise that the FSA is starting to adopt the new style of supervision that we would like to see it exercise, and that should give us some comfort that the lessons have been learned and are now being put into practice.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which I am sure will go a long way towards reintroducing stability within the economy in general and the banking system. What reassurance can he give that the stability will apply to the banks as well as consumers, so that the banks can go on generating wealth? That will reduce the risk that banks’ headquarters will leave the UK to establish elsewhere.
Tamils (Deportation)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration—the deportation by the UK Border Agency of my constituent Mr Jenach Gopinath back to Sri Lanka, whose Government are suspected of war crimes against Tamils, including the killing of 40,000 Tamil citizens.
Later today, a plane chartered by the UKBA will deport 40 asylum-seeking Commonwealth citizens of Tamil ethnicity back to Sri Lanka. One of the passengers is my constituent Mr Gopinath. I have just learned that another, Miss Tharmalingham, is also my constituent. Mr Gopinath was formerly employed by a leading Tamil MP, and in Sri Lanka he was arrested and detained by the authorities. He believes that he would be in danger if he returned there, as does Miss Tharmalingham. I have just learned that another passenger, Mr Najandarajah, hanged himself with his prison duvet last night, and is now in hospital; a passenger on an earlier flight did kill himself.
These people are desperate, and understandably so. A lawyer has told me that his client was tortured after he was deported. Luckily, the client escaped back to the UK. Amazingly, the UKBA tried to deport him again, but he was eventually allowed to stay on appeal. This week, Channel 4 screened a devastating documentary showing definitive evidence of war crimes and routine atrocities by Sri Lanka against Tamils, including video of summary executions. The UN has reported a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Forty thousand Tamils were killed; they were all Commonwealth citizens. Seventeen thousand are still held in camps, and even those who have got out are still under canvas as they are not allowed back to their homes. There is evidence of continuing abuse against Tamils, including torture and extra-judicial killings. The President of Sri Lanka, a probable war crimes suspect, has taken on enormous powers over the judiciary and policing.
The British Government are supposed to be one of the leading forces in the Commonwealth, yet they are not only turning a blind eye but sending plane-load after plane-load of Tamils back. They are taking no measures to monitor them, and Sri Lanka does not allow any journalists or independent observers. The people on these planes, such as Mr Gopinath, have identified themselves as Tamils and as being against the Sri Lankan Government. Britain is flying them on specially chartered flights; it is not as though they are arriving incognito. Even worse, UKBA has shared documents about these passengers with the Sri Lankan authorities. We might as well paint targets on their backs. To me, it is obvious that Tamils have a reason to fear for their safety in Sri Lanka; given the emergence of yet more evidence of atrocities, how could they be safe?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the British Parliament needs to say whether we want our country to continue with these deportations and to continue to have Tamil blood on our hands.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said. I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.
Armed Forces Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have in front of me a four-hour speech because I did not quite manage to cover everything that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and the shadow Defence Secretary raised with me two days ago.
As hon. Members will know, in essence, our purpose in this debate is to agree that the Bill has been scrutinised by the House and to wish it well as it moves to the other place. The Ministry of Defence does not often introduce legislation, so this is a task that very few Defence Ministers have the pleasure of performing. As is the custom, I should like to use this occasion to pay tribute to a number of people who have helped during this House’s consideration of the Bill. Before I do so, I should like to discuss some weightier matters.
For the Ministry of Defence, the Bill represents an important step regarding the armed forces covenant. For the very first time, the armed forces covenant has been recognised in statute. Some 10 years ago, people did not talk about a military covenant; that is a relatively recent development. However, everybody, over centuries, has recognised what is meant when people refer to it. The Prime Minister said that the armed forces covenant would be recognised in law, and it will be so recognised through this Bill.
The Bill will have an enduring legacy. Under its provisions, annual reports on the covenant will be required. We are very serious about the covenant. It is not a political fad—something that will be allowed to wither away in a year or so as political fashions change—because the armed forces are far too important for that. We expect that Parliament will want to debate the issues that are highlighted in the report, and I certainly do not see any way in which anything will be covered up. It is right that Governments, of whatever political hue, should be held to account for the way in which they uphold the covenant.
We discussed the covenant at length during the Select Committee stage. Hon. Members have expressed differing views, as have people outside Parliament. The Government have listened to those views and tabled the amendments that were accepted on Tuesday.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that many, if not most of the public services covered in the covenant are devolved. I am sure that he will join me in commending the work of Major-General David McDowall, the Scottish Government’s expert adviser on veterans’ affairs, for his efforts in this field. Will the Minister confirm that there has been correspondence between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm the delivery of the covenant in Scotland?
Mr Robathan
I pay tribute to Major-General McDowall. Although I do not know him, I am sure that he does a very good job. I have of course met Alex Neil, as the hon. Gentleman will know. There has indeed been correspondence. That will not be a surprise to him, as he was in the House on Tuesday when I read out half the letter, but there we go.
The House has agreed that the amendments bring clarity about the principles that the Secretary of State must take into account in preparing his report. I was particularly pleased that they were accepted in all parts of the Committee on Tuesday without a Division, and that they have also been welcomed outside Parliament. The result is clause 2, which establishes the annual report as a route towards achieving real benefits for armed forces personnel, former members of the armed forces and their families.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill has been used to amend the legislation governing the reserve forces. This is an important change, because it will allow us to call out reservists for service in the United Kingdom in a wider range of circumstances than is permitted at present. For instance, we discussed on Tuesday the recent floods following snowfalls in Cumbria, where reservists would have been ideally placed—particularly medical reservists to deliver blood supplies. We also discussed the forthcoming Olympics. There are a huge number of occasions where we currently do not have the power to call out reservists, even should they volunteer.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is long overdue change, and that given the ongoing review of the reserve forces, it will make them much more relevant in years to come?
Mr Robathan
I do think it is overdue. It provides the opportunity to call people up in the same way that we can use the regular forces. It also fits in well with the reserve forces review, Future Reserves 2020, which we are undertaking to ensure that this country makes proper use of the reserves. The amendments that we made this week anticipate some of the changes that may be proposed in the review and that the study is likely to recommend when it is published later this year.
When we debated the amendments earlier this week, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire raised a point about the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. She rather threw me because I was not an expert on that Act, but I have now looked up the details, so I should like to take this opportunity to respond to her point. It concerned the Cabinet Office’s red tape challenge, which is a welcome initiative to look at legislation and identify where it is no longer required. One area of legislation to be reviewed relates to employment law. I gather that on the website, under the heading, “Managing Staff”, 127 pieces of legislation are listed for review. I congratulate her on having studied this website, or perhaps on having a very assiduous researcher who has done so for her. The list includes the 1985 Act, which appears at the top of the list only because that is how the list has been ordered, not because it is a particular target for rationalisation. Of course, we carry out reviews from time to time to ensure that our existing employment legislation is appropriate, and we will continue to do so. However, I can assure her that for the foreseeable future it is absolutely our intention that the protection that this Act provides for reservists and employers will continue to remain available.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
If the review that is being carried out into the reserve forces comes up with recommendations that would need to be written into the covenant, would it be possible to update it in the yearly report, or would the covenant, as now written, have to await the five-yearly report under the Bill?
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman raises two points. First, should things change as a result of the reserve forces review that might give rise to something different, that would not necessarily be covered in the Bill as enacted but might require some other form of legislation. Secondly—I am delighted to see the coalition acting as one on this—we have argued all along that we want broad guidelines within the covenant report, not boxes to tick, so the Secretary of State can consider almost anything he likes when preparing his report. Furthermore, the external reference group, or anybody else, can raise whatever they like under the covenant report and our subsequent discussions about it.
To return to the protection of employment for reservists, the 1985 Act will apply to the amendment that we passed to widen the use of reserves in the UK and to all other current operations. I hope that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will accept that assurance as a response to her earlier point, and I will not send her a letter if that is okay.
I think that this is a good Bill. It is the first Bill that I have taken through the House.
Mr Robathan
I might concur. I am proud to have served on the Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill and would like to thank my fellow Committee members, most of whom are here, for the serious and careful way in which they went about their work.
Mr Robathan
I will resist the cry from behind me to be partisan on this occasion, although I would not usually.
The Committee undertook visits to Chilwell, Headley Court and Colchester, which helped Committee members in their consideration of the Bill. I thank everybody who put themselves out to arrange those visits for us, both here and in those places.
I thank the Select Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his good humour and wise guidance and I thank the Committee staff for their work behind the scenes. There is a gap in my brief because my civil servants said that they could not possibly put in that I would like to thank them. I would like to thank the Ministry of Defence Bill team for the work that they have done on our behalf. Sometimes, they found things marginally fraught, but most of the time they just got on with doing their work in a good-natured way. One has to take tranquilisers if one works for me. [Interruption.] I thought I would get that in before anybody else. I still have not got the letter from the mayor of Bradford, by the way.
We have a good Bill, which has benefited from the scrutiny it has received. I believe that the Bill we send to the other place is in good order. Above all, it contains much that will benefit the many people who have served, do serve or will serve in our armed forces. I wish the Bill well in its remaining parliamentary stages, and I commend it to the House.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has surprised me by giving a much shorter speech than I expected, considering his contribution on Tuesday.
Mr Robathan
I am awfully sorry, but I think we need to get it on the record that my speech on the group of amendments on Tuesday was shorter than the hon. Lady’s.
Gemma Doyle
I think the Minister will find that I spoke for a shorter time than he did, but, on the basis that my speech was rather more engaging, I took a number of interventions. As such, my speech took up a greater amount of parliamentary time. I shall move on.
I very much welcome and support the Bill, just as I welcome all measures designed to improve welfare for the armed forces, their families and veterans. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment to this issue. As has been said by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, this Opposition will always act in the interests of what is right for our country and will always support the Government when they do the right thing by our forces. In this Bill and the amendments to it, the Government have made progress in the welfare of our armed forces and all service families. The Government have committed to stronger provisions to enshrine the covenant in law. As we have done throughout this process, we will work with Ministers whenever necessary to ensure that the path from rhetoric to reality is as smooth and fruitful as possible.
It is worth reminding ourselves that although the right decision has now been taken by the Government, they acted reluctantly, in the face of public pressure and following much denial from Government Members that any amendments were required. Indeed, on 10 February, at the first sitting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, the Minister stated:
“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c. 21.]
He went on to say that it is a “conceptual, philosophical statement”. I imagine he wishes that he could eat his words now. Although we support the Government, we will scrutinise and form judgments based on their actions and not their words, which have been proved in this process to sometimes be two different things.
Many provisions in the Bill concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in this area, not just through the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill in 2006, but by ensuring that the forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector; investing in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities; increasing access to the NHS for dependants; and introducing the personnel Command Paper, the first ever cross-Government package of benefits.
The military covenant is the bond between the nation and our services. It says that the United Kingdom’s commitment to its armed forces is made in recognition that a career in the armed forces differs from all others. The covenant recognises that service personnel agree to sacrifice certain civil liberties, to follow orders and to place themselves in harm’s way in defence of others. In return, the United Kingdom shall help, support and reward our armed forces, their families and, of course, former serving personnel.
I am still somewhat new to this place—I am not sure how much longer I will get away with saying that—but I firmly believe that one of the most difficult decisions we are asked to make is to ask our service people to put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of this country and to safeguard human rights around the world. I felt that responsibility strongly when we voted on 21 March on action in Libya. I know that Members who have been here longer than me have been even more greatly vexed about these issues in recent memory.
Upholding the covenant is now more important than ever. At a time of unprecedented cuts to the defence budget, when we have seen allowances and pensions cut and personnel made redundant in record numbers, and when there are warnings about the capacity of our forces to perform at the current tempo for 90 days longer, it is vital that all service people have the protection to which they are entitled. The principle that no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service and that special provision may sometimes be needed to reflect their sacrifices is vital. We support the introduction of that principle to the Bill.
It is important, however, that such principles apply to policy making and implementation in all public bodies to ensure that all action undertaken by public servants is in tune with our commitments to the armed forces. I am still concerned, therefore, that the Government amendments did not go as far as they could have gone. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State must only “have regard” to the principles in
“preparing an annual armed forces covenant report”.
That is a limited application of the principles, which we have all agreed are vital. Rather than applying across Government to all issues, the principles will apply to only those issues the Secretary of State deems fit to include in his report. There is, therefore, ministerial judgment about where the principles of the covenant apply, rather than an obligation on all public servants to take heed of them. I hope that the Minister appreciates the difference that I am pointing out.
I support the action that the Secretary of State is taking, and I believe in the Prime Minister’s desire for a genuinely enshrined covenant, but I fear that we will not fully achieve that unless the principles of the covenant are given due regard in all aspects of public policy making. As the Minister knows, I tabled amendments at earlier stages to try to achieve that. I am sorry that we have not persuaded the Government to go quite as far as we would have done, but as you would imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are delighted that the Minister has come as far as he has. Having stated in Committee, as I said, that the covenant would not be enshrined in law, he has now been forced to support amendments that ensure it will be.
When I asked the Minister on Tuesday what had changed his mind, he stated that he had engaged in a listening process. I have to say, we saw very little evidence of that in the Committee’s debates or evidence sessions. I am sure that everyone would be grateful if, at some stage, he provided an explanation of his change of direction.
To ensure that the ambitions that we all hold for the covenant are realised, it is vital that there is sufficient accountability between members of the armed forces and the public servants charged with its implementation. I fear that the Government’s proposed annual report, in which Ministers will report on what they deem fit to report on rather than being obliged to provide an update on all aspect of forces’ welfare, may still be somewhat inadequate.
An annual debate in the House on the covenant is very welcome, but it should not be at the expense of real scrutiny. For the report to be meaningful, the Minister knows that I believe that there needs to be a greater number of fields on which Ministers are compelled to report. I have asked the Minister to explain why he has chosen only the three subjects that are specified in the Bill for inclusion in the report, but he has not yet given a rational explanation of why other welfare issues for which the Secretary of State is directly responsible are not included.The original intention behind the introduction of a covenant report was clearly to allow Ministers to say that they were enshrining the covenant in law, whereas their actions now demonstrate that they knew all along that that was not what they were doing. As such, the Minister will forgive me for being concerned that the Secretary of State will decide which issues to put into and leave out of his report.
My bigger worry is that without a duty on public bodies to give regard to the principles of the covenant, and without a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on a wider set of concerns than is currently included in the Bill, there will not be a thorough examination of the possible issues of disadvantage that we have discussed, covering all relevant responsibilities of the Government.
On accountability, we welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the external reference group, which I understand may now have had a name change, will publish its comments on the annual report alongside the report itself, and that as such its terms of reference will be updated. It would therefore be useful if the Minister confirmed at the earliest opportunity that the change means that the group will now be a permanent body, charged with overseeing the implementation of all policies that relate to forces welfare. I also look forward to his advising us of when updated terms of reference will be ready, and whether they will be placed in the Library for Members to view.
For the enshrinement of the covenant principles to be genuinely meaningful, there must be a proper system whereby service people can report on whether those principles are being upheld. All would agree that the Bill must be about people’s lives, not simply about securing the safe passage of legislation. When asked in a recent parliamentary question who was the legal arbiter of any complaints by service people about the principles of the covenant, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), stated that the chain of command or the Service Complaints Commissioner was responsible. That is surprising, because in her annual report last year the commissioner said the existing complaints mechanism was a
“most ineffective system. It causes extreme delay and fails to deliver justice. It also leads to inconsistencies.”
The very arbiter whom the Government recommend that armed forces use to determine whether the covenant is being upheld says that the system is not good enough.
This is not about creating new rights, it is about the accountability of those charged with upholding the principles that the Government are enshrining in the Bill. The commissioner recommended that an armed forces ombudsman be introduced, and I would be interested to hear what consideration was given to that recommendation. As the Minister did not support amendments earlier in the week regarding the creation of an ombudsman to oversee these issues, I am anxious to find out what measures will be introduced to ensure that our forces have the opportunity to make their own judgments.
Mr Robathan
I just wish gently to point out to the hon. Lady, apropos our altercation at the beginning of her speech, that she has now spoken for rather longer than me on Third Reading as well.
Gemma Doyle
I am not really sure that that was a substantive intervention, so I will carry on.
The three fields specified in the Bill as being covered by the annual covenant report are devolved, so Scottish and Welsh armed forces or veterans are potentially excluded from any recommendations at all to be made in the report. We need clarification of whether the report will apply to all UK forces and what the devolved implications of the Bill are. On Tuesday, the Minister produced a letter from the First Minister of Scotland. I do not doubt the First Minister’s intentions with regard to this matter, but I know that the Minister will be shocked to hear that the First Minister does not always do exactly what he says he will. I therefore look forward to the Minister confirming his own view of what the devolved implications of the Bill are.
There was some confusion in Committee on Tuesday about the Government’s position on the reserve forces’ employment rights. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment, which he reiterated today. Indeed, I congratulate him on standing up to the Secretary of State for Defence, who refused to give such a commitment just a matter of weeks ago. However, it would be welcome if the Minister confirmed what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office to ensure that all his colleagues are on the same page.
As I said initially, the Opposition will judge the Government on the military covenant on their actions and not on their words. One of the Government’s first major acts since their U-turn on the military covenant is their decision to abolish the Chief Coroner’s Office. The Royal British Legion has called that “a betrayal” of armed forces families that “threatens the Military Covenant.” That very neatly demonstrates the need for accountability and the need for the principles of the covenant to apply to all Government policy.
The Bill would not have prevented that decision, and nor does it provide for servicemen and women who feel disadvantaged as a result to seek redress. The Minister said earlier this week that he could not speak for the Secretary of State for Justice, but I am asking the Minister to speak to him—I urge him to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to do the right thing for service families. However, the Minister should also look at this carefully as an example of why the Bill does not go as far as it could, or indeed should.
In conclusion, the principles of the military covenant ensure that we do our bit for the men and women of our armed forces who serve this country and their families. I welcome the Bill, which has been much improved since we started out. I am delighted that the Government have come so far on this issue, and I look forward to pushing them a little further forward at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just remind hon. Members that we have only two hours—the Bill must be done and dusted by 4.11 pm?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can be sure that my remarks will be brief.
I must confess to three interests. First, I am a medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. Secondly, I am a potential beneficiary of the naval medical compassionate fund, which is in clause 27—“potential” because one must decease before benefiting. Thirdly, I have a non-pecuniary interest in my book, which was published today, by happy chance, on the military covenant.
I am pleased to support the Bill, which has gone a long way. There are two authorities in this field that we should not upset: one is the Royal British Legion and the other is Joanna Lumley. Consecutive Governments understand the truth of that. It is quite something when the Royal British Legion writes to MPs, as it did on 9 June, to say that the Bill represents an historic agreement. Notwithstanding the reservations that it has expressed as the Bill has gone through the Commons, it is clearly of the view now that the Bill represents a positive measure that will materially benefit the welfare of the men and women to whom we owe so very much.
I should like briefly to address the subject of the chief coroner. I have an interest, in that Mr Masters has sat in Trowbridge in my constituency, and I have visited his court and discussed the matter of military inquests with him at some length. I gently point out to the Opposition that both Mr Masters and Mr Walker in Oxford have done a wonderful job over the past several years in highlighting the plight of men and women in the armed forces and in standing up for the families of those who have sadly deceased. It is not clear to me that an office of the chief coroner would have added to that process. Indeed, I would go further: there is every prospect that such an official could be more biddable than local coroners because he is more central.
The big thing that has stood out over the years from those inquests is their independence and their willingness to find out what is happening on the ground. I pay tribute to both those two gentlemen.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to those two individuals. However, he does not understand that the chief coroner’s role is to drive up standards across the country. Following pressure from the hon. Gentleman when he was in opposition, we rightly allowed military inquests to move away from where the body arrives back in the UK and inquests can now be heard at other coroners courts. The important thing about the chief coroner is that his role would be to ensure that the high standards kept by the two coroners of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks are consistently applied throughout the country.
Dr Murrison
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would say to him that we now have several years’ experience of a local model with two excellent coroners who have not held back when they have felt it necessary to criticise the Government. That is absolutely appropriate. I understand that Labour Members bear the scars on their backs from these two gentlemen, but that is precisely as it should be. I have to say that I have been very impressed with how Mr Masters in particular has conducted his business and has got to grips with the reality of front-line service.
At the heart of the military covenant lies the concept of “no disadvantage”, which I am pleased has informed much of this debate. “No disadvantage” is played out on two levels: first, no disadvantage in access to public services, which can be easily understood by those of us who represent large numbers of servicemen and women. We have seen it in the disadvantage that service children have been put to when they move around frequently. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have introduced, as part of the pupil premium, a sum that will, in some small way, mitigate the disadvantage they suffer. We see it also in servicemen and women being bumped off NHS waiting lists and having difficulties accessing dentists.
Secondly, at another level—perhaps a more fundamental level—we have the concept of “no disadvantage” in relation to those who have suffered greatly, physically and mentally, as a result of their military service. It is surely the mark of a civilised society that, when men and women who have contributed so much to that society are injured physically or mentally, we do everything in our power to mitigate the disadvantage that they suffer. I believe that that is what is in Ministers’ minds with the concept of special provision, which has been introduced under amendments to the Bill, and which we discussed on Tuesday.
It is vital that men and women who give so much of their mental and physical health are restored to health so far as is reasonably practicable. I have been impressed recently while touring limb centres, and particularly Headley Court, by the importance of ensuring that that care is ongoing. The Minister can be certain that as this matter returns to Parliament annually the ongoing care of those who have suffered mentally and physically will be brought up time and again. I am very concerned that as the tempo of operations reduces, and as the battle rhythm declines over the years leading up to 2015, the prominence of military matters and our military personnel will decline. Throughout our history, that has always been what happens after the war fighting stops. Indeed, Rudyard Kipling’s sardonic poem “Tommy” highlights that very well. We need to bear in mind Tommy Atkins and his plight, and I believe we need to think about that as we plan how to keep this issue in the public mind and, by extension, the minds of politicians.
The annual report has come in for criticism. Some think it is flute music, that it has no substance. I think it is vital, and I commend Ministers for introducing it as part of this Bill. I am also delighted that the Government have listened so well to external bodies that have impressed on Ministers the need to ensure that those who feed into that annual report are heard properly, and that the report, when it comes to Parliament, properly reflects their views and input. In a year or so, we will have the opportunity of seeing this process in action, and I confidently expect the House to have every opportunity to debate the military covenant again and in depth. I suspect that the Minister knows full well that if this looks like being a superficial exercise, he will come in for a great deal of criticism. However, I confidently expect that in a year or so, we will be able to commend him once again for this measure of his to which we are going to give a fair wind today.
There are those who say that the Bill does not go far enough. There are also those who say that we should be more didactic in what we write into the Bill. They are simply wrong. We have support from an unlikely source, in the Archbishops Council, which will of course reflect the views of the unlikely guest editor of the New Statesman magazine. He is not a gentleman who is necessarily known to be a supporter of the coalition Government, yet the Archbishops Council is quite clear that the military covenant exists in the moral realm. It is not contractual, and it is not statutory.
There is a risk, however, that pressure from Europe could codify a military covenant. There is something called Synchronised Armed Forces Europe—which is known by the rather misleading acronym SAFE—which seeks to impose a European soldiers statute that would codify the covenant. I urge Ministers strongly to resist such a thing.
I do not intend to detain the House any longer, as a number of colleagues wish to speak. I congratulate Ministers on bringing forward this measure. The Government have taken the Armed Forces Bill—a Bill that, as something of a constitutional anomaly, we take through this House every five years, with the exception of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which dealt in depth with service discipline—and really added substance to it. This is a truly historic Armed Forces Bill that will do much for the men and women to whom we owe so much, and will honour the covenant that we all have with them.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
I would like first to offer the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who spoke for the Opposition, and the Minister the opportunity to join the reserve forces, because if their combative skills in this place are anything to go by, they would both be welcome in whichever element of the service—
Mr Hancock
One is never too old to give service to one’s country.
I join the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in paying tribute to the two coroners who have dealt with military deaths up to now. I have assisted families who have been through that process, and they have always been very complimentary about the way the coroners have acted, the way they were treated by the court and the way the coroners—they believe rightly—tackled the very controversial issues that had resulted in the deaths of their loved ones. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone who is seriously dissatisfied with the behaviour of those coroners, both of whom rightly deserve to be congratulated and thanked on behalf of this House and all the families who have been through that process.
There are those Members who would like more written into the Bill than the three points in the covenant, but really the list is endless. The three issues identified were those that have been raised most consistently, but that is not to say that the others will be ignored. One benefit of having a yearly review and a report to this House is to give all players—those inside and outside the armed forces, whether former or serving members, and other groups representing them—the opportunity to put into play their points of view. Therefore, not writing things into the Bill is not as relevant as some would want to think. I happen to believe that Members from all parts of the House who have worked as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have tried to put the armed forces at the forefront of their endeavours to be fair.
I also criticise those who do not believe that the covenant is a contract. It is a contract: a contract between the British people, through this House, and the armed forces. Those who have criticised the idea that the covenant is not a written contract are mistaken. At a time when the armed forces have never been held in greater esteem, the people of this country believe that we have a duty not only to honour the covenant, but to make it work for those inside or outside the forces. The idea in the Bill of giving greater independence when complaints are made and dealt with is to be welcomed. However, I am slightly dismayed that we have not done more to introduce a proper ID card for veterans, to give them the same status that veterans have in other countries. I am grateful that the Minister and the Secretary of State have at different times conceded that further consideration will be given to that matter. We need to be sure that we honour our pledge to provide these services through the covenant and through the Bill, wherever they are asked for around the country. It should be irrelevant where the person lives at the time.
The Bill has a number of attractions for people in the armed forces, but it does not really satisfy those who have an interest in the way in which reservists who go on active service are treated when they return. The Select Committee on Defence has taken evidence recently on the way in which returning reserve service personnel are treated—by the health service or by employers, for example. The situation is unsatisfactory in that there is still a sense of exclusion. Returning reservists are not given enough support, for example, when they have problems with their employers.
We need to build into the review of armed forces legislation over the next five years, and into the covenant itself, greater support for reservists who are having trouble. It is often difficult for someone returning to the United Kingdom after serving abroad for six months to deal with problems arising from their employment. Where do they get the help and support that they genuinely need? In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get that sort of assistance, and we must look at that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What sort of help is available for a Territorial Army reservist when he has problems with his job? How can the Government help, given that a commercial arrangement is involved?
Mr Hancock
I think that the military legal services ought to be made available to them. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record of service in the armed forces, and I believe that the same facilities that would have been offered to him, should he have encountered difficulties during his military career, such as medical or legal advice, should be forthcoming to others. I want those facilities to be offered to individual reservists on their return to the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consider that matter seriously.
On behalf of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I should like to say how delighted I am that the coalition has been able to deliver on its promise to armed forces personnel and their families that the covenant would be written into legislation and therefore deemed to be part of the law of the land. People can now have great confidence that the armed forces, if not the national health service, are safe in the hands of the coalition.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), who speaks so clearly on this subject. I shall be brief, but I should like to make one or two points. There can be few more solemn moments in the Chamber than when the names of the dead are read out at Prime Minister’s questions on a Wednesday. This is now happening practically every week. I therefore find it interesting that, despite the statements of support and grave interest in our armed forces, our debate on the very thing that supports them—namely, the military covenant—has been scheduled for a Thursday afternoon. There are very few Members present—disgracefully few on the Opposition Benches—and there is a larky atmosphere with people trying to get out of this place as quickly as they can. That is a discredit to the men and women who serve us, and to the subject that we are debating today.
I am pleased to see so many hon. and gallant Members and former comrades in arms around me, however. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It was a highly intelligent speech, but I disagree with him on one subject. He used the very moving terms “battle rhythm” and “tempo of operations” aspirationally, saying that he hoped that both of those things would decline. It is worth bearing in mind that in April, 1st Battalion The Rifles deployed to Helmand province, and that, 131 years ago, its predecessor, the 66th of Foot, also deployed to Helmand. That was exactly the same area and exactly the same regiment facing exactly the same tribesmen, and with a similar political backdrop. In four hours, 994 men were killed in the battle of Maiwand, which now falls within the area of responsibility of the 1st Battalion The Rifles—what a coincidence.
I do not think that the tempo of operations or battle rhythm is going to decrease at all. As the fighting operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan decline, I have every confidence—I say this with no pleasure—that other operations will come up that will require our fighting men and women to be deployed in other parts of the world and that the military covenant will be just as important then as it is now.
Despite my earlier rather churlish comments, I am delighted that this Government have chosen to put these measures in a place where they can be properly recognised. I think it crucial to support the morale not just of the fighting men and women but of their families by assuring them that things are being done for them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who I know is going to speak later, used to command the Cheshire Regiment. [Interruption.] I gather that he is not going to speak later, which will be a great disadvantage to the whole House, I am sure. When he and I were serving, I know that we felt that no differentiation was made at all, as no particular support or advantage was given specifically to soldiers, sailors or airmen and their families. I thus rejoice in the fact that health care, schooling, taxation and other individual items are to be put on a more sensible basis for those who serve to protect us.
I ask the Minister to think carefully about how the military covenant—ill defined as it necessarily and properly is—might evolve and develop, and about whether we can learn anything, particularly from our American cousins.
There is one thing that completely defeats me. As a former commanding officer, I knew that I had only one thing to hand by which I could financially advantage those under my command. In those days, it was called the commanding officer’s discretionary fund. Over the years, that fund has gone up and I understand that it is has recently been about £60 a head. Forgive me for teaching the House to suck eggs, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is simply a fund of money given to commanding officers—be they commanding mobile bath units or a battalion of the guards—to spend as they see fit on those under their command without any further reference to higher authority. It is an extremely important fund. It has been spent recently on preparing homecoming parades; it has helped with regimental funerals; it has provided people with excellent opportunities for training; and it has allowed people to enjoy themselves a little and to get some quality time.
Modest though it is, this discretionary fund is extremely important, yet it has been cut, which I do not understand. This fund is immediate, important and goes right to the heart of the military covenant. I appreciate that in the overall scheme of things it is not a big sum of money and I appreciate that it is not a large issue overall, but to the men and women inside the units, it is crucial. I deplore the fact that it has been cut, because that stands on its head the logic and the propriety of everything else that has been done through the military covenant.
I will spare the House any more of my rhetoric. I am grateful for the opportunity to have made these points and I am grateful to this Government for what they have done. I hope to see the military covenant evolving and improving, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will now think carefully about the commanding officer’s discretionary fund—and I am sure that he will restore it.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
In this, my first year as a Member of Parliament, it has been a revelation and a reassurance to know that so many colleagues throughout the House have served in our armed forces, and I am even more surprised and steeled by the number who continue to serve as reservists. Their front-line experience is priceless in these thorny and precarious times. I do not share their direct experience of the ways of modern warfare, but I certainly see the landscape from a different plane. I am the mother of a teenage son who is training to become a Royal Marine commando, and my constituency is home to 36 Engineer Regiment and the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers. The health and well-being of our armed forces is therefore very close to my heart.
I do not intend to make a long speech, but I want to say a little about clause 2, about the military covenant, and, in particular, about how the covenant can help our military families. Isolation is a significant issue for military families when their loved ones are away, and in my constituency some Army mums have set up a local support group called Troopers Mums. Those inspirational women support themselves as well as the servicemen and women of whom they are so proud. They say that one of the most important factors for families dealing with isolation and worry is the existence of a support network of like-minded, empathetic people who are undergoing the same fears and anxieties. Sometimes it can be as simple as knowing, just from a look, when someone needs a cup of tea and a chat. Those women rely on each other in moments of need, and in many cases a problem shared is truly a problem halved. Troopers Mums are not asking for help; they simply want to be able to help themselves.
I know from my own research that other good support groups exist, but their functioning seems to be fragmented, unconnected and sporadic. Perhaps we can explore how we might develop and support a more uniform and accessible network across the country. When I use the word “support” I do not refer to state finance, state interference or yet another layer of state bureaucracy, and I echo the sentiments of one of the mums who said that she would not want a single penny to be diverted from the front line, but I think that with Government endorsement and some sponsorship from the private sector, we could assist families in a real and tangible way by helping them to set up and operate networks of their own.
The second point that I want to make about the military covenant concerns our nation as a whole. The covenant is a commitment between the Government, our service personnel, families and the nation. What worries me is that even if we enshrine the Government’s part of the bargain in legislation, things can still go badly wrong if our nation does not buy in. In conversation with my Troopers Mums, I heard of many instances in which a little kindness and understanding could have gone a long way, especially in the workplace. One mum told me that she had not been allowed time off to attend her son’s medal ceremony because she had already been given time off to attend his graduation some years earlier. Another told me that when her son was severely injured while serving in Afghanistan, she began to struggle at work. The response from her superiors was that she should “pull herself together.”
Closer to home, here in Westminster, I recently attended an armed forces dinner. I sat next to a man who had served in Iraq and had been awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, which is one down from the Victoria Cross. He had also served in Afghanistan, where his gallantry had earned him the Military Cross. I asked him about his Army life, and we talked of many things. He mentioned his home on an Army base, where he lives with his wife, who will soon turn 50. They cannot close the windows properly in their house because the double glazing framework has blown out. Their kitchen is made up of badly fitting, ill-matching units which are dysfunctional and look a complete shambles. They are sometimes embarrassed to ask people to supper because of the state of their accommodation.
Warrant Officer Mick Flynn is one of Britain’s most highly decorated soldiers. He is one of our heroes. He has given his entire working life to his country, and he is justly proud of his career. He does not complain, and he asks for little. I think that, as we debate the military covenant, the House will agree that we should support the rhetoric with practical action, such as ensuring that someone goes round to Mr and Mrs Flynn’s house to sort out their windows, fix the kitchen, and restore a little dignity to their home.
Mrs Grant
Good. That will give some tangible meaning to the term “military covenant”.
There is a positive side, however. I heard a story of a uniformed serviceman boarding a civil jet to return to the UK and the other passengers giving him a spontaneous round of applause as he took his seat. That is a great example of attitude, awareness and respect, and perhaps we should do much more of that kind of thing unreservedly. In order for the covenant to work, society must also modify.
I am very proud to support the Bill. I hope it will help to maintain public awareness of the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families every single day.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to contribute to this debate. I welcome the Bill’s provisions, especially the enshrining of the military covenant into law.
I have not been able to contribute to earlier debates on the Bill, nor do I have any military service as distinguished and gallant as that of some Members who have spoken. My only experience of military service was going to Leconfield base when I was about eight or nine with my father, when he was in the Territorial Army in east Yorkshire. That is as far as my direct interaction with the military goes. However, my constituency, and east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire in general, is a major recruiting ground for our military. Consequently, a number of veterans in my constituency and across the area regularly contact me on military matters, as do the families of serving personnel. This subject is of great local interest, therefore.
The constituency also has a long and proud history of supporting our military and playing an important role in military operations. Only last week, I attended a ceremony in Goole to mark the anniversary of D-day, and the Mulberry harbour was, of course, constructed in Goole, so the military is never far from the minds of the people of Brigg and Goole. I have also been working with a number of charities in my local area, not least the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association. The Minister knows of my interest in it, as he recently met me at the Ministry of Defence to discuss its work. I know it will welcome the military covenant provisions.
I may not have any direct military service history, but a month or so ago I spent some time with the armed forces scheme in the Falkland Islands, which was incredibly enlightening as it gave those of us without that experience the opportunity to engage with service personnel in all three branches of the military. I was staggered to hear how poorly some of them feel they are both treated and prepared for leaving the military. I was especially shocked to learn that many of them find that it is a problem for them to wear their uniform when they return to the UK. In fact, some of them highlighted that they had been verbally assaulted for wearing their uniform. That demonstrates that we have to ensure that more respect is shown to our military by the general public, and there is no better way of leading on that than by enshrining the military covenant in law.
When talking to those soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Falklands, I was most interested by what they planned and wanted to do on leaving the military. As a former teacher who takes a close interest in educational issues, I was struck by the fact that in the past there has been insufficient support for those leaving the military, and I certainly hope the covenant will address that. I particularly welcome the Government’s announcements on independent learning funds for those in the military and greater support for those leaving the military. I hope we hear more about that in the coming months and years.
We have heard a lot about the Joanna Lumley test. In my constituency, I apply the Mavis Vines test. She is a constituent of mine who worked for 25 years in Berlin for the British military before returning to Goole, and who now continually, and quite rightly, pressures me on the issue of how our veterans and serving personnel are treated, especially as her son has just returned from Afghanistan. One issue that she continuously presses me on—quite rightly—is housing. In 10 years as a local councillor, I saw the pressures relating to housing. We are all aware of those, but housing is never far from the minds of those who serve in our military and are transients, to say the least, when serving. Consequently, I hope that enshrining the military covenant and the annual report on the covenant in law will address some of the pressures and challenges that service personnel face.
I needed no more evidence of how a great deal remains to be done on our treatment of our military, but I received some when a constituent came to see me a couple of weeks ago. His son is a ground crew man who is working as part of Operation Ellamy in Italy. My constituent informed me, against the wishes of his son, that service personnel were continuing to be served rotten food and that they had insufficient computers to make contact with their families back home. This relates back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) about isolation. When these people are on active service overseas, that isolation is not helped if there are not enough computers, mobile phones or communication routes back to their loved ones back home. Although progress has been made since this Government came to power, a great deal more clearly can and should be done to support people on active service overseas.
I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I do want to express my support for the Bill. The Government are right to enshrine the covenant in law. I heard the words of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and I will resist asking why these things were not done previously. The Labour Government did have a number of years in which they could have enshrined the covenant in law. I hope that we can proceed in a cross-party way on this issue. There remains much to be done to support our military, but the amendments that have been made to enshrine the covenant are the right ones. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of this House will support the Bill, as I will, and I conclude by wishing our service personnel all the very best.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I would like to start my contribution by putting on the record just how much I enjoyed serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. Not only was that a great honour for me, but it was very interesting and, at times, fun, as others have said. It was my first Public Bill Committee and it would have been my first choice in terms of subject. I am sure that one of the reasons why I was asked to serve on it was because of my military background, although I can assure the House that my military experience is very modest.
I am sure hon. Members are aware that I am a serving reservist. I am currently a trooper in the ranks with the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, as part of the Royal Wessex Yeomanry. Previously, I was a gunner with 266 Commando Battery in Bristol and was attached to 29 Commando on Operation Herrick 9. Because of injury—I snapped my collar bone—and the general election interrupting my military service, and despite my best efforts, I have not been able to join the friends I served with last time who are in Afghanistan, on Operation Herrick 14, as part of 3 Commando Brigade. That has made me feel guilty from time to time, and it leads to some days when I am a bit out of sorts because I am here when they are out there doing the business and doing a great job. While they are out there serving our country, if I have been able to serve on this Committee and make a small contribution that will in the end improve the lives of servicemen and women, veterans and their families, at least I will have done my bit in some way. I hope the rest of my friends’ deployment goes very well and they all come back safely.
On occasion, the Committee has been more partisan than I would have liked. However, that has mainly been on the detail and emphasis, rather than the principle of doing the best that we can for our troops, veterans and their families—in principle, there is complete agreement on that. I am glad that there is broad agreement across the House and the party political divide on this final version of the Bill.
I want to pay tribute to all my colleagues on the Committee, with whom I have really enjoyed working, especially my new friend the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is, I know, very passionate about the armed forces and did some fantastic work in the previous Government, when he was a Minister. [Laughter.] Sorry, I could not resist.
We all recognise that the most important and prominent duty of any Government is the defence of the realm and the protection of our people. I believe the whole House is also in agreement that it is of equal importance that all Governments value the contributions and sacrifices that our servicemen and women make in carrying out that most crucial task. The welfare of our nation’s servicemen and women is rightfully at the top of the political agenda and the Government have moved swiftly to ensure that any lapses in the commitment between Government and our armed forces are rectified.
In the Bill, we have a piece of legislation of historic importance to our nation and to our armed forces. The commitment has existed since the inception of the nation state—from the times when the ancient Romans gave land to their veterans to provide them with a livelihood to 1593 when Elizabeth I recognised the country’s responsibility to wounded veterans—and the passing of the Bill, in this House, proves our firm and now unbreakable commitment to our service personnel, veterans and their families.
Most significant will be the statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the effects of service in our armed forces and on the welfare of serving and former members of the armed forces and of their families. That provision will ensure that the armed forces covenant that the Government are rebuilding will be advanced year on year. Each report will have to set out how the Government are supporting our armed forces, their families and veterans in key areas such as health care, housing and education.
For the first time in the history of our nation, the Bill will give statutory recognition to the armed forces covenant and provide a mechanism for ensuring that it is addressed by Ministers and Parliament. As I have mentioned, in Committee there was broad agreement, at least on the key principles that underpin the armed forces covenant. To me, those principles are that when our armed forces personnel on operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere face paying the ultimate price in the protection of our country, its citizens and our freedoms and way of life, we should only ask them to do so in the knowledge that they are properly equipped for the task, that they will be trained to the highest level and that when they retire or should they be injured, wounded or indeed killed, they and their families will be provided for in recognition of and admiration for the sacrifices that they have made.
The covenant between the state and the men and women we ask to defend it is rightfully a long-standing tradition and commitment and its continuation and development is more important than ever before. That is why I, too, welcome the amendments tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for Defence, which were accepted by the House. Those amendments have been welcomed by Chris Simpkins, the director general of the Royal British Legion, who said:
“I firmly believe that we now have a much better Bill, which is not just fit for purpose, but also embodies the ‘historic agreement’ and covenant principles”.
The way in which the covenant was reflected in legislation was debated in great detail in Committee, and we can all be proud of what has come out of those deliberations.
This Bill is recognition of a duty that precedes even this place, the mother of all Parliaments, and that is the duty of care, protection and equality for those who are asked to defend our country. This is a proud moment for this Parliament, which will enshrine that covenant in law for the first time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Economic Regeneration (Barnsley)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure to secure today’s debate on an issue that is extremely important for Barnsley and for the whole country.
The cuts and changes to welfare pursued by this Government are hitting the most vulnerable parts of the country the hardest, and Barnsley is on the front line. More than 25% of our jobs are in the public sector, one of the highest rates in the country. The loss of many of these jobs will take tens of millions of pounds out of the local economy just as benefit changes start to bite. We have taken huge strides to overcome the stagnation and decline that hit us the last time the Conservatives were in power, but these cuts have the potential to push us back years.
The legitimacy of the Government’s programme depends on its fairness. Before they go further down the road they have embarked on, they have a duty—an obligation—to stop and think about the effect it will have on places such as Barnsley. That does not mean that we reject reform to our public finances or to our public services, but the deficit needs to be tackled in a way that corresponds to sensible economic policy, not to the demands of ideology. Welfare needs to be reformed in a way that does not kick the genuinely vulnerable in the teeth. The question is how far and how fast the cuts and changes are made and what is done to make the process a transition, rather than a reckless abandonment of our communities and a gamble with our economic future.
First and foremost, places like Barnsley need targeted support to help drive development and employment—a coherent, responsible regional development strategy that has the resources to succeed. That does not mean giving unsustainable handouts. What is holding Barnsley back is not the fundamentals—we have the location, the work force and the will to thrive—what we need is the investment to overcome the entirely man-made barriers to our progress.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. Does he agree that there is proof that the area still has something very significant to offer in ASOS’s announcement last year of 1,100 new jobs for Barnsley, specifically in Grimethorpe in my constituency? Is it not the case that those jobs and that investment came about because of decisions made by previous Governments to ensure that we had in place infrastructure such as the facilities, warehouses and roads to attract such firms, and that we need a real partnership with government?
Dan Jarvis
I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive and useful intervention. I believe that the ASOS model provides a useful example of how the Barnsley development agency, working with the metropolitan borough council, can aggressively seek to target other industries and businesses. The ASOS model is a useful one that we need to learn lessons from and employ in future.
As I have said, what we need is the investment to overcome the entirely man-made barriers to our progress. Without that, as my colleague the shadow Business Secretary recently said,
“the government’s belief that the retreat of the state is automatically matched by the expansion of the private sectors is going to be tested to destruction.”
The Government have dispensed with the strategic investment fund, with grants for business investment and with regional development agencies. The new regional growth fund has only a third of the money that was available under RDAs. I accept that RDAs were not without their failings, but the local enterprise partnerships that have replaced them are short on funding and short on power.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that any Government Member or anyone in this country wants to cut jobs just for the sake of it for some reason of politics? The fact is that jobs have had to go because we just cannot afford them any longer and we cannot just plough money into the public sector all the time.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not believe that Government Members think of these issues in such ways but this is a matter of policy. Barnsley is the kind of place that will go into a recession first and come out of it last and I believe that when the Government are making significant cuts to public services that will have an impact on jobs and livelihoods across Barnsley, they have a duty and an obligation to pause and consider the effect that those cuts will have on the people in Barnsley.
Where public sector cuts are made and jobs in the public service are lost, I do not believe that it is a given that the private sector will come in and fill the void. That should not be a natural assumption. In order to promote the kinds of conditions that allow the private sector to invest in places such as Barnsley, there needs to be a targeted programme of investment and development. I do not believe that the policies that the Government are putting in place will do that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his useful intervention.
The LEPs, which have replaced RDAs, are short on funding and short on power. They are not even guaranteed the money for their own start-up costs, never mind for investment to support business. They will have to apply to the regional growth fund, whose first round of funding is already 10 times oversubscribed, and they have been denied access to cash from the European regional development fund, which is being centralised at the desk of a Whitehall bureaucrat. Perhaps the Minister can explain how that fits with the Government’s supposed localism agenda.
I believe that we can and must do better than that. First, we can strengthen the LEPs and make them much better able to co-ordinate and lead a strategic approach to regional development. Among other things, that means giving them access to the ERDF and allowing them to join together to secure investment for cross-regional projects. It means giving them a stronger, more formal role in the development of local economic growth plans. It means removing or reducing the £1 million threshold for RGF bids so that smaller companies can apply and LEPs can work with them to bring in the investment projects needed to spur growth. Will the Minister consider these changes?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I am pleased to say that small businesses can participate in the RGF. The £1 million programme for the second phase will allow small and medium-sized enterprises to participate, and in the first phase we saw that they were able to participate in Merseyside and Plymouth, so I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
One area where LEPs have real influence is the creation of enterprise zones. I commend the Government on the proposal being put forward by my local LEP, but I hope that the Government will not penalise proposals from several LEPs, including my own, for enterprise zones that are spread across several sites. The Government must be ready to listen to LEPs where there is a clear rationale based on the complexity of the local economy and the real needs of businesses. The uncertainty on this question reflects the over-simplistic and unclear nature of the criteria for enterprise zone site selection. Will the Minister ensure that those problems are rectified as a matter of urgency so that the work of LEPs such as mine is not inhibited by a lack of flexibility?
In any case, enterprise zones are a limited tool. They can offer reduced business rates, fast planning and fast internet, but a far greater concern of entrepreneurs in Barnsley is the lack of skilled workers. I will talk about the shortcomings of the Government’s skills policy in a moment, but given that the skills problem is one of the biggest barriers to private sector growth, would it not make sense to mandate the LEPs to oversee a locally adapted skills strategy, in partnership with businesses and local authorities? At the very least, we should take up the suggestion made by the Centre for Cities that enterprise zones should include special support for training and skills development.
For Barnsley, another vital issue, of which I know the Minister is aware, is the Government’s position on transferring the assets of the regional development agencies to LEPs or to local authorities. Those assets were built up by the RDAs with the specific aim of supporting local development, and in many cases they are critical to projects for transforming our local economies. That is the case in Barnsley, where the keystone Barnsley Markets project has been premised on the use of land belonging to the RDA. That is not some bureaucratic black hole; it is the future of Barnsley as a town—a project that is ready and waiting to move forward, and exactly the practical purpose for which the asset was originally acquired.
In total, the future of some £500 million in RDA land and property assets throughout the country is in doubt. I firmly believe that local authorities or LEPs should be given the first say on the use of those assets, and that is not just a Labour view; it is one echoed throughout the House. I am greatly concerned that the Government may be contemplating a fire sale at reduced prices, which would bolster central coffers at the expense of regional development and be deeply short-sighted. Will the Minister reassure the House that this will not happen, and will he allow LEPs to use the assets as they were meant to be used?
An active LEP is important, but it is not enough on its own, and the recent figures on bank lending bear out what I hear in person from businesses in my constituency. The problem is especially severe for small and medium-sized enterprises, exactly the sort of businesses that are most important for driving job growth. Research shows that South Yorkshire has one of the highest concentrations of SMEs with high growth potential anywhere in the UK. Keep that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, if anyone ever tells you that Barnsley does not have untapped potential.
There is, however, a steady stream of reports that SMEs are being held back by the lack of credit, even when the business case is sound. I was glad to hear that the Business Secretary did not rule out more action down the line if targets continue to be missed; I was not so glad when he told me that banks miss their targets more by choice than by chance. That is not acceptable for businesses in Barnsley or anywhere else in the country.
What plans do the Government have to ensure that banks meet their small-business lending targets? At what point do the Government take firmer action on the two state-owned banks? Would they accept the banks meeting their lending targets but failing to meet their small-business lending targets? What will Ministers do if the banks continue to claim that the demand is not there? It is a claim that many small businesses contest. Is the Minister going to wait to the end of the year to do more than lecture the banks if they are at fault? And what will happen next year if the Project Merlin agreement has not delivered? The Government have admitted that the lack of lending still threatens the entire recovery, but that problem needs to be resolved now.
The market is the foundation of our economy, but the Government have to play a role in helping it develop in a way that matches our strengths and builds the society that we want. If Barnsley is to thrive, it must be at the cutting edge of high-tech, high-value manufacturing and of the new digital and green economies. Instead, the Government are axing the zero-carbon homes initiative, which was helping to develop the next generation of British manufacturing. What are they going to do to support the development of the new economy that we need?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation.
Part of the effort is developing the infrastructure that is needed to bring growth anywhere outside the south-east—especially high-speed rail. The plan that Labour put together in office will bring Leeds within 80 minutes of London, and that could have a major positive impact in Barnsley. However, it is not yet clear that the Government are serious about bringing high-speed rail to the areas that most need it. If they were, why has the Secretary of State for Transport so far declined to include the northern branches of the planned Y-shaped network in the transport Bill? Will the Minister reassure the House that that will change, and will the Government reconsider the scale of their cuts to rail transport generally, which threaten a repeat of the under-investment of the previous Conservative Government and fare rises that threaten to put rail travel out of reach for the less well off?
Better transport will particularly help another sector with great potential in Barnsley—tourism. Indeed, that sector has been a key driver of job creation across the country. As the Government say, in the current economic climate those performances make the tourism sector a particularly important part of the UK economy. Barnsley is a great town with a proud history. When I look around the metropolitan borough at places such as the Elsecar Heritage Centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), Cannon Hall and Wentworth castle in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and the new town hall museum project in the heart of my constituency, I see enormous potential for tourism in Barnsley.
I am glad that the Government’s tourism strategy acknowledges the need for some Government help when market failures mean that tourism is not properly promoted. But they should also consider providing some support for places that have a clear tourism potential but are not yet established destinations. I am thinking especially of areas particularly in need of growth, such as Barnsley. Will the Minister outline how the Government plan to help us achieve our tourism goals?
I believe that the most fundamental barrier to aspiration and economic development in Barnsley is a lack of skills. I recently spoke to a major employer and asked him the three most important factors to consider when relocating or setting up a business. His reply was simple: “Skills, skills and skills.”
Michael Dugher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; he is typically generous. He rightly identified the issue of skills and he is right that we need to lift the level of skills in Barnsley if we are going to attract the jobs of the future. Does he agree that certain Government policies such as the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance and the trebling of tuition fees will make that harder, not easier?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those useful points. The Government’s decision to abandon EMA, treble tuition fees and remove the Barnsley-inspired future jobs fund provide a triple whammy for the hard-working people of Barnsley seeking to secure employment. I ask the Government to consider the impact of those decisions on places such as Barnsley.
The Government’s strategy on skills leaves a lot to be desired. I am glad that they plan to build on Labour’s investment in apprenticeships, but despite the urgent problem of youth unemployment, 16 to 18-year-olds will not be able to access a single one of the extra places that they are funding.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
With your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to place on the record the delight of the House in the MBE awarded to my hon. Friend in the Queen’s birthday honours last week.
Is it not the case that significant numbers of young people want to leave school at age 16 and do not want to engage in full-time education, but would benefit from a mix of work and training that is typically represented by a good, solid apprenticeship? Is it not a fundamental mistake to deny young people that opportunity, especially given that it develops the work habit from the very earliest point of entry into adult life?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks and for the useful and constructive contribution she has made to this debate. I completely agree about apprenticeships. They are a vital pathway for young people, bridging the gap between the classroom and the world of work. I am proud of the work that the Labour Government did in increasing the number of apprenticeship places. I hope to work constructively with Members across the House to persuade businesses across the country, not only in Barnsley and South Yorkshire, to take on more apprenticeships. An apprenticeship is a valuable opportunity for young people that gives them vital experience of the world of work.
The Government have axed Train to Gain, which provided work-based training to 575,000 people in 2009-10. They have also scrapped fees remission for people over 25 who are doing level 2 and level 3 courses. That is partly why the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has had to admit that adult apprentices may have to borrow up to £9,000 to fund their training.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a great case for Barnsley, which is a very proud town. I appreciate that he has not been in the House for all that long since his magnificent victory a few months ago, but it probably has not escaped his notice that the Labour Government were in power for 13 years. If there is a big skills shortage in Barnsley, does he not therefore accept that his own party has to take some of the responsibility for that?
Dan Jarvis
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to remind the House—although there will be no need to remind people in Barnsley—of the impact of the policies of the Conservative Governments led by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. People in Barnsley will recall the damage that the Conservative Governments who were in power until 1997 did to such places. I will be very happy to walk through Barnsley with the hon. Gentleman, who is always welcome to come and visit—it is not terribly far from his constituency. I will be delighted to show him the real, long-lasting structural improvements that were made in Barnsley as a result of 13 years of Labour government. In effect, the cuts made by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s created structural, long-lasting, generational decay in Barnsley, and that takes a significant period to overcome. I believe that the Labour Government made considerable progress during the 13 years when they were in office, and that is clear to people when they walk through the streets of Barnsley. The Building Schools for the Future programme is a classic example; it has provided state-of-the-art infrastructure for kids who go to school in Barnsley. We can be proud of that record. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to make that point.
As I said, the Government have axed Train to Gain, which was a valuable scheme that provided a significant amount of work-based training to hundreds of thousands of people. They have also scrapped fees remission for people over 25 who are doing level 2 and level 3 courses, and the Minister has had to admit that adult apprentices may have to borrow £9,000 to fund their training. As Labour Members will be well aware, the Government have also cancelled the Barnsley-inspired future jobs fund, pioneered by Councillor Steve Houghton, the leader of Barnsley metropolitan borough council. I remind the House that the FJF provided jobs for 100,000 18 to 24-year-olds, with a valuable training element. Overall, I believe that those decisions represent a reckless underinvestment in the skills needed for economic regeneration and are a body blow to the aspirations of young people not just in Barnsley, but across the country.
Barnsley stands to be particularly affected by the changes in benefits made by this Government. I fully agree that welfare needs to be reformed, but I do not believe that we are going about it in the right way. Above all, the changes do nothing directly to support new jobs. Across the country, there are five times as many claimants as there are open positions. We risk the injustice of penalising people for failing to get jobs that simply do not exist.
There are several ways in which the reforms undermine job creation and stop people getting off benefits. The assumption that the unemployed are earning the minimum wage in the calculation for universal credit will make it virtually impossible for many people to set up a business. The new enterprise allowance cuts out anyone who has not been on jobseeker’s allowance for six months. People coming off disability allowance and people who have just been made redundant who want to set themselves up in business are being told that they have to waste six months uselessly claiming jobseeker’s allowance before they will be eligible for the new enterprise allowance. That costs taxpayers more for people who want only to stand on their own two feet. Will the Government look again at their welfare reform programme as it clearly needs improvement?
The problems facing Barnsley are indicative of those facing towns across the country. The message seems self-evident: we can either sacrifice everything to balancing the books in a way that undermines the economic stability of the country or we can tackle these problems head-on. This is not a request for unlimited spending or an end to reform; it is just a request for the Government to do their bit so that we in Barnsley can fulfil our potential. For now, the Government’s approach is ensuring that places such as Barnsley bear a disproportionate burden. If this Government are to live up to their promises, if they are to make a claim to the basic principles of fairness, and if their cuts and reforms are to have any legitimacy with the British people, that must change.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate. I do not know whether this is his first Adjournment debate, given that he is a relatively new Member of the House—the second most recent if my calculations are right—but some of the language was a little flowery, and there was a strong desire to have a go at the Conservative Government. There seemed to be a moment of frozen time between 1997 and last year, but we will pass that by.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Barnsley should share in the sustainable, long-term growth that is the overriding priority of this Government for the whole country. We want to forge a new model of growth based on rebalancing the economy both geographically and in terms of sectors. We want to promote and encourage innovation and boost exports, which is a real key to enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to prosper, and not just rely on consumption fuelled by public debt.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the proud industrial heritage of Barnsley. He was right that it is working hard to continue its transition from the traditional coal mining and glass making industries to new industries such as the low-carbon, creative and digital industries. As he rightly highlighted, Barnsley’s potential has been shown by the decision of ASOS to move parts of its operation to Grimethorpe. I believe that it already employs some 500 people and is set to increase that to 1,000, making it Barnsley’s biggest employer. I am happy to put it on the record that that investment is evidence of the council, the business community and the economic development partners working together locally to make the best use of the area’s assets to bring in the long-term jobs that are important for the people of Barnsley.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Barnsley is well positioned to benefit from the growth potential of both the Leeds and Sheffield city regions. That is why we agreed that, sitting where it does, and considering the travel-to-work market areas in which it sits, it should be a full member of both local enterprise partnerships. That underscores the principle behind the partnerships. We have introduced them so that they are founded on real, functional economic areas that actually reflect where businesses trade and people work. Through LEPs, we are encouraging business and civic leaders to come together to provide strong leadership at local level. After all, it will be those local leaders who really understand the barriers that are holding back growth in their area. Our policy is deliberately designed to empower them to set the agenda and work together to both drive sustainable growth and create private sector jobs.
In the past few months I have visited 18 local enterprise partnerships, including both the Sheffield and Leeds ones. I have to say, I have been immensely impressed by the ambition and capability of the boards and their members.
Angela Smith
Barnsley is responsible for the production of more than 90% of clay pipes in this country, which, as the Minister knows, is an energy-intensive industry. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that we keep those jobs in the UK and in Barnsley, and create more of them in that really important, environmentally friendly industry. Will the Minister acknowledge that he and his Department have a role to play in ensuring that such industries can stay in the UK and are not made uncompetitive by Government policy on carbon floor pricing?
Mr Prisk
I am not just pleased to acknowledge that, I am actively playing that role now. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that we do not want, as an unintended consequence of our policies to reduce carbon emissions, to somehow export jobs in such industries only to see the net effect on the climate worsened. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that, and that is why, working with the energy-intensive industries, we have set in train an approach to develop a proper mitigation strategy. In that way we can help the generators of energy who need a carbon floor price without, as an unintended consequence, destroying the industry to which she refers and the brick, ceramic and steel industries. That is one challenge that we need to meet. It is a tricky balance, because some sectors wish to see a new regulatory framework and others do not. We are trying to ensure that we secure one group without destroying the other.
I mentioned that Barnsley is part of both the Sheffield and Leeds city LEPs. Sheffield city region is focusing on advanced manufacturing and technology, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central will be aware that the advanced manufacturing research centre, based at the university of Sheffield, was recently announced as one of the seven partners in the Government’s first technology and innovation centre. That will focus on high-value manufacturing, and it includes some world-leading businesses such as Rolls-Royce and Boeing. Sheffield city region’s LEP is looking to exploit the potential of the industries to which he referred—creative, digital and low carbon—in which there are real emerging opportunities. For instance, there are the emerging plans for the Dearne valley eco-vision.
Let us not forget that both Leeds and Sheffield LEPs have been charged with overseeing the launch of enterprise zones, as announced by the Chancellor. I worked in enterprise zones in the 1980s, and I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s natural scepticism of them. I see the benefit of them. I am not unaware of the danger that if we do not handle them right there can be an unnecessary displacement effect, but we have reformed them to allow the local business and civic leadership to tell us, through the LEP, including the Barnsley team, where they feel the zones should be. That is a critical difference from what we saw in the 1980s, which is so clearly emblazoned on his memory. Then, the zones were imposed from the centre. We are not doing that. We are asking the partnerships, “Where will the zones have the best effect?”
The enterprise zones will have an important effect. We will notice improvement through the business rates tax breaks, the business-friendly planning rules and the application of superfast broadband, which will kick-start private enterprise locally. The extra business rates that are collected as a result will then be retained and made available to work across the whole local enterprise area. I suspect that one or two businesses will begin to realise that Barnsley, sitting in the middle of two LEPs, is in quite an advantageous position in that context. I also suspect that the hon. Gentleman will fight to ensure that Barnsley remains in that position.
The Government are working with LEPs and enterprise zones on some potential additional incentives to suit local circumstances. This is particularly relevant in south Yorkshire, because those incentives include consideration of enhanced capital allowances for plant and machinery where there is a strong focus on manufacturing. We are also considering tax increment financing to boost the long-term viability of such areas, and ensuring that we provide specific and tailored support for inward investment through UK Trade & Investment. I shall say more about inward investment in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman referred to it a moment ago.
On Yorkshire Forward assets, and particularly the Barnsley markets project, I fully accept that the forthcoming closure of Yorkshire Forward has left the future of the project open. I also appreciate that the project is key to Barnsley’s ambitions to be, as the hon. Gentleman has said, a 21st-century market town. That is why I discussed the future of the markets with a delegation from Barnsley council a few months ago. I said then—and I am happy to say it again now—that we have never, and we will not, plan a fire sale of RDA assets in Barnsley or anywhere else.
The project is a victim of the economic downturn in recent years, but I understand that there is now a prospect of getting it going again, which is excellent news. The Government want a resolution that enables the project to be completed. We must have one eye on protecting the taxpayer, but local completion for the local economic benefit is firmly in our sights. I must be careful because discussions are ongoing, but let me put on the record that I welcome the positive discussions that the council is having on the future of the markets. My Department is working closely with local partners to see whether we can get that sorted out.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the regional growth fund. He is right. The first round was incredibly popular, which means that it was, to a degree, oversubscribed. However, I am pleased to tell the House that some 7,628 direct jobs will benefit from that first round, plus a further 2,716 indirect jobs. Most obviously—this is perhaps the most high profile initiative in some media circles—there was £6.4 million funding for the Haribo manufacturing plant in Normanton, and a £2 million R and D project under the new David Brown brand, Windserve. Perhaps most relevant to Barnsley is the £18 million programme for the Sheffield city gateway. That will significantly benefit the whole city region, including Barnsley metropolitan borough.
We are coming to the close of the second round stage—it closes on 1 July—the funding for which is twice that of the first round. Again, there has been a high level of interest. Lord Heseltine gave a briefing this morning for Members of Parliament. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had the chance to attend, but if not, he is very welcome to talk to my Parliamentary Private Secretary or to me to ensure that he is fully up to date.
May I clarify two points that the hon. Gentleman raised? First, LEPs can, and indeed are, bidding as part of that round. Secondly, small and medium-sized enterprises can bid, as I mentioned, through the various project schemes. This is one area in which they are getting together to put together sensible programmes that allow that. The House will understand that it is quite difficult to administer sensibly a £1 billion competitive fund down to sums of hundreds or small thousands of pounds. However, the £1 million limit has been adjusted to allow for projects and programmes, which has meant that a number of encouraging small and medium-sized bids are involved.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of skills, and he is right. Skills are vital if we are to equip people for the new opportunities that lie ahead. That is why we are doubling to 24 the number of university technology colleges by 2014—to enable more young people to gain the technical skills they need from an early age; it is why we are funding up to 100,000 work experience placements for young people; and it is why we are investing £250 million in a substantial expansion of apprenticeships, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, by 75,000 places over the next four years. To help SMEs, a £75 million programme was announced in the plan for growth—support targeted deliberately to help SMEs that want to access advance-level and higher apprenticeships.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether LEPs should be mandated to drive skills locally. We do not need to mandate that because they are doing it already. One of the great things about the shift from regional development agencies to LEPs is that they allow that local initiative. I was immensely encouraged, certainly in my conversations with the Sheffield city region LEP, that they intend already to bring together their higher and further education college partners and their business partners. They can act as the co-ordinating point, and the nice thing is that we do not have to tell anybody to do that; they are going to do it of their volition.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the role of SMEs, and I entirely agree with him. They are crucial, whether in the economy of South Yorkshire or across the UK as a whole. As someone who started his business at the bottom of the last recession, I have been determined to ensure that the Government, with the remarkable support from everybody from the Prime Minister downwards, set out a path that will help SMEs start, grow and prosper. That is why we are cutting the corporation tax rates for businesses in Barnsley to 20p; simplifying the tax regime; and reducing the overall corporation tax headline rates, which will put an additional £1 billion in the coffers of business for it to reinvest. That is good for jobs. It is also why we are ensuring that new firms in Barnsley are exempted from national insurance contributions on the first 10 employees and extending the small business rate relief holiday—those rates so penalised smaller businesses trying to survive—for a further year from October; and why we took the decision substantially to expand the threshold for the entrepreneur capital gains tax relief from £2 million under the previous Government to £10 million under this Government. That will send the message that we want not only to cut tax rates to help SMEs start up, but to reward business owners as they develop their businesses. That is a crucial message, and one that was well received by businesses around the country.
Those measures are allied to a change in the way we deliver business support in Yorkshire and elsewhere. One of the key changes will be to strengthen how the manufacturing advisory service operates by putting together a £50 million package over the next three years. That outreach service helps SMEs in Barnsley and South Yorkshire, as well as the rest of the country, to improve their productivity, capability and strengths. That is an important shift.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned trade and the need to ensure not only that people can invest in the area, but that SMEs can expand. I believe that Barnsley’s businesses need more help in this field, which is why we have overhauled the former strategy and focused UK Trade & Investment on the future of SMEs and on strengthening their ability to reach new markets; and why we have asked the export credits guarantee department to improve substantially the financial support for exports. That will enable south Yorkshire businesses to apply for the new export enterprise finance guarantee, which will underpin their ability to borrow money to reach new markets. It is also why we have tried to establish simpler trade credit insurance schemes, which are an important way of ensuring that businesses have the confidence to start that process.
The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see Barnsley flourish, along with the rest of the country. That is why we are going all out to create a business environment that will give companies the confidence to start, invest and grow, and it is why local communities are being freed from central control and mandates. It will enable them to determine their own future, most obviously through their LEP. This, in a way, is the key to achieving long-lasting economic regeneration and sustainable growth in Barnsley and elsewhere. I can assure him and the House that this will continue to have our relentless focus now and in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Ahead of Channel 4’s screening this evening of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, what recent assessment have the Secretary of State or Ministers made of the credibility of the Sri Lankan Government’s lessons learned and reconciliation commission and its new deadline to report in November this year?
Alistair Burt
I spoke this morning to the Foreign Secretary of Sri Lanka, who had the opportunity to update me on some positive measures that were being taken in relation to Jaffna. I was in a position to remind him of the importance of having a credible and independent investigation of the various allegations that are now very much on the table from the United Nations and others. It is essential that those are dealt with. We note the new timetable for the LLRC to report in November, but, however long this takes, it will not be possible for Sri Lanka to move forward unless it has addressed some of the horrors of the past.
[Official Report, 14 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 633-34.]
Letter of correction from Alistair Burt:
An error has been identified in an oral answer given on 14 June 2011. The correct answer should have been:
Alistair Burt
I spoke this morning to the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, who had the opportunity to update me on some positive measures that were being taken in relation to Jaffna. I was in a position to remind him of the importance of having a credible and independent investigation of the various allegations that are now very much on the table from the United Nations and others. It is essential that those are dealt with. We note the new timetable for the LLRC to report in November, but, however long this takes, it will not be possible for Sri Lanka to move forward unless it has addressed some of the horrors of the past.
Petitions
Arms Exports
Parking Restrictions (Ablewell Street, Walsall)
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 10 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
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
(12 years, 10 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
Student Visas
(12 years, 10 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
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Benton. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for consideration of this important issue. My request was supported by hon. Members from all three main parties. In that spirit of consensus, I will begin by endorsing the words of the Home Secretary when she made her statement on student visas to the House:
“The UK has a worldwide reputation for providing quality education to overseas students, and Britain is rightly the destination of choice for many people wishing to study abroad”.—[Official Report, 22 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 855.]
Indeed, that reputation—that quality—has made UK education a major export. My constituency includes both our city’s outstanding universities—Sheffield, where I spent most of my working life, and Sheffield Hallam, where I was a governor for seven years in its previous incarnation as Sheffield City polytechnic. The issue is critical for those institutions, as it is for many across our country. Some 12% of the university of Sheffield’s income—a total of about £50 million—derives from international student fees, with more than £20 million of Hallam’s income coming from the 10% of their students who come from overseas. In addition, the two universities estimate that their international students spend around £90 million a year in the Sheffield city region.
We also have Sheffield college, with 300 overseas students contributing £1 million in fees and probably a further £1 million in local spending. Also in my constituency is Sheffield international college, which provides language courses for up to 1,000 students a year paying £10 million in fees and contributing up to £15 million to the local economy. Overall, international students contribute approaching £190 million a year to Sheffield’s economy. Just pause to think about that in terms of the number of jobs and businesses they support in just one city.
The UK is the second most popular student destination in the world after the United States. Overall, the international student market is estimated to be worth £40 billion to the UK economy. It is a growing market in which we have been increasingly successful. From 2000 to 2008, our world market share rose from 1% to 11%, while at the same time the US share dropped from 24% to 19%, so there is a lot at stake in the changes that we make to our student visa system.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I support the Government in wanting to have robust checks on the level of students coming in, but there is a particular issue for this year where offers have been made. The universities thought that they could have some discretion on how the English tests were set. Where offers have been made, there is a particular issue this year, given that the proposals are so prescriptive. Does he agree with that point about the time scale?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I very much agree with that point. It is one that I intend to come to. There are two issues that we need to cover: the proposals overall, where relatively small changes would make a significant difference, and the transition to the new system.
I accept that the Government recognise the significance of the changes and the enormous concern that exists within Parliament and across the sector. In their consultation on the original proposals, the Home Office received more than 30,000 submissions. I recognise that the Government made significant changes that were widely welcomed within the sector, but there remain significant points of concern that our universities and colleges believe will threaten recruitment and therefore threaten our economy. Indeed, as hon. Members will be aware, the Home Office impact assessment, published on Monday, demonstrated that the proposals were likely to cost the UK economy a shocking £2.4 billion, and perhaps up to £3.6 billion.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact is devastating for English language schools in my constituency? They have already been devastated in terms of applications as a result of the changes. If we look at the turnout today, the geographical spread of hon. Members’ constituencies, and the number of them present, shows that there is a serious problem that the Government need to get a grip on.
Paul Blomfield
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. There is concern across the sector, in higher and further education, in language schools, and, indeed, across the whole country. Judging by the hon. Members present today, I am sure that will be reflected in the contributions to the debate.
I do not believe that the Government are deliberately seeking to damage the economy through these measures, but, by their own assessment, that will be the effect. Over the past few weeks, Ministers have told us that good government is about listening, pausing the legislative process and making changes to get things right. Student visas are another issue where changes are needed to get things right, so let me move to the areas that I believe need attention. First, on English language requirements, my point is not about fundamental change to the Government’s proposals, but about getting implementation right. Let me start with universities. The UK Border Agency’s statement of intent for the new system, which was published in March, stated that:
“We will allow higher education institutions to choose their own method of assessing the English language competence at B2 level.”
However, the subsequent UKBA clarification document, which was issued in April, requires higher education institutions to demonstrate B2 levels of competence in all four components. It also says that, if there is any doubt about a student’s language, UKBA is likely to ask them to undertake their own approved tests—it is a crucial point—even if the institution has made an unconditional offer. That clearly conflicts with UKBA’s own statement of intent. In my constituency, Sheffield’s universities accept only students with good English, but they do not currently require students to meet the specific subset scores now demanded by UKBA; they do not need to.
Only this week I was talking to the vice-chancellor of the university of Sheffield. He gave me the example of what he described as a brilliant physics PhD student who had contributed enormously to one of his research groups, but who probably would not have passed the language requirements.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My own university, Keele, has a strong record in attracting overseas students. It also makes a vital financial contribution. The vice-chancellor has written to me about the changes. Keele has more than 1,700 offers outstanding at the moment, many of which have to be summarily revisited. Like my hon. Friend’s universities and most other universities, it accepts only students with good English capabilities, but it now finds its discretion has been removed. Will he urge the Minister and the Government to reconsider the issue, particularly with regard to any unintended consequences?
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and join him in urging the Minister to look again at that issue. We should trust the universities to determine adequate levels of English competence. After all, they have, through their own initiative and ability, developed our education into this worldwide export earner.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He talks about the offers that universities have made that may now have to be withdrawn. The vice-chancellor of the Manchester Metropolitan university, whose views will be very similar to those of people up and down the land, said to me that he is now in the difficult position of having
“to notify students who have accepted offers that they must now meet new conditions. We are also concerned about the legal ramifications of altering the terms of offers already accepted.”
In other words, the universities could be sued and lose out financially above and beyond the visa withdrawal.
Paul Blomfield
That is absolutely right. This afternoon, we need to consider the transitional arrangements for the introduction of these new requirements and the position in which they put our universities.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some sensitive contributions on this important issue. In response to an earlier intervention, he talked about trusting our universities to assess English. Does he also accept that we are going through a period of time in which that trust in some colleges has not been something that we can rely on? How would he ensure that immigration student visas are there for valid educational reasons and that there is enough scope and control, while, at the same time, allowing that amount of trust to the colleges that he is talking about?
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Part of the difficulty with this debate is that it has focused on discouraging international student numbers from the demand side. We should be looking at it from the supply side by dealing with those institutions that forfeit trust. I agree with the highly trusted sponsor system, which is the same trajectory of policy as that of the previous Government.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Overseas students are absolutely vital in Oxford both for the universities and the many language schools. Is not one damaging feature of what the Government have done the erection of this huge bureaucratic maze through which institutions have to go? Would Government Members not be complaining rightly about red tape if this applied to any other area of exports? Clearly this issue has been exempted from the red tape moratorium. Is not the answer to bring forward a system that combines highly trusted status, proper inspection and a proper operation of country risk profiles?
Paul Blomfield
My right hon. Friend makes an important point from his huge experience and from the fact that there are two excellent universities in Oxford and I certainly agree with him.
Let me move on to the problems that have been created by the speed of implementation. When the Home Secretary was announcing the revised tier 4 arrangements in March, she said:
“We recognise the need to implement these changes in a staged manner that minimises disruption to education providers and students.” —[Official Report, 22 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 858.]
We all know, I think, that that is not happening. The new requirements took effect on 21 April at an advanced stage of the university’s admission cycle and at a point where a number of offers had been made and, crucially, had been accepted. In Sheffield, our two universities and Sheffield international college had already made more than 20,500 offers to prospective students for degree-level courses and currently have 1,300 offer holders and applicants for English language programmes. All those offers have to be revisited as applicants may now no longer meet the UKBA’s new subset score requirements. The colleges must now notify students who have accepted offers and who, therefore, have a legally binding contract with them that they must meet new conditions. They are deeply concerned about the legal ramifications of such a change and the damage that could be done to their reputation. They have to alter the terms of the offers that have already been accepted. Could that not be avoided by having transitional arrangements in place to enable students to be admitted in this new academic year on the terms on which offers have been made?
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Let me clarify this matter. If the certificate of acceptance was issued before the new rules came in, the new rules do not apply. There is no retrospection in this. Before this hare is set running, let me stop it because it is simply not true.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I have to say that that is certainly not clear to our universities.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share the concerns expressed by the university of Nottingham in my constituency? Not only were these changes implemented very quickly, but detail on the changes is released in policy guidance and is changed on numerous occasions. The university says that the UKBA’s list of approved English language qualifications in the policy guidance changed numerous times between 21 April and the end of May, which is when there is a peak in the number of admissions that the university has to deal with.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It goes back to the fact that the Government are not achieving the Home Secretary’s desired intent, which is to ensure that these changes are introduced in a non-disruptive way.
I return to the point that the Minister made. Clearly, there is confusion within our universities, so it might be helpful if he undertook to liaise with Universities UK to put out a statement saying that all offers made will be honoured without the requirement to meet the new visa regulations—if that is what he said.
Damian Green
If an unconditional offer was made and accepted, the certificate of acceptance would have been assigned before 21 April and that remains valid for six months and therefore for the coming academic year. I met Universities UK and it was as a result of our discussions that the new guidance was put on the website. I am trying hard to meet the needs of both universities and hon. Members in this debate. To those who ask for flexibility and for me to talk to Universities UK, I can say that that is exactly what I have been doing. As a result of that, we have now produced new guidance, and I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with it.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for that contribution, but there is still some need for clarity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) has indicated, there is still a great deal of uncertainty. A lot of activity is currently under way in our universities to re-verify the offers that have been made.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Did he, like me, hear the Minister say that the position was the same for those students who had received an unconditional offer and an acceptance? I am not sure whether I heard the Minister clearly. If that is the case, it does not deal with the many students who had conditional offers, which is one of the problems that the universities and colleges are facing.
Paul Blomfield
That is a helpful observation from my hon. Friend. Will the Minister cover that point in his later remarks?
May I raise another transitional problem that was mentioned to me by the academic director of Sheffield international college regarding its preparatory programmes for the university? Sheffield international college provides pathways programmes. About 600 of its students each year go on to one of our universities in Sheffield. These students came to the UK with a conditional offer to proceed to the university of Sheffield if they succeeded with their language course at Sheffield international college.
They arrived in good faith but now face a change that has required a small number of them to sit additional English exams in their final term so that they can renew their visa. The new regulations require minimum levels of achievement in elements of the English language test that were not required on the students’ entry to the UK. Consequently, they find themselves in the final term of their programme working hard to try to stay in the UK to complete it rather than working hard to achieve their conditional requirements.
In addition, the new requirements came into force on 21 April, during the Easter break, and that has reduced the amount of time that some students have had to fulfil them. Earlier this week, I was contacted by Sheffield international college about four Chinese students in my constituency whose visas expired yesterday. For the past seven weeks, the college has been trying frantically to arrange for the students to sit the new tests, in different places across the country, before their visas expired. The students understand that they have to pass these new tests so that they can apply to extend their visas, but it has not been possible for them to sit the tests because the UKBA testing system has been unable to offer a sufficient number of tests. The system simply cannot match the demand that has been created by the chaos caused by the revisions of the visa requirements. In turn, that has led to three of the students at the college deciding to return to China this weekend. They have been unable to complete their course, their year of study has been wasted and potentially they will be unable to progress on to their degree programmes. How many other students are there across the country in a similar situation and what reputational damage does all that do to UK education internationally?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
If those particular students have been asked to return to China, can my hon. Friend confirm whether they have been told that they cannot re-enter the UK for a further five years, on the basis of a failed immigration application, or will they be allowed to return to the UK when they have completed the test?
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I should clarify that the students have not been asked to return to China. They decided to return to China because they have been unable to secure the tests that they now need to sit in order to proceed to university on the basis of their original offer.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is, of course, a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which visited China earlier this year. While the Committee was there at the end of February and the start of March, robust representations were made—let me put it like that—by both businesses and students in China about the forthcoming visa regime in the UK. The evidence that my hon. Friend has just given reinforces the negative impression that exists in China about the welcome that Chinese students will receive here. Does he agree that that is significant not only for the intake of students from China, with all the benefits that accrue from that intake, but for the long-term relationships, particularly the long-term business relationships, that could accrue from a country that will be a leading global economy?
Paul Blomfield
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Only yesterday I was talking to the pro vice-chancellor of one of our north-western universities. It has an associated campus in China, which he visited recently. He made the point about the damage that is being done to our reputation abroad. There is another issue to which the Minister might want to refer later. Notwithstanding the changes that have been made, there has been residual reputational damage, which we need to address as a country by working with our universities and colleges on a positive promotion of Britain as a country that is open for business.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case, assisted by the fact that there are about 25 Members here to support him and also by the fact that the Minister has had to intervene regularly to try to clarify the Government’s position.
My hon. Friend has identified two specific problems. First, I have several language schools and other schools in my constituency that are suffering, so I know that there is great competition internationally in this field. We were ahead of the game and now we are behind it. That is causing not only reputational damage but genuine economic damage to very good schools, which may go under because the Government are sending out all the wrong signals.
Secondly, I received an e-mail from Leiths cookery school, which is in my constituency. It was told two months ago that instead of 20 places for non-EU residents, it would have only three. That makes not only a big business difference but a big culinary difference to that school. [Laughter.] We are now becoming a bit of a laughing stock in the international market because the Government are constantly chopping and changing in accordance with a political agenda, which is undermining education in this country.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which echoes the concerns that I and other Members have expressed.
I now want to discuss a second area of concern, which is the changes that are being made to the post-study work route. Having worked with international students, I know that post-study work opportunities are an important factor in their choice of country in which to study. In a question that I asked when the Home Secretary made her statement on student visas on 21 March, I regretted the fact that she dismissed post-study work and said that international students should simply judge which country to study in on the strength of the academic offers that they received. As anyone who works with or in universities will know, the reality is that the total offer is the critical factor in a student’s choice of which country to study in.
Post-study work provides students with the chance to consolidate their learning in a relevant context and to obtain full value from what has been a considerable investment in the UK educational system. Equally, having talked to companies in Sheffield, I know how much they value the chance to recruit talented international graduates, particularly those with a PhD, for a time-limited period.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry into student visas, post-study work was critical. However, we also need to look at the basis of our discussion of student visas. Those who come as students and stay on specifically to work in a particular field because of the degree that they have managed to obtain are actually not migrants at all, because they wish to leave the country eventually. Is it not the point that if they are not migrants they should not even be included in the immigration figures?
Paul Blomfield
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and, having read the Home Affairs Committee’s report on student visas, I also thank him for the quality that that report has added to the discussion of this issue. I very much agree with him about the specific point that he has just made, namely that we should not consider international students as migrants. Certainly immigration is an issue and when I talk to people on the doorstep in my constituency they express concern about it, but nobody has ever expressed to me any concern about students being in Sheffield.
I know that the Minister, when he addresses this issue, will say that we are bound by the requirements of the United Nations, which defines migrants as those travelling to another country for more than 12 months. However, our main competitor in this market is the USA and it has chosen not to define students as migrants.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Earlier this week I spoke to the vice-chancellor of Lincoln university and she told me that the current arrangements for post-study work gave the UK a competitive edge in the market for international students. Does my hon. Friend share that view and, indeed, has he culled that view from universities across the country?
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That view has certainly been expressed to me on many occasions by many vice-chancellors. It also reflects my experience of working with international students. As I said earlier, this is a market in which we have been spectacularly successful, growing our world share of it from 1% to 11% at the same time as the USA’s world share of it dropped. One of the contributory factors in that decline in the USA’s world share was the way in which the USA messed around with its own visa requirements during that time.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. However, in fairness, he is not using a holistic approach. The Home Office concedes that one in five students in higher education and on pre-degree-level courses will become a de facto economic migrant, and therefore the complete fiscal impact, given the net rise in immigration, will clearly include an effect on the public purse and on the delivery of important public services.
Paul Blomfield
I assume that the Home Office, as a diligent Department, took account of all the relevant issues when it published its impact assessment earlier this week and indicated that the proposals’ effect on the economy would be minus £2.4 billion.
Mr Andrew Smith
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Is not the response to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that he is ignoring these graduates’ contribution through their wealth creation, skills and taxation payments? If the Government will not listen to us, should they not listen to Sir James Dyson, who not only sits on the Prime Minister’s business advisory group but headed an innovation taskforce for him? Sir James said:
“It is sheer madness to be effectively chucking out graduates who we desperately need. I am afraid what it will end up doing is driving firms like us abroad because we simply can’t get people to do our research and development.”
Paul Blomfield
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I have talked to companies in Sheffield, and they say that the opportunity to have some of the best intellectual talent in the world working with them in product development and improving manufacturing processes is a startling benefit that our city gets from its two universities.
I will move on to the specifics of an area that the Government have seen as problematic: the post-study work route. I understand, unless there are more changes that the Minister wants to share, that under the new proposals international graduates of UK universities will, from April 2012, need a confirmed job offer for a graduate level role—that is fair enough—but which pays at least £20,000, and they will need to apply for a tier 2 visa for the job before their tier 4 visa expires. There is nothing wrong with limiting work to that of a graduate level, but the imposition of a £20,000 salary threshold is too restrictive for some sectors and regions. Sheffield university tells me that its average graduate starting salary falls below £20,000: in arts and humanities it is £16,600, in pure science it is £16,100 and in social sciences it is £18,000. According to the graduate employer survey of 2011, graduates in Yorkshire should generally expect a starting salary of between £15,000 and £18,000.
One of Sheffield university’s strengths is architecture. The students’ union international students’ officer, Mina Kasherova, in written evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, highlighted the problems facing architects: they need to gain work experience after graduation to obtain their professional qualification, but they will not be able to get such a post with a salary of more than £20,000 through tier 2.
Richard Fuller
This is an open question. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the average salary requirement for a student coming to this country to go on to post-graduate study would be higher than that which a student from this country would normally accept. Does he believe that we ought to set the bar higher for international students, as a point of principle?
Paul Blomfield
We should ensure that we make a realistic offer to students coming here. If we say that we recognise, as the Home Office has, and as the Government have in their reconsideration of their original proposals, that post-study work is part of the attraction of coming to this country, we have to be able to offer that work meaningfully, for the benefit both of the students and, as some of my hon. Friends have said, of companies here. Universities UK has pointed out that this problem extends to a range of professionals, including trainee solicitors, pre-registration pharmacists and optometrists.
The second problem in relation to post-study work is the reduction of the period that students have in which to find a job, from one year to that indicated by the date of expiry of their tier 4 visas. Universities UK points out that recruitment in certain roles and sectors is cyclical, and that some individuals might not be able to apply for certain roles because their visas will have expired before the recruitment process takes place. Will the Minister consider applying some flexibility and common sense to the starting salaries and the time period?
A third area of concern is the maximum length of study. Universities UK is worried about limiting the maximum total period of leave to five years of study at national qualifications framework levels 6 and 7. If that limit is rigidly applied, it will prevent international students from studying a four-year undergraduate degree followed by a two-year postgraduate programme. I recognise that there will be exceptions, but they should not be limited to courses that lead to the award of a professional qualification or registration, because there are many other long courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. The limit is causing concern to Scottish universities in particular.
The fourth area of concern is a very distinct one, and I mention it on behalf of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who would have been here herself but for the demands of a Public Bill Committee. I understand that she has corresponded with the Minister on this, and is awaiting a reply to her latest letter. In her constituency, as in mine, the Ruskin Mill Educational Trust runs a college that provides practical skills therapeutic education for young people aged 16 to 25 who have a range of learning difficulties. It offers just five places each year to overseas students and, due to the specialist nature of its work, the annual fees are between £70,000 and £100,000. The students there clearly work at or below NQF level 1, and therefore will always fail to meet the requirements for level 3. This is clearly not abuse of the system but something that needs a common-sense and flexible approach.
All the issues I have raised are ones of detail, and dealing with them will not undermine the Government’s objectives. Failing to deal with them, however, will undermine the recruitment efforts of our universities and colleges. In conclusion, I wish to make a general point about the Home Office’s impact assessment. It is extraordinary that we seem to be pressing ahead with proposals—the Minister has signed them off—that it has been demonstrated will cost the economy possibly £3.6 billion, including £170 million in tuition fees over the next four years. That will mean millions lost to our universities at a time when they can least afford it because of the changes that they undergoing, and billions lost to the economy at a time when we can least afford it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will genuinely reflect on these issues and make changes that will not undermine his policy goals, but avert that damage.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I take the opportunity to mention that I intend to commence the winding-up speeches at no later than 5 pm. A number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and obviously everything will be done to try to get everyone in, but I ask you all to bear that in mind.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on his cogent, intelligent and measured speech. If I might make one slightly negative observation, it was perhaps very narrow, and I understand that, given that he pursued his constituency interest, rather than looking at the overall picture on immigration. It is a mark of how important this issue is that the hon. Gentleman has the support of so many of his hon. Friends, who will no doubt make eloquent pleas on behalf of the higher education and other institutions in their areas.
The Government’s policy must be seen not simply in a vacuum or within the narrow parameters of student visas, but in the context of the Government’s commitment to reducing net immigration. That policy position is supported by a substantial majority of the British electorate; it was clearly enunciated in the Conservative election manifesto in May 2010 and it was recapitulated in the coalition agreement of that month, which is the basis on which this Administration put forward their policies.
I have to say that the position we have taken was also a constituent part of the policy pursued by the former Government. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), and even the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), have expressed concerns and linked the inability to deal with immigration to the fact that the Labour party achieved its second-worst electoral result last year.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these measures will only make the UK a less competitive and less attractive destination in the international student market, which is a significant growth area?
Mr Jackson
Time permitting, I hope to articulate the slightly wider view that universities have not only a narrow remit to deliver education to their paying customers as part of a contractual relationship, but a social responsibility to educate the people of this country appropriately.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One problem with the lens through which the previous Government looked at immigration policies was that it often focused predominantly on economic perspectives. Having had years of immigration, which have kept working wages down, and hearing that we need different immigration policies based on economic benefits, the British people want to see immigration brought under control first before they move forward. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an astute point. Incidentally, there is no empirical, anecdotal or demonstrable academic evidence to show that there will be a significant impact on good-quality institutions and the courses they offer. That is simply because we are going forward incrementally, and we cannot yet assess the impact.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He says that there is no empirical evidence, but all of us have received letters from university chancellors in our constituencies and adjoining constituencies. They are specifically and clearly saying that the Government’s measures will radically affect their institutions financially and in terms of the facilities that they provide for other students. How can the hon. Gentleman say what he has said?
Mr Jackson
I am touched that the hon. Lady calls me her hon. Friend, and I am happy to accept that sobriquet. I would direct her to the recent comments by Nicola Dandridge of Universities UK, who said that the Government’s proposals
“take into account many of the concerns expressed by Universities UK and will allow British universities to remain at the forefront of international student recruitment.”
That was said after an exhaustive, detailed and comprehensive consultation with key stakeholders, including language schools, universities, colleges of further education and others intimately involved in the system.
Mark Lazarowicz
If I am called to speak, I hope to refer to a letter that I have had from the principal of Edinburgh university, Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea. The university was founded in the middle of the 16th century, and its chancellery recently passed a humble address on the occasion of the Duke of Edinburgh’s 90th birthday. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not a reputable institution and that the concerns raised by the principal are not real?
Mr Jackson
The former Prime Minister was an alumnus of Edinburgh university. However, none of us is in any doubt that we live in an age of globalisation and that we must be competitive. The Government’s template and watchword is that we will be open for business and geared to growth across a number of areas, including manufacturing, services, finance and higher education. We all understand that that approach is based, in the higher education sector, on the reputation, kudos and prestige of the institutions involved, and none of us has any argument with that. I truly and sincerely believe that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister would not hastily introduce proposals that damaged that reputation.
The onus is on those taking the Government to task to demonstrate that the proposals will damage the reputation of the higher education sector and that they are not—as I believe, and as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee would surely concede, given the views expressed to his Committee—about dealing with bogus institutions, bogus students and overstayers. I will talk later about the financial impact, which I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Sheffield Central.
The wider issue is that if we do nothing about net migration, we will have a population of 70 million in 20 years and one of perhaps 80 million in 50 years. Under the Labour Government, net migration quadrupled to 237,000 per annum between 1997 and 2007. With the exception of Malta, England is now the most overcrowded country in Europe, along with the Netherlands. Under the former Government, 5.2 million people came into this country as foreign migrants, while 2 million left.
As I said, senior parliamentarians have noted that significant mistakes have been made. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the projections made about European Union migration before the free movement directive came into force in 2004. Officials at the then Home Office told us that about 13,000 to 15,000 EU migrants would seek temporary work under the worker registration scheme, but they were out by a factor of 25, if not more.
Keith Vaz
I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman’s widening the debate, because he touches on the context of the Government’s actions. However, on his last point, we cannot do anything about EU migration. Does he not agree that we should be careful about restricting genuine people from taking genuine, legal routes to come here to study, because we cannot stop people coming from the EU? Does he not also agree that it is essential that we know the figures—how many people come in and how many go out—when we debate immigration? To this day, we do not have accurate figures.
Mr Jackson
The Chairman of the Select Committee makes his point in his normal charming and intelligent way. My wider point, which he anticipates, is that the former Government made no effort to anticipate EU and non-EU immigration. Indeed, it has recently come to light that they suppressed research commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which looked at some, although not all, of the negative consequences of large-scale migration.
All I am asking in considering the specific and narrow point about tier 4 student visas is that we genuinely look at the cost-benefit analysis for the wider community. Yes, we can argue about nuances and value judgments made by individual higher education institutions, but at the same time we must concede that within the wider policy framework, these decisions, which are essentially about large-scale migration, have wider ramifications. That is consistent with the Government’s view that we must move away from the inexorable conveyor belt towards a population that will be significantly greater within 25 years than the population of Germany or France, for example.
The policy has been flexible and there has been appropriate consultation. It is aimed principally at bogus students and overstayers. I would like to see the evidence that HE institutions will be adversely affected, because the level of graduate unemployment across all disciplines in the UK stands at something like 20%, which is pertinent when considering public policy on the recruitment of international students who might stay to work after the conclusion of their studies. That is fair. If we look at the fees regime and at how financial arrangements for universities will progress over the next few years and measure that against demand, we see that because of our reputation and because we have the kudos of being a principal centre of superb higher education in the world, the demand for people across the world will remain high, whether for chemical engineering, languages, dentistry or humanities.
Lilian Greenwood
Although many universities, including my universities in Nottingham, say that this will have a detrimental impact on their ability to recruit students and therefore on economic activity in the UK, the hon. Gentleman suggests that we must wait until that damage is done before the Government will act. That seems immensely short-sighted. Everyone is warning that this will cause damage and he wants to wait until the damage is done.
Mr Jackson
The evidence given by Migrationwatch UK for example—[Interruption.] Migrationwatch UK has put forward an evidence-based, robust and demonstrable case. It may not be to the taste of many Opposition Members, who are reminded on too many occasions of their abysmal failings in the management of immigration on behalf of the citizens of this country. Nevertheless the case is not usually challenged in terms of its robustness, and I am sure that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee would concur.
Keith Vaz
It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman that when Sir Andrew Green gave evidence to the Select Committee, he did not regard students as migrants. His main concern was those who came illegally and bogus colleges, not genuine students coming to the country to support University Centre Peterborough.
Mr Jackson
The right hon. Gentleman has reiterated the points I am making. I will not repeat verbatim what Sir Andrew said in his evidence to the Committee in February—I think—but he said that he was mostly concerned about pre-degree education, language schools and “bogus” colleges and that he did not see the increase in student numbers per se as a “problem” for immigration. I do not dissent from that view; he and are at one. I resist the premise on which the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) proceeds, but I must be very careful because my brother is a professor at Nottingham university, so I am aware that it is a superb institution—he would expect me to say that, but nevertheless it is true.
The issue is not about reducing the number of students per se, but about closing loopholes and ensuring that we retain our integrity and reputation. If we look at pre-degree level courses, we must in fairness also look at the evidence over past years and draw a link between the number of students who have come into the country, over the past 15 years for example, and long-term economic migration and settlement. It would be foolish and short-sighted not to accept that many students have been economic migrants. We are looking perhaps at a reduction in student numbers of only about 10% from the 2009 figure of 270,000. No one has yet given detailed projections of how many of them would be in each sector.
On the face of it, yes, institutions will lose £105 million due to students not coming, but we must make the link and look at the opportunity cost—the displacement of indigenous people, who are British citizens, who are not in work and are on benefits as a result of jobs being taken by people who began as students but entered the work force. It is foolish to disregard that.
Even the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others have conceded that if we do not get a grip on that displacement and the corollary—the cost imposed on taxpayers—it will drive down wages and conditions, particularly for those in low-wage and low-skilled jobs in my constituency and others. That cannot be good for community cohesion and the economic well-being of the country.
Mr Bailey
In my constituency, regrettably, I do not have a university, but, equally regrettably, I do have a substantial British National party presence. Many of issues that the hon. Gentleman has brought up—the widening of the debate—are relevant to constituencies such as mine. I want to make it quite clear that representatives of local manufacturers have taken me round foundries and said to me, “The one thing that we do not want is a block on immigration, because we cannot get people from our own indigenous population to work in the foundries”. It is only by recruiting from outside that we have managed to sustain the jobs of the indigenous people who work in the foundries. Does the hon. Gentleman accept it from me that the issue is far more complex than he has articulated?
Mr Jackson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman in the great socialist spirit articulates the point of view of the forces of capital, because they will almost always seek to drive down wages.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who is a very wise man, has reminded me of the hon. Gentleman’s party’s trouble over the concept of, “British jobs for British workers.” There was a pretty sharp U-turn over that. I am not mentioning creed, religion or colour, but economic and social trends in demography. I respect the hon. Gentleman in this instance because he is speaking for his constituents, as he is elected to do, and is a long-standing Member of the House, but I am also speaking for my constituents and from the position of having had between 16,000 and 20,000 migrants—admittedly from the EU—move to my constituency since 2004, because it is a centre for agriculture, horticulture and food processing and manufacturing. There has been displacement and pressure on maternity and other health services, housing, and in terms of crime, policing. Thirty-one per cent of children in my primary schools speak English as an additional language.
I concur with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz): I accept that EU migration is sui generis, but it is because we can debate immigration in a reasonable and considered way that we do not give in to the BNP and allow it to spread its spite and division and destroy social cohesion. Unless we have a grown-up, truthful and honest debate, we will be in a difficult position.
Others wish to speak, so I will conclude as soon as possible. The number of overstayers has been assessed at about 32,000, as a rough guess, in recent figures by the Home Office. The focus is on overstayers. The UN definition of “migrant” has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central handled that issue sensibly. There is a debate to be had about the United Nations definition and whether students are economic migrants or merely temporary numbers in the system. That is fair enough. We hope to resolve that issue through e-Borders and discussions with European Union Governments, although I bring him back to the United Nations rather than the United States adopting that particular definition.
I respect the views of hon. Members and of the higher education sector, which is undoubtedly a vested interest and will seek to defend its business model as much as anyone else. We have seen other public services do so this week. Those in the higher education sector are articulate and can influence parliamentarians and others, for instance in the media, but they should remember that they have a responsibility to people who are not so articulate. They have a responsibility to develop scholarships and outreach programmes for people in this country, they have a wider remit to upskill people who might never have had an opportunity to go to university and they have a responsibility to drive social mobility. That is the challenge for universities.
I believe that the proposals are absolutely correct. They have taken on board the concerns of higher education institutions and others, and I think that they will deal with the issue of bogus students and colleges. I commend them to the House with the proviso that feedback will continue. In all sincerity, I do not believe that they will do anything but enhance the reputation and long-term viability of higher education institutions in this country.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). He is right to widen the debate from student visas, because the Government’s intention in trying to limit the number of students coming into this country is based on their view that over the next four years—by the end of this Parliament—they can reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands.
However, I am sure that other Members, like me, are surprised that the Government have already revised their statistics and calculations. As the Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded, it will be difficult for the Government to meet that target. When the Home Secretary made her statement to the House, she said that she hoped to reduce student numbers by 80,000 each year until 2015, but on 13 June, the Home Office revised its figures and told us that curbing student visas will reduce total numbers by only 46,000 annually. Some could say that that is because the Government have listened and recognised the importance of the student route, but I think it relates to a fundamental point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough and—dare I say it?—the chairman of Migrationwatch UK: we cannot discuss immigration openly, honestly and transparently unless we know what the figures are, and we do not know what the figures are, because we still do not count people in and out of this country.
Part of the blame must lie with the previous Government. They signed the e-Borders contract and agreed to pay the company concerned £188 million, and, in my view, they failed to monitor how that private sector contract operated. This Government, of course, have decided to end the contract with Raytheon. Sadly, it took them more than nine months to appoint a successor, and they have now agreed to spend another £30 million or so, asking Serco and IBM to provide the same service as was provided in the past.
The reason why I raise the issue, and why the Select Committee keeps raising it in every report that we produce, is that we are all for having a good debate on immigration—it is important and healthy to do so here rather than on the streets of West Bromwich, Leicester or anywhere else—but if we are to have that debate, let us have some figures on which we can all agree. At the moment, we still do not have those figures.
On the completion of the e-Borders programme and the Minister for Immigration’s focus on it, he was keen to ensure when he was in opposition that the previous Government counted figures, although I am glad that the Government have abandoned their original plans for asylum seekers to be dealt with on that famous offshore island before coming into this country. It is important that we ensure that the e-Borders programme works, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Peterborough, which I think we all believe are extremely important in any discussion of this kind.
Everyone here today who has spoken on behalf of the great university towns and cities of this country has spoken for genuine colleges and institutions. Of course there are some in our constituencies that are not genuine, but by and large, what has driven my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) to come here—as well as the hon. Member representing University Centre Peterborough, and me with my two great universities, De Montfort and Leicester—is our belief that the Government’s proposals will affect those genuine institutions. We should be cautious about damaging them and the reputation of our colleges.
The figures are coming from India already. The number of applications to this country has decreased by 40%, even before the proposals have been implemented. If that damage starts—it started in America when the Americans changed their system, and in Australia when the Australians decided to do the same—it is difficult to recover once people believe that they cannot come to study in a country. That is why we must be tough on bogus colleges.
Mark Lazarowicz
My right hon. Friend is right to say that most of us here have come because of deep concerns about universities and colleges in our constituencies, but we also have concerns about the many reputable, high-quality English language schools that are being affected even more seriously by the changes, in some ways. The Government must change their proposals if those schools are to survive.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Home Affairs Committee held a big meeting in Brighton with local MPs from various parties, including the Green party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, and they were all against the Government’s proposals due to the damage that they will cause to English language colleges. In many cases, such colleges are the pathway to full-time degrees. It is extremely important that we focus on them as well.
However, we must be absolutely tough on bogus colleges. We have suggested two ways for that to happen. Unannounced inspections by the UK Border Agency are necessary. In the past, the UK Border Agency rang up colleges and told them that inspectors were coming. By the time they arrived, all of a sudden—like “Mission: Impossible”, for those who are old enough to remember it—a whole lot of students and teachers had been brought in for the inspectors to see. How crazy is it to tell a bogus college that it is about to be inspected?
I had a call from a Conservative councillor in a London borough who preferred to ring up the Home Affairs Committee rather than the UK Border Agency to tell us that a new bogus college was operating in her ward. On Monday, I sent my research assistant to the college. She rang up and said that she was a student and wished to enrol on the course. They said, “Right, come along at 10 o’clock and we’ll give you a brochure.” She arrived, and there was absolutely nobody in the college. She stood outside and rang them again. They said that they were not open yet, but would be in September, and that they had applied to the Home Office. I have a letter for the Minister. I hope that he will check whether that is in fact the case, so that I can tell the hard-working local councillor whether that college is bogus.
We need proper inspections. Nobody in the Chamber has a tolerance of bogus colleges. We want to ensure that they are closed down, because they are bad for the students who go there. The second point on bogus colleges and abuse relates to the points-based system that the previous Government introduced. The system gives no discretion to entry clearance officers and immigration officers at Heathrow airport. It is left to whistleblowers to go to the Daily Mail and say that we let in all these people who had student visas who do not actually speak any English, but are doing computer courses—I think that was the last claim that we saw in one of the newspapers. We need to give discretion to our professionals. The points-based system is absolute and clear, but that extra discretion is necessary to enable the entry clearance officers to say yes and no, even if people qualify under the points-based system, and to give immigration officers the authority to make those decisions.
My final point is one that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and I join other hon. Members in congratulating him on securing the debate. I know that he has been trying to do so for many months. He was offered a shorter slot. He said that many people were interested in the issue, hung on and we can see the number of hon. Members who are here today. I congratulate him on hanging on long enough to secure a good three-hour debate. I will not speak for long because other hon. Members wish to speak.
The Home Affairs Committee report concluded that students were not migrants, and should not be part of the figures. They are not migrants because they come to study, not to settle. Of course, the Minister will come out with his figures and say that he finds that some settle in the end, because they keep applying to change their courses. Well, I for one have no problem with non-switching. I am not a great fan of people who come on the basis of one set of visas and want to switch to another.
I do not know whether it happened during the term of office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), but the previous Labour Government stopped the switching from visitors to spouses. I therefore have to tell my constituents that, if people come here on holiday and fall in love with a British citizen, I am afraid that they have to go back and apply again. The previous Labour Government provided for that. I have no major problem with switching, but we need to be very clear. It is more of a systemic problem than one of intention. If there is a problem of intention, we can deal with it by preventing switching.
We should not, however, damage our university and English language sector by accusing all students of wanting to come here, study and stay. That is why what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said about post-work study is so important. When they choose to come here, they also choose to work for that year, and that is essential to their studies. If they do not come here, they will go to the United States of America, Australia or France.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), gave evidence to us, as I think he did to the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). He talked about Britain being the centre of world for education. He told us about Nottingham university and how he personally, because of his interest in Malaysia, had gone to Malaysia and got thousands of Malaysian students to study in Nottingham. Indeed, there is a campus just for Malaysian students. He was very proud of that. We cannot have one Minister saying that we are open to the world and then have other Ministers trying to prevent that from happening.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the UN tells him that the students are migrants, and so they have to be migrants. If they are not migrants and they wish just to study and then leave, they should not be counted as migrants. If they are working illegally or there is any abuse, I say to the Minister for Immigration—I know that he will take this seriously, and has taken this seriously—out they go. There is no tolerance of people who abuse the system. I have just come back from a visit to the Greek-Turkish border, where I saw people who are trying to come into this country, crossing over at an enormous rate. I, for one, am very happy to work with the Government and others to try to stop illegal immigration.
When we are dealing with people who genuinely want to come to study, the Government should stop, consider and reflect, because of the potential damage to our reputation as the greatest country in the world for education. That reputation was the reason why my family chose to come here when I was nine years of age. They chose to come here because of this country’s reputation for valuing education. Let us not damage our reputation. Let us make sure that our rules and policies are clear and transparent, but fair.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to speak in the debate secured by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). He made an articulate speech that raised a number of points, which I am sure the Minister will consider. I think that he will find support across the House on some points. Other points might be a little more contentious, but we look forward to hearing his comments.
Mr Benton, I must ask for your forgiveness and that of other hon. Members, as I will not be able to stay for the closing remarks from the Minister. I have a good reason, which allows me to highlight what is perhaps a contrarian point. I am meeting representatives from the Taiwanese embassy equivalent to talk about a visit by Taiwanese students to the university of Bedfordshire in my constituency of Bedford, which includes Kempston. Some Opposition Members talked about the importance of having people come from mainland China. We all have to make our choice of Chinas. I tend to prefer those that have elections and do not lock up Nobel prize winners. The issue with Taiwan that is important to mention is that we have simplified immigration rules for Taiwanese students to come to study here. It is precisely because the controls and understandings that Taiwan has in sending students overseas are so well administered that we have confidence in the country that is sending, as well as the country—the UK—that is receiving. It will be a great pleasure to welcome them.
We have a responsibility to weigh up two major factors, which have come through the different contributions: restoring people’s confidence in our immigration system and controls; and ensuring that we are optimising and maximising the opportunity to enhance the economic well-being of our universities, and the role that our open educational system can play to spread freedom, democracy, belief in the rule of law, understanding of free markets, and the belief that every citizen’s rights have to be recognised in all parts of the world. That is an important and critical role that our universities play. As I am leaving shortly, I will address those two areas quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said that immigration control is a significant responsibility for the Government. If we do not believe that, then I do not think that any of us can have knocked on doors at the general election. It was raised as a concern by many residents. There was exasperation at how the system had got out of control under the previous Government. Both the previous Government and this Government sought to bring in controls. We are still dealing with an issue where people’s confidence has not yet been restored. I urge the Minister, in response to all the hon. Members he will hear from today, not to lose sight of the fact that he has a significant responsibility to ensure that people’s confidence in our immigration system is restored. He and his colleagues in the Home Office have made a very good start, but he has to see it through to the end. That sometimes requires very tough decisions. I urge him strongly to continue all the way through this period of office, and I congratulate him on the steps that he has taken.
Mark Lazarowicz
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that confidence in the immigration system will be even more jeopardised if the Government make announcements that claim that they will sort out the problem, but then find that the immigration figures are still increasing and that, for example, the measures for overseas students will do nothing whatever about EU students? Will that confusion lead to even less confidence in the immigration system?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman urges some very good caution. The worst thing to do is to ignore the immigration issue, pretend it is not there and destroy people’s confidence in the system, as his Government did. However, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, there is an issue about trying to ensure that we have the numbers, so that we are dealing with the facts. Facts help people to gain confidence. If people do not have the facts, it is harder to gain their confidence. However, the measures this Government are taking on that have been a significant step forward on behalf of the country.
The United Kingdom—what a wonderful country we live in, and how proud we can be of our values and our society. We have these great debates in this fantastic mother of Parliaments. We are a beacon for educated people around the world. We should be really, really proud of what is now called the soft power that countries such as ours have. The fact we have a vibrant series of educational institutions is a critical part of ensuring that the United Kingdom continues, in the words of a former Foreign Secretary, to punch above its weight. There is no doubt that hon. Members from all parties think that that is an important thing for us to accomplish.
However, we must recognise that our higher education institutions are going through some substantial changes and challenges. I would like to praise Professor Marilyn Leask, who is the dean of the Bedford campus of the university of Bedfordshire. There is a Luton campus, but I shall not speak for that one. I will speak for the campus in Bedford. Professor Leask is considering with energy and vitality how to deal with the challenges faced by our higher education system in terms of the changes to student fees. She is based in a teaching training institution for physical education and is considering new ways to accommodate those changes. We must recognise that our universities are going through substantial changes. This issue is one part of a much bigger picture that they are trying to piece together, as they put together a more sustainable long-term funding basis for their future operations. It is probably not the most important part of our universities’ business model, but it is an important issue.
I ask the Minister—again, apologies that I will not be here to listen to his response, but I shall read it with great interest—to explain how the relationship between the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is operating, so that we can get a sense of whether we have an integrated strategy. Million+ is asking for an integrated higher education strategy, which is a very good thing. If we have all these advantages from being this wonderful country and if we want to educate the world, we must have a coherent strategy to achieve that. That does not necessarily mean that some of the issues raised today have to be acceded to, because I do not think that all of them are right, but it does give a context for where we are heading. As these institutions and universities are building their new business models, we need to give them a context in which they can plan for the long term more coherently.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about this being a time of great change for universities and that they are having to look at their future planning. Does that not make it all the more important for the Government to proceed on the matter with caution and deal with the timing carefully? Universities need to be able to plan and adjust, rather than being rushed into things. That is one of the concerns that universities have raised.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the transitional arrangements this year. She has heard an answer from the Minister on that and I am sure that he will address the matter again when dealing with some of the follow-up concerns raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. That is a particular issue on which I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
More generally, on Opposition Members’ calls for caution, when we are looking for change, caution is not always the best way to proceed. It is important to deal with the matter clearly and cleanly, so that the people who are responsible for building business models do not have to anticipate future changes. Such an approach is helpful to them when setting their strategy. Being cautious is not always the best approach. In this instance, given my and other hon. Members’ concerns about the importance of getting peoples’ confidence back in immigration, obtaining clarity quickly will be of benefit to the long-term strategy of our higher education institutions and our universities. They need to have an integrated strategy, so that they know the Government’s direction of travel. They need an understanding between the Home Office and BIS to make that happen.
My message to the Minister is, first, that he has a responsibility to fix immigration. That is what the British people asked for at the last general election and that is what they are looking to the Home Secretary and the Minister to accomplish. I urge him to consider everything he does through that lens, rather than through the particular lens of each issue. Secondly, he has heard from hon. Members on the issue of whether students are migrants or not. It may be worth considering what happens in the United States and the United Nations. Some of us prefer the approach of the United States to that of the United Nations. Will the Minister look at that as part of setting an overall strategy, as it would be interesting and worth while to do so?
On the transitional arrangements that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and others mentioned, again, the Minister has given an answer and I look forward to him expanding on that in his closing comments. I urge the Government to have an integrated, international higher education policy. We have a fantastic country. We have to bring people here, so that we can spread a message of freedom and spread understanding of the English language. We must give people Shakespeare and give people an understanding of the Magna Carta. If we do those things, we will have a country that can not only interact, but sell to the rest of the world.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
For the avoidance of doubt, I had better declare an interest. From time to time, I receive remuneration from the higher education sector for work I do with it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. After being a council leader for Sheffield and an MP for the city for 24 years, I thank him for drawing my attention to the international college’s work. I was unaware of the extent of that work—every day, I am on a learning curve.
There seem to be two aspects to what we are debating. The first is the macro. That relates to the overall issue of migration and its impact on our country and the politics in which we are all engaged. The second is the unauthorised, the unauthenticated and the unacceptable. That relates to those colleges and institutions that either do not exist or, if they do, do not provide what they say on the can they offer. In addition, such institutions do not offer courses of sufficient quality to students of sufficient quality.
Those two aspects are getting slightly mixed up, although that is not because the first matter is not important. To coin a phrase from the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, I certainly have scars on my back from the near four years I was Home Secretary in terms of the two major pieces of legislation that we introduced and the changes we made. That included the two-thirds reduction in asylum, the security and immigration provisions on French soil, the measures regarding liaison officers at airports across the world and a substantial tightening up of how we operated visas. Such policies provided a foundation on which my Government subsequently built and this Government have been building. The issue is incremental. If we take a step in one direction, we find that the plastic bottle has bulged out in another. I suggest to the Minister, who is deeply committed to this matter, that immigration will affect this Government, as it did previous ones.
As the issue has been mentioned, I would like to say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about embarkation and e-Borders. I was responsible for kick-starting e-Borders, but I claim no credit or discredit whatsoever for the contract that was let. In fact, when the 20-year rule comes in, there will be letters on file from me as a Back Bencher advising against what was done. The speed of operation to get this right is critical because, if we do not know who is leaving, we really cannot make a judgment about whether the system is working. That applies directly to students who have fulfilled their courses and/or their term afterwards for permission to work. If the system is working properly, much of what we are debating would be seen in that broader context, and we would not be so obsessed with artificial targets for future migrants. We would be able to deal with the issue of what a migrant actually is and provide a proper definition in a way that removes the harder edge of politics.
It is inevitable that there will be politics involved in discussions on immigration. We might then debate issues and not end up with policies that damage the country, rather than enhance its well-being. I do not intend to repeat what has already been expressed, because time is pushing on and extremely good points have been made. Even those points that I have doubts about have been enlightening. I would, however, like to reinforce some of the key points that have emerged.
First, the economic value to this country is not just the money that comes into the universities or the local community, but the way in which those who have benefited from both the study in, and the experience of, our country add to our potential economic value in years to come, as they become the advocates for Britain and part of global institutions and enterprises, whose connection with and alumni from our institutions make an enormous difference to Britain in this global economy and international trading world.
Secondly, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), our universities are able to offer that social responsibility much better if they have a higher level of agreed income. The income that is coming in from overseas, free as it is from issues of debt repayment and the difficulties that we have debated over recent months, adds to a university’s ability to contribute to the wider community and the social well-being of our country. The issue is much broader than whether the university itself has an enhanced income, important as that is.
Thirdly, there is an issue about whether we really want numbers of legitimate, verified students, with the right qualifications in the right quality of institution, in this country. If we listen carefully to the debate, we will hear that everyone pays lip service to the importance of legitimate students coming here, but we then hear a different nuance, namely, “But they are foreigners and that is dangerous, because our electorate do not really like foreigners.” We need to get off that and on to where migration policy has not worked properly—even the measures for which I was responsible did not always work—and the importance of enforcement. We need proper inspection and enforcement, including clamping down on those colleges that do not really exist or are just an excuse for people to get into the country. Moreover, if our legitimate university and higher education institutions, both in the public and the embryo private sector, are not checking whether students are taking up their courses, enforcement is the crucial element. That is the end at which we need to ensure that we get this right, rather than trying to reduce, per se, the number of legitimate students coming into the country. That is critical.
In 2000, I led a delegation, which included the Higher Education Funding Council and this country’s leading universities, to China. The Chinese welcomed us and were very pleased to have a two-way arrangement with us that includes students coming on a temporary basis to learn our language and about our systems. That was a good thing to do, and anything that damages it would be a major mistake.
That brings me to my central point. It is the message we send that is absolutely critical, and the message that has been received outside this country is the wrong one. It is not that we want to avoid the illegitimate, the unacceptable and the fraudulent, either in terms of the provision in our country or of those coming in for reasons other than to study properly. The message that is being received outside this country, as has already been said, is, “You will not be welcome.” Will the Minister do everything possible, along with our embassies and high commissions, to change the message, so that it is received properly and understood by students and industry? Sponsored students are very important, and major enterprises across the world need to know that their potential employees, or those who are sponsored by them, are welcome in this country.
I want to touch briefly on the complications that we face. Many of them could be overcome if there was greater flexibility in the transition period—there is no question about that. It is no good for the Minister, who intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, to say that, if firm offers were made before 21 April, certificates would be honoured. As was pointed out almost immediately, many of those offers are conditional and do not therefore apply. In some sectors, including professional bodies and professional courses, the number of certificates has been capped arbitrarily, sometimes at levels including those that have been taken on from institutions that no longer exist or have been deregulated. They have, therefore, been punished for picking up students who were badly treated by those that did not come up to standard.
I would like us to address why we do not use highly trusted sponsor status and the oversight mechanisms of professional and private sector operators, which will now be operated by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education—I congratulate it on the speed with which it has moved—rather than a complicated system that does not rely on enforcement and inspection, but on the front end rather than the back end. To complicate matters, it is crucial—this has been said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills gets its act together with the Home Office, so that they speak the same language and that those with expertise share it. For instance, on professional qualifications for accountancy, why suddenly drop in, as the statement and assessment did on Monday, that there has to be approval at gold or platinum level by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, when it has preferred providers of its own? These professional qualifications are a bit like the guild system in mediaeval England.
I counsel the Minister to be very careful not to get involved in what is corporatism. For somebody who is a declared libertarian, that is a dangerous position to be in. We should not put into the hands of those who have a specific interest in particular providers the ability to exclude other providers. That is a dangerous game in terms of the kind of oversight that we would expect.
In brief, I do not think that any Member present does not think that it is a good idea to progress on the road of tightening up in relation to those who have been fraudulently operating the system or those who come here and are not legitimate students. Let us all agree on that. We might even agree that those of us who tried in the past did not come up to scratch in achieving the goals that we set ourselves. A little humility from all of us on that might not be amiss. It is important that the lessons of history are learnt: sometimes, speed leads to the obverse of the objective that is sought, and a little give and take—sensibly, openly and without criticism when people are flexible, so that we give the Minister a bit of leeway—might achieve the overall goal that he and, I believe, BIS seek, namely a system that works and welcomes people into this country, because it is good for our economy, good for our social life and good for the future of Britain.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on his detailed opening account, which set out the issues that we are discussing. I intend to be as brief as possible, because the House has now adjourned and I am sure that Members, particularly those Opposition Members present in the Chamber, have long journeys back to their constituencies.
I support the need for strict controls to exclude bogus students, and welcome the Government’s proposals targeted at the least trustworthy institutions. As has been said, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), the previous Government did nowhere near enough to get control of the issue of bogus students and colleges. Many people in the country will welcome the change of emphasis by this Government—through the leadership, indeed, of the Minister.
Sixteen tier 4 sponsor licence-holding institutions operate in my constituency of Reading East. During the consultation period of December 2010 to January 2011, my office surveyed all those institutions, including face-to-face interviews with representatives of four of them, the university of Reading and three private colleges. Sharing some of those findings with colleagues might be helpful, although I will try not to repeat anything said in the debate. I promised the institutions involved that I would share some of their main concerns.
Both the university and the independent sector in my constituency stressed the crucial importance of achieving and retaining highly trusted status. The independent sector in particular felt that its future literally depended on such status. While the private colleges accepted the need to tackle bogus students, they expressed great concern about the UK Border Agency’s inspection process. The perceived problems largely emanated from the lack of formal criteria from the UKBA of what was necessary to achieve and retain that trusted or highly trusted status. Additionally, some expressed concern about the understanding, even the ignorance, of some inspectors about how the independent sector operated. For example, in the experience of one college, the UKBA inspector expected a desk and a seat for every single student enrolled, despite a student normally being expected to be in attendance for no more than 15 hours per week.
The most frequent call I heard from colleges was for a level playing field. The universities are granted highly trusted status as a default position but, in the view of the colleges, if the same rigorous expectations as are imposed on the private college sector were imposed on the universities, many of them would lose the cherished highly trusted status. For instance, to obtain such status, a private college is expected to achieve a drop-out rate of no more than 2% to 3%, but universities can expect to achieve a drop-out rate for non-European economic area students of approximately 6% to 10%. Therefore, the Government target of 3% was considered by the private college sector to be wholly unrealistic.
Transparency is essential for a fair and effective inspection regime, but a real concern is that colleges get no debriefing following inspection, as schools do with Ofsted. Inspection reports may be obtained through freedom of information requests, but that procedure is not really quick enough. Targeting efforts on the least trustworthy colleges in the unregulated private sector is right, but we should also remember that only a tiny minority of colleges are bogus. I hope that the new proposals will not put private colleges at a disadvantage by failing to set out clear criteria for highly trusted sponsors or with the somewhat arbitrary and opaque inspection and even evaluation process. Tackling the transparency issues will help good colleges get on with the job of educating students and will increase public confidence in the student visa regime.
In conclusion, does the Minister share my concerns? If so, what can he do to ensure the transparency in the sector that we all wish to see?
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Benton. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on student visas, which is an issue of importance not only to the ancient university of Edinburgh but to the other three universities in my city, Heriot-Watt, Napier and Queen Margaret. There are also implications for many of the city’s colleges, in particular Telford college with its new headquarters, which has a long history of welcoming international students and, indeed, only recently received an award as the best college in the UK for international student support. For the record, I congratulate the college on that award. Student visas are also of concern to many of the high-quality and reputable language schools in my constituency and elsewhere in Edinburgh.
As other Opposition Members have said, no one disputes that it is important to crack down on bogus students and colleges and on low-quality colleges. In common with many other Members, I have had people at my surgery who have been the victims of applying to colleges that then did not come up to standard. No one is under any illusion that we must tackle that issue, or the wider one of immigration, but they must be discussed in the right place and at the right time. We must not, however, allow the pursuits of a Government wanting to fulfil an arguably unfulfillable promise on immigration to have a detrimental effect on bona fide students and bona fide universities and colleges, which make a vital contribution to the economy of the UK and of many of our communities. I take issue with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) who talked about the “vested interest” being defended by Members; we are not only talking about the professors, principals and numerous staff of universities but about institutions that affect the wider economy. Universities and colleges are important in themselves and for the wider economic benefits in our communities.
Many Members, in all parts of the Chamber, made points with which I associate myself, but I will concentrate on a number of specific issues, raised directly with me by some of the universities and colleges in Edinburgh. First, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who commenced the debate, in many Scottish universities it is still the norm for the undergraduate degree to be over four years and not three. Clearly, the five-year limit will have consequences for those who wish to study at postgraduate level as part of the wider education offer in England, but it will have much more serious consequences for someone who might have only one year after the completion of the undergraduate course in which to consider taking a postgraduate course.
The implications are wider still. Professor Steve Chapman, the principal of Heriot-Watt university, has pointed out to me that a number of degrees include an integrated year abroad or industrial placement as part of the undergraduate course, so people will use up their five years even without going to postgraduate level. The five-year limit also means that there is absolutely no flexibility at the end of the course, for resits possibly or for delays caused by other legitimate extensions. I hope that the Government will reconsider and change the proposal to take account of the four-year undergraduate course that is still standard in much of Scotland.
In addition, Professor Chapman said that five-year integrated undergraduate and masters programmes are common, again allowing for no flexibility at the end of the five years. He points out that the school of engineering at Edinburgh university has 19 separate master of engineering, five-year, integrated undergraduate and masters degree programmes, with other courses available elsewhere in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will consider the consequences of the five-year limit for the Scottish education system, in which a four-year undergraduate degree is the norm.
My second point was made by a number of colleagues: the shortness of the notice given to universities about the changes. As I indicated in my earlier intervention, I received a copy of a letter that the principal of Edinburgh university, Professor Sir Tim O’Shea, sent to the Minister at the beginning of May:
“I write to express alarm at the changes to English language requirements as part of the Tier 4 student migration system. The changes will impact on a third of our expected international intake this year and present a serious impediment to the successful recruitment of high quality international students.”
He goes on to say:
“The changes to English language requirements for Highly Trusted Sponsors have been introduced without any dialogue, part way through our admissions cycle and with no transition phase to enable effective planning. The changes will almost certainly result in legal challenges to our admissions process given that it will necessitate amendments to offers of admission already made to over 800 international applicants seeking to enter the University of Edinburgh this year.”
He then makes an important point:
“The benefits of having ‘Highly Trusted Sponsor’ status remain unclear if sponsors who achieve the highest levels of compliance are to be obstructed from admitting the highest calibre of international students.”
Professor O’Shea urges the Government to postpone changing the English language requirement in this admissions cycle, and asks the UK Border Agency to consult on changes for the next cycle. I endorse his comments, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns expressed by Professor O’Shea and many other university principals and organisations with an interest in this debate.
There may be some misunderstandings about the implications. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said, there are particular issues for those who have received conditional offers or have not completed the process of accepting a firm offer by 21 April. The fact that clarification is needed is a reason for, at least, postponing the changes to the next cycle so that universities can fully take on board the changes that the Government are introducing.
I could make many other points about issues that my hon. Friends have raised, including the effect on language schools, which I mentioned briefly, and restrictions on dependants, which will have an effect on some students. Concern about the post-study period was raised at length by colleagues. I will not raise those matters again today.
In statements elsewhere, the Government have recognised the need for the UK to maintain its position with our global competitors in many respects. The ability of high-quality, qualified students to come to the UK is one way of ensuring that we are globally competitive. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said, the consequences for our reputation and standing abroad will be long standing. If the message gets out that Britain is not open for business and is not welcoming to international students, it will have an effect not only on students who do not come here but go elsewhere, but on future business contacts if students do not have a positive experience in the UK, on future cultural contacts, and on general good will towards the UK. There will be short-term and long-term economic consequences.
As the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made clear, there are many other reasons for welcoming international students to this country. It is not a question just of a narrow economic interest; there is the wider interest of Britain’s standing as a whole. However, the economic interest is important. In Scotland alone, the income raised from international student fees in 2009-10 was worth some £260 million. Of every £100 earned by Scottish universities from teaching grants and contracts, international students accounted for £16. Economic interest is not the only reason why the changes should be reconsidered, but it is important, and I hope that the Minister recognises that. Those of us who raise the concerns of universities in our constituencies are raising immediate concerns, but also concerns about our ability to compete on the world stage. I urge the Government to reconsider the way in which these proposals are being introduced, particularly with reference to the implications for those who want to come to Scotland to take a four-year degree course and thereafter to consider postgraduate study as part of the overall package that attracts them to our country.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Five more hon. Members have indicated that they want to speak, and we have just over half an hour left. I will try to get everyone in, but I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate, and on the excellent and measured speech with which he introduced it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have spoken today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) who explained the background and the wider issues at stake. We have had some excellent contributions from both sides of the Chamber.
I want to follow up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson). In Woking, I have several private colleges with a good reputation—I do not have a publicly funded university—which make a real contribution to the life of the constituency and to their students. The Tante Marie cookery school is the largest independent cordon bleu cookery school in the UK. It was founded in 1954 by Iris Syrett, the distinguished cookery writer, and is now part-owned by Gordon Ramsay. It is an internationally renowned establishment and wants to be competitive with the world’s best cookery schools.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East, I have received feedback from legitimate private sector colleges, which believe that things are stacked against them. The rules are constantly changing, and that costs each college a lot of time and money. As my hon. Friend said, they must meet an extremely high bar to gain highly trusted sponsor status, and that includes proving that less than 2% of their overseas students drop out in the first third of the course. Most publicly funded colleges or universities would not meet that test, but they are not asked to fulfil any such criteria.
The bar is high, but my understanding and that of colleges is that, if they gain highly trusted sponsor status, their overseas students will not now be allowed to work while they are at the college, although a student studying almost exactly the same course at a publicly funded university or college would be allowed to work. That will make it very difficult for private colleges to compete with publicly funded universities, both internationally and in the UK, and to attract foreign students. A student’s ability to work during their studies has no effect on net migration, but removal of the right to work will have an impact on the number of genuine students who are interested in coming to the UK to study. If they cannot work while they are here, the UK will be a much less attractive and much more unaffordable place for them to come to study, especially as most other countries will allow them to work as well as study.
The Government’s intention is to reduce net migration and, as we have heard from my hon. Friends today, that is a laudable objective, which most people want their MPs to support and get a grip on. The best way to do that in the context of education, as we have heard from throughout the Chamber, is to crack down on the bogus colleges and to ensure that students leave when their course has finished. There is a clear difference between a student coming to the UK for the duration of a course, and someone migrating to the UK to live here. The former is undoubtedly beneficial to the UK, the student and our economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said, what better way of spreading British values and the values of democracy, the rule of law and our cultural heritage with the rest of the world than through having genuine students come here to learn and live alongside British students in this wonderful country of ours.
I have long been an admirer of the Minister, whom, I believe, has one of the most difficult briefs in government. He approaches his task with customary tact, intelligence and verve. However, I must say that the potential unfairness of the new rules, and the way they discriminate against private colleges, even after they have achieved every level of quality assessment, will make life difficult for them. In my view, private colleges that meet all the quality criteria should have equal treatment with educational establishments in the public sector, and more equal treatment with similar colleges in other western democracies.
Jeremy Corbyn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, in reality, students who are attracted to cookery schools such as the one he mentioned, and to most language schools, are not in competition with publicly funded universities. They are different courses and different groups of students, although I agree with him about the treatment that such colleges receive.
Jonathan Lord
I am grateful for that intervention. As I said earlier, there are many different private colleges in my constituency—I gave one interesting example of a college of which I am particularly proud. I believe that both publicly funded colleges and universities, and private colleges, have a great deal to contribute, and genuine students should be encouraged to come to the UK to study.
I tried to delineate the difference in the way that private colleges have to perform against different and difficult rules. Even when they receive the status of highly trusted sponsor, they find that other rules have been introduced and that, because of the lack of a level playing field, it is difficult for them to attract genuine foreign students to come to this country.
I have heard representations from some good private colleges that genuinely feel that they are going to be bankrupted. A lot of colleges will be bankrupted, but it will be the good and bad together. That cannot be fair to the colleges, to potential students, or to UK plc. I urge the Minister to look carefully at that issue and ensure that our private colleges—in particular the good ones that have highly trusted sponsor status—are treated properly and allowed to continue with the excellent work that they have done over many years for those foreign students who gain so much from coming to study in this country.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. First, may I declare an interest? This time last year I was principal of a sixth-form college that educated 120 fee-paying international students. International students are a competitive business. As we have heard, it is effectively an export industry; non-EU students buy a UK education in a fiercely competitive global market. Students who come to the UK are often from influential families in their home country and region. They will return and become leaders of their cities, regions and countries. That they have been educated in the UK disposes them positively towards all things British, and can only assist in the UK’s future global influence and economic prosperity.
I want to focus on the further education sector. More than 20,000 fee-paying international students study at sixth-form and further education colleges. College fee income from international students is more than £42 million a year, and there is additional income from books, food, accommodation and other things. UK plc benefits by at least £80 million a year.
Let me draw on the concerns raised by John Leggott college in my constituency where, as I said, I was principal. The college has excellent results for international students, and has won many awards for its work with them. It has worked with the British Council and others to develop strong relationships in key markets across the world. It has an excellent reputation but—here is the “but”—the British Government’s treatment of visa regulations, the interpretation of those regulations by the UK Border Agency, and their implementation by particular consulates, seriously threatens the college’s international business.
The head of the international centre, Maggie Williamson told me:
“Feedback from agents in China is that the UK visa system is so complicated, daunting and a real obstruction, that most students now don’t even bother thinking about the UK. They just go to the United States without considering the UK, so this has made applications drop dramatically.”
There is a lack of a level playing field between FE and sixth-form colleges, and those independent schools that—quite properly—are also active in the market. Like the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), I call only for a level playing field and for fair treatment for different providers.
Independent schools automatically get highly trusted sponsor status and do not have to pay the £400 registration fee—the relevant information states that they will not have to pay the full burden of highly trusted status. Will the Minister consider whether that is fair and proper in the current market? It sends an unfortunate message to the key markets in which the different bodies are operating.
Independent schools can hold pre-sessional courses for students on the same confirmation of acceptance of study—the CAS form—that is required when students finally join the school. That is not the case for the FE and sixth-form college sector. Having said that, there are practical issues about whether the CAS system is effective, and its operation is worth further scrutiny. The secure English test does not have the same power of insistence for independent schools as it does for the FE and sixth-form college sector. Students who wish to come to the UK have to take a particular exam, such as IELTS—the International English Language Testing System—and the cost of taking it abroad is a disincentive to students who wish to enrol on courses in the UK. There is an uneven, unequal market, and I hope that the Minister will look at that.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Education for enabling and encouraging the UK Border Agency to meet me and representatives from my local college to discuss the issue. The UK Border Agency recognises the absurdity of the situation, but it later said in a letter that it would not change anything. I hope that the Minister can focus on the matter and bring about fair treatment for different types of institution within the market. That would be of great assistance and importance.
Prospective students are currently putting money into banks to come to the UK. They do so in good faith that those banks or financial institutions will be on the list of trusted financial institutions. That list, however, has not yet been published, and students may put money into a bank only to find out later that it is not on the list. I hope that the Minister will ensure protection for students and institutions in such an eventuality. It would be helpful if the Minister considered that practical issue.
Much of the aspiration behind the policy is correct, but I hope that the Minister will look at and respond to concerns about the way in which it is applied, so that it can apply equally and fairly across different types of institution in a way that is practical and allows business to proceed.
Britain needs to be open for business in the student export market. In my opinion, politicians and the Government should be strong enough to shout up for British business, British students and British education. We should not pander to the sometimes hysterical argument and atmosphere around the subject. If we do that, we will export British jobs, the British reputation and future British influence to the more politically savvy parts of the world.
I hope that this excellent debate, in which hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber have engaged in a sensible articulation of concern, brings about a practical way forward that says that Britain is the best place in the world to come to for an international education, and that we will ensure a level playing field for institutions in Britain. We are open for business. Do come and help us to prosper into the future. That is what I hope will happen as a result of the debate.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive way in which he set out the wide range of issues that arise from the changes that the Government are making. Other hon. Members have also spoken about those matters, and I will not cover ground that has already been covered. I will focus on two areas of which I have intimate knowledge: my constituency, Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and my area of expertise, science and engineering.
As hon. Members undoubtedly know, Newcastle is a great university town. Newcastle university, in my constituency, was founded in the 19th century by, among others, the great industrialist Lord Armstrong. When my father was a student there in the 1950s, it was known as King’s college, Durham. I do not whether, as a Commonwealth citizen, he required a student visa at the time, but if he did, I am very glad that he acquired one.
My mother was a student at Northumbria university, or Newcastle polytechnic as it was, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). Born in Newcastle, she certainly did not require a visa, although given that she was in her 50s when she finally got to go to university, a university education was in many ways a foreign country to her.
My point is that Newcastle has a long and proud history of educating a wide and diverse range of students from all kinds of backgrounds and from all over the world. It is therefore not surprising that I feel strongly about this subject. I am proud that Newcastle is a favoured destination of UK and international students. It attracts students from all over the world. Newcastle university has 3,000 international students from more than 110 countries, while Northumbria university has students studying degrees at partner institutions in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Seoul and elsewhere.
Students are therefore a vital part of our economy, contributing much to our businesses, our bars and clubs and our cultural life. Why on earth would we want to put up a sign saying “Do not come and study here”? I am afraid that that is increasingly the impression that we are giving and I will cite two case studies that exemplify that.
First, student A, studying biochemistry, sent the UKBA a request for a certificate of approval in February. Despite faxing and phoning, with the support of my office, for many months, she still has not had her passport back. Her student visa expires in July, and she cannot apply for a new visa without her passport, which the UKBA still has.
The second example is a student who is studying for a doctorate in marine engineering. He is in his final year. He has applied for a visa, which has been refused as the UKBA states that he should have completed his doctorate by now. However, with his application, he submitted a letter from the university explaining that the external examiner was ill, so it would require some more months to finish. The refusal took no account of the fact that the student had been in Newcastle for six years, with legal visas, paying substantial sums to the university in addition to rent and living expenses in Newcastle.
Those are just two examples of the many cases that my office has had to deal with. They mainly involve students in the middle of degrees or doctoral work, who thus have proven study records and whom the university has decided are able to complete their courses. Often the wording of the refusal has included factors not applicable to the case, showing that a form letter was used, rather than consideration being given to the individual applications. All the students refused visas who contacted my office were studying STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects. That may be because Newcastle attracts STEM students. It may be because the UKBA particularly dislikes STEM students. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will explain why.
The view of those in the university to whom I have spoken and who have contacted me is that the refusals have much more to do with not exceeding quotas than the lack of merit of the individual applications. Why on earth would we do this? There is a shortage of UK and EU STEM students. International STEM students enable departments to have the scale to undertake a wider range of courses and high-quality research in fields that might otherwise be closed down.
As the Campaign for Science and Engineering recently said,
“Nearly 40% of the UK’s scientific output from 2002-2007 involved international collaborations, so it is actually a positive aspect of UK higher education that students are exposed to a diverse peer group from the outset.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, the impact assessment for the proposals that we are discussing has confirmed the huge loss to the economy. It also confirms that the drive to cut overseas student numbers will reduce overall net migration by about 48,000 a year between now and the next general election. I am very afraid that we will lose many of the people whom we do not need or want to lose. We are in a globally competitive environment. Our universities and our country need to be competitive in that environment. We cannot and should not hang up a global “Closed” sign above our universities.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
I remind the final two Back-Bench speakers that the winding-up speeches will start at 5 o’clock.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) not simply on obtaining the debate, but on the way in which he introduced it. Despite some of the speeches that have been made, this is not an attempt to make a frontal assault on the whole of the Government’s immigration policy. All of us who have taken part in the debate and, I think, every Member of the House of Commons would accept that the bogus college has no place in British society. We should close such colleges down, prosecute those involved in running them and kick out those who have obtained bogus visas. That should be a statement of obvious fact.
What we are talking about here, though, is a recognition that, in the introduction of a relatively new system, haste may have been involved and there may be a need to fine-tune and adjust what already exists. I think that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central concentrated on and I hope that we can get the Minister to address those issues. Rather unkindly, I will be complimentary to the Minister, as the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) was. The Minister is a thoughtful man, and I hope that he will think about the issues that have been raised, because they are important.
Our higher and further education system is a precious national asset economically, but also culturally and in the wider realm of public diplomacy, so it does matter. It matters to all our constituencies. A city such as mine, with a huge educational infrastructure, both in higher education and in further education, depends on it for employment and for the very nature of modern Manchester. Within that context, I will concentrate on three particular aspects of the rules as they are now beginning to apply. These points have been brought to me by individual establishments. I will begin by raising, as other hon. Members have, the issue of a level playing field with respect to private institutions.
The Nazarene theological college, which obviously trains students in areas of theology, has made the point to me that the majority of its students are not visa holders—they do not need to be. It has a limited number of very high level students, mainly PhD students. However, PhD students attending private colleges such as the Nazarene college are treated differently from those who attend our public universities, in that only postgraduate students at universities and Government-sponsored students are able to bring in their dependants—their spouses and children. Often, those studying for doctorates at theological colleges are mature students. Frankly, saying that they must spend three or four years away from their families means that colleges will not be able to attract that kind of high-level student. I hope that the Minister will reconsider, because that college believed that there might be movement in that area. Perhaps that is something that warrants reconsideration.
A couple of institutions, both operating at a high level, have raised with me an issue that I have previously raised with the Minister—the post-study work route. One is the Northern Ballet school, which says that its graduates often do not get the regular paid work that they need; they need work experience if they are to pursue their careers. They will often take on freelance or part-time work, but at the moment that would take them outside the provisions of the post-study work route. Similarly, SSR college, which trains people to degree level, works in conjunction with universities on sound recording, a vital part of modern education. It, too, says that its students, after graduation, often have to look for part-time work, but again that would prevent them from taking the post-study work route.
The next point that I wish to raise in the brief time available has already been put to the Minister—the capacity to revise the impact of the new regime this year. INTO Manchester, which provides a route into higher education, and Manchester Metropolitan university have both raised similar issues with me about existing offers of places. The Minister said that unconditional offers would be honoured but there is the question of conditional offers.
More narrowly, questions have been asked about those people coming on to foundation courses where the language qualification is lower. Students often come to the university over the summer months to begin a part of their language course before going on to the foundation course. The summer is nearly with us, and the problem for these institutions is that they are having to correspond with students at a very late stage to say that they must now get the B1 English qualification, which they are finding too difficult.
My appeal to the Minister is whether, even at this late stage, we can modify the impact of the rules, make them a little more flexible, and recognise that in the longer run we do not want to damage this vital part of our economy and culture; I am sure that the Minister, too, does not want that. We need to refine that process in a way that suits everybody and makes no serious assault on the Government’s immigration policies.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I shall be brief so that the Minister has sufficient time to reply to the debate. I apologise to the House for missing part of the debate. It was the Government’s fault. I was forced to go to the Ministry of Justice to hand in a petition about legal aid; if the Government had not cut legal aid, I would have been here for the entire debate. The Minister may care to mention that to his colleagues.
I welcome the debate. I also welcome the introduction by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. All of us represent private sector institutions, which have now fulfilled the requirements put upon them by the previous Government, and that is welcome, or publicly funded universities—in my case, London Metropolitan university. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) that none of us is in favour of bogus colleges.
I was often deeply concerned about the way in which overseas students would come to this country and be hoodwinked into going to crummy colleges that did nothing for them, but which certainly exploited them. That did this country more damage than anything else, because those students felt that they had been brought here under false pretences—as indeed they had. They did not succeed in learning much and were often relieved of a great deal of money, only to be disappointed with the performance of the educational institutions. I do not have a problem with the fact that we have a tough regime for the private sector and language schools; we should be clear that they are genuinely offering an education for overseas students. However, what is proposed seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to what is being said about immigration, and it conflates immigration issues with issues about people’s right and need to study. It is damaging the reputation of this country and it is damaging the aspirations of students from other countries.
At some point, most MPs have been on delegations abroad on behalf of Parliament or other organisations. Everywhere we go, we come across people saying, “I studied in Newcastle”—or in Manchester, Birmingham or London—and that they benefited from it and enjoyed it. They are well disposed towards many things about our country—literature, science, engineering, transport systems or whatever it happens to be—and good will is built up as a result. We cannot calculate that good will, but we all know that it exists.
Now, when I go to other countries and talk to younger people about the possibility of studying in Britain, they say, “It’s expensive”—it is expensive—“it’s difficult to get a visa, and the immigration service and the entry system to this country have a very bad reputation.” People do not enjoy the experience, as non-EU nationals, of trying to come through Heathrow, Gatwick, or anywhere else, particularly if they come from Bangladesh, Africa or Latin American countries. They do not like the way in which they are interviewed, or the intrusive questioning that goes with it. A balance has to be drawn, and I am not convinced that we have it correct. I know that this is not related to education, but many tourists that visit Europe leave out Britain. They do not wish to go through the visa business of coming here, so they restrict their tour to France, Germany and the Netherlands.
I represent a constituency that includes London Metropolitan university. It has a huge diversity of students and a great diversity of courses, which I hope it will be able to maintain, but that is for another day. It needs overseas students. The student body needs overseas students. The university has built commendably close relationships with higher education institutions in Russia and Ukraine, as well as in other parts of the world, and it has many overseas students. The overseas students benefit from the quality of the education that they receive and from the experience of being in London, but our students at London Met—mainly local adult students—benefit enormously from their interaction with students from entirely different backgrounds. It is not a one-way street; it is very much a two-way street that is of enormous benefit to our students and to our economy.
I hope that in his response to the debate the Minister will recognise the economic value, the social value and the educational value of overseas students, and not stick with the arbitrary date of 21 April for the application of any new requirements. I hope, too, that he will recognise that there is a huge body of united opinion among private sector institutions as well as the publicly funded universities, and among Members across the House, that this country should be a centre for higher education. We all want our universities to benefit from overseas students. Our country has benefited greatly from them—in research, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) pointed out, and also in their good will towards this country when they return home. That is something that we can change quickly and I hope that we will.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. It is a subject that is important to us all, and contributions to the debate from all sides reflected the need to consider the matter seriously. We heard from Back Benchers, members and Chairs of Select Committees, and a former Home Secretary, which shows the importance of the issues that we face.
It is my job to reflect on the issues that have been raised in this debate. There have been a number of recurring themes to which the Minister will want to respond. If he is not able to do so today, I am sure that he will write to hon. Members with detailed answers. Some of the concerns may fall under the responsibility of other Departments.
I was struck by the contributions from the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) because they reminded the Minister of his obligation to deliver the Conservative manifesto commitment to reduce net immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. That commitment may have been watered down slightly in the coalition agreement, but it is, none the less, a millstone around the Government’s neck because it is so difficult to achieve. I understand the debates and discussions around immigration, but I reflect also on the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He said that when he was Home Secretary, there were issues that needed to be faced, but the goalposts kept moving. As he said, we tried to do all sorts of things to try to improve the situation.
The recurring themes in this debate on student visas have come from both sides of the House. I hope that we can get away from the partisan approach to immigration and the feeling that anything the previous Government did was completely bad and that the present Government will deliver their target. If we continue in that vein, we will not achieve our joint aim of balanced migration. We all want to ensure that we have in our country the people whom we want, require and need. We must reflect on the fact that the previous Government introduced the UK Border Agency and a whole series of initiatives to try to deal with migration.
I was struck by a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He said that part of the problem with migration and immigration issues is the counting in and the counting out of people; it is hard to understand what the facts and figures really are. We have accepted that the previous Government failed to deliver in that regard and we look to support the present Government in their attempts to try to reach a solution to that difficult problem.
Let us put to one side the issue of net migration and how we achieve that and reflect on the issues that we have here today. Student visas and the whole issue around students became a problem when the Home Secretary made a statement on 21 March, saying that we were going to reduce the number of students by 400,000 by 2015. The reality is that that will not be achieved. We have already heard that that figure will be reduced by 50%. That is part of the reason for this millstone around the Government’s neck.
We then move on to the issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central put so passionately, of the impact that we are having on our higher education sector. The message has gone out to the wider world that Britain is not open for business. We heard about the concerns that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee had to deal with on its visit to China and the 40% reduction in applications to the UK from India. On a recent all-party visit to Azerbaijan, I was told that the Azerbaijanis wanted to work and be involved with the UK, but thought that there problems in relation to how we saw the situation in further and higher education.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the points that have been raised today about the transitional arrangements, the time that the institutions will need to put in place the scheme and the problems relating to the offers that have been made to individual students. He should reflect, too, on the cost to the country. The hon. Member for Peterborough said that there was no empirical evidence on the financial impact of such a change, and yet the Home Office’s own impact assessment says that the cost to the country will be £2.6 billion or even £3.6 billion.
Foreign students benefit our university and college system in the UK. Hon. Members have talked about how they develop people intellectually, socially and culturally. We are also seeing a higher number of UK students going to universities in America. Our competitors, such as the US and Australia, are taking advantage of our current situation.
In conclusion, the problem of student visas needs to be addressed. We do not view it in a partisan way. We do not want to attack the Government’s immigration policy. We recognise that there must be managed migration and we want to work with the Government in a consensual way to achieve those things. The student visa issue is impacting in a negative way on the private sector and on public colleges and universities and we need to do something about that pretty speedily. If we do not, we throw away something that is a boost to our economy. I am talking about the benefits that foreign students bring to our universities and to our many cities and towns.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on this excellent debate, recognise that there are serious problems that need to be faced and come up with some solutions in the short term that will prevent any further damage to this sector. We need to have more debates on migration and immigration to decide what we can do collectively to resolve the issues.
I have some sympathy with what the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said. He asked whether we should go down the route that the US has determined. I hope that the Minister will reflect on an important debate that has had no partisan input, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) about the thoughtful and passionate nature of the debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) introduced this important debate in a thoughtful way.
I will follow the good examples of my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the former Home Secretary, in saying that there are clearly macro and micro aspects to this and it is important that we conduct the debate about student visas and tier 4 within the overall context of the Government’s immigration policy.
I should say at the outset that Britain is quite rightly internationally renowned for its top-quality education institutions. Many hon. Members have rightly made that point. The students who choose to study here from across the globe bring numerous cultural, social and economic benefits to the UK and to their own countries when they return. We all acknowledge that and it is certainly acknowledged across Government.
We must recognise that the student visa system had become a broken instrument. It has failed to control immigration and, in many cases, to protect legitimate students—a point that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made. He said that severe damage has been caused. He said that people come here honestly hoping to study and then find that they have been scammed. Bogus colleges are scamming not just the British immigration system but the students who come here.
Student immigration has more than trebled in the past 10 years and is now far larger than the other two main routes of immigration—the work route and the family route. Too many of the people who come here calling themselves students have a primary motivation of working here, and not of receiving a high-quality education. Too many institutions are providing a service that is not about education but immigration. Addressing that issue is at the heart of what we are seeking to do. Many Members from all parties have agreed that it is worth driving out that abuse.
There are endless examples of institutions and “students” working the system to get round language requirements and rights to work, and to bring in dependants. That is not just a small problem; too many colleges provide minimal or no tuition or classroom study. We have students barely able to hold a conversation in English turning up to “study” degree-level courses.
Last year, both Governments—the Labour Government and the coalition Government—were in power. So I hope that I will respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford South about being non-partisan by saying that in 2010 tier 4 visas represented 14% of visas that were issued, but tier 4 visa-holders were responsible for 41% of refusals at ports, in other words actually being turned down by immigration officers. The equivalent figures for tiers 1, 2 and 5 visa-holders were all less than 1%.
We want genuine students coming to Britain to attend courses of high educational value at legitimate and responsible institutions. We need to maintain our international reputation for providing top-quality education, and we want the very best students to stay on in the UK to complete their studies. That is exactly what our proposals are designed to deliver and that is why the Home Secretary announced a comprehensive programme of reform on 22 March. I want to set out what those changes mean in practice and how they will contribute to meeting our wider objective of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. I also want to address the many specific points made by individual Members during the debate. I will try to deal with them all in the next few minutes.
Many contributors to the debate have talked about flexibility, including the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. Indeed, to minimise disruption to education providers and students, we are implementing the changes in three stages. The rules for the first stage came into effect on 21 April. Last Monday—13 June—we laid the second set of changes to the rules before Parliament. They will come into effect on 4 July. We will complete our changes by the end of 2012.
We continue to have extensive dialogue with the sector about the changes that we are making. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about that that there are numerous and constant contacts at official level and, where necessary, between myself and Universities UK and selected vice-chancellors about these changes, because we want to introduce them in the most practical way possible.
I want to respond to a specific point that was made about the timing of the changes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) read out the letter from the vice-chancellor of a university in his constituency asking if all the changes could be delayed for a year. I should say that when we began to have discussions on them last autumn, we were urged by the universities themselves to get on with them, because we all know that the longer there is any uncertainty in a system, the more people are wary of that system. Various Members have said that the uncertainty that exists is deterring people from making applications and so on. If we allow the uncertainty to continue for another year, I suspect that the results would be worse. So that was the wise advice that I received from the universities last autumn.
I must repeat the basic point that there are so many abuses of the system that we need radical reform. Many colleges seem happy to accept students who do not even meet their own admissions criteria and who speak very little English. In one college, we found that there were two lecturers for 940 students. In another, we found that students were attending classes for just one day a month and working excessive hours for the rest of the time. UK Border Agency enforcement teams recently picked up students who were supposed to be studying at a college in London, but were actually living and working in west Wales; indeed, every student whom we found from that college was doing that.
We are targeting the least compliant students and institutions, and of course that is what we should do. For too long, institutions in parts of the privately funded education sector have been essentially unregulated, yet all the evidence suggests that those institutions pose the biggest risk to immigration control. In a sample of tier 4 students studying at private institutions about which the UKBA had concerns, up to 26% could not be accounted for.
The UKBA has revoked the sponsorship licences of 64 colleges. I hope that that meets the reasonable request of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that the inspection regime should be robust. He said that the UKBA used to phone up institutions in advance to say that its inspectors were coming. As is evident from the number of licences that have been revoked, the enforcement regime is getting better.
I want to turn to the current points-based system. Again in the spirit of non-partisanship, I must say that this Government did not arrive and tear up that system. We said that we could build on it and we accepted the point of having objective ways of measuring who comes to the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. Under that objective system, a sponsor assesses the intentions and ability of the student; UKBA staff no longer have the power to refuse a migrant entry to the UK on those grounds. We therefore need to make absolutely sure that sponsors are exercising their powers responsibly, and that is one of the things that these reforms are designed to achieve.
Damian Green
I will give way once; I suspect that I will not get through my speech if I give way to all the Members who wish to intervene.
Mr Jackson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On the points-based system, given that the overall purpose of immigration policy is to reduce net migration, can he confirm that after the introduction of the points-based system in 2007, arrivals of students, dependants and student visitors increased from 370,000 in 2007 to 489,000 by 2009?
Damian Green
Absolutely. Indeed, the numbers were still rising right up until last year. We now have the figures up to the summer of last year and the numbers were still rising at that point. As I was saying, we are building on the points-based system, but we are precisely introducing limits and precisely driving out abuse in the student system. That is why we will move on to other systems, so that we can get the numbers down. The points-based system is not enough on its own, but it is a platform on which we can build.
The Home Secretary announced new reforms that mean that all sponsors must now be vetted by one of the approved inspectorates and all of them must attain the status of highly trusted sponsors. In line with that commitment, we announced earlier this week that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate would extend their activities to cover privately funded providers. Sponsors must meet our immigration requirements and high standards of educational provision. Institutions that do not meet those requirements are now subject to a limit on the number of students that they can bring in. To stay on the sponsor register in the longer term, they must achieve highly trusted sponsor status no later than April 2012 and gain accreditation by the relevant agency by the end of 2012. The imposition of a limit responds to the urgent need to tackle abuse, allows sponsors time to adjust to the new system and prevents surges in applications from high-risk sectors. We are well on track to delivering a sponsorship system that the public can trust.
We are also raising the bar on entry requirements. All students coming to study degree-level courses must now be able to speak English at an upper intermediate level and others will have to speak English at an intermediate level. If students cannot answer basic questions in English about their course, UKBA officers will refuse them entry at the border. That was another point legitimately made by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. We are now bringing back the power for immigration officers at the border to recognise that someone is obviously, indeed blatantly, incapable of fulfilling the requirements of their visa.
In recognition of our trust in universities, we are flexible about the methods that they use to assess a student’s level of English. That brings me on to a specific point that was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. Let me start by discussing what is, if you like, the biggest transitional issue. That is the English language requirement, which he raised in his introductory speech.
The appropriate level of English for those coming to study at level 6 and above is an upper intermediate level across each of the four disciplines: reading; writing; speaking; and listening. That is level B2 on the common European framework of language. A lower level—B1—is the appropriate level for lower courses, including the pathways courses that many Members have mentioned. Those are courses taken by people coming in who do not have the appropriate level of English but who want to take an English language course in the UK on their way to taking a full university course here. So we have set a lower level of English as a requirement for those students.
In order to get a visa, those outside universities will have to present a test certificate from an independent test provider proving that they have attained the required level. As another flexibility that we have introduced, universities will be able to vouch for a student’s ability if they are coming to study at degree level or above. Indeed, there might be the odd student who cannot meet the requirements for all four disciplines but is so exceptional that we will allow individual requests by university academic registrars.
A number of Members have talked about English language schools. People who want to come to the UK to study lower-level English can do so for up to 11 months through the student visitor route. We introduced that concession after discussions with the English language colleges last autumn, and the colleges have welcomed it.
On the confirmations of acceptance for studies and the visas, the requirements for an offer of a place at a university are separate from the requirements under the immigration rules. Universities could, and should, have assigned a confirmation of acceptance for studies to people who held unconditional offers before 21 April. Someone with a conditional offer has, of course, not yet satisfied the university’s own academic entry requirements. The immigration system and its requirements have always been separate from the academic entry requirements, and it is important not to confuse the two. For instance, any Government would refuse a student entry if their background indicated that a potential harm would be posed to the UK, even if a university had given an unconditional offer of a place.
It was mentioned that there are difficulties relating to the English language tests. The UKBA ran a procurement exercise and expanded the list of English test providers to ensure that there was significant capacity, and we are in regular contact with each of the approved test providers, which have demonstrated flexibility in expanding test centre capacity where there is demand. If there are blockages, we are trying hard to remove them.
There has been much inevitable discussion about the impact assessment, and various figures have been cited. I wish to put on the record that the net cost is said to be £2.4 billion. The £3.6 billion is the gross cost, but there will also be £1.1 billion of benefits. The truth about the impact assessment process is that it is in its infancy and is not yet satisfactory. I have spoken to the economists who do the assessments and they agree that the process needs to improve. I do not want to go into the economic theology of what works and what does not work because it is late on a Thursday afternoon, but I shall give one very practical example. The way in which the assessments are carried out requires us to assume that there is a zero displacement effect of students taking jobs on the local labour market. In other words, if a foreign student is doing a job and then leaves, 100% of that economic activity is assumed to be lost. In practical terms, however, it is likely that that person will be replaced by a British student or someone else. Clearly, therefore, the assessments are not satisfactory, and we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee, which is independent of Government, to look at the process over the summer.
The definition of immigration is beginning to vex us, and I am half-tempted to spend a long time discussing whether students should somehow be removed from the definition altogether. There is clearly an academic argument to be had, but I will just make the underlying point that although it would be fantastically convenient for the Minister for Immigration suddenly to discover that hundreds of thousands of people who were regarded as immigrants yesterday would not be regarded as immigrants tomorrow—I would hit my targets with no effort at all—that is not realistic, and I do not think that the public would accept it. In terms of confidence, the point is very well made that immigration statistics are imperfect, particularly regarding counting people in and out, and that is why we have re-let the e-Borders contract. Over the next few years we will develop a much greater ability to count people out as well as in, but it seems sensible to stick to the internationally agreed measurements we have always had, which are used by other countries, rather than apparently try to redefine our way out of what is a serious and difficult political issue.
The other big subject that many Members have mentioned is post-study work, and I am afraid that I will have to agree to differ with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. The students’ primary motivation should be to study, not to work. The ability to work after finishing a course or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) said, while doing a course, should not be a significant part of the motivation of someone coming here on a student visa. If people want to come here to work, there are work routes, and I do not want them to deceive either us or themselves by saying, “I’m here as a student but what really matters to me—the motivating force—is that I can either work during the course or stay for a couple of years afterwards.” It is simply not the case that everyone who does that gets a graduate-level job. In one cohort that we looked at, of those who were hanging around for the allowed two years after finishing their degrees, about 20% were unemployed, and 50% of those who were employed were in unskilled jobs and not making use of their studies.
Tony Lloyd
Does the Minister not recognise that there are some people who would benefit as part of the total package of education plus skills training but who might not qualify under the current post-study work route structure?
Damian Green
No. The problem is that the post-study work route has been abused as much as it has been legitimately used. We are not closing down that route altogether; we are specifically saying, “If you can get a graduate-level job, you can stay.” That seems very reasonable—[Hon. Members: “It is about the salary”]. I thank Members for that. Let me talk about the £20,000 salary that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central suggested was somehow wrong. I have to say, in the gentle spirit of non-partisanship in which I am making this speech, that the £20,000 minimum salary threshold for tier 2 was set by the previous Government, following a recommendation by the Migration Advisory Committee in August 2009. At that time, the tier 2 skill threshold was jobs at national vocational qualification level 3, and this Government have now raised that threshold to jobs at NVQ level 4, at which level the case for a salary threshold of at least £20,000 becomes even more compelling.
Paul Blomfield
What the previous Government surely had in mind when they set that threshold was not post-study work but the conventional application for tier 2.
Damian Green
It was set as a graduate-level salary, and it still is. We have kept that threshold. We have not inflation-linked it, and we have increased the skill level, so, if anything, there is a stronger case for it now.
I have a fascinating answer about accountancy qualifications for the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, but given that there are only three minutes to go I hope that he can hold his interest on that topic and bear to have my reply in writing.
In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, it is true that initially universities were automatically granted highly trusted sponsor status, but they were all required to apply for the status by the end of June 2010. All applications were considered against the published criteria. I was puzzled that someone said they were confused about the criteria, because they were published. Universities retained highly trusted sponsor status after June 2010 only if they had met all the criteria.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made a point about independent schools. Independent schools have been afforded greater flexibility simply because of their extremely low levels of non-compliance. They have earned that privilege because they are practically 100% compliant. The requirement for a secure English language test applies to all users of tier 4 general. Independent schools largely use the tier 4 child route, for which there is no English language requirement. That route is also available to sixth-form colleges that recruit 16 and 17 year olds.
There was a question about the list of financial institutions, and I can say that that list will be available on the UKBA website shortly. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) asked about quotas, and I am happy to assure her that there are no quotas for UKBA officials to grant or refuse applications.
Once all the rules have been implemented, I expect the reforms to reduce the number of student visas by about 70,000 a year, and I estimate that at the end of this Parliament there will be about 260,000 fewer student visas and about 100,000 fewer dependants’ visas. Members have raised many practical issues that I have not had time to address, but I will take them away and think about them hard, particularly the individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) .
I am of course aware of the importance of international students for British educational institutions and for the UK economy, but I believe that the measures strike the necessary balance.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing and Local Government (Unpublished Research Reports)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Today the Government are publishing a further group of reports presenting the findings from research projects commissioned by the previous Administration. There is a significant backlog of unpublished reports that were produced by the previous Government and over the next few months we will be publishing further reports in groups, themed on particular topics.
The reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements. We are publishing these documents in the interests of transparency and as part of our freedom of information commitment to publish the results of all commissioned research. For transparency, all concluded research work is being published, though some reports may not be as complete or in the format that the Department for Communities and Local Government would normally require.
The four reports published below represent the findings from four DCLG research projects commissioned at a total cost to taxpayers of £161,796 and one report from the Homes and Communities Agency commissioned at a cost of £63,600. These findings cover the topics of housing and local government.
Housing reports
(i) Domestic violence—Assistance for households without dependent children.
This study explored the type of assistance provided by local authorities and also other specialist agencies. This report was commissioned in November 2008 at a cost of £70,000.
(ii) Cumulative impacts of regulations on house builders and landowners.
This report provides expert advice on the returns expected from landowners when selling land for housing and the factors that drive this. This report was commissioned in June 2008 at a cost of £3,000.
Homes and Communities Agency report
(iii) New affordable homes: What for whom and where have registered providers been building between 1989 and 2009.
This report analysed available data and evidence to provide an assessment on how the provision and investment of affordable housing by registered providers has changed over the last 20 years (1989-2009) with more detailed case study work in five local authorities. This report was commissioned in February 2010 and cost £63,600.
Local government reports
(iv) Long-term evaluation of local area agreements and local strategic partnerships: Final report.
The report considers the role of local strategic partnerships and the impact of local area agreements, from the point of view of partnership working, efficiency and service improvement. The report was commissioned in 2007 at a cost of £47,898.
(v) Evaluation of inspiring communities: scoping report including the theory of change and outcomes framework.
This is a scoping report which includes the theories of change for the various projects—why and how the initiatives should work—and the outcomes framework, showing how success should be measured. The report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £40,898.
At a time when public budgets must be reduced, the new Government want to ensure their research delivers best possible value for money for the taxpayer and that sums expended are reasonable in relation to the public policy benefits obtained. My Department has rigorous scrutiny and challenge processes for commissioned research.
New projects will continue to be scrutinised to ensure the methodology is sound and that all options for funding are explored at an early stage. This includes using existing work from other organisations, joint funding projects with other Departments or organisations and taking work forward in-house.
These reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements and are not a reflection of the current Government’s policies and priorities. DCLG is publishing these reports in the interests of transparency.
Copies of these reports are available on the DCLG website. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
Service Personnel and Veterans Agency
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
With effect from 16 June 2011, the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) will cease to have the status of executive agency of the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
The SPVA was formed in April 2007 from the merger of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) and the Veterans Agency (VA). The purpose of the merger was to provide both serving and retired members of the armed forces and their beneficiaries with a single point of contact for all personnel administration matters, and this has been achieved.
The SPVA will become part of the new Defence Business Services (DBS) in 2013. The SPVA will relinquish its agency status from 16 June 2011 as this is not considered critical to delivering its business, but it will retain its name until it is incorporated into DBS to avoid the unnecessary expenditure associated with re-branding. This change in operating status will have no impact on SPVA’s customers and will achieve staff reductions in the support functions of £319,000 per annum, starting in late financial year 2011-12. Wider savings to Government are also anticipated, in particular the costs incurred in auditing the agency’s annual report and accounts.
Diamond Jubilee Civic Honours Competitions
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
On 1 December 2010 I announced the launch of the diamond jubilee civic honours competitions for the grant of city status and of lord mayoralty (or, in Scotland, lord provostship) to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee in 2012. The closing date for entries was 27 May 2011.
I am pleased to announce that 26 applications for city status and 12 for lord mayoralties have been received. This is a magnificent response to the competition and it is clear an impressive amount of effort has gone into all the applications that have been submitted.
The full list of applicants for city status is:
Bolton
Bournemouth
Chelmsford
Colchester
Coleraine
Corby
Craigavon
Croydon
Doncaster
Dorchester
Dudley
Dumfries
Gateshead
Goole
Luton
Medway
Middlesbrough
Milton Keynes
Perth
Reading
Southend
St Asaph
St Austell
Stockport
Tower Hamlets
Wrexham
The cities applying for a lord mayoralty are:
Armagh
Cambridge
Derby
Gloucester
Lancaster
Newport (Gwent)
Peterborough
Salford
Southampton
St Albans
Sunderland
Wakefield
The process of assessing the entries will begin shortly. Careful consideration will be given to all applications, after which Ministers will formally provide their advice to Her Majesty, as such honours are awarded under the royal prerogative. The results are expected to be announced early in 2012.
Post-Energy Council (Luxembourg 10 June)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
Andy Lebrecht, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK at the Council.
The Council began with a report by the Commission on the progress of the regulation on energy market integrity and transparency (REMIT). The Commission noted the importance of the issue for the development of the internal energy market and reported that informal trilogues with the European Parliament would begin on 16 June with the aim of reaching a First Reading agreement.
The Council then agreed conclusions on the energy efficiency action plan and the Commission outlined the next steps on energy efficiency, including the publication of a draft energy efficiency directive in June. There were a number of interventions by member states, noting the importance of energy efficiency.
The presidency presented a summary of the informal Energy Council discussion in Hungary on the forthcoming 2050 energy road map. The Commission explained that work would continue over the summer on scenarios for the road map and highlighted the challenges of meeting the 80% to 95% emissions reductions targets and the importance of member states’ decisions on energy mix. The UK noted the importance of the road map setting out potential scenarios to enable each member state to make such decisions. In response to requests from several member states, the Commission said that it would carry out a study for the autumn on the impacts on EU markets of national decisions about energy mix.
The Commission noted the agreement reached by ENSREG on the content of nuclear safety tests and that the tests had begun. The UK emphasised that nuclear security should not be included in the stress tests, being a matter of national security
Poland briefly outlined its plans for its presidency. Key issues will be security of supply and international co-operation, offshore drilling and infrastructure.
The Commission reported on a number of international energy relations issues, including the need for rapid progress over the southern corridor. Ministers discussed the issue of financing for energy infrastructure over lunch.
Environment Council (21 June 2011)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 21 June.
At this Council, Ministers will take note of progress reports relating to the proposal for a directive on control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (“Seveso III”) and to the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.
The presidency will also seek the adoption of Council conclusions on the protection of water resources and integrated sustainable water management in the European Union and beyond, a road map for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050 and the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
The lunch discussion will be on climate change and the status of international negotiations.
The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:
Information from the Commission on aviation/emissions trading scheme implementation;
Information from the Commission on the Conference on the Implementation of the EU Environmental Law (Brussels, 15 June 2011);
Information from the Commission on CSD 19 conclusions and possible way forward to Rio+20;
Information from Romanian delegation on the meeting of Environmental Ministers from the Black Sea Economic Co-operation countries (Bucharest, 31 May 2011) ;
Information from the Dutch delegation on the risks associated with nanomaterials;
Information from the French delegation on the management of cormorants;
Information from the Lithuanian delegation on nuclear installations planned in the EU neighbourhood (Kaliningrad region and Belarus);
Information from the Austrian delegation on new challenges in the light of the Fukushima accident—reflections of countries without nuclear power (Vienna, 25 May 2011);
Information from the Swedish delegation on global, regional and bilateral action on short-lived climate forcers;
Information from the Danish delegation on the use of industrial gas credits under the effort sharing decision;
Information from the presidency and Commission on the outcome of the first meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Montreal, 5- 10 June 2011);
Information from the Slovak delegation on the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians (Bratislava, May 25-27, 2011) ; and
Presentation by the Polish delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.
Food and Catering Services (Government Buying Standards)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am pleased to announce that the “Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services” has today been published. There are Government buying standards for commonly procured goods and services in 10 major product groups, but this has not previously included food and catering.
These are mandatory on central Government and we will encourage the rest of the public sector to use them. We want to support and develop a profitable and competitive food chain and to ensure a secure, environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food. Where Government lay down standards of production, they should ensure that their own purchases meet these standards.
Therefore, these standards will set an example and provide a clear, credible and workable example for the wider public sector to follow. This is something that has not been done before and has been cited as one of the key barriers to progress in driving up standards of public sector food. In particular, the standards deliver an undertaking for 100% sustainably sourced fish.
DEFRA and Department of Health economists conducted an economic impact assessment on proposals, which we then opened up for review by a wide range of stakeholders ranging from catering and food suppliers, public procurement practitioners and Government Departments to sustainability NGOs and consumer groups. More than 50 responses were received.
In response to the review, some changes were made to the criteria, which were then agreed across Government.
The standards that have been agreed cover:
Sustainably sourced fish.
Animal welfare.
UK or equivalent production standards where this does not increase overall costs.
Higher environmental standards, such as organic or Integrated Production (for example LEAF, or Linking Environment And Farming) for a proportion of food.
Seasonal produce.
Fairly traded produce.
Energy and waste management.
Nutrition.
Control Powers (11 March - 10 June)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The future of the control order regime
On 23 May 2011, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. A copy of the Bill can be found on Parliament’s website. The home page for the Bill is:
http://services.parliament.uk//bills/2010-11/terrorismpreventionandinvestigationmeasures.html
The Bill makes provision for the abolition of control orders and their replacement with a new, less intrusive and more focused regime. The control order system will continue to operate until its replacement is in force.
The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
As explained in previous quarterly statements, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During the reporting period, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders in force at the time. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period 11 March 2011 to 10 June 2011, one new non-derogating control order was made, with the permission of the court, and served. One non-derogating control order which was made, with the permission of the court, during a previous quarter was served during this quarter. A control order already in force at the beginning of this reporting period was revoked on the direction of the court and a new order made and served in its place. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period.
In total, as of 10 June, there were 12 control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Three individuals subject to a control order were living in the metropolitan police district; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas.
One set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order was concluded during this reporting period following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest in the light of the revocation of the control order to which they were related.
During this reporting period, 60 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-five requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Three appeals have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period two appeals were lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
On 5 April 2011 a judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA CIV 366, in relation to the appeal brought by BM against the decision of the High Court to uphold his control order. The Court of Appeal allowed BM’s appeal. It found that the High Court did not consider the correct legal test at the initial review of the control order because it only considered whether the control order was necessary at the date of the hearing and not at the date it was made. It further found that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the control order was flawed from the outset. The Court of Appeal made clear that it only considered the open evidence against BM in reaching this decision. The judgment recognised that the Secretary of State argued that the control order was justified on the totality of the evidence, including closed evidence that was not before them, but found that they should consider only the open evidence that was before them so as to avoid delaying the outcome of this case. The Court of Appeal directed that the control order should be revoked 48 hours after hand-down with retrospective effect from the date on which it was made.
On 20 May 2011 a judgment was handed down by the High Court in CD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]EWHC 1273(admin) in relation to the appeal brought by CD under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against the decision to refuse to remove an obligation that would require him to relocate away from his previous area of residence. The judge dismissed the appeal, concluding that the relocation obligation was a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist related attack. The judge also found that the Secretary of State should contribute to the travel costs of CD’s family. He made clear that the finding in this case does not mean that a contribution to travel costs should be made in every case of relocation.
Most full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org.
Justice and Home Affairs (Post-Council Statement)
(12 years, 10 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 (JHA) Council was 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 MSP, and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom, the following issues were discussed at the Council:
(The Council began in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The presidency reported that preparations for the VIS go-live date of October 2011 were on track. The Commission underlined the importance of member states notifying their preparedness by the end of July to allow time for the necessary legal and technical preparations.
The update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) confirmed that implementation was still on track.
The Council agreed the draft regulation on creating an IT agency. This will now be considered by the European Parliament to establish whether it can be the basis for a first reading deal.
In advance of the June European Council, Ministers held a wide-ranging debate on borders, asylum and migration, adopting conclusions reacting to three Commission communications on immigration issued last month. The UK highlighted that a stable, secure and prosperous future for the region required effective management of migration, mobility and security. Migration should be considered in assessing reform in the European neighbourhood. The global approach to migration provided the tools and principles for partnerships on migration and member state involvement was vital. Dialogue had to be balanced and transparent. On asylum, the UK raised concerns about the emphasis on legislative solutions: the problem was not a lack of rules, but implementation of the existing ones. While agreeing to the draft conclusions, the UK stated that they did not believe that the common European asylum system was in the UK’s national interest and any further opt-in decision would be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking account of national interests. The UK opposed suspension of the Dublin arrangements for the return of asylum seekers to their first port of entry into the EU and relocation or burden-sharing options but supported practical co-operation. Finally, the UK said a comprehensive approach to migration had to address the issue of free movement. Public support could not be undermined by fraud and abuse of residence rights and associated benefits. The UK and Frontex figures showed sham marriage was on the rise, with evidence of links to organised crime. The balance between safeguarding rights and protecting citizens was vital. The UK said that this issue should be discussed at a future meeting to meet the Stockholm programme commitments in this area.
The Commission presented proposals to amend 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 Commission’s amendments also include the introduction of a suspension mechanism to allow for the temporary reintroduction of visa requirements in an emergency situation. It would apply to all current and future countries granted Schengen visa waiver (not just the western Balkans). The Commission stressed that it would be applied only in very exceptional cases and as a last resort. The UK does not participate.
Next the Council discussed elements of amending the Frontex regulation. The Commission underlined the importance of reaching agreement with the European Parliament by the June European Council. Frontex agreed on the need for urgency; the agency was at a critical point and could not continue without a revised regulation. There was general agreement on balancing member state responsibilities for border control with the obligation of others to provide resources to support them. The Commission stated that the respect of fundamental rights was of the highest political importance to both the European Parliament and the Commission; the Council would have to agree to the independent monitoring of return operations. Member states disagreed on another name for the proposed “European Border Guard System”. Discussions on the regulation will continue at COREPER ahead of a further trialogue with the European Parliament next week.
The presidency presented Council conclusions confirming that Bulgaria and Romania had successfully completed the Schengen evaluation process; the Council will discuss accession in September.
Finally the Commission presented the main findings from the first six months of monitoring the impact of granting visa liberalisation to the western Balkans. Even though the large majority of travellers are bona fide, there had been a high number of unfounded asylum applications in certain member states relating to minority populations (especially Roma). The Commission underlined that the western Balkan countries were starting to address these problems. A number of follow-up measures would now be necessary, including targeted information campaigns, increased use of border controls and entry bans, and targeted assistance to minority populations.
Following Mixed Committee, Interior Ministers held a lunchtime discussion on asylum where the Commission presented revised proposals to amend the procedures and reception conditions directives. The upcoming Polish presidency said all their efforts would be focused on agreeing at least a core of a common system by 2012. The UK reiterated that a common asylum system would not be in the UK’s national interest.
After lunch, the Council resumed with the Commission giving a short update on three legal migration directives: seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and the single permit for residence and work on which they hoped the electronic storage of data would allow a way forward. The UK is not participating in these measures.
Next the Council agreed conclusions on establishing priorities in the fight against organised crime over the next two years.
The Commission presented its air cargo security progress report on the implementation of the EU action plan of 30 November 2011. Commissioner Malmström regretted the negative vote at the Regulatory Committee (the preceding day) due to “difficulty” between transport and security officials in member states and called for greater co-operation. The UK expressed “extreme disappointment” at the outcome in Regulatory Committee, emphasised the threat remained significant and that the proposals voted on would significantly improve standards and called for Transport Ministers to reconsider this.
The presidency adopted the Council conclusions aligning internal and external counter-terrorism. The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (EU CTC) presented his discussion paper, highlighting the Arab spring, EU engagement in Pakistan and disappointment at the Regulatory Committee vote. The UK welcomed the EU CTC’s paper, specifically the importance of communication; the link between CT and drugs, the rule of law and organised crime; nuclear security, aviation security; political dialogue with the Arab world and progress on EU PNR. The UK agreed the threat remained strong and said that the EU must target efforts on areas of greatest risk (while complementing member states’ actions) and welcomed the EU Pakistan strategy. The UK asserted the importance of EU passenger name records, committed to supporting the communicators’ network, thanked the Presidency for the conclusions on aligning internal and external CT and highlighted the launch of the UK’s new Prevent strategy.
Under AOB there was a presentation of the project “Police Equal Performance" which is designed to enhance law enforcement capacity in cross-border activities in the western Balkans; a finalised proposal should be completed by the autumn. The upcoming Polish presidency gave a presentation on their priorities which included the common package for asylum; action to tackle synthetic drugs; the Eastern partnership, civil protection; and management of the external border.
The justice day commenced with the Council reaching a general approach on the directive on combating attacks against information systems. The UK welcomed the text, although noted reservations about the developing trend of providing in all such instruments for extra-territorial jurisdiction based on jurisdiction; this should not become the default approach.
Next, the Commission introduced its package of proposals on corruption, including a Commission decision on an anti-corruption reporting mechanism and a paper on EU accession to GRECO (the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption). The Commission thought Europe had to take this in hand and that corruption had a significant cross-border element, hence the importance of EU involvement in improving the patchy implementation of existing international standards. The Commission was mindful of avoiding additional burdens through the reporting mechanism.
The presidency secured a partial general approach on articles 1 to 18 and Y of the draft directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO), although acknowledged that aspects of the text might need to be revisited at a later stage. Many member states congratulated the presidency on the progress made over the last few months, although it was clear that substantial concessions had been made across the Council, with the grounds for refusing to execute an EIO being the most controversial issue. The UK could not support the current text, maintaining its parliamentary scrutiny reservation. The UK disagreed with the current exceptions to the dual criminality check which executing states could undertake in respect of the most sensitive and serious investigative measures. The drafting of the provision on ne bis in idem might also need to be revisited at a later stage. The incoming Polish presidency intends to continue the negotiations.
Next the Council adopted conclusions on the memory of crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe. Several member states intervened to recall the importance of action in this area and said they would prefer a legally binding instrument in this field.
The Council then agreed the proposed resolution establishing a road map for future action on protection of victims’ rights. The road map is a statement of political intent, and sets out the basis for future legislative measures. The UK agreed the road map.
The Commission also presented the recently published victims package, including a draft directive on rights in criminal proceedings, a regulation on protection measures in civil matters and a communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU. The UK noted the presentation and has yet to make its decision on the opt-in for the directive and regulation.
The presidency also introduced its political guidelines which aimed to set the direction for fundamental issues in the matter of the proposed regulation on succession and wills. The compromise was welcomed by the majority of member states. The UK was grateful for explicit commitment to revisit some issues at a later point to facilitate its possible participation.
Over lunch, Ministers discussed a presidency paper on the future of EU criminal policy.
After lunch the Council noted the proposal for a regulation on electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, which would give proper recognition and legal certainty to the electronic version. As some member states (including the UK) could not lift their parliamentary scrutiny reservations, the text could not be forwarded to the European Parliament for consent, but agreement would enable quick progress to be made should reservations be lifted.
The Council agreed the revised road map on implementation of the European e-justice action plan and endorsed the report of the working party on e-law, without discussion.
The presidency gave an update on the state of play on negotiations on the accession agreement of the European Union to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission expressed the view that considerable progress has been made in the timeframe and they looked forward to continuing work with the Council of Europe.
Then the Commission introduced the recently published communication on protection of the financial interest of the Union through criminal law and administrative investigations.
The Commission presented its communication on protecting EU funds against fraud and other criminal conduct. Commissioner Reding highlighted the proposed reform of the internal structure of Eurojust, in order to provide OLAF (the EU’s anti-fraud office) with a judicial partner, and the importance that a European public prosecutor (EPP) could play in protecting public money across EU. The Government have made it clear that they will not participate in an EPP.
There was a presentation on the missing children Europe conference that took place on 25 and 26 May 2011. The presidency and the Commission recalled the successful conference to raise awareness of the 116000 hotline for missing children, although were disappointed that a substantial number of member states had not yet fully implemented the helpline, the deadline for which had now passed. The UK has implemented the hotline and it is fully operational.
Slovenia also updated delegations on the Brdo conference of the western Balkans, held on 15 April at Brdo pro Kranju, which focused on improving judicial co-operation in criminal matters, in particular in relation to organised crime and asset recovery.
Germany also informed the Council of its impending accession to the network for legislative co-operation, which would take place on 17 June at the next meeting of the network, in Budapest.
Finally, Poland presented its priorities for the presidency, which begins on 1 July 2011, and confirmed that they would focus on protection of citizens’ rights. They hoped to make progress on the regulation on succession and wills and the Brussels I regulation and prioritise the Commission’s package of proposals on victims. Poland also indicated that it would hold discussions on EU contract law at the informal JHA Council on 18 and 19 July.
Chiltern Railway (Penalty)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I have decided to impose a penalty on Chiltern Railway of £350,000, having taken account of the outcome of a statutory consultation process.
The penalty relates to four breaches of the terms of the company’s franchise agreement which occurred before management of Chiltern transferred to Arriva UK trains in early 2011. These involved late delivery of two station improvements, and two timetable changes which were not properly authorised by the Department for Transport and which could, if un-rectified, have significantly reduced the value of the franchise to the Department. These breaches were in the context of the company’s poor performance in meeting a number of its detailed contractual obligations over a substantial period.
The Department imposes such penalties very rarely. When it does so, the aim is to encourage train operators to comply with their contractual obligations to the Department under franchise agreements. It should be emphasised that the penalty does not relate to Chiltern’s operational performance. As a number of consultees commented, the company is noted for its high standard of performance and customer satisfaction, and for the substantial investment it is making in improving services.
The penalty has been reduced from the proposed level of £500,000 in the light of the responses to the consultation, and in particular the welcome and clear assurances from Chiltern that it has stepped up its commitment and oversight at senior management level to ensure compliance with the terms of its franchise.
The receipts from the penalty will be retained by the Department and reinvested in transport. No decision has been made at this stage as to the final use of the funds.
Thameslink Rolling Stock
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Department for Transport is today announcing the identity of the preferred bidder for the new fleet of trains required for the Thameslink programme. This represents a significant milestone in the delivery of this crucial rail upgrade project.
The £6 billion Thameslink programme includes major improvements to central London stations such as Blackfriars, Farringdon and London Bridge and will generate significant benefits for passengers. It will make travelling across London and the south-east faster, easier and more reliable and will reduce crowding on some of the busiest sections of London’s transport network. It will see the introduction of a new generation of electric commuter trains operating with metro-style frequency at up to 24 trains per hour through the central section during the morning and evening peaks.
This new fleet of trains comprises some 1,200 carriages. By the end of 2018, this will almost double the capacity of Thameslink’s core central London section in the peak periods. It is a major part of the Government’s commitment to introduce an additional 2,100 carriages on to the rail network by 2019, as announced in November of last year. The new Thameslink fleet is expected to release existing carriages for use elsewhere on the network, particularly as further routes are electrified, for example in the north-west of England and the Thames Valley commuter lines.
The competition to supply trains and maintenance services for the Thameslink programme was designed and launched under the previous Administration in 2008, in accordance with EU procurement procedures. In October 2009 the previous Government announced that the two remaining short-listed bidders were Siemens Plc with Cross London Trains (XLT) and Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd with VeloCity. Since then, a great deal of work has been undertaken by the Department with both bidders to refine proposals and to secure best and final bids.
Following the completion of the process, I can announce today that the preferred bidder for the supply of the new Thameslink trains will be Siemens Plc with Cross London Trains (XLT)—a special purpose company comprising of Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, Innisfree Ltd and 3i Infrastructure Plc.
The Siemens-led venture will deliver the first new train on to the network by the start of 2015, with the order complete by the middle of 2017. The new trains will offer a step change in passenger experience, with greater passenger carrying capacity, improved passenger communication and easier access for passengers with specific mobility needs. They will also deliver high-levels of reliability with the owner and manufacturer of the trains liable for financial penalties if the trains do not perform.
The choice of Siemens Plc with Cross London Trains (XLT) as preferred bidder represents the best value for money for taxpayers. Siemens is today confirming that this announcement will create up to 2,000 new jobs in their UK operations and across the UK supply chain in train component manufacturing, with a particular focus in the North-East of England, and in the construction of the depots and subsequent maintenance of the new fleet of trains.
These jobs are additional to those created by the Thameslink infrastructure works which are currently underway. At the peak of construction activity—during the reconstruction of London Bridge station from 2013 to 2018—we expect around 3,000 people to be directly employed on the Thameslink infrastructure works as a whole, with as many again employed in related jobs in the wider community. Taking account of other investments in rail announced by this Government, including Crossrail and the Inter City Express programme, the total peak construction employment rises to around 17,000 people.
In order to maintain momentum on the Thameslink programme, it is important that discussions with Siemens Plc and Cross London Trains move forward quickly to enable financial close to occur as soon as practicable. That is, of course, subject to the Government being satisfied that the proposal continues to offer value-for-money as the commercial discussions are concluded.
The alternative bidder, Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd with VeloCity—a special purpose company comprising Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) UK Ltd, RREEF Ltd, Serco Holdings Ltd, Amber Infrastructure Group Ltd and SMBC Leasing (UK) Ltd—also presented an attractive proposal and it is our intention to retain them as the reserve bidder.
This announcement of the preferred bidder for these new trains marks further progress in the delivery of the Thameslink programme, and reinforces the Government’s commitment to upgrading the capacity, quality and reliability of our transport infrastructure and ensuring high value for money for the taxpayer in delivering major rail projects.
House of Lords
Telephone Hacking
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they intend to take to prevent telephone hacking by newspapers.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, phone hacking is unacceptable and against the law. The police must be allowed to probe into all the evidence. The CPS will then assess whether any prosecutions should be brought in accordance with the tests laid down by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Should Her Majesty’s Government launch another phone-hacking inquiry now, it would risk obstructing these investigations. We shall, in the circumstances, monitor closely all the results and consider whether any further action will be necessary.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. There was a time when there was an attempt to write off phone hacking as the work of one rogue reporter. Does my noble friend recognise that in the last two weeks alone, News Corporation has paid out damages of £100,000 to the actress Sienna Miller and admitted misuse of private information, breach of confidence and harassment? News International has now set up what it calls a £15 million compensation fund for the victims of phone hacking, and evidence has emerged that the News of the World is not the only newspaper involved. Does she agree that all this represents a massive conspiracy against the public which the police and the Press Complaints Commission have been powerless to prevent, and will she give an assurance that once the criminal proceedings are complete—I emphasise, once they are complete—the Government will set up an independent inquiry to find out where the responsibility lies?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Fowler is extremely knowledgeable and experienced on this subject. I have read the details that he mentioned, but I need to make it clear from the start that my answers will cover only press regulations and not the criminal aspects. I know that your Lordships are well aware that the criminal aspects of hacking are covered by the Home Office. We do, however, fully understand my noble friend’s request for a further inquiry to be set up after the present cases are resolved. We are witnessing a revolution in the information and communications world, as in technology in general, of such galloping speed that I can only agree with my noble friend that constant monitoring is essential in case further action is needed.
Lord Soley
With regard to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I agree and understand the Minister’s case that she cannot do anything while court proceedings are possible. However, News International, and Rupert Murdoch particularly, have a history of avoiding publicity when there have been bad cases. There was another case of a former editor of the Sun—a very serious sexual assault case in the office. The editor was finally dismissed and large sums of money were paid, but nothing was public because it was hushed up by a conditional agreement in court by News International. There is a major problem about the way in which that group operates. I accept entirely that it has to be after the court case, but there really has to be some sort of inquiry.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, makes an important point about BSkyB and News Corporation. The Secretary of State has to make a quasi-judicial decision about the impact of the proposed merger on media plurality. Going back to his pinpointing regarding one newspaper, it was interesting that in February 2010 the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee published a report on press reporting that included the examination of the phone-hacking episode. It was critical of the News of the World and the police and stated that it did not find it credible that such an activity was limited to just one rogue reporter. However, according to recent press interviews, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said:
“It really isn’t acceptable to keep pointing the finger at one newspaper when, clearly, the use of unlawful means of investigating was, or is, widespread”.
Lord Elton
My Lords, this question is adjacent to a concern about super-injunctions. Is there not now a need to establish some means of deciding what the proper balance is between public interest, freedom of the press and personal privacy?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Elton hits right at the centre of this whole argument. The Attorney-General has announced a Joint Committee to look at all aspects of privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions. We are currently looking at the terms of reference for the committee. To clarify, general injunctions stop the press reporting. With super-injunctions, the press are not allowed to say that they have been gagged, which is very rare.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, should a committee of inquiry be established, will my noble friend please take on board the need to ensure that it investigates the very close links between senior police officers and senior executives of newspapers? Indeed, it is alleged that during the initial inquiries into the main case that we are discussing today, police officers were entertained by the executives of that newspaper.
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Ryder brings up a very delicate point about the inquiries. A number of investigations by the police are already under way. There are also several ongoing court cases, two parliamentary committees, and reviews by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Press Complaints Commission. At this stage it is hard to see whether another inquiry would be of any use, but the situation is constantly being monitored.
Lord Sugar
Does the noble Baroness agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that an editor of a national newspaper was not aware of where the information came from? In the past, as I believe one of my noble friends has mentioned, a journalist was given a custodial sentence for phone tapping. Is not the editor responsible for what goes in the newspaper, and therefore should he not also be given a custodial sentence, as well as, indeed, the proprietor and the board of directors?
Baroness Rawlings
I mentioned at the beginning that I was answering for the DCMS, which strays into the Home Office. When it comes to editors, I am afraid that I am unaware of what is happening.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
Can my noble friend the Minister indicate why it took five years, from 2006 to 2011, with Rebekah Brooks of Sky having only just been notified, to inform the victims of hacking that they were on Glenn Mulcaire’s list of names and numbers? Can she assure the House that all known victims have now been notified and that in future such victims will be notified as soon as possible?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the merger is being investigated on the basis of the effect that it could have on media plurality. As I said, phone-hacking allegations are very serious, but they are a matter for the criminal courts and may take a very long time. It would be impractical and quite wrong to delay a decision for such a long time.
Armenia: Genocide
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Flather
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their timetable for recognising the Armenian genocide.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the treatment of the Armenians was horrific and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands by force of arms, starvation or disease. They should not be forgotten, but we believe that it is for the Turkish and Armenian people to work together to address their common history. We encourage any process which helps them do so in an open, honest and constructive manner, but it would not be helpful for us to pre-empt their conclusions.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, France has already recognised the genocide. One and a half million people were massacred in 1915. I have just come back from Armenia where I visited the genocide museum. I am sure that many of your Lordships have visited the Holocaust museum. This is no less upsetting, shocking and dreadful than the Holocaust museum. There is so much evidence and it was known at the time that this was happening. Every newspaper from every country had headlines about this massacre. It is out of the question for Turkey and Armenia to decide. Nobody thinks of Armenia as a country worth thinking about. It is for us to recognise—
Baroness Flather
Thank you very much everybody. You are all helping me, which is very kind. Is it not for us to recognise this crime against humanity? It is time that we did that. Turkey has ambitions—I have the Turkish Review.
Lord Howell of Guildford
We all appreciate the noble Baroness’s feelings about what was clearly an horrific event in the distant past and one that arouses exactly the feelings of shock and horror that the noble Baroness has demonstrated. The Turkish and Armenian people are trying their best through a protocol procedure to normalise their relations and establish the right nomenclature and attitudes between each other so that these two countries can live in peace with a common border and continue to work for their joint prosperity. Now that protocols have been initialled and now that other Governments—the United States, France and other key countries—all take the same view as we do, this is the right way forward. Behind this is the other worry about Nagorno-Karabakh, and all that, which is being handled by the Minsk process of Russia, the United States and France. These two things together provide hope for the future and it would not be useful or constructive for us to take an issue and raise the heat of the matter by intervening in the way suggested by the noble Baroness.
Lord Avebury
Does my noble friend agree that after a century of taboo and silence Turkish journalists and historians are at last beginning to discuss the evidence of murder, enslavement, deportation and forcible transfer, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts of a similar character directed against the Armenian population of Turkey in 1915-16? Would it not help Turkey’s application to join the European Union if Turkish politicians acknowledged the crimes of their ancestors?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I repeat that the best way forward is for Turkey and Armenia, which have initialled detailed protocols, to work to sort this out. I believe that Turkey, which is a very dynamic and an increasingly key country in both the Middle East and in European affairs, is fully aware of this and is determined to push forward with an understanding. There are many people on the Armenian side who, while fully recognising the horrors to which my noble friend has referred, also believe that this is the right way forward.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, given that, as the Minister said, there is no doubt that genocide took place and that those who were killed should not be forgotten, can he say what is the official guidance on representation at the Armenian Genocide Memorial Day? I understand that there has been some reluctance of Ministers and others to attend the commemoration.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I will write to the right reverend Prelate on the precise wording of guidance on that. Behind it, there is always the concern that it is a matter to be settled between Turkey and Armenia. They are trying their best to do so and we must be very responsible and careful about any moves or acts of recognition or acceptance that would upset a delicate but very important process. I know that it is a natural impulse to feel, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, indicated, that we want to express our outrage at what occurred, but the best way forward is between these two countries.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the Minister recognise that Armenia and Turkey, as well as Azerbaijan, all work together very constructively in the Council of Europe and, at a political level, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? That body, which serves such useful purposes on so many disputes that still exist in the wider Europe, is currently being starved of money by having much less generous settlements of its already meagre budget by comparison with the settlements that are being made for the European Union budget. Will the Minister look at that and make sure that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe, with their roles in relation to the European Court of Human Rights, are getting adequate resources to do their valuable work?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course I will look at that. We recognise that at this time everyone is having to trim back on the availability of resources, but I am absolutely at one with the noble Lord on this matter. The Council of Europe is a very valuable forum in which the very long-standing and difficult disputes of the area can begin to be effectively resolved.
Baroness Cox
Is the Minister aware that there is a serious risk in Turkey of prosecution for journalists and writers who use the term “Armenian genocide”—some have been prosecuted—and that much educational material for schools has been produced by the Turkish Government denying the Armenian genocide? Does the Minister agree that such censorship in public discussion and education is unacceptable for a nation that hopes to join the European Union?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not want to comment on the detailed internal affairs of the Turkish Republic, but of course the values of freedom of expression are very important to us. We will continue to uphold our values and assert them wherever we can—and we do. The precise internal handling of the issue that Turkey and Armenia are now proceeding to handle is one that we have to leave to them.
East Jerusalem
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take following the publication in March by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of its report on key concerns affecting civilians in east Jerusalem.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we remain concerned about a number of Israel’s continuing policies in east Jerusalem, which the UK considers occupied under international law. These include ongoing settlements expansion, the demolition of houses and the eviction of Palestinian residents, the route of the barrier wall and restrictions on residency rights. In his public statement of 5 April, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary condemned plans to build 500 new Israeli settlements in occupied east Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He listed many of the points of deep concern. Does he agree that these harm the welfare and even the citizenship of Palestinians living in east Jerusalem? What is more, they prejudice, do they not, final status negotiations in a very damaging way.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Very many people would agree with the noble Lord’s sentiments. Of course, this area has been occupied since 1967 when—to get history right—Israel was attacked, broke through the Mandelbaum Gate and occupied east Jerusalem and many other areas as well. Ever since then, the handling of the occupation by the Israeli authorities has given rise to criticism. It is the clear view of Her Majesty's Government that the more heavy-handed and inappropriate the operations in the administration of east Jerusalem, with the kind of things that I described, the more we postpone the goal that we all want to achieve of proper peace negotiations to bring the two-state solution that will bring peace and harmony to the area.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Everyone recognises the whole Jerusalem issue, and the east Jerusalem issue is an enormously complex part of any future negotiations. We are talking about the goal of both Palestine and Israel recognising east Jerusalem as a joint capital. It is the capital of both countries and of many religions throughout the world. A degree of understanding is needed and is still missing between the Israeli authorities—although not among many highly enlightened and intelligent members of the Israeli community—the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Government, who are led in a very positive way at the moment, so that the very difficult concept of Jerusalem as the capital of both countries can be worked out and they can live together.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, may I, through my noble friend, congratulate our ambassador in Israel, Mr Matthew Gould, on the excellent practical work he is doing on the ground in east Jerusalem? Will my noble friend tell us whether the Foreign Office and DfID are jointly minded to implement some of the recommendations of the OCHA report, including prioritising zoning for Palestinians and building schools so that half the Palestinian children living in east Jerusalem who currently do not get free schooling are able at least to get an education so that they can move away from radicalisation? Will they please impress on the Israelis not to try to disfranchise the Palestinian population in this manner, or peace will never come?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I certainly agree with the last comment. As for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ report, which is a very long document—I think it is 118 pages—there are very positive ideas in it, which we are studying very closely with our colleagues in DfID. Where we can make a contribution and see these ideas carried forward, we will certainly do so.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
What is the Government’s support for President Obama’s initiative? How do they see the issue of Jerusalem fitting into any follow-up process? How is that process being organised now, given the very negative reaction of the Israeli Prime Minister?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The answer to the question is in the noble Lord’s last comments. The reaction has been very negative indeed. The process we want to see remains the key to the future. There are elements in the jigsaw. One is whether, in joining with Fatah, Hamas can come forward with and deliver a responsible negotiating Government who renounce violence, accept the quartet principles and can go forward in good talks with Israel. Another is that the Israeli authorities recognise that there is no alternative to going forward in a positive away. Another is that they recognise that it is now when they should move, whereas the attitude in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv appears to be to wait and do nothing. We do not agree with that. We think this is a golden opportunity. All these matters must be fed into the process that President Obama tried to set in motion the other day but, so far, with not much success.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, the Minister will know the story of the three MPs, legitimately elected to represent areas of east Jerusalem, who were imprisoned by the Israelis because they had been elected. On release from prison nearly a year ago, they were told they were to be deported from east Jerusalem and would have to leave their homes and families behind. They have now been in an upper room in the Red Cross building in east Jerusalem for nearly one year. What are our Government going to do about it?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We are doing as much as we can, which is constantly to raise this matter with the Israelis. We do not at all approve of what has happened. We believe this is a wrong pattern. My noble friend has traced this evolution and development very closely indeed, probably as closely as anyone else in this House. Our pressure will continue. We are not the sovereign power, but we can explain our views and put them forward very strongly on a matter that is totally unsatisfactory.
NATO
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent speech by the United States Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on the future of NATO.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
Defence Secretary Gates’ speech was a warning that Europe cannot take for granted the security blanket provided by NATO and historically resourced primarily by the United States. It also says something about the changing position of the United States itself. To deliver the capabilities that ensure our security, many European countries, especially NATO allies that fail to meet the 2 per cent of the GDP target, which was reconfirmed as recently as March 2011, need to increase levels of defence spending and work together more efficiently and effectively, as demonstrated by the UK-France defence treaty. We also need to remember that effective security involves hard and soft power elements—in fact, smart power.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very comprehensive reply. Perhaps I may remind the House precisely what Secretary Gates said. He said:
“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence”.
While we are very grateful for all that the United States does, does not its lack of complete commitment on the Libyan operation send a clear message to us? Is not American increasingly looking to the East?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Behind my noble friend’s question is of course the truth that the world is changing, the balance of power is changing, and the unipolar moment, as it is called, for the United States has passed. Nevertheless, it remains an immensely powerful and close ally that is playing quite a detailed and substantial part in the overall operation against Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya and against the hideous divisions of that country. The US case, and our case, that other countries in NATO could do more is widely accepted by everyone. Clearly, there is a great need for a fairer distribution of the burden of meeting the Libyan situation and many other situations that are bound to arise.
I do not think that we should be too gloomy about that adjustment. America remains our very close friend and one of the greatest countries in the world. We will work very closely with it on security, and the softer aspects of security, in trying to achieve global peace and stability.
Lord Martin of Springburn
Is the Minister as concerned as I am that some Ministers in the Scottish Parliament are publicly saying that they want to withdraw from NATO? This would be harmful to the Scottish people and to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Perhaps I should be but I am not as concerned as he is because I did not know that they were doing this. If Ministers in the Scottish Parliament think that they can somehow opt out of the collective security on which we all depend, and if any country thinks that it can have a free ride, they will need to think again because in this new world most of the operations in which we will be involved will now be completely interdependent, operating closely with a whole range of allies in different combinations. I am sure that the skills, the fighting spirit and the long traditions of Scotland will be just as much needed in global security as everything else. Perhaps these Ministers should think again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, while I am sure that the noble Lord is right to point to the contribution of other European countries and the need for them to contribute more, does he not think that we have to look at our own capability? Last year, the Government undertook a very hurried defence review. In the light of the current commitments of our Armed Forces, does not the noble Lord think that another review is required?
Lord Howell of Guildford
No, I do not. After 2015 our budget will start expanding again. We are much the largest contributor in the European end of NATO. We are fulfilling our commitments. The operations in which we are involved are completely sustainable, contrary to some remarks we have all read about in the press. We believe that we have the dispositions, the patterns and the plans to meet as far as we can individually the crises of the future. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is no, but these are certainly fluid matters and anything could be coming around the corner. Great events could hit us and we always have to be ready to review the situation.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, this statement has come from the United States on many occasions before, but it has been expressed with exceptional candour and frankness in what I believe could have been the valedictory message of Secretary Robert Gates, who may shortly be retiring. It has done the credit of telling people quite frankly what the feeling is in the United States. Contrary to the suggestion that might have come from the opposition Front Bench, the United Kingdom is certainly not the laggard in this matter. A number of other countries in NATO have for years failed completely to make a reasonable contribution, which very much threatens the willingness of the United States to continue to make the effort it wants. In a very dangerous and uncertain world, would my noble friend recognise that while NATO can take on a certain amount of responsibility, when considering issues such as piracy in Somalia, we should welcome the opportunity for Russian, Chinese, Indian and other forces to get involved in what are in fact issues of universal concern?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, the first of my noble friend’s comments is based on his considerable experience and expertise in this area, and I totally agree with him. I agree even more strongly with his second point. These are becoming global issues on which all the responsible powers, or powers that wish to be responsible—that certainly includes great nations such as China, India, Russia and countries like Brazil—all have a responsibility, and they can no longer either enjoy a free ride while the western world tries to carry the burdens or stand aside, as we sometimes hear from Beijing, and say, “We are not going to interfere in anything. It is nothing to do with us”. They are going to find that this is something to do with them, and already we are seeing welcome signs that some Chinese diplomatic voices are raising that point and involving themselves in trying to resolve various ugly crises, such as that in southern Sudan.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we have reached 30 minutes, but I know that that Question was one in which many noble Lords wished to take part.
I should like to make a Statement on two matters. First, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the usual channels have agreed that the speakers’ list for the debate on House of Lords reform next Tuesday and Wednesday will close at 6 pm on Monday evening, which is a little earlier than usual. In addition, the House will meet early on Wednesday, at 11 o’clock, in order to help accommodate the number of speakers currently on the list. However, Oral Questions on Wednesday will be taken at the usual time of 3 o’clock. We will start the day by resuming the debate, then break for Oral Questions, and return to the debate afterwards.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I remind noble Lords that paragraph 4.32 of the Companion provides that Members speaking in a debate should be present for the opening speeches and the winding speeches at the very end, as well as for the greater part of the debate. That does mean, of course, on both days.
I turn now to the Recess. I hear calls of “Hear, hear”, but we shall see how long that lasts. When I announced the long-term Recess dates on 21 October last year, I made it clear at that stage that the dates were subject to the progress of business. We have not made as much progress as is necessary, and I know that noble Lords around the House are well aware of that. I am now in a position to inform the House that we will return one week earlier in October. The House will return from the Summer Recess on Monday 3 October, not on Monday 10 October. That is a limited adjustment and I look to all sides of the House to achieve reasonable progress both before and after the summer to enable us to hold to the other dates already announced. Subject to the progress of business, we will still rise for the Summer Recess at the end of business on Wednesday, 20 July.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the two Statements she has made, in particular the first one, which has been agreed through the usual channels and will, I think, be convenient to your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to her for confirming the arrangements.
I also thank the noble Baroness for telling the House about the Government’s plan to bring noble Lords back early for an additional week during the Conservative Party conference, which no doubt will be a relief to many, to deal with what I consider to be a chaotic logjam of government Bills. This is almost entirely without precedent. When we were in Government, it is true that we brought in September sittings, but that was done by agreement across the parties. Indeed, when we introduced the change back in 2002, we tabled a Motion on the matter for the House to discuss and determine. We have not been consulted about this and there is no Motion for the House to debate. When I advised Labour Members yesterday evening of the likely announcement, there was genuine anger. It disrupts long-planned appointments and arrangements, and treats the House with contempt. It says that the House is the plaything of the Government—a Government who have lost control of their legislative programme.
The truth is—in saying this I apportion no blame to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—that the Government are trying to force through a programme that is overlong, overprogrammed and overblown. In short, it is too long and they know it, and the House and the process of scrutiny are the sufferers. This is a crisis of timetabling, caused not by your Lordships’ rightful desire to scrutinise Bills but by political mismanagement, emanating from No. 10. This House has already had the farce of badly drafted Bills, such as the Public Bodies Bill, and still to come are the Armed Forces Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Office for Budget Responsibility Bill. We have been waiting for a health Bill that was promised to the House in May but will not be here until October or November at the earliest. We also have such complex Bills as the Welfare Reform Bill and the Protection of Freedoms Bill to come.
What assurances can the House have that, even with this extra week, we will complete our work without further incursions into Recess dates, longer nights and earlier starts? I also ask the noble Baroness to reconfirm all existing Recess dates, including those in February, and to do so with certainty. Will she also tell the House when it is intended that we shall have another Queen’s Speech, and when this Session—the longest any of us can remember—will end? How many more Bills do the Government expect to force through this House before the Session concludes? At my last count, we still had 16 in progress and another 12 or 13 to come, and had done only 16 so far. Just how many more Bills do the Government expect to bring?
May I perhaps give the Government a little advice before they embark on their next political programme? Will they ensure that, next time around, they have coherent, well worked-out Bills, and do not have more Bills in their programme than both Houses of Parliament can realistically manage and effectively scrutinise?
This a programme of legislation that has been poorly thought through, badly managed from the centre and forced on an increasingly reluctant Parliament in a timeframe that is wholly unrealistic. I urge the Government to think again about their programme, and to consult the House properly about their timetable and what they put in for the rest of the Session.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Well, my Lords, as my dear old Aunt Rose would say, the noble Lord has a bit of a brass neck. However, I will of course address each of those points. Perhaps noble Lords should not read everything on politicshome.com before they bring information to the House. For example, the noble Lord referred to my having apparently announced the dates of the February half-term. The noble Lord will know that I never have. I know that politicshome.com has said so and that it has been tweeted, but it has never been the case in this House. I do not refer to any Recess dates after we return in January; I never have. Like the noble Lord, I do not refer to the date of the end of the Session. That is not something that happens; it is up to noble Lords to make their own calculations. When we know the progress of business, we will make a Statement, as the noble Lord did when the Labour Party was in government.
This is a self-regulating House, with the implication that scrutiny of legislation cannot be curtailed except by the House itself. That is only right; it is one of the aspects of our work of which we have every reason to be proud. The corollary is that when the House chooses to dwell on a particular Bill, as it did on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—on which we spent 17 days in Committee, which is more than double the usual maximum for the largest Bills—more time must then be found elsewhere if the scrutiny of the other Bills in a Government’s legislative programme is not to suffer as a consequence.
I should also make it clear that we have been used, over the past decade, to agreements by the usual channels to take a good number of the Committee stages of Bills in Grand Committee, off the Floor of the House. That kind of agreement has not been achievable this Session. This Session will have the lowest percentage of Bills in Grand Committee for nearly 10 years—since the Session of 2001-02. I know that because I was on the other side taking part in it all. As a result, pressure for time on the Floor of the House is acute and something has to give.
The Opposition Chief Whip will recall that the Opposition refused to put into Grand Committee a Bill that was eminently suitable for that place. I refer to the Postal Services Bill on which the Opposition spokesperson performed a very valuable role. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, steered the Opposition through that Bill with great skill and Labour Party Back-Benchers also acted with great skill and scrutinised it carefully. But it was not an appropriate Bill for the Floor of the House. The Opposition insisted that it should take time on the Floor away from other Bills.
There was consultation about business. Over the past five weeks, there has been consultation with the Opposition Chief Whip to seek certainty about how the Government could deliver their business without extending the sitting period and taking away a week from the summer Session. It is not normal process in this House to consult formally more widely, but I made sure that soundings were taken around the House. It was made very clear to me that, while noble Lords would not wish to extend the period beyond July, for some reason that I find quite difficult to understand, noble Lords on all sides of the House felt that it was quite appropriate for this place to be sitting during the Conservative Party conference, when my colleagues might wish to be elsewhere. That is indeed the final decision that was taken. The decision is not taken lightly. It is one to deal with ordinary business in an ordinary way. Scrutiny in this House, when it is done well, is a model for the world to follow.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, while my noble friend must have taken a great deal of effort to avoid using the words pot, kettle and black, during the noble Lord’s remarks, she should take it on board that it is a great pity that this Administration appear to be following the example of the previous Government by introducing too much legislation that has not been adequately thought through. It is a bad habit that was formed over the previous 10 years or so and we should be resisting it, not continuing it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it might be appropriate for me to be permitted to answer the questions as they are put. That might be helpful. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will of course have the opportunity to ask a question.
My noble friend has long experience in government. He will know that all Governments have to listen and learn and I will certainly do that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Government Chief Whip say what advice both she and the Leader of the House have given to the Government on the suitability of legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government have failed to use that procedure to the full. The Government are, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, trying to achieve too much too quickly, often with proposals that are later withdrawn because they are unworkable.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they are very much in favour of extending pre-legislative scrutiny. That will happen. The Opposition will also be aware that in the first year of a new Government, as when I was sitting on the other side in 1997, it is not necessarily possible for a new Government to go through pre-legislative scrutiny without having a long hiatus. But it is the better model to follow and it is one that will be put within Government plans. I know that that will be welcomed by the House.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, how much will it cost to bring the House back for an extra week in October? If the noble Baroness is not able to tell us now, could she put that information in the Library?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I said earlier on, this should not have been necessary. I was perhaps not quite as blunt as my noble friend Lord Tebbit would have liked. For once, I will be a little more like my noble friend. Had we had a more appropriate approach to scrutiny of other Bills then we would not be sitting an extra week. If Members of the Labour party wish to know how much they have cost the House, I am happy to tell them.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, will the noble Baroness undertake to use her best endeavours to ensure that her colleagues in the other place change or reform the introduction of the automatic guillotine for every piece of legislation that comes to your Lordships’ House? That places an extra burden on your Lordships’ House and clearly also on the Government Chief Whip. In the interests of democracy, the changes brought in by the Blair Government at the turn of the century are undemocratic and exceedingly harmful to British democratic traditions.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend says what I hear from all sides of the House. There is a real anxiety, not just from those who have been Members of another place but also from those who have seen what happens there, that proper scrutiny is curtailed by a Government having control of the knife, as others opposite did in a Labour Government, or a guillotine. That is not the best way to run business. It is not the way that we choose to run business here. We came close to having to seek assistance from the House earlier this year. The House took a decision of which we can be proud that we want to move ahead without having guillotines in the House. As I said at the beginning, the corollary to that is that the House has to be self-regulating in the way that it carries through business. I feel, as I am sure does every Member of the House here, that that is the right way to go ahead; to have proper scrutiny but within a timeframe that is reasonable to deliver government business.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, all noble Lords will know the difficulties that are caused every time that one has to absent oneself from this place to attend to other business. There is such a continuous current of affairs going on in the House that every time one absents oneself as a matter of necessity one is apt to miss something important that one would have wished to participate in. When this happens in the middle of a term it is obviously one’s own responsibility, but when time is taken out of a recess in the way that has just been announced, the Chief Whip should be in no doubt as to the great difficulty that it causes.
As far as one is able, one arranges one’s other business to take place in the Recess. I arranged a major international conference for which I am responsible in the week before we were scheduled to return on 10 October. There is no way that I can cancel this conference. I shall have to miss the business in that week. I do not know at this stage how far the business will be business in which I wanted to take a major interest. It causes great difficulty when one is forced to miss business in the House because of other arrangements that one has made in the reasonable expectation that the dates will be free from House business. I do not know what soundings the Chief Whip took but she did not take soundings from me. I want her to be in no doubt as to the difficulty that these changes of arrangement can cause.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am perfectly in sympathy with the noble Lord Low. He is a hardworking Member of this House and certainly makes every best effort to be here for business. This is not like the stories that appeared in the press overnight—I do not know where they came from, as I certainly did not give any information to the press, and I state that very clearly for those who are tweeting this; I hope they will carry the rebuttal. This is not a matter of Peers being fed up—I shall not use the word that they used on the websites—with having to come back a week early because they were going to miss holidays or going skiing. That is the allegation being made.
Peers take their work here very seriously, and I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said. That is why I was making every best effort to avoid doing this. It is why I sought to come to agreements with the Opposition to avoid coming back a week early, but the Opposition found it impossible to agree to put other business in Grand Committee, which would have meant that we did not have to take another week. In fact, on one Bill that was offered to us in February to go into Grand Committee, before Whitsun the Opposition said that they had to change their mind. I do not blame them for that—I appreciate that political imperatives from the Leader of the Opposition can change things—but that is now public and not a matter for the usual channels. Certainly, every best effort was made by the Government to avoid this step but, regrettably, it is necessary to come back early October.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Of course, we appreciate the difficulties caused by this backlog building up—and the noble Baroness has been very clear as to where the responsibility for that lies—but I wonder whether, for the benefit of those Peers who have other pressing engagements and who will find it very difficult to come back in that first week of October, she would consider consulting and timetabling business that does not involve critical legislation. Perhaps it could involve reducing the backlog of other business that does not require the attendance of all noble Lords in the manner that we attend regularly when we scrutinise legislation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we will consult the Opposition in the usual way to schedule business that is to the greatest convenience to the House but that, of course, takes into account the availability of the opposition Front Bench. We will make every best effort to achieve an amicable resolution.
Lord Grocott
All Oppositions always accuse all Governments of introducing too many Bills, and too many bad Bills, so let us take that as read and as common ground between the Government and the Opposition. What is fundamentally different about the present situation in at least two respects is, first, that the Government have legislated to provide for a five-year Parliament. They did so, as anyone can see if they care to read the Committee and Report proceedings, to enable them to plan their programme over a five-year predictable period. Therefore, they can know exactly how many Bills they need to introduce in each of the five years.
The second thing that has changed as a result of a decision by this Government, despite strong opposition, is that this will be a two-year Session. I would think that is unique; it certainly has not happened for 40 years, and I doubt very much that it has happened since the Second World War, but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the period is any longer than that. In other words, were this a normal one-year Session, we would only just have had the Queen’s Speech; it would have been in May, and we would be starting the new Session now that would complete next April or May. Those are unique advantages that the Government have had.
I make no criticism of the noble Baroness, as she has a phenomenally difficult job—I know that very well indeed—so I offer her some very simple solutions to this problem. The Government know that they have five years, so why does not the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, the Government Chief Whip, go to one of their friends in the Cabinet and do what she knows has to be done to explain the situation to one of the Secretaries of State who has a Bill about to be brought to this or to the other place—a Bill that will no doubt solve, as they all profess to, many of the problems facing mankind. She might suggest that it would not really be a disaster if that Bill, instead of being introduced in November or December this year, were introduced in May next year. That would not be a huge delay. The world will wait, and it would give her space in her programme. Alternatively, she can ask this House to carry over one or two Bills if the programme is in the kind of condition that she has described. I am sure the House would agree.
I suggest one very simple way in which the noble Baroness could save us quite a lot of time. We are about to embark on a two-day debate on the abolition of the House of Lords. I advise her that my judgment of public opinion is that should she announce that the Government have decided not to proceed with this in the immediate future, the nation would remain calm.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is always something that I listen to even if I do not agree with it. He always delivers it in a very urbane manner. As a government Chief Whip, he was always one to be highly respected and indeed it was he who helped the House by starting to give notice of government business way in advance. On the other side, when we got into a position when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wanted to come back a week early, we then made sure that we curtailed business so that we did not have to. We assisted the then Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to unique circumstances. At the beginning of this Session the Government planned their business on the expectation of two things: first, that this House would carry out its normal procedure of scrutiny and would not take the 17 days in Committee that the Opposition decided were necessary on one Bill; and, secondly, that this House would accept the normal split of Bills between the Chamber and the Grand Committee in the usual way, which simply has not happened. That is why we have to return at the beginning of October. I am afraid that the House is going to have to observe the results of those two matters. We have tried for over five weeks now to reach an agreement with the Opposition. I have said three times that they have failed to come to that agreement and therefore we are in this position, which is regrettable for all of us.
I know that this debate has now gone on for some time and that the Benches behind me were emptying. I ought to say in defence of my noble friends, since I have noticed some comments opposite about this, sotto voce, that they are interested in business but it is, at this very minute, the memorial service for Lord Pilkington across the road. That is where they are.
Welfare Reform Bill
Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
“Purchase of alcohol on behalf of children
(1) In section 149(7)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003, for “level 5 on the standard scale” substitute “£10,000”.
(2) The amendment made by this section applies in relation to offences that are committed on or after the commencement of this section.”
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, this amendment, supported by my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would insert a new clause in the section of the Bill that deals with selling alcohol to children. I first place on record my gratitude to the Minister for meeting me to discuss my concerns and for writing to me in detail about them. Nevertheless, I hope still that I might persuade her that my amendment merits further consideration and that she might agree to come back with something on Report.
I should declare various interests. I am a former chief executive of the Portman Group and a former member of the Alcohol Education and Research Council. I currently work as a paid adviser on corporate responsibility to two drinks companies whose names are listed in the register. I emphasise that I provide them with non-parliamentary advice, and I have had no discussion about the Bill with either company.
The Bill already proposes to double the maximum fine for persistently selling alcohol directly to children from £10,000 to £20,000. My amendment applies the same principle to the offence of purchasing alcohol on behalf of children, an offence that is often overlooked but which is regarded by many local police forces and local authorities as the more serious in terms of its prevalence. The offence of purchasing alcohol on behalf of children is commonly known as “proxy purchase” and occurs when someone over 18 agrees to go into licensed premises to buy alcohol in order to hand it over to a child aged under 18 waiting outside. The current maximum fine is £5,000, or level 5 on the standard scale. I suggest that if the Government believe that a strong message needs to be sent out on underage sales by doubling the fine for that offence by licensees, it follows logically and all the more strongly that a clear message needs also to be conveyed that proxy purchase by unscrupulous members of the public is completely socially unacceptable, immoral and illegal, and should attract rigorous enforcement with harsh penalties.
As I said in the debate at Second Reading, the incidence of prosecution and conviction for this offence of proxy purchase may be low but is nevertheless much higher than for illegal sales direct to children. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, there were only four prosecutions for persistently selling to children, compared to 29 for proxy purchase. It would be a wasted opportunity not to take advantage of the Bill to ramp up the maximum penalty in the same way as is envisaged for direct underage sales.
I know that the Minister is rightly concerned that this legislation should be proportionate and consistent. I agree. I was a member of the Better Regulation Commission when it developed the five principles of better regulation, of which proportionality and consistency are two, and I believe that my amendment ticks exactly those boxes. If the Government think it is right, and therefore proportionate, on the basis of the prosecution figures I have just given, to double the maximum fine for persistent sales to children, then surely it would be consistent, right and proportionate to do the same for proxy purchase when we know that the level of harm and potential harm are at least as great.
We know quite a bit of detail about which children are gaining access to alcohol through proxy purchase. A survey in 2008 of 11 to 15 year-olds for the National Health Service Information Centre revealed that a total of 34 per cent of these young children, some of them not even yet teenagers, got their alcohol from other people buying it for them—in some cases people who were related to them—but 18 per cent of them got it from strangers.
When you look more closely at the figures, you begin to see just how worrying this behaviour is, how potentially vulnerable these children are and how important it is that we do everything we can to deter adults from agreeing to engage in proxy purchase. For example, although 18 per cent of children overall said that they had asked someone else other than a relative to buy alcohol for them, this figure rises to 41 per cent of 15 year-olds. Among the children who are drinking most heavily, defined as over 15 units a week, the figure rises to a staggering 88 per cent who used proxy purchase. When we compare the behaviour of boys and girls there are also significant differences, with 10 per cent of 13 year-old boys relying on proxy purchase but 14 per cent of girls. At age 15, that rises to 38 per cent of boys but 43 per cent of girls.
I am especially concerned about the potential danger in which these very young girls are placing themselves by approaching strangers in the street and asking them to buy alcohol. If an adult is irresponsible enough to agree to do that, what other dangers or risks might these vulnerable girls be exposing themselves to? I emphasise that this survey shows proxy purchasing to be a much more serious issue than under-18s buying alcohol for themselves. Only 6 per cent bought or attempted to buy alcohol from a shop, and only 4 per cent from a pub. The survey shows that the proportion of teenagers who manage to buy for themselves has declined significantly since 1996. I would not want to sweep that problem under the carpet, because it remains a fact that most of those few who do so are successful in achieving their purchase. The fact that some are not and that many more no longer even attempt to buy for themselves shows that the co-operative efforts of licensees, local authorities, the police and dedicated community groups promoting more rigorous use of proof of age at point of sale has been paying some dividends.
Even so, the Government have seen fit to include in the Bill the doubling of the maximum fine for licensees who still sell to the under-aged. Fair enough, but why ignore the more pressing issue of proxy purchase when it would be simple to include a similar amendment along the lines that I have suggested? Another piece of research was published only last month by the Drinkaware Trust, this time concentrating on where slightly older teenagers, aged 15 to 17, get their alcohol. Here, too, we see that those who are drinking in the most risky and potentially vulnerable situations—outdoors, rather than at home, at a party or a friend’s house—are the ones who most rely on proxy purchase, with 19 per cent—almost one in five—saying that they asked a passer-by to get them their alcohol from a shop.
On the basis of all this evidence—and the Government say that they are committed to evidence-based policy—I urge the Minister to agree that my amendment would be a sensible and justified logical extension to this section of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the penalties for these offences are relatively meaningless unless the law is rigorously enforced. I hope that the Government will also be doing something to encourage the police, local authorities, trading standards and the licensed trade to do even more to stamp out illegal sales to children and proxy purchase. It might be a little more complicated than underage sales because it involves indentifying and pursuing members of the public rather than slapping an extra fine on licensees. But if this is the offence which is doing most harm to young drinkers, especially those who are most vulnerable because of their age, sex and consumption patterns, surely we must do whatever we can. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in support of my noble friend Lady Coussins. I am grateful to the Minister for all her interest and concern over alcohol as a problem. I know that she has expressed a view that this is not the direction in which the Government wish to go, but I hope that she may be persuaded to think again. When we pass legislation such as this, we need to send a clear social message to the rest of society.
There is some evidence that if you teach children to drink responsibly and socially at home they will be less likely to abuse alcohol. Sadly, that is now tremendously outweighed by the data of children being initiated into binge-drinking by adults proxy purchasing for them. Some of the statistics have already been alluded to, but there are many more. An interesting study from the Portman Group itself showed that one-third of adults have been asked to buy alcohol on behalf of someone under 18 and one-third of those have admitted to buying it. A quarter did not realise that it was an offence; 30 per cent did so because they felt intimidated by the young person; 30 per cent thought that it would not do any harm; and 70 per cent did not realise that they could be prosecuted for doing so. That demonstrates an enormous ignorance both of the criminality involved and of the harm that they are doing to children. It is also a terrible indictment of young people that their behaviour was so intimidating that they pushed someone into buying alcohol for them. As has already been said, the number of prosecutions is horribly light.
What about the impact on these young people in the long term? About 7,600 school-age children are admitted to hospital annually with alcohol-related conditions. These are not just minor conditions; some are admitted in coma with alcohol toxicity, liver failure and vomiting which may be so severe that they become severely dehydrated and need intravenous rehydration. We know that a car is more likely to be involved in an accident when the passengers have had too much to drink—even if the driver is not drunk—as their irresponsible behaviour may result in the driver not being able to concentrate.
These young people also suffer from chronic problems. They have a higher incidence of depression and mental health problems in later life, weight loss and chronic liver damage. It is clear from a study in the British Medical Journal that men who drink more than seven units a week at the age of 16 are one and a half times more likely than light drinkers to binge drink in their 30s and 40s. By not sending out a clear message to society, we are complicit in encouraging youngsters into a binge-drinking habit. We are saying, “It is okay, we will turn a blind eye to it”, but the size of the problem means that it cannot be looked at with Nelson’s eye. I commend the amendment to the Government and hope that they will take it very seriously.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I support the amendment for the reasons set out so eloquently by the two noble Baronesses who have spoken to it. I realise that it is not a natural fit with the Bill and that it moves it into territory for which it may not have been originally designed. However, it provides the Government with an opportunity to reinforce the condemnation of the proxy purchasing of alcohol by adults for children. At one end of the scale this proxy purchasing can be due to chance and the stupidity of an adult responding to a request from a child or young person to buy the alcohol, but often it is more sinister. Some adults hang around young people and proxy purchasing of alcohol can be the beginning of grooming children and young people to draw them into inappropriate sexual behaviour, drugs misuse or even into membership of gangs on estates. Proxy purchasing by adults is a way of enabling them to talk to the youngsters and draw them into inappropriate behaviour. It is largely the result of stupidity and indifference but can be more sinister. As I say, although the amendment is not a natural fit with the Bill it provides the Government and the Minister with an opportunity to reinforce the message that we condemn this behaviour on the part of adults. I hope that they will find a way to support the aim of the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we on this side of the Committee support the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Findlay. They have given us a very graphic set of reasons why it would fit well with the intentions of the Bill. We have also heard some very scary statistics. In essence, the amendment would close a loophole. The Government may, on reflection, agree that that is the case. We understand that proxy purchasing is now regarded by the off trade, the on trade and the trading standards groups as the biggest challenge facing alcohol sales. The amendment would also bring the fine into line with the current level imposed for persistently selling alcohol to children, which is why I think that it is a good way of closing the loophole.
However, we are advised that retailers are often frustrated with the lack of action being taken against those who deliberately buy alcohol to be consumed by those who are under age. Therefore, although we support the amendment and hope that the Government will consider it favourably, there needs to be a commitment to place greater emphasis on identifying these people and seeing through the legislative consequences of the amendment, which is that action must be taken. As we have heard from the previous speaker, that is an important aspect of what we are about. However, the amendment justifies itself in its own terms.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we are legislating in Clause 119 to double the maximum fine available to punish the persistent sale of alcohol to persons under 18 from £10,000 to £20,000. The amendment seeks to go further in doubling the maximum fines available for two other offences in the Licensing Act 2003, from their current level of £5,000 to £10,000. The offences relate to where a person buys or attempts to buy alcohol on behalf of a person under 18, or where a person buys or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on licensed premises by a person under the age of 18.
At a first glance, we can see merit in the proposed new clause. My noble friend and I are absolutely with the noble Baroness in her strong feelings about the proxy purchase of alcohol for minors, and we take this very seriously. I hope that the noble Baroness will recall how we have responded to related amendments in earlier discussions in Committee. However, it is important to maintain consistency in the sentencing framework.
In addition to the two offences that I mentioned, a number of other offences currently exist for offences in the sale of alcohol to those under 18 or the consumption by those under 18 on licensed premises. They include knowingly allowing consumption of alcohol on licensed premises by an individual under 18. For all these other offences, the penalty is a maximum sentence of £5,000—level 5 on the standard scale in the sentencing framework.
In our view, however, the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children is distinct and distinguishable from the other offences in the Licensing Act and merits separate treatment in the Bill. It is far the more serious offence, not simply a one-off sale to or involving a person under the age of 18. This is reflected in the higher fine that the courts can impose for it. The offence of persistent sales to a person under 18 was created specifically to target irresponsible businesses rather than individual offenders. Indeed, there is an alternative to criminal prosecution for such premises—a punitive period of closure.
The fine for the offence of persistent sales, which stands at £10,000, was always intended to be set above the level 5 fine in the sentencing framework. The fine was high to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to reflect the intention of targeting irresponsible businesses.
In the Government’s view, increasing the maximum fine for the offence of the proxy purchase of alcohol for children, but not for others where individual adults have been responsible for providing or attempting to provide alcohol to children, could blur the existing distinctions in fines under the sentencing framework between offences targeting individuals rather than premises. In summary, we believe that the existing penalty for the proxy purchase of alcohol—a fine not exceeding £5,000—is sufficiently punitive for an offence by an individual. Yes, it is a serious offence, but not one that should be singled out for the provision of a greater fine than those for similar offences in the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the provision of alcohol to minors.
For these reasons, and having thought about it carefully, we believe that the offence of persistent sales of alcohol to children is sufficiently separate and easy to distinguish from the range of other alcohol-related offences in the Licensing Act. We want to send a clear message to irresponsible businesses that the persistent sale of alcohol to children is totally unacceptable. This is why we want to double the fine. All that I have said, however, should not be taken to mean that we will not look at the other alcohol-related criminal offences and consider whether further changes should be made in cases such as those that noble Lords have raised. Indeed, the Government are committed to a full examination of sentencing policy across the board. I can also say that we will look at the points raised by noble Lords in the context of the alcohol strategy that will be published later this year. For the reasons that I have outlined, we ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed by other noble Lords for the amendment. I cannot say that I accept the logic that proxy purchase is an offence of such a different order from persistent sales to children as the Government suggest. I stress that I am not seeking to make the maximum fine the same, but just to apply the same principle of doubling that fine as a signal that the harm and potential harm behind that offence is recognised.
I do not accept that my amendment would blur the distinction between the offences. However, I am encouraged by the Government's signal that the dangers of proxy purchase will be looked at again in the context of the revised strategy that we are expecting in the autumn and of a more widespread look at sentencing policy in general. Perhaps we can return to the issue, because it will continue to cause harm, and there is a higher incidence of proxy purchase than of persistent sales to children. The issue will not go away but, for the moment, I am content to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
I shall speak to all the amendments in this group, other than Amendments 240V and 240X, and also touch briefly on clause stand part. I nevertheless support Amendments 240V and 240X, which seem extremely sensible.
All my amendments in the group are designed to mitigate Clause 120, which radically alters the impact of Sections 172A through to 172E of the Licensing Act introduced by the Crime and Security Act last year, in that they can now be imposed from midnight to 6 am instead of from 3 am to 6 am, and on the say-so of the licensing authority, not the full council as before.
First, I take Amendments 240PA and 240PB, which are designed to remove private members’ clubs from the scope of the clause. The proposed amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 in the Bill—the late-night levy and the early morning alcohol restriction orders—are designed to tackle issues relating to licensed premises, largely on the high street, that sell alcohol for consumption on the premises to members of the public. In contrast, private members’ clubs are not selling to members of the public but are membership-based. They also, by and large, are not positioned on the high street or close to centres of the night-time economy, because their original remit, which has not changed, was to serve and be at the centre of the community in which they were located. They not only provide a valuable service to their members but have responsibility for the conduct of their members in the community. They have a self-regulatory process, which enables censure by the committee of individual members' conduct.
On the basis that there is self-regulation and the recognition that private members’ clubs do not contribute to the issues which have prompted the proposed provisions of the levy and restriction orders, the clubs should be exempt from the measures. Not only are they particularly onerous in the extra revenue that will be required to pay for the levy, which we will deal with later, the loss of facilities after midnight under the early morning restriction order provisions will further curtail the revenue stream which is critical for their survival. The membership of clubs is reducing and revenues are decreasing. DCMS statistics show that, as well as all the pubs that have closed, the net reduction in clubs operating with a club premises certificate has reduced by 300 per year from 2008 to 2010.
Younger members of the community in which the private members’ club thrived now have a much wider choice of venues, which are on the high street, and have other interests which do not include the traditional club environment. Nevertheless, those clubs and their facilities continue to be important, and we should protect them against changes which will have a significantly detrimental effect on their survival.
Moving on to Amendments 240Q to 240W, Amendment 240Q makes a modest proposal of a 1 am start time for EMROs, rather than midnight. Midnight is far too early in the circumstances and out of step with today's customer expectations. Frankly, putting the beginning of the EMRO at midnight could be a business-killer for many businesses. Amendment 240R removes the restriction on temporary event notices which an EMRO would impose.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and also to the clause stand part. I do not intend to go through the basket of amendments that the noble Lord has moved but will confine my remarks to clause stand part and to one amendment in particular, Amendment 240Q, which relates to proposed new Section 172A(3)(a) in Clause 120(3), where it says “begin no earlier than midnight”.
This amendment and this clause are so important because it seems to me that the Government are attempting to change the policy of late-night bars and how they operate. They are in effect saying, “We are going to make it very easy for anybody to close everything at midnight”. For operators who have a 3 am licence, it is an incredibly important part of their business, for a number of reasons. In fact, that is often the bit of the business that makes the whole operation profitable. In my experience there has been no great push from the police to bring everything forward to midnight. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, in many areas the police would prefer it to be 3 am because people start leaving from midnight onwards and there is a gradual trickle of people going home, as opposed to the ugly rush there would be at midnight, leading to all kinds of problems of disorder. At 3 am most people have gone, with a few stragglers remaining. Equally, there does not seem to be any evidence that local authorities have been pushing to bring everything back to midnight.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to explain whether this really is a change of government policy by the back door, because that is what it looks like to the industry—if so, the Government should be honest and open and say what it is—or an attempt merely to give more powers to close down operators who are seen to be operating either out of their licence hours or breaking their licence conditions. There is no evidence so far in the industry that local authorities have any problems with operators who should be closed down. It is quite easy for local authorities to close down an operator, although there is concern about the legal costs of doing so. But most operators regard their licence as so important to their business that the last thing they want to do is jeopardise it. We need some explanation from my noble friend of what really is meant by Clause 120, as well as a satisfactory reply to deal with the concerns felt by many operators in the industry—and indeed not forgetting the poor customers.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, if the analysis of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, regarding a change in government policy is correct, I welcome it. It is what the public want and, although some in the business sector will be unhappy about it, I think that overall this set of amendments would undermine the Government’s attempt to respond to the clamour which has increasingly grown up among the public at large and has been reflected in some of the work done in the consultation. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not backtrack and that they will dig in firmly and hold to their course on this. The public will certainly support them in that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend—to the extent of New Year’s Eve, at any rate. I have Amendment 240V in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has added his name. It would provide for permitted exemption categories and exempted days, and is part of a continued conversation about how far local variances should be reflected and the extent to which they should be centrally prescribed. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I always find myself at the local end of the spectrum.
This matter was brought to us by the Local Government Association. It seems that licensing authorities should be able to determine the categories of premises to be exempted from EMROs in their local area. This would not be novel, even in the context of the Bill, as it would mirror the late-night levy exemptions that licensing authorities can decide locally. There seems to be no logic for having different systems, particularly as I understand from the LGA that the Home Office has proposed to use the same definitions for categories of possible exempted premises for EMROs as for the late-night levy. The broader point, as I said, is local determination.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief gloss on the speech of my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Reflecting back to the debates on the Licensing Bill in 2003, I think it would be fair to say—and I hope that those who were in the Chamber at that time would agree—that the arguments against the then Bill were led very much by those who had a lot of London experience. People who have a lot of London experience endeavour to mobilise opinion through the civic trust across the country, but it took quite a long time for that communication to take place during the passage of the Bill. It would be fair to say that those away from London were disagreeably surprised by some of the consequences of the Bill when they arrived in practice. I cannot sense totally from the speeches of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Astor how far they are centring on London experience in their observations but I think it is necessary to realise that we are dealing with a national issue.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I confess at the start that I have a bit of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and his feeling that midnight is a good time to draw a curtain across many outside activities. I certainly always try to be in bed at 10 pm, although perhaps that is a baby-boomer problem. I like to sit in bed with a cup of cocoa looking at “News at Ten”, reflecting on the events of the day and preparing well for the events in this House and other places where one has to play one’s part.
However, on reflection, I think that we are hearing too much of a puritan strand here. The amendments raise a number of questions on which we need to think hard about what we should be saying to the country in terms of how we reflect on the relationship between the nanny state and those who have to live here. If there is a change of policy, I think it is probably wrongly focused, and the amendments expose that. It is clear that one has to deal with bad operators—a point made by those who have spoken before—but there is a danger here that, due to the way in which the Bill is currently phrased, it will catch everyone, and that will be bad.
Surely a blanket EMRO running from midnight is not going to be effective. It will severely damage those businesses unfairly caught by the legislation and the consequences could be severe for the night-time economy. I am particularly concerned about small live music venues that operate with a licence past midnight. Capturing them in an EMRO would do enormous harm and could damage the UK’s rich cultural diversity, of which we are so proud. At this time, many small venues are struggling to remain economically viable, and for venues that might get caught in such a blanket provision, this extension comes at a very bad time.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I suspect from what I have heard in this debate that I am going to end up having “nanny” in front of my name. However, I shall be a benign, jazz-loving nanny, so perhaps that will be all right.
An early-morning restriction order is an uncommenced power that already exists under the Licensing Act 2003 and will allow licensing authorities to restrict sales of alcohol in the whole or part of their area for any specified period between 3 am and 6 am. The fact that it is an uncommenced order made us look again at what needed to be improved in the previous legislation.
I was asked whether this was a change in policy on the part of the Government. These orders are a power that local authorities can use to restrict the supply of alcohol from licensed premises and clubs and at temporary events for a period of one or more nights beginning at or after midnight and ending at or before 6 am. We are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities and enforcement agencies are given the right tools to address alcohol-related problems, and we see this as a necessary tool to enable them to have more flexibility to deal with specific problems within their areas. At the same time, we need to balance this measure by promoting a healthy night-time economy to benefit businesses and the communities that they serve. I am confident that this proposal will provide the licensing authorities with an additional tool to deliver these aims. It will be up to them to decide whether they use it at all and how they use it.
I want to prevent any concerns that EMROs applied from midnight will unfairly penalise responsible premises that regularly trade between the hours of midnight and one o’clock. Those are not quite the same as the hours that the noble Lord mentioned in respect of his small jazz club but there are premises that go on beyond midnight. I acknowledge that the majority of retailers trade responsibly. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Astor that residents and residents groups have told us that the night-time economy generates a significant amount of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and that these problems typically surface from midnight onwards. Indeed, not all serious crime is as a result of alcohol but 15 per cent of serious crime is committed after midnight.
There will be exemptions from EMROs set centrally by the Government in secondary legislation. These will ensure that retailers who operate responsibly are not unfairly penalised by the introduction of an EMRO, and we will of course be consulting on this. For that reason, I ask my noble friend not to press that particular amendment.
Viscount Astor
May I ask my noble friend a question before she leaves that subject because I know that she has a huge number of amendments to reply to? She spoke about crime committed after midnight, which is certainly true, but does she accept that the statistics show that the majority of crime is committed much later than that—at two, three or four o’clock in the morning? Therefore, to say that midnight is the cut-off which would help that is not correct or particularly fair to those operators. Does she also accept, which is very important, that if there is a tendency by the Government and local authorities to determine that midnight will be the new relevant hour, the effect will be to put half the operators out of business, which will create a much greater problem of social disruption and crime than there is at the moment?
Baroness Browning
I understand the point that my noble friend is making but I reiterate that this is a flexible option for local authorities. They will know where the hotspots are and whether things happen on a particular night of the week. They will have the flexibility to make sure that if they intend to exercise the option—it will be optional—to introduce an EMRO, they can scale the EMRO according to the problem that presents in their locality. It does not have to start at midnight or finish at 6 am but it is between those hours that an EMRO can apply. Just on that point, because I sense that noble Lords feel that this is a draconian measure, it strengthens the licensing authorities’ powers in the sense that it gives them an additional tool in the box, but to get that balance right it has the flexibility that I hope will not create the concerns that businesses might feel, as represented today. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones mentioned that the full council would not decide to make an EMRO. It is the case with the existing legislation, and will still be the case that the decision will be made by the full council. That has not changed at all in the updating of the legislation.
Moving on to Amendments 240PA to 240SA and the question of private clubs, I recognise the intention of noble Lords to remove private club premises certificates from the effect of an EMRO. There are, of course, clubs and clubs. I am sure that in any private club, of which noble Lords are members, propriety is observed in their proceedings, whatever the time of the day or night. I see noble Lords trying not to catch my eye on this, so they may know. It is important to note that antisocial behaviour and crime and disorder are not necessarily attributed to one premises but a cluster of premises in a concentrated area. There is no evidence to suggest that clubs do not contribute to these types of problems in the night-time economy. The Government do not want to penalise those businesses that operate responsibly and as such, if the licensing authority decides to impose an EMRO in the local area, businesses, including all clubs, will be able to make a relevant representation and provide evidence that they do not contribute to late-night crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour.
At this point, I should say to my noble friend Lord Astor, that on many occasions as a Member of Parliament I went out on Friday and Saturday nights with the police in small Devon market towns where they have perhaps one or two clubs and some late-night licences. Although I completely admire the work that the police and other agencies do at that time of night, it has not been my experience as a Member of Parliament that all anti-social behaviour, including things that are well in the frame of criminality occur after 2 am or 3 am. I was prompted to go out with the police on one occasion because between the hours of midnight and one in the morning, small shopkeepers regularly complained that their shop fronts were kicked in. I would say to my noble friend that within the scope of EMROs and the procedure to be followed in a licensing authority introducing an EMRO into the area, there will be plenty of scope for businesses to make their case, if they feel that they have one. None the less we feel that it is an important tool that licensing authorities will welcome.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
From these Benches, I support the Government and the way in which the legislation has been drafted, provided that it is enacted and applied with the flexibility that the Minister is describing. I do not do so in the spirit of being too puritanical, I hope. Living in the middle of the city of Chester and observing the streets in the early hours of the morning sometimes, and indeed relating to a whole new movement of what are called street pastors when churches seek to pick up some of the consequences of late-night activities in city centres, and contrasting the average experience in this country from what you find in many continental countries and the lack of civilised behaviour comparatively in this country, the Government are on the right lines provided that there is the flexibility to project the small jazz club, or whatever. Notwithstanding the anxieties expressed elsewhere, the Government can know that from these Benches, without a shred of puritanical spirit, we support them.
Baroness Browning
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am, of course, familiar with the work of street pastors who give up their time voluntarily, particularly to ensure that people who have consumed too much alcohol are able to get home safely. I commend their work. As a new Minister with a new responsibility for alcohol and drugs policy in my portfolio, it strikes me that I need to dig deeper than looking at the solutions to late-night drinking and look at the causes of why street pastors and others are now required to carry out this valuable work. It seems that we spend a lot of time talking about the consequences. I hope that in my time as a Minister at the Home Office I can try to dig deeper than that to see whether we can do something. It is a long-time ambition, I know. Nothing will happen overnight to change this culture, as I mentioned in a previous debate on the subject. Far too many people—not just teenagers kicking over the traces—believe that they have not had a good time or a good night out unless they get absolutely paralytic. We must try to address the cause as well as deal with the consequences for the rest of the community.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
We on this side welcome that statement. Throughout this debate we have been trying to engage with the question that the issues we are addressing in the Bill are but a superficial aspect, important though it may be, relative to the point that she has just made about how the cultural effects are coming forward. Does she intend to take this forward, not in her nanny mode of course—this is much more in her policy advocacy role? Will she take into account the fact that we need to look again and will return later in the Bill to the question of how drugs, alcohol, and tobacco all interact? It is not just an alcohol-only problem.
Baroness Browning
I agree with that statement. We need to look at the combination of drink and drugs. Very often the consequences are exacerbated as a result of the combination of those two substances. I am almost beginning to sound in my own head like a nanny. I do not want to sound like that; I was young in the 1960s so I do not want to sound too prissy about all of this. However it is a serious problem and I welcome the opportunity to address it.
Moving on to Amendment 240R and particularly TENs, which hopes to prevent a situation whereby a temporary event has been organised in advance and has to be cancelled because an EMRO has been imposed. I understand those concerns, but I point out that the process of making an EMRO will not take place overnight or without proper consultation. It is also important to remember that EMROs will apply only to a specific area for a set time between midnight and 6 am. Anyone planning a temporary event could therefore choose to hold it in a different part of the local authority area, or restrict their TEN to include the sale of alcohol up to but not after midnight. Therefore, there is flexibility.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before that happens—and I dare say that it will—perhaps I may ask about exemptions. The Minister talked about working parties: that is all to the good. However, I am not sure that she addressed Amendment 240V, which would allow local authorities to categorise their own exemptions—but I may have missed that.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, local authorities will be allowed to have their own exemptions, but that will be part of the consultation that is taking place.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very thoughtful and useful response, which helpfully went through the different amendments and added quite a lot to our interpretation of what is before us. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his support on the amendments and on the clause stand part debate. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her support at least for the New Year's Eve exemption, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support on the stand part debate.
We have quite a lot of common ground, which revolves around flexibility. What worries me somewhat is that the flexibility is all one way. I will come to the issue of the consultation process, which will be extremely important. I do not think that there are any puritans in the House. Certainly, I would not regard the right reverend Prelate as a puritan in this regard. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might just qualify on this ground. I do not see where the clamour is coming from—
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
As there are two Lord Brookes, will the noble Lord make clear about whom he is speaking?
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we have had a useful debate about exemptions and I would certainly exempt my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville from that description.
I regard this as a very important debate because of the potential impact if these provisions are not applied flexibly. I took quite a lot of comfort from the fact that this provides a range of tools, timings and geography that will be very beneficial. I certainly would not accuse the Minister of being a nanny. However, there is something of a difference in philosophy. The powers of the local authority will be pretty wide. She said that she was not favourably disposed to an amendment—
Baroness Browning
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend and hope that he will forgive me: I wish to put something on the record. I was asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about whether EMRO exemptions would be decided locally and I am afraid that I gave her the wrong answer. It is levies that the local licensing authority will have an opportunity to issue locally: EMROs will be a centrally decided package. I apologise for that.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I worry that there will be no review mechanism for these EMROs unless the local authority decides that there should be. Of course, local businesses will be able to make representations both at the point that the Minister described when the EMRO is being considered, and no doubt during the course of the EMRO in terms of demonstrating that the original problem has gone away or been dealt with or whatever. However, what worries me is that there will be no mechanism that the business can rely on, at the point where the EMRO falls due for review and when the time is up, to ensure that a full and proper debate can take place.
The most important issue here is how that consultation is going to take place. I was very interested in the way in which the Minister described the process; for instance, the consultation on exemptions. I do not know whether it will be statutory guidance or whether an order will come before this House or, indeed, who would be consulted in that process. It would be extremely valuable to get from the Minister an indication, even at this point, about which cohort of people would be consulted because there are strong views about this. The real, deep worry that people have is about the potentially blanket nature of these EMROs.
Baroness Browning
It would be a full public consultation. The review mechanism is judicial review.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, that is deeply reassuring to us lawyers, but I am afraid it is not very reassuring to the owners of businesses because they will simply have to place themselves in the hands of my colleagues and myself in challenging these orders on the grounds that no reasonable council would have imposed them. That is a very tall order.
Viscount Astor
Far be it from me to try to deprive my noble friend of business, but does he agree that one of the problems is that almost no operators can afford judicial review unless they are part of a large chain?
Lord Clement-Jones
Absolutely. That is only going to add to the burdens on business. Although I accept that the Minister has gone as far as her brief will allow her, I seriously ask her to give further consideration to this. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had to say about his enthusiasm for live music, but the reason why he was talking about it was the potential impact on small venues and live music in areas where local councils have decided that they do not like what is happening in other places—not necessarily in the small clubs but in the large boozers, so to speak. That is sweeping up everybody into one single pot with one remedy. Although I have heard quite a lot today from the Minister that was reassuring about the ability to deliver flexibility, I do not think we have heard quite enough yet. The least convincing response was on TENs. If you have a TEN, and an EMRO is opposed, you can have a bit of a consultation on it, but actually the remedy is to move your event in time or space. That seems pretty onerous and jolly unfair if you are a local community group and you have to shift yourself in that way after an EMRO has been imposed.
I look forward to further dialogue with the Minister and very much hope that we will continue that, even before Report, on certain areas of these reforms of the Licensing Act. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this takes us to the clause on fees and non-payment. I shall speak also to Amendments 240XB, 240XC, 240XD, 240XE and 240XG. These amendments are anti central prescription and pro local discretion. In many places, the Bill seems not only very prescriptive but unnecessarily prescriptive. For instance, it mandates the issuing of a receipt in a specific format in a set timescale. Is that really necessary? The word “nanny” was used, and rightly denied, but at this point, it would be an appropriate accusation. Other fee-paying regimes work out how to deal with these peripheral matters. We have a lot of legislation. This alone is a big Bill, but did it need to contain all this? At the most, it could be a matter for guidance, although I do not think that that should be required either. The Government are seeking to reduce regulatory burdens. This seems to be adding to them.
I shall be very brief on the detail of the amendments. Amendment 240Z would take out the provision for written acknowledgement of receipt of the fee—I cannot believe that that will not be done because people paying money require receipts—and the time periods to which I referred. Amendments 240XC and 240XD increase the grace period. Again, is this prescription absolutely necessary? The grace period is 21 days in the Bill, but I have suggested eight weeks. It is fairly obvious that I oppose my noble friend’s amendment in this group, Amendment 240XH. That follows from what I have just said. I support Amendment 241ZB, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will speak. I am very glad that the Local Government Association spotted what, coming up to Wimbledon, I can perhaps describe as an unforced error in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said and support her amendments. The provisions in the Bill are very detailed and our amendments, taken together, are an attempt to try to tidy up some of that and to reflect on the regulatory burden that is being imposed.
I shall speak to Amendment 241ZB, which has been mentioned. Someone spotted what appears to be a simple error: at present, it does not look as though the costs incurred by some parts of the licensing system can be recovered, particularly in two-tier areas. As is well known, when a licensing application is made, copies of the licence are sent to those parts of the council classified as responsible authorities under the Licensing Act. In unitary authorities, including London boroughs, metropolitan councils and Welsh councils, all those bodies exist within the same council, which is also the licensing authority. Therefore, the costs would be recoverable under Clause 122 as presently drafted. However, in two-tier areas, the licensing authority sits within the district council, whereas social services and trading standards sit at the county level. As a result, in two-tier areas, the costs incurred by social services and trading standards would not be recoverable should the clause remain unchanged. Our amendment is therefore imperative to ensure that all costs are recoverable, regardless of the local government structure in the area, thus fulfilling the commendable approach which has been taken in the Bill to allow full cost recovery through licence fees.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 240XF, 240XH and 241ZZA, while supporting Amendments 241 and 241Y. These amendments seek to remove the lines of the Bill which give councils the power to charge licensees for more than just cost recovery in the licensing system. Businesses in the sector are concerned about the cost implications of the amendment in the other place on fees. In already difficult economic times, licensees will be facing significantly increased costs, which will be particularly difficult to bear for small businesses.
The wording of the Bill is extremely vague, stating that businesses will not only be liable for costs associated with local authorities discharging the licensing function but also the general costs of the licensing authority and other associated authorities, such as the planning department. These amendments seek to delete the provision that would allow licensing authorities to reclaim not only the cost of carrying out activities relating to licensing but also any other general costs. This wording would effectively give local authorities power to charge licensees for a whole host of alternative activities even if they are not related to the cost of administering the licensing regime.
The legislation does not explain what safeguards will be in place for businesses. There has to be a transparent process where local authorities would need to demonstrate why their chosen fee level is appropriate. Businesses would have to have an opportunity to feed into this process and to appeal the decision if the local authority was looking to set fees at a level that was disproportionate. There should also be a national cap on the level at which fees can be set to avoid local authorities applying disproportionate charges.
While the measure would have a significant impact for all premises, there is the concern that it could disproportionately affect smaller businesses. It could be the case in certain areas of particularly high licensing fees that independent businesses find themselves priced out of the local market and therefore unable to compete with larger chains. That would be to the detriment of the consumer who would find that their choice is limited. With reference to the off-trade, a significant number of licensed premises are grocery retailers, so this decrease in competition locally would impact on far more than just the ability to buy alcohol. Any increase must consider the effect on smaller businesses.
Amendment 240XH is designed to ascertain the Government’s intention on the introduction of a cap of the amount that local authorities can charge. Subsection (3) of the new clause to be inserted in the Licensing Act 2003 under Clause 122(2) provides,
“the fee is to be determined by the licensing authority to whom it is to be payable”.
Subsection (4) of the new clause allows the regulations to provide a constraint on the amount up to which local authorities can charge but this does not necessarily mean that such a limit must be set. Businesses have a real concern that some councils may charge excessive amounts based on their costs, which will be difficult and expensive to challenge. We know already that the level of enforcement activity varies around the country and such variation is not necessarily driven by need. Not all councils are driven by the Hampton principles of good enforcement and over-zealous enforcement can be expensive and unproductive. The wide range of fees collected by councils under the old public entertainment licence regime was one of the drivers of their being subsumed into the Licensing Act 2003. A repeat of the problems, discrepancies and costs to businesses should not be repeated. A national cap, such as that imposed in the Gambling Act 2005, is a not unreasonable request and should be specifically included in the Bill.
Amendment 241ZZA builds on previous amendments to ensure that safeguards are in place in the legislation to prevent businesses facing excessive and unfair licensing fees.
Viscount Astor
Amendment 241, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred, is in my name and concerns fees. Subsection (7) of the new clause to be inserted in the Licensing Act under Clause 122(2) states:
“In determining the amount of the fee, the licensing authority must seek to secure that the income from fees of that kind will equate, as nearly as possible, to the aggregate”.
Paragraph (a) of subsection (7) states that,
“the licensing authority’s costs referable to the discharge of the function to which the fee relates”.
I do not see any problem with that clause, which seems enormously sensible and would collect most of the costs. However, paragraph (b) of subsection (7) refers to,
“a reasonable share of the licensing authority’s general costs”.
That seems to be a recipe for confusion because there will be endless arguments about, first, what is a reasonable share and, secondly, what are the licensing authority’s general costs. I thought that when local government—there are many noble Lords here who are more expert than I am on it—determined fees and collected them, those fees related to the actual things that it was doing. The idea that this can cover general costs, as my noble friend says, would enable a local authority to say that general costs in many other areas—whether for collecting refuse or whatever—could somehow relate to this and then collect the fees. So there is a concern.
I hope that my noble friend can give me some comfort that this will not allow local authorities, which, as we know, are always short of money, to use this to collect fees, which would mean a greater burden on the industry than there should be. [Interruption.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My rising is not normally greeted with that amount of drama and my observations will not in any way warrant that dramatic attention. As a footnote to what my noble friend Lord Astor said, it seems that a local authority in assessing its costs in terms of this process will have both fixed costs and marginal costs. Although I totally understand that he is arguing for marginal costs, there presumably has to be some way in which the fixed costs are recovered as well.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I do not think that the Minister needs to apologise to the House for the line that she is taking. If I could catch her attention, I would congratulate her on being very bold. Perhaps I will be accused of being a Puritan today. I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in a moment and try to prove to him that I am not. In Committee, I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, to raise questions I had raised previously about the Government’s philosophical approach to licensing and whether we are effecting a change of direction to what we have had during the past 15 years. I will not repeat them all. They are on the record and I do not suppose that at this time we have enough time to go into a philosophical discourse on it.
I hope that the Government are about a subtle change over time that will lead, one hopes, to a cultural change over time. It will not be easy, as the Minister rightly acknowledges. A good change that the Government have effected is that they are now prepared to allow local authorities at least to start recovering some of the costs that they have been incurring and have not been able to recover in recent years because of the failure on the part of government to allow them to update their recovery elements. There are some technical points and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson.
As he might have anticipated, I am opposed to Amendments 240XF, 240XH and 241 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would move us back to the status quo and not go down the route which the Government are endeavouring to traverse. I can tell the noble Lord that I would be quite happy to support Amendment 241ZZA, which seeks greater openness and transparency in the way in which local authorities are working out and charging their fees. I would hope that, in drawing up a list and in giving guidance to local authorities, we might be prepared to give them the freedom to recover the costs that they might incur in trying to retrain some of their licensing authorities on how they should deal with the thorny issue that the Minister endeavoured to tackle in our previous session on the differences between the words “appropriate” and “necessary”.
I have been in touch with the LGA and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, it is unhappy about this—not for political reasons but primarily for technical reasons. There would be a problem for the panels in dealing with the change in language without being given appropriate training in order to be able to handle it, but it fears it could not meet the costs. So I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to adopting Amendment 241ZZA and perhaps add to the list the training costs incurred by local authorities in seeking to implement fully the changes the Government are endeavouring to introduce in the legislation relating to fees.
I try to be balanced in my approach. Overall, the direction is correct but perhaps some changes need to be made here and there. I am therefore happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his Amendment 241ZZA.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive comments in connection with these clauses and amendments.
Clauses 121 and 122 address problems in the system of fees under the Licensing Act 2003. Local government has been calling for action on both these points ever since the Act was introduced. Clause 121 introduces the suspension of licences or club premises certificates for failure to pay the annual fee. Currently, an authority must pursue unpaid annual fees through the courts, and there is no other sanction for non-payment. The sanction of suspension will provide a considerable added incentive to licence holders to pay the fee on time. Clause 122 introduces locally set licensing fees. The purpose is to ensure that licensing fees properly recover the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their functions under the Act. Although this clause was introduced on Report in another place, it was not a decision taken in haste. We needed time to ensure that the clause achieved full cost recovery for licensing authorities in a way that is fair to fee payers, licensing authorities and council tax payers.
There are a number of amendments in this group, and I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I attempt to give each amendment the response it deserves. Amendments 240Z and 240XC would remove the requirement on local licensing authorities to provide a receipt. Amendment 240XA aims to reduce the burden of the requirement by requiring that the receipt must be provided only if it is requested. I recognise that these amendments aim to reduce what may look like excessive bureaucracy. At the outset, it is worth emphasising that the clause requires the provision of a receipt only in a case in which a licence or certificate has been suspended and is then reinstated when the fee is paid. We do not expect this to be a frequent occurrence, as we expect licence payers to be assiduous in avoiding suspension. It is not unreasonable for the licence holder to expect clarity as to whether the licence has been reinstated because carrying out licensable activities without a licence is a serious offence. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000, or both. Amendment 240XA is a compromise solution whereby licensing authorities will be required to provide a receipt only on request. Having considered it, I believe that this amendment would actually increase the bureaucratic process in terms of the correspondence relating to whether or not a receipt is required, with, I suggest, only marginal benefit.
Amendments 240XB and 240XD would greatly extend the grace period that applies in cases of dispute or administrative error. The period of 21 days is not set in stone as a matter of principle. However, three weeks seems to us a reasonable length of time in which to resolve a dispute or administrative error. It would allow evidence to be provided that the fee has already been paid or that the supposed due date was not the anniversary of the licence. I cannot yet see a case for extending this period by five more weeks, and I would be concerned that it would considerably weaken the sanction of suspension.
Amendments 240XE and 240XG remove references in Clause 121 to the Secretary of State’s powers to prescribe fees. I understand absolutely that the intention is to emphasise the Bill’s contribution to the localism agenda. However, the references which the amendments seek to remove are cross-references to the existing powers to set fees centrally. They are a necessary part of the mechanism by which Clause 122 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to provide that fees are set locally. So the result of the amendments would actually be that the clause no longer provides for locally set fees.
Amendments 240XF and 241 would remove the reference to the licensing authority’s general costs from the description of what fees must cover. I emphasise that there is no intention that locally set licensing fees will fund the general costs of local government in the everyday sense of the phrase, which means that they could raise money from fee payers for something unrelated, such as to help build a new swimming pool or, as my noble friend Lord Astor suggested, to collect refuse. That would mean that licensing fees had become a form of discretionary local taxation. This is certainly not permitted by Clause 122 through the insertion of Section 197B of the Licensing Act, specifically subsection (3), which defines general costs and limits them to costs referable to the discharge of functions under the 2003 Act.
Amendment 241ZA also seeks to reduce the costs that can be recovered by licensing authorities through locally set fees. In this case, it seeks to remove the costs incurred by the licensing authority under the Act, but in a capacity other than that of a licensing authority. The costs referred to are those of the responsible authorities that are part of the licensing authority. These costs were intended to be taken into account by the current centrally set fees. Not to permit these costs to be covered by locally set fees would be to impose a new burden on local government and would therefore be contrary to established government practice and the intention of the clause. Our intention in introducing locally set licensing fees is that they should cover the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. The current fees, set centrally, were also intended to cover the general costs as they are defined in this clause, and the defined costs of a licensing authority acting as a responsible authority. To remove these costs would mean that fees did not achieve what they are supposed to do.
Amendments 240XH and 241ZZA seek to ensure that the power to set fees locally is constrained and subject to guidance. I can assure your Lordships that we do indeed intend to make locally set fees subject to constraints. Specifically, we intend to make each fee subject to a nationally set cap, and we will consult on the level of that cap. However, to impose a requirement for the imposition of unspecified constraints would be both excessive and, I suggest, ineffective. A future Secretary of State may, for example, have a legitimate reason to utilise the power to make different provision in respect of different authorities, or not to impose additional constraints on a particular authority. However, it must be remembered that such an authority would still be subject to the limitation that income from fees equates as nearly as possible to costs.
Amendment 241ZZA introduces a duty on the Secretary of State, when providing for locally set fees, to issue detailed guidance. Again, I can assure your Lordships that it is our intention, after consultation, to issue guidance covering all these points. However, I suggest that it is excessive to require all these specifically in the clause. Section 182 of the 2003 Act already requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Act. It also enables her to make such revisions to the guidance as she considers appropriate. The addition of a new duty, that of setting fees, would therefore justify such a revision, and it is our intention to do so.
Amendment 241ZB seeks to ensure that the costs of social services and trading standards, in their roles as responsible authorities, can be taken into account within locally set fees even when they are located in an upper tier authority. Currently, the clause has the effect that these costs are recoverable only in a single tier authority, such as a unitary authority. I thank noble Lords for drawing attention to this. I know that many noble Lords will be concerned about the addition of any further costs that will be recovered by fees.
It should be noted that the amendment specifies that the costs that should be recovered are those of these two public bodies, but only in their roles as responsible authorities: for example, in considering applications and, in rare cases, applying for a review. This is expected to be a very marginal cost in the context of overall fee income. It does not incorporate the wider costs of these public bodies in dealing with licensed premises. We intend that locally set fees should cover costs that are not covered by the current centrally set fee levels. For example, the costs of the environmental health authority in respect of its wider statutory duties connected to licensed premises are not covered; only the marginal costs that arise from the 2003 Act are. Having said all that, I see sense in the intention of Amendment 241ZB and, if I may, I shall reflect on it further.
Amendment 241Y seeks to remove the provision in the Bill for regulations to be made providing that club premises certificate holders can make a free minor variation before a late-night levy is introduced in their area. It is consequential on a number of amendments that have the combined effect of removing members’ clubs from the application of the late-night levy. I hope that we will be able to discuss it later, alongside those amendments. For the reasons that I have given, I therefore ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments today.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, briefly, before my noble friend replies on her amendment, I welcome the Minister’s useful clarification of the definition of general costs. I shall certainly reflect on that before the next stage. The technical references were extremely helpful. The Minister was also very helpful in talking about the guidance on how fees are calculated and will be dealt with by local authorities.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for my amendment. It was like the first swallow of summer or something of that sort. On my Amendment 241ZZA, the Minister said that guidance will be published, which is helpful. However, as far as one can see there is no appeal mechanism in the proposed new section that is already incorporated in the Bill. Is it possible for guidance to deal with how that sort of thing should be dealt with as well?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government will reflect on Amendment 241ZB. I am grateful to my noble friend for responding to a couple of amendments that I failed to explain. I have been a little distracted by a domestic crisis. One should not use a BlackBerry too much in the Chamber, but it has been jolly useful this morning.
If the receipt is intended as an acknowledgement that the suspension has ended, it seems rather a confusing mechanism. Simply providing that the authority must acknowledge that the suspension has ended would be a great deal clearer.
I shall say just a word about the general costs. There is a reference to a cap. I am puzzled by how a cap can be consistent when the fees must reflect actual costs. Perhaps we can pursue that outside the Chamber.
I shall also put one thought into the Government’s mind. The references to general costs seem very wide. I am not surprised that they have attracted amendments. They are justifiable if they are a proper proportion of overheads. I wonder whether some wording such as “directly or indirectly related to the particular application” might be more reassuring and appropriate. Although some of us are approaching this from different points of view, we might be able to share some thoughts before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 240Z.
EUC Report: Economic Governance
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report of the European Union Committee on The Future of Economic Governance in the EU (12th Report, HL Paper 124).
Lord Harrison
The crisis in the euro area has rarely been out of the news over the past year. Therefore, my committee decided to launch an inquiry into EU economic governance, especially after EU member states banded together to provide financial assistance to Greece in early 2009. Since then the crisis has continued to spread. Indeed, while we were taking evidence Ireland received financial support. Since the report was published, yet another euro area country—Portugal—has asked for and received a loan package. In the wake of these difficulties, the European Union has pushed ahead with proposals to reform its economic governance. The proposals are likely to be agreed at ECOFIN next week, so I thank the Government for providing an opportunity for this timely debate.
The euro area crisis followed the worldwide banking crisis in 2008. The interconnection between sovereign debt and the banking sectors was one of principal elements that contributed to the current crisis. However, it was not the cause of the current problems in the euro area; it was merely the trigger. Our report details two more fundamental reasons for the euro area crisis. First, there is an endemic flaw in the architecture of the monetary union: while monetary policy is centralised, fiscal policy remains fragmented among member states and is inadequately co-ordinated. Secondly, the past decade has seen a build-up of macroeconomic competitiveness imbalances among euro area member states. Within monetary union, states can no longer devalue their currencies to regain temporary competitiveness or adjust their interest rates to take account of variations between different economies.
These problems have been exacerbated by a failure of the markets, and member states themselves, to understand how the monetary union worked. The markets treated the euro area as a single entity, and did not distinguish carefully or sufficiently between the financial health of individual member states. This has meant that for most of the past decade the interest rate on Greece’s sovereign debt has not been much higher than the interest rate on German sovereign debt. It should have been.
Our report focused on a series of six proposals published by the European Commission in autumn 2009, which were designed to address these problems. The proposals would monitor and co-ordinate more closely economic policies among the member states. In parallel with the Commission, the European Council established a task force to consider these issues under the chairmanship of the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy. With only minor differences, the task force’s recommendations echoed the proposals put forward by the Commission.
The proposals focus on two distinct aspects of member states’ economies. First, they aim to improve fiscal discipline among member states. The Commission has proposed amending the stability and growth pact to broaden its surveillance of member states’ fiscal policies and, to ensure better compliance, it has suggested strengthening the sanctions regime. In addition, a proposed new directive would incorporate EU-level fiscal rules into domestic fiscal frameworks.
Secondly, the proposals would create new mechanisms to monitor and correct macroeconomic imbalances, such as divergences in current account positions, in competitiveness or in credit and house-price bubbles. In addition to these six proposals, we considered the Council's proposals for a permanent crisis resolution mechanism for euro area member states. The European Council agreed to establish such a mechanism in March this year, although the details of the mechanism are still to be confirmed.
Before I turn to the committee’s view of the Commission's proposals, I should briefly say why the UK should be engaged. After all, we are not a member of the euro area and many of the proposals related to sanctions or fiscal rules will not be binding on the United Kingdom as a result of its opt-out from the monetary union. Our witnesses, however, were unanimous in stating that the health of the euro area directly impacts on the United Kingdom. In 2009, some 60 per cent of the United Kingdom’s trade was with the European Union, the UK financial sector has substantial investment in euro area countries and the Government recognised the UK's substantial interest in Ireland by providing a bilateral loan above and beyond their contribution through the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the IMF.
The Commission's proposals may not all apply to the United Kingdom, but we have a vested interest—a vital interest—in ensuring that they are appropriate and will successfully contribute to the future economic and financial stability of the European Union. In addition to these hard, economic reasons, we believe that the United Kingdom should play an active role for another reason: solidarity. The EU is founded on solidarity and we believe that the United Kingdom should consider and support where possible the interests of other member states. I say to the Minister that it is surprising how often solidarity turns out to be far-sighted self-interest.
I now turn to the Commission's proposals. Taken as a whole, the committee concluded that they are a step in the right direction although they do not go so far as to enact the full fiscal union that some of our witnesses thought was necessary for the future stability of the euro area. Closer economic co-operation is necessary to foster greater economic stability in the European Union, particularly for those countries that have bound themselves together into a single monetary union. The proposals relating to fiscal discipline and co-operation should make it easier for euro area members to arrive at a collective fiscal stance that stands as an equal to a centralised monetary policy. Likewise, the proposals for a new system of macroeconomic surveillance and co-ordination will help to detect and address at an earlier stage excessive imbalances that threaten to destabilise the monetary union.
We also support the establishment of a permanent crisis resolution mechanism. In particular, we concluded that the inclusion of collective action clauses, setting out a formal mechanism for restructuring debt is essential. We felt that these should clearly establish the principle that the private sector should share the burden of any restructuring of sovereign debt. It is only right that, as they share in the rewards, they should share in the risk. The Government's response indicates that private sector involvement will be on a case-by-case basis. I would be interested to hear the Minister say under what circumstances the private sector might be exempted from the restructuring, and a reassurance that this would be the exception not the rule.
While the Government have made it clear that the United Kingdom will not take part in the new permanent crisis mechanism, we believe that there may be times when, as with Ireland, it is clearly in the UK’s interest to participate in financial assistance to member states in difficulties. We welcome, therefore, that the current proposal will allow member states outside the euro area to contribute to rescue packages on an ad hoc basis if they wish to do so.
Our primary concern with these proposals is the likelihood that they will continue to be adhered to rigorously as time goes on. Previous efforts to enforce fiscal discipline among euro area member states have been regrettably ineffective. Under the proposals, the Council will retain responsibility for enforcing responsible fiscal behaviour through sanctions. We concluded that this was indeed appropriate given the sovereign nature of EU member states. Only time will tell, however, whether the collective will of member states is strong enough to ensure that the sanctions procedure is applied when required and when the crisis is over.
In his evidence, Mark Hoban MP stated that:
“The cost of the crisis in the eurozone is a reminder to us that we must make these processes work much more effectively”.
The current crisis must indeed be remembered as a reason why member states should enforce the rules set out in these proposals in good times as well as bad. The ultimate responsibility for this lies with the political authorities of the EU, and the committee, I am sorry to say, remained sceptical that they will have the collective political will to enforce them effectively.
I thank all my fellow members of the committee and Professor Iain Begg—our specialist adviser—Antony Willot and Laura Bonacorsi-Macleod for their sterling work in helping the committee steer its way through a difficult report. I hope that the Minister will come back to this in time because we need constant updates on a very tricky situation that is of huge relevance to the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have a rather tight timetable. I remind noble Lords that when the clock says four they are into the fifth minute and should sit down.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, the whole question of the economic governance of the EU is, in anybody's business, a very big topic, and our committee had to restrict itself somewhat. But it was a slight pity that we failed completely to address the whole question of the competitiveness of the EU, which is a subject that perhaps we should turn to at some stage. When you talk to people in Europe and in Brussels they rather like to feel that there is no global market out there at all and that the massive competitive forces building up in China and India can be ignored. The EU is incredibly introverted in the way that it looks at things. As it is, our report did look at the proposals produced by the Commission.
The Commission produced the stability and growth pact originally, and we are now armed with proposals for the stability and growth pact part 2. Of course, part 1 was a total, abject failure. The conditions were broken by the French and the Germans very early in its life. Have we really any confidence in this one? I suspect, although I cannot speak for all my fellow members of the committee, that we felt the chances of this second go from the Commission producing new stability and growth pact proposals was unlikely to be any more successful than the last lot.
We need to think slightly outside the box. I echo the words of the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that we should be very concerned about what happens in the eurozone. It would be nice if we could stand back and watch the whole thing implode, but if it did, such is the exposure of British banks and of the whole financial sector in Europe that the effect would be devastating. We would move into a serious banking crisis. We have to look to the success of the eurozone. We cannot stand back and watch Greece collapse either. That would have the effect of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, where the collateral damage was very serious indeed. It would have the effect of spreading all across the eurozone. Contagion is a big problem.
The eurozone has to address where it goes from here. I do not believe that there is any will among the nation states to see the eurozone collapse. But if they are not to see it collapse they must move forward into a much more federal structure. We have to see a much bigger role played by the European Central Bank and the eurozone reconciling itself to the fact that there will have to be fiscal transfers to some of these nations. A great date has been dreamt up of 2013. When that was originally dreamt up it seemed quite a long way away but it is getting nearer and nearer. Sovereign debt is guaranteed up until 2013 but one has to start asking now what will happen after 2013. Will places such as Greece and Portugal suddenly become competitive when they are not competitive today? The answer is no and there has to be a completely new construction of how the eurozone is managed. I am afraid that that all points to it becoming a much more federal organisation. Whether that means that the eurozone will succeed, I do not know. If it becomes federal, it will certainly survive for much longer than it otherwise would.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, as has already been said by the two previous speakers, in or out of the eurozone, effective economic governance in the European Union is important to all member states and particularly to us here in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has clearly set out the remit and context of the report from Sub-Committee A of the EU Select Committee, of which I am a member. In the short time that I have, I will concentrate on the role of sanctions in future economic governance of the EU.
As has been said, the Commission’s proposals on sanctions will not apply to the UK by virtue of its opt-out from membership of the euro. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, set out and as I indicated in my opening remarks, the UK has a vital interest in ensuring that these proposals succeed. Our sub-committee report recognised that the markets will play a key role in promoting sensible fiscal behaviour by member states by charging higher interest rates to those countries deemed to have lax fiscal policies. However, the markets have not always proven effective at this in the past. There is a need for a further mechanism to ensure compliance. This is where sanctions fit in. The Government have recognised this—and recognised it in our report.
The sub-committee concluded that the Commission’s proposals for a more graduated sanctions regime would help dissuade irresponsible fiscal behaviour. Sanctions will be easier to apply and more of a credible threat if they start off small and are available earlier in the process. Again, the Government have agreed with the committee’s assessment of this. As has already been said, one of the greatest failings of the current system of sanctions has been that member states have found it too easy to avoid sanctions when they have broken the rules. France and Germany breached the stability and growth pact in 2002-03 and this led to a conflict between the Commission, which wanted to impose sanctions, and the Council, which refused. In the end, France and Germany managed to persuade the European Council to relax the rules governing the stability and growth pact.
Several sub-committee witnesses argued that sanctions should be made fully automatic. This was the line taken by the European Parliament, which feels that automatic sanctions would prevent member states from negotiating their way out of sanctions. However, the sub-committee concluded that fully automatic sanctions were a step too far and would remove any room for judgment. We supported the Commission’s proposals for reverse-majority voting, which would require a majority to vote against sanctions to block them, as opposed to the current system where the majority have to vote in favour. While the sub-committee believes that this discretion is necessary given that the EU is a political union of sovereign member states, it is vital that the Council shows that it is willing to take tough decisions and levy sanctions when the stability and growth pact is breached. The Government agree in their response that the efficacy of the sanctions regime will depend on the degree of political will in the Council. Will the Council be willing to take tough decisions on sanctions when the crisis is over?
We considered various other suggestions on sanctions. At the insistence of Germany, the Van Rompuy task force report did not rule out the possibility of removing voting rights in Council from those countries breaking the stability and growth pact. The sub-committee did not believe that this would be an appropriate sanction and would raise significant questions about legitimacy and sovereignty. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will block this proposal from being taken forward if Germany proposes it once again? The Government also stated in their response that there are a,
“large range of other potential sanctions that could be more easily and swiftly implemented by the Council”,
rather than removing voting rights. Could the Minister indicate what those might be?
As I stated at the beginning, only member states within the euro area can have sanctions imposed upon them. However, the Van Rompuy task force report suggested that enforcement mechanisms should be extended to all member states, excluding the UK, in the multi-annual financial framework. The committee thought that this was quite inappropriate. The Government’s stated intention is that they would oppose these suggestions. Can the Minister confirm that they will stop any attempt to extend sanctions beyond the euro area by any such means?
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, this is an important report and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the way in which he has both shepherded his sub-committee into preparing it and set the scene in opening the debate today. Although he covered the ground thoroughly, I will emphasise two points.
First, standing outside the euro area, as the United Kingdom does, gave the sub-committee an interesting opportunity to view the issues raised in the Commission’s proposals in a rather objective way, while realising and acknowledging that we are not an island alone unto ourselves. That the UK’s financial investment sector had and has substantial investments in the euro area means that we are directly affected by whatever goes on there—that is apart from the fact that some 60 per cent of UK trade is within the European Union. The state of the economies of those trading partners has a direct impact. We need to be fully aware of and involved in all European Union policy developments in the area. In all fairness, this and the United Kingdom’s undoubted expertise in the financial sector have been acknowledged and welcomed. Not one witness who gave evidence to us suggested that we were in any way interfering in eurozone business.
Secondly, the report refers to the deepening problems and evolving policy responses. In the few short months since its publication, it is quite clear that things have moved on. The contagion theory has been proved. Ireland and Portugal have joined Greece in asking for help. We are looking at a moving target at the same time as trying to find ways to prevent any of this happening again in the future. Those who believe in the inevitability of the business cycle may well be proved right. This is unlikely to be the last report on the subject.
The main question I wish to ask the Minister relates to institutional reform. The sub-committee’s recommendation and the Government’s response indicate that, whatever happens in terms of strengthening and reinforcing institutions, we do not want any new institutions. I understand that there are some quite tricky negotiations going on between the Council and the European Parliament before next week’s 20 June meeting. This results from the European Parliament’s wish for a greater role in fiscal and macroeconomic surveillance, the right to call Governments to account and its support for the use of reverse-majority voting. Can the Minister confirm what, if any, objections the Government have to the European Parliament’s proposals? Is he concerned that the United Kingdom Government could be more sidelined as a result?
As has been said, in general our report broadly supports the six main proposals before us from the European Union. There can be no doubt that things will continue to change, that there will be more use of financial regulation in a more proactive way in future, or that there needs to be more co-ordination between monetary and financial policy. Although our report was published in March, today has turned out to be appropriate for our debate. Not only do we just precede the ECOFIN meeting next week but also we follow the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last night. Today also sees the first meetings of the Bank of England’s new committee charged with spotting signs of danger in advance—just the sort of thing that we are talking about. I trust that the evidence collected for our report as well as the conclusions that we have drawn will make a useful contribution to their tasks.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, I, too, join colleagues on the committee in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, the staff of the committee and our special adviser for ensuring that an excellent report was produced on these important issues. I recognise the importance of the euro and the eurozone to the United Kingdom. I also recognise the various measures being put in place for strengthening Governments, dealing with short and long-term crises and establishing a new financial regulatory infrastructure are all extremely important institutional developments.
The markets appear to have considerable confidence in the future of the euro. I shall return to that in a moment. But—and there is a but in my mind—there is the position of Greece, certainly, and Ireland. I regard the sovereign debt situation in those countries as ultimately unsustainable. Our report draws attention to the distinction between solvency and liquidity, and there is a fundamental insolvency problem in Greece and probably in Ireland, too. Ultimately, that will have to be dealt with. Having a new institutional strength and institutional structures, and being determined politically to ensure that they work more effectively in future, will be constantly undermined if the markets simply do not believe that one or two countries are going to default. There is a real risk that that continued uncertainty will undermine long-term reform.
Sooner or later, that problem will have to be dealt with. I well understand, politically, why 2013, or a period two or three years hence, has been set, although I, like the markets, doubt whether the certainty of no default can bear fruit. There is an understandable reluctance for Greece to be seen to be getting away with what is seen as profligacy—of course I understand that. Any way in which that is dealt with, ultimately, will have to be seen in the context of major reforms and fiscal probity in Greece. Ireland is in a very different situation, indeed; there were entirely different causes. But ultimately, those countries in one form or another will have to have some of their debt written down, however that takes place.
I pose one or two questions to the Minister. The European Commission is reported to have examined the consequences of various ways in which Greek debt at least might be adjusted—although I have not had the opportunity to read it myself. Were Her Majesty's Government party to any consultation on the production of that document, and have they formed, or are they in the process of forming, any assessment of the possible consequences of the possible adjustments in debt of Greece and Ireland? It would be very helpful to the committee to know that.
I end where I started. The markets appear not to believe that the almost certain default by Greece will undermine the euro. They do not believe the mantra that if Greece defaults, the euro is under serious threat. That is not what they say. They have been wrong before and they may be wrong on this occasion. However, if they are right, ultimately Greece may be able to default in part, in a controlled way, and even Ireland may be able to do so—and I believe that the Irish and Greek politicians will be greatly relieved.
Lord Haskins
My Lords, when I was reading the Van Rompuy report last night, on the very day when Greece appeared to be on the verge of spiralling out of control, I had a feeling that we had all been sleepwalking through a surreal nightmare in the past few years and were continuing to do so.
I have always liked the expression, “Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”. It seems as if this is what we are trying to do. But a number of horses have escaped from this eurozone stable and have yet to be recaptured. There is no point in making the stable secure if there are no horses inside. That is why resolving the immediate crises in Greece and Ireland, particularly, is so critical. Better economic governance is an academic exercise until that has been achieved. However, assuming—and this is a big assumption—that by 2013 the horses are all back in their stables, there is the question of whether the proposals from the Van Rompuy taskforce are sufficient to make the doors more secure or whether we might have to consider knocking the eurozone stable down altogether and rebuilding it into something called “fiscal union”.
There is one very good reason why the present proposals may work. That is, to coin another equestrian metaphor, “Once bitten, twice shy”. I do not believe that in the short term the various guilty parties will repeat the errors that they made which created the crisis in the first place—though having experienced three other banking crises in my business career, I am quite sure that over time the banks will behave badly once again.
The idea of a European semester is a good one, in which all member states would present, discuss and co-ordinate their fiscal policies on a regular basis. Early signs of misbehaviour within national economies will be identified and, consequently, the markets will react before it is too late. But I have reservations about the proposals to strengthen sanctions against breaking the stability and growth pact. I am sure that when some unfortunate Commission official turns up at the Élysée Palace to collect the fine for some French misdemeanour, he or she will get a pretty dusty answer. The most effective sanctions should, of course, come from the markets, which failed lamentably to do so in the run-up to the present crisis. Incidentally, I was very surprised to hear President Obama in Westminster Hall the other day speak about the crisis in the past tense. If the semester process is not opaque, the markets will be much better equipped to respond appropriately. There will be no more dodgy Greek statistics, no more skulduggery in the Anglo Irish bank, no more raising Greek debt as being of the same quality as German debt, and no more sleight of hand between Goldman Sachs and the Greek Government—as well as a greater understanding of the link between private, corporate and sovereign debt.
The Commission rightly wants to see more pressure on countries that run large deficits to reduce them, but I remain sceptical as to whether it will be able to bring much pressure on countries that run large surpluses, although I agree that excessive surpluses are not desirable.
I have two other worries about how events may be moving. First, let me quote from Monday’s Financial Times and a piece by Larry Summers, who was until recently President Obama’s European guru. He said that the financial crisis was,
“caused by too much confidence, borrowing and lending, and spending”,
but that ironically and paradoxically, it will be,
“resolved only by increases in confidence, borrowing and lending, and spending”.
Therefore, this may not be the time to raise their levels of equity too quickly. It is better to wait for the upswing—if, and when, it comes.
Lord Marlesford
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, had a very steady hand as the crisis migrated through Sub-Committee A, and we are grateful to him for that. Both the euro and the euro area are in crisis; they are both in a critical condition and need intensive care. The euro is, in my view, wildly overvalued and several of the member states are, as we know, on the brink of default. The European Central Bank is so loaded up with toxic debt that it is in danger. The Irish Finance Minister, Noonan, recently asked the IMF to get a haircut for the AngloIrish debt; that would not be very wise or safe for the ECB.
What I find astonishing is the undertaking given at Seoul at the G20 by several Finance Ministers, including my right honourable friend George Osborne, that there would be a guarantee of European sovereign debt up to 2013. We asked a number of our witnesses about it, and no one was able to spell that out. I really think that the Minister has a wonderful opportunity to enlighten us in that regard. Given that Her Majesty's Government are a part of it, we should know exactly what the commitment means and how it would work. Nobody appears to know.
The Government are absolutely right to say that the UK will not sign up to the EU permanent crisis mechanism. I congratulate the Government on setting up the Financial Policy Committee, with its twin remits: first, to reduce systemic risks and, secondly, to enhance the resilience of the UK financial system. Systemic risks, of course, cover both the fault lines in the financial system infrastructure and the cyclical threats from unsustainable levels of leverage, debt or credit growth. That is our solution and we are in that playing an important part in dealing with further threats to this country.
As so often, the EU's reach is greater than its grasp and Mr Trichet’s proposal for a European ministry of finance is such an example. He said that,
“a ministry of finance … would exert direct responsibilities in at least three domains: first, the surveillance of both fiscal policies and competitiveness policies, as well as the direct responsibilities mentioned earlier as regards countries in a ‘second stage’ inside the euro area; second, all the typical responsibilities of the executive branches as regards the union’s integrated financial sector, so as to accompany the full integration of financial services; and third, the representation of the union”—
the EU—
“confederation in international financial institutions”.
Personally, I do not think that really is a runner—certainly not as far as the UK is concerned. However, Mr Trichet is perfectly logical and having identified the fundamental flaw in the concept of the euro, he is sensibly putting forward what could help.
Personally, I believe what should happen is that individual euro countries should be enabled to leave the euro area without having to leave the EU but should be able to continue to use the euro, if they wish. It would probably be sensible for them to do so. Nobody is going to be prepared to buy recreated Mickey Mouse currencies. Finally, if China and the US, particularly China, are to be the world's economic locomotives we have to try to see that northern Europe, at least, can prosper and sustain those unfortunate countries in the south, which are going to suffer greatly from the inevitable deflation.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, first, on behalf of the opposition Front Bench I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison and his committee on an excellent report. It shows that this House can bring an intelligence and clarity to complex issues that are unusual in the political world, and I sincerely congratulate them on that. Secondly, when my noble friends Lord Woolmer and Lord Haskins make the point that the recommendations of the Van Rompuy taskforce do not address the fundamental crisis that the euro faces, they are of course right. In my view, it is a crisis of solvency not liquidity that at some stage has to be addressed.
This economic governance package is not about the immediate resolution of the present crisis but about trying to make sure that we prevent future crises happening. From our perspective, the proposals here are an advance on the stability and growth pact. The stressing of the need to monitor the debt to GDP ratio, not the deficit, is good. The new emphasis on economic imbalances is good, as it is on credit conditions, the risk of asset bubbles and the new streamlined processes for monitoring member state budgets. Where we have ended up on the sanctions regime, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right as well.
However, we have some reservations about this and some questions to ask the Government. First, on debt, Mr Hoban’s letter says that the Government were concerned that on debt to GDP, the proposals might involve too much of a target-based, semi-automatic approach. However, they say that the proposals have been modified to make sure that that is not so. Could we have more of an explanation of how they have been modified? On this side of the House, we believe strongly that one should not take short-term actions on deficits which make the long-term position on debt worse, not better. It may be that that is what the present Government are doing in terms of their “too far, too fast” economic adjustment in this country but we would like to know more about avoiding that target-based semi-automatic approach.
Secondly, on the long-term challenges of debt to GDP, is there not a need for an emphasis on positive policies, social investment policies, to overcome issues such as the rising costs of ageing, so that we activate more people in the workforce and invest more in research, education and infrastructure to raise productivity? Is that not a positive absence from these proposals? Thirdly, are there not other measures that the EU could be taking to promote growth in the sovereign debtor countries—for example, bringing forward unused structural fund money or trying to develop, through the European Investment Bank, a cross-border infrastructure investment—which might help to revive the economies in countries such as Greece and Spain? What view do the Government have of that?
Finally, although I must sit down in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made a very thoughtful speech on the role of the UK. I have disagreed with him on the EU Bill but his speech today was extremely thoughtful, as was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about the impact on the UK. The Government have looked rather Janus-faced to me on these issues. They say at the start of their letter that economic shocks do not respect geographic borders and that it is very much in our economic and political interests to engage, but then they express reservations about engaging. What were the reasons for the Government deciding, for instance, not to join the euro-plus pact, where they might have been able to exert a positive influence on eurozone policies? What would be their attitude to future treaty changes that might lead to further steps towards fiscal union?
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, may I ask a very short question? Being very much impressed by the speech that has been made, what is the position of the Opposition? I am not quite sure what the policy of the Government is, but with vast extraterritorial commitments now, should there be a moratorium until we can retrieve our debt without borrowing more money to pay the interest? I do not say that they should be excluded for ever. I am not expert on these things but I would like to know what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Liddle
Given that that is not a short question, while I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I cannot conceivably deal with a question of such complexity without breaking the rules of the House.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and all the members of the sub-committee for their work on this issue and their excellent and timely report. I learn new things about the way in which this House operates on almost every occasion when I stand at the Dispatch Box. After seeing how the topics had been parcelled out and questions were fired at me from left, right and behind, I now understand what effective committee work is all about. In the brief time that I have, I will not be able to give detailed answers to all the questions. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in which the usual degree of repetition was absent; we have covered a very wide range.
The euro area has had and continues to have a very tough time. The weak economic growth of the euro area is a symptom of the fundamental problem that is faced: weak economic governance. That is the starting point that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, and other speakers have drawn attention to. In answer to the noble Lord’s question about the current situation—there were also other references to restructuring packages—the Government’s position on possible further bailouts for Greece is unchanged, and, incidentally, is the same as that of the French Finance Minister, Madame Lagarde: we do not want to be part of any second European assistance package for Greece. Indeed, no such proposal has been made. In answer to the broader question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, it would be wrong to rule in or out the participation of the private sector in any package for Greece or anywhere else. This important issue continues to be debated, though, and it should be.
I was interested in and pleased by my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s discussion in this area, reminding us of what we are doing in this country, particularly with the proposals that the Government are bringing forward today to ensure that we have mechanisms in place to identify systemic risks and deal with them effectively. I thought for a moment that I had fallen asleep, it was 4.30 pm and we were already talking about the financial regulatory structure in the UK, which we will be doing later today. Following last year’s EU economic task force and in the context of the ongoing difficult situation, the Commission brought forward six draft pieces of legislation on fiscal and macroeconomic surveillance that aimed to strengthen current monitoring mechanisms and to give early warnings of economic problems in member states. It proposes tough sanctions for euro area countries that step out of line. I will come back to sanctions in a minute.
I stress that we are not part of the single currency but, as the committee’s report notes, a stable eurozone is firmly in the UK’s interests, as is ensuring the success of measures to bring it to economic stability. I trust that there is no doubt about that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, thinks there is anything Janus-faced about it; we are working hard and co-operatively to ensure that the measures are appropriate.
Many commentators agree with the committee that the euro area’s problems were caused by tensions between centralised monetary policy and decentralised spending decisions. The proposed legislation seeks to address that through increased co-ordination. In broad terms, the Government welcome the pragmatism of the proposals. We support the refinements to the stability and growth pact that will help to prevent countries from running unsustainable deficits in good times. As the committee report notes, a gradually escalating system of sanctions will mean that member states think twice before breaching the pact.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, rightly noted that the most effective sanctions will and must come from the market. A number of questions were nevertheless properly raised about sanctions. We agree that a limited use of reverse qualified majority voting should ensure that member states cannot avoid sanctions through political deal-making at ECOFIN of a sort that was seen from member states in the past. On the questions asked by my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lady Maddock, we think that reverse QMV is one way to address the sanctions question. There should be limits to the use of reverse QMV. We do not think that it would be right to remove voting rights more generally. That would require a treaty change, and the UK would have the right to veto any such proposals.
I reassure the House, specifically my noble friend Lady Maddock, that the UK is not subject to sanctions under the stability and growth pact. The treaty is clear that they apply only to euro area countries. In addition, the UK’s opt-out protocol that was negotiated at Maastricht is clear that we are exempt from such fines.
Another issue that my noble friend raised was the extension of sanctions in the next financial perspective. I assure her that the Van Rompuy task force report clearly stated this with regard to sanctions under the stability and growth pact and under the next financial perspective. Sanctions may be rolled out for other euro area member states but not applied to the UK, so I hope that the position is clear.
I should perhaps clarify a point regarding the fiscal proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked about this. The Government did not disagree with the principle of a benchmark for assessing the pace of public debt reduction. Getting debt on to a downward path is of course essential for the eurozone members just as it is for the UK. However, we had concerns that the original Commission proposal was too rigid and might not take sufficient account of debt dynamics that are beyond a member state’s control. I am pleased to report that we have sought amendments in council to clarify that the benchmark really will be a benchmark rather than a concrete rule.
The Government agree with the committee’s view that while fiscal discipline is important, it will not be enough to prevent or manage future crises. That will require the EU to have the right macroeconomic warning mechanisms to identify them and the right tools to manage them. Economic imbalances are already monitored under the broad economic policy guidelines and the Europe 2020 initiative, but that has lost momentum in recent years. The Commission proposes a more systematic way of identifying economic imbalances through a scoreboard of economic indicators. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that transparent analysis of member states is important, and these indicators will help to achieve that.
I understand the note of caution that the committee has sounded in its report. Yes, the success of this monitoring will depend heavily on the degree of political will in council, but ECOFIN will now be forced to consider the evidence from the indicators on the scorecard. The Government agree with the committee’s recommendation that the composition of the scoreboard should be subject to regular review, and we are negotiating to achieve that. The Government also agree with the committee that all these systems must be intelligently interlinked. We want to see Finance Ministers having realistic discussions of policy problems, drawing on evidence from Europe 2020, the stability and growth pact and European Systemic Risk Board recommendations, if necessary. We want clear, frank recommendations for member states, and help and support for them when they act to improve their economic position and boost growth.
Finally, the proposals for a euro area crisis resolution mechanism, or European financial stability mechanism—the ESM—as it is known, are being debated in parallel to these legislative discussions. The need for them was stressed by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds. The Government very much support the ESM, which will provide euro-area countries with the financial equivalent of a parachute. We agree with the committee’s view that conditionality is vital and that there must be no question of this being free money for fiscally irresponsible member states. Like the committee, we welcome the explicit recognition that the IMF will play a technical and advisory role in all future uses of the ESM.
The Hungarian presidency wants to finalise this package of legislation by the time that presidency ends on 30 June. My noble friend Lady Hooper pressed me on the details of this. I regret to say that the ECOFIN discussion on this was at an informal dinner earlier this week that was not minuted. There are some difficult issues, of which my noble friend is clearly aware, which need to be resolved. The Hungarian presidency is working on them, and the European Parliament intends to schedule a vote on the package next week.
I emphasise again the importance to the UK economy of achieving lasting economic stability within and beyond the eurozone. This is the central aim of this legislative package. Throughout the negotiations, the Government have striven to achieve genuine strengthening of economic governance while preserving this Parliament's sovereignty over all aspects of economic and financial policy. I am satisfied that we are on track to achieve those objectives and that the report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee has made a most useful contribution to that process.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) In section 9(1) after “of” insert “not less than”.”
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, during the passage of the Licensing Act 2003, in a gesture that was helpful to local authorities as licensing authorities, the Government introduced in Section 9(1) a provision that:
“A licensing committee may establish one or more sub-committees consisting of three members of the committee”,
who would then serve as the licensing panel on an application. I do not know if the Government then foresaw the use that local and licensing authorities might make of this provision. A present consequence of Section 9(1) is that, on a particular interpretation, licensing panels can in practice be reduced from three to two. That has the effect of making the chairman, who has a casting vote, decisive, and thus has the effect of single-person decisions. This is habitual in one London borough licensing authority, which I am led to believe is Camden; and I declare an interest as I was once a member of Camden Borough Council. It is used regularly in others and even occasionally in Westminster, where I was a Member of Parliament.
I realise that my amendment to make it “not less than” three members may not be adequate to correct this situation, although I have taken advice. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can at least accept the spirit of my amendment. It is a stand-alone amendment, and the others in this group relate to Clause 125. Indeed, my concerns with Clause 125 standing part will follow smoothly on from Amendment 241C of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Astor. I will therefore defer my remarks on Clause 125 to follow on from that amendment, thus now yielding the Floor to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, whose Amendments 241D and 241DA are on a different issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 241A in this group and the subsequent amendment, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who is also supporting my amendment. I should make it clear that these two amendments have not been tabled because we disagree on this issue; we agree so totally and fundamentally that these two amendments are almost belt-and-braces measures. I would have liked to add my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment. They are very slightly different but in no way less important.
The Bill constitutes a very important opportunity to address drink-driving and the catalogue of deaths and casualties that occur on the roads because of alcohol consumption. We both would like to bring down the legal blood alcohol level from 80 to 50 milligrams per hundred millilitres of blood; that would bring us in line with many other countries in Europe. However, the best way forward seems to be to see whether all the measures to be implemented under the Bill have an effect on alcohol consumption—hence the concept of their being subject to a review—and for the review to look at legal limits specifically.
What is the size of the problem? It is estimated that nearly 12,000 reported casualties—5 per cent of all road casualties—are the result of someone driving when over the legal limit and that the number of such people who were killed in 2009 was 380 or 17 per cent of all road fatalities. It is important to remember that pedestrians are sometimes knocked over in these incidents and have a much higher risk of being killed than the person who is in the car, who is usually the person who is over the limit. The injuries sustained by pedestrians are more likely to be fatal as they suffer head or facial injuries, which tend to be more severe.
The number of hospital admissions due to road accidents in general is enormous. There were 39,000 admissions following road traffic accidents in 2009. Looking just at the drink-driving statistics, an average of 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink-driving collisions, and nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve these drivers, as I said. However, the biggest problem occurs with youngsters. Drink-driving among young men in the 17 to 29 age group is particularly high. Provisional figures from 2004 show that some 590 people were killed in crashes in which a driver was over the legal limit, 2,350 were seriously injured and 14,000 were slightly injured. The key group comprises the 17 to 24 year-olds, of whom 6.3 per cent who were breath tested after an accident failed the test. That compares with an average for all ages of 4.4 per cent. People in this age group seem particularly liable to drive when they have had too much to drink and to have an accident when over the drink-drive limit. Recent data from police checks in England and Wales show that one in 20 of under 25 year-olds who were stopped were over the legal limit. That translates into 1,746 young drivers because more than 27,000 people were stopped by the police in total.
How do we stop this catalogue of deaths and serious injuries, not only of people who are over the limit but among others? How do we stop the carnage of young lives that are wasted because they have been driving while over the limit? They may not even realise that they are over their limit but their ability to drive safely is seriously impaired. Fatalities often result from stupid little things such as not looking properly, having slightly slower reactions and driving a little too fast on a wet road. That is the background to these amendments. We cannot leave a Bill like this, which is trying to tackle a major social problem, without addressing this alcohol-associated carnage on our roads.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse, and as a member of CADD, the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. As I have already said in the House, members of that body have lost a relative through drink-driving.
I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I will take his wise words on how to tackle these matters back to Camden. I also support Amendment 241A, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and myself, and Amendment 241B, standing in my name, which would have the effect of reducing the blood alcohol level for young drivers, should the review show a case for further reform action.
Statistics on death as a result of alcohol impairment are well known, if not acted upon. We tend to concentrate on death but life-shattering and painful injuries are also a major issue. Indeed, it is mostly thanks to medical advances practised by people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others, as well as the speed and expertise of rescue crews and paramedics, that many who would otherwise have died following these accidents have been saved. However, they are not necessarily saved from a life of pain and impairment. As the Select Committee in another place has emphasised,
“drink driving is a preventable activity … On average, … one person dies every day”,
because drivers were over the limit. The Transport Committee also agreed that,
“medical and statistical evidence supports a reduction in the current drink drive limit of 80mg … per 100ml blood”.
However, as we know, the Government do not support such a reduction, at least for the moment, and nor did the committee, despite the wise recommendation of a reduction to 50 milligrams by Sir Peter North, although the Transport Committee would prefer a 20 rather than 50 milligram limit, which is effectively zero.
Despite the lack of action, I do not give up hope. In particular, it is worth looking within the generality of drivers at the susceptibility of the young to the effects of alcohol. This would also help to achieve the Transport Committee's aim that the Government should work to achieve a 20 milligram level by first introducing a lower limit for young drivers. New Zealand has recognised that young bodies are more affected by alcohol. It therefore has lower limits for young drivers. As its data show, young people start with a relatively high crash risk. For drivers under 20, even at 50 milligrams their risk of having a crash is six times the level of a driver over 30 years of age with the same alcohol consumption. That is why the drink-drive limit in New Zealand is 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres for those under 20.
The evidence is clear: drink for drink, young drivers are more likely to have accidents than older drivers, quite apart from their level of experience. New Zealand is planning further action to deter young people from drinking and driving, with policies closer to those of America where the drinking age is 21. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that having a drinking age of 21 saves 1,000 young American lives a year, so New Zealand is going to raise the purchase age for alcohol to 20 years. The House will be delighted to hear that that is not where I want to go, but I want to protect our young drivers—and, as the noble Baroness said, their victims, whether they are on the streets or in the cars of those young drivers—from any temptation to drink before getting behind a wheel.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I can be brief in speaking to Amendment 241C. I very much commend Clause 125, which sets in place a review of the effect of the amendments to the licensing scheme. It is common ground between us, whatever side we may be on, that the proposed amendments are highly significant. The Bill provides for a review to take place after five years. In view of the significance of these amendments, Amendment 241C is designed to make that review occur every two, not five, years. That would be much more appropriate, given the significance of the changes that will have been made by the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. There is a range of issues here that cannot wait five years to be reviewed. The amendment proposing a review after two years would be far more acceptable. I also want to draw the attention of Ministers to reports produced by this House way back in 2002, when the European Union Select Committee reviewed drinking and driving legislation and compared it with that of other European countries. The report pressed the case for the limit to be reduced to 50 milligrammes. The puritan Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe chaired that committee, so I recall it very well indeed. We must keep raising these issues, although time may pass by without speedy implementation.
It was interesting that when I was pulling out my papers on this issue, I came across a press cutting with the headline:
“MPs and peers cast eye on Lords reform”.
The article continued:
“A committee on Lords reform is today expected to seek to allay fears that the issue has been kicked into the long grass by agreeing a timetable to put forward proposals by October”.
That article was dated 9 July, 2002.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, given that Clause 125 is totally composed of reviews, I wanted to add a word on the review of ministerial guidance. I do that absolutely in the spirit of Amendment 241C, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in terms of acceleration.
Much of the way in which the Licensing Act 2003 has been interpreted has been by virtue of ministerial guidance required under Section 182 of that Act. While the currently proposed legislative changes to that Act have been widely welcomed, they will take time to bed down. If the ministerial guidance were immediately to be reviewed and rewritten—it was last reviewed in November 2010; it has been a running process since 2003—subject to public consultation, many of the concerns addressed in the coalition Government’s consultation could be dealt with by providing more balanced guidance to licensing authorities to support them in getting to grips as soon as possible with the adverse effects of licensing.
In terms of involving the community, there should be an explicit statement in the guidance that local people and their representatives have an important locus in formulating policies, and that the invitation to consult on local licensing policy should ideally be simple and jargon-free, backed up by something like a crystal mark. However, the best way to involve the community more is to improve public awareness of licence applications. The Government could help by revising the currently very prescriptive rules for advertising applications that often do not work. I give an example that was, I think, mentioned in our previous debates. There are fewer and fewer local newspapers, and the advertisements in them are usually in tiny print on inside pages. The responsibility for advertising the applications should be passed to licensing authorities that can decide the most effective way to advertise applications, including circulating notices by post, on the basis of full recovery from the applicant of their reasonable costs.
What I am about to say may go beyond the scope of this clause, but it would help greatly if local councils, in response to representations from the public and responsible authorities, were to be allowed to introduce policies controlling the cumulative impact of licensed premises—such a provision was precluded from the 2003 Act—whereby the licensing authority can prevent a build-up of problems, rather than waiting until they have occurred.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, those of us involved in this debate for some time are beginning to recognise there is a risk of Brookes to the right and Brookes to the left addressing us from slightly different perspectives, but with the common cause of improving the legislation. We should be careful to get our Brookes in the right order. We must also be careful, as we debate these issues, not to fall into the camps of the puritans or nannies. Labels are hard to get right on this. This group of amendments is particularly odd. It includes an important technical amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. We should also be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for allowing us to debate drink-driving.
When I considered this issue some time ago, the wisdom that emerged from those who were looking at it was that the problem of drink-driving largely affected the older generations who had perhaps grown up when social conditions were different, whereas the young had got the message that you did not drink and drive. It was a bit like the success of the seat belt campaigns that resulted, after time and effort put in all round, in everyone, or at least the younger generation, getting the hang of the fact that you had to put your seat belt on as you got into the car.
Certainly, I do not have any problem with that; my children do not seem to either. They do that immediately. We borrow from that in the sense that the younger generations picked up that you do not drink and drive; it was something that you just did not do. They organised who was going to drive when they went out. The problem came with the elderly and retired, who perhaps felt that they could hold their drink and drive. The evidence that we have heard today, especially from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is that that is not the case: far too much drink-driving is going on among those groups who previously have not done so. The figures are simply horrific. The catalogue of deaths is too much.
It is not just those who are driving. We have heard in this and earlier debates of the collateral damage caused by drinking. Those who drive cars where other people have been drinking find themselves less able to concentrate and drive well. Pedestrians and others who are not involved may also run into trouble.
The evidence is compelling. If you add to that the sense that the younger generation are taking harder drinks, spirits rather than softer drinks such as wines and beers, I wonder whether we have this the right way round. Should we not hear the argument for allowing people to drink and drive, rather than debating whether there is a safe limit at which people can drink and drive?
I realise that I am stepping a little further than my party has previously been on this, but we are in the delightful situation of having a policy review, so I am taking advantage of what I assume is a blank piece of paper. I sense a little support from my Back Benches. The evidence points us in one way, and we should examine the issue more carefully than simply trying to debate the niceties—although I accept that it is a serious point—of whether 80 milligrammes is right or whether it should be lower for younger people. Perhaps the Minister can add that to the list of issues that she will tackle while she remains in post—which in some ways I hope is not a long time, but long enough to allow her to make some progress here. Driving is a social condition to which we have a permissive approach, and we would not want to change that, but we recognise that matters such as the use of seat belts, phones, drugs, cigarettes and drinks all impact on safety. As a licence is issued to people to drive, it should be accompanied by other measures. The Minister is already building up a list, so I look forward to hearing her comments.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, Amendment 241ZC would amend Clause 123, which deals with local licensing policy statements, to amend the separate provisions in the Licensing Act 2003 about the composition of a licensing sub-committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for his letter to my noble friend Lady Browning giving us advance warning of his contribution today. I understand that he has a specific concern that some sub-committees may be sitting with fewer than three members. We believe that the law is clear on this point, but I assure him that the guidance will clarify that sub-committees with fewer than three members sitting will not be quorate.
Clause 125 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to review the effect of those clauses in Part 2 that impose a regulatory burden on businesses or civil society organisations. This follows the Government's commitment in the coalition agreement to,
“impose ‘sunset clauses' on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed”.
My noble friend asks when the statutory guidance required under Section 182 will next be reviewed. I hope that he will be reassured when I say that we will be making a substantial revision of the guidance as part of the process of implementing the Bill after Royal Assent. I can also confirm that the statutory review will consider the effects of the measures on the scheme established by the Licensing Act, including consequential amendments to secondary legislation and guidance. We also intend to make regulations requiring licensing authorities to advertise applications on their websites. They must already do so in the case of reviews.
Amendments 241A and 241B would include the effect of drink-driving in the statutory review. They would also commit the Government to changing the law on drink-driving in particular ways if the review demonstrated an increase in drink-driving. I must say at the outset that I appreciate the intention behind these amendments. I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to take further action to tackle drink-driving, building on the long-term reductions we have seen in the toll of road casualties that it causes.
However, the proposed amendment would be difficult to implement in practice. It is not feasible to have an alcohol limit of zero, suggested by paragraph (b) in both Amendments 241A and 241B, for a particular class of drivers, because it is sometimes possible to detect the presence of alcohol in the bodies of people who have not consumed alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, it would be difficult to link any changes to the incidence of drink-driving directly to the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, it is challenging even to measure the incidence of drink-driving. It is not self-reported and offence data are influenced by enforcement practices.
The Government recently responded to an independent review with a package of measures to improve the effectiveness of the existing drink-drive limit. We have decided not to change that limit, for the reasons I have given: that would impose social and economic costs that are not matched by potential benefits. I also point out that other countries may have a lower limit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, but even then they do not necessarily have a better record on reducing drink-drive casualties.
However, we consider this to be a very important area. We have announced a range of measures in the new strategic framework for road safety to help the police enforce the law against drink-driving more efficiently. These include: removing the option for drivers who fail an evidential breath test by 40 per cent or less to request a blood or urine test; mandating drink-drive rehabilitation courses for disqualified drink-drivers; and developing portable evidential digital breathalysers to make it possible for the police to get evidence at the roadside and other locations.
We do not suggest that any given quantity of alcohol is safe. To some extent, I am in line with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on that point. Our message is clear: do not drink and drive. If motorists do not take that advice and exceed the limit, they deserve stiff penalties.
Amendment 241C, introduced by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, would require the Government to review the effect of the clauses after two years. The review date of five years, for which the Bill provides, fulfils the Government's commitment to review new primary legislation that imposes a regulatory burden on businesses or civil society organisations. This timescale has been established as a standard period across different review processes, including the post-legislative scrutiny we are addressing here. We have also announced our intention to review the parts of the alcohol measures that are not subject to statutory requirement in the same five-year period.
Furthermore, if there are warning signs that the legislation is having unintended consequences, nothing in the Bill prevents an earlier review on an exceptional basis. Such a review might be triggered, for example, if evidence from the licensed trade or civic society organisations demonstrates that a measure in the Bill is causing significant harm not matched by any benefits in targeting alcohol-related problems.
However, it would be a mistake to impose a two-year review as a statutory requirement. Five years has been established as a guideline supported by the practical justification of the need to gather sufficient information to enable the effect of the regulation to be properly understood. The production of statistics necessarily lags some time behind events, so a review within two years risks having too little information available on which to base its conclusions. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment and remarks. I am never quite sure whether the penultimate “a” in the geographical title of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is a long “a” or a short “a”, so I shall simply refer to him as Lord Stevenson.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
For the avoidance of doubt, I refer the noble Lord to the Companion. He really ought to try it, because there are two Lord Stevensons, and it would be very confusing for me if he were in some way confusing me with the other Lord Stevenson, as the noble Lord did with Lord Brooke earlier.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I am grateful for that correction. I shall therefore refer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and he can tell me afterwards if I am right.
The noble Lord alluded to the contributions made by me and my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Investing $20 with a particular printer in the midwest gave me the telephone numbers of 18,000 people called Brooke spelt in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and I spell it. I demonstrated that 5,000 of that 18,000—much the largest phalanx—were in West Yorkshire. By definition the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is much more senior to myself. Only one-eighth of my blood is from West Yorkshire, but three-eighths is from Ulster, which in Gilbertian language passes for Yorkshire in the dusk with the light behind you, and indeed vice versa.
My principal gratitude is to my noble friend the Minister whose answers were entirely satisfactory and I am extremely grateful for them. I feel bad about adding one question to him. I am delighted to hear that the guidance will insist that licensing authorities print the applications on their website. However, that still leaves open the question that I raised with him under Clause 106 last week, on which he very kindly said he would write to me, about the difference between 28 days after the application is received and 28 days after the application is put on the website. I hope that I will get an encouraging answer on that subject between now and when the guidance is issued. I am grateful to him for nodding his head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“( ) Nothing in this Chapter applies to holders of club premises certificates.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we now move to the very important part of the Bill relating to the late-night levy. The House may be relieved to hear that I shall speak extremely briefly to Amendment 241CA and to Amendments 241EA, 241GA, 241GB, 241KA, 241MZA and 241SA. The arguments about private members’ clubs have been made already under the EMRO discussion.
The Minister said there are clubs and clubs, but the arguments are very powerful for private members’ clubs to be dealt with differently under the EMRO and the late-night levy provisions. I hope that the Minister will give that further thought since private members’ clubs have a self-regulatory process, and if that process is not properly operative then they should not receive private members’ club premises certificates. It is as simple as that. They are subject to greater regulation than ordinary licensed premises and for that very reason should be excluded from the operation of the late-night levy.
Moving on to the next group of amendments, Amendments 241D, 241E, 241F, 241G, 241L and 241M, I am afraid that I will be slightly longer. Amendment 241D extends the ability of licensing authorities to determine the extent of the geographical spread of the levy area so that it need not apply to the whole local authority area. This is one of the great weaknesses of this provision for the late-night levy. It is a very blunt instrument, dealing with the whole of a local authority area.
Amendment 241E deals with Clause 126(4), which prohibits the licensing authority from applying the levy as it is currently stated in only part of its area. Removing this provision would allow licensing authorities to designate a particular town or city centre within its control as being liable for the late-night levy rather than being totally broad-brush in its approach. A large number of trade organisations are particularly concerned about the untargeted nature of the proposed late-night levy. A licensing authority may not decide that the late-night levy requirement is to apply only in part of its area, which means that community pubs in particular will be affected by a requirement which is presumably really aimed at addressing the challenges in town and city centres. The power can only be applied across a licensing authority district as a whole rather than a specific area, and its untargeted nature means that many responsible businesses will be caught.
A late-night levy can be imposed irrespective of whether a bar is a source of disturbance. Ultimately it is unfair that any licensed premises operating in a responsible manner should have to pay such a charge when the best course of action would be specifically to tackle the irresponsible operator or indeed individual members of the public who cause problems.
The Government justify this measure on the basis that the easiest, most effective way of dealing with the issue is to go for the whole council route because it is viewed as less bureaucratic, and that the levy must be attractive to licensing authorities by being simple to introduce. However, we must not put the levy on to properly run businesses. If they are forced by a combination of the levy and EMROs to close at midnight, as I said to an earlier amendment, this will simply mean that young people will spill out on the streets at 11 pm, as they always used to do, which is clearly not going to be conducive to public order. It is patently unfair, as was pointed out in Committee in the other place, to impose a charge on a business which may be 20 miles away from the source of the problem, and it cannot be justified.
It is understood that premises could apply to the licensing authority to reduce their hours without being charged a fee but it should be recognised that this option still places a cost on businesses, not just in their management time or legal fees in making such an application but also in potential lost revenue from reducing the trading time of their business.
Moving on to Amendment 241F, the levy will be applicable to any premises holding a licence to sell alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003 if it is open for just one day after the time stipulated in the late-night levy, which will most likely be midnight. This means that any pub, hotel, restaurant and so on which has permission to sell alcohol, even on just one night in the year, will become liable for the levy, and this will catch many venues with restricted late-night opening to cover such events as New Year’s Eve and bank holidays. That is the reason for inserting “15” instead of “one” in this amendment.
Amendment 241G is very similar to a previous amendment on EMROs. It ensures that premises that open late only once a year on New Year’s Eve are not required to pay the levy. This would alleviate an unnecessary cost burden on thousands of small pub businesses which would otherwise have to pay the levy. The Bill makes provision to impose a late-night levy on all premises licensed to sell alcohol between midnight and 6 am. The levy would be imposed at the licensing authority’s discretion across the entire local authority area. The funds raised would cover the costs of policing and other arrangements for the reduction or prevention of crime and disorder in connection with the supply of alcohol between midnight and 6 am. As it stands, the late-night levy unfairly penalises responsible retailers by applying to all licence holders and not just those who trade irresponsibly by contributing to alcohol-related disorder. This new measure will indeed introduce further costs for responsible businesses when powers to deal with irresponsible traders already exist.
I move on to Amendment 241L. As the Bill stands, licensing authorities could introduce an early-morning restriction order beginning at 12.30 am and running through to 6 am, and impose a levy on all premises that remained open until 12.30 am. Surely it is not intended that this combination of EMRO and levy should punish those caught out in this way. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendments 241DA, 241H, 241J, 241K, 241N, 241R and 241S in this group. There is a concern that the late-night levy will not be used very much because of the bureaucracy and costs involved in the scheme, and because only a few local authorities have enough late-night venues to make it worth them running the scheme. We wait to see but, again, my concern is about central prescription.
I understand that the Government regard the levy as a tax and so say that it must be prescribed centrally. I wonder whether that is a bit circular. Can you be a bit circular? You either are or you are not—perhaps it is elliptical. If a local authority had discretion regarding the amount of the levy to reflect the costs, would that make it a charge rather than a tax? Therefore, to mix my metaphors, I am not sure which is egg and which is chicken in all this, but I firmly believe that the levy should be locally determined on the basis of full cost recovery.
I asked the Local Government Association about the costs associated with late-night operation, and your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the list includes things such as street cleansing, taxi marshals and clearing up in the widest way after the large amount of activity late at night.
The consultation with local authorities on the regulations that relate to all this will be very important but there is a big cost. Because of that, I have transposed the 70:30 split so that in my amendment 70 per cent goes to local authorities to deal with things such as community safety initiatives, regulatory costs and other matters which I have already mentioned. After all, although I know that the police, too, could do with lots more money, they are already funded for areas of high-priority policing. The LGA has commented to me that police commissioners will be attracted to the idea of acquiring 70 per cent of the levy and may place significant pressure on their local authority to bring in the scheme. However, how the police’s 70 per cent should be spent or, perhaps more importantly, where, is not specified. The money could be raised in one area of the police force but used in another.
Amendment 241D reflects the concern of my noble friend in his amendment that local authority areas are not homogenous. If this new power is to be brought in it would be sensible for it to be focused and directed. Amendment 241H would take out the prescription of the amount of the levy. It is fair enough for it to be calculated by way of the formula, which is what Clause 129(1)(b) provides, but not the amount—Clause 129(1)(a) refers to that. I mentioned the 30:70 split which is referred to in Amendment 241N. Amendments 241R and 241S are about prescription and Amendment 241K is a proposed new clauseto provide a power for each licensing authority toset the levy for the reasons to which I have already alluded.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we seem to be running into a little more difficulty with this group of amendments in terms of what the Bill is trying to achieve, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although, you can see where this idea has come from in the sense of the additional costs and other burdens on those with responsibilities in licensing areas, it seems to be a rather overbureaucratic approach. The overlap with the EMRO is not clear to understand—that point has already been made by other noble Lords. The reason why some aspects of this form of imposition are centrally determined and run by the Home Office and some are left to local areas is not at all clear. There is a problem about the scale and extent to which in any authority it would be sufficiently worth while for the licensing authority to introduce a local levy of this type. The case has yet to be made for a late-night levy.
Alongside that runs the argument that businesses already contribute to the community through their business rates. A proportion of revenue from business rates goes to fund local police and fire services—indeed all services—that will be drawn on in the sense that the Bill addresses this point. It seems to us that the late-night levy unfairly penalises responsible retailers by applying a levy to all licence holders and not just those who are trading irresponsibly. Funds raised in out-of-town centre premises will finance additional policing and other measures targeted at the late-night disorder in town centres because that is where it happens. Is it really fair for a village shopkeeper to pay for reducing disorder that they could not possibly have caused?
Businesses that sell alcohol and put on live music contribute to the community through their licence fees. Licence fees for selling alcohol and for regulated entertainment reflect the costs to the licensing authority of administration and enforcement of the licence. The point has been argued before and we think that it is fair. The proposed late-night levy would be a third tax—an additional cost and a stealth tax on the ability to operate at odd times of the day and night. It would affect small music venues that operate past midnight with entirely disproportionate consequences.
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the CBI said recently that the late-night levy proposal contradicts the Government’s ambition for the creative industries to provide a key pillar of growth in the economic recovery and seems to be undoing some of the Government’s good work in supporting small live music venues.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, it might be appropriate if I begin by reminding the House that the late-night levy was a coalition commitment that we would permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing. Unlike other measures that we have discussed so far in relation to this licensing section of the Bill, which specifically give more tools to licensing authorities to deal with the problems that they experience with crime and disorder related to drinking and alcohol, this clause is quite different. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, asked in our debate on an earlier amendment whether there was a change in the Government’s approach to this. If I say yes, it is clearly demonstrated in this particular clause because the clause is not about a measure under which licensing authorities would intervene to address specific problems of alcohol consumption. This is exactly what it says on the packet; it is a tax that is specifically for the repayment to the public services funded by taxpayers for the on-costs that they incur as a result of the late-night economy.
I welcome the opportunity to put on record the principles and thinking behind this levy. First, the levy, as set out in the existing framework, will provide a much needed power for licensing authorities. It will allow them to raise a valuable contribution toward policing costs resulting from the late-night supply of alcohol. To meet this purpose, it must be paid by all who profit from the practice, wherever they are placed. Secondly, the levy will be simple for licensing authorities to adopt; I do not agree that it will be bureaucratic. Thirdly, and finally, the levy will be a fair and proportionate contribution from businesses to enforcement costs. Processes will be transparent and local services will be accountable. In many of our towns and cities, the police experience considerable costs in keeping the late-night environment safe. Alcohol-related crime and disorder are rarely isolated to specific premises. Those on a night out will often visit a variety of premises. Just as businesses share the benefits of customers moving around, they should also share some of the costs generated by the supply of alcohol late at night.
The application of the levy must be as wide as possible. It will be paid by all businesses that profit from supplying alcohol late at night, subject to some exemptions and reductions. On this point, I will consider the lead amendment in the group. A wide variety of premises operate under club premises certificates. Removing all liability would exclude contributions from many businesses that also profit from selling alcohol in the late-night environment. We will consider exemptions and reductions in consultation before writing secondary legislation. I hope to explore the different types of business that operate under a club premises certificate before preparing our consultation. Therefore, we should not put this blanket exemption in the Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that I did not mean to be flippant in my earlier remark about club premises. I hope he will take it from me that while club premises benefit from the late-night economy, I accept that there are different types of clubs and I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that we will consider very carefully in consultation the exemptions and reductions before secondary legislation is introduced.
If we gave a licensing authority the power to target the levy on a specific part of its area, this, too, would mean that fewer businesses would contribute. This would risk the levy raising barely enough to cover administrative costs and failing in its objective of raising a meaningful amount for the police. That is what we intend to do where the levy is applied: raise a meaningful amount of money for the police, who in turn must cover the costs of policing.
I am aware of concern that the levy is not sufficiently targeted. However, we must be clear that it is not designed to target specific pockets of crime and disorder. Clauses and amendments that we debated earlier focused on the need for the licensing authority to have the flexibility to target and focus on the areas that it deems have problems. The levy is not about that; it is about raising money for the police. I am still committed to helping communities tackle areas with specific alcohol-related problems, and I hope that other measures in the Bill will address that. We have already discussed early-morning restriction orders, which are there to address those sorts of problems. This power will enable licensing authorities to restrict the sale of alcohol in specific areas, at specific problem times on specific days. We have addressed the need to enhance the powers of the licensing authority, but that is not the purpose of the amendment.
Many other changes have been proposed in the amendments, and many ideas expressed. Some amendments would remove the burden of licensing authority accountability processes. The processes are necessary; licensing authorities should not worry about incurring costs from introducing the levy. They can deduct their administrative expenses from the levy receipts. As well as the levy funding the additional costs—not total or hypothecated costs, but as a contribution to the overall cost of policing—there is a facility for the local authority to deduct its administrative expenses from levy receipts.
Baroness Hamwee
I shall make two points on the Minister’s comments. First, she said that the standard level of the levy needs to be set nationally to ensure that there is a proportionate contribution from business. Is it not the case that there will be different costs in different areas? That is in the nature of the diversity of the country and of local authorities. Therefore, to set a standard levy may not reflect that diversity.
My second point is about Part 1—that seems so long ago that I wrote down the title of the Bill and then realised that we are still on it. We talked a lot about the need for police forces and local authorities to work in collaboration and co-operation, and I hope we will come back to this on report. In proposing that more resources go to local authorities, perhaps the Government will see that in the context of local authorities working with their police forces to deal with the impact of some of the difficulties arising from the late-night economy.
Baroness Browning
I hope I can reassure my noble friend that this levy has been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late-night enforcement costs. As such, we believe they should receive the majority of the levy revenue after administrative expenses have been deducted. The local authority now works with the police and in future will work with the police and crime commissioner, so there will be a very close working relationship between the two to identify whether a licensing authority wishes to apply the levy.
My noble friend mentioned disproportionality in the levy charges. They have yet to be set. We have published only indicative figures. We currently plan to structure the levy charges on the existing licence fee bands, which, as my noble friend will know, are predicated upon the rateable value, so although this will be nationally set, it will be indicative of regional differences in bandings. In that way, we hope to have fairness and proportionality in the way in which the charges are structured.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I found to be rather a curate’s egg. Of course, I accept that the levy proposal was in essence contained in the coalition agreement. She will notice that no clause stand part debate is proposed from this or any side of the House. I do not think there is a great quarrel around the House with the principle of the levy. Certainly, I did not pick that up during the debate. It is all about the way in which the levy will operate and the interrelationship with EMROs. In particular, it is about the nature of the exemptions and the blanket nature of the levy.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister in the consultation will reflect the different types of clubs and will specifically look for different types of exemption, which is welcome. I would never apply the word “dusty” to this Minister’s replies, but I did think that the Home Office is erecting quite a brick wall to the idea that one can be rather more flexible about the way in which the levy operates. I know that the Minister said that it was not a crime and disorder provision but was all about policing. However, it seems grossly unfair that in a local authority with a mixture of rural and urban, the rural pubs, many of which are struggling, have to pay a levy when they will not see a policeman in a million years. Why on earth should they pay for this?
A huge issue is involved, which seems contradictory. This Government are, I think, the first Government to appoint a Minister with responsibility for community pubs, which was a great thing. He is doing a great job but in a rather different department from the Home Office. However, the policy does not seem to be joined up. Here we have a great deal of work going on in DCLG about planning and the various aspects of the survival of the community pub. We have the Government in a very welcome fashion supporting a Private Member’s Bill that I have put forward about live music, which is designed to preserve the community pub, and certainly the smaller community pub, in many ways. However, here we are with a provision that will directly impact on them if their local authority is a large one that includes a lively, to say the least, city centre. That is a major problem.
Baroness Browning
I have heard what my noble friend says, and I of course understand the situation for rural pubs, having represented 650 square miles of rural Devon for nearly 20 years. I will take away what he has said. I cannot make any promises today, but I hope he will remember that I said that there would be a consultation on exemptions. The point that he has made today will be noted.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I knew that if I carried on talking for long enough she might respond. I will have to use that technique on more occasions. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Accountability of police
(1) The local police force must provide a written report to the local authority at the end of each levy year where a levy is applied to the local authority area.
(2) The report is to be submitted to the local authority within 12 weeks of the end of the levy period.
(3) The report must contain—
(a) details of the amount received through the levy and the amount spent by the police in policing the areas covered by the late night levy during the hours that it applies; and(b) details of the impact of the levy on crime and disorder in the area covered by the levy.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I can be brief on this amendment and Amendment 241Q, which is grouped with it. These new clauses would ensure that there is accountability for the funds raised and distributed to the police and the licensing authority, which are not obliged under the Bill as it stands to apply the moneys to the late night levy area. They are able to use the funds within their general expenses as they see fit. These proposed new clauses will ensure that those who are subject to the levy are informed about the application of the funds, which are to deliver improvements in the area to which they are applied. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, while other amendments have tried to reduce administrative processes, these two amendments attempt to add a publishing requirement on the police and the licensing authorities. I hope that noble Lords will agree that transparency already exists in the late night levy design. I believe that the levy will achieve an appropriate level of transparency and no further reports are required. We will require licensing authorities to consult on proposals and publish the expenses they incur in administering the levy. The police are being reformed to make them more accountable.
Let me deal first with the police. The money given to the police from the late night levy will go into the police fund for the force area and be subject to the relevant scrutiny processes. We believe that it will be a waste of police resources and unnecessary bureaucracy to require the police to provide a report for the levy spend in particular. Further checks and balances will exist under police and crime commissioners. The PCC will be publicly scrutinised by the police and crime panel. Any data used in that scrutiny will be made public unless they are operationally sensitive, and PCCs will also be subject to freedom of information provisions.
With regard to the licensing authority, transparency is provided in the pre-levy consultation process. This consultation will consider, among other things, the services which the licensing authority intends to provide from its levy revenue. The authority will then write to all affected premises to inform them of its final decision. The public will not need yet another publication setting out how the licensing authority spends the levy funds. Further, the Bill will require licensing authorities to publish a statement of the administration expenses which they have deducted from the levy revenue. The licensing authority, as an integral part of the council, is of course accountable to the public.
The late night levy is light on administration and process. It has been designed as a contribution towards policing costs from those who profit from the sale of alcohol in the late night. To require an assessment of the impact of the levy on crime and disorder, as these amendments seek, would confuse the objective of the late night levy with tools such as early morning restriction orders which, as I have already mentioned in response to previous amendments, are specifically designed to tackle particular pockets of alcohol-related crime and disorder. I believe that necessary transparency is adequately provided for to ensure that levy receipts are spent in an appropriate way.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quite complex and useful response. Her argument is that there are many ways, other than those provided by the amendment, in which transparency is achieved. The amendment also seeks accountability, which is also an important principle that is involved. I shall read what the Minister said extremely carefully and consider whether the existing framework is adequate to explain what the levy is devoted to, and how useful it is in the context. I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. It would be easy to spend time talking about some of the schemes that would justify an appropriate discount. However, I shall first move Amendment 241T. By a strange quirk of grouping, the Minister has already partly responded on the concept of a discount for these community-type schemes. The effect of these amendments would be to require the levy to be reduced by 50 per cent per premises participating in well established, recognised corporate responsibility initiatives—specifically, Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch, community alcohol partnerships and other similar watch initiatives, all of which demonstrably reduce the incidence of crime and disorder in town centres. These could be undermined if participating businesses were required to fund all these bespoke schemes and a more general levy. To acknowledge the contribution and investment that industry has made to improving standards and addressing challenges in the night-time economy, particularly in town and city centres, it is therefore appropriate that these high-profile initiatives are identified in the Bill as requiring a reduced levy. This will also safeguard the initiatives themselves and encourage further take-up in areas where such partnership approaches do not yet exist.
I dare say that many of us have received correspondence from some of the projects, particularly the business improvement districts. I have received several of those. The Nottinghamshire Leisure business improvement district experience is extremely interesting. Some of the correspondence relates to the community alcohol partnerships, which have also been very successful. I understand that the Government plan to recognise in guidance, and perhaps in regulation, the nature of these schemes and the fact that they will receive discounts. However, I hope that they can be a little more forward in the Bill by recognising that that will definitely be provided for. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I support the previous speech and the amendments that it introduced. On this side of the House, we believe that premises that work with the police and local authorities to minimise crime and disorder should qualify for a reduction in the late night levy. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it would be helpful if this could be put in the Bill, not just because we like to see things in legislation but because it is so important that we recognise what they are doing.
In many cases, for example, these venues are safe havens for young people. If you put young people in a protected environment rather than having them out on the streets you are doing some public good. In a sense, that is something that we want to encourage and we would be grateful if it could be considered in that way. Well run and responsible venues already participate in voluntary schemes to combat anti-social behaviour, and if they are forced to close at midnight to avoid the levy then they will effectively be throwing their young clientele out of a safe venue onto the streets.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, licensing authorities will have the discretion to decide which of the exemption and reduction categories they will apply in their application of the levy. Although I am unable to accept these amendments, I welcome their overall intention. It is precisely these types of premises and the schemes that they run that we want to consider for reductions from the levy charge. However, the amendments would prejudge our public consultation on exemptions and reductions, which we will introduce through regulations.
We have already begun the design of that consultation through a number of working groups, with representatives of the trade, licensing authorities and the police. I would urge noble Lords to await this consultation so that we might have the opportunity fully to consider the views of our partners. There are many schemes, such as the ones mentioned this afternoon, that allow the business community to work together to address some of the negative effects of the sale of alcohol in the night-time economy. I support the principle that drives these local initiatives. However, there is a range of such initiatives and we need to consider the breadth of these schemes and how we might define workable categories for reductions. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which gives all the right signals in terms of the kind of scheme that would be included. Of course, I was trying to prejudge the consultation to a degree, but I elicited a response from the Minister that is helpful.
Having reached the last amendment dealing with the licensing and levy in Part 2, I must say that an awful lot of weight is now being borne on the consultation. On many occasions replying to groups of amendments today, the Minister has relied on the efficacy and fairness of that consultation to business, particularly, but also to residents and local authorities. I hope that she gets it right because it is of huge significance that the balance and outcome of that consultation are fair. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Southern Cross
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer given earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for care services to an Urgent Question tabled in another place about the steps that the Government are taking regarding Southern Cross Healthcare. The Statement is as follows.
“The Government have made it very clear that the welfare of residents living in Southern Cross homes is paramount. We appreciate that recent events and media speculation have caused concern to residents in Southern Cross care homes and their relatives and families. I very much regret that. I would like to assure everybody that no one will find themselves homeless or without care. The Government will not stand by and let that happen.
Department of Health officials have been in frequent contact with Southern Cross’s senior management over the last three months and that will continue. We are engaged with the company, the landlords and lenders and are monitoring the situation closely. The Government are acting to ensure that all parties involved are working towards swift resolution, with a comprehensive plan for the future which must have the welfare of residents at its heart. It is for Southern Cross, its landlords and those with an interest in the business to put in place a plan that stabilises the business and ensures operational continuity of the care homes. That work is happening and we must let it continue. Let me be very clear: this is a commercial sector problem and we look to the commercial sector to solve it. All the business interests understand their responsibilities. The Government are also working closely with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association, local authorities and the CQC to ensure that robust local arrangements are in place to address the consequences in the event that the company’s restructuring plan failed to put the business on a stable footing.
Yesterday, a meeting took place between Southern Cross, lenders and the landlords’ committee. They agreed to work together to deliver a consensual solution to the company’s current financial problems over the next four months. They also made clear that the continuity and quality of care to all 31,000 residents will be maintained and every resident will be well looked after. This is a welcome development and the Government are encouraged by this positive agreement by the main stakeholders. The exact details of the restructuring plan over the next four months will be set out over the next few days and the following weeks. The Government will continue to keep close contact with the process. I will keep the House informed.
Local authorities have a duty to provide care to anyone who has an urgent need for it. All parties are aware of their roles and responsibilities should that happen and will take decisive action to ensure that no resident is left homeless or without care. The statement released yesterday provides further reassurance that the continuity of care of the residents is at the centre of the consensual restructuring agreement”.
That concludes the Statement.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Answer to the Question raised in the other place. While news of yesterday’s agreement is welcome and will, I hope, reassure Southern Cross’s residents and their families, a number of questions arise.
First, it is understand that Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs is a major creditor. Has it been involved in the discussions and is it comfortable with the outcome to date? Secondly, will the Government ensure that both they and the Local Government Association—representing the interests of many of the residents, including but not limited to those who are publically funded—will be involved in any further discussions over the future of the company’s operations? Thirdly, what steps if any have the Government taken or will they take in relation to the company’s workforce, for whom this is also a most anxious time? According to today’s Times, 42,500 of them have already had their contracts ripped up and are facing the prospect of 3,000 jobs being lost.
As for the underlying, systemic issue, do not these events underline the folly of the previous Conservative Government in effectively driving local authorities out of the provision of residential care by deliberately financially disincentivising such provision in favour of the private sector? Can it be healthy for five or six private companies to dominate the market to the extent of around 36 per cent, with Southern Cross alone supplying 31,000 out of 170,000 places? Is it not totally unacceptable for frail and vulnerable elderly people to be treated like commodities, to be bought and sold as part of some ingenious financial engineering?
Did not Mr Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, have a point, as reported in the Telegraph, when he singled out for criticism the UK model of privatised social hair combs—sorry, I meant to say care homes; I am not too familiar with combs these days. He went on to say that privatisation, “is not the solution”, with a high number of privatised care homes in crisis. Is he not right to express concerns that,
“the quality of services in these homes had ‘deteriorated to a worrying degree’”,
and that companies,
“running the care homes have reduced services in order to remain solvent”?
The Answer to the Question proclaims:
“this is a commercial sector problem and we look to the commercial sector to solve it”.
Is that not too narrow—one might almost say, too much like an accountant’s view of the problem? Would not the Minister agree that this is first and foremost a health and social care issue? Is not the commercial aspect very much part of the problem? Does not this in fact send out warning signals in relation to the role of the private sector in the provision of healthcare and whatever emerges as the reborn Health and Social Care Bill?
Finally, will the Government support and encourage co-operative, mutual and third sector organisations to engage in the future running of at least some of the Southern Cross care homes, if the rescue package does not succeed? In the longer term and in any event, will they promote a mixed economy of such care provision across the country to include local authorities and the private, voluntary and community sectors?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments and questions. He asked a number of the latter. First, he asked specifically about the HMRC. I asked that question myself of my officials. It is quite clear that any discussion with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has to be a matter for the company. HMRC makes its own judgments in any discussions with companies. It is a separate statutory body; it may not be lobbied by another government department, nor is it at liberty to discuss the detail of individual company tax affairs with anyone outside HMRC. So it is very much in the hands of the company if it so chooses to enter into the kinds of discussions to which the noble Lord alluded.
The noble Lord asked whether the LGA would be involved in the discussions over the company’s future. As is clear from the Statement, we regard the primary agents in this matter as being the company, its landlords and the lenders involved. They are the people on whose shoulders a restructuring plan depends. Nevertheless, he is right to suggest that the LGA is important in this context; it is involved with the discussions that we have had and will continue to have for some time—not only with the LGA, but with ADAS and the CQC, as well as the representatives of providers—to work through and define better the responsibilities of each party involved, so that if problems arise at a local level, either in this context or in any other similar context, the response will be appropriate. It is important to have that clarity of responsibility.
The noble Lord asked about the Southern Cross workforce. The key point here is the safety and well-being of the residents. We tasked the CQC to enter into discussions with Southern Cross when it announced redundancies the other day. The CQC’s role is to ensure that all care homes meet essential standards of quality and safety and it has confirmed that it will continue to require Southern Cross to demonstrate that all its homes are meeting these essential standards. Any failure to do so may result in enforcement action. I cannot go beyond that and comment on the prospects for the continued employment of the current workforce. All I would say is that the agreement reached yesterday will dispel a great deal of the uncertainty that they must have been feeling in recent days, because we now have the prospect of stability and certainty over the next few months as Southern Cross continues as a viable business with the support of its lenders and landlords.
The noble Lord moved on to suggest that it was the policies adopted by a previous Conservative Government in encouraging a diverse and plural market for care home provision that has brought us to this pass. I am slightly surprised to hear him say that because I think that one benefit of that policy has been a much greater array of choice open to individuals than there was before—and indeed a choice not just of location but of quality. To cite the problems of Southern Cross as a confounding factor to that is, I think, unfair. The problem with Southern Cross is not the quality of the provision of care but its business model.
I do not think that there has been any suggestion that the residents of Southern Cross homes have, as a generality, been badly looked after; rather, the issue is that the business model that the directors of Southern Cross adopted was unsustainable. We hope that the restructuring that is now apparently in prospect will address that and that the company can carry on giving the care that it has always done to its residents. Nevertheless, as we said last week when we had a Question in your Lordships' House on this topic, and in reply to the noble Lord’s comment about individuals being treated as a business commodity—if I may rephrase his question—that is of course a distasteful idea. To the extent that that has happened, we must acknowledge it. All I would say is that it has not affected the care that those residents have received. If it has disadvantaged anyone, it has been the shareholders.
The noble Lord suggested that because the Statement made it clear that we regard this as a commercial matter for the commercial organisations to solve, therefore this is not a health and social care issue. Again, that is a little unfair. The Government do not for one minute shirk their own responsibilities in this matter. We have been absolutely at the front in encouraging all parties to come together to reach this consensual agreement, to place the interests of the residents first and to put aside private interests and prejudices as much as possible. It is very encouraging that the statement issued yesterday did just that. There is consensus between the key parties that the interests of the residents are at the front of their minds. The restructuring is something that they are aiming to work through in as short a time as possible. I believe that that is cause for encouragement.
The noble Lord asked about the future and what might happen, not only in the case of Southern Cross but, I took him to mean, in the care sector generally. I am sure that as we go forward, if all goes well, we will see the kind of diverse market emerging in care home ownership that we have in domiciliary care where, as the noble Lord will be aware, there is a very diverse range of ownership by social enterprises, charities and private organisations of one kind or another that provide domiciliary care. There is scope to make the residential care home sector equally diverse over time. However, as we do that, we need to ensure that it is not just a diverse market but a stable one. I am the first to acknowledge that lessons will need to be learnt from this sorry episode over Southern Cross. If I have failed to answer any of the noble Lord’s questions, I shall certainly make up for that in writing.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, after 13 years of a Labour Government who were not in any way reluctant to diversify the residential care market, there is an even greater plurality of providers than there ever was before. One issue that has arisen out of this case is the capacity of the CQC to evaluate the stability and viability in the long term of a company that is owned by a private equity firm. That is a complex task that might challenge even the Financial Services Authority. Does the Minister agree that in order to reach the stable and viable market that he has suggested, there is a need to look at this in a much wider sense than just this case? Does he agree that the discussions that must inevitably follow the publication of the Dilnot inquiry in July should focus on the role of private equity-funded companies in the residential care market and, as he has also suggested, in the domiciliary care market?
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises an important issue. As she knows, care providers have to be able to demonstrate to the Care Quality Commission that they have the financial resources needed to continue to provide services of the required quality. We have embarked on a wide-ranging programme of reform for social care. We are currently considering the Law Commission’s recommendations for modernising social care law and, as my noble friend mentioned, the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support is imminent. There are many lessons that have to be learnt from the events of recent weeks. We want to reflect on them as part of our wider reform agenda for social care.
On private equity finance, I simply make my own observation to my noble friend: I do not think that private equity finance is at the root of the problems that we have been seeing but the business model, which is rather a different issue. It was the choices and decisions made by the management of Southern Cross that made the business fundamentally unsustainable. I do not see that as a reflection directly on private equity providers. We have been clear that we were going to take action to ensure that there was proper oversight of the market in social care. That is why the Health and Social Care Bill specifically allows us to extend to social care, if we chose to do so, the proper financial regulatory regime that we are putting in place for the NHS. However, I suggest that regulation is not the only solution; we need to approach this in a measured way, not least because there are complex negotiations under way. We need to look at social care reform as a whole, which is exactly what we have committed to doing.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, on the question of the business model that the Minister just referred to, does not this whole sorry saga reveal how completely out of touch with the world of reality were the main board and executive directors of Three Delta, who advised the Qatar Investment Authority to spend billions buying property in the healthcare sector on the back of inflated and totally unrealistic rent levels paid by companies such as Southern Cross? Were the Qataris made aware of the huge risk involved? What were the so-called great and the good like Sir Peter Middleton, Nick Land, Sir Christopher Howes and David Mellor—a former government Minister—doing when any estate agent in the commercial property sector could have told them that the commercial care property market was both overgeared and overpriced?
Finally, will Messrs Scott, Murphy, Sizer and Colvin, formerly directors of Southern Cross, be prosecuted for insider dealing in Southern Cross shares when they privately promoted the sale of shares in the months immediately prior to their profits warning and collapse in the share price? Is this whole affair not riddled with greed and stupidity?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I fear that I am unable to answer the noble Lord’s questions, for which I apologise, but I understand why he has asked them. If I have some concise answers that I can send him, I will certainly do so by way of a letter.
I think that the noble Lord and I agree that we are looking at a fundamentally unsound business model. As I understand it, it is a unique business model in the care home sector, where a deliberate decision was taken for the company not to own its own care homes but rather to pay the rent on them. The market clearly moved against it in more than one sense. The company’s problems are partly attributable to the occupancy levels of some of their care homes. Southern Cross occupancy levels have gone down, I understand, more than those of other care homes. It is not about fee levels; other providers of residential care are not in the same position as Southern Cross. I believe that Southern Cross’s problems relate to the rental agreements—the leases—that they entered into. It is those things that the restructuring aims to fix.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Statement. I listened carefully to what he said about the need for clarity on where responsibility lay. He also stated that there were lessons to be learnt. Will he say when the Government will conclude their review of these lessons, and when and how they will make them public? With the imminent privatisation of the Royal Mail, which has a lot of property worth quite a lot of money, will the Minister say whether some lessons learnt in this exercise might be useful in the context of ensuring that we do not run into similar problems there?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would love to be able to comment on the Royal Mail, but noble Lords will be sorry to hear that I have not received the necessary briefing. On the timescale of our review, as I indicated to my noble friend Lady Barker, there are a number of elements to our review of social care policy. One is the Dilnot report, which we are expecting at the beginning of July. Another is the Law Commission report. However, a third is undoubtedly the lessons learnt from this episode. It is fair to say that it would be rash of me to give the noble Lord a date on which we will conclude all three strands of that review. It is likely that we will be able to be more definite later on this summer.
Lord Clinton-Davis
If it becomes clear within a reasonable time that Southern Cross and others are unable to put the business on a stable footing, what will then happen, primarily to the residents but also to the workforce? Can the Minister suggest what he has in mind as a fallback position?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Department of Health is being very clear with the company that we expect it to maintain service continuity and quality of care while the restructuring process is going on. As I have said, our principal concern is for the safety and well-being of the residents of the care homes that might be affected. The CQC will pay particular attention to any care homes where there is a concern that quality may be at risk or inadequate. We are continuing to talk to ADASS, the LGA and the CQC to ensure that contingency plans are in place which will allow for the continuation of care under any eventuality. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I would rather not be drawn into hypotheses as to what might happen if the restructuring does not take place. We must encourage the company to believe that that is the prime and sole option before it. If there is ever a question of a change in the arrangements for providing residential care to any resident of a Southern Cross care home, or indeed any other, the rights of those residents remain absolutely clear in law. The duties of local authorities are absolutely clear in law. I believe that all residents in Southern Cross’s homes can rest assured that local authorities are well seized of those duties and processes.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, the Minister has reassured the House that he does not see Southern Cross as the first of many providers to go into crisis. Can he share with the House the advice that he has had to enable him to give us those assurances that Southern Cross is not just the first of a number of providers to go into crisis?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot issue a government guarantee on the continuing business health of every single care home provider in the country; that would be extremely rash. Of course, we know that over the years some providers have gone out of business. What we are seeing in the country at the moment is much more of a trend towards looking after people in their own homes rather than in residential settings. At the same time, the market is doing the opposite because there are more and more elderly people requiring care of some kind. This industry is not going to disappear overnight or, indeed, at all. Over the indefinite future we will require a residential care home industry, particularly as the number of elderly continues to increase. The key will be to ensure that the quality of provision is maintained. Competition will undoubtedly remain, but it is a telling indicator of the current state of the market that there is an overprovision at present of about 50,000 care home places nationally. That perhaps is a sign that local authorities are successfully meeting the wishes and needs of their service users in providing care in the settings which most people want; namely, their own homes.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, what safeguards are being put into place so that this situation does not happen again in other care homes and possibly in hospitals?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think I have already indicated that the Government are proactively engaged with all the key parties involved in this situation, not just Southern Cross but the LGA, ADASS, the CQC and others. The precise situation in which we find ourselves with Southern Cross is unlikely to arise again because my understanding is that the business model adopted by Southern Cross is unique. Nevertheless, every privately operated residential care home business will, no doubt, have its own level of business risk, whatever that may be—either slight or something rather less slight. However, the alternative that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seemed to desire was a return to the state provision of care homes. The noble Lord is shaking his head, and I am glad of that, because I think neither his party when in government, nor certainly ours, would wish that on the public. I think that all of us believe in choice for the individual, and this is what the current market provides. Nevertheless, there are risks.
The noble Baroness asked about hospitals. To the extent that NHS care is delivered in independent settings, a business risk is inevitably associated with that. However, we are clear in the Health and Social Care Bill that there needs to be a system whereby essential services are protected for the benefit of patients. When the Bill reaches us, we will no doubt debate those provisions.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
I am sure that the noble Earl will be assured that my noble friend did not imply or say what the noble Earl thought he said. It is really important for us to focus on the business side of this issue and the economics of how it is run. The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that there is no complaint at all—in fact, all the carers of residents in those homes are distressed because they may be moved from somewhere that has taken care of their people. It is important, therefore, that none of us loses sight of the real issue—the care of these people, which has been good. Otherwise, the home would be in a very different state and, God forbid, we would be having a very different discussion if the issue was the care of the residents rather than the economics of running the home.
How deeply is the Care Quality Commission involved in this? My own trust has been talking to the CQC because, as the noble Earl will know, there are knock-on effects for hospitals all around the country when those homes are under threat, and on what might happen to elderly people who would normally be discharged from hospitals into those homes. We should all please remember—I am sure that the noble Earl is remembering—that the patients really matter in this, and we should ensure that we get them into safe places where they are looked after. The economics of this are very important, and I am not in any way dismissing that, but we need to measure that up against the care that has been provided for those people in Southern Cross homes, and, I hope, will continue to be provided. The care is valued. It is about the market that goes on out there, and any of us would be foolish to suggest that there is an alternative.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I am also clear about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. She is of course right. Our first concern should be for the safety and welfare of residents. That is why, as I said earlier, some time ago we asked the Care Quality Commission to engage in close discussion with Southern Cross when the news of the impending redundancies was made public. We did that precisely to ensure that standards would not be compromised. My understanding is that there are no concerns on that front. Southern Cross has, in that sense, behaved impeccably in ensuring that residents have not suffered, other than from the inevitable uncertainty that the publicity over this matter has generated. Going forward, the principles that the noble Baroness has articulated are absolutely right. However, she would agree with me—as I think she did—that questions need to be asked about the financial models adopted by care homes or, indeed, by any independent business providing public services.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Were we not told after Jon Manel of the BBC's exposure of what was going on in care homes in 2008 that lessons would be learnt and that there would be a review; and was not an inquiry set up by the department at the request of the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton? Were we not given assurances that that would not happen again? Is not the reality that these reviews and statements about lessons to be learnt all end up in the long grass, because this area of care is basically out of control?
Earl Howe
I do not agree with the noble Lord that this area of care is out of control. The situation that arose at the time to which the noble Lord refers was of quite a different nature from the one we are looking at at the moment. As I recall, it was about the quality of care delivered in particular care homes. We now have the CQC, which is responsible for policing quality of care across the NHS and social care. The previous Government put that arrangement in place. We are content with it. We think that the arrangements are robust. The CQC does very good work.
Of course, with the best will in the world, mistakes occur. One can easily point the finger at the CQC. As I said, in the case of Winterbourne View, that would be an easy but unfair thing to do. All that the CQC can be expected to do is to take a snapshot at any given moment of what it sees and hears. When I say that lessons need to be learnt, I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that my counterpart in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is considering the lessons to be learnt about the business models that apply not just to the care home sector but generically where public services are provided.
Regulatory and Banking Reform
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows.
“It is now well known that the tripartite system set up by the previous Government failed spectacularly in its mission to maintain stability. The decision to divide responsibility for assessing systemic financial risks between three institutions meant that in reality no one took responsibility. The crisis dramatically exposed this flaw and cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money.
We cannot allow another crisis such as the one we have just witnessed. Shortly after taking office, we set in train a consultation on reforming our system of financial regulation. Today, after two extensive rounds of consultation, I am presenting to the House a White Paper, including draft legislation, setting out the blueprint for a completely new system of regulation. Let me summarise the main proposals.
A permanent financial policy committee will be established inside the Bank of England. Its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous interconnections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. It has already started operating on an interim basis and is having its first formal meeting today. Subject to legislative progress, the permanent body will be in place by the end of next year.
We will abolish the Financial Services Authority in its current form and transfer its significant prudential functions to a new prudential regulatory authority that will sit in the Bank of England. The prudential regulatory authority will focus on microprudential regulation. It will bring judgment to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms that manage risk on their balance sheet, particularly banks and insurance companies. But we recognise, of course, that these types of firms engage in very different types of business, which is why we propose to provide the PRA with a specific statutory objective for its insurance responsibilities.
We are bringing a new approach to protecting consumers. A new financial conduct authority will oversee the conduct of financial services firms, the operation of markets and the protection of consumers, with new powers to ban the sale of toxic products. I can confirm that as an integral part of its mission to secure better outcomes for consumers and investors, this authority will also have a new duty to promote competition. Judgment, discretion and proactive intervention will be the hallmark of our new regulators.
We are bringing forward this draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, for which a Joint Committee of both Houses will shortly be convened. We are seeking valuable input from Members on both sides of this House. It is in all our interests to get this right.
Last year we also established under Sir John Vickers an Independent Commission on Banking to resolve the debate around the structure of the banking sector in the UK. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Sir John and his fellow commissioners for the excellent job they are doing.
The commission’s interim report put forward two particularly important proposals: bail in, not bail out, so that private investors, not taxpayers, bear the losses when things go wrong; and a ring-fence around better capitalised high street banks to make them safer and protect their vital services to the economy if things do go wrong. I can confirm that the Government agree in principle with both these proposals.
Of course, we will await the commission’s final report, but I can tell the House that any reforms will need to meet the following principles: all banks should be allowed to fail safely without affecting vital banking services, without imposing costs on the taxpayer, through reforms that are applicable across our whole banking industry and in a manner consistent with EU and international law. I can also confirm today that we welcome the commission’s recommendations on increasing competition in retail banking and we are working closely with it to achieve this aim.
We are also taking the first steps towards normalising the Government’s involvement in the financial sector. One legacy of the crisis is that today’s taxpayers have a direct interest in several banks through large-scale guarantees and shareholdings. We do not believe the Government should be a long-term investor in financial institutions. It will take some time, possibly several years, before we can make a complete exit from our investments in the banks.
Today I can confirm the start of that process. On the advice of UK Financial Investments, we have decided to launch a sale process for Northern Rock. This follows extensive work over the past three months to consider potential options for returning Northern Rock to the private sector, while generating the best possible taxpayer value. The sale process will be open and transparent and in line with state aid rules. I have already written to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mutuals to reassure him that any interested parties can bid for it, including mutuals. This reaffirms the Government’s commitment to actively promoting the mutuals sectors. This does not mean that other options to return Northern Rock plc to the private sector have been ruled out. However, I believe that at this point in time a sale process is most promising.
I also want to make the House aware that, following an application by the Bank of England to the High Court today, Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company Ltd, a very small bank, has been placed into the bank insolvency procedure. This follows a decision by the FSA that Southsea no longer satisfied the FSA’s threshold conditions for operating as a deposit-taker. As such, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has been triggered and eligible depositors with balances up to the limit of £85,000 are safeguarded. Eligible depositors with amounts in excess of the insured limit of £85,000 may be entitled to receive a share of their savings above this limit as part of the insolvency process.
Finally, I would like to update the House on the ongoing negotiations on international financial regulation. When I was in Brussels yesterday, my message was clear. We must learn the lessons of the crisis and create the foundations for stable and sustainable growth without fragmenting global markets. That is why global standards are strongly in our national interest. Much of the debate has focused on the implementation of the Basel III accord and we have been busy making the case for implementing it in full right around the world, including here in Europe. Last week’s IMF assessment supported our arguments for minimum standards here in the EU, with discretion for national authorities to increase them where necessary.
When the coalition Government came into office, questions were asked about the future of banking and regulation, but they had not been answered. It has been our job to resolve them. Our goal should be a new settlement between our financial system and the British people—a new settlement where the banks support the people, instead of the people bailing out the banks. This Statement today sets out the progress we have made towards building this new settlement and the actions we are taking to complete it”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, for repeating the Statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place. The Financial Secretary begins by commenting that the tripartite regulatory system failed. That is obviously true, and indeed a variety of other regulatory structures around the world also failed. In order to help us to establish a clear historical time line to understand what actually happened, will the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, tell the House in which speeches prior to 2008 the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor or the noble Lord himself called for a tightening of regulation? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Continuing the theme of the rewriting of history, at the end of the Statement the Financial Secretary states that when the coalition Government came into office, questions were asked about the future of banking and regulation, but they had not been answered. I remind the noble Lord that domestically the most important road map for reform—the Turner review—was published in February 2009, and that the G20 conference that set the framework for international reform was held in September 2009. Far from there being no answers, most of the economic and financial analysis on which the Government’s proposals today are based was done before the election.
I turn to more substantial matters. The Statement fails to make it clear whether the financial policy committee will have any powers. What will it actually be able to do? Will it, for example, have the power to impose leverage collars or loan-to-value ratios to calm a bubble? Will it have the power to impose pro-cyclical levies on banks? Given that the committee will be the focus of macroprudential regulation, what will its relationship be to the more general formation of macroeconomic policy? It is now obvious to everyone that fiscal policy can be a source of macroprudential risk, so what role, if any, will the committee have in the formulation of fiscal policy, even, let us say, at an advisory level?
The Financial Secretary states very emphatically that the prudential regulatory authority will focus on microprudential regulation. Does not this division between microprudential and macroprudential issues repeat the institutional rigidities and errors of the past? Given that the regulation of individual firms will require macro issues to be taken into account, what exactly is the difference between the risks that create macroprudential problems and those that create microprudential problems, and how will anyone know in advance of a crisis which is which?
The Financial Secretary states that the financial conduct authority will have new powers to ban the sale of toxic products. This really is very odd. Since in the recent crisis the toxicity of products was related to the macroprudential risks they created, how is this power invested in the arm’s-length FCA to be related to the management of macro risk by the Bank of England?
I now turn to the future structure of the banking industry and the work programme of the Independent Commission on Banking, as covered in the Statement. First, we on this side heartily endorse the principles for reform set out in the Financial Secretary’s Statement. We would, however, add a further principle: that the failure of a bank should not destabilise the real economy.
Secondly, the Statement endorses in principle the ICB proposition that there should be a ring-fence around high street banks. That sounds sensible and clear until one asks: what exactly is a high street bank? Does the Financial Secretary refer to banks that base their business only on high street deposits—the deposits of households and firms? Or, would it be acceptable for high street banks to have interbank lending, repos and other wholesale funds on the liability side of their balance sheet, given that it was the failure of these markets in commercial paper that was a major factor in the financial crisis? Will that ring-fencing apply to all banks offering retail services in the UK, whether they are British companies, subsidiaries of foreign companies or branches of foreign companies? Will it also apply to banks passported into the UK from other EU jurisdictions?
We welcome the possibility that Northern Rock may be returned to the private sector as a mutual. I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on Monday: in the model chosen for the privatisation of Northern Rock what weight will be given to the implications for future financial stability? Would not mutualisation be an important buttress of stability?
In the Statement the Financial Secretary also voices his support for the Basel III accord. As the noble Lord will be aware, at the centre of that accord is the increase in the minimum capital that banks are required to hold relative to risk-weighted assets. Is the noble Lord aware that the capitalisation of the banks in Ireland prior to the crisis exceeded the new limits proposed in Basel III? Why are the Government supporting such a feeble standard?
We welcome the publication of the White Paper and the draft Bill, and indeed the Government’s agreement to pre-legislative scrutiny. We also note that many of the institutional structures to be given legal legitimacy by the Bill are already in place. There was a reference to the financial policy committee meeting today. Given that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the predecessor of the Financial Services and Markets Act, underwent major changes, including institutional changes after the pre-legislative scrutiny by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is not the establishment of these structures, prior even to a Second Reading in another place, somewhat premature?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, first, for making a clear admission that the tripartite system failed and therefore something needed to be done about it, and, secondly, for welcoming various of the other aspects of what we are doing, including our approach to bank failure and pre-legislative scrutiny. However, the fact that he starts with bracketing together a recognition of the failure of the tripartite system and then questioning the approach taken by my right honourable friend the Chancellor and others of us who are now in the Treasury and what we did in the past is remarkable. We got on to the case in opposition immediately the crisis hit and started to work practically on learning the lessons.
I completely agree with the noble Lord that fine work of analysis was done by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, particularly in his FSA report, and others, but the previous Government had a couple of years in which they signally failed. If they recognised the failure of the tripartite system, they certainly did not tell us then. They had two years in which they could have established an independent commission to look at banking. They could have done the work to analyse what would be a better system but they did none of that. Instead, my right honourable friend the Chancellor, when in opposition, commissioned work from people, including myself. We did a considerable amount of work that put us in a good position, so that when we got into office we launched the rounds of consultation that have led to today’s White Paper. It is not therefore a question of hindsight being a fine thing but of getting on, learning the lessons and starting down the track of implementing a better system.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, went on to question the powers of the FPC. I appreciate that the White Paper is a long document to have absorbed in the past few hours and point to the discussion in it about the possible tools and powers that the FPC may have. In order to move forward on that, we have asked the FPC to come forward with proposals in the next few months—I expect them in the third quarter—for the tools and powers that it believes will be necessary and appropriate to enable it to carry out its function. For the avoidance of all doubt, I will confirm that the FPC will have no role in setting fiscal policy.
The noble Lord then raised the issue of macroprudential and microprudential risks. I thought that his analysis was interesting. Clearly there is a very difficult issue about where the micro and macro areas stop and start and how they relate to each other, which goes to the heart of the problem with the tripartite arrangement. The Bank of England was clearly responsible for analysis of the macro risks but was not given by the previous Government the tools to deal with the consequences of the problems that it found. On the other hand, the Financial Services Authority was responsible for the micro risks—and never the twain shall meet. I am surprised that the noble Lord does not give the Government credit for the fact that we have brought the macro and micro together under the umbrella of the Bank of England precisely to address the problem that he identifies.
The noble Lord mentioned toxic products. Some of these may have been related to macro factors, but one has only to look at the scandal of PPI—not to mention a string of other products wheeled out by the financial services sector over the past few years—to understand that toxic products are most often generated at firm level, and it is appropriate that the conduct authority should have powers to ban them.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the definition of the ring fence. The question of the ring fence should be left to the appropriate experts. The Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, will in the second phase of its work focus on precisely how the ring fence will work; that is what it is doing at the moment. On the specific question of whether the ring fence will apply to EU-passported banks, the FSA’s and in future the PRA’s full rules will apply only to banks headquartered in the UK. EU bank branches that are passported into the UK have as their lead authority the EU home regulation, not the UK host regulation: therefore, any ICB proposals would be implemented consistent with EU law. That is one of the principles enshrined in my honourable friend's Statement.
The question of Northern Rock was raised. As I said, we want to see a competition and are required under state aid rules to have one that is fair and open to all parties. We would welcome mutuals participating in that bidding process. As to whether a mutual outcome would be a greater buttress of stability, that is open to question. Any bidder for Northern Rock or participant in our banking system needs to demonstrate a level of financial stability that meets the regulatory requirements. I think one should not draw a distinction between different categories of institution on that basis.
The last point raised by the noble Lord was about Basel III and the Government’s support for the higher capital requirements under it, I think pointing out that the capitalisation of the Irish banks exceeded the Basel III limits. That enables me to confirm that the Government’s position on this is that for too-big-to-fail banks a capital buffer above Basel III is appropriate to ensure their resilience.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I must congratulate the Government on their courage in recognising not just the need to reform regulation and the regulatory system, which certainly was not fit for purpose, but to go beyond that to recognise the need to restructure the banking industry in the teeth of a lot of opposition from the industry itself, although a stronger case certainly needs to be made fully to convince all of us that ring fencing is a better strategy than division of the banks.
I shall ask the Minister two questions arising out of today. He talked a moment ago about a new regulatory system bringing together micro and macro, which is what we all wish to see, but he will be aware of the remarks made today by the Governor of the Bank of England, which were quoted in the Daily Telegraph, about reducing the burden of routine collection and focusing on the major risks to the system. He will know that the system collapsed in large part because securitisation and derivatives were piled on top of mortgage loans that were faulty and very often fraudulent. It was the failure to see the link between the micro and the macrosystemic that led to the crisis that we saw. Will he make sure that we do not now have a swing back in the other direction in regulation to systemic ignoring the relevance of the micro?
On the return of banks to private ownership, which is something we all wish to see, will he give some assurances that serious consideration will be given to schemes such as that proposed by my colleague Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West, which would involve a distribution of shares in part to the public in order that they may gain some of the upside? The Treasury would still receive its funding, but on a deferred basis. Would he agree that UK Financial Investments, being a very silo organisation, is not likely to appreciate the potential benefits of that much wider engagement with the public, sharing upside reward with people who have suffered from the crisis?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for her general support for what we are doing and her recognition of how far the Government have already gone in pushing forward with the structural and regulatory reforms. On the micro/macro link, I refer noble Lords to the full, and very interesting, remarks by the Governor last night at the Mansion House because he talked with great coherence and good sense about what the failure of the previous regulatory regime was, which was to collect a huge amount of detailed data that it was unable to analyse to draw out the conclusions.
However, in the new world, experienced bank supervisors are needed who are able to analyse and draw out the picture, which was never difficult—whether it was on securitisation or on a lot of other matters or funding models—before the crisis. There should be meaningful discussions with the banks in terms of the individual banks that they supervise about what this translates to in terms of the exposure of the individual bank’s business model. If my noble friend were to read the Governor’s full remarks, she would see that the Bank is absolutely where she would like it to be on its thinking on this. I got no sense of swing-back in it.
On ownership of the banks, we are well aware of the proposals that have come in, including that from Stephen Williams on mass retail participation. We and UKFI are actively considering mass retail participation as we think ahead to returning the banks into the private sector, which of course is not the same thing. A subset of it would be distributing the banks’ shares for free or on some other basis, which raises value-for-money considerations and quite a lot of technical market considerations. But I can reassure my noble friend that all these proposals will be given due consideration.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I have here a letter from Unite, the union representing the workforce at Northern Rock. As can well be imagined, the workforce is extremely concerned about its future. It points out that at its height Northern Rock had 6,500 employees. It also ran the Northern Rock Foundation with £200 million of investment in the area. Those in the workforce are concerned not only about their own jobs but about the general impact on the situation in the north-east, where there is a very high level of unemployment and where people have great difficulty in getting alternative work. In any situation in regard to restructurings and so on, it should be a major concern for the Government to ensure that whatever decisions are taken do not worsen the unemployment situation in the area. Everything possible should be done to ensure that employment is kept at a reasonable level. As regards Northern Rock, that does not seem to be the situation.
I am very glad that my noble friend on the Front Bench raised mutualisation because it seemed to me that that is a way in which it might be possible to maintain a much higher level of employment in the area. It is very important to bear in mind concern not just about the financial stability, important though that is, but about what happens to employment in the area and the general standing in the area of not only the financial situation but the economic situation generally.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, because these considerations will be ones which prospective bidders for Northern Rock will be asked to address in their bids. Of course, the Government are very mindful of the situation in the north-east and its dependence on the public sector in particular. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bates is not here today because I am always refreshed by his reminder to the House that a lot of vibrant new business is being generated in the north-east. But I very much recognise, as do the Government, the problems, and the bidders will be asked to make a lot of these things clear when they come forward with proposals.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I welcome overall this Statement and the speech last night made by the Chancellor on related matters. In many ways, the Chancellor’s speech spelt out what he intended rather more clearly than was done in the Statement today. However, I am very glad that he is sticking to his plan A for the economy, which was so clearly endorsed by the IMF recently. In response to the question of whether it was time to adjust macroeconomic policies, it gave the clearest possible answer—no.
As to regulation, it must be right that the Chancellor is scrapping the tripartite agreement, which had such disastrous consequences. The position was not quite clear from my noble friend’s reading of the earlier Statement. My understanding is that what is being proposed is what the IMF calls a triple peak arrangement; that is, a new prudential regulator, a new financial conduct authority and a new macroprudential authority. Am I right in thinking that there are three bodies rather than two?
I turn to the other question in relation to regulation and to the question of ring-fencing. Personally, I would have preferred the more radical solution of complete separation. I realise the arguments about cost of capital, competition and so on but, after all, American banks did survive quite successfully for a long time under the Glass-Steagall arrangements. But when we come to the question of ring-fencing between the investment part of a bank and its retail part, I am not clear whether it is intended that the ring fence should have holes in it or whether there is to be a complete ban on capital flowing from one side of the ring fence to the other. There seems to be some discussion at the moment which suggests that the ring fence would not be as solid as perhaps some of us would wish it to be.
The other thing that is not clear about whether something is too big to fail is whether, following the establishment of the ring fence, the part of the bank concerned with investment banking, no matter how large, would be allowed to fail but the retail side would not. In other words, there would be an absolute guarantee that the retail part of a bank would be protected by the Government. If that is so, it raises very serious questions of moral hazard. The extent to which the retail banking section has not been devoid of the recent problems arising from risk-taking creates a real problem. Obviously, we will be much clearer about this when we see the White Paper and the pre-legislative scrutiny which takes place. But perhaps my noble friend would clarify precisely what is meant by ring-fencing in this context.
Lord Sassoon
My noble friend’s first question was about whether this is twin peaks, triple peaks or whatever. I have always found that a somewhat stale way to analyse the issue because over the past decade constant comparisons were being made between single peaks, twin peaks and so on, so I am reluctant to be drawn into characterising what we are now proposing as any number of peaks. All I can say is that it is emphatically not a triple-peak solution in that the macroprudential and the micro in the PRA are going to be in one body in the Bank of England. So although characterising it as twin peaks is closer to the models that have been analysed by academics and others over the last few years, it gets us back to language that I am not sure is entirely helpful. However, it is certainly not a triple-peak solution.
On the questions around separation and permeability of the ring-fence, the Government will be guided by the independent commission’s final report. But it is also important to recognise what the ICB’s interim report did and did not say. To put it simply, it certainly was not a division between retail and investment banking. The commission acknowledged that a balance has to be struck between imposing very high costs on an important sector and the degree of safety. The point of firewalling is not to eliminate all risk, but to minimise the risk and cost to the taxpayer should a bank fail. The ICB is now focused on these issues between now and September. The principal issues to be looked at by the Government and the Bank of England will be the powers to manage the collapse of any investment bank, were that to happen in the future. As I hope was clear from my honourable friend’s Statement, one of the principles in establishing the ring-fence is to make sure that the taxpayer is not exposed on either side of it. Therefore, getting rid of the risk of moral hazard is at the centre of the construct that we are looking to put in place.
Lord Hollick
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government’s endorsement of the requirement for high-street banks to be better capitalised. However, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the efficacy and efficiency of ring-fencing, as opposed to total separation. As the Minister will know from his time in the City, banking groups are funded and the Treasury is run on a group basis. To separate the groups and deal with permeability will be extremely difficult. A legal separation would reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of inter-group contagion. It would also allow the risks of the high-street bank and the investment bank—or whatever the Minister chooses to call it—to be properly priced. This would benefit the ordinary consumer. The lower cost of borrowing that a better capitalised high-street bank paid could then be passed on to the borrower.
The second issue that arises on this is, again, a welcome commitment to apply this right across the banking industry. However, many of our banks are headquartered in other countries. Have the Government had any discussions with the Governments of, for instance, the United States and Spain? Do they share the Government’s enthusiasm for this approach? Will the Government also ensure that the lead regulator—whether in the United States or in Spain—will follow the same path?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there are many questions wrapped up in all that. I am conscious that we have four minutes to go. I repeat myself, but we have set up the independent commission with a suitable group of experts and resourced with a secretariat that is now grappling with precisely these questions. Legal separation has, in the history of the US and Glass-Steagall, proved itself to be an incomplete answer to this. We have to find the best answer. We have set out the Government’s perspective, which is to endorse the principle, and set down the standards by which we shall judge the solution that the commission comes up with. I am sure it will listen to the ideas that are put forward here this afternoon, as well as to all the other submissions that it receives. It is not an easy challenge for the commission, but it is made up of the best people to carry it out.
On the international side, one of the standards by which the Government will judge the solution and decide whether to endorse it is compatibility with the international rules. That is the minimum. That is not what the noble Lord went on to say. As to whether other people will come with us, all I can say is that there has been a high degree of interest in what the commission has come up with in its interim report. People around the world are studying it. We shall see in time whether they will follow it. All I know is that the eyes of the world are very much on the continuing work of the commission.
Lord Stewartby
My Lords, I draw attention to a confusing passage in the Statement, which makes the text about micro and macro more difficult to understand. It says:
“The Prudential Regulatory Authority will focus on microprudential regulation. It will bring judgment to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms”.
However, that is not a task for regulation; it is a task for supervision, which is not mentioned in the Statement and caused some confusion in earlier business on these matters. I shall not say this at any length but supervision is a separate process, which got slightly lost under the old system. We need to be careful that these are two separate things, which are complementary and sometimes overlap, but nevertheless are not the same. The text on that needs another look.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend because this is a technical but very important area. He is completely right that there is a fundamental distinction between supervision and regulation and often texts can be loose on this. I hope that when he has a chance to read the White Paper he will see that there is extensive discussion of these areas. I refer him to the interesting remarks of the governor last night about the approach to supervision which he intends the Bank and the PRA under it to adopt in the new world, and that that should be a very different approach to supervision from what we have seen recently with the FSA. I take my noble friend’s points to heart, but the short text of the announcement does not give the full flavour that lies behind it.
Lord Maples
I have a couple of quick points on the ring-fencing proposal. Does what the Chancellor said last night mean that we have finally ruled out the idea of a complete split between investment banking and commercial banking? Secondly, does the Minister agree that for ring-fencing to work, the ring-fenced commercial or high-street bank will need a strong degree of independence on its board of directors to enable it to stand up to the banking group of which it is a part?
Thirdly, the Minister’s point about how many holes there are or how permeable the ring-fence is is important because presumably the purpose of the ring-fencing is to stop the investment banks’ liabilities appearing on the commercial banks’ balance sheets as assets, or for that matter the liability of any other investment bank. If that permeability is there at all, investment bankers will find some way of using the commercial banks’ balance sheets to their advantage.
Lord Sassoon
My noble friend makes some important points, which the independent commission has in the forefront of its thinking to resolve over the next few months. It is not that we have ruled out everything but that we have set up an independent commission. It came up with the ring-fencing proposal in its interim report and that is what my right honourable friend the Chancellor has endorsed, subject to the caveats included in the Statement. My noble friend’s points about how this is worked out in detail are some of the absolute correct ones.
Armed Forces Bill
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
This amendment takes us to the issues relating to Parliament Square. I start with an apology. Like many other noble Lords, I had thought that we would be a little further advanced by this time and I am committed to a speaking engagement, fortunately as near as Portcullis House. However, it means that I will not be here for the whole of the debate on this part of the Bill, about which I am extremely sad. The future of Parliament Square is an issue dear to my heart. However, I am delighted to see the repeal of what I have always thought of as offensive provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
I have no need to rehearse at length why it is so important that demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament should not be blocked. Indeed, I think that they should be facilitated. I was heartened, too, by a discussion that I had with the Hansard Society recently about the work that it is doing to promote better co-ordination of the various institutions around Parliament Square that are part of our democracy. That includes not just Parliament but the Supreme Court and Westminster Abbey. We could all operate better together for the benefit of tourists, of course, but more particularly for our own citizens. I do not want to see the re-enactment in the Bill of what I have described as offensive provisions for a narrower area—in other words, not to halfway up Whitehall and so on, but for Parliament Square itself.
Maybe it is important to rehearse the importance of the rights to peaceful protest and assembly, which are integral to our democracy. Any interference in them must be proportionate as it is a matter of human rights. The Government are held to account through a number of mechanisms. Making views clear to both government and Parliament, whose job is partly to hold government to account, is integral to that. This is all wrapped up with the right of free speech. I have said to your Lordships before that it does us as parliamentarians no harm to be confronted, in a physically non-confrontational way, with other people’s views. Sometimes those views are expressed vocally, though we may not hear so much of that at this end of the building. We tend to hear more noise from Old Palace Yard, which I think is outside the area covered by these provisions. The loudest is often the hymn-singing that is sometimes organised there by religious groups. As I said, it is not appropriate to re-enact the provisions for a narrower area, nor to give aesthetic considerations —tidying up the square—more weight than considerations based on democracy.
What is there about Parliament Square that needs more protection than is available through the Public Order Act 1986? That is at the heart of the questions in this group and on this part of the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report said that,
“the right to protest is clearly not an absolute right”.
It can legitimately be regulated but,
“the regulation of protest should not represent a hidden obstacle to the freedom of assembly”.
At paragraph 1.16, the committee said:
“the proposed offences must be justified by the Government as necessary to meet a legitimate aim and as proportionate to the proposed interference with the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, the right to freedom of expression and assembly”.
It said, I thought rather generously, that,
“the Explanatory Notes explain in very broad terms the Government’s view that these provisions are proportionate”.
I found it harder to detect justification in the Explanatory Notes. That is why I am opposing the question that these other clauses, beside Clause 142, should stand part of the Bill. That will save others from perhaps wondering in my absence why I am opposing that the clauses stand part. I know that my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who will move the amendments that I cannot, and who has a much longer track record of standing up for these matters than I do, will speak to them. I will therefore also be opposing that some of the other clauses stand part.
On Clause 142, I am troubled by subsection (2) which provides that public assemblies will come within the Public Order Act, including,
“public assemblies which started, or were being organised, before this section comes into force”.
This may not be retrospective in a technical sense but I wonder what it means. Section 14 of the 1986 Act provides that a police officer can only give directions or impose conditions prospectively. I have been wondering whether Clause 142(2) means that the directions bite only from when they are given. This is of course relevant to whether there is an offence as regards the past, or whether the offence is committed maybe in respect of a continuing activity but only from the point of a direction that is not obeyed. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall intervene for a few moments. We are often told that scrutiny in the Lords is better than that in the Commons, but this is a section of the Bill that I would have liked to have talked on, under a number of amendments, and due to pressure of time and the fact that we will be going late this evening we will not have the opportunity. This section of the Bill will not be subject to the level of scrutiny that I believe it deserves.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I follow that by saying that this is a particularly important section of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Hamwee laid out a little bit of the history of this legislation. Last time, with the SOCPA provisions, which are now being repealed, Parliament got it very wrong—although it got it wrong in a panic, as a reaction to terrorism. There are still things in the Bill that are deeply worrying, which is why it merits scrutiny. Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Government are repealing the SOCPA clauses.
In speaking to Amendment 244ZZA, I shall give an example of one thing that should really worry us. My amendment suggests that we should remove from the Bill the words “or is about to”. If somebody is doing a prohibited activity, it is quite plain that the police can give them a direction to stop them doing it. However, how will the police know that the person is about to do a prohibited activity? Is the policeman a mind reader? Can he or she guess what that person is about to do? There is something slightly more worrying behind these words. It disguises what we now have in this country—that is, two classes of citizen. The vast majority of the country do not fall into this class, but there is a second bunch of people who are classed as domestic extremists. Some of them may be in your Lordships' House, because to be a domestic extremist, for which there is no legal definition, you simply have to be somebody whom the police think has regularly gone on protests. I do not know the rest of the criteria that the police use to judge, and I do not believe that the Home Office is very aware of them, because when I asked a series of Written Questions about this to the Minister’s predecessor I was told that there is no legal definition. There is a database, and people can find out if they are on the database if they apply under the Freedom of Information Act. However, of course they would not know to apply, because most people would not suspect that they were on it.
This year we have also had the issue of the somewhat out-of-control undercover surveillance of activists. I am very glad that HMIC is currently carrying out a review of operational accountability of undercover work of the national public order intelligence unit, but we have not had the results yet of that review.
In addition, the Metropolitan police force has just acquired some suspect-mapping software called Geotime, which can take account of the activity done by domestic extremists in their everyday lives. For example, it can follow social networking when they use their sites, as well their mobile use, cash withdrawals and sat-nav use. The police can build up thus an entire picture of somebody who is not a criminal or somebody who has been convicted of anything but someone who is classed as a domestic extremist, for which, as I say, there is no legal definition. It is quite worrying. Those people, the domestic extremists, have not necessarily done anything criminal—nothing except to be known protesters and activists. In other words, they are people who might do something. That is what worries me about the wording,
“or is about to do”.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I spoke on this section of the Bill at Second Reading and I very much support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we have subsection (1) of Clause 142 in place, which re-establishes the Public Order Act 1986 as the ruling legislation, the rest of that clause/section is completely unnecessary. We can omit all that. If we have the 1986 Act, all subsequent legislation is not required, including Clause 143 and the rest of the provisions in this section.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group but we agree with the repeal of the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 relating to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. We also agree with the need for further proposals and for the use of the 1986 Public Order Act. The 2005 Act created a new offence of demonstrating without authorisation in what is described as a designated area, which was defined by order. That designated area had to be within 1 kilometre of Parliament Square. The use of loudspeakers in the designated area was also banned.
However, that Act had unacceptable and unintended consequences on the right of some to protest and it soon raised concerns that the Act had not, in reality, struck the correct balance between the right to protest and the rights of people to go about their everyday business and for them to enjoy Parliament Square. A proposal to repeal the provisions of the 2005 Act was included in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. That proposal fell in the wash-up at the 2010 general election.
In looking at the Government's proposals we have some questions to raise, simply to test whether they are likely to achieve their objectives. It would certainly be helpful if the Minister could define the problem that the Government feel that their proposals will address, and to define the harm that the Government are trying to deal with. The Government’s proposals are, in many ways, similar to the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act but they apply to a much smaller area, namely Parliament Square. How did the Government decide that Parliament Square should be the limit of the area to which their proposals should relate? Although he is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had amendments proposing, as I understand it, to include Abingdon Green. How would the situation be addressed if those protesting—the permanence of existing protests is an issue—moved just outside the area of Parliament Square?
Do all the parties directly involved support the Government’s proposals, including the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police and indeed the House authorities here? Are there any areas of disagreement over the scope or the practicality of the proposals?
We recognise that this is not an easy issue to resolve and that at the end of the day it will not just be about what is or is not in the Bill or any associated documentation. It is also about the degree of common sense—which, hopefully, will be considerable—that will be applied by all concerned in implementing the powers in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, with nine clauses to deal with, worrying about a very small traffic island seems on the face of it to be a bit excessive, but I recognise that there is concern about the current situation in Parliament Square, the overkill that SOCPA applied to it and the question of what we put in place as we remove SOCPA. On the problem that we are trying to address and the harm that we are trying to remove, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the democracy encampment actually produced a considerable amount of harm to Parliament Square Garden. The garden, which should be there for the enjoyment of all, is still fenced off, as the noble Lord well knows, and not only tents but some semi-permanent structures now obstruct the pavement.
I also recognise that this is part of a much wider discussion that we need to have, not just on the Bill but about the future of Parliament Square and of this part of Westminster as a whole. We had a useful debate on this on Friday, to which one or two Members here contributed. I recommend that those who were not here on Friday read Hansard. The debate raised some much wider questions to which I hope this Chamber will return, and which I hope that Members of both Houses and the authorities of the Abbey and the Supreme Court will address.
Lord Desai
Is there not anxiety on the part of the demonstrators that if they do not have permanent structures they will not be able to come back the next day and demonstrate? They are worried that if they demonstrate only during the day and then go home, the next day the police will say, “You can’t come here”. They are probably trying, in a clumsy way, to establish a right. I quite agree that these structures are ugly but that right is a crucial one to protect, and we should not worry too much about the structures.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there is no evidence for what the noble Lord has just suggested. We are talking about proportionality in a whole range of different ways here. Parliament Square, Old Palace Yard and the area around them, as some noble Lords were saying on Friday, ought to be a great democratic space to be enjoyed by a large number of people, not just those who come to visit Parliament or those who wish to make their views well known—loudly known—but also tourists and those substantial numbers of people who pass through Parliament Square every day on their way to and from work. It is a transient population that is obstructed by those who wish to be here permanently. Some of those structures are semi-permanent. I think that the noble Lord will agree that if the Aldwych—to take where he and I used to work as an example—had a similarly permanent encampment, there would be real problems of obstruction of the footway and so on.
The question that we are dealing with is: how best to arrange Parliament Square for the enjoyment, and the presence, of the maximum number of people under shared rules for all who come. This is a very large area. The intention of this part of the Bill is to give much greater clarity to protestors, public and the police as to what is and is not acceptable in Parliament Square. As I said on Friday, overnight protests and vigils are clearly one sort of acceptable behaviour. Being there for a year at a time—or, in the case of Brian Haw, several years—is a different sort of presence. It begins to obstruct the rights of others. I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with John Stuart Mill and On Liberty, and the question of how one’s liberty has not to obstruct the rights of others. The maximum number of people in the democracy encampment was, I think, nearly 150. Brian Haw’s group has always been a mere handful. So we are trading off different rights. That is the purpose of this place.
I therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that scrutiny of this is taking place in a wider context, not simply today. We discussed this on Friday and there is, indeed, another Private Member’s Bill. This will continue to be a large set of issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether the policeman was a mind-reader. No, certainly not. Before anyone can commit an offence under these provisions, they must first be issued with a direction to stop: a warning. It is acceptable to issue a warning to someone you see carrying their sleeping bag and various other things that they should not put it down and spend several nights on it. That is what is intended in this clause.
The noble Baroness talks about fears of domestic extremists. I do not particularly want to go down that road beyond saying that I recall that when I once turned up to speak to the Campaign for the Accountability of US Bases in Britain at RAF Menwith Hill, it was remarkable how quickly the MoD policeman appeared to recognise who I was—my name and everything else. Perhaps I am on the list, too. We do not need to go too far into that for the moment.
These amendments rightly test the replacement for SOCPA. The Government’s view is that getting rid of SOCPA and replacing it with measures that existed before—as far as demonstrators are concerned, the previously operating Public Order Acts—is the right response. There is a trade-off between different users, as I have already said. However, there is a clear consensus on all sides of this Chamber after five years of debate that Parliament Square should be fully developed as a democratic space and that we should be discussing with the Palace authorities, the Abbey, the Supreme Court and others how to use it better. That discussion is rather wider than the Bill goes and needs to be continued elsewhere.
The question of Abingdon Green was raised briefly. There are particular problems because Abingdon Green is private, not public, property. Noble Lords will be aware of the many subtleties of who is directly responsible for which bit of the various facilities around here. There are risks of hybridity if we apply this Bill to Abingdon Green. However, we understand the practical challenges in terms of applying these various remedies. The Government will therefore additionally discuss with the House authorities the benefits of moving an amendment on Report to make provision for a power of seizure to be attached to Royal Parks regulations, which apply to Abingdon Green, to support the position that we have taken for effective enforcement of GLA and Westminster City Council by-laws.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Suppose that there is a big demonstration in London with a couple of thousand people on Whitehall all marching down towards Parliament Square carrying sleeping bags. Suppose that it looks to a police officer that they may well want to spend the night somewhere in the vicinity of Parliament. It does not mean that they are going to do it every day, or every week or whatever; they are not going to put up tents or anything. What would happen in those circumstances? Would the police simply ignore it? Or would they somehow find some excuse under the proposed legislation to say, “We are warning you, you cannot do it”. Then, if they breach that, an argument breaks out on the streets between the police and the demonstrators.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord is enjoying asking a hypothetical question. As we know, the police operate through discretion and by consent. I remind him that the most hostile response I have had from the House when answering a question was when we discussed sessional orders and a number of his colleagues on the Benches opposite demanded that the police should clear space for their cars to enable them to drive through large demonstrations on their way to the House. I had to point out that the police operate by consent and occasionally do not wish to clear away thousands of demonstrators in order to ensure that noble Lords can drive in here. These are matters of judgment. We have to allow the police to operate by consent and to have confidence in them in that regard.
We are working with Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority to ensure that the relevant by-laws are strengthened to deal with disruptive activity in the wider area as well as in the central traffic island—as I call it—of Parliament Square itself. Our approach is aimed at targeting specific problems in a small area of Parliament Square and empowering the local authority to take action by giving it the ability to enforce relevant by-laws more effectively. Having reassured the Committee on that, and having encouraged it to continue the wider debate which we started on Friday about the future of Parliament Square, Old Palace Yard and the environs of this world heritage site, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for their support. I keep coming back to my question about what is so special about Parliament Square, apart from the fact that we love it. Noble Lords may have noticed that although I oppose a great deal of the Bill, the encampment is a different matter. I am not entirely encouraged to hear that more by-laws may be applied, but there we go.
I do not think that my noble friend answered my question about Clause 142(2). Can he answer the question about when it applies from—what I said was not technically retrospective—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I apologise. That is very much a transitional arrangement to ensure that those who are already encamped there when the regulations are changed are not enabled to say that they do not apply to them. As I say, this is a transitional arrangement.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I understand that but since they will be committing an offence it may well be relevant to how long that offence has been committed for. If a direction is given on a Wednesday and they move the following Wednesday, they have committed an offence for a week, but they may have committed an offence for a year and a week if this measure is not technically retrospective, as I say. In terms of sanction, I would have thought that might be very relevant.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is a very fair point. I promise that I will go back to the department and will write to the noble Baroness about that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 244ZZB. I suppose for Hansard I should also say that I am also speaking to Amendments 244ZA, 244ZAC, 244ZCE, 244ZCF, 244ZDZA, 244ZDZB, 244ZEA, 244ZEB, 244ZEC, 244ZED, 244ZEE, 244ZEF, 244ZF, 244ZG and will oppose the Question that Clause 149 stand part.
The first half of the amendments in this group would replace “constable” with “senior police officer” in Clauses 144, 145 and 146. Under Section 12 of the Public Order Act a “senior police officer” means the most senior in rank at the scene. I had wondered whether a constable was referred to because of the seizure powers that would be likely to be carried out in many instances by a relatively junior officer. However, the definition in my Amendment 244ZAC answers the point. The Public Order Act got it right by stating that the officer should be the most senior in rank at the scene. It is appropriate to ask the Government to justify why they have extended that right, only in the case of Parliament Square, to warranted officers below the most senior in rank at the scene.
What worries me more are the powers to be extended beyond warranted officers; those powers are the subject of the remainder of the amendments in the group. Powers are to be given by the Bill to authorised officers, who will include employees of the GLA and Westminster City Council. Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens of the Metropolitan Police gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons to the effect that a broad discretionary power, vaguely drafted, is very difficult for a police officer to exercise in the middle of a protest. However, police officers have training and experience that are probably not available to authorised officers—council employees. I know that the duties of some council employees have been extended to some public order matters. There are wardens in Trafalgar Square, but their experience and duties are rather different from those expected under the Bill.
The Bill grants powers of direction and seizure to an authorised officer, although, as a result of an amendment during proceedings on the Bill before it reached us, only a constable may use “reasonable force”. I welcome that, of course, although I cannot quite envisage an authorised person—a council employee—seeking to seize an item, its owner holding on to it, and the authorised person saying something such as, “Oops, please wait right there while I get a constable”. It is not clear that this is workable. It is better not to let those who are not warranted officers—warranted officers would be clearly identifiable—getting into the situation at all.
This was something on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights made a number of comments, referring to the fact that the Minister had explained that the Government thought it would be bureaucratic and time-consuming to limit the direction-making power to police officers. I am well aware of how much work the Committee has to get through tonight, but I nevertheless want to read the JCHR’s recommendation into the record. At paragraph 1.22 of the report the committee said:
“We are concerned that the main reason given by the Minister … is cost and administration saving”.
The committee continues:
“We welcome the Minister’s reassurance that these powers would be accompanied by guidance dealing with the appropriate exercise of discretion, identification and, in particular, with the reasonable use of force. However, no provision for these important safeguards is made on the face of the Bill. We regret the Government’s reluctance to accept the need for further definition or statutory guidance. In the absence of statutory safeguards, we do not consider that the Government has provided adequate justification for the extension of this broad discretion to use such powers to local authority employees or contractors”.
It also states at paragraph 123:
“We consider that the power to seize property is a power of the type which should generally be reserved to police personnel. Without further justification for seizure powers to extend to the local authority, we consider that this power should be limited to police personnel”.
I have cut down the amount that I was intending to read into the record. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
Briefly, I agree heartily with my noble friend. It is not just a question of the seniority of the police officer, or whether they are warranted. My noble friend made some important points. Every inquiry into difficulties with protests recently has found that training is the issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what provisions are in place under this Government for better training. The other place concluded after G20 that never again must untrained officers be placed in the front line of public protest. Nowhere is more front-line than Parliament Square. Inadequate training in the law, including human rights and public order powers, and a lack of clarity about the role and function of the forward intelligence teams, who are very much on the ground in the case of bigger public demonstrations, have been issues.
I realise that since some of those comments were made, we have had the appointment of Sir Hugh Orde, who has brought some valuable experience in human rights training from Northern Ireland, which was recognised for integrating human rights training into general training. In human rights training, it is so important to get the balance between freedom of expression and that spilling over into something else.
The previous Government rather sloped their shoulders with regard to the Home Office giving guidance on what training should be given and said that it was a matter for ACPO. Does the Home Office feel more strongly now that guidance on training, particularly in this regard, is a matter for the Home Office?
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, will be brief. I have one amendment in the group. It relates to Clause 149 and deals with a very similar issue to that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: the definition given of “authorised officer”. The clause states that it can be,
“an employee of the responsible authority”,
or,
“any other person who, under arrangements made with the responsible authority … is so authorised for the purposes of this Part”.
All I want to add is that there are concerns, which have been eloquently expressed, about the powers that may be operated by someone other than a warranted police officer. I appreciate that the purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to ensure that it is a senior police officer.
It will be very helpful in probing how the Government see the role of people other than warranted police officers under this part of the Bill, if the Minister could say what those authorised officers, as defined under the Bill, will be expected to do. What will an authorised officer not to be able to do that a warranted police officer could do under the Bill?
Will the role of the authorised officers include policing demonstrations? How will people know that they are authorised officers under the terms of the Bill, since presumably they are not going to be dressed like police officers? Will it be obvious to all concerned? The Minister will know from evidence given in relation to this Bill that a view has been expressed in police circles that even clearly identifiable police officers may at times have difficulty in having their decisions and instructions accepted by those who are taking part in demonstrations—certainly in the heat of the moment. Surely that becomes even more difficult, depending on what the Minister has to say about the role of authorised officers, in relation to somebody who is not a police officer. Who will determine the suitability of these authorised officers for the role envisaged for them in this Bill, whatever that role may be?
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and perhaps put minds at rest to some extent by what he has to say about the role and responsibilities he expects for these authorised officers who are not warranted police officers.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I intervene with another rather silly and naive question. I ask these questions because previously sometimes the most ludicrous things have happened and we find an article in the Evening Standard about action taken during one of these demonstrations which none of us comprehends. I want to ask a very simple question. Clause 146(1) says,
“if it appears to that constable or officer that the item is being, or has been, used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 144”.
What about a deckchair? If a demonstrator turned up with a deckchair, who will decide whether the chair is for sitting upon or for sleeping upon? It is in those silly little areas that stupid decisions are taken that can lead to trouble in crowds, and subsequently to violence. It can be the small things that trigger a demonstration. This is why this whole area of the Bill should have been dealt with in far greater detail than it has been, and I simply ask what might appear a naive question but may well turn into an issue at some stage.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I have one illustration to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made so well. Who is to say that that person with the deckchair is even on the demonstration? One of the issues under the—happily to be repealed—SOCA provisions was that a person turning up in a T-shirt with a slogan saying “down with the war” might be taken to be on a demonstration but might be taken to be walking down the road in a T-shirt. The same thing would apply to things like deckchairs and blankets. Is a poncho something for sleeping in? It is a sort of blanket but your head can go through it. There are all sorts of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is correct to raise that are going to be an immense matter for judgment.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I will pick up on that last point about seizure before I begin to address the amendments. Police officers have different seizure powers that are largely based on their need to prevent crime or to seize evidence for a crime. People have mentioned deckchairs and other such items. Depending on the circumstances, it would be up to the police officer concerned to exercise their judgment about whether the item they were seizing was involved in either preventing crime or was evidence that might be used in a later prosecution.
Amendment 244ZZB is premised on ensuring that only the most senior officer present at a scene can issue a direction to cease doing a prohibited activity. The Government fully appreciate the likely challenge to these provisions. We understand that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that directions are properly issued by escalating authority to the senior officer present at the scene. On a point of principle, the Government are confident that police constables, regardless of rank, can issue appropriate directions. The Government support the return of discretion to police professionals.
On a point of operational practicality, the package of reforms is designed to support early and proportionate interventions by the police to prevent an escalation of prohibited activities. However, the amendment would hinder that. Amendments conferring powers only on the senior officer present at the scene would have an adverse impact on practical enforcement on the ground, and on that basis I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
The same arguments extend to Amendment 244ZA and other amendments in a similar vein. These amendments would remove powers from authorised officers of the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council, about which I shall say more in a moment. The effectiveness of the new legal framework in Part 3 depends on a strong collaborative partnership approach between the Metropolitan Police, the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council, with which the Home Office continues to work closely. It is necessary for all three agencies to be able to exercise some powers to avoid the type of situation in which, for example, a heritage warden employed by the Greater London Authority found himself unable to act or to deal with an individual until a police officer arrived to assist. Removing all powers from authorised officers would make the provisions in Part 3 unworkable.
Clearly, members of the public must be able to identify authorised officers, understand what powers they have and their authority to use them, and what avenues of complaint are open to them. Greater London Authority heritage wardens carry identification and wear a uniform, as do authorised officers from Westminster City Council. We understand from both the GLA and Westminster City Council that to date there have been no issues with authorised officers’ identification for the purposes of implementing by-laws. In addition, we are working with the relevant authorities to develop enforcement protocols and guidance on all these issues. I say to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer that the Home Office has undertaken to provide the guidance and operation for this part of the Bill.
The Government recognise the concerns generated by the powers that are available to authorised officers. That is why, as noble Lords may know, we have listened to concerns raised in the other place and have decided to remove the power to use reasonable force from authorised officers. However, the amendments would take away the powers of authorised officers to deal with even the most routine cases. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments, which would make the provision in Part 3 unworkable. I hope they will feel that I have given them sufficient information to be more confident about how we intend to proceed with this part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as has been said, seizure of items, as well as directions, will be very much a matter for judgment. My noble friend referred to training—an issue which was highlighted following past experience. We often talk about lessons learnt but do we ever actually learn the lessons or just talk about learning them? Exactly the same applies to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—it will be a matter for judgment. Overenthusiastic authorised officers may well escalate a problem rather than calm it down. The Minister refers to practical problems regarding the senior officer on the scene. I think that the issuing of directions will be less of an issue than one-to-one encounters. Therefore, again, I am not wholly persuaded.
The GLA and Westminster say that there have been no problems with identification as regards their own officers in the past, but I wonder how much that has ever really been tested. I hear what the Minister says, so at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, the Committee will have noticed that I confused my ZZAAs before, which is why I moved that amendment earlier, for which I apologise. It is confusing when they are grouped like this.
With the amendments in the name of my noble friend we move to whether the maximum fines for a summary conviction for an offence are proportionate under Clause 144 for failure to comply with the direction. We feel that it would be more proportionate to move from level 5 to level 3, which the JCHR comments on. It says that the Minister may wish to impose an effective deterrent, and that,
“any punishment should be proportionate to the relevant offence. We do not consider that the Minister has explained why these offences differ significantly in impact or scale from other public order offences to justify a significantly greater degree of sanction. Without further justification the Bill should be amended to reduce the sanction from level 5 to level 3, in line with other similar public order offences”.
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why this is considered worthy of such a significantly greater fine.
Amendments 244ZCG and 244ZCH would reduce from 90 days to 14 days the period in which an activity is prohibited. Surely 90 days is really very extreme. Do we imagine that people will hang around for 14 days and try to repeat their activity? That is possible; it might be taken as part of the freedom to try your demonstration again. But similarly, the Joint Committee on Human Rights asks the Government for an explanation as to,
“why they consider that it is appropriate for the Court to have such broad Order-making powers in connection with the proposed offences. In particular, the Minister should explain why lengthy Orders banning an individual from the vicinity of the controlled area around Parliament might be appropriate”.
Under the provisions of SOCPA part of the enormous offence caused by the clauses in that Bill was to do with banning individuals from an area. The Government need to proceed with extreme caution in this case. If individuals feel very strongly about something that is about to happen—I could quote, for example, the country going to war—of course, individuals will want to protest again and again. Is it really reasonable to prevent them doing so for three months just because they lay down to sleep although they were directed not to do so and contravened the Act? In any case, if they feel that strongly, why should they not do it again? I am not condoning people undertaking criminal activity but in this case, there is a very fine line between taking all individuals who protested and contravened something and banning them from appearing anywhere outside Parliament for 90 days. I do not feel that that is proportionate and I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I hope that I have the right group of amendments and will not start talking to something that I am not meant to be talking to. I will not add to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Like her, I await the response with interest. I will raise the issue of guidance, which is covered by an amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs, who unfortunately is not in his place. I will not go through everything in the amendment, but will simply ask the Minister for clarification. There have been one or two references to other documentation or some form of guidance being issued. Can this be clarified now across the Dispatch Box? What part of the clauses relating to Parliament Square that we are discussing will be the subject of further guidance, perhaps to identify the meaning or interpretation that is to be put on some of the words that are used, in addition to the specific guidance referred to in the amendment? I ask this in the context of wanting to be clear on what areas the Government are going to issue guidance about as far as concerns the clauses in relation to Parliament Square.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I will say two things before I answer the particular points. First, we will come back to Parliament Square on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was unable to be here today and asked to withdraw his amendments and bring them back on Report. I very much hope that we will take further the whole issue of what we should do about the environs of Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that I have been thinking about when I first became conscious of how special this area is. It was when I was standing on top of the Henry VII chapel at the 1951 State Opening of Parliament. I was fascinated by the speed with which the Westminster City Council rubbish collectors picked up the horse manure as the Horse Guards rode past. My views on what is important have changed a little since then. The following year I sang in Westminster Hall at the lying in state of King George VI, and I have been involved in this area ever since. On Saturday night I will take part in a singing tour of the abbey, so I am probably among those who care most about the integrity of the area.
Secondly, in answer to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I have the answer from the Box on Clause 142(2). If the provisions come into force on 1 May, for example, directions can be issued from 1 May onwards in relation to activity being engaged in from then, but they cannot include any activity that took place before then: there is no question of retrospectivity. Clause 142(2) ensures that ongoing encampments can be subject to directions once the provisions are commenced. I hope that that answers the point.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Miller. The Government note that the issues raised are similar to those raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The issue is the appropriate maximum level of fine and whether it is commensurate with the potential damage and harms caused by the prohibited activities. Under the provisions, an individual commits an offence only when they fail to comply with a prior direction that provides an opportunity for them to desist from an activity before committing an offence. While the level of fine is higher than for some other comparable offences, this is balanced by the opportunity to desist from an activity before any criminal liability is attached. Level 5 is the absolute maximum penalty for this offence, and the courts have discretion in setting the level of fine in any case. The Government therefore consider that this maximum level of fine could be a proportionate response to an evidenced problem of serious and wilful disregard of local by-laws.
My noble friend also raised the question of how one measures the strength of protest. Again, we have to balance the strength of protest that a very small number of people wish to assist in against access for a very large number of protestors. I suspect that my noble friend was, as I was, on the demonstration against the Iraq war. We spent a very long time marching—actually, shuffling because there were so many people there—along the Embankment, through Parliament Square and down Whitehall. I never got to Hyde Park. There were 2 million of us. If there had been a small number of people encamped in our path, we would not have been able to get even as far as we did. One has to think about the right to protest in a balanced way. Strength of protest there was expressed by the number of people, not by the fact that any of us wanted to stay overnight and camp for the next six weeks in Hyde Park or anywhere else.
On the other amendment, the Government think that a maximum of 90 days strikes the right balance. Without any limit it would, for the person directed not to start a prohibited activity, be unclear and uncertain at what point a direction ceased to apply. With the limit of 14 days, we could, with some persistent resident protestors, so to speak, create a burden requiring unduly frequent renewal. Ninety days has been applied in a number of other areas for these sorts of orders.
Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause provide that the direction to stop a prohibited activity may include a direction that the person does not start doing that activity again and that the direction continues in force for a period of time specified by the constable or authorised officer giving the direction.
Then we come to the use of “varied” in Clause 145(6)(c). We thought it fair to give officers the ability to amend a direction given to enable them to deal with changing operational circumstances. This would mean the officer would be able to change the duration of the direction or to reinforce the direction taking account of changing circumstances. This amendment would curtail the rights of officers and reduce their ability to respond proportionately to changing circumstances, and we are all familiar with how difficult it can be to do so in large demonstrations.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, formally moved the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but our sense on the amendment is that he was providing detailed guidance of the sort that should not be in the Bill but which should be provided. I think I will need to write to the noble Lord about exactly which parts of these clauses will be subject to further guidance, but I promise that I will write.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
When the Government look at issuing detailed guidance, I hope they will not neglect the concern of my noble friend Lord Dubs about the use of amplifying equipment. I recall that during the encampment in Parliament Square I was unable to use my parliamentary office in 1 Parliament Street over an extended period. I hope that that will be taken fully into account when detailed guidance is given by the Government. I have very many scars from that time.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we will be coming on to that. I know that there are different, but very strongly held, opinions on amplifying equipment. Westminster City Council replied that by all their measures traffic noise was more important than the amplifying equipment. I think my colleague will be coming on to that on the next amendment.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Members of Parliament were unable to do the job for which they were elected as a result of the activities of certain of the protestors.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Having heard this useful further discussion, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I thank the Minister for his reply on the retrospective aspect of this matter. I am sure that she will be as reassured as I am by that. I thank him for his explanation on why the penalty is as it is. I still wonder whether 90 days is rather heavy-handed. We will want to come back to whether police officers should be able to vary their guidance or their judgment of a situation on Report.
Around the House, we are in agreement that peaceful protest is a good thing and violent protest is not. On 28 March, we had a good example. At the Fortnum & Mason peaceful protest, 138 people were charged. Of several dozen violent protesters only 11 were charged. Somewhere there the police did not get their judgment right. I am grateful that my noble friend the Minister has had such broad experience of protests—going on them and now from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will be able to weave a careful path through this very knotty issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, this group of amendments moves us on to amplified noise, which was referred to a moment ago. The Bill prevents all use of noise amplification equipment without prior authorisation, which rather returns us to the situation under the SOCPA provisions where you had to have prior authorisation for a demonstration. Following representations from Members of the other place and from this House, it is understandable that the Government have felt that they have to react to the issue of noise equipment. On the day of the visit of the President of the United States there were a couple of demonstrations outside this building. I am sure that all of your Lordships could tell that it was not necessary to have amplified noise equipment in order to have a loud demonstration, even from 30 or 40 people. The matter of whether we need such restrictions to be so overwhelming is one issue.
The Bill gives a large amount of discretion to the police as regards reasonableness, on matters such as whether a person is about to turn up the volume so that people around are likely to be able to hear it. That is very theoretical and it will make the life of the police more difficult if they have to make that sort of judgment. However, there is clearly a judgment to be made here. People have a right to go about their business in the square, whether they are tourists or Londoners, and they should not have to hear an incredible amount of noise—although the traffic is probably still the noisiest thing. Our amendments probe whether there should be an overall prohibition on amplification and whether the restriction should be so broad. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I may raise one point. My memory may have failed, in which case I am sure it will be pointed out to me. In the proceedings in the other place, some surprise was expressed when the Minister said that a loud radio would be regarded as amplified noise equipment. Is the Minister able to say any more about the definition of amplified noise equipment? I appreciate that it is dealt with in Clause 144(4), but if someone came along with a radio, some of which can be pretty loud, and played it, would that be regarded as being amplified noise equipment or not?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, in responding to Amendment 244ZB and its linked amendments, it is important to re-emphasise why the Government are bringing forward this package of reforms. Parliament Square is a World Heritage Site surrounded, as we know, by important historic buildings such as Westminster Abbey. Its location opposite the Houses of Parliament makes it a focus for protests, and rightly so. This means that we need to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as protestors and of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space as visitors. This extends to the use of amplified noise equipment as much as to encampments.
However, the Government recognise that the use of loudhailers is linked to freedom of expression in a way that erecting a tent is not. The package of reforms accordingly puts lesser restrictions on the use of loudspeakers than on the erection of tents. It does this by putting in place a proportionate authorisation scheme which balances competing rights, so using a loudhailer is a prohibited activity only if it has not been authorised. The authorisation regime set out in Clause 148 applies to a much smaller area than the SOCPA provisions which the Government are repealing. This is in line with the Government’s determination to take an approach based on evidenced problems of the misuse of loudhailers in Parliament Square. The amendments would mean that there would be no regulation whatever on the use of items such as loudhailers and loudspeakers. Not only would this be an abdication of responsibility to deal with the noise nuisance that has plagued Parliament Square for many years, it would also risk causing difficulties where a number of competing protests are taking place.
I will not go into great detail on this. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Can I check on a technical point with the noble Baroness? Clause 148(5) states:
“The notice must specify… the kind of amplified noise equipment to which the authorisation applies”.
Does that mean that there will be a control on equipment in terms of the channel output of the equipment being used? It is quite a technical question, but I would have thought that some kind of estimate must be made of the channel output of the equipment. I cannot see any other way of determining what kind of equipment could be authorised.
Baroness Browning
I do not know if I am going to answer the noble Lord in as much detail as he would like. There are already noise regulations which, for example, would deal with other types of equipment such as radios. The noble Lord is indicating from a sedentary position that that is different. Perhaps I may write to him on the point.
We understand that the use of a loudhailer is intrinsic to the right to protest and being able to communicate one’s message, but we consider that some restrictions along the lines proposed in these clauses and elsewhere in Part 3 are required in order to ensure that the rights and freedoms of others are adequately protected and balanced with the rights of protestors. We have no wish to prevent protest around Parliament, and I would hope that the other provisions in Part 3, namely the repeal of SOCPA, show clearly our commitment to restoring rights to protest.
As I have made clear during the debate, the provisions in Part 3 are about ensuring that individuals do not usurp the rights of many others. Therefore it does not seem disproportionate for responsible authorities to be able to place limits on the duration of the use of a loudhailer. The details of this authorisation scheme are clearly set out in the Bill to ensure that it is clear and accessible to all. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have a further question. Sometimes when we come in by St Stephen’s Entrance, 200 or 300 people might be meeting on the other side of the road where there is a space. Someone with a loudhailer will be standing there. What control on them will exist? Will they be free to use that loudhailer, or is that a regulated area?
Baroness Browning
They would be free to use it, but subject to authorisation, which at the moment they do not have. I am coming to the question of applications to use the loudhailer, which might be helpful to the noble Lord. I shall just make this point. He and I have both experienced the use of a loudhailer there. If you stand within the precincts of the House of the Commons, you cannot hear what is being said. Protestors are not delivering a message; you just hear a very loud screeching noise. In that context, I also point out that it is not only Members of Parliament who have had their work disrupted by this. It is extremely difficult for the police officers who stand permanently on duty by Palace Gates, and who also have to endure this noise.
Baroness Browning
You can still hear it from there. I am not saying that that is where the loudhailer is; I am saying that you can hear it from there. You cannot hear what is being said; you just hear a shriek. As I have said, we are not trying to prevent protestors using a loudhailer but we want it to be proportionate in how it impacts on other people.
I shall just go through the regulations on applications. Twenty-one days is the period currently used by the GLA and Westminster to consider applications for loudhailers under local by-law provisions and Section 137 of SOCPA. Six days would be too short a period and would not give local authorities sufficient time to consult others. We are talking about a very limited area in which authorisation to use amplified noise equipment is needed. The authorisation scheme is there to protect competing interests in the limited space. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
I come to the court and the distinct issue of limiting its ability, on conviction, to make an order requiring the convicted person not to enter the controlled area of Parliament Square by imposing a time limit of no more than seven days. The Government’s provisions leave the length of time entirely to the court to determine, in line with the circumstances of each case. This is wholly appropriate and would allow the courts to deal with determined individuals who might be resolute in simply coming back after seven days. I hope noble Lords will understand that we believe we have got the proportionality right here. I will write to the noble Lord on his more detailed technical question about different types of equipment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. She has certainly laid out the Government’s thinking very clearly. It is still possible to see one or two difficulties. For example, if you wanted to use a loudhailer at the last minute because you had only just decided to march on a particular issue, you would not have 21 days in which to apply to do so. In that case, would you be in contravention of what is in the Bill? There may be some other details that we shall want to come back to on Report, but we now have a clear understanding of where the Government are coming from. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford
“Parliament Square committee
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a committee with responsibility for managing the controlled area of Parliament Square.
(2) The committee’s members shall be representatives of—
(a) all of the bodies which own or have responsibility for the controlled area of Parliament Square, and(b) the Metropolitan police force.(3) The committee shall co-ordinate the work of its members in order to ensure that the controlled area of Parliament Square is kept clear of litter, detritus or other debris.
(4) The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am putting to the Government a rather simpler method of dealing with the whole problem. It is a gentler method. It is something that I have given a lot of thought to over a very long time. Indeed, I have a Private Member’s Bill, which was published on 1 February, which has received lot of support. I have now incorporated that into Amendment 244ZCCA and Amendment 244ZEZA.
This starts from the premise that we are all agreed that Parliament Square is an excellent place for there to be public protest and where there has always been public protest. It is only in recent years that the problem has emerged at all. The catalyst for the problem, of course, has been the introduction of camping. Although Parliament Square is an ideal place for people to protest and should be made available for people, it is not a good thing that people are able to camp there for weeks, months or sometimes years and hog the space, which in effect prevents other people from having use of it. It also makes it a much less impressive, vibrant and immediate source of protest. Therefore, my solution is much simpler. All we really need to do is to ensure through practical housekeeping that people do not camp there.
The problem of control of Parliament Square should be dealt with by having a Parliament Square committee, which would have the function of managing Parliament Square. All those who were interested could be on that committee. That is laid down in my first amendment. Then my suggestion is simple. At some point during each night during midnight and 6.00 am, Parliament Square should be swept clean and any detritus left is removed. People can come back in the morning, start all over again and do whatever they want.
When my Private Member’s Bill was published, I got a telephone call from Westminster City Council, which expressed great interest in it. I explained what I just said and someone said, “We never thought of that”. It is not only simpler and gentler but—this might be presumptuous—it is more elegant. Frankly, the Home Office has an awful lot of people who labour to produce these things and inevitably they produce more detail. One detail leads to another and one factor leads to another. I have removed a couple of clauses from its Bill, which I hope it will not take too much offence at, but I have included in the categories in my second amendment the sort of things that could be removed.
I hope very much that the Government will realise that this would deal with the essence of the problem. It would be much less confrontational and difficult. If it did not work, of course in the future this could be looked at again and we could do more. But by removing that catalyst of the permanent encampment and occupation of the square, which is a pretty dead form of protest, we would be moving forward. It is a solution that I hope will commend itself to the Government and I hope that they do not produce a lot of technical reasons why it is not practical. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am very sympathetic to the amendment because I feel quite strongly, and always have done, that people should be allowed to demonstrate in the square. This is a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with the difficulties that arise. Basically, you are simply clearing the square in the evening after the demonstrations have taken place during the day.
It always gives me a thrill when I drive around Parliament Square to see those people encamped on the pavement. This must be one of the only democracies in the whole world where people can demonstrate on the very steps of Parliament. It must be most enlightening for people coming in from all over the world to see it actually happening here in the United Kingdom. It might give them cause to reflect on the way we run our democratic arrangements in this country. This amendment should be seriously considered by the Government. It would certainly save a lot of space in the printing presses where they produce legislation and it would deal with the problem in a way that is perfectly acceptable. I hope it can be considered on Report in perhaps greater detail—perhaps even in the Division Lobbies.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is quite right. When parliamentarians from other countries come here it is one of the things that they comment on—and not adversely. They do not dwell as much on the slightly messier aspect that MPs and some noble Lords have complained about. They are more impressed with the fact that the demonstrations take place. There is much attraction in the noble Lord’s amendment, not least for the Government. They have signed up to a bonfire of regulations and this gets rid of an awful lot of regulations all at once. I imagine that they will be nervous of adopting it because it seems perhaps too gentle but for my part I am very attracted to it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I note that these two amendments are identical, and almost identical to the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Does this replace his Private Member’s Bill or will we return to this on 1 July, which I think is now scheduled for the Second Reading of his Bill, for a third debate on the issue that began with the Second Reading of the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lord Tyler last Friday?
As I have already said, I welcome the discussion of not just the future of Parliament Square but also the whole question of the democratic environs of the Palace of Westminster. If I might go slightly off ministerial piste, so to speak, I think that we all recognise that the most intrusive element in Parliament Square is traffic. Some of us were actively supportive of the World Squares for All initiative which intended to close off either one or two sides of the square. That would give us back a major democratic space. Part of the reason that the encampment has been able to lodge on those pavements for some time without interference is because it is difficult for the ordinary person to get across the traffic on to Parliament Square Garden under most conditions except in the middle of the night.
If we are going to discuss the whole issue of Parliament Square and demonstrations in the vicinity of Westminster, Abingdon Green and so on, I suggest that we need to pull together a committee which will include not just the authorities here but also the Supreme Court, the authorities of Westminster Abbey and elsewhere. I am sympathetic to a good deal of what is behind the amendment but suggest that if we are to discuss this area it is not just a question of the management of demonstrations or the encampment in the middle of Parliament Square. The Government are working with the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police on effective enforcement protocols. Guidance will be issued to the public about these new provisions. However, that is about the narrow issue of the future of encampments in Parliament Square. The wider issues that I suspect the noble Lord wishes to get to require debate outside the confines of the Bill. I therefore request him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford
That was a pretty negative response, if I may say so. Although I shall withdraw my amendment, pending Report, I am very glad that I have a slot for my Private Member’s Bill on 1 July, when we will have the opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail. It was mentioned several times by people in the discussion of the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Tyler. Indeed, my noble friend himself said that it would be a very useful follow-on for his Bill. Others welcomed it, too. Frankly, the point made by my noble friend Lord Wallace about the traffic is pretty irrelevant; it is not in any way involved in what I am suggesting, nor is it involved in what the Government suggest in their Bill. So that is a bit of a distraction.
There seems to be an idea that this matter should be just pushed into the long grass. I know that the Home Office is very reluctant to accept views from outside, but there are occasions when it has to. I remind the House that in 1997 I proposed an amendment to have a national register of firearms on a computerised system. For 10 years, the department played “Yes Minister” in order not to get it. Fortunately, every Minister during that time on both sides did their best to get it done and, eventually, it was put into practice. It is now working extremely well. When the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who was then chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in another place, called the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office to ask why this proposal, which had been enacted, had not been carried forward, he was told, “It was never our idea—it was Lord Marlesford’s idea. We have our own views”. The noble Lord said, “But it’s law”. Anyway, the Home Office did it eventually.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Wallace does not feel inclined to take a slightly more positive view than he has done. I am glad that we will have a debate on 1 July, and I hope that noble Lords will come and take part in it—and I look forward to bringing back the amendment at Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, Amendments 244AB and 244CA are probing amendments. My noble friends Lord Low and Lord Walton had hoped to be here but they both have prior engagements elsewhere. They were not expecting to be speaking on this Bill at this time of the evening but have both asked me to impress upon the House their strong support for these two amendments.
The problem of legal highs, many of them produced in China and available on the web, is growing rapidly. The Government understandably want to find an appropriate response to a variety of substances involving very different levels of risk. Understandable too is the idea of temporary banning orders while information about the substances is gathered and analysed, albeit that a full evaluation of those substances will probably take about five years. I am not entirely sure what the Minister will do at the end of the one-year period.
The only question that I hope we can address today, and it is serious, is whether the Minister will consider opening up the possibility, without making any commitment, of controlling the supply of some of these substances through alternative regulatory mechanisms rather than all of them being controlled through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In putting this question I applaud James Brokenshire, the Minister for drugs policy in the other place, for making it clear that the temporary bans will apply only to the supply, sale and distribution of those substances and not to users, thus avoiding the criminalisation of users during the period of the temporary bans. My concern is that at the end of the banning period many of the substances will, I guess, become permanently banned. As the Bill stands, the substances would all fall within the ambit of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
In seeking to find appropriate controls of legal highs, the Government have a wonderful opportunity to explore different methods of control and to evaluate them. It is in the spirit of wishing to work with the Government to find the best way forward that I have tabled these two amendments. Why do I regard the opportunity to evaluate alternative methods of control as so important? There is increasing evidence from across the world that a health-oriented approach to drug use is more effective than criminalisation in reducing levels of addiction. Surely that is our common goal.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy concluded that criminalising drugs users has failed to reduce problem drug use. It recommends, rather precisely, the approach of our two amendments: to encourage experimentation, with alternative methods of control of less harmful drugs, evaluation and the introduction of evidence-based treatment. I know that the Minister would wish to take seriously the recommendations of global commission members, among them Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations— he was ultimately responsible for overseeing the implementation of the UN drugs conventions—Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and George Shultz, former US Secretary of State, all highly regarded world figures, not to mention the raft of ex-Presidents of countries in Europe and Latin America. I am sure that the Minister will want to take most seriously the views of all of those people.
Globally, the use of drugs continues to rise at an alarming rate: opiates by 34.5 per cent, cocaine by 27 per cent and cannabis by 8.5 per cent in the 10 years to 2008. In the UK, as we have focused more upon the treatment of users and as the police increasingly, though not uniformly, turn a blind eye to cannabis use we have seen a flattening out of some drug-use statistics. Any switch from criminalising to evidence-based health policies seems to be helpful and I know that the Government plan to increase access to drug treatments. Our aim today is to ensure that the policy for legal highs discourages problem drug use, rather than driving people into the hands of unscrupulous drug traffickers and on to the most dangerous and contaminated substances.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, my name is to this amendment. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her energetic work in this area. She has given the House an excellent introduction to this amendment so I will not delay things at all, except to say that since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 one Government or another—indeed, society as a whole—have tried almost everything in the book. We have not got anywhere with it, really. The so-called war on drugs is a stalemate at best; at worst, we are losing the battle. This seems a good moment to try a different approach. Something in particular that has changed is that in the early 1970s, when we did not have the internet, people could not just order things online and get them by post. The public now are looking for consumer protection, whether for aspirins or legal highs. I understand that we all, whatever our political point of view, have to approach this question with great sensitivity; it is not an easy one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment in the way that she has. It gives us a great opportunity.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the whole House should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the way in which she has introduced the amendment. It has given us a good perspective on these issues and picks up on the very good debate on this topic that we had at Second Reading.
This side of the House took from that debate the concern that has just been mentioned about the rhetoric of the war on drugs and the worry that that may have outlived its purpose. Our concern is that there needs to be a new look at all the psychoactive drugs, and a policy that looks through one prism at the way in which they impact on individuals and society. Our continuing worry has been expressed again today: that policy in this area needs to be joined up much better, so that the health and educational aspects of all work on drugs are brought together. I know—at least, I hope—that the Minister shares in that expression of concern. Whether that amounts to a need for a new plan B in this area would be a good debate and might be something that we want to come back to on Report.
Our amendments in this group are supportive of the original amendment. We feel that control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 may be appropriate for the most harmful new substances, but it has a number of negative consequences that can increase the dangers to some users from the substance in question and other more harmful substances for which new drugs may be substituted. It would therefore be appropriate for the ACMD to be asked also to consider the use of other legal powers, such as consumer protection legislation, trading standards in particular or, as has been discussed, medicines controls, before they consider recommending the use of temporary banning orders.
As has been mentioned again in this debate, the experience of the control of mephedrone indicates that the Government can at times have very limited information about both the impact of controlled substances on users and the changes in usage in terms of the adoption of both less and more harmful behaviours caused by the introduction of legal controls. Again, it would be appropriate for the ACMD to commit to reviewing the effects, both positive and negative, of each temporary ban before making any recommendations about making the control permanent. It should be noted that, even one year after a temporary ban has been introduced, robust data about usage and the impact of the ban are likely to be limited unless steps are taken to improve data collection processes. The evaluation should certainly consider, at the very minimum, the impact of temporary bans on the use of the banned substances: the actual use of the substance, its purity and the replacement of the banned substance with other substances, including controlled and other substances.
Finally, the Government should be encouraged to commit to reviewing the temporary banning powers in general after three years from their first use. This will provide an opportunity to evaluate how effectively they are being used and what impact they are having on the consideration of other control mechanisms.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I know that we share an understanding across the House of the seriousness of this important subject. The measures in this legislation are designed to implement a coalition agreement that we would introduce a system of temporary bans on new legal highs and psychoactive substances while health issues are considered by independent experts. We will not permanently ban a substance without receiving full advice from the ACMD. That was the Government’s commitment. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that, although this has come before the House in this legislation, we have not been neglectful of the need to act quickly on these matters. We know that this is a fast-moving subject.
We have, for example, completed a three-month pilot to explore improvements to the current forensic early-warning system for indentifying new and emerging drugs, which are emerging all the time. The forensic early warning system will see the Government and the forensic community working together to proactively identify emerging drugs using a range of methods including laboratory testing and analysis of police seizures. I will not say more about that, but I wanted to share it with the House because it is important that, while we legislate on the need to be able to bring in these temporary bans, a lot of work takes place alongside that.
Of course, we also rely on the expert advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which we consider to be an important part of the process. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already asked the ACMD to produce a further report in the summer, looking at how we will take this overall policy forward in a more general way.
Clause 152 introduces Schedule 17 provisions for temporary class drug orders by virtue of amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The new provisions will ensure that our drug laws are responsive to the changing drug landscape. New emerging psychoactive substances come at pace out of laboratories where they are designed. As has been mentioned, these laboratories are not necessarily located in this country. The substances may also be marketed from abroad and, as we have heard, over the web. Suppliers market them to young people in particular. We propose to remove from these unscrupulous manufacturers and suppliers the opportunity to cause harm to the public with these new synthetic drugs. The UK’s response, including the use of the new powers, will remain proportionate to the threat that a new drug poses.
The Secretary of State must meet two conditions to invoke a temporary class drug order which are aligned to current provisions for permanent drug control. The first condition is to have established that the drug in question must not be caught under the 1971 Act. The second condition, which we introduced in response to the concerns expressed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and in the other place, is that ACMD must be consulted or have made a recommendation for an order to be made.
The ACMD will continue to be entrusted with the provision of comprehensive advice to government on measures that ought to be taken. As an independent expert body, it will provide best advice that may or may not include a recommendation to make a temporary class drug order. It may or may not include broader advice. The Government have no intention of fettering the basis on which its experts advise. Noble Lords will be interested to know that we will shortly be receiving from the ACMD its general advice on approaches to demand and supply of new psychoactive substances. We will give full consideration to that advice and implement it where appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggests in her amendments that the supply of a temporary class drug should be regulated under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, I believe with the purpose of restricting sales to a person under the age of 18. I commend her focus on protecting young people from these drugs and their harms. She and I have discussed this very important area and I hope that we will continue to do so. However, if the ACMD and the Secretary of State consider that a drug’s harms are or have the potential to warrant temporary control, it is the Government's policy to take steps that protect all of society, not just those under the age of 18.
I was also asked—I think by the noble Baroness—about the need for more information to be provided, particularly to young people. We are hoping to improve this situation. Since I took up my post in the Home Office, I have written to the organisers of music and pop festivals which take place around the country at this time of year. My predecessor did this last year. It was a good way to get that information across to the people who attend these festivals—that is, through the organisers. That would apply particularly to some of the young people the noble Baroness mentioned.
The new powers will bring control of a temporary class drug order under the 1971 Act, which requires that an initial impact assessment is made. Under the current provisions, a further, fuller impact assessment is required if a drug is to be permanently controlled, and in more detail where any legitimate use of the drug has been identified. We want to avoid duplicating those arrangements that are already in place.
In addition, annual publications of drug misuse and enforcement statistics and research outcomes in the delivery of our policies will also give effect to noble Lords’ and the Government’s shared purpose of gathering evidence to inform our policies. We regard that as very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned methadrone and the Mixmag survey. Although mephedrone became a controlled class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act on 16 April 2010, and the Mixmag survey of 16 to 24 year-olds survey showed that since the drug was banned 56 per cent of respondents said that their use of the drug had decreased or stopped, perhaps particularly important was the fact that since the ban approximately 141 kilos of mephedrone were seized by the UK Border Agency. That is a quantity of the drug that has not gone into the public arena for use by young people.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I very much welcome the comments of the Minister about the Government’s reliance on the ACMD. I understand that the Government will respond positively to its advice. I also very much welcome her point about improving information to young people, particularly through festivals, and her recognition of the need for a full impact assessment of these bans before taking things further. I was interested to note that the Minister did not counter my figures on mephedrone—in other words, more people seemed to use it after the ban than before it. I look forward to further discussions with Ministers on this very important issue, although it is late in the evening for this discussion. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, this amendment obviously concerns the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and I must declare an interest, having been a member of the technical committee of the ACMD until last month.
This committee, as everyone knows, has gone through some turbulent times. One can, in some ways, see why the Government’s proposed wording to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act is as it is, because it aims to provide greater flexibility and to avoid situations where the council could not meet if the constitution was too rigid.
I understand that the Government have said that they will publish a working protocol governing their relationship with the ACMD, but that has not, as yet, been produced. It is likely to include a list of areas of expertise to which the Home Secretary will have regard when making appointments to the ACMD, and the protocol will be placed in the Library. Unfortunately, my understanding is that the protocol will not be available until after the Bill has received Royal Assent, which is why the amendment is important. We need to know what is to happen. The protocol may not be a sufficient safeguard in the longer term to ensure that there is a well-balanced ACMD. A future Home Secretary would be under no obligation to follow the principles of the working protocol. If it was guidance, they could simply decide to ignore it.
The reason for specifying the groups in the amendment is to try to be broadbrush, without being too prescriptive. Having been a member of the technical committee, I became acutely aware of how important the scientists, the drug control people and the behavioural scientists were to that committee. They brought a dimension and understanding to some things that the rest of us did not have, however much we tried to read around the subject. One of the people from whom I learnt the most was a member of the police force on the technical committee, who brought a degree of insight into the functioning of the outputs of the committee that I found most helpful, as, I think, did others. We invited experts to give us evidence, but the collective memory that formed around the table was important.
I question the Minister about exactly how the process of appointing new members to the council will be conducted. The experience of appointments made in January this year and the subsequent cancellation of one of those appointments, that of Doctor Hans-Christian Raabe, suggests that improvements could be made to the appointments process. When non-scientific appointments are being made, will the Government ensure the expertise available to the appointment panels to assess the competencies of those who are applying? They might look good on paper, but if the appointment panel cannot ask the appropriate questions, it may miss out on the person who could contribute most to the panel.
Under the amendment, I seek assurance about the present safeguards to ensure that appointees have the appropriate level of experience, and about how they will be transferred when the Bill comes into force, to avoid a repetition of some of the unfortunate incidents that have occurred recently, and the bad publicity that goes with that, which undermines the credibility not only of the committee but, more importantly, of its decisions. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, although not wanting to repeat the eloquent and informed moving of the amendment by the noble Baroness, I shall speak briefly in support of it. I can well understand why the Government want to be rid of the six specified disciplines in existing law. They are too prescriptive. However, the noble Baroness in her amendment has set out in a much broader way the activities and experience of people who should be members of the advisory council.
I find it difficult to understand why the protocol has not yet been published. It cannot be too long a document and it cannot take too great a time to prepare. I hope that we will hear something positive from the Minister about the future of the council. In particular, it would be very helpful if my noble friend could tell the House that at least the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendment will be incorporated in the protocol. Above all, perhaps she could assure the House that the prediction that the protocol will not be produced until after Royal Assent is quite wrong and that it will in fact be produced quickly, we hope, so that it is available to Members of this House by Report.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, close readers of the Marshalled List will realise that the amendments in my name are very similar to those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Indeed, I read them three or four times and I still cannot quite see the difference between them. I am not sure why they appear twice. In fact, it is impossible to read things at this stage, because having been through the alphabet soup of the amendment list, you get so confused about what is or is not there. The noble Lords who have occupied the Chair have done a fantastic job in guiding us through without too many mistakes, so that we have arrived at a Bill that will contain most of the things that it should.
That aside, I simply want to make the point that has been very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. In her response to the previous group, the Minister mentioned the ACMD about eight times, reflecting the importance that the Government place on that. At the same time, in the name of flexibility, they are seeking to make rather more opaque exactly how those members will be appointed and what their specialisms will be and they have not given us a sense through the protocol of how they intend to do this. This is not a satisfactory basis for proceeding and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to us. We remain in some doubt as to why appointments to the ACMD have been made so flexible; nor are we able to know what they will be looking for in the future.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. On the last group of amendments, I referred to the protocol. It is true that we are still working on the protocol for the ACMD but the draft protocol was placed in the House of Lords Library in April this year.
The working protocol makes very clear that the ACMD will inform the Home Office what expertise it requires and that the Home Office will seek the views of the ACMD to inform any recruitment campaign. The chief scientific adviser to the Home Office will advise the Home Secretary on the balanced membership requirements appropriate to available resource and the need for effective functioning, and the chair of the ACMD will sit on interview panels. I that hope noble Lords who have not yet availed themselves of that document will obtain a copy from the Library.
The Government share the concern for ensuring the quality of the ACMD’s expert advice to inform our drug policy. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to set out our reasons for proposing this change to the ACMD’s constitution, and in particular to disabuse noble Lords of the allegations laid at the Government’s door that we are intending to remove scientists from the ACMD, which could not be further from the truth.
I fully acknowledge the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It may not appear so at first consideration but we share a common interest and appear to be working to a common end, namely securing expertise to the ACMD from which it may provide high-quality advice and by which we may maintain public confidence in that advice. However, we are going about it in a different way. Our proposal is intended to place all members of the ACMD on an equal footing. It might be of interest to the House to know that similar constitutional changes were made to the advisory body under the Medicines Act 1968, the original requirements in it having been similar to requirements placed in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The statutory membership requirements were removed in 2005 and replaced by a broad understanding that members will be appointed because of their high-level scientific expertise and their ability in critical appraisal rather than, as my noble friend Lord Carlile pointed out, a rather old-fashioned and pre-prescribed set of six disciplines.
We recognise that each member of the ACMD has a valuable contribution to make to the work of the council. We take the view that placing one area of expertise on a greater footing than others brings into question the need for the latter. In addition, we do not want to devalue ACMD advice where it derives from particular areas of non-statutory expertise altogether. I advise noble Lords to consider the list of expertise of which it is anticipated that the ACMD membership will be predominantly drawn up, as outlined in the working protocol. When members who have not had a chance to look at the protocol see that list, if they have issues about it or the range of disciplines suggested I would be very happy discuss those with them.
The working protocol also sets out the future involvement of the ACMD in recruiting new members, and the Government and the ACMD are prepared to be held to account on the terms of the protocol. The final version will be published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government are of the view that we are giving a far more expansive commitment regarding the expert advice and independence of the ACMD than it is reasonable to doubt. It is not in anyone’s interests, including those of the public, to expose the ACMD—the advice that it gives, the actions that the Government may take in response to that advice and, as appropriate, Parliament’s endorsement of those actions—to speculation and indeed to challenge over whether at any point the ACMD has members who cover the expertise that a statute may discriminate in favour of. I am sure that it is not noble Lords’ intention to facilitate such a situation but it would be an unacceptable product of these amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am most grateful to the Minister for her extensive response and for the reassurance that she has given. I apologise most sincerely to the Committee as I had been unaware that the draft protocol had been placed in the Library in April.
I am glad that there is reassurance that there will be a strengthening of science and, of course, a recognition of the importance of critical appraisal skills. In the modern world, that is absolutely essential, although it was not essential when the old formula for the committee was drawn up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“(a) a justice of the peace shall apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice on the advisability of granting the warrant or summons,(b) no warrant or summons shall be issued under this section without taking into account any advice given by the Director of Public Prosecutions”
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, before I deal with my amendment in detail, I want to say a few words by way of preamble. I am not a lawyer and I cannot claim any knowledge of the background to the administration of justice in the courts, but I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group and I have closely followed the debate on this matter in the other place.
A lawyer put it to me in this way the other day: “Clause 154 presents us with a paradox. The Department of Justice is responsible for the administration of justice, yet in certain cases it does not have confidence in the judges it appoints to sensibly administer the justice system, so it effectively nationalises the responsibility”. What many of those concerned about Clause 154 keep asking themselves is: what is driving this agenda on? Some people believe that in part it is fear among some supporters of the state of Israel that prominent Israeli citizens who stand accused of breaches of international law might be detained when visiting the United Kingdom. The problem is that there is an element of truth in all this in that, out of the 10 applications made over the past 10 years, the only two that I understand were successful were against Israeli citizens: one the former Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni; the other, Major-General Almog. I have to confess that this targeting of Israeli citizens is a very powerful argument for giving the DPP greater responsibility than the Government proposed. But is it so powerful an argument as to totally undermine the well-trodden path of the legitimate right of the citizen to step in where the state may fear to tread for all sorts of diplomatic, interstate, political or commercial considerations?
The problem is that people have difficulty distinguishing the actions of political leaders in democratic states, such as Israel, which I strongly support, who mistakenly believe that they are defending the interests of their democratic state by engaging in actions which border on breaches of international law. Some people confuse Israeli excesses in Gaza with monstrous atrocities in Srebrenica, Rwanda, the Congo, Uganda and Cambodia and the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka. But in my view it is totally counterproductive to threaten the Israeli leadership with arrest. We have to maintain a dialogue with such people and force their hand if necessary through sanctions, freezes on assets and other heavy forms of action depending on the circumstances. So, although I have some sympathy with the Government’s overriding concerns, I believe that they are proceeding in the wrong way.
I shall now speak to my Amendment 245. I tabled this amendment before the publication of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our excellent report captures very well almost all the concerns that I would raise. The Government have explained that their motivation for changing the procedure in these cases is to prevent vexatious applications being successful; that it should not be possible for someone to be able to obtain an arrest warrant as part of a stunt or to make a political point. The Government are quite right on this. However, eight of the applications were turned down by the courts and no warrant was issued. So it is not entirely clear to me that such a major change in the law is necessary. The courts seem to be doing a good job in the few cases that there are of weeding out vexatious applications and turning them down. Furthermore, those cases involve the very same experienced district judges who sit at the City of Westminster magistrates’ court—the same judges whom we entrust to hear terrorism and extradition cases. They are people with experience whom we can describe as a steady pair of hands. It is just not clear to me why the Government think that we should trust these people to be wise and judicious in terrorism and extradition cases but not in universal jurisdiction arrest warrant cases.
I am not wholly unsympathetic to the Government’s aims. Perhaps there is a need to make it completely clear that the law of England and Wales can allow arrest warrants to be issued only in genuine and serious cases. However, I am not sure that the Government have got the change quite right in their proposals in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommends in its report that,
“if no further justification for the existing proposal is provided, the Bill be amended to substitute the requirement for the DPP to consent with a requirement for the applicants to notify the DPP of any application for an arrest warrant”,
which I understand is the substance of one of the amendments before us. That appears to me to be the substance of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
My amendment is very similar but I go a little further. I have tried to capture the enhanced role for the DPP that the Government want to bring in. Crucially, my amendment—like that of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester—would leave the final decision to a court. That is very important. The effect of the Government’s proposal is that in practice the DPP will be the decision-maker on whether an arrest warrant is granted. Although it is reasonable for the Government to want the DPP to have a role, it is important that the court remains the final arbiter.
Under my amendment, on receiving an application for an arrest warrant in respect of the relevant offences, the court would contact the DPP and request his advice on the likelihood of a future prosecution. This would mean making available to the DPP the evidence on which the arrest warrant would be decided. The court would then be obliged to take into account the advice of the DPP. It may be argued by those who oppose the Government’s proposals that in practice this is not much different from those proposals. However, I have tried to reflect the fact that it is very important who the decision-maker is: it must be the court. The Government want a role for the DPP, so I have suggested that the court should be obliged to take into account the advice of the DPP in making its decision.
There are several closely connected issues that the Government should also clarify. They concern the test that is to be applied by the DPP. This issue, too, is addressed in the Joint Committee report, and is at the heart of the debate. The first aspect is the level of evidence that will be required. Currently, as I understand it, a court is required to establish that prima facie evidence exists—although I am told that in practice a higher standard of evidence has been applied in previous cases. Alternatively, there might be a threshold test to establish if the evidence is such that it is reasonable to suppose that, in a reasonable time, there will be a reasonable prospect of conviction; or the full code prosecutorial test to establish if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction. As a non-lawyer, I believe that it should be something more like the threshold test, which the public would understand and which would allow at least for an interview prior to action. It would be helpful if the Government would clarify what tests they expect the DPP to apply. The other element of the test is a consideration of the public interest. Having applied the evidential elements, the DPP would go on to consider the public interest element. This area would benefit from clarification from the Government, for it is here that suspicion surrounding the change is centred.
In conclusion, I would like us to note that the Government are proposing an entirely new role for the DPP. As I understand it, they are not extending to further offences a role that already exists in relation to some offences; the role is entirely new. Arrest warrants are not normally the domain of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In framing the new procedure, it is important to get it right. The Government have not quite got the balance right in their proposals, and I hope that my amendment will be the subject of serious consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, because of the lateness of the hour, I will not rehearse the arguments put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with which I broadly agree; our aims are very similar. However, I will emphasise one or two points. My interest is in a fair application of universal jurisdiction. Whatever the driving causes of this are, this country has a duty to apply universal jurisdiction, as other European countries do. In defending the proposition that the current system is neither mischievous nor vexatious, I will add that in the past 10 years, only two cases have resulted in successful prosecution—one in 1999 and one in 2005. The 2005 case concerned an Afghan man who was convicted of torture and hostage taking. I think this argues for a pretty restrained system. Indeed, it is very far from being a vexatious system at the moment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tonge. Like the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, I will abbreviate my remarks in view of the opening comments by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with which I wholly concur. Indeed, my amendment differs from his and from that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Tonge, in only one particular respect. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, allows—indeed, requires—a justice of the peace to get the advice of the DPP on the advisability of granting a warrant. The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others would allow the court to receive advice from the DPP. I am adamant that any advice given with regard to these matters, which are intrinsically important, must be in open court. It is for the DPP to take the opportunity which is available under both those amendments, I think, to go to the court and argue the matter in open court, not by way of written private advice.
I think that the status quo is perfectly satisfactory and that meddling with citizens’ rights in the age of the overmighty state is extremely dangerous. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I drafted my amendment and put it down before I saw the evidence submitted by Justice, Liberty and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is worth putting on the record not only that the Joint Committee argued long, fully and with conviction that the arrangements in this Bill are wrong in principle and in practice and ended up, I am happy to say, taking exactly the line that the amendment tabled in my name takes. The same was true of Liberty. Justice simply wanted Clause 154 removed alltogether, leaving things entirely with the status quo.
At least my amendment will give further strength to the procedure if that is needed. I do not think that it is but I put it forward in a conciliatory way. As has been said, it is worth briefly repeating that we already have judicial oversight under existing law. It is already the practice to deal with these extremely difficult applications for warrant only before a district judge—who we used to call a stipendiary—who is not only a professional judge but also, because they are heard before the City of Westminster Bench, is a specialist in matters of this type. The district judges concerned deal, for example, with terrorism extradition cases. The judge, whoever he or she is, must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the offence has been committed and that there is admissible evidence which, if uncontradicted, could establish the elements of the offence.
There is also of course state immunity. State immunity was exercised in the case of General Mofaz in February 2004 when he was saved from the issue of a warrant on the grounds of state immunity. Let us not forget that the Attorney-General has the right to intervene and issue a nolle prosequi, which puts an end to it. The Attorney-General will do that on grounds of public interest. As I have said, this is a misguided provision. Perhaps I may quickly read the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is extremely clear in explaining the difference between the Bill and my amendment. It states that “The difference between notification” of the DPP “and consent” of the DPP,
“would be significant. On notification, even if the DPP applied the general prosecutorial test in determining whether to intervene in an application, the ultimate decision on whether to issue an arrest warrant would lie with the Magistrate on the test applied at the present. By contrast, if consent is a precursor, then the determinative decision will in practice be that of the DPP”.
Finally, it is relevant to say that, in the Gourier case, Lord Wilberforce said that the right of the private citizen to apply for a warrant and to take a prosecution is,
“a valuable corrective against the inertia or partiality on the part of authority”.
On another occasion, Lord Diplock made comparable remarks. For those reasons, it would be a retrograde step to approve the Bill as it stands.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I shall speak to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who cannot be here this evening, and myself. From the position of practitioners with hands-on experience of the criminal courts throughout our legal careers, we believe that the existing system works perfectly adequately. I concur with the views that have already been expressed in that way. Few applications are made and, of those that are, most are rejected by the magistrate who is the highly experienced person. Why then is there a need to move away from the current position? We are told that it is because there are people who feel that if they come to this country they may be subject to a private prosecution and to arrest.
Those who feel that way in foreign countries simply do not understand the practice and procedure of our courts. It is strange to amend our law not because of a real problem but because there are people abroad who believe that a problem exists when it does not. We are moving from the position that if the Government want to introduce the question of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it should be made equally clear at the same time that the tests to be applied are those which would be applied in an ordinary criminal case in this country. No special tests will be needed for those from abroad and who face allegations of offences of universal jurisdiction.
We feel that the tests that are to be applied are those of the existing discretions of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have been approached today by my noble friend Lord Carlile in his usual genial and understated way to point out that the tests applied by the DPP are in fact subject to change. The guidance has changed in some ways. My noble friend tells me that we are now on the seventh version of guidance issued to public prosecutors. If that is the case, it is perfectly simple to redraft on Report the amendment that we have put forward so that we put in a broader way that the same tests which apply to citizens of this country will also apply in the case of people who come to this country.
But there is a difference with private prosecutions. Let me say that no practising criminal lawyer has any time for private prosecutions. They generally fail, and generally they cause great harm and trouble to people. We feel that prosecution should be in the hands of people charged with those duties; namely, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service, which acts under the director. The distinction is that the arrest warrant in a private prosecution leads to trial. When the police arrest someone, there is an arrest, and then there is a consideration of evidence that is obtained between arrest and charge. The charge is brought on the advice of the CPS only where there is sufficient evidence for the case to go forward. At that intermediate stage, the charge does not exist in private prosecutions, and therefore the issuing of an arrest warrant leads, as I have said, straight to trial. We believe that safeguards are needed.
We start from the basis that there is no need to amend the existing position.
Lord Goldsmith
I wonder if the noble Lord could help me on one point. As an experienced criminal practitioner, as he rightly describes himself, he is well aware that there are two elements in the code for Crown prosecutors. One is the test as to the adequacy of the evidence and the second is the public interest. Both have to be satisfied before a prosecution takes place. I note that in the amendment tabled in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, there are two parts to this test. One part of the test, in proposed new subsection (4AA)(a), applies when there is enough evidence to be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect, so in that case there needs to be a consideration of the public interest. In the second test, in proposed new paragraph (b), which is where there is not enough evidence, there is no reference to the public interest at all. That is probably the most likely situation—that there is not enough evidence at that stage to know if there is a realistic prospect—so why does the public interest not come into his amendment at all, even though he has been addressing it on the basis that it is to replicate the current system, which requires the public interest to be considered?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The noble and learned Lord makes a very valid point and I accept that of course it is intended that the public interest test should apply in the second of the two instances as well, although it is not stated in the amendment. As the noble Lord said, we are seeking a solution that will ameliorate the decision of the Government to make it an essential prerequisite for the commencement of a private prosecution that the director consents. We simply seek to make it absolutely clear that the director will not apply a different test to people who come to this country. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Goldsmith
Does the noble Lord agree that in those circumstances it would be wrong for the House to accept the amendment as it is put forward?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I do not propose to ask the House to agree to this amendment tonight. This is the Committee stage. We shall consider the issue further. As I have already said, the criticisms so gently advanced to me by my noble friend have led me to believe that we might consider how to rephrase it in a way that would be more acceptable to the House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, we are proceeding in the usual orderly way of your Lordships’ House and there remain two amendments that have not yet been spoken to. The first of those is the new clause proposed in Amendment 246, which is in my name and those of other noble Lords, who have been very helpful in our approach to it. Then there is an amendment to that new clause in the name of my noble friend Lady Tonge. I say at the outset that I accept entirely her amendment to my proposed new clause. It seems eminently sensible. The proposed new clause is about giving an account to Parliament of the progress in war crimes cases. I hope the House will indulge me for a few minutes in speaking to this. I shall then say a few words about the matters that have been discussed hitherto. However, unlike my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I shall not give further details of what was designated by him to be a private conversation that took place earlier in the Bishops’ Bar.
There is a specialist war crimes team within the UK Border Agency, which is a very good thing. However, unlike many European and other countries, there is no specialist war crimes unit in either the police or the prosecution services. Other noble Lords and I were involved in all-party and non-party negotiations with the previous Government to expand the universal jurisdiction. Those negotiations were successful. However, they were successful subject to the insistence of the previous Government that what is in Clause 154 should be inserted into the law. All those involved in those negotiations accepted that at the time as being a realistic argument.
As I have said, there is no specialist war crimes unit in either the police or the prosecution service in any part of the United Kingdom. Instead, in England and Wales responsibility for war crimes is shared by SO15—Counter Terrorism Command in the Metropolitan Police—and the equivalent section, headed by Sue Hemming OBE, in the Crown Prosecution Service. The police team responsible for war crimes is also tasked with counterterrorism policing relating to dissident republican groups from Ireland. It therefore has an enormous amount of work to do and deals with a fast-moving scene, irrespective of war crimes.
What does the proposed new clause seek to do? It requires the Government to report annually on all legal action taken against suspected war criminals in the United Kingdom, and on the assistance given to other states and international criminal tribunals. I should argue to your Lordships that it is entirely reasonable and proper that the public and Parliament should be able to take stock of progress in war crimes on a regular basis. Taking stock in that way—having accountability of that kind—will ensure that the Government bestow on the relevant police section the resources that are needed to prosecute war crimes. There have been no prosecutions for war crimes since the prosecution in 2005 of an Afghan warlord who was found living in south London. However, a Peruvian was arrested in Tiverton in Devon in March 2011. He is accused of torture and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in more than 100 killings as a member of a death squad, and is currently on police bail. We hope to see some progress in that case within, of course, the usual legal proceedings.
It is remarkable, given the number of war criminals who are believed to be living in the United Kingdom, that there have been no other prosecutions since 2005. It suggests that insufficient resources are being given to the task. After all, one should bear in mind that, since 2005, the UK Border Agency has taken immigration action against 360 suspected war criminals, while the Metropolitan Police is currently pursuing 29 viable lines of inquiry. The 360 suspects come from a number of countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. The UK has also received extradition requests for four subjects from Rwanda who won their extradition proceedings and remain in the United Kingdom.
In addition to the 360, I was visited this afternoon by a representative of an organisation in Bangladesh, which is not included in the list that I enumerated as 360 cases. It is believed that there are several Bangladeshis who have been able to take refuge in this country who committed vast atrocities during the 1971 war in that country. They, too, should be the subject of investigation.
In sum, the purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that the necessary progress is maintained in dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give some encouragement to myself and others who they put their names to the amendment in the hope that we will see more action promised and in due course taken on this front.
I now turn to the amendments proposed to Clause 154. Despite the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am disappointed that my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven was not here to speak to his amendment this afternoon. I know that he has a busy diary and I am sure that he is doing something very important. But I am glad that we have the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who will inform the House of their experience.
The importance of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and his potential contribution is that he is the immediate past Director of Public Prosecutions. I am working on the assumption that he has not consulted his successor, because what is proposed in his amendment, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas, is inconsistent with what has been said very cogently to parliamentary committees by the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
I would say this to my noble friend if he were here, but were he still the Director of Public Prosecutions I do not believe that he would be prepared to support an amendment of this kind. It is quite simple in my view—I seem to be the only one from the Liberal Democrat Benches who is supporting our Government on this matter this evening—but the simplicity needs to be stated. The Director of Public Prosecutions and his senior staff make charging decisions every single day of the week. That is what they do a lot of the time and it is done at the most senior level. The suggestion that there would be a delay is a canard.
I do not think that I have to declare an interest—indeed, it would be sexist to do so—when I say that my wife works in a senior position for the Crown Prosecution Service, but living with a shared telephone I am well aware of the urgent decisions that are considered in great depth and taken at all kinds of unsocial hours and on all matters of urgency. The suggestion that there would be a delay is simply quite wrong. Furthermore, the Director of Public Prosecutions and his senior staff have enormous experience in making charging decisions. They make all the important charging decisions that take place in this country—or almost all; they should make all, if they are referred to them by their junior staff. In so doing, they apply the Crown Prosecution Service code.
These amendments, particularly that spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, attempt to fix in statutory stone something that is much more evolutionary—and needs to be. The Crown Prosecution Service code has gone through many changes. It is reviewed and changed regularly. Since Keir Starmer QC became DPP, it has been changed again and there may be good reasons for changing it in future. Furthermore I hope, and indeed apprehend, that the Director of Public Prosecutions would want to consult widely on the universal jurisdiction and might well wish to issue a code of practice. That might involve some changes to the current code. After all, the Crown Prosecution Service has a special code for dealing with rape cases which is non-statutory. It would be extremely foolish to make it statutory because it would be prevented from change. The same applies to the universal jurisdiction.
I say to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the kindest possible way, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, with a single kick scored a hat trick when he demonstrated that the amendment put forward by my noble friend, and indeed by my noble friend the former Director of Public Prosecutions, is fundamentally flawed in its text. It shows exactly the danger of attempting to put into tablets of stone this sort of provision, even when it has been drafted by lawyers as distinguished as they.
I say to noble Lords who have tabled amendments to Clause 154 that we have a responsible Crown Prosecution Service, that we have a responsible and able Director of Public Prosecutions, and that it has been decided that this should be done not by the Attorney-General but by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a completely apolitical figure. It seems that the Government have got this exactly right. I hope that the Minister will not budge in his determination that Clause 154 should be unamended.
Lord Pannick
I was a witness to the discussions in the Bishops’ Bar between the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Carlile. I will not give evidence; I claim immunity. I welcome Clause 154. It will remedy a serious anomaly in the current state of our law. The anomaly is that although a prosecution in this sensitive and important context requires the consent of the Attorney-General, a person may be arrested and detained without any consideration as to whether such consent is likely to be given. It has been suggested in this debate that there have been very few cases of that. So what is all the fuss about? Why do we need to change the law? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made that point in opening and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, made the same point.
I declare an interest. Over the past few years, I have advised, pro bono, a number of individuals who have been deterred from visiting this country by reason of the state of our law. They have been deterred even though there was no realistic prospect whatever of the Attorney-General giving consent to a prosecution. These people would not have been protected by diplomatic immunity because that applies only to certain very senior Ministers. They were deterred from coming to this country because of the risk that material would be put before a magistrate at an urgently convened hearing which might result in them being arrested and detained for a couple of nights, with all the inconvenience and embarrassment that that would cause, until this unhappy matter could be sorted out by the Attorney-General confirming that he or she did not intend to prosecute. So it is quite wrong to suggest that the current law has no serious effect. I should also mention that I have also advised, again on a pro bono basis, Jewish community groups in this country concerned about this aspect of the law.
Lord Campbell-Savours
As a non-lawyer, I wonder whether I can ask the noble Lord a lay man’s question. What kind of considerations would the public interest considerations be in the application for a warrant in a case like this? What would the DPP have in mind?
Lord Pannick
The DPP dealt with that matter in the evidence that he gave to the Public Bill Committee. He was very reluctant to address hypotheticals but said:
“There may be a case where there is a very powerful argument … the example that is given by others and therefore not from my mouth is where you have a fraught and difficult peace negotiation that has to take place in 24 hours in a country and you need international leaders there. I do not know. There may be a situation where you would have to carefully consider the arguments one way or the other”.—[Official Report, Commons, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee, 20/1/11; col. 134.]
Lord Pannick
I will just finish my answer, then I will happily give way to the noble Lord. If he is saying that public interest has no role in this area then his quarrel is with the code for Crown prosecutors, but his amendment does not address that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When the noble Lord said that the DPP was totally independent, he appeared to be saying that they would not have political considerations in mind. If peace negotiations were about to take place, surely that is a political consideration. It is precisely those sorts of areas that might cause the public some concern, even though the justification may be merited.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is of course the experience of all those who have held the sensitive and difficult office of Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney-General—we are fortunate to have two former Attorney-Generals here—that they have to address these sensitive and difficult questions. There is nothing unusual about this area that singles it out from the problems that are faced, if not on a daily basis then I am sure on a weekly or monthly basis, by those who hold that office. I am sure that they will be able to assist the House regarding this matter.
My point is that the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to give an advisory role to the DPP in relation to a matter that the magistrate simply has no role under existing law to determine. I suggest with respect that that is not a sensible way to proceed, nor would it be sensible to confer on the magistrate a new role, which the magistrate has never had, of having to consider the criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction or whether the public interest justifies a decision being taken.
The other amendment, Amendment 245AA, would include in the legislation criteria that told the DPP how to exercise his discretion. It would be quite unprecedented for Parliament to tell the DPP what criteria to adopt in exercising his functions, nor do the courts do so. Indeed, it was highly controversial that the Appellate Committee of this House decided in July 2009 to require the DPP even to publish guidelines on whether he would prosecute for assisting a suicide. I declare an interest as counsel for Mrs Purdy in that case. Parliament and the courts have, for good reason, preferred to leave the DPP to develop his own criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors. Amendment 246 raises very different issues—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the noble Lord agree that it would surely be right that the DPP should apply the same standards when he is considering one of these cases that come from abroad as he would for a person within the domestic jurisdiction?
Lord Pannick
I certainly agree that the DPP should apply the same standards in the sense that he asks whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether the public interest justifies a prosecution. The application of those principles, though, will inevitably depend on all the facts and circumstances of the individual case. It would be unprecedented for Parliament to tell the DPP in detail how to apply his discretion, and there is nothing in what the DPP said to the Public Bill Committee that should cause concern to noble Lords about the manner in which he proposes to exercise this new power if he is given it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I think it is fair that I ask the noble Lord this. He has said several times now that the consent of the Attorney-General to one of these prosecutions is required. My understanding, and I want to get this quite clear, is that the Attorney-General can issue a nolle prosequi that his consent is not required.
Lord Pannick
It amounts to the same thing. If the Attorney-General takes the view that it is inappropriate for a prosecution to continue, they will say so. The purpose of the provision of English law is to ensure that the Attorney-General is able, in this sensitive and important context, to take a view on whether it is appropriate.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, to pursue the point, there is a vast difference, with respect, between getting the consent of the Attorney-General as a prerequisite and the right of the Attorney-General to intervene by way of nolle prosequi. The noble Lord is mistaken in what he draws from that.
Lord Pannick
My understanding is that consent is required. In any event, with great respect, I do not see the practical difference. Other noble Lords will assist the Committee in that respect.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, this is a delicate and sensitive matter and I will spend a few moments on it. I entirely understand why noble Lords who have spoken have raised the points that they have. There are some footnotes as well, but two major things emerge from the debate so far. First, it is interesting that, despite the fact that certain noble Lords have said, “Let’s leave the system exactly as it is, there’s nothing wrong with it”, everybody who has spoken so far has proposed a change to the present system, either by supporting the Government or by tabling amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done—
Baroness Tonge
Can the noble and learned Lord please clarify that? The amendments are to Clause 154, which I thought was a new provision to change the existing arrangements for the application for arrest warrants.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I will make my second point, about what the existing system is. With respect, there is a misunderstanding among some of the Committee as to what the existing system is. In a moment, I will take the opportunity to say something about that on the basis of my experience, particularly from when I was Her Majesty’s Attorney-General.
First, in fundamental agreement with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, the principle of universal jurisdiction is extremely important. I strongly support that principle. I was a Back-Bencher on the Labour Benches led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who pushed the Government into passing an effective form of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which meant that we could prosecute people who were not permanently established here. I was the Attorney-General who consented to the prosecution of Zardad the Afghan warlord; I actually led for the prosecution in that case. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said, he was convicted, by a British jury, of hostage taking and torture. He was sentenced to 20 years, which he is still serving.
Just so that noble Lords do not think that my favouring of universal jurisdiction is limited to particular countries, I mention Israel. I publically indicated that I was going to call for the extradition of an Israeli solider when I was concerned that the Israeli authorities were not properly investigating and dealing with an allegation that a British citizen, James Miller, had been killed in Gaza by Israeli fire. I did not do that because I was being pushed by some group. I went and talked to the Israeli investigators, looked at their files, cross-examined them, and called for the Metropolitan Police to carry out its own investigations into evidence which the Israelis said demonstrated that it was not Israeli gunfire, but which demonstrated that it almost certainly was.
In the end the Israelis did not go quite as far as I would have liked, but they did more than they had done as they were threatened with a prosecution. Indeed, they thankfully paid significant compensation to the family of this poor young man. Therefore, I am very much in favour of universal jurisdiction. It is important that we have a robust and effective system. However—this is the second point—there is an anomaly in the existing system, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has rightly identified; namely, that the prosecution cannot take place without the consent of the Attorney-General. This is the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had.
I know that memories fade and that it is a number of years since I did this job, but my recollection is that every single one of the universal jurisdiction offences requires the consent of the Attorney-General to a prosecution. Of course, the Attorney-General can always issue a nolle prosequi, but that is different. In these cases, Parliament has taken the view that a prosecution of this sort has such a public element to it that it should not proceed without the consent of the Attorney-General. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the consequence of that is that we have this anomaly. A private group or a private individual, no doubt for good reasons but sometimes perhaps not—I will come back to that—can have an individual arrested even though, when the matter goes to the Attorney-General, the prosecution will not take place.
I first came across the practical problem to which this matter gives rise in the case of Major General Almog, which has been referred to. The first that I knew of an application to arrest Major General Almog was when we received a call from the relevant court to ask me whether I wanted to say anything about it. I could not say anything about it as I had no role at that stage; my role would come later. I could not do anything. I make this point also because one of the briefings that I have seen on this issue suggests that there is no evidence that in that case there was no prior notice given to the Attorney-General of the intended application. I know that there was not in that case because it took place on my watch. From that moment I have considered how you deal with the anomaly that you can have somebody arrested but ultimately there will be no prosecution. That gives rise to a number of problems. First, it gives rise obviously to the problem that someone may be detained, deprived of their liberty and certainly restricted in their movements for a period before the papers reach the Attorney-General and a decision can be made. That is not good for the individual. Secondly, it is not good for the people who have, as it were, promoted the prosecution in the first place. They will be disappointed that, having got somebody arrested, the matter does not proceed.
There is a question of the public funds involved—perhaps it is for your Lordships to decide how important this is—but there is also the consideration that such action will in certain circumstances exacerbate relations with what may be a friendly state if, for good reason—I will come back to what that may be—an Attorney-General says no to a prosecution but somebody has been locked up for a period of time, or at least prevented from going about their business. That will do nothing for good relations and there may be circumstances—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to such a circumstance, hypothetically, at least—where that could be very damaging to a wider interest.
For a long time I believed that it was necessary to deal with the anomaly. One comes back to the difference between noble Lords’ amendments and the Government’s amendment. Fundamentally, the difference comes down to this: other noble Lords’ amendments say that you should notify the DPP and he should have an advisory role. The Government say that this process cannot happen without his consent. What is the difference between those stances? It is not the difference of timing because if you are going to notify the DPP and ask him to give an advisory view, you need to give the man or woman time to consider it. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the ability of the CPS to move swiftly. I have also heard it said that one of the problems is that there may not be enough time. In the cases that I have seen, the groups that have wanted a prosecution have known for some time that they would like to see that particular individual prosecuted. They may not have known that he or she was travelling on a particular day but they have been assembling their evidence. I see no reason at all—I understand that the DPP has offered this—why there cannot be a system under which they present their material to the DPP so that he and his staff have a reasonable opportunity to consider it and can form a view as to whether or not they will give their consent.
I see real dangers in the present system. It is an anomaly. It leads to dangers to the individual and risk to the people who promote this. It risks relations. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he knows of cases—indeed, he has advised on cases—of people who are frightened to come to this country. I have heard this as well. The Government will know better, and if that is the case, it is a bad thing. It is a bad thing if in fact they are being deterred from coming where ultimately there have been no prosecutions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be quite wrong for the DPP to give in advance immunity to someone coming to this country?
Lord Goldsmith
I am really not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. It is not an immunity, but if the question arose and the DPP had seen the material that was going to be produced, had examined it and, having regard to the evidential test and the public interest test, he was of the view that he would not consent to a prosecution, I do not see why he should not say that. That would not be done in a broadcast, but if there were a legitimate reason to know the answer, so that someone can, for example, come to attend an important meeting with Her Majesty's Government, why not? In that respect, what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said about the DPP having an opportunity to consult a policy statement about this was very wise. That is exactly what I would expect this particular DPP to do; and he would look to what all the interests were. That would, no doubt, be one of the questions that he would consider—to what extent is it right? He would want to make sure that he is not bounced into making wrong decisions and that he has an adequate opportunity to decide. That is important.
That takes me to where I was going when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, intervened—the amendment in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. There are two points about that. The first is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Neither this DDP nor, I hope, any DPP needs the straightjacket of being told by Parliament how to do his or her job. They can be trusted to do that without that sort of straightjacket.
Lord Goldsmith
Let me just make this point and of course I will give way to the noble Lord. I made the point about that amendment not just because it is surprising that he is putting it forward on the basis that it is intended to restate the law as it stands, because it patently does not do that, but because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it demonstrates the dangers of trying to be prescriptive as to exactly what the tests should be.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I think that the noble and learned Lord misunderstands the purpose behind our amendment, which is not to put a straightjacket around the director, but to give assurance to people who want to come to this country that they will be treated in exactly the same way as a resident or a British citizen would be treated. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would welcome that assurance for the purposes of advising his clients.
Lord Goldsmith
I have to say that the one thought that had not crossed my mind when I read this amendment was that it was intended to give reassurance to people coming from abroad. Noble Lords can form their own views in relation to that. I oppose that amendment.
I want to consider the final amendment, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Tonge
The noble and learned Lord is very generous and I thank him for giving way yet again. Before he moves on to my noble friend’s amendment, can he explain something to me? I am enjoying and learning a huge amount from this debate, but I am not a lawyer. Let us say that a British citizen is arrested on a Saturday night, or whenever, for some reason or other, and put into the cells for perhaps one or two nights, and that no charge is brought in the end. What is the difference between that and someone who may or may not have committed war crimes being put into a cell and held for one or two days, but no charge is brought?
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she kindly said about this debate, but I should have thought that she and I would agree on this without hesitation. So far as is possible, no one should be detained and deprived of their liberty in circumstances where ultimately they are not going to be charged with a criminal offence, or for some other good reason. I do not like the idea of saying, “Oh well, it is all right, because after a night out in the pub, people may be locked up for a night; let us lock up the Foreign Minister”, or a general from another state. If there will not be a prosecution, it makes no sense to do that.
The other fundamental difference is the second element missing from the debate. Parliament has decided that in such an offence, universal jurisdiction is enormously important and we should do our bit to ensure that tyrants, despots and war criminals do not find a place of refuge in this country. Absolutely, but it has decided that that should be done by giving the ultimate responsibility to the Attorney-General to decide whether prosecution takes place. The anomaly is that, despite that, prosecutions can be started and people can be detained, even though that will not happen.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
As a non-lawyer, I shall make some non-lawyer points. I briefly echo what I said on Second Reading, which is that I very much welcome Clause 154 and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I wanted the previous Government to bring it forward. Although they were preparing to do so, they came to the end of their tenure before it came near the legislature. I am very pleased to see it because, despite what has been said by those who have tabled some of the amendments to Clause 154, the status quo is not acceptable to non-lawyers—as well, apparently, as to lawyers. It is unacceptable for various reasons. One is that it exposes the English and Welsh legal systems to abuse by politically motivated individuals who just want to have a foreign politician arrested for political reasons. It cannot be good for the law to allow that to happen.
There are other reasons why the status quo is unacceptable. An unintended consequence of the current legislation is that the DPP is consulted only before the issue of arrest warrants in public prosecutions, not private ones. To a non-lawyer, that makes no sense. I do not consider that any of the four amendments do anything to improve the clause; they are unnecessary.
I shall speak briefly to Amendment 245AA. In the 15 years that I have watched Bills go through the House, I have never seen such prescriptive instructions to a DPP. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven is not in his place, because I hoped that he would explain it to me. Perhaps he can do that at Report.
I support Clause 154 and I do not think that it needs to be amended.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House much longer. However, not having been in the Bishops’ Bar earlier and not being a lawyer, I beg leave to give the view of the common man—or the common woman doctor, if you like. It comes from experience gained in the other place and here of going to places where horrendous war crimes have been committed.
When I was in the other place, I visited Rwanda soon after the genocide. I visited Kosovo and Albania when the atrocities were going on, and I cannot describe to you the injuries suffered by some women who had managed to run down to Albania and get into the hospitals there. Southern Sudan has seen atrocities committed over decades. More recently, I was in Gaza very soon after the conflict there. People who have had that experience and who have seen what happens feel very strongly that we should do everything in our power to try to bring the perpetrators to justice. That is where I am coming from. It is not in the case of a particular country although many people may think that it is—it is not. These crimes are being committed all over the world, as my noble friend Lord Carlile has told us.
I welcome this group of amendments which I hope will allow the Government to look again at Clause 154. They are suggestions of amendments and Clause 154 has caused huge consternation among those who care about universal jurisdiction. I also hope that the Government will give the real explanation—and a plausible one, please—for introducing the clause in the first place. I repeat that the right to initiate a private prosecution is an ancient common law right of the people of England and Wales and it provides a valuable safeguard for people like me, not lawyers, against political interference by the Executive.
If we ever have a Bill of Rights it should surely include the right of any citizen to approach the courts with an application for the arrest of a suspect who may have committed the sort of crimes that I have seen. This right has not been abused: 10 applications in 10 years is hardly politically motivated people manipulating the law—10 in 10 years, with only two successful ones. Will the Minister explain what abuse has taken place over the last 10 years or is it, as many people outside this House feel, an attempt to regain some sort of political control over this process?
This is why I support the amendments. Amendment 245, tabled by Lord Campbell-Savours, says,
“apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice”.
That implies a long wait before that advice is received —he can take his time and it might delay the process too much—but nevertheless we should consider it.
Amendment 245A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Lester, proposes that instead of being given the right of veto over the arrest, the DPP should be allowed to give evidence of his views to the court as an additional safeguard against vexatious applications. The timing would be out of his hands and therefore there would be less delay. Amendment 245AZA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips, makes this even clearer, giving the DPP the opportunity to attend the court to give his opinion.
My noble friend Lord Carlile says that there will be no delay, and this has been emphasised by other lawyers in this House: “There is no delay. The DPP does not delay. These things are very urgent. They have to be dealt with immediately”. I am a doctor and I would say that too. If anyone said to me that I might be late turning up or might delay or not make a decision on a patient in time, I would say, “No, of course not. I deal with things immediately. I always go when I am called. I am never at a dinner party when someone wants my advice. I will never, ever delay”. We all say that, in whatever profession, but sometimes there are reasons why there is delay and that is what concerns me. Delay occurs not deliberately but because of business and the pressure of work.
If the House wishes to retain a veto over applications for arrest warrants by the DPP, that will in my view be regrettable. However, if the Government insist, they must set out the circumstances in which the DPP will not use the veto, which is essential to preserve the independence of his office. I appreciate the comments that have been made about Amendment 245AA tabled by my noble friend Lord Macdonald and presented in his absence by my noble friend Lord Thomas. I think that it would achieve some of our objectives. It provides that the DPP must consent to the issuing of arrest warrants when he believes that the evidence establishes a prospect of conviction or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will be forthcoming within a reasonable period. He will keep the case under review and take it over in order to discontinue it if the evidence is not produced. I have already dealt with the question of someone being unjustly held under an arrest warrant for a short time.
I cannot understand anyone who professes to believe in universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity nor war crimes opposing any of these amendments or seeking to improve Clause 154. I do not approve of the clause at all—I would rather the status quo was maintained. However, if we are to have Clause 154, then anyone who believes in universal jurisdiction should look again to make sure that we implement it fairly and justly, and in a way that means that we can apprehend international criminals.
Finally, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the new clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Carlile. He and I have many disagreements but that does not mean—I say this very sincerely—that I do not hugely respect him and his opinions and judgments. As I said, we have many disagreements but on this matter we agree, and I trust that the Government will find a way of accepting his amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I am very conscious of the time and therefore shall try to be telegraphic, as Lord Kingsland used to say when standing at this Dispatch Box.
We have clearly had a very energetic and well informed debate. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, that the previous Government were extremely proud of having introduced and expanded universal jurisdiction. There was a real determination to make plain that this country would not provide a safe haven for those accused of war crimes and the other serious offences in the schedule, and I am confident that the current Government share that aspiration. The whole purpose of having universal jurisdiction is so that we can address those issues. It is important that these grievous offences are prosecuted with vigour. I say straight away that I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether we currently have sufficient resources to ensure the vigorous and effective prosecution that we all seek. We hope that the Government will be able to make those resources available. We think that Amendment 246 should be strongly supported and we hope that the Government will give it favourable consideration.
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I agree with the analysis given by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Pannick, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith in relation to this amendment. Specifically, I endorse and agree with the approach adopted by the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, who made it plain when he gave evidence before the committee that because of the seriousness of the cases to which universal jurisdiction applies, if the evidential test was met, it would speak very powerfully in favour of a prosecution. I would respectfully agree with that view.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made no reference to the advice given by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the noble and learned Baroness has made no such reference. Does that mean that she sets its advice at nought?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
No, my Lords, certainly not. I was seeking to relieve the Committee of the burden of listening to me for more than was absolutely necessary, bearing in mind that we are now at 9.19 pm and the Government have yet to respond. Of course, it is for the Government to deal with these matters. I simply wanted to make plain that we on this side would support the analysis made by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I thought that that would be the fastest way. I am sure that we can return to this on Report. If the Committee would love to hear from me on that basis, I am sure that I could entertain your Lordships for some considerable time. But, at this time of night, something told me that the Committee would not thank me. For that reason, I have curtailed my remarks. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, need have no such restraint.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, sometimes the House throws up, well outside the usual hours of attention, debates of immense importance. There is no doubt that this debate will be read and studied outside the confines of the House to great advantage, because it was extremely thorough, with arguments deployed on both sides with great passion but also, in the tradition of the House, with great courtesy. As one of the non-lawyers participating, I very much benefited from listening to the learned side of the House dealing with matters of law.
Of course, as with all these things, it is a matter of judgment. We get advice from many quarters. It is not a matter of setting the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at nil; our judgment is carefully considered. However, as the two former Attorneys-General pointed out, somebody then has to make a judgment. The judgment that we have made is that the purpose of Clause 154 is to ensure that in respect of offences over which the United Kingdom has asserted universal jurisdiction, an arrest warrant is issued on the application of a private prosecution only where there is a real prospect of a viable prosecution. This outcome is achieved by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the warrant can be issued. The Government have decided that this is the best way forward.
The detail of this debate indicates that more than one opinion can be honestly held, but nothing that I have heard today has dissuaded me from thinking that this is the right way forward. However, we will return to this on Report. I hope that some issues were clarified in the debate. Certainly I will look at the resource issue that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, but I am a little worried about the answer that I will be given—[Interruption.] It is always worrying when there are interventions. It is bad enough when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, intervenes, but when the thunderous intervention seems to come from an even higher authority, one gets really worried.
I pay tribute to the previous Government on their record on universal jurisdiction. The two officeholders responsible can take rightful pride in it. I also put on record the confidence of this Government in the independence and abilities of the present DPP. The way that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, introduced the debate set a tone that encouraged the exchange of honest and informed opinions. Although I will ask noble Lords, given the nature of the Committee stage, not to press their amendments, it is clear that the debate will influence further discussions on how we go forward.
I will deal with some of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, finished her remarks by expressing her concern that there would be unnecessary delay. That concern was also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. It was answered very clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Pannick. In some ways, I shall try to shorten my remarks because I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is after my job, but his speech answered many of the questions raised, including on delay. The DPP has made it clear that anyone who wants to pursue a crime of universal jurisdiction should engage very early with him. Giving evidence, he said:
“They should come to us with whatever evidence they have, and we will undertake to look at it and to advise”.—[Official Report, Commons, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee, 20/1/11; col. 124]
We have already heard evidence about the amount of resources and the 24/7 nature of that coverage.
It is not a matter of trusting the judges to do their job. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, put the problem far better. The actual case put to the judge is not the one that causes the problem in that, as the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out, it may involve somebody being detained on very spurious grounds. We are all experienced politicians and we have seen examples. The gain for those wanting to raise these issues is not in the trial or the verdict but in the publicity gained by getting the individual into the situation in the first place. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, suggested, it is not in any way that we wish to take away the right of the private citizen to pursue matters of universal jurisdiction, but simply that we believe that the present situation is unsatisfactory and extremely difficult in terms of law. I know that there have been very few cases but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, pointed out and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, confirmed, the previous Government were looking at this issue and feared, as do we, that there is a risk that the present weakness of our system could be exploited at a time when we would want to use all our influence.
One accepts the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that there may be a chill factor in asking for that hurdle to be cleared. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, argued, there may be a deterrence factor. We have had to weigh those things, and we have come down in favour of trying to remove that deterrence factor while not removing the line to universal jurisdiction. We are asking a non-political officer to look at the issue and asking those wishing to take it forward to clear what is in many ways a very modest hurdle if the situation is as clear as they would claim. There is no point in allowing the court to issue a warrant in a case where the director has concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution. That is why we believe that the first three amendments cast the Director of Public Prosecutions in an advisory role to the court, which is not welcome.
Amendment 245 requires the court to apply to the DPP for advice on the advisability of granting a warrant or summons. It goes on to make it clear that such a warrant or summons cannot be issued without taking into account the DPP’s advice. As was acknowledged by those who tabled the other amendments, the thrust of them is to move from giving responsibility to the DPP to putting him in an advisory role. The DPP was clear in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee about the degree of detail in which applications for consent are examined and the specialist resources that are available for him in doing so. If the DPP concludes that the tests under the code for the Crown prosecutors are not met, it is difficult to see what purpose will be served by the court nevertheless issuing a warrant or why it would wish to do so.
Amendment 245AA is obviously intended to place in the Bill the test used by the DPP in considering whether to grant this consent. I will not go into great detail at this point because I would be afraid of rekindling the fire between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. But I ask readers of Hansard to turn to those exchanges to judge again whether we have got the balance right. I think that we have. I am not persuaded that it is necessary to embody the guidance in the clause. The tests are of general application but they are not set out in statute and it would be strange to do so in this context.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Carlile is designed to monitor the arrangements for investigating and prosecuting certain grave international offences and for assisting the International Criminal Court. I understand the interest in reviewing the effectiveness of these arrangements but I am not sure that what is proposed would be helpful. Prosecutions for one of these exceptionally grave offences are rare and when one takes place it is newsworthy enough for a reporting requirement to be superfluous. Investigations that do not end in prosecution are a different matter and reporting on them would not be straightforward.
As the exclusions built in the amendment recognise, it would not be right to disclose personal details, but without such details the information is unlikely to be meaningful. The information that the report provided would therefore be so incomplete as to make it effectively useless. What would be of value would be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to monitor any case for which his consent is sought under Clause 154, which applies to offences that to some extent overlap with those listed in this amendment, and to publish the number of cases and the outcome. I understand that the director would be content to carry this out.
The amendment includes a requirement to report on the assistance of the International Criminal Court. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office produces an annual human rights command paper, which includes details of the UK policy on criminal justice and the rule of law. It is subject to the scrutiny of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The command paper makes clear the UK’s commitment to the principle that there should be no impunity for the most serious international crimes and that we should provide details of the practical support which we have provided to all six existing international criminal tribunals. The paper does not currently provide the level of detail which the amendment would require but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will give careful consideration to extending it to include more specific details of assistance provided as envisaged by this amendment.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, when they have time to look at those two responses, to see whether they are satisfactory. I will be happy to meet with them on these points, but I hope that they go a long way to meet what they say. If not, of course, we can return to this on Report or clarify it further in discussions. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but with real and personal thanks both for the spirit and the level of engagement in this debate which I hope will help to reassure people about where we are coming from. I think that both in this House and in this Parliament there is cross-party commitment to pursuing those who perpetrate horrific crimes that are committed all over the world and which were so graphically described by my noble friend Lady Tonge. As a country, we have been for many years a leader in this, and we will continue to be.
I can make a personal commitment. At the Ministry of Justice and within this Government, I am the Minister responsible for civil liberties and human rights. I would not stand at the Dispatch Box advocating this clause if I did not believe that it was absolutely foursquare with our continuing full commitment to the universal jurisdiction. It is not a step towards political control. It gives us a law that is fit for purpose, a very noble purpose, if we all continue to pursue it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. It is nearly 10 o’clock and I have not eaten yet, as indeed will be the case for most noble Lords. We have a lot to reflect on before the Report stage, as indeed will many organisations outside this House which have been in contact with Members. Before I withdraw the amendment, I should say that I remain slightly confused about the public interest. That is where the suspicion may well lie, and as I understand it, explanations as to what constitutes the public interest in particular cases are not published. With that in mind, the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to my interventions may well be of interest to a number of organisations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in moving Amendment 250, I shall speak also to Amendment 252. This Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales, and the Minister has told us on more than one occasion that the Government are listening.
Concerns have been widely expressed about the impact of the politicisation of the police; the impact of the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and the considerable unchallenged powers that they will have; the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter’s operational responsibilities; and the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. There is uncertainty, too, about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. There has been no assessment of the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime, which have been going down steadily for a number of years. The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change to policy in England and Wales. We should not make such a change without a full inquiry and a report on the impact of the changes by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, with the report being laid before both Houses of Parliament before a commencement order is made by the Secretary of State under Clause 158(1) in respect of Part 1 of this Bill.
The Government have sought to put Bills through Parliament that have then been delayed because they have been compelled to reassess their stance when the impact of their proposals has become clearer. It has resulted in delays, for example, to the health Bill, the Armed Forces Bill and the Public Bodies Bill, which is why we have to start a week earlier after the summer Recess than the Government previously announced.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I should not wish the noble Lord to mislead the House; I know he has no intention of doing so. As he knows, earlier today I explained that the earlier start was as a result of the Labour Party’s excessive use of 17 days in Committee on one Bill, and the absolute refusal of the opposition Front Bench to divide Bills as normal between Grand Committee and the Chamber. The noble Lord would not wish to mislead the House, and that is the reason—fairly and squarely at the feet of the Opposition—for our coming back a week earlier. There is no doubt about the matter.
Lord Rosser
I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish to think that because she and the Government have a view on the cause of the situation, that view is automatically right and everybody else accepts it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, perhaps in that case the noble Lord—or the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, who is now present—will confirm that the Opposition are now willing to make a proper disposition of Bills into Grand Committee, and assist the Government by having a normal disposition. We now have the lowest level of Bills in Grand Committee for the past 10 years.
Lord Rosser
I am sure that if the issue had been caused by what happened over the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it would not have taken as long as it has for the Government to decide that they needed to come back earlier after the Summer Recess. It is clear that it has happened because of the kind of issues that have been raised over the health Bill, the Armed Forces Bill and the Public Bodies Bill. The Government have been compelled to reassess their stance as the impact of their proposals has become clear.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I really cannot allow the Opposition to mislead the House. The decision was made only after the Opposition refused to come to agreements over the scheduling of business. That is why we have delayed. We could have made this decision a lot earlier had we had a definitive answer from the Opposition. We are clearly now in a difficult position where the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is trying to gainsay reality. I know Hansard will record his words. I know wherein the facts lie; they are not in his words.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that the noble Baroness is fairly sensitive on this matter because the reasons that she put forward this afternoon are being challenged. I simply repeat: surely the noble Baroness does not believe that when she expresses a view on why the Government have got themselves into a mess, it means that everybody else will accept it. We do not.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in that case I look forward to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber now—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The Leader of the Opposition—she has been a distinguished Leader of the House in the past; I hope that she will not be again for a long time, but she fulfilled the task very ably. I hope that she is now able to confirm that the Opposition will no longer refuse the proper disposition of Bills between the Chamber and Grand Committee, because that would assist the House to move on to normal working practices. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has a view that is held, I am sure firmly by him, for political reasons. I look only at the reality of business.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the government Chief Whip. I know—it is not that I think—that my colleague the opposition Chief Whip has been very willing to consider, quite properly and appropriately, Bills going into Grand Committee. That is what we wish to do. We wish to co-operate fully with the Government. It has to be said, however, that many of the Bills before us are extremely complex. It is not just that they are political. Therefore, my noble friends on these Benches—not only those who are here today but those who are not in their places—believe that the scope of the Bills is such that they deserve to be debated in the Chamber.
One of the problems, not only on my Benches but throughout the House as a whole, is that people do not understand yet that the Grand Committee is not a second-rate Chamber. It is a Chamber where we can deliberate and assess Bills and scrutinise them just as we can in this Chamber. All around the House we have to be more aware of the ability of this House to better use the Grand Committee.
Having said that, I want to put on record that earlier in the day it was said that we had agreed to put one Bill into Grand Committee and then subsequently decided that it would be more appropriate for it to be taken on the Floor of the House. I record that that Bill was the Scotland Bill. After the elections to the Scottish Parliament, things fundamentally changed, not just politically but in terms of the subject matter of the Bill. That is why we decided it was more appropriate for the Bill, which is now a major constitutional Bill in our view, to be taken on the Floor of the House.
That having been said, I know that next week my noble friend the Chief Whip will wish to enter into further conversation with the government Chief Whip to see how we can secure other Bills in a Grand Committee of this House.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her intervention. She and I agree on so many matters when it comes to the business of the House. I entirely accord with her views expressed clearly about the value of Grand Committee. I am sure that she is right that it is misunderstood generally around the House, not just by newer Members of this place who work well here but those who have a more established presence. It is a valuable place.
I recall that I agreed very reluctantly for the Extradition Act to be considered in Grand Committee because it was a highly controversial Bill at the time. But it proved that it was worth while. I certainly welcome, late as it is at night—we have had a long day—the measured way in which the Leader of the Opposition has responded and the fact that she has put forward a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the opposition Chief Whip, should enter into further discussions next week about the disposition of Bills into Grand Committee. That is most welcome.
Lord Rosser
I shall conclude the comments that I was making. In putting forward these two amendments, I have made points about a number of areas of concern in relation to this Bill that have been expressed in our discussions, particularly in relation to Part 1. We should not be taking risks over changes to policing arrangements. We should be as clear as we can before we start on the impact of what is proposed, and the Government should agree to the independent inquiry and the report on the impact of their proposals that is provided for in these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey
In view of the lateness of the hour, I will be brief. The purpose of Amendment 251 is to move the implementation of the changes to policing in London from October this year to October next year. The Mayor of London and the Government are keen to introduce the new system from 1 October this year and the Bill would allow that to happen. There are two important reasons why that should be delayed.
First, the Olympic and Paralympic Games will take place between July and September next year. There will also be many preparatory events which require large policing operations. For example, the torch relay will start in May and continue until July. That will be a major security challenge. Police officers will be drafted in from all parts of the country to police the Games. The Olympics will affect every police force in Britain, not just the Metropolitan Police. There is absolute agreement that the Olympics present the biggest security challenge that British police have ever faced in peacetime. They will require a policing operation on an unprecedented scale. The Metropolitan Police have spent years planning for every eventuality. As circumstances develop, these plans will need to be updated and revised to take account of issues as they arise. For any Government to allow the police to divert their efforts from this huge security operation in order to take part in a reorganisation is deeply worrying.
Secondly, the mayoral election in London next May could result in a change of mayor. It is entirely possible that a new policing system could be put in place on 1 October this year, designed to reflect the current mayor’s priorities, only to be dismantled again next year if another party wins the election. It is a real possibility that the police in London could face not one but two major reorganisations in the period leading up to the Olympic Games. Reorganisations are disruptive in any organisation. This one will require the police to change all their reporting structures and to brief a completely new set of stakeholders and board members. This is no easy task, as anyone who has ever been involved with policing will say. It will take huge effort and time on both sides. The reorganisation will be work-intensive, expensive and time-consuming. It should happen only once and at a time when it does not conflict with the planning of the Olympic Games. The police must not get involved in a major reorganisation at this time. They must be free to concentrate their efforts and energies on the greatest security threat this country has ever faced.
Baroness Hamwee
I support my noble friend in her amendment. She has been absolutely consistent and spoken powerfully on a number of occasions, both in public and in private, about this issue. She has certainly convinced me. I have not told her, but I thought at the start of the conversation some months ago that she was perhaps overegging the case. I do not believe that now. In view of the time, I do not want to detain noble Lords any longer but wanted to put that on record. Similarly, though I do not want to enter into much of the discussion that surrounded Amendment 252, I said during the debate on pilots that I thought it a good idea for HMIC to report on the operation of pilots. That was many hours of debate ago but it is only consistent of me to support a different arrangement but one also involving HMIC and a report to Parliament, as contained in Amendment 252.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Doocey has put forward the assertion that it is not in the interests of the Metropolitan Police Service for the model to be implemented in London before the Olympics due to the potential impact on the operational delivery of policing within London. I have to say to my noble friend—and I know she has heard this also from my right honourable friend the Policing Minister in person on a number of occasions—that not just the Mayor of London but the Commissioner of the Metropolis is also keen for the transition from MPA governance to that of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime as soon as possible after Royal Assent is achieved for this Bill.
I appreciate that my noble friend’s concerns that moving to the new system of governance ahead of the Olympics will require the membership of the newly established police and crime panel in London to be brought up to speed on the intricacies of the Olympic operation in London, which the Metropolitan Police will co-ordinate with the support of other forces in England and Wales. However, I would stress that the key decision-makers around this operation within London, the Mayor for London and the Commissioner of the Metropolis, will remain the same if the transfer from one system of governance to the other takes place before May 2012. Of course, we cannot predict the outcome of the mayoral election in May 2012. It may be the case that in May next year the commissioner will be briefing a new mayoral team on the policing arrangements for the Olympics. But that is a possibility that arises whenever we commence the provisions in the Bill. The point is that commencing the provisions before May 2012 would not create any additional disruption.
I am sorry that I cannot say more to my noble friend. I know that she has had several conversations with my right honourable friend in another place about this since she originally raised these concerns. I am obviously very happy to talk to her about it again, but we have double-checked that there is no real concern with the mayor or the commissioner. That is the response sought specifically in relation to the concerns that my noble friend raised previously.
We have already debated at some length the merits of pilots, and it is the Government's view that pilots should not take place, as this would create two models of governance within England and Wales for a police service that on a daily basis interacts and collaborates across force boundaries. We have also made it clear that the Government do not believe it necessary for HMIC to conduct a feasibility study into the coalition Government’s manifesto commitment. HMIC has already provided sound evidence of the need for reform and greater accountability and transparency to be introduced within the policing landscape within England and Wales.
I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have made their views known during the Committee stage of this Bill. I am also grateful for the meetings that I have had with Members across the House on Part 1 of the Bill. I hope to meet as many concerns as possible when we return at Report, but I am unable to accept the amendments before the House tonight, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response, which I have to say was not entirely a surprise. The Minister has said on more than one occasion that the Government are listening. We will await and see what impact that has at Report before considering whether or not to pursue this matter at that stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.